Sidburgess: that is all reasonable and expected. However the lag the P.S. folks are talking about go back to the time of the original MAPS (1993) with nothing but more promises from the City...that is a LONG time for the "confidence" to take hold...IMHO...agree?

Makes since and that is what they were told when they supported MAPS & MAPS for Kids...as soon as the investment comes, we will hire more folks (that the City has admitted for a long time they don't have). The investments came, population grew, the revenue poured in but the hiring didn't.

Are you just unpersuaded by facts? We added 40 new officers last year, will hire 40 more this year and for the next 3 years the Council is planning on allocating funds to increase the police force by 200 total officers.

http://www.fop123okc.com/sites/fop/uploads/media/OKC_City_Council.m4v

So what you're saying isn't actually factual.


I don't see a problem with both entities having common goals but the relationship is just too close for me. They cross the line when (from what I have read) the City is supposed to stay out of elections once the date has been set (that is why an outside group, like the Chamber, runs the campaign). Then the Mayor appears as the head spokesman of the campaign (and mentioned as "Mayor Mick Cornett") and former Mayors are listed in campaign materials as co-treasurers.

You say you don't have a problem with it at the city level. Why? What about higher up?

The Mayor is an elected official. He has his First Amendment rights fully in tact. The City Manager, on the other hand, isn't allowed to campaign for things. This has been one of the areas where Cornett has been able to provide simply outstanding leadership. He has also made key appointments to committees which have so far protected the vision of MAPS. I absolutely don't have a problem with that really at any level. I'm smart enough to know what's going on and smart enough to figure out whether I support it.

I support it. Most of OKC does. By wide margins.

--and we've hired more police officers, so stop saying we haven't.

Sidburgess: that is all reasonable and expected. However the lag the P.S. folks are talking about go back to the time of the original MAPS (1993) with nothing but more promises from the City...that is a LONG time for the "confidence" to take hold...IMHO...agree?

So if we go and research it, we should have the same number of police officers now as we did in 1993?

Soonerguru & BoulderSooner: Yes, we recently hired more. The point was they were promised for many many years that they would be hired. Wasn't until very recently that it happened (and still below the number the City has admitted is needed). Yes, MAPS 3 is coming ahead of projections (didn't say it wasn't). The amount raised thru the various incarnations of MAPS has risen each time. We are up from the original $60 million/yr avg to over $100 million a year for the same penny sales tax. The population has grown yet the total number of P.S. folks has remained stagnant.

Some cities are declaring bankruptcy! Revenues were down. You don't expand government when revenues are down. In Oklahoma, we can't finance our government on bonds. We have to balance the budget every year. So OF COURSE we didn't hire during a recession. If Shadid is saying that he'll hire new city employees regardless of the city's finances, then he's either lying or he's an idiot. No way he'd win a majority on the horseshoe to do something that foolish.

If Shadid is saying that he'll hire new city employees regardless of the city's finances, then he's either lying or he's an idiot. No way he'd win a majority on the horseshoe to do something that foolish.Now we're getting somewhere. Is your memory so selective that you don't remember Mayor Mick doing exactly this same thing? Every 15 minutes on TV exclaiming that not only would a victory mean not hurting the number of public safety employees, it would mean more of them. And not some future, when the sales tax starts coming in type of thing, but almost immediately. And then, after the election, going to the council and asking them to come up with the funds to keep the promises(to hire more PS employees as soon as possible) made during the campaign. Only to be told that the council didn't make those promises, he did, and he did it at the behest of his handlers at the CC. You know, the one you don't have a problem with him being a lapdog for. He was told, by the council, that he should go talk to the CC and see if they would come up with the funds to keep his campaign promises. After all, they were the ones putting the words in his mouth. All of this was covered ad nauseum in a thread several years back, along with the video of the commercials and the council meeting when he was punked by the council. No one was interested in answering back then. So I'll ask you the same question I asked back then, in your words of course, was he lying or is he an idiot? Either way, he doesn't come off as a shining example of democracy in action. There's been some amused bantering about whether Shadid has actually seen the job description for mayor and that some of his statements might be due to a lack of knowledge on the position. The same can't be said for Cornett, he'd been mayor for 2 terms when he made the same comments that you can't seem to remember, but somehow render his opponent some kind of political imbecile. Now, Doug has expressed concern about the honesty of the mayor and the CC during the M3 campaign and done so without the dog piling that others seem to get by the ones here that want to rewrite history and make the mayor into some kind of benevolent saint. Hmm, I wonder how I'll fare. LOL Cue the junkster saying something humorous and stupid in 3,2,1......

Oh, by the way, I think that Shadid should probably stay in his council seat and serve out his term there. He has a better platform to express himself there IMO. Also, I never hear anyone talk about how the police and FF unions are still "butt hurt" about M3 except on here. Just so you know, it's not even in the top 100 of things we talk about. Hasn't been since about a month after the election. Believe me, with Couch as CM, we've moved way past it in things we're concerned with.

So there were 40 new positions last year for the PD. There will be 40 new this year and for the next 3 years assuming revenues keep going up. That's a bad thing?

So there were 40 new positions last year for the PD. There will be 40 new this year and for the next 3 years assuming revenues keep going up. That's a bad thing?I haven't heard anyone say that it's a bad thing. Of course it's a good thing, but why do you think it's happening? Surely you don't think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed the Police Chief on tv no less than 2-3 times in the last 18 months or so explaining how under staffed his dept. was and that the only answer left, to problems with response times and other complaints, was to hire more officers. You can run the president of the FOP or the FF's out to complain about manning with no results. When the dept. head does it, it gets the attention of the council and they realize that the CM might not be telling them everything there is to know. I respect the police chief for sticking his neck out by going straight to the media and people to put pressure on his bosses. It seems to have paid off.
In contrast, the FS I work at had a staffing of 9 when I got there. When M3 was going on we were down to 7 and today we fluctuate between 5-6 with 5 being the minimum to open the doors. As has been explained before, they've systematically and purposely ran manpower down for years. Sure they're hiring, but barely keeping up with retirements.
You kind of skipped over the question in my last post. What do you think? Idiot or liar?

Oh, by the way, I think that Shadid should probably stay in his council seat and serve out his term there. He has a better platform to express himself there IMO.

Exactly. If your going to be a "strong mayor", you have to know how to build relationships, have discipline, and develop a strategy to implement the things you care about.

Since Shadid seems to only lob out barbs at the process and the people involved in it, that is undoubtedly done best as a part of the council, not the spokesman and moderator for it.

I haven't heard anyone say that it's a bad thing.

It's not. It happened when the time was right, when revenues were increasing and we could afford to fund salaries, benefits and pensions.


In contrast, the FS I work at had a staffing of 9 when I got there. When M3 was going on we were down to 7 and today we fluctuate between 5-6 with 5 being the minimum to open the doors. As has been explained before, they've systematically and purposely ran manpower down for years. Sure they're hiring, but barely keeping up with retirements.

I haven't heard any problems with fire response times. Perhaps your station has been reduced to help staff new stations? What are the overall numbers since 1993? We've added a new station as recently as 2010 and a lot of staffing has been moved around to save money. How less effective is OKCFD as compared to 10 years ago?


You kind of skipped over the question in my last post. What do you think? Idiot or liar?

Staffing has increased on his watch, so neither.

And I believe they are building a new station at 104th and Rockwell that has yet to open. I believe that is OKC.

And I believe they are building a new station at 104th and Rockwell that has yet to open. I believe that is OKC.

that is correct, that's an OKC station

Nice dodge Mid but, as a wise man once said, facts are stubborn things. That he lied is indisputable. It's ok to say he did and you don't care because it furthered an agenda that you support. That's the truth and you should embrace it. It speaks to your character.
I just found it humorous that you were trying to beat on one candidate for doing exactly what the candidate you favor has done in the past. And the mayor definitely knew the limitations of his ability to make those promises. Either that or, as you said, he's an idiot.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Mayor say the use tax would go towards PS positions? Around $60 million in use tax was collected from Maps for Kids.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Mayor say the use tax would go towards PS positions? Around $60 million in use tax was collected from Maps for Kids.
The words "use tax" were never used in the multiple commercials that he made. His intent is was evident in the fact that he went to the council immediately after the election to ask them to come up with funds to make good on the campaign promises he'd made. He knew he was lying. We knew he was lying but, those ads weren't intended to sway us. They were for people who didn't know the funding processes for PS.
Once again, I have no interest in rehashing the events from a couple of years ago, but couldn't let Mid's "liar or idiot" statement about Shadid go when it could be more easily applied to Cornett.

Going to have to express this opinion about the mayor's race. Candidates are going to have characteristics & ideas you are going to like and/or dislike. I vehemently agree with Doug Loudenback that we should take the time and listen to what both
candidates have to say. Take the time to listen and don't be afraid to question each participant about your concerns. Make a sound and solid decision about where you want to take Oklahoma City. When the time is right; go to the polls and vote; because if you don't exercise your right to vote--don't complain about the results.

Incumbents and already elected officials don't need the same kind of vetting you'd give a new candidate. To be a little blunt, I think it is pretty foolish to listen during campaign season and make a decision pretty squarely based on what you heard during that campaign. We've got two fairly well-known quantities here. Let's not kid ourselves. They are both in full politics mode. I'd vote based on their actions during the last 4 years. What they've accomplished. And tune out most of the political rhetoric.

That's the real problem, we tune out what we don't want to hear and we sometimes ignore what should/could be a real concern. It's never foolish to listen, some people may see it as a waste of time. You are indeed correct: "...vote based on their actions during the last 4 years." My point is this, what does it cost anyone to listen?

"Listening to what both candidates have to say" is a bit of a strawman suggestion in that we have a track record from Cornett to look at. Maybe you like him, like his results, or maybe you don't. But it's out there. And I have little doubt there are probably some unpleasant political ghosts shadowing that trail, too - I'm just not naive enough to believe any politician is entirely white-glove clean.

And Shadid's (to me) rather sudden appearance on city politics leaves me....curious. I didn't focus on him too much for the council race as he was not in my ward, but I remember thinking "he sure seemed to come out of nowhere with a pretty decent machine/organization behind him." That stuff doesn't happen by accident. Not saying its sinister, not saying its good or bad, but it makes me scratch my chin and wonder how that organization seemed to roll together so quickly. So I look to that candidate for two things: 1) To flush out his position, and to do so pretty plainly, perhaps explaining how/why it resonated with so many into a political "force" (for lack of a better term) seemingly so quickly; and 2) To lay out his own agenda within the constraints the OKC mayor's office establishes.

I've heard all but two of those items.

I've heard chronically vague generalities. I've heard "his journey resonates with people." I've heard "trust Ed."

I realize politicians often run on the grist mill of fairly neutral positions. Heck, I'd like to hear a neutral position on something, but I can't even say I've heard that much. Maybe that makes me too much a cynic, but when you work that hard to say nothing of substance about anything, and cap it off with "Trust Me," I inherently don't.

That's the best argument for groupthink I've ever heard. With regard to their track records, it's hard to compare apples to apples since they have not been in the same positions for the same periods of time. Both candidates have been a part of significant accomplishments and controversies. Many argue that the Mayor is less of a policymaker or more of a spokesperson. Why shouldn't messaging and rhetoric be a factor in our assessment of each candidate?

go to the polls and vote; because if you don't exercise your right to vote--don't complain about the results.

Ironically that is one of the primary issues many people have with one of the candidates. He didn't participate in the MAPS3 vote and now wants to change what the people that did vote decided. Rather than executing the will of the people, one candidate has decided only he knows what the voters should have voted for. I'll let you figure out which candidate that is. I will give you a hint - someone like that is not likely to be trustEd by most voters.

(And save the "they only voted for a $.01 tax the council can do anything they want with it" BS)

Kinda patronizing isn't it?

...
(And save the "they only voted for a $.01 tax the council can do anything they want with it" BS)

Actually, that's not BS. Not to say a later OKC council ought to make changes on a total whim, but uh, yeah, the people voted in a tax with no firm restrictions against changes by any future council.

That's not really in dispute. However, and this is not a small however, any future council wanting to go that route will also have to face voters, who may or may not be supportive of their decision to change what was already in the works.

It is BS in that everyone involved - voters and elected officials - understand the intent of MAPS referendums and any blatant disregard of the will of the voters is a betrayal of public trust regardless of any games people want to play with the actual language.

It is BS in that everyone involved - voters and elected officials - understand the intent of MAPS referendums and any blatant disregard of the will of the voters is a betrayal of public trust regardless of any games people want to play with the actual language.

I hear ya, Cap, but what you've got to understand is that the "games" with the "actual language" are precisely and exclusively the only things that matter if things end up in court. You can dismiss it all you want, but the fact remains it was written the way it was deliberately. A lot of folks here tried to ring bells about that problem, about the risk of MAPS not binding the council, and those folks were dismissed....and here we are, discussing concerns about a mayoral candidate possibly leveraging the idea of MAPS not binding the council.

It isn't a game. Far from it. Arguably, this "game" is precisely why Shadid has any candidacy at all.

Sid - Honestly, while I agree with you on most of this, you seem to be very emotionally invested in this campaign. I ask you, quite honestly: Does your close friendship with Casey Cornett have anything to do with your fierce interest in this race? I don't mean that as snarky, sometimes things like that can overtake our own rational thought. Blood & friendship, those two things can be pretty thick.

I hear ya, Cap, but what you've got to understand is that the "games" with the "actual language" are precisely and exclusively the only things that matter if things end up in court. You can dismiss it all you want, but the fact remains it was written the way it was deliberately. A lot of folks here tried to ring bells about that problem, about the risk of MAPS not binding the council, and those folks were dismissed....and here we are, discussing concerns about a mayoral candidate possibly leveraging the idea of MAPS not binding the council.

It isn't a game. Far from it. Arguably, this "game" is precisely why Shadid has any candidacy at all.

I hear you loud and clear - and I am aware you are absolutely correct in a legal sense. I think any future MAPS vote will correct this primarily because we now have people willing to disregard the intent of the voters. The fact we have a mayoral candidate staking his candidacy on this sort of tactic to divide and conquer the electorate does not bode well for our city being worthy of the voters' trust if he is successful.

For the interests who are seeking to gain from these tactics, they are part of the problem. They might achieve some short term win for their particular interest, but in the long run, OKC loses. These tactics are not a good foundation to build Trust. If these interests and Shadid are successful in derailing parts of MAPS3, then the vast majority of OKC voters will consider themselves betrayEd.

I say this as someone who values the discussions Ed initiates (instigates) on the council. I know he drives some of the other councilors crazy, but I think it is good to have many of the discussions Ed is responsible for starting. On the boulevard I was shoulder to shoulder with him - he made a valuable contribution to the FBB effort. I honestly think if Ed had served his full term as councilor, worked his tail off on making MAPS3 better - not dead, gained reelection, and then guided the discussion on future MAPS toward the openness and transparency issues, he would have won the 2018 mayoral election by a landslide because I doubt Mayor Cornett will run again. Had he done all the above, I would likely have been one of Ed's strongest supporters. I still might in future elections, but not right now, not given the statements I have heard so far.

Wambo,

Can you clarify, what exactly was the lie? I'm still not following that part. Thanks.

Sid,
I've pretty well laid it out in the last couple of posts. Could you explain what part you're having trouble following? As I said before, it was pretty well covered back when it actually occured, along with videos and a lot more passion. I believe you were here then, weren't you? I know Casey was.

If these interests and Shadid are successful in derailing parts of MAPS3, then the vast majority of OKC voters will consider themselves betrayEd.

I see what you did there...

I see what you did there...

What?? Oops. :rolleyes:

I think it's very enlightening that there are members of this forum suggesting that Sid didn't arrive at his position based on logic or reason, but because he has hung out with Casey Cornett a couple of times? Who might be saying that? Could that be coming from Dr. Shadid's campaign? Interesting strategy and says a lot.

It's no surprise at all. People think that if you disagree on here that you have some secretive relationships, corruption, hidden agendas, etc. Many don't understand reason and reality, only opinion.

Besides, knowing someone personally sometimes gives you great insight into their TRUE motives. With people I know and trust, I value their insight into who they also trust. The fact that Sid told us that he is inclined to be supportive Mick because he has never heard vitriol spewing forth from Casey and his family and has from Ed tells you the value of knowing persons other than reading about them and other people blindly opining about them. I appreciate that nugget.

What promises? Hiring has happened every year except for one or two (recession), right? I guess I'm at a little bit of a loss as to what specifically hasn't been done. Could you be more specific as to what was promised on a specific year so I can look up the budgets for following years?
Yes hiring has been done. The point everyone seems to be missing is years ago the City's own studies/consultants indicated that we were something like 200 officers shy of what was needed for a city of our size etc compared to peer cities etc. The hirings that happened didn't result in a net increase but only replaced those that retired etc. The promises were made to the P.S. folks that if they endorsed MAPS, that when the tide rose, that they would see their concerns addressed. The tide rose. the revenues increased. Their concerns were not addressed. The same promises were made when it came time for MAPS 4 Kids. Same result. So is it any surprise when MAPS 3 cam around, they said, wait a minute...we have heard this all before...

My previous response was hurried and I didn't get to include that I agree with you about being cautious when you have a spike in revenue and going out and spending it without having some certainty that it isn't a one-time thing. Just as when we were coming out of the recession and revenues were on the rise, it was prudent to make sure we weren't getting ready to go off another cliff. I agree that a couple of years lag is reasonable, but 16+ years (now 20 years)?? No.


Are you just unpersuaded by facts? We added 40 new officers last year, will hire 40 more this year and for the next 3 years the Council is planning on allocating funds to increase the police force by 200 total officers.

http://www.fop123okc.com/sites/fop/uploads/media/OKC_City_Council.m4v

So what you're saying isn't actually factual.
The P.S. folks were saying one thing during the campaign & to a former City employee on this site kept insisting they were lying. I didn't know who to believe, so I did some digging. When I looked up the claims about what both sides were saying from the City's own budget reports etc, the facts lead me to the conclusion that the P.S. folks were correct. That hasn't changed.

Is that 40 per year just replacing the officers lost due to retirement, finding other employment etc or is it a net gain? What you are talking about is just playing catch-up with the admitted understaffing from 20 years ago!


The Mayor is an elected official. He has his First Amendment rights fully in tact....
Of course he does (except when prohibited by law). If he wants to appear in a commercial as Mick Cornett, that is fine, but when he campaigns for it with the title attached...when he promotes the passage of MAPS as Mayor on his Mayor's Magazine program (without offering equal time to the opposition), that is crossing the line. Did I miss it or did you answer the question about such a relationship higher up in government? If you are against it higher up, why there and not on the City level?


Some cities are declaring bankruptcy! Revenues were down. You don't expand government when revenues are down. In Oklahoma, we can't finance our government on bonds. We have to balance the budget every year. So OF COURSE we didn't hire during a recession. If Shadid is saying that he'll hire new city employees regardless of the city's finances, then he's either lying or he's an idiot. No way he'd win a majority on the horseshoe to do something that foolish.
Calm down. You are concentrating on a couple of years when the revenue was down. What about the balance of those 16 to 20 years???

Liar or idiot? What about Mayor Cornett when he promised that if MAPS 3 passed that there would not only be officers added but none would be cut (apparently without regard to revenues etc)?


...(And save the "they only voted for a $.01 tax the council can do anything they want with it" BS)
It isn't BS (male bovine excrement). read the Ballot and the Ordinance. That is exactly what you voted for.

It is BS in that everyone involved - voters and elected officials - understand the intent of MAPS referendums and any blatant disregard of the will of the voters is a betrayal of public trust regardless of any games people want to play with the actual language.
But as was decided by the courts during MAPS 4 kids, the intent can be changed at any time by the Council. They purposefully set it up the way they did. Now to complain that someone might suggest doing exactly what was authorized by the measure is absurd.

Larry, I don't consider revenue neutrality a "rising tide" in which we should be rushing to expand our long term financial obligations. I vaguely remember the budget office suggesting we may go inverted and start running a deficit in three years or so.

Now the "use tax" is a different matter (I think).

Don't confuse revenue neutrality with modest if not minor growth as a justification for long term HR obligations. Mayor Cornett has done us well by helping spare us the economic terrors prevailing in other cities. It deserves recognition and appreciation. But that doesn't mean the budgetary threshold isn't tight with regard to the enormous expense involved in hiring more people.

People, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not an accountant. It's just what I've picked sitting through boring meetings.

Larry - speaking strictly as a neighborhood / suburban voter who cares about public safety as much as anyone else; if the unions align themselves with any attempt to modify the MAPS3 slate of projects, there will be hell to pay in future elections. Most people realize just because something is legal by the letter of the law, it is not always the right thing to do.

Larry - speaking strictly as a neighborhood / suburban voter who cares about public safety as much as anyone else; if the unions align themselves with any attempt to modify the MAPS3 slate of projects, there will be hell to pay in future elections. You more than most people should realize the strictly legal thing is not always the right thing to do.
Wow, before this thing gets blown way out into looney land, where did you get the idea this has anything to do with unions? This has been about the mayor and Shadid making the same types of statements and some on here giving the mayor a pass while putting Shadid down for it. That's the whole reason I posted anything. I got tired of the revisionist history being put forth by one side. To make it about anything more than that is pure fiction.

Alright, so here's all of your posts. I've highlighted the parts I'm going to have to go research. I'm truly interested in finding out what happened, specifically. From one FF to another, let's get to the facts on this, okay? I'm not here to argue for the sake of arguing. I'd like to know what was said and done.

I haven't a clue where to start with the TV ads. I don't even have a TV. Do you have any of them archived or the transcripts kept? As for the council meeting where they told Mick that he needed to ask the Chamber of Commerce for Public Safety funds in order to make good on campaign promises, I don't recall that meeting at all but I've missed far more than I've made. Do you happen to remember about what time it was? I'm not even sure if the City keeps video of the meetings from then or not. But I know the right person to ask. It would just be helpful to have some sense of time. I have no idea how to help you, it's been a long time back. As a matter of fact, Larry helped me with something he posted. What the mayor was saying in the ads was that if M3 passed not only would it mean more PS workers but there would be no cuts in manpower. Well, guess what happened after the election? They went ahead with the personnell cuts that he had been saying wouldn't happen. That's what he was asking the council to come up with funds to avoid. I believe it was Pete White who suggested he go to the people on whose behalf he had made the ads, the CC.

As far as tooting a horn, I thought if you were friends with Casey you could ask him. He and I discussed this very thing in one of those threads a few years back. That was all I meant by that.

Wow, before this thing gets blown way out into looney land, where did you get the idea this has anything to do with unions?

Based on observations of attendees at campaign events and various statements. And I think you missed the "if" in my statement.

Wow, before this thing gets blown way out into looney land, where did you get the idea this has anything to do with unions? This has been about the mayor and Shadid making the same types of statements and some on here giving the mayor a pass while putting Shadid down for it. That's the whole reason I posted anything. I got tired of the revisionist history being put forth by one side. To make it about anything more than that is pure fiction.

The only person I see making looney statements here is Larry.

I have to say, someone forwarded me this as a "news story".

I laughed so hard I nearly cried. It's just the way it's written. What a rag. But so funny they are quoting this thread as a news source.

Shadid?s Unorthodox Campaign Examined | The McCarville Report (http://mccarvillereport.com/archives/14458)

I think the Pink Floyd lyrics got me.

The only person I see making looney statements here is Larry.

Larry has always made looney statements, he can't get over how city g'ment is.

I have to say, someone forwarded me this as a "news story".

I laughed so hard I nearly cried. It's just the way it's written. What a rag. But so funny they are quoting this thread as a news source.

Shadid?s Unorthodox Campaign Examined | The McCarville Report (http://mccarvillereport.com/archives/14458)

While I will definitely agree that the tenor of that article was rather peculiar, I do think it shades a bit of the broader issue I mentioned earlier - as in where on earth did Shadid's candiacy/machinery come from?

Let's face it - political opposition usually foments over some fairly simple issue or set of issues. There's the notional opposition to MAPS elements, notional disputes about public safety funding, but I sure don't see how those issues in and of themselves translates into this massive groundswell of opposition to create a viable candidate - yet here he is. Now whether his candidacy draws substantive support in terms of votes is another matter entirely (and I don't think it will), it won't answer the question of where he came from in the first place. Sometimes, candidacies like this are a "toes in the water" notion for other ambitious candidates pursuing larger offices. Maybe. Maybe not. My instinct is to say, "follow the money..." but regardless of the sourcing, I need to hear a great deal more from Shadid about his specific plans regarding how he's so much a better choice for mayor than Cornett - not merely Cornett-bashing. So far, the substance has been entirely and conspicuously lacking.

If bashing Mayor Cornett using false statements and rallies with performance artists is the plan, it is easy to see how this ends. The Plaza District (even though it is very cool) does not elect the mayor. The reality is there are far more voters in the "traditional" suburban areas and they usually support things like MAPS and the mayors who have articulated a vision for OKC then followed up with action. They really do not care if Mayor Cornett is "the Chamber's candidate" because many of those people ARE the Chamber. The public safety rhetoric will go nowhere because the record shows the city is adding police officers and to be blunt, the places where most of the voters live are not crime ridden places with running gun battles on the cul de sac. Step 1 to any campaign is knowing where the votes are and how to connect with them. Thus far, I think the Shadid "machine" has failed badly on that one.

Where did he come from? The absence of a meaningfully organized Democratic Party is where he comes from. There is a vacuum of leadership and structure. Believe it or not, there are a significant number of Democrats, Progressives, and Moderates within the city itself. Shadid is a party of one. He has no plan or political structure to implement the rhetoric he espouses, but he happens to fill a significant void durring a transitional point in local political history.

Couple the void with moneyed rhethoric, the party of one has legs.

And I'd also point out that he isn't even a Democrat. He's Green Party. That shows you how decimated the Dems really are at all levels. Now this is a "non-partisan" race, but undoubtedly people have sensibilities that often skew support. I think we're seeing some of that.

Is perhaps Shadid a sort of Lewis Rothschild?

</funmovieallinall>

We do have some solid Dems who represent OKC at the state capitol, such as Al McAffrey.

As far as "where did Shadid come from?" He largely financed his own campaign for City Council. So it's not like there's this "hidden machine" out there.

Still, there are far more progressive voters in Central OKC today, and if you look at the Precinct Map from 2012, the blue area expanded. There are a lot of people in OKC who voted for Obama. But, as has been pointed out, Shadid himself did not support Obama (although there are people involved with Obama's local efforts working on his behalf).

Shadid is not really the candidate who can deliver on progressive issues, IMO. I think his candidacy will give voice to voters for whom many progressive issues are seemingly ignored in city elections. That's a good thing. Unfortunately, due to his lack of focus as a candidate and his divisive style (and seemingly his inability to work with others, such as the business community), Shadid is not the candidate to deliver on progressive issues.

I have to say, someone forwarded me this as a "news story".

I laughed so hard I nearly cried. It's just the way it's written. What a rag. But so funny they are quoting this thread as a news source.

Shadid?s Unorthodox Campaign Examined | The McCarville Report (http://mccarvillereport.com/archives/14458)

Is McArville an idiot? How can he call this a "report?" There are many ridiculous things in there but the one that sticks with me is his criticism of the poet, Lauren Zuniga, whose poem, "To The Oklahoma Progressives Plotting Mass Exodus" has exactly the OPPOSITE meaning ascribed to it by Mr. McArville. It suggests that people STAY, not LEAVE, OKC. Is McArville for real? If his goal is to drive support away from Shadid, hamfisted attempts like this may actually do the opposite, much as the bush-league Momentum campaign two years ago.

This "report" also says a lot about the xenophobic audience it must reach. "Gay activists"? "Hispanic activists"? Someone wearing an "illegal alien" shirt? "Mariachi bands"? Oh no!

McCarville's writers come off as a bunch of 20-something know-it-alls who probably went to school at someplace like Oral Roberts University who just think liberals (defined as anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Oklahoma Republican Party Platform, in whole, without question) are just icky people and to just call someone a liberal is as much character assassination as could ever be accomplished.

What I think is most unique about this and the Friday newspaper(another journalistic joke) endorsement is that there appears to be far more early interest in the mayoral campaign this time. It will be interesting to see if it will wake up the sleeping majority, and if so, what does that majority want?

This sums up my positions and feelings about the mayoral race quite well.

Editorial: Ed Shadid Running for Mayor in 2014? | OKC.NET (http://okc.net/2013/03/29/editorial-ed-shadid-possibly-running-mayor-2014/)

Care to defend this? "Groupthink" is mindlessly listening to politicians and not observing their actions...weighing the difference between the two.

Please though, explain to me how I'm advocating for or in some way am suffering from "groupthink".

I was genuinely complimenting the strength of your argument but did not agree with its conclusion. To discount anything that a candidate has to say while comparing experiences and track records that are qualitatively different would suggest an intentional avoidance of new information which is one definition of groupthink. You are clearly not suffering from groupthink, I just took issue with that piece of your argument.

This sums up my positions and feelings about the mayoral race quite well.

Editorial: Ed Shadid Running for Mayor in 2014? | OKC.NET (http://okc.net/2013/03/29/editorial-ed-shadid-possibly-running-mayor-2014/)

This was written before the real Ed Shadid exposed himself as a mudslinger - OKC.NET calls Mick Cornet a cheerleader.........how about a class act that landed OKC with a temporary NBA franchise that has now led us to greater heights....

Nope, this little two bit article does nothing for me.

It's the new information that made me change my mind about Ed, but not in a direction that favors him. When he was first running for office, I thought he was just what Oklahoma City needed. And some of the time, he still is. He's not afraid to tilt at windmills, and that can be a good thing as a minority voice. But it's a divisive set of behaviors when examined as a whole and its not leadership. Throw in the willingness to ignore the voice of voters, especially from an election in which he chose not to vote, and that destroys his credibility as a progressive voice of the people. He may not be listening to the plutocrats, but he's no more open to ideas other than his own than they are. A rose by any other name...

I went all in for Ed, but he hasn't gone all in for me. I took him at his word as a candidate that he would support the MAPS initiatives as the voters intended. Since then, he has modified his position -- perhaps to provide a platform for a mayoral campaign. That's mainly why I'm out with him and will be campaigning for the incumbent, who by all reasonable measures has done a very good job. I remember thinking how good he could be for our city at one time. As a progressive voter, it's been disappointing to see what he has become: divisive, unfocused, and most of all, misleading. I would love to introduce a new campaign button: mislED.

There are many people who support the streetcar initiative for one who are waking up to who Ed really is: not a 'hopey changey' guy, but a rather power-hungry and undisciplined politician, who is more than willing to distort the facts on the ground to get votes, such as his arguments about hiring additional police officers, his allegation that money is only being spent on downtown improvements, etc. Surely he doesn't think voters are idiots, as these positions are easily debunked.

Sadly, there are many people marching behind him just because they desire someone on the progressive side of the aisle to lead our city. While this is certainly understandable, people should still close their eyes and try to imagine the discord this man would surely bring to our city politics. It's one thing to throw bombs from a council seat; quite another to have your mayor pulling the pin on the grenades.

I should add that Pete White deserves some criticism here too: he also seems to believe that the taxpayers who voted for MAPS could easily be ignored by politicians such as himself and Shadid. This is fundamentally undemocratic and paternalistic. I'm embarrassed that Mr. White calls himself a Democrat, as do I, because I thought Democrats supported the will of voters.

If you have questions about either of these men, watch how they vote on the upcoming streetcar initiative. It will tell you how highly they regard our votes and the concept of the MAPS "contract" in general.

Shadid would only cause discord with our barons and the CofC junta.

Hate it all you want, but without the Chamber folks, we wouldn't have lower employment than most of the rest of the country or even a decent tax base to draw from. You don't get pie in the sky public works projects unless you have great jobs available. Part of the reason Devon and CHK didn't go to Houston is because the city made it clear that they were wanted and welcome at the table when it came to improving this city.

Shadid would only cause discord with our barons and the CofC junta.

As someone who works as a volunteer in the city oversight and advisory process, I can assure you that Shadid's "discord" is pretty much spread around on everybody.

Elect him Mayor, a you will have this city turn in on itself with division and acrimony.

aka OKC: Tulsa Edition



on edit: I like Tulsa as a nice palce to visit. Even lived there long long ago. But their local politics in recent times .... I wouldn't move there again on someone else's dime.

No matter what you think about the Chamber, the "plutocrats", the mayor or anyone else you consider the establishment, anyone who thinks as a group these people have done anything but change OKC from a city with nothing to recommend it but cheap cost of living to a city on the rise either hasn't lived here long, is too young to remember what it was like 20 years ago, never goes south of 63rd St or is delusional. To assume that the renaissance will continue no matter what we do or who is leading us is delusional as well. We have had to work very hard to get this city where it is right now, but we can't quit because other cities with more to offer than us aren't quitting. We have to work twice as hard to make up for our lack of sea coast, mountains or balmy climate. That requires a spirit of cooperation, not an "us versus them" mentality.

Shadid would only cause discord with our barons and the CofC junta.

He will cause discord among everyone, everything and all things living and dead. If you want another Tulsa like non productive, non progressive city, then vote for Ed........Something tells me you can't vote yet, right Edgar ?

Another thing, without a few barons around, we'd be just another wide spot in the road nowheresville.