Ward 2 Runoff On The Campaign Issues Only, Please

[Urban Pioneer]

Money wins

Candidates raising the most money either won the Oklahoma City Council primary or made the runoff.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...oney-wins.html

Normally, I would agree with you. But that is in part because there has not really been a serious, sane choice with a serious, communicative campaign.

Plus, runoff voters are usually "super educated" versus normal elections. An educated voter would probably vote for Shadid although I find it remarkable how many "friends" Swinton seems to have in this town. I mean, some of his "friends" are friends of mine and they seem to be willing to vote for Charlie irregardless of what negative messages go out or how incorrect they are. He seems to be a nice man with historic ties and that is all that matters to some people.

With that said, the Momentum campaign has completely turned off progressive voters such as myself. Attacking, sane stable people who have positive motives for running is going way too far. Particularly, a candidate that is remarkably similar to the representation that we currently have, Sam Bowman. He is a difficult man to replace and one who has left a legacy of direct support for our neighborhoods and our citizens.

For me personally, Swinton seemed to be "ok" until he started messaging that Shadid is out to "cripple MAPS." If were to come from Momentum, I wouldn't have cared. I wouldn't have been surprised. But it is Swinton's personal campaign that is directly propagating what appears to be a complete lie. I have no respect for someone who would authorize doing that and ignores his opponents direct and repetitious personal, verbal contradiction at numerous public events and forums.

[Urban Pioneer]

And I would also say, I greatly appreciate the recent balanced coverage that the Oklahoman and Gazette have provided to this race. It instills some degree of confidence in our local news institutions.

[Spartan]

I hope these Swinton and Shadid ads appear opposite of each other, so that nobody is actually buying the Swinton crap.

[Doug Loudenback]

I hope these Swinton and Shadid ads appear opposite of each other, so that nobody is actually buying the Swinton crap.

I've just done that at http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03...or-shadid.html and I've added this modified version ...



Nick has posted his opinion in a fine blog piece here: http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...th-409000.html

Here is a 30 second spot, apparently intended for television:

[Spartan]

I've just done that at http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03...or-shadid.html and I've added this modified version ...

Right, of course...I just mean in the Gazette and Oklahoman print, where people are actually being affected by these ad spots. I've always had the hunch people go to blogs in the first place because they agree with that the blogger usually says in the first place...I may be wrong though.

What is the word for that, a sound tunnel? I think that's it. (And thanks for the plug, of course.)

[Larry OKC]

It never works for me. Maybe it's a browser thing, but I only have Firefox and Safari, and it works in neither for me..

What versions are you using?

I am usually on an older Mac (10.4.11) running Safari (4.1) and Seamonkey (1.1.7, a Firefox product) on Swintons site comes up ok. Seems if it runs in older versions, it should run in more current ones but I know ones that work ok at work, don't at home etc.

[Larry OKC]

Ok, Shadid has me back (despite Rice's endorsement). Hope he can/will do what he said in the ad.

Build MAPS 3 exactly as promised, on budget and on time, with maximum public deliberation and transparency.

But he is just one voice among the nine and we were told the same things when Humphreys ran for Mayor (and didn't turn out to be true).

[soonerguru]

God, Swinton seems like such a creep. He hasn't given voters a single identifiable reason to vote for him. He stands for nothing apparently and is willing to say anything to get elected. Yikes. I cannot imagine the level of disappointment I would feel with this city if he is somehow able to get elected. This should be an obvious choice. What a crappy and insulting campaign Swinton has run, and on the other side, what a dignified and brilliant campaign Shadid has run! The contrast couldn't be more obvious.

On another note, I'm not currently a Chamber member by dint of my new profession, but if I were, I would be sending them my cancelation notice. I was fine with them working hard for MAPS 3 (and I volunteered with that effort), and I was fine with them working to get the tea-bagging bomb throwers from bringing the cult of Windsor Hills to the Council, but the trashing of Shadid is -- as Urban Pioneer has pointed out -- unconscionably misdirected. I have a beef with the Chamber and I think they should rethink their participation in activities like this in the future.

[OKCTalker]

Swinton's Web site loads in my IE 8, but he has only three postings on 12/16, 2/1 & 2/16? Is that all he has to say?

[Doug Loudenback]

Shadid takes off the gloves. Here is the latest mailer ... I don't know whether it's been sent or not. Click on a card for a larger view.

[MikeOKC]

Shadid takes off the gloves. Here is the latest mailer ... I don't know whether it's been sent or not. Click on a card for a larger view.

Yes, it's out - I got it yesterday. Good piece to finish up with. It pretty much speaks for itself. I think Ed's going to win this one.

[soonerguru]

It's nice to see that Ed didn't bring a ukulele to a gun fight! Good for him. Punching right where it hurts.

[Spartan]

Oh wow. That is devastating. What a sucker punch... go Shadid!

I completely forgot about that whole Carroll Fisher thing, and had no idea that Swinton was behind that. Wow.

[Larry OKC]

Shadid takes off the gloves. Here is the latest mailer ... I don't know whether it's been sent or not. Click on a card for a larger view.

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not a Swinton supporter (voted for Shadid in the primary). And certainly not a Fisher supporter by any means. But it would appear that it was Swinton's testimony that helped get Fisher removed from office. From the article the flier references (the middle bolded part is the incomplete quote on the flier):

Ward 2 in Oklahoma City has six council candidates (Oklahoman, 2/23/11)

Background checks

The Oklahoman ran tax, bankruptcy, criminal and civil background checks on all 13 candidates vying for four city council seats.

After eliminating some with traffic infractions and other minor matters, the checks revealed a few problems worth asking about.
...
In May 2004, Swinton testified in front of a state Legislative commission investigating Carroll Fisher, the former state insurance commissioner convicted of bribery in 2009. Swinton said BancFirst was approached by Fisher's representative and asked to buy items for Fisher's office.

Swinton said the bank purchased Fisher an ice machine for $3,648 after he was told the Central Services Department signed off on the purchase.

“I testified because I was the one that coordinated it for the bank,” he said, adding that neither he nor the bank were accused of doing anything wrong. “We would not have given it if they had not given us a letter from central services saying it was OK.”

Swinton also was scrutinized for an e-mail announcing his candidacy that was sent by his wife, Oklahoma County District Judge Barbara Swinton, from her state courts network e-mail.

“There was a screw up with the computer at the very first. She reimbursed the system for it and she talked to the chief justice the instant we discovered it. It's just a regrettable error. She thought she was sending it out on a private deal and it wasn't.”

complete article here: http://www.newsok.com/ward-2-in-okla...?custom_click#

[Doug Loudenback]

Larry, I'll get back to your comments shortly. But first, here's a story that ran on KWTV this evening concerning the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum:

[Midtowner]

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not a Swinton supporter (voted for Shadid in the primary). And certainly not a Fisher supporter by any means. But it would appear that it was Swinton's testimony that helped get Fisher removed from office. From the article the flier references (the middle bolded part is the incomplete quote on the flier):]

So Swinton would be an unindicted co-conspirator and that's a good thing?

[MikeOKC]

So Swinton would be an unindicted co-conspirator and that's a good thing?

I mean, really, we wouldn't have broken into the Watergate if they hadn't signed-off on the deal at the White House. Or some such thing.

So, Swinton thought it was normal business practice to buy an elected official a $4,000 item for his office? Just as long as "Central Services signed-off on it." ?????

I agree, Midtowner, that's exactly what it sounds like.

[Larry OKC]

Folks, like I said I am not defending Swinton, just that there is more to it than Shadid's flier shows. But in Shadid's defense, while they didn't include the complete line from the article, they did include the "..." elipsess(sp) and sited the source. It is a flier and not an article or a term paper where they can always give the complete story. It is indeed "normal business practice" for businesses to make gifts to the State. Believe Gov. Henry politely declined the "gift" and had the items returned. Think Fisher crossed the line when he solicited the donations (IIRC). As long as someone somewhere says it is ok (agency, legal council etc), they think that gives them carte blanche(sp) to go ahead and do it. Not unlike the Mayor and his apparent conflict of interest being a VP for a firm that does significant business with the City. He doesn't see a problem with it, because he asked the City's legal council for advise and they said, "not a problem". My question is, if you have to ask if something is right/wrong, that is a good indicator right there that you already think it is (or may just be a matter of conflicting laws).

[soonerguru]

I don't think anyone is saying Swinton should go to jail. I think, rather, the context of this flier is the perfect closer to this brilliantly run campaign. Virtually everything about Swinton is shady and has the whiff of corruption, or at least, a style of governing that OKC needs to move beyond.

As an amateur wordsmith, I can only dream of coming up with a tagline as good as that ad, and how it ties a bow (noose) around OKC Momentum, to whit:

"The quickest way to stop Oklahoma City's Momentum is to return to the days of cronyism, bribery and payback." Really, that is the type of governing a guy who has secret donors with secret interests who refuses to even tell voters what he would do in office is likely to propagate.

Watch and learn: this is how a local campaign should be run. Genius. Doesn't mean they'll win of course, but Shadid has played everything masterfully.

[Doug Loudenback]

I mean, really, we wouldn't have broken into the Watergate if they hadn't signed-off on the deal at the White House. Or some such thing.

So, Swinton thought it was normal business practice to buy an elected official a $4,000 item for his office? Just as long as "Central Services signed-off on it." ?????

I agree, Midtowner, that's exactly what it sounds like.

Larry, this reply is really for you ... I said that I'd get back to it.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying, Larry, so let me just say what I understand, and then you can critique my remarks:

1. Swinton, of BankFirst, is approached by Carroll Fisher, insurance commissioner, at some unidentified time, and was asked to buy items for Fisher's office.
2. Swinton took Fisher's request back to BankFirst. Doubtless that request was processed through BankFirst's chain of command and that process resulted in it's Central Services Department signing off on a $3,643 ice machine for Fisher's office -- which it would doubtless not have done without the blessing, and probably instruction, of those higher in the chain of command than what the "Services Department" was.
3. The ice machine was delivered by BankFirst to Fisher.
4. Later, BankFirst was favored by a $4 million deposit by the insurance commission.
5. Swinton, and BankFirst, were not charged as culpable since BankFirst's Central Services Department had "signed off on the purchase" (which is perhaps the very most curious statement in the Oklahoman article).
6. In the matter, Swinton was called as witness because "I was the one who coordinated it for the bank."

As I understand it, that is the chain of events. Without me further elaborating, are you not simply able to agree that the above sequence does not pass the smell test as to what is or should be OK? But, if you really need more elaboration on these items, say so and I'll be glad to give it a stab.

[soonerguru]

You know, I don't know what has changed, but the Oklahoman has been doing a great job covering this race. Not as good as the Gazette -- and certainly not Doug's blog -- but a good job nonetheless. I regret slagging the paper in an earlier thread. I would hope the change in coverage is a reflection of just how good Shadid is. The OK is at a loss when it comes to trashing this guy. Or perhaps they feel the wind shifting in his direction. Who knows?

[Larry OKC]

Larry, this reply is really for you ... I said that I'd get back to it.

...As I understand it, that is the chain of events. Without me further elaborating, are you not simply able to agree that the above sequence does not pass the smell test as to what is or should be OK? But, if you really need more elaboration on these items, say so and I'll be glad to give it a stab.

I agree Doug. Absolutely. Completely. Without reservation or disclaimer. Apparently I wasn't clear and I tried to clarify but something kept getting lost in the translation.

Now I will throw this one out there to everyone...

1) the Momentum folks are the ones behind and endorsing Swinton.

2) These same folks are the ones that were behind the other Council race winners that most here seemed to be in favor.

3) The question is, don't you think that those other Council Members are going to be subjected to the same things that Shadid says Swinton will be? The whole, beholden to special interests thing?

To be consistent, seems if you are against the Momentum group and what they are pushing, you would have run screaming away from their candidate picks in the other races too? Am I the only one that sees this? Anyone want to clarify?

By the way, even the Oklahoman editorial writer(s) says Shadid is a good candidate (but they are still throwing their support/endorsement to Swinton) in Friday's Oklahoman.

[Spartan]

Larry, I would take "beholden to special Chamber interests" any day of the week over the Brian Walters Show. Also, consider the long history of Meg Salyer and Pat Ryan on the council. Those guys are veterans of the council. Especially Meg, is not about to be a pawn for some bigger interests. Furthermore, they won their election by a landslide, nearly 80-20 in one case I believe. That gives them political capital to do whatever they want. I'm also not sure Pat Ryan is going to go for another term after this one, he's been on for so long..I'd expect him to retire the next time his seat comes up.

The chamber did a good job of giving the Tea Party a devastating defeat that can hopefully curtail their influence in other elections in Central Oklahoma as well. Furthermore, this is different because Meg Salyer is a big liberal. She is more like Shadid, in the causes she advocates. And yeah, Swinton has always been a Democrat, too. The reason I say this is different is because Shadid and Swinton are different in the causes they have chosen to advocate. Swinton has advocated nothing and ran a negative campaign that leaves us to highly doubt his motives. Shadid has ran a good campaign, advocated for a great set of issues, and offered hope for the future, in spite of only being 1/8th of a mere city council if he is elected.

[soonerguru]

I'll admit to laughing at those mailers when Brian Walters was the target. That makes me guilty. I also didn't mind them going after the Tea Party folks, because their presence on the council could have been devastating to the city. So, you could say I'm being hypocritical, and you may be right, but what really hacks me off is their double barreled assault on Shadid is out of bounds, because the guy is going to be a great council member for his ward and an outstanding neighborhood advocate, like his predecessor.

[Doug Loudenback]

I agree Doug. Absolutely. Completely. Without reservation or disclaimer. Apparently I wasn't clear and I tried to clarify but something kept getting lost in the translation.

Now I will throw this one out there to everyone...

1) the Momentum folks are the ones behind and endorsing Swinton.

2) These same folks are the ones that were behind the other Council race winners that most here seemed to be in favor.

3) The question is, don't you think that those other Council Members are going to be subjected to the same things that Shadid says Swinton will be? The whole, beholden to special interests thing?

To be consistent, seems if you are against the Momentum group and what they are pushing, you would have run screaming away from their candidate picks in the other races too? Am I the only one that sees this? Anyone want to clarify?

By the way, even the Oklahoman editorial writer(s) says Shadid is a good candidate (but they are still throwing their support/endorsement to Swinton) in Friday's Oklahoman.

I confess to eventually having similar thoughts crossing my mind, after the primary election.

During the primary, my focus was on what I then perceived to be a profound threat to Oklahoma City government, the WHBC/Tea Party guys and organization. I live in Ward 6 and the only mailers I'd seen during the primary were Ward 6 mailers. About one of those mailers, I even blogged, "What's Right About This Picture," that being the one which featured gay house member Al McAffrey, certainly not a conservative, and mayor Cornett, certainly not a liberal. The message was that in progressive government both liberals and conservatives could find common cause, that being the progress of the city. "Pretty cool ad," I thought to myself and out loud. During this period, I didn't understand much ... really, anything ... about the new super-PACs, e.g., reporting requirements, donor identification, money expenditures.

After the primary and I saw some of Momentum's ads in Ward 5 against Brian Walters in which he was quite unfairly chopped up by the hatchet technique, I actually found myself feeling sorry for Walters (even though I'm glad that Greenwell won).

But, whoa! Will the real Momentum please stand up? Is it the benign and progressive, all-inclusive organization that put out the Ward 6 ad that I mentioned above, or is it the ultra-conservative organization that likened Brian Walters to President Obama and made Walters out to be a liberal?

As I learned more about the non-regulation (at least in terms of disclosure) of super-PACs, and as I began to see Momentum's ads in the Ward 2 race in which Shadid was smeared with the ultra-liberal label about matters irrelevant to city government, a growing awareness of Momentum as a malevolent evil organization crept over me ... an organization without scruples or any ethical foundation whose donors escaped identification spending a ****load of money to elect a slate of city council members.

For what purpose? Did they raise and spend more than $400,000 just because they are good guys who are only concerned about good Oklahoma City government? But if they are good guys why would their campaign tactics be so downright nasty ... including the push-pull survey done in the Ward 2 runoff? Conclusion: A good chance exists that they aren't such good guys and that some other motive than mere good government was involved. Really truly good guys don't do such really truly bad things.

So, yes, the thoughts you raise did cross my mind. I don't know enough about Greenwell to know whether that should be a concern about him (i.e., being beholden to those who got him elected so as to affect his votes as a council member), but I can't see Salyer and/or Ryan as being in anyone's pocket. But, Swinton? About him, I have no such confidence.

And, lest we forget, this is but the maiden voyage of super-PACs in Oklahoma City politics. Only two years from now another 4 city council positions will be up for grabs.

One last remark, about the Oklahoman's editorial you mentioned. Not only did it call both parties "good candidates," it correctly noted that Shadid (as well as, it thought, Swinton) is pro-MAPS, unlike Swinton's ads to the contrary. Certainly the tone of the Oklahoma's perspective is different than it was in the primary. That's a step or two, at least.