OKC mayor has officially sold his soul… so he must be running for Congress

[PUGalicious]

The Oklahoman reports that Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett endorsed U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook for governor. Cornett, a reasonably popular mayor, can only hurt his political chances with such an endorsement.

Istook is not nearly as popular; even though he’s handily one re-election to his seat the last several election cycles, that’s been more a function of his political might and bankroll scaring off potential opponents. As the gubernatorial campaign descends in the expected throes of mudslinging between opponents, as more voters learn about Istook’s voting record and his stand on many issues, his popularity will decline even further.

Cornett, then, can only be dragged down by Istook — at least in popularity. On the other hand, this endorsement could be “nod” toward the good ole boy network needed to make a serious run toward taking over Istook’s seat. Istook has the connections and the bribery lobbyist contribution base to help a designate heir win the seat.
What clued me in that he has sold his soul? This quote in the article:

The renaissance of Oklahoma City has coincided with Ernest’s common-sense conservative service in the U.S. Congress… That’s no coincidence. Without his hard work and selfless effort, Oklahoma City would not be the vibrant city that we are today.

The renaissance of Oklahoma City is due to the visionary leadership of city leaders prior to Cornett and Istook and to the taxpayers of Oklahoma City. Istook deserves very little credit. It is indeed a coincidence that he was in office at the time of this renaissance and it’s certainly not due to his “common-sense conservative service in the U.S. Congress.” The last line of that quote just makes my stomach turn. Istook has been working as hard for his mecca, Salt Lake City, as he has for his constituents in Oklahoma City.

But all’s fair in love and politics (including hyperbolic rhetoric and stretching the truth), Istook responded with his own love:

Mayor Cornett has earned the respect of everyone with his leadership, following a tradition of solid leaders in our capital city.

Even if he doesn’t run for Istook’s seat, Cornett has lost my support for his politic future, whatever that may be. I don’t like politicians who sell their souls to the god of politics — isn’t that right, Sen. McCain? (But that’s for another post.)


(Originally posted here)

[mranderson]

It could be Cornett knows Istook will win the nomination and endorsing him relects that.

Frankly, I hope he does. I just love politicians I do not like getting stomped, which will happen in November. Henry will be re-elected.

[Midtowner]

The Mayor is ingratiating himself to the establishment part of the Republican party. I'm sure they have plans for him. Heck, Cornett may very well be the next governor.

Henry will stomp Istook though. Istook is cut from the same cloth as Humphries. Don't be surprised if Istook even loses in the primary. I wouldn't be shocked if Sullivan won the primary. He's got my vote at this point.

[BDP]

Just let me know when it's time to print up the 'Istook for Governor... of UTAH!' signs.

What has Cornett really done, anyway? He helped with the Hornets, but, to me, that was all about the Ford Center and Bennett. He really is cashing in the poltical equity of other, more accomplished, civic leaders. His legacy has been the work of others.

[Patrick]

I think it's widely known that Cornett is a Republican, and he's simply endorsing the candidate of that party he thinks has a chance of winning. Although I don't like Istook, I think Cornett is doing what any other Republican poltician would do....endorsing the candidate he/she feels has the best chance of winning from their party.

I do agree about the last statement. At the same time, I'm not sure someone like Humphries or Norick could've gotten the Hornets here though, so Cornett does deserve the praise for that. I think we'll have to see what Cornett does in the next term as mayor. So far he is just riding on the coattails of his predecessors.

[Patrick]

I think Istook will win the primary just because of his name. But, Henry is a pretty popular governor, rightly so. Some may ask what has Henry done. Well, ask any teacher and they'll tell you that he turned around an educational system that was about to lay off many of its teachers before Henry stepped in and rearranged the state budget to come up with the money to fund our educational system. I'd say Henry's biggest accomplishment outside of the lottery and all, has been the way he's put together the state budget every year. The only area that's really suffered under his watch has been the tourism department, but even he's trying to solve that problem by putting Nigh in charge....a very smart move IMO.

[Midtowner]

Henry deserves whatever credit is owed to him for signing whatever Scott Meacham puts in front of him.

[BDP]

At the same time, I'm not sure someone like Humphries or Norick could've gotten the Hornets here though, so Cornett does deserve the praise for that.

He does deserve the praise, and I don't mean to take away from that. Given the same resources, though, I think Humphries and Norck could have done it. Maybe not during their terms, but given the same situation I think the Hornets would have come with any of those guys at the helm. It was, afterall, conceived as a gesture of aide in light of Katrina. It is not like he got the NBA to expand to locate in OKC or facilitated an outright relocation. He deserves credit for not wasting an opportunity to help both a displaced business and the city's stature, but I wouldn't say he went out and did something no one could do. It was 1/2 act of God and another half made up of Norick, Humphries, Cornett, Bennett, and others. If the levies don't break, our chances of getting an NBA team would be exactly the same as in July 2005.

he's simply endorsing the candidate of that party he thinks has a chance of winning

I agree, but why do we need our mayor playing the partisan poltics game? I don't see how it helps our city to have the mayor using his office in this way. He is doing it 100% for personal gain, and I think that's what rubs people the wrong way. Outside of the Hornets, his biggest legacy may actually be turning city hall into an openly partisan operation, which the city has tried to avoid. I don't see that as a step forward.

[Midtowner]

As to the partisanship issue, I agree partially. Sometimes though, being partisan opens just as many doors as it shuts.

[BDP]

Sometimes though, being partisan opens just as many doors as it shuts.

Yes, but so does being part of the mob. It means always owing something to the party. The party helped Cornett get elected in a much more agressive way than at any other time I've lived her. Now he owes the party some endorsements. It means he now works for the party as much or more than the people of Oklahoma City. I just don't trust it anymore than I trust the Good Ole Boy network.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

. . . . but why do we need our mayor playing the partisan poltics game? I don't see how it helps our city to have the mayor using his office in this way.

I couldn't agree more BDP. It's bad enough that it is so prevelent at the State and National level. Cornett endorsing Istook in no way serves the good of the citizens of Oklahoma City. Elected officials doing the right thing has absolutely taken a back seat to any means of gaining political advantage. And what's worse, is that the media just accepts it as business as usual and lets it all slide by without a question being asked.

Public party politics at City Hall started big-time with Humphreys and has only gotten worse since. During the Mayoral election between Cornett and Tolbert, the Republicans published and mailed one of the most disgusting pieces of partisan trash ever seen in an OKC municipal campaign. Cornett disavowed any responsibility, but it's hard to believe that it went out without his knowledge. Of course the Democrats would have done the same thing if given the opportunity.

I like Mayor Cornett and think he is doing a very good job representing The City. I just wish that he would demonstrate the character to say no to party politics except as an individual and not use his non-partisan municipal office to make endorsements.

As far as Istook goes, I think the Republicans are simply embarrassed by him and convinced him to run for Governor to get him out of DC. He overstepped his authority as chair of the Transportation Committee, pissed off most of his cronies and got tossed out on his ear. He is a totally off the charts right wing ass. I hope his days are numbered and we won't have to see or hear much more from him. I simply can't imagine him as a Governor.

[metro]

I couldn't agree more BDP. It's bad enough that it is so prevelent at the State and National level. Cornett endorsing Istook in no way serves the good of the citizens of Oklahoma City. Elected officials doing the right thing has absolutely taken a back seat to any means of gaining political advantage. And what's worse, is that the media just accepts it as business as usual and lets it all slide by without a question being asked.

Public party politics at City Hall started big-time with Humphreys and has only gotten worse since. During the Mayoral election between Cornett and Tolbert, the Republicans published and mailed one of the most disgusting pieces of partisan trash ever seen in an OKC municipal campaign. Cornett disavowed any responsibility, but it's hard to believe that it went out without his knowledge. Of course the Democrats would have done the same thing if given the opportunity.

I like Mayor Cornett and think he is doing a very good job representing The City. I just wish that he would demonstrate the character to say no to party politics except as an individual and not use his non-partisan municipal office to make endorsements.

As far as Istook goes, I think the Republicans are simply embarrassed by him and convinced him to run for Governor to get him out of DC. He overstepped his authority as chair of the Transportation Committee, pissed off most of his cronies and got tossed out on his ear. He is a totally off the charts right wing ass. I hope his days are numbered and we won't have to see or hear much more from him. I simply can't imagine him as a Governor.

Well said, ODTG, Cornett, a highly respected man on my charts, just dropped down about 10 or more notches after this endorsement. In no way does endorsing Istook better the city of OKC. The mayoral and other municipal offices in OKC are nonpartisan unlike Tulsa. It is purely for personal and partisan gain as far as I'm concerned at this point. Istook is definitely not getting my vote. I still think Cornett is a great mayor by far, better than most we've had in awhile, although as far as respect, he's lost a lot of mine. What ticks me off the most is the media around here, no one except the Gazette has the guts to do real investigative journalism.

[Midtowner]

The rest of the media (or their parent organizations) are too busy getting rich doing business with guys like Istook to care about anything else.

[SoonerDave]

I've always been a bit uncertain about Istook, and I think he has basically no chance as Governor, but I guess I'm curious about what he's done to generate some of the venom I've read about him here? Is it just that he's conservative?

As I said, I'm no particular Istook fan, but I'm wondering what the rest of so many of you seem to dislike about him in particular...

On the other hand, I think Brad Henry deserves an irrevocable award as Most Invisible Governor in American History. It is astounding to me that a governor whose only primary resume entries include an endorsement from Barry Switzer and rollout of this pathetic "education" lottery is going to win a second term in an almost unopposed fashion.

-SoonerDave

[Keith]

On the other hand, I think Brad Henry deserves an irrevocable award as Most Invisible Governor in American History. It is astounding to me that a governor whose only primary resume entries include an endorsement from Barry Switzer and rollout of this pathetic "education" lottery is going to win a second term in an almost unopposed fashion.

-SoonerDave

I agree 100% with the above statement.

[Patrick]

I think the act that you haven't heard much about Brad Henry is a good thing. Here are the good things he has done that the media just dsoesn't mention:

1. When he came to office the state was in a huge budget crisis. Things were so bad, we were about to lay off tons of teachers. Henry slowly but surely has come up with extra money by re-examining the budget, and rebuilding the budget using an auditing system. Many agencies that couldn't vouch for where their money was going, simply aren't getting it anymore. He turned an educational system around...one that was laying off teachers to one that's now given teachers several raises.

Getting the state into a good financial state was enough by itself to get Brad Henry re-elected.

Again, the media doesn't mention this because it isn't corrupt. It's actually good news.

Actually, before Henry took office, we were about to scrap a lot of projects. The partly finished history museum was on the chopping block, and Henry uncovered money to finish that project.

I think with another term you'll continue to see improvements result from his zero-based budgeting plan.

2. The education lottery is definitely an accomplishment, especially since we're in a very conservative state. The way the bill was written will prevent money from being taken from the education general fund, so all of this money will go towards education.

3. I know some people won't agree, but I know Henry did a lot of work behind the scenes to try to keep GM here. He did almost everything except giving them the entire state. They still wouldn't give in. He definitely came up with th emost ambitious package ever to keep a corporation here.

4. You're going to see a complete overhaul of our state park system very soon. Appointing Former Governor Nigh to the position as leader over the tourism dept. was the one of the wisest decisions he's made.

[Midtowner]

Istook has done some things which I'd be afraid to put into writing, but if you do some searching on his relationship with the LDS church, you might find something.

Otherwise, I could start with something that is both disturbing and well documented. He required his own constituents to lobby him and it looks like the ones that lobbied the most got a prett good return on their investment.

This is something that even his colleague Tom Cole was openly astounded with.

[Patrick]

About Ernest Istook....here are some things he's done...

1. Cry for years that we didn't have enough money to complete the Crosstown, yet, he didn't fight agressively for the money. Instead he fought to get Salt Lake more transportation dollars. No lie. Then he cried that the state and city needed to step up to the plate. Henry and Cornett said they'd contribute some, but since it is a FEDERAL interstate, both felt the bulk of the money should come from the FEDERAL government.

2. Don Nichols had money appropriated to build a light rail system downtown. Istook fought hard against it, saying it was waste, and OKC could use a cheaper rubber tire trolley system for cheaper. So, the money that was appropriated to us, wasn't given to us. Thanks to Mr. Istook.

Then Istook turned around and voted to give federal money to Salt Lake City for their light rail system.

So, who is Istook fighting for anyways? Oklahoma or Utah? I'd say the latter. He's spent far more time in congress concerned about their affairs than our own.

[Patrick]

By the way, add me in as one that's extremely disappointed in our mayor. It makes me think much less of him.

[SoonerDave]

I had no problem with Istook opposing a light rail project for any metro area, but if, indeed, he opposed an Oklahoma City rail for "federal" money reasons, then endorsed a substantially similar Utah project, then it is clear he is a political hypocrite of the highest and most dangerous order. My concerns about Istook have been related to his LDS ties in a very general sense, but I had not heard suggestions that he was directly and specifically lobbying for their benefit at our state's expense. That's staggering.

As far as Henry's "zero-based" budgeting, I guess I'm confused. The Oklahoma state constitution requires a balanced budget, if I'm not mistaken (please correct if I'm wrong), so I'm not sure how it is *Henry's" "zero-based" budgeting idea. If he shuffled money from one pot to another to fund certain higher profile projects, that's very good, but seemingly something a good CPA could accomplish as well.

I want to see a leader that is involved in education *reform*, not shuffling money and building lotteries to subsidize and therefore perpetuate the status quo. That requires, in many circumstances, directly opposing the very constituency that endorsed him directly due to his sham "education" lottery.

I make no pretense that there is a viable alternative on the map to oppose him. I merely wish someone with a) true leadership and B) a backbone could run for governor. Alas, there seems to be no such candidate on the horizon.

Perhaps for his next term Henry will endorse the legalization of prostitution as something that can be taxed for the benefit of education, then classified as a "job training" program that can qualify for the state Quality Jobs program... (insert severe sarcasm icon here).

-SoonerDave

[Midtowner]

SD -- "invisible" is not a problem in my mind when it comes to politicians. Having lots of press conferences and public opinions is not part of running the state effectively.

What you must ask is this question: Is the state better off than it was 4 years ago? My answer is yes. While I'm not sure that Henry is a dynamic leader, a brilliant mind, or anything like that, one thing is for certain: He surrounds himself with quality people. From appointing Scott Meachem as State Treasurer to Nigh as Director of Tourism, this Governor has been puttin gthe right people in the right jobs from day one. I give the credit for our state's well-run budget to Meachem, not Henry. You can't dismiss the fact though that had Henry not been elected, we probably would not have found the financial discipline that we have today.

As far as meaningful educational reform (e.g. district consolidation), don't expect that anytime soon. That's a hotbutton topic in rural Oklahoma and as long as it remains so, our rural-dominated legislature will never allow it.

As for the lottery, if you don't like it, don't play it. Otherwise, I don't see what your objection could possibly be. Are there more dollars going towards education than before? Without question. My biggest objection is to the amount paid to the company managing the lottery, but that's another issue. Are we better off with the lottery than without? I think so.

-- As to the Republican Primary (which I'm registered to vote in), thus far, I'm casting my lot with Bob Sullivan. I think he has a better shot at the general election than a divisive Istook does and I'm extremely impressed with some of the folks he's recruited to his staff. Other than that, I need to learn more about him before I make a decision on the general election (assuming he wins the primary).

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Going back to the topic of the thread . . . . . On more than one occasion, I have heard Mayor Cornett respond to the direct question, "Do you plan to run for a State or National office before your term as OKC Mayor is completed?", with a vague, non-committal answer that leaves the door open to his taking that step. Obviously, he wants to stay in the good graces of the Republican Party and his personal friends, which are likely to share the same party affiliation, and it’s not likely that his endorsement of Istook will be seen by them as inappropriate.

The only thing we can be certain of is that he isn't running for Governor in 2006. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see CORNETT FOR GOVERNOR signs in 2010 though, assuming that Henry returns for a second term this time around. IMO, Cornett's style translates much better into a Governor than it does into Senator or Congressman.

[BDP]

but seemingly something a good CPA could accomplish as well.

Exactly, but he found the guys to do it, no one else did.

I want to see a leader that is involved in education *reform*, not shuffling money and building lotteries to subsidize and therefore perpetuate the status quo. That requires, in many circumstances, directly opposing the very constituency that endorsed him directly due to his sham "education" lottery.

You can not reform something that is not solvent. Before Henry, the Oklahoma school system could not pass an audit. In this case, financial solvency WAS reform. Sometimes it's not the system, but the way it is run. There is no guarantee that any sensible reform would have lead to better management. It is now much better managed and gives our system a chance without dismantling it for reform. And, if meaningful reform ever is to be implemented, it is now in a much better position for it to actually work.

I don't think Henry is all world or anything, but I applaud his low key leadership. He is working for our state, not just politicking for his party or his job. He's not just playing to subjective and superficial issues that the media likes to cover, but addressing real issues that, while they may not be ratings boosters, actually affect people's lives. Like others have said, he surrounds himself with competent people. IMO, that is the #1 responsibility for any leader, especially the head of an executive branch of government

Could he better if he was a bit more dynamic? Sure, but I would never trade any amount of competence for dynamics. In fact, I think that is what trade is made when partisan politics begin to rule and that's why it's sad to see Cornett go that route.

As for Istook, he gets elected for his marketed position as a fiscally conservative small government minded republican. However, he uses that philosophy to strangle Oklahoma, but abandons it for spending measures outside of Oklahoma if the money is right. We all know about Utah, but it has happened elsewhere as well:

http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.ph...76&IssueNum=92

[SoonerDave]

Otherwise, I don't see what your objection could possibly be. Are there more dollars going towards education than before? Without question.

Note: As someone else noted, this is getting off-topic, so I'll limit my further posts on this aspect of the discussion to this reply, and not carry it further.

We have already heard the state lottery commission report drastically lower participation and revenue than we were promised, which were themselves based on figures that Oklahoma couldn't possibly sustain. I wish I had the figures at hand, because I fear someone will insist I am manufacturing that statement, but it is true.

Are there more dollars going to education? Real dollars? Only on paper, under the heading "lottery." We can rest assured, however, that every future education budget will take into account the *prospective* dollars the Lottery is supposed to haul in by the bucketload, and thus inherently flatten if not reduce the actual growth of the education budget. The syndrome is not unique to Oklahoma.

I oppose (and don't play) the lottery on personal grounds; I abhor the idea that we have raced to this "non-solution" rather than fight for *real* reform; mandatory district consolidation, mandatory elimination of administrative overhead. I abhor the idea that, as a state, we're telling people that a get-rich-quick scheme is the way to financial responsibility, and that we will prey on our very poorest to subsidize the expense that arises from the vacuum of political leadership in our state.

I also fully realize that the lottery is here to stay, so the debate about its merits is essentially moot. The financial charlatans that play the sleight-of-hand games with the numbers that promised a financial panacea for education won the PR campaign, and will never be accountable in the years to come with reality doesn't match their promises - which many advocated were simply mathematically impossible to begin with.

As I said before, this has strayed off-topic, and I will close my rant about the lottery with this post. My apologies if I have offended any lottery participants or individuals in the education system. Having studied the fraud of this lottery from its inception, it is a hot-button of anger and abject deception for me.

-SoonerDave

[BDP]

I don't opposed the lottery on any moral or personal level. I do agree with you, though, that it is not a real "fix". My real worry is a subjective one. I fear the presence of the lottery will dampen support for other funding options in the future when needed. But that is why I applaud Henry and the current executive administration for combining the lottery measure with much better fiscal planning and management by the education department. If the lottery was implemented as a "fix-all", I'd be very worried, but it did not prevent his office from working on the "less sexy" and less reported on facets as well. In truth, the lottery thus far has been only a part of their work on the educational system. Thus far, they have chosen to work on what is in their power and responsibility instead of trying to change the minds of others.

I agree with your area of concern, but that will take an act of the legislature and most seemed dead locked against it. I think Henry's office, with this term anyway, has said "what can we do now" instead of "what can we get others to do later". They have taken a pragmatic approach and made a lot of fixes, instead of just chasing idealistic pipe dreams.

What we need, at least as far as partisan lines go, is a Democratic governor to manage it and a republican legislature to change it.