I hate the Okie blog. The mentality it represents is juvenile. Why would it be a scandal that Ed Shadid identifies with the LGBT community?

That said, Go Cornett.

It's not, the point was to point out to conservatives that Shadid is trying to play are being hoodwinked by him

My wife and I were driving out to Lake Hefner to go walking this weekend when we drove past a few "Dr. Ed Shadid for Mayor" signs in a few people's yards. She said something that basically sums up how I feel. "Ed Shadid makes my skin crawl. And why does he put Dr. on the sign? That is so pretentious to me."

maybe some campaigner guru told him folk tend to trust doctors.

maybe he hopes it helps deflect the stories of drug use and addiction ala he's a doctor, so he would know better, must be evil campaign gossip (never mind that all that which was reported happened well before he got into politics, and seemingly before he even had clue one where to find a place to cast a vote in anything involving his city.)

maybe he's simply quite proud of becoming one, and still being one.

maybe something else entirely.

My wife and I were driving out to Lake Hefner to go walking this weekend when we drove past a few "Dr. Ed Shadid for Mayor" signs in a few people's yards. She said something that basically sums up how I feel. "Ed Shadid makes my skin crawl. And why does he put Dr. on the sign? That is so pretentious to me."

It's probably because he is a doctor and most doctors have that title. I don't support the guy for mayor, but these personal attacks on him are what really make me dislike Cornett's supporters as well.

It's probably because he is a doctor and most doctors have that title. I don't support the guy for mayor, but these personal attacks on him are what really make me dislike Cornett's supporters as well.

I think it is more of his campaigning to be Mayor of all of OKC and I am not sure how you can appeal to the lower class when they know you probably have a house worth more than any amount of money they will see in their lifetime.

I think it is more of his campaigning to be Mayor of all of OKC and I am not sure how you can appeal to the lower class when they know you probably have a house worth more than any amount of money they will see in their lifetime.

Wait, Cornett doesn't have money?

Like I said, make this about policies and promises and not about character assassination.

Wait, Cornett doesn't have money?

Not as much as ES, no.

Like I said, make this about policies and promises and not about character assassination.

I completely agree. I know I was just jabbing at ES on his character but that comes from a long time of completely disagreeing with his policies and promises.

I think it is more of his campaigning to be Mayor of all of OKC and I am not sure how you can appeal to the lower class when they know you probably have a house worth more than any amount of money they will see in their lifetime.Seriously, you're going to attack him for having money? He worked hard and made money that he deserves; don't like it, tough.

Not as much as ES, no.I don't know how much Mick Cornett has, but from what I have heard, he is pretty wealthy.

I don't know how much Mick Cornett has, but from what I have heard, he is pretty wealthy.

I have not heard that and maybe it is because he doesn't come off that way to me.

And I am not trying to attack the guy for working hard and making money, but if you want to appeal more to the lower class (which is exactly what he wants to do) you might want to make yourself more of a man of the people. You can't talk about we need to help those less fortunate and have a house in Gaillardia, The Greens and a condo in the Founders tower (off the county assessor records if you are curious where I got the info).

Seriously, you're going to attack him for having money? He worked hard and made money that he deserves; don't like it, tough.

I read it as a statement of fact (IE - It affects his lower class appeal) rather than an attack.

There is plenty of stuff to critique ES on without attacking him for his money.

I have not heard that and maybe it is because he doesn't come off that way to me.

And I am not trying to attack the guy for working hard and making money, but if you want to appeal more to the lower class (which is exactly what he wants to do) you might want to make yourself more of a man of the people. You can't talk about we need to help those less fortunate and have a house in Gaillardia, The Greens and a condo in the Founders tower (off the county assessor records if you are curious where I got the info).Does Shadid live in Gallardia? I was not aware of that if so.

Does Shadid live in Gallardia? I was not aware of that if so.

Yeah. You can look up all three of his properties on Oklahoma county assessor. It's pretty easy.

Hmmm, never really bothered to look up where he lived, not that it matters to me anyways. To support the lower class doesn't mean you have to be part of it.

It's probably because he is a doctor and most doctors have that title. I don't support the guy for mayor, but these personal attacks on him are what really make me dislike Cornett's supporters as well.

I see what you are saying but I think this is in direct response to the campaign Shadid has run. Shadid's campaign has been made up mostly of personal attacks. Shadid has run a pretty negative campaign.

Not so good press for Mick.

Candidates for Mayor debate, Mick Cornett declines invitation | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/Candidates-for-Mayor-debate-Mick-Cornett-declines-invitation/24544704)

You can choose to lower yourself down with the pigs, or keep yourself clean. Mick made the right choice.

Does Shadid live in Gallardia? I was not aware of that if so.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought his three properties were the house in Gallardia for his wife and kids, and the other two - his clinic and his condo in Founders Tower. It should have nothing to do with anything, but Shadid makes megabucks with the kind of surgery he does. But unfortunately, with sincere apologies to other surgeons who think differently, he has the surgeon personality and temperament.

6758

Not so good press for Mick.

Candidates for Mayor debate, Mick Cornett declines invitation | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/Candidates-for-Mayor-debate-Mick-Cornett-declines-invitation/24544704)

Having watched the clip, I don't think that report hurt the incumbent mayor in the slightest.

It looks like it would be generous to say there were 100 people in that "packed house". Here are some articles that summarize that real research on debates.


Toronto SUN (http://m.torontosun.com/2013/03/25/political-debates-a-pointless-exercise)

Presidential debates are useless - The Bradley Scout (http://www.bradleyscout.com/opinion/presidential-debates-are-useless/)

Presidential debates are pointless and counterproductive | Washington Times Communities (http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/liberal-pinko/2012/oct/22/presidential-debates-are-pointless-and-counterprod/)

You Have My Permission to Ignore the Debates - Bloomberg (http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/you-have-my-permission-to-ignore-the-debates.html)

I'm not in the school that debates are bad... but I do know that who you debate, you equate to be at your level.

So the message here was clear. There are evidently 3 candidates now at the same level of potential and seriousness. Ed Shadid, Phil Hughes, and Joe Sarge Nelson. I wouldn't have normally lowered Ed down to their level, but he did the job himself.

Guys, this race may be closer than any of us think. Someone told me something today that is worrisome. I trust this person, have known them for almost 30 years. They told me that they have heard that the Shadid GOTV operation is being helped along by a consultant who has pulled off some major victories in several local races around the country. The worrisome part is that it apparently includes running the GOTV operation for Kshama Sawant in Seattle. This woman, quite bright actually, was expected to have NO chance against the incumbent on the Seattle City Council. She ran on an openly socialist platform. Here are the results. (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022333916_sawantplansxml.html) That was the last major election cycle (12-13) and this particular GOTV/grassroots specialist, is apparently working for Ed Shadid. Assume nothing. We have got to work on getting people interested enough to go vote for Mick. Drive them if you can. Get in Touch with Mick's campaign and tell them you want to be apart of their GOTV effort. Go back and read that story linked above. Google her name - she was given no chance. Well, guess what? Assume nothing. Mick for Mayor and we will have to work for it!

That's a lot of money to spend for one vote on the city council when you've already got one. I suppose he can appoint people to subcommittees, etc., if he can get the other council members to approve them. But, if people are so passive that they won't vote, then they deserve whatever they get. I hate to say it, but at some point, you just have to say "You made your bed. Now lie in it." I've been working my butt off to inform people and get them to vote. But, I've also got a nice little hidey hole in Chicago lined up if this city isn't worth living in.

Guys, this race may be closer than any of us think. Someone told me something today that is worrisome. I trust this person, have known them for almost 30 years. They told me that they have heard that the Shadid GOTV operation is being helped along by a consultant who has pulled off some major victories in several local races around the country. The worrisome part is that it apparently includes running the GOTV operation for Kshama Sawant in Seattle. This woman, quite bright actually, was expected to have NO chance against the incumbent on the Seattle City Council. She ran on an openly socialist platform. Here are the results. (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022333916_sawantplansxml.html) That was the last major election cycle (12-13) and this particular GOTV/grassroots specialist, is apparently working for Ed Shadid. Assume nothing. We have got to work on getting people interested enough to go vote for Mick. Drive them if you can. Get in Touch with Mick's campaign and tell them you want to be apart of their GOTV effort. Go back and read that story linked above. Google her name - she was given no chance. Well, guess what? Assume nothing. Mick for Mayor and we will have to work for it!

Don't be paranoid. Unless there is a radical new turnout -- unprecedented in OKC history -- than Shadid has no path to victory. He is not performing well in polling I've heard about. His numbers haven't budged. He is talking to the same chorus over and over again -- a very enthusiastic base of voters no doubt. But he has failed to broaden his electoral base and Mick Cornett is one of the most -- if not the most -- popular elected officials in Oklahoma.

Don't take this the wrong way. Your central message is great: Don't be complacent. Make sure all of your friends vote.

Don't be paranoid. Unless there is a radical new turnout -- unprecedented in OKC history -- than Shadid has no path to victory. He is not performing well in polling I've heard about. His numbers haven't budged. He is talking to the same chorus over and over again -- a very enthusiastic base of voters no doubt. But he has failed to broaden his electoral base and Mick Cornett is one of the most -- if not the most -- popular elected officials in Oklahoma.

Don't take this the wrong way. Your central message is great: Don't be complacent. Make sure all of your friends vote.

By no means am I being paranoid. Polling for a municipal election - in any city of our size - is incredibly difficult. Many of these races are put over the top by literally a circle of family and friends that turned out - who never bothered voting before. How do you poll those people, that group, that hidden common denominator that propels upset elections?

The candidate I was talking about a couple of posts back...she had an incredible ground game (GOTV)...if you're familiar with Seattle politics at all you might know of the paper, "The Stranger" - it's a weekly that nailed it with this...

"Part of [the reason Sawant is winning in each day of counting after Election Day has] to do with demographics; younger voters tend to vote late and more lefty. Part of it has to do with hard work; Sawant's impressive grassroots campaign had a couple hundred volunteers calling voters and knocking on doors to get out her vote, while Conlin had little ground game at all. And part of it has to do with momentum; voter preferences shift over time, and her surprisingly strong campaign clearly moved support in Sawant's favor."

I love Mick's neighborhood headquarters idea - north and south. The problem is that I keep hearing people say they are trying to help but are met with lack of enthusiasm from the campaign. Not calling back, not responding to emails, that kind of thing. That's how you lose elections.

I'm not predicting an upset, I am only warning of one. It's truly not paranoia, I wasn't concerned until the person I spoke of in the earlier post told me that the same person that handled the GOTV for Sawant in Seattle is right here, in town, working for Ed Shadid. I'm just being honest - that worries me.

Edit....Ask Gary Marrs, Charlie Swinton, Brian Walters about over confidence.

That's a lot of money to spend for one vote on the city council when you've already got one. I suppose he can appoint people to subcommittees, etc., if he can get the other council members to approve them. But, if people are so passive that they won't vote, then they deserve whatever they get. I hate to say it, but at some point, you just have to say "You made your bed. Now lie in it." I've been working my butt off to inform people and get them to vote. But, I've also got a nice little hidey hole in Chicago lined up if this city isn't worth living in.

I would normally agree, betts. But remember, we're talking about the egomaniacal Ed Shadid. I see him him spending big money just for the platform, the visibility, the bully pulpit of the mayor's office (bringing new meaning to the term.) Whether he can actually do anything that betters the city takes a backseat. At least that's the Ed Shadid that we see now. Power, visibility, power, platform, as he goes to sleep reciting "Mayor Ed Shadid."

I would normally agree, betts. But remember, we're talking about the egomaniacal Ed Shadid. I see him him spending big money just for the platform, the visibility, the bully pulpit of the mayor's office (bringing new meaning to the term.) Whether he can actually do anything that betters the city takes a backseat. At least that's the Ed Shadid that we see now. Power, visibility, power, platform, as he goes to sleep reciting "Mayor Ed Shadid."

I'm sure you're right. Were that the case I'll be sad I can't run for city council. Regardless of the outcome, I'm sure he will try to "pack the court" with his minions as seats become vacant.

Sorry, I don't mean to hog this thread tonight, but I just remembered Salt Lake City and Rocky Anderson's upset mayoral victory in 1998 or 1999. He ran as an open "Democratic Socialist" with the help of a big field and a killer GOTV operation. Maybe even more significant was his re-election in 2003. Yes, Salt Lake City had a socialist mayor for two terms! (http://www.rockyandersonjustice.com/)

Shadid is progressive, but Shadid is more what Ed wants to be, when he needs to be, wherever he needs to be, at any given moment in time. An ego like that with a lot of money is frightening. I can see scenarios where I might even support somebody that's progressive and has ideas and a platform that speaks to city needs, but that's NOT Ed Shadid.

I'm done talking about this after this post. It's wasted energy. I don't have any energy anymore from working my two jobs, and I don't want to spend what little I have left on trying to convince anyone and getting frustrated. It's clear those who want Ed elected, aren't going to change their opinions even if demonstrable, sourced, real facts and absolute truths are presented. It's a waste of time.

What isn't a waste of time is voting.

I'm going to vote next month and I hope a majority also vote for the person I am going to vote for.

Actually, you're right catch22. No one is changing their vote at this point in time. If all the information out there about Shadid's past behavior, proof that he has lied to voters multiple times and gone back on his word, played dirty tricks on other members of the city council, bussed in little old ladies to try and change council votes....yada, yada, yada.....has not changed a single mind, what else could anyone say that would do so?

Which also proves without a shadow of a doubt the futility of a debate. If all this real, negative information about a candidate doesn't change anyone's mind, who is foolish enough to think 30 minutes of "debating" would do so? What a waste of time and energy that would be. But I agree, vote, and drag every last friend and relative you have to the polls.

I'm going to post this here too - not that I think I'm changing minds, but rather to suggest that perhaps there's more drama than reality to some allegations.


I actually found some interesting data tonight. When you look at Forbes Magazine's 10 most dangerous cities of 2013 list and then look at their police officer numbers per capita, you find that all but 2(Oakland and Stockton) have significantly more officers per capita than we do, many almost double the number. This certainly suggests that numbers of officers may not significantly affect crime rates.

Law Enforcement Officers Per Capita for Cities, Local Departments (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/law-enforcement-police-department-employee-totals-for-cities.html)

Detroit Again Tops List Of Most Dangerous Cities, As Crime Rate Dips - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/10/22/detroit-again-tops-list-of-most-dangerous-cities-but-crime-rate-dips/)

I still want to hear Dougs reasoning as to why he supports Ed..... Doug seems like a very intelligent, informed, and overall awesome person and he must have a good reason.

I still want to hear Dougs reasoning as to why he supports Ed..... Doug seems like a very intelligent, informed, and overall awesome person and he must have a good reason.

Well plupan, to be honest, we think the same thing about some of your posts. :wink:

Actually, you're right catch22. No one is changing their vote at this point in time. .....
....
But I agree, vote, and drag every last friend and relative you have to the polls.

Absolutely. It's all about the turnout now. Even if you're lukewarm about Mick for whatever reasons, it is imperative we keep Shadid out of office. And our only option in that vein is to vote.

Steve posted this on twitter. I was not really sure where to put it but since ES is talking about how much we need more police officers, I thought this would be a good place:

"Odd. I thought OKC is one of the nation's most dangerous cities for violent crime. But not according to this list: Top 100 most dangerous places to live in the USA - NeighborhoodScout (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/) "

I guess it depends on what is important to care about, crime or just violent crime, how it was reported and counted, and/or how you want to spin it. For all crime based on some FBI data, we made the news recently in the top ten on this 2014 report, number 7.

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013/2014_CityCrimeRankingsbyPopulation.pdf

That came from here: http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013/cc2014.htm

I guess it depends on what is important to care about, crime of just violent crime, how it was reported and counted, and/or how you want to spin it. For all crime based on some FBI data, we made the news recently in the top ten on this 2014 report, number 7.

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013/2014_CityCrimeRankingsbyPopulation.pdf

That came from here: CQ Press: City Crime 2014 (http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013/cc2014.htm)

And if you look at per capita police numbers, you won't be able to explain why anyone made either list. Crime rates are clearly multi factorial and its hard to associate per capita police numbers with safety or lack thereof.

That depends on which studies and how much weight you want to give them. Here's a short summary of several studies with some interesting thoughts:

Police numbers and crime rates ? a rapid evidence review | Ben Bradford - Academia.edu (http://www.academia.edu/796325/Police_numbers_and_crime_rates_-_a_rapid_evidence_review)

I've seen the study you've linked before. But, I'd like to see the authors address the per capita numbers I posted above and explain why I can't find an association between per capita numbers and safety. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that even your article says police numbers don't show an association with violent crime, and that's the data being used to determine most dangerous cities.

Plus it's basically a review of previously written papers and the authors caution against "generalizing from the findings".

Pretty sure the 2014 one that ranked us as 7 was all crime not violent crime. Personally, I've been the victim of one violent crime and 20-30 other crimes I can think of in a few minutes, non-violent crimes being everything from burglary to auto-theft. "Safe" to me means both my personal well being, that of the ones I love and my property.

Yep. That's what I said, it was a review with some interesting thoughts. It includes a table of various studies through the years. Cherry pick away, like tweeting about only violent crime or some such.

The bottom line is that its not a simple issue. More officers does not automatically mean less crime. Portland has the same number of officers per capita as we do and they're on the safest cities list. When people try to simplify complex issues, they wonder why their solutions don't work. A better solution is to try and figure out what does work, rather than assuming all you have to do is throw money at a problem. Maybe you've never worked with large departments, but sometimes refocusing or approaching problems from a different angle is as or more effective than adding personnel.

In my next life I want to be an efficiency expert.

The bottom line is that its not a simple issue. More officers does not automatically mean less crime. Portland has the same number of officers per capita as we do and they're on the safest cities list. When people try to simplify complex issues, they wonder why their solutions don't work. A better solution is to try and figure out what does work, rather than assuming all you have to do is throw money at a problem.

It really has more to do with response times than it does actually preventing the crime. The more officers on the street the faster the response time and a better chance of catching the perps, saving a life, and less chance of giving someone fleeing a crime scene too much lead time. With that said, many believe visibility, in and of itself, deters crime. I've never bought that except in high-profile events and those are always very well protected no matter how many officers a department has.

I feel this way about pretty much any government funded department, having worked for one my entire life. Everyone always wants more help. That doesn't necessarily mean they need more help. Frequently, a lot of money is wasted by poor organization or emphasis on things that either aren't cost effective or don't work at all. Circumstances change. For example, talking to my son who is pretty thoughtful, he pointed out that retirement ages were set when life spans were generally shorter than they are now and that one of the problems cities are having is that they are having to pay pensions for years longer than they did in the past. I don't know if that's true, but it was definitely food for thought. In my department, more and more people are choosing to work into their 70s. Maybe doctors are such workaholics that they don't know what to do with leisure time, but working also keeps your brain sharp and makes you feel younger. Maybe we need to extend the number of years worked before being eligible to retire in our police and fire departments. Maybe we need to look at what police are doing other than being out on the street or being available to repond to crimes. Maybe this is already being done, but areas that are high crime can have more of a police presence. I can guarantee there are areas that virtually never have problems with crime and they could have low support numbers. Maybe we can look at cities that have similar numbers of police per capita to us but have low crime rates and see if they're doing things differently. Anyone on city council can promote increasing the sales tax percentage that goes to police and firemen. They can work together with their fellow council people to put such a resolution on the ballot. Why hasn't that happened? Perhaps they are privy to data that we are not. I think there are a lot of questions that we cannot answer. So, people decide to believe one side or the other without any real evidence as to which one is correct. I suppose that's politics, but it's frustrating.

Not to pile onto Laudenback, but I just read this from 2011:
Doug Dawgz Blog: Ward 2 ? Why I'm For Shadid (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/ward-2-why-im-for-shadid.html)

See particularly Doug's feelings about implementing ALL the MAPS3 projects.

Not to pile onto Laudenback, but I just read this from 2011:
Doug Dawgz Blog: Ward 2 ? Why I'm For Shadid (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/ward-2-why-im-for-shadid.html)

See particularly Doug's feelings about implementing ALL the MAPS3 projects.

Doug said then:

I want MAPS 3 to be done exactly as the voters were promised and with maximum citizen input and transparency. No deals behind the scenes and no secret handshakes.

Doug said more recently after learning more:

My opinion is that Thompson, the Chamber, the Mayor, and all those privy to the CSL study, deliberately concealed from the public that a convention hotel would also be needed for the success of the MAPS 3 convention center. With publicity about the possible need for a convention hotel, and the potential of additional public funding beyond MAPS 3's amounts, MAPS 3 might well have been doomed to failure.

Seems pretty consistent to me.

I actually understood where Ed came from on his stance from the convention center and here I thought he wanted it to be canceled but he wants the public to vote for it again knowing it will likely have to be expanded immediately after the "first" phase is complete. That makes sense. The problem with people here is they are too conservative and don't want to spend money to do things the right way... see our interchanges, bridges, capitol is just now going to get funds to be repaired, AICC...... etc.

Panda, in fairness, it has never been the least bit concealed that the M3 convention center pitch was for a phase I only of a multi phase convention center project.

But any expansion would have to be approved by the voters. Even if passed, it would be unlikely that it would start before 2025 at the very earliest. The MAPS 3 projects won't be done until at least 2021. If voters don't want an expansion, it can't happen regardless. We call that democracy.

Panda, in fairness, it has never been the least bit concealed that the M3 convention center pitch was for a phase I only of a multi phase convention center project.I knew it was going to be built in phases, but I never really thought that a convention hotel would be needed when I was looking at the project listed for MAPS3. Honestly, I like the convention center even more now since we're likely going to get a mid-rise hotel with it. I do see where Ed is coming from and I honestly think the man wants what is best for OKC, but I am still going with Mick as I think his ideas and vision is better.

But any expansion would have to be approved by the voters. Even if passed, it would be unlikely that it would start before 2025 at the very earliest. The MAPS 3 projects won't be done until at least 2021. If voters don't want an expansion, it can't happen regardless. We call that democracy.Yeah, that's completely true. I think Ed knows that and he is not campaigning against that rather than saying it is an obligation that will pretty much have to be approved either way. Again, I like the hotel and would rather it be built sooner than later. I honestly hope our convention center doesn't take 10 years to finish.

The MAPS 3 convention center, if it goes forward, will be done in less than 10 years. We could theoretically vote for a MAPS IV in 2016, but even if there were a phase II in it, we can't start construction of a project until all the money is collected. Considering we're just now finishing up MAPS for Kids, I wouldn't be in too big of a hurry. But that sort of timeline is what we have to take into consideration, and its again, waaaay premature to assume a hotel or phase II is a fait accompli.


Sent from my iPhone

Doug said then:

I want MAPS 3 to be done exactly as the voters were promised and with maximum citizen input and transparency. No deals behind the scenes and no secret handshakes.

Doug said more recently after learning more:

My opinion is that Thompson, the Chamber, the Mayor, and all those privy to the CSL study, deliberately concealed from the public that a convention hotel would also be needed for the success of the MAPS 3 convention center. With publicity about the possible need for a convention hotel, and the potential of additional public funding beyond MAPS 3's amounts, MAPS 3 might well have been doomed to failure.

Seems pretty consistent to me.

Well, guess what. You now have the opportunity to go sign the petition and stop the Convention Center. If Shadid doesn't win the mayoral election, that's likely the only thing he'll be able to stop. If he stops it, we still have the Cox. If we have the Cox, then we'll just stick with the convention business we have now. We won't die. The CC is the least necessary thing to "continue the Renaissance" in Oklahoma City, IMO. The Cox is shabby and it's a crappy superblock. But we've had a crappy CC and an ugly superblock for the last 40+ years and we've survived. If he doesn't stop it and we don't build a hotel, we still have a building that is paid for. What is "success" of a convention center? It brings in millions of dollars of profit? If it doesn't we still have a new building that has no debt for some number of conventions and a lot of local and regional events. Maybe we can sell the Cox block for a bunch of money, restore the grid and a lot of people are happy.

But.........regardless of whether the study said we need a hotel or not, that says NOTHING about how much a CC hotel would cost us. Nowhere besides Ed's blog has it been said we would have to pay the entire cost of construction. And regardless, the least public input that is allowed legally is that a majority of our elected representatives determine that some amount of city money is required to subsidize the hotel. It is possible they would need to put it to a vote of the citizens. Both of those options are legal and satisfy the rules of at least an indirect democracy.

And none of the above is as heinous and shocking to me as the details of Ed's divorce. If we're talking ethics here, our sitting mayor is not looking like the worst guy in the room.

I just posted this comment to Doug's blog as well. We'll see if I survive moderation. I'm a friend of Doug's but we majorly disagree here. That's cool. Some of my friends are very conservative Republicans and we all get along as well.

After some effort I was finally able to hash out all my thoughts in the mayor's race.

Doctor Taco's Rocks and Tacos: Why I am Voting for Mick Cornett (http://rocksandtacos.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-i-am-voting-for-mick-cornett.html)

Nicely written (though I am a little judgemental about your blog's CSS, the lack of a color for some of your links that is distinct from the general text color gives it some usability and accessibility problems).

Nicely written (though I am a little judgemental about your blog's CSS, the lack of a color for some of your links that is distinct from the general text color gives it some usability and accessibility problems).

Yeah I really do plan on fixing that. I spent hours on writing the thing, minutes on publishing. Also I composed it in word so there were some copy/paste formatting issues I was unable to rectify.

After some effort I was finally able to hash out all my thoughts in the mayor's race.

Doctor Taco's Rocks and Tacos: Why I am Voting for Mick Cornett (http://rocksandtacos.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-i-am-voting-for-mick-cornett.html)

Wow. This is eerily dead on. The only thing I can assure you is that Mick Cornett is not an a--hole. He's a very nice guy. Still, brilliant writing and reasoning.

What a hoot. I just read your blog on twitter, Dr. Taco and e-mailed it to a bunch of people. Didnt realize it was you. But, Mick's not an ass-hole at all. I think he's basically an introvert. While that makes him a less than cuddly politician, it doesn't necessarily make him an ineffective one. And I've posted why I think debates are a poor way to evaluate candidates a page or two ago so won't rehash it. Otherwise, I think this is spot on.