I've heard bad things about both candidates but I've not yet been able to get through all the mudslinging to hear what someone (who can be somewhat unbiased) thinks our city would be like if Dewey won vs what it would be like if Adelson won. ie business climate, taxes, police/fd, streets, etc. What would Dewey do good and what would Adelson do good? Who would be more geared towards improving the business climate and growing the job base in Tulsa? TIA!
You want specifics?!
...please present yourself for re-training at your earliest possibility.
In the meantime, you still have two choices. Undervote or go independent.
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 09, 2009, 02:20:51 PM
You want specifics?!
...please present yourself for re-training at your earliest possibility.
In the meantime, you still have two choices. Undervote or go independent.
I guess I posted this because I'm drowning in specifics and most of them are bashing the person they are talking about. In general, I'm sure that each candidate would do some positive things and some negative things. Which one of these guys would be better for the business climate in Tulsa? I've excluded Perkins from this because I don't think he has a chance.
I felt the same way till last nite. My mom counseled me to imagine the city under each leader and then eliminate the one I just couldn't see succeeding.
I have to say that Bartlett reminds me of LaFortune. He'll be depressed and gaining weight before the first year is over. You'll see him running along the river path at 10am on a Tuesday morning looking for respite. The city will be in the hands of idealogues and gob's. That's my gut feeling.
I worry that Adelson will not be able to identify with average workday stiffs, but I don't see him having difficulty with taking the reins of the city and challenging its bureacracy. His state legislative time is the deciding factor.
I'm going to the Waffle House for dinner.
Quote from: waterboy on November 09, 2009, 02:28:04 PM
I felt the same way till last nite. My mom counseled me to imagine the city under each leader and then eliminate the one I just couldn't see succeeding.
I have to say that Bartlett reminds me of LaFortune. He'll be depressed and gaining weight before the first year is over. You'll see him running along the river path at 10am on a Tuesday morning looking for respite. The city will be in the hands of idealogues and gob's. That's my gut feeling.
I worry that Adelson will not be able to identify with average workday stiffs, but I don't see him having difficulty with taking the reins of the city and challenging its bureacracy. His state legislative time is the deciding factor.
I feel the same way. I actually really like Perkins because he has new fresh ideas and hasn't been shaped by politics and bureaucracy. But then again having a complete newbie taking the reigns of the city would be risky. I really think he should run for an inner city council position first and then go for mayor where he would probably win. He already has really made an impact on this election like no independent ever has in Tulsa (at least in recent memory). That being said I feel Adelson is best suited to move this city forward.
I have felt pretty disconnected from the whole campaign. Totally turned off by both major candidates and the tone of the race.
However, after reading the poll that showed Bartlett winning, I was shocked by the force of my reaction. Next, I read the results of Preserve Midtown's candidate survey. Both were galvanizing.
It was like a "mental coin flip" where you imagine an outcome, and see how it makes you feel.
Yikes!
re: the PM survey:
http://www.preservemidtown.com/ (http://www.preservemidtown.com/)
I appreciated that Adelson was willing to answer the survey questions, and seemed to have knowledge of the issues (or, at least, their existance). The response from Perkins tended to be "Good question. I need to study that." The response from Bartlett was revealing: "No response."
For some reason, this little survey, out of all the candidate forums and interviews and newspaper articles struck me the most: Bartlett may be a great citizen, but I don't want him to be mayor. Same for Perkins.
And while Adelson may have an annoying communication style, I do think that he has a pretty good grasp of policy and issues.
Most important to me:
Who's most likely to be an advocate/champion for PLANiTULSA? (Because we're going to need one!)
And...
Who will most likely stand idly by, while PLANiTULSA's bold new ideas and solutions are marginalized and compromised by those who profit by the current (failing) system?
Tulsa is at a pivitol moment in its history, and our future success is on the line. We can be the thriving heart of a region, or the empty hole in the center of a donut.
I'm voting Adelson. And hoping for the future.
Quote from: midtownnewbie on November 09, 2009, 02:27:47 PM
I guess I posted this because I'm drowning in specifics and most of them are bashing the person they are talking about. In general, I'm sure that each candidate would do some positive things and some negative things. Which one of these guys would be better for the business climate in Tulsa? I've excluded Perkins from this because I don't think he has a chance.
I'm completely anti-business at this point. They've had their way around here for the better part of a decade. I want representation. So, to ask me who the best candidate for 'business' would be is like a choice between death by hanging or firing squad.
Maybe anti-business is extreme. I don't wish them ill, just tired of our money going to the select few who really don't even need it.
There's been little done around here for small or incubator business, too.
And, the lack of focus on jobs, rather than just raising taxes and fees is obscene.
Perkins might be a breath of fresh air. Besides that, he's either going to go stepwise into the GOB realm, which will be interesting to watch, or he's going to take the reins and drive. I don't believe 'failure' is a possibility. There's too many 'helpful' hands willing to 'guide' him in 'proper' directions.
He's going to have to learn fast and be smart. There's a good chance he's capable, and I'm willing to gamble on it over the sure deal of more of the same.
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 09, 2009, 06:50:23 PM
I'm completely anti-business at this point.
How can you be anti-business? Do you not need a job? Are you a trust fund baby? I don't know you but your response makes you lose all your credibility in my book.
Thanks to everyone else for their responses...
Quote from: midtownnewbie on November 09, 2009, 09:52:22 PM
How can you be anti-business? Do you not need a job? Are you a trust fund baby? I don't know you but your response makes you lose all your credibility in my book.
Yes, reducing business' influence in government means they'll all close down. Nobody could possibly be for any restrictions on businesses unless they are independently wealthy. I think the term for that is 'drama queen.' ::)
I'm voting for the dude that drives the pick-up......
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 09, 2009, 10:06:47 PM
Maybe??? ::)
It's easy to take that comment out of context, just because of the way I stated it.
I've long been an advocate of reducing businesses' influence on elections. After all, corporations are paper entities. Elections are for individuals. With campaign finance as it is, paper entities have nearly re-focused campaigning to the art of gathering money in exchange for support of corporate views.
If it weren't for the actual balloting, the public could almost be removed from the process all together. With the way our city, in particular, runs, much of the peoples' business is done by un-elected boards, authorities and commissions.
So, that's what was meant by 'anti' business above.
I'm all for open markets where someone/company offers a product or service for a fair price (or one that the market might bear). Today, it's almost like a memory of days gone by.
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 10, 2009, 08:29:10 AM
It's easy to take that comment out of context, just because of the way I stated it.
Or maybe you simply ought to think before you turn on your computer.
On a related note, it's interesting to see what you're advocating. You're basically advocating campaign-finance reform.
So does that mean you also were in support of the much-maligned McCain-Feingold Act?
I sold my vote on Ebay. Now Grandpa can get that operation.
I, too, was still undecided and as usual, knew that TulsaNow posters would have some valuable insight. The negative campaigning really turned me off and made me want to vote Perkins strictly out of protest, and frankly the picture of the three candidates in front of the downtown skyline made me shudder. However, I can't vote for mayor based on how well (or poorly) a candidate dresses, and I agree that Mark Perkins probably doesn't have enough experience to govern. However, does having "wanted" to vote for him count for anything?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 10, 2009, 08:52:09 AM
Or maybe you simply ought to think before you turn on your computer.
On a related note, it's interesting to see what you're advocating. You're basically advocating campaign-finance reform.
So does that mean you also were in support of the much-maligned McCain-Feingold Act?
MF doesn't do it for me. It's a dent in the issue and provides means for an end-run around the intent.
Two things pretty much determine my position:
1) What rights are granted corporate entities by our Constitution?
and, 2) Who's election is it?
Elections are the peoples' method of selecting their representation.
The Constitution is centered on individual rights. Paper entities are not individuals.
I'm of the opinion corporations, even SIGS and PACS, role would be limited to affecting public opinion, not politicians. So, their money wouldn't be limited, just the focus. IOW, no direct contributions to politicians.
I'd go a step further and suggest the only people who should be allowed to donate directly to a campaign are persons (individuals) who can actually vote for that candidate.
All other activity by corps, PACs and SIGs would be directed directly at the constituancy to shape voter opinion, not buying candidates.
If candidates became dependent upon their actual constituancy for campaign funds, where do you think their focus would be? That's right, right where it should be, and was intended.