Ward 2 Runoff On The Campaign Issues Only, Please

[Doug Loudenback]

Here are the two KTOK interviews, Swinton first, Shadid second. Since some of Shadid's comments are responsive to what Swinton had said, it would be best to listen to them in the same sequence.

[Midtowner]

I really like Shadid.

And really, I have to question the judgment of anyone who pays attention and doesn't vote for Shadid. Apart from a few crassly partisan Democrats, who love Swinton (he's a party man), I just can't see anyone with a brain voting any other way.

I wish I could live in Ward 2 so I could vote on April 5th.

[king183]

After reviewing the materials sent out by Momentum in support of Swinton and Salyer, and against Walters, I believe I now know exactly who is running it from the political side. Maybe it's already come out and I didn't notice? They're very skilled at what they do, but they're also prone to going too far in certain campaigns.

Given that, I fully expect the campaign for Swinton to backfire on him, if it hasn't already. (It looks like it already has in certain sectors of the city.)

Shadid has the upper hand here.

[king183]

I have no idea about Form C-1 filing requirements, and perhaps someone that does will chime in here. Evidently, the earlier filing time cutoff made it possible for this PAC not to file a Form C-1 since it had neither received nor distributed funds by the cutoff date. But won't another cutoff date occur before the runoff election? I don't know. But, if not, all of the contributions and expenditures of the Momentum PAC will avoid ANY public scrutiny until after the runoff election occurs. It's easy to see why Councilman Bowman made his remarks at the March 8 council meeting.

Doug, yes, they will have to file a disclosure form at some point--probably right before the election. In most cases, it will be the Friday before the election. What you need to look for, however, comes from the fact that enforcement of municipal campaign financial regulations are a joke. If some group truly wanted to keep themselves "hidden" until after the election, they'll just "forget" to file the form by the required date. Once the enforcement authority comes after them, they will file the form--after the election. No real penalty, either.

If Momentum is funded and supported by the Chamber of Commerce, don't expect that to happen. If it's funded by a rag-tag group, such an outcome is much more probable. We'll likely have answers to our questions just before the election.

[Samokc]

Call him he will answer any questions!

[OkieDave]

Midtowner, king183, Doug and others. You guys are being too reasonable. Yes Shadid is by far the best choice, but it is votes that win. Momentum/Swinton, know how to play the dirty political game, Shadid is too new and nice to know how things are about to go. People need to contact and help the campaign. Find out your friends who live between 122nd and 23rd, Broadway Extension to Portland - minus the Village and Nichols Hills. It is going to take real work, real door knocking for Shadid to win. www.voteshadid.com facebook ed shadid for city council - 2011 search

I think his voice would be powerful and most refreshing on so many issues that can really help OKC move forward! Go to this Tuesday night, probably last chance to see them together. March 22nd at 7pm at Belle Isle library

[Larry OKC]

I guess it depends on what you mean by moving OKC forward. Obviously the folks over at OKC Momentum think that is through Swinton and rubberstamping their agenda. Seems they are at odds with anyone who went on record as supporting MAPS 3 as promised to the voters even though he was against it. Shadid could be seen as an obstacle to whatever their agenda is (being strictly independent and all). Know he is just one voice on the horseshoe, but Walters was just one voice too and they got him replaced.

[rcjunkie]

I guess it depends on what you mean by moving OKC forward. Obviously the folks over at OKC Momentum think that is through Swinton and rubberstamping their agenda. Seems they are at odds with anyone who went on record as supporting MAPS 3 as promised to the voters even though he was against it. Shadid could be seen as an obstacle to whatever their agenda is (being strictly independent and all). Know he is just one voice on the horseshoe, but Walters was just one voice too and they got him replaced.

I'm more amazed/amused each time, it wasn't OKC Momentum that got Walters replaced, it was his poor decisions and ineffectiveness as a councilmen that got him replaced by the VOTERS.

[Larry OKC]

I'm more amazed/amused each time, it wasn't OKC Momentum that got Walters replaced, it was his poor decisions and ineffectiveness as a councilmen that got him replaced by the VOTERS.

Am proud of you, at least you didn't get any factual information wrong (since you didn't include any).

RC, am sure they will be glad to hear they wasted their money in the campaign against him.

He voted the same way his constituents voted when it came to MAPS 3. He didn't lose by much at all just 447 votes.

Courtesy of Doug:

Ward 5: 29 of 29 precincts
David Greenwell 2,872 54.22% ... WINNER!
Brian Walters 2,425 45.78%

[betts]

I guess it depends on what you mean by moving OKC forward. Obviously the folks over at OKC Momentum think that is through Swinton and rubberstamping their agenda. Seems they are at odds with anyone who went on record as supporting MAPS 3 as promised to the voters even though he was against it. Shadid could be seen as an obstacle to whatever their agenda is (being strictly independent and all). Know he is just one voice on the horseshoe, but Walters was just one voice too and they got him replaced.

Walters was an irrational voice. It was hard to listen to him when he spoke. Shadid is not. I'm not sure he or Swinton as one voice will have any significant impact on the Council, which is why I'm surprised anyone is spending as much money as they are to make sure one or the other is elected. It smells of paranoia to me, something I like to avoid.

Now, Shadid needs to stop talking about the money so much,and talk primarily about issues, because I think everyone is dwelling on this committee more than they should. I don't think the voters care that much about the money: they care about the issues. It makes Shadid sound a bit whiney when he keeps reiterating the money issues. I do think he and Swinton are probably closer on the issues than makes for an easy campaign, after listening to both of them on the radio show. And I do think the push-polling with discussions of his views on issues unrelated to City Council is outrageous. Again, it smacks of paranoia on the part of the Momentum committee and would certainly lead me to vote for someone other than their candidate.

[flintysooner]

Listening to the interviews and reading through both web sites and casually following the OKCTalk discussions it appears to me to be rather clear that Shadid would be, or aspire to be, the "independent" voice.

I take that to mean that he is not satisfied with the existing city council members and would attempt to influence some kind of different outcome. Although I honestly do not understand precisely source of his dissatisfaction or the differences in outcome he desires.

Swinton clearly would lend his voice to the side pusing the "status quo" at least as it pertains to MAPS which seems to be the largest single issue.

This isn't my ward but if I were unhappy with existing city government or at least the side that's been pushing the MAPS concept, then Shadid seems to me to be the clear choice. On the other hand if I were happy with what's been done then Swinton seems more plausible.

[Doug Loudenback]

Betts and flintysooner, I see the issue of big money from undisclosed sources rather differently and more along the lines of Sam Bowman's remarks on March 1. I see a self-appointed committee taking it upon themselves to decide who our elected council members ought to be and for reasons that we don't know and at financing levels which are apparently (according to Sam Bowman) rather astonishing. There are at least two major problems:

(1) Transparency and Responsibility. Were I to be comfortable with a civic organization coming up with a slate of candidates, it would be one similar to what existed in the early to mid 1960s, the Association For Responsible Government, which was overtly public and transparent, which solicited citizens for input as to candidates, all of the leaders being publicly known, and anyone being able to join the organization by paying $1.00. The reasons given for favoring its own candidate and/or opposing another were public and consistent and did not vary from ward to ward. It financed and conducted the campaigns of its slate members from contributions received. I could live with that type of an organization which advocated for its slate and against their opponents. But Momentum is hardly that type of a committee.

(2) Bias and/or Conflicts of Interest. I completely agree with Shadid and think that the analogy he made in his own profession about drug suppliers made sense. But, more significantly (to me), there is a heck of a lot of money that the city will be spending with MAPS 3, Core To Shore, as well as other developments which will doubtless occur. I am unable to think that when/if the big money contributors favor or disfavor something in particular that the history of their contributions will be lost upon council members when making his/her own decisions on a matter at hand. "You don't bite the hand which feeds you," comes to mind. But, the worst case scenario could be like that which Tulsa blogger Michael Bates opined in Shadowy 527 jumps into Oklahoma City election:

It's obvious enough that there's some project that someone wants pushed through. Perhaps they want to steer funding to a favored developer or general contractor. Control over the Core-to-Shore redevelopment area might be involved. Voters just gave city government a big pot of money to play with, so it would be worth investing money in a campaign to get control of it.

Perhaps they want to clear away urban design and historic preservation obstacles, the sort that slowed down the undevelopment of Sandridge Commons -- tearing down historic structures, like the India Temple building, which once housed the State Legislature, for a 1960s-style open plaza, the sort that has never worked as a public place. Historic preservation has played a key, but underappreciated, role in Oklahoma City's resurgence, while too many people believe that the city's momentum comes from magically transferring money from citizens to contractors and basketball team owners.

Shadid, being unwilling to accept any PAC (and hardly any other financing, he largely paying for his own campaign) will be in a better position to be freed of such considerations when making his decisions. That doesn't mean that he would become a maverick but it does mean that he will be less likely to be influenced by a long list of supporters say, like those which we are well aware of that were involved with the recent SandRidge episode. I very much like his emphasis on governmental transparency and maximizing public input.

Swinton's remarks during the interview time and again came back to the list of those who are/were supporting him, except there is one problem with that: The members of that list who make up the Momentum committee are unknown.

Betts, you said, "I don't think the voters care that much about the money." I'm saying that, "they should." For me, the Momentum committee ITSELF is a major campaign issue and is a major cause for concern.

[flintysooner]

Betts and flintysooner, I see the issue of big money from undisclosed sources rather differently and more along the lines of Sam Bowman's remarks on March 1. I see a self-appointed committee taking it upon themselves to decide who our elected council members ought to be and for reasons that we don't know and at financing levels which are apparently (according to Sam Bowman) rather astonishing. There are at least two major problems:

(1) Transparency and Responsibility. Were I to be comfortable with a civic organization coming up with a slate of candidates, it would be one similar to what existed in the early to mid 1960s, the Association For Responsible Government, which was overtly public and transparent, which solicited citizens for input as to candidates, all of the leaders being publicly known, and anyone being able to join the organization by paying $1.00. The reasons given for favoring its own candidate and/or opposing another were public and consistent and did not vary from ward to ward. It financed and conducted the campaigns of its slate members from contributions received. I could live with that type of an organization which advocated for its slate and against their opponents. But Momentum is hardly that type of a committee.

(2) Bias and/or Conflicts of Interest. I completely agree with Shadid and think that the analogy he made in his own profession about drug suppliers made sense. But, more significantly (to me), there is a heck of a lot of money that the city will be spending with MAPS 3, Core To Shore, as well as other developments which will doubtless occur. I am unable to think that when/if the big money contributors favor or disfavor something in particular that the history of their contributions will be lost upon council members when making his/her own decisions on a matter at hand. "You don't bite the hand which feeds you," comes to mind. But, the worst case scenario could be like that which Tulsa blogger Michael Bates opined in Shadowy 527 jumps into Oklahoma City election:

It's obvious enough that there's some project that someone wants pushed through. Perhaps they want to steer funding to a favored developer or general contractor. Control over the Core-to-Shore redevelopment area might be involved. Voters just gave city government a big pot of money to play with, so it would be worth investing money in a campaign to get control of it.

Perhaps they want to clear away urban design and historic preservation obstacles, the sort that slowed down the undevelopment of Sandridge Commons -- tearing down historic structures, like the India Temple building, which once housed the State Legislature, for a 1960s-style open plaza, the sort that has never worked as a public place. Historic preservation has played a key, but underappreciated, role in Oklahoma City's resurgence, while too many people believe that the city's momentum comes from magically transferring money from citizens to contractors and basketball team owners.

Shadid, being unwilling to accept any PAC (and hardly any other financing, he largely paying for his own campaign) will be in a better position to be freed of such considerations when making his decisions. That doesn't mean that he would become a maverick but it does mean that he will be less likely to be influenced by a long list of supporters say, like those which we are well aware of that were involved with the recent SandRidge episode. I very much like his emphasis on governmental transparency and maximizing public input.

Swinton's remarks during the interview time and again came back to the list of those who are/were supporting him, except there is one problem with that: The unknown members of that list who make up the Momentum committee are unknown.

Betts, you said, "I don't think the voters care that much about the money." I'm saying that, "they should." For me, the Momentum committee ITSELF is a major campaign issue and is a major cause for concern.

I am curious if you agree with my assessment of the candidates though?

It has never made that much sense to me to be against someone because of support from an unrelated group but I certainly know that is an often used argument. Even if the group is nefarious which is not clear to me and even if those who support the group are equally sinister it doesn't follow that the candidate is evil.

Shadid reminds me of Walters who seemed to me to take contrary positions for the sake of being contrary.

[Doug Loudenback]

flintysooner, I'll try (even that is beside the point that I was trying to make). You said ...

Listening to the interviews and reading through both web sites and casually following the OKCTalk discussions it appears to me to be rather clear that Shadid would be, or aspire to be, the "independent" voice.

I take that to mean that he is not satisfied with the existing city council members and would attempt to influence some kind of different outcome. Although I honestly do not understand precisely source of his dissatisfaction or the differences in outcome he desires.

I do think that he would be an independent voice and that that quality is important to him. To me, that means that he will analyze whatever there is to analyze independently, on its merits. My sense is that he sees some or a lot of city government as not being transparent and not having as much citizen input as he thinks should have occurred, but beyond that I'm not aware of anything in particular. Just as possible guesses, that might relate to how OCURA operates, or it might relate to things such as the promise that Mayor Cornett made at the Mayor's Roundtable meeting early in 2010 that opportunities would exist for citizen input to shape what MAPS 3 would be like ... but which opportunities never came to pass. But I really don't know. I don't see in him a need to be ornery for its own sake, though. He strikes me as a rational, reasonable, and thoughtful person.

Swinton clearly would lend his voice to the side pusing the "status quo" at least as it pertains to MAPS which seems to be the largest single issue.

That's what he says now, but my suspicion is that he is really a chamber type of guy, and that the chamber's agenda would be his also. Earlier he was clearly wanting to put the streetcar at the end of the MAPS list which, potentially, would make it expendable (just like the sports arena became in original MAPS ... put off to the end, it would not have been built but for the fact that the city voted to extend the tax to make that possible). My guess, and that's all it is, is that the chamber's highest priority is for the convention center to get done at the risk of anything else, which of course was the lowest in priority of polling done before the MAPS 3 vote. My perception is that Shadid feels more strongly that all projects should be done, and that the streetcar should proceed with dispatch so to keep open the possibility of receiving additional federal money associated with completion of the streetcar's Alternative Analysis. Jeff would be a better person to discuss this, though, than I am.

This isn't my ward but if I were unhappy with existing city government or at least the side that's been pushing the MAPS concept, then Shadid seems to me to be the clear choice. On the other hand if I were happy with what's been done then Swinton seems more plausible.

Yes, but subject to what I said above. Shadid says that not to complete all MAPS 3 projects, or to alter the existing council resolution, would be a breach of public trust. Swinton, in his interview, didn't even seem to understand that council had the capability of changing the projects which leads me to believe that he didn't understand the difference between the ballot and the concurrent council resolution. At least, that's how he sounded to me.

It has never made that much sense to me to be against someone because of support from an unrelated group but I certainly know that is an often used argument. Even if the group is nefarious which is not clear to me and even if those who support the group are equally sinister it doesn't follow that the candidate is evil.

If you are saying that the candidates shouldn't be measured by their supporters, I agree ... UNLESS a candidate is beholden to his supporters, and, as I've already said, I have concern that Swinton might have such an unspoken obligation.

Shadid reminds me of Walters who seemed to me to take contrary positions for the sake of being contrary.

As I've already said, I disagree with you on this one. To me, a comparison of Walters & Shadid is like comparing night and day, darkness and light, water and oil.

Best I can do.

[flintysooner]

Best I can do.

Pretty good as always. Thanks much.

[Doug Loudenback]

I should also have added, this, flintysooner. Shadid probably does have more that he does not like than what he has said, else his interview remarks about not voting in city elections since 2004 because he felt disenfranchised would make no sense. But, about what particularly, I don't know.

[Urban Pioneer]

I got this in an opposition letter that was forwarded on to me. It made me laugh so hard... I can't stop laughing. So scary... lol

"Now he (Shadid) wants to be your city councilman and is even advocating that your tax dollars be spent on 'green' areas to grow vegetable gardens."

[bornhere]

What motive does the Chamber have for keeping its political contributions secret?

[rcjunkie]

Am proud of you, at least you didn't get any factual information wrong (since you didn't include any).

RC, am sure they will be glad to hear they wasted their money in the campaign against him.

He voted the same way his constituents voted when it came to MAPS 3. He didn't lose by much at all just 447 votes.
Courtesy of Doug:

Nothing wrong re: facts or wrong info, other than the fact you can't read a budget!!

That's like saying "the bomb missed me by 10 feet".

[rcjunkie]

Listening to the interviews and reading through both web sites and casually following the OKCTalk discussions it appears to me to be rather clear that Shadid would be, or aspire to be, the "independent" voice.

I take that to mean that he is not satisfied with the existing city council members and would attempt to influence some kind of different outcome. Although I honestly do not understand precisely source of his dissatisfaction or the differences in outcome he desires.

Swinton clearly would lend his voice to the side pusing the "status quo" at least as it pertains to MAPS which seems to be the largest single issue.

This isn't my ward but if I were unhappy with existing city government or at least the side that's been pushing the MAPS concept, then Shadid seems to me to be the clear choice. On the other hand if I were happy with what's been done then Swinton seems more plausible.

The best, easiest and number 1 way to decide who will will the runoff!!!, who's Public Safety backing.

[Larry OKC]

Nothing wrong re: facts or wrong info, other than the fact you can't read a budget!!

That's like saying "the bomb missed me by 10 feet".

On edit, removed to comply with Doug's request that the thread stick to campaign issues only.

[Doug Loudenback]

Here are 4 more flyers, 2 for each candidate. Click on any image for a 1024 px wide view.

Ed Shadid 1 - front


Ed Shadid 1 - back (by candidate)


Ed Shadid 2 - front (by candidate)


Ed Shadid 2 - back (by candidate)


Charlie Swinton 1 - front (by candidate)


Charlie Swinton 1 - back (by candidate)


Charlie Swinton 2 - front (by Momentum)


Charlie Swinton 2 - back (by Momentum)


Looking at the last pair, the phrase, "Good cop, bad cop," comes to mind.

Whoops. Now that I know that Shadid is a vegetarian and lives in a solar-powered house, I may need to reconsider my support of him.

[Doug Loudenback]

This week's Oklahoma Gazette article: Runoff Rundown ... it is pretty much a miniaturized version of the interviews by Gwin Faulconer-Lippert this past Sunday, previously posted in this thread.

[soonerguru]

You know, I was already strongly backing Shadid, so I may be biased, but his mailers have a lot more meat on the bone than Swinton's. His attack pieces are legitimate and speak to the concerns of voters. Swinton's are just silly -- and they may actually get more people to vote for Shadid. There goes the vegetarian vote!

Seriously, Shadid doesn't live in a solar-powered house; I know that for sure. He may be vegetarian but who cares?

[soonerguru]

I love how sinister Charlie Swinton looks in those ads. He looks like such a corrupt good ol' boy.