Urban Pioneer asked me to post this:
Urban Pioneer asked me to post this:
By the way, I didn't mean post the article. I believe in traditional journalism and support our (and all) local newspapers. I meant just a snap of the front page to see the headline and peak the interest. A front page that can't be read is "fair use"...I meant it as a way to get people interested.
Edit - I think the above photo is okay. Makes me want to go find it right now.
I agree. Out of respect for journalism, I intentionally did not photograph the rest of the article. Go buy the paper. It is worth it. Particularly the rest of this article.
Wow.
It's quite devastating. So much for "transparency."
I guess go buy the paper and find out. My guess is there is more to come.
I think that the issue, simply stated, is that Shadid is actively trying to keep secret behavior that he believed to be criminal sealed off from public view. If that's not a huge deal, then nothing is.
If that isn't hypocritical campaigning by Shadid (the complete honesty and transparency part), nothing is.
I mean we are becoming a major American city and this position is for our public spokesman and figurehead. Right?
This reminds me of the Gary Hart deal. Didn't Gary just about dare the press to prove he was having an affair?
With Shadid coming down hard in his advertising as the candidate of "transparency," then publishing materials showing his ex-wife in the photos as if they are still married, and trying to hide what is usually public information about his past, he is inviting inquiry.
Also, knowing what we know now about the guy, he would go after anything and everything he could pin on Mick Cornett. He's certainly proven he's willing to play dirty.
http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3912584?embargo=1
Today's article on the Oklahoman's Web site (subscription required). The Oklahoman has also disabled comments on their Web site. From the lead...
Oklahoma City mayoral candidate Ed Shadid sought to keep possible criminal wrongdoing from coming out in his divorce by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, The Oklahoman has learned.
He's not saying why.
Shadid invoked the constitutional privilege in 2006 after hiring Josh Welch, at the time a prominent criminal defense attorney.
After granting a divorce in 2007, a judge sealed from public view Shadid's reasons for invoking the Fifth Amendment as well as dozens of other records. The judge sealed the records at Shadid's and his ex-wife's request.
The divorce decree itself remained open.
Shadid now is fighting at the Oklahoma Supreme Court to keep the sealed records secret. He went to the Supreme Court after his divorce judge indicated she likely would unseal the records since he is a mayoral candidate.
Three Oklahoma County judges who have handled divorce cases told The Oklahoman it is extremely rare for someone in a divorce proceeding to invoke the Fifth Amendment. It is most commonly seen in criminal cases and is often referred to as “taking the Fifth.”
Front page Oklahoman yellow journalism may sway the handful of octogenarians that still subscribe, excepting my mother whom I had to inform that she couldn't vote for Shadid because she lives in Warr Acres.
This will have a huge impact on the race...Instead of Mick winning 65% of the vote he will now get 70% lol
I think your prediction of OKC's mayor being reelected is still correct at this time. However, I think your assigned percentages are pure fantasy.
I'd place it as far closer (and even as an outsider i wish the incumbent's folks were proceeding in similar fashion.)
I won't be surprised to see a 55-45 (or closer) race if it is a two way race between Cornett and Shadid. That's still a healthy margin though for any well contested batttle.
This may chap a few folks. May not. It isn't about this candidate in my mind.
I don't know what the man did not want revealed during his divorce proceedings. Whatever it was, it brought on a concern about being compelled to provide incriminating information against himself.
A court of competent jurisdiction heard the request, and though unusual for its setting, the court granted the request.
I think I'm good with that.
As to notions of now he is running for public office so the public has a right to know ... hogwarsh, poppycock and balderdash.
Mind you, I have no issue at all with the public having a right to know a candidate once chose to make an assertion of his fifth amendment rights. There is no right for anyone to hide having done so. And the public does know this has happened. It's public record that it has happened.
But if it was a valid assertion, then it was, and he ought to be able to rely on his assertion being in place unless and until he decides he longer seeks or needs the protections our constitution affords him as a citizen.
If some, even thousands, even tens of thousands, of folks draw a negative inference and decide they do not wish to vote for someone who made the choices he made, such is the right of each voter to decide for himself or herself.
But the mere act of running for public office ought not to require one to have less protection under the law than any other citizen enjoys.
Given how some imaginations work, the candidate might well fare better if he was very forthcoming on this matter. That said, I don't think he ought to be stripped of his ability to assert a protection afforded by the federal constitution.
We will see I guess...I predict most of the folks who actually care to vote will vote for Mick mainly for his role in nabbing the Thunder...Couple that with the city faring rather well makes it an easy win in my book
I would venture to guess that at least 70% of the metro has no idea who the heck Shadid is
Your right about him having rights. Totally agree. But then don't run a campaign based on a transparency argument. If your going to continue to do so, state that (personally) to the press.
He has rights. But if you run for office of what is becoming a major American city, expect scrutiny.
nm
There are currently 33 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 33 guests)
Bookmarks