Ed Shadid running for Mayor 2014!

[LuccaBrasi]

To clarify a bit, I think it's fine for a political leader to ask tough questions. But if that's all you get from that politician, you're not getting leadership. All of us here would make excellent politicians if we were there merely to ask questions.

It's much more difficult to identify a problem, craft a solution, compromise, build consensus, and win support for your solution from people who may be adversarial. It is an art, and it requires a temperament few people have.

My view of Cornett is that he has done an excellent job of representing OKC on a national stage (probably the best of any mayor in recent history). He is analytical and politically savvy and does not create unnecessary rancor and division. Does that mean he hasn't made mistakes? No. But he has a great temperament for the job; he has far exceeded my expectations.

OKC is such a different city now, for the better. Sure, we still have some comfy good-ole-boy politics, we still see poor design and planning, we still have many unmet needs. But OKC is also a booming city that is a genuinely desired location for both residents and employers today. It's got momentum and it has had steady, (mostly) unpartisan leadership that seems to work well together. Citizens, when surveyed, trust the city government. They also are very happy for the most part with the direction the city is moving in.

When I see campaign slogans centering around "change," it would indicate there's this groundswell of support among citizens to redirect the way we're doing things. But there's not. Why would we want to radically change something that's very visibly working well in the historical context?

Perhaps instead of "change," the prevailing mood should be "continued improvement," because that is what we all want to see.

As we await word of the new tower downtown, the AT*T announcement, other job announcements, the explosion of new MAPS construction, etc., let's remember that all of this successful momentum could be halted or even reversed if we saw a radical change in tone from our city leadership, if we were to see visible division on the council, if our citizens who would normally be generally supportive of others and their goals were to become divided. Who wants to go there? Not me.

I agree with Teo, this is a fantastic post and I could not agree more or say it any better!

I don't want to go there either.

The mere thought of losing our momentum makes me ill.

[BDP]

Were Ed to speak again and assure voters that he would stand firm in assuring voters that under his administration as mayor that he would be vigilant in attempting to insure that the council resolution which accompanied the MAPS3 vote would be put into place, well then, Ed would most likely receive my unqualified support for mayor.

The only problem is that this is exactly what he tried to do in his council campaign. I was all for the guy until he started bashing MAPS 3 in his campaign. Then he totally backed off and said he fully supported MAPS 3, so I voted for him. But now he seems to really be working against it. If he came out said what you wrote above, I simply wouldn't believe him at this point.

I love his resistance to rubber stamp anything along with his calls for much more transparency and public interaction. However, sometimes it seems to be that the process is his only concern. I'm usually not sure what his actual end game is.

He also seems to be part of the "but what about me" movement that actually questions our recent history of investing in major projects downtown. I can not even begin to grasp this line of thinking and really resent its implications.

The streetcar will probably lose it for him. Mainly because no once can figure out what he wants it to be. I know he wants a better bus system, and I am all for that, but I have no idea why he wraps the streetcar up in that discussion in a negative way. If anything the street car should help the bus system.

[bchris02]

With OKC's 'weak mayor' form of government, how much damage could he really do? It seems a lot of people like the guy because he is a social progressive. I am a tad nervous that he might actually get in.

[soonerguru]

With OKC's 'weak mayor' form of government, how much damage could he really do? It seems a lot of people like the guy because he is a social progressive. I am a tad nervous that he might actually get in.

Oh, he can do a lot, primarily through appointments. But can you imagine if every weekly council meeting began with some crusade? If you watch the way Mick handles things, it runs very smoothly. It could be very entertaining in a way, that is if you don't care what happens to OKC.

What's sad about this to me is that I see eye to eye with Shadid on many issues, it's just his whole approach (and ideological rigidity) that have really turned me off. It's a shame because he had a chance to do many great things with a lot of people supporting him. That support has eroded quite a bit. He seems to lack discipline to really prioritize what battles to wage -- he spread himself too thin too early on and then just seemed to kind of drift in multiple directions. A passionate Don Quixote lacking the ability to work well with others (and quite willing to turn his back on people who worked hard to help him get elected).

As a progressive voter who is pragmatic enough to understand that I can't have my way all the time, I find it highly embarrassing to watch. This city hasn't elected many progressives of late and it's unfortunate that this is now what people are going to equate with progressive politics.

[Larry OKC]

Ed Shadid will run for mayor of Oklahoma City | News OK

I voted for Mr. Shadid, but if the information over at OKC.gov is correct, it means he won't complete the Council 4-year term for which he was elected in 2011. I think he has been a good Councilman and has represented his constituents views. However, he doesn't strike me as someone that has the ability to build a coalition on the horseshoe. For good or bad, OKC doesn't have a "strong" mayor form of government. the Mayor is a figurehead and just one vote of 9. Council sets policy and the person really running the City is the City Manager (who implements what he often recommends to the Council to pass). If you really want change for the better in OKC, we need to get rid of the City Manger. But only the COuncil can do that. But getting back to my original thought, if Shadid doesn't complete his term, he has violated the most basic of promises to the voters. Others that I had voted for in the past did the same thing, and I vowed to never vote for them again. If they can't keep the most basic promise, how can we expect them to do the rest? Others in the list included: Mayor Kirk Humphreys, County Commissioner Jim Roth etc. While I wish them well in any future endeavors, it will be without my vote. This may be where my Councilman and I part ways.

[Bunty]

Ed Shadid scares me.

This may not be a popular thing to say, but Tulsa does have some significant cultural advantages over OKC or at least once did. However they have been rather stagnant for the past decade in Tulsa while things have been really happening for OKC. A lot of people in Tulsa blame their mayor who I think was recently ousted. I would hate to see OKC go down a similar path.

No, Mayor Bartlett was not ousted. But he has to run for reelection against former Tulsa mayor Kathy Taylor, who probably wasn't as unpopular as mayor as is Bartlett now.