The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Trying to see if TulsaNow forumites can predict the election.

I'm not sure if Kathy did herself a favor in refusing to appear on Channel 6 this morning.  Her statement was along the lines of not being an "effective use of my time".

That comment won't play well with those who see her as an elitist, then again those who think that of her probably wouldn't vote for her in the first place.

I saw the segment with Bill Christiansen. They asked him about who should run the jail and then about schools then went to a commercial.

Does channel 6 actually know anything about what the Mayor actually does?

Quote from: Conan71 on June 04, 2013, 09:00:54 AM

That comment won't play well with those who see her as an elitist, then again those who think that of her probably wouldn't vote for her in the first place.

Anyone making a decision on a candidate due to their thoughts on elitism should work on their own self image.

Quote from: Townsend on June 04, 2013, 10:07:59 AM
Anyone making a decision on a candidate due to their thoughts on elitism should work on their own self image.

And how is that coming for you?  ;)

Quote from: Conan71 on June 04, 2013, 11:04:49 AM
And how is that coming for you?  ;)

They're all stuck up and it's freaking me out.

Quote from: Conan71 on June 04, 2013, 09:00:54 AM
I'm not sure if Kathy did herself a favor in refusing to appear on Channel 6 this morning.  Her statement was along the lines of not being an "effective use of my time".

That comment won't play well with those who see her as an elitist, then again those who think that of her probably wouldn't vote for her in the first place.

Is Channel 6 the working man's channel?

The people who think that aren't voting for her anyway.

I asked my wife about the channel 6 morning show debate and she said they got a lot of requests from a lot of different groups to debate and many of them were last minute. They had already agreed to two debates in a three day period and politely said no.

There is a live debate being televised and on radio this Thursday night at 6:00pm.

Quote from: sgrizzle on June 04, 2013, 02:47:22 PM
Is Channel 6 the working man's channel?

The people who think that aren't voting for her anyway.

That's pretty much what I said.  Dewey declined and said he granted an "exclusive" to another station.

I don't have a personal problem with Christiansen, but I just can't get excited about him, he's not engaging as a candidate.  For some reason I've got an odd feeling Dewey will be re-elected.  He hasn't had any major issues recently and the misinformation circling about Kathy "abandoning" the city when we needed her most doesn't help, but then again the people repeating it were not likely Taylor voters in the first place.

City has gotten way better under Bartlett, but I think that is because of what was done under Taylor. Yes? No?

One thing for certain which has improved, is the mayor's relationship with the City Council.  Though I think that has more to do with some petulant children who are no longer on the Council. 

I still think Bartlet (sic) is a hapless bumpkin and I can't honestly say his admin has been a bust.  However, I've been disappointed that Plani-Tulsa has more or less died under his watch and it's something that needs a mayor to help shepherd.

I think Kathy is one of the better visionaries we've had in decades that's one reason why I would be happy with her being back in office.

I predict that Kathy will not win in south Tulsa since (I read somewhere) that she is the only candidate to not specifically come out against the bridge to Bixby from Yale/121st.

I originally thought that Taylor was the favorite to win outright. But she hasn't done well with her answers on pertinent questions and Bartlett has.

I see a runoff coming. The question is which two? Bartlett is old school which is why he often appears out of synch with modern Republicans and totally alien to the far right. He loses North and West Tulsa but takes midtown and East. Christiansen looks attractive as a south Tulsa candidate but less so from a midtowners view. His support will be in the more populous and wealthy South obviously but its more than that. He seems like a guy who knows practical stuff and works for his constituents. Hated the biblical marriage comment.

Interesting that Taylor allowed herself to be portrayed as not just a woman running for mayor but a woman's candidate. She must have written off middle age white guys or saw some polling that indicated that women are more active voters.

Taylor vs Christiansen.

Quote from: AquaMan on June 07, 2013, 01:11:55 PM
I originally thought that Taylor was the favorite to win outright. But she hasn't done well with her answers on pertinent questions and Bartlett has.

I see a runoff coming. The question is which two? Bartlett is old school which is why he often appears out of synch with modern Republicans and totally alien to the far right. He loses North and West Tulsa but takes midtown and East. Christiansen looks attractive as a south Tulsa candidate but less so from a midtowners view. His support will be in the more populous and wealthy South obviously but its more than that. He seems like a guy who knows practical stuff and works for his constituents. Hated the biblical marriage comment.

Interesting that Taylor allowed herself to be portrayed as not just a woman running for mayor but a woman's candidate. She must have written off middle age white guys or saw some polling that indicated that women are more active voters.

Taylor vs Christiansen.

The development community is strongly against Christiansen, or at least all of the builders and developers that I know.  He made things difficult for many of them when he was a counselor.  I would have to say it's going to be an election between Taylor and Bartlett, with the business community going towards Bartlett and the public sector and women's vote going to Taylor.

Bartlett has been nothing more than lackluster in the public eye, but from a business standpoint he has done a good job.  His strength with the business community is due to a very conservative approach to government. The city has added almost 10k jobs, has tens of millions in savings including the rainy day fund, and hasen't proposed a laundry list of new tax-payer-funded programs to screw all that up.  He has allowed Tulsa to grow through the private sector.  I however still have a hard time viewing him as a leader because he lacks the ability to articulate his vision, but perhaps that's my own failing. 

Taylor's appeal and major hurtle is the same.  Her platform is based on an ever-expanding list of new programs and policies, and is based on the necessary public sector expansion necessary to accomplish them.  Yes, we want all of this stuff, but she offers no reality on how she intends to pay for them.  Visit her website and you get a scroll of issues 3 pages long without any consideration, recognition, or concern for cost.  There are a lot of underpants gnomes there, and it brings back memories of the past out-of-control spending we seem to have overcome.

As a Southie, I like Christiansen because he has been a very good servent to my district in the past and always accessible, I just don't think he stands a chance against the Taylor spending machine or the Bartlett business machine.

This election is going to require some serious consideration.

Taylor wins in either June or November. I am willing to bet booze or a bag of cheeseburgers. Any takers?

 One of my main concerns is future growth in the city, aka "infill" and whether or not we will continue with trying to do suburban style only (with good urban staying illegal), or whether the next mayor will be an advocate for either a freer market approach (getting rid of suburban style zoning in many areas and allowing the free market to choose) and or advocating for good urban style zoning in appropriate areas.

And all of the above immediately impacts transit.  You can't have good, affordable, effective transit without nodes of good urban zoning.

Bartlett is for the status quo.  I have a feeling that I know where Taylor stands.   I have no idea where Christiansen resides on those issues, anyone know?

Quote from: Gaspar on June 07, 2013, 01:39:47 PM
Bartlett has been nothing more than lackluster in the public eye, but from a business standpoint he has done a good job.  His strength with the business community is due to a very conservative approach to government. The city has added almost 10k jobs, has tens of millions in savings including the rainy day fund, and hasen't proposed a laundry list of new tax-payer-funded programs to screw all that up.  He has allowed Tulsa to grow through the private sector.  I however still have a hard time viewing him as a leader because he lacks the ability to articulate his vision, but perhaps that's my own failing. 

What the heck was Vision 2?
$43.6 million: Tulsa Zoo

Quote from: TheArtist on June 07, 2013, 05:39:09 PM
One of my main concerns is future growth in the city, aka "infill" and whether or not we will continue with trying to do suburban style only (with good urban staying illegal), or whether the next mayor will be an advocate for either a freer market approach (getting rid of suburban style zoning in many areas and allowing the free market to choose) and or advocating for good urban style zoning in appropriate areas.

And all of the above immediately impacts transit.  You can't have good, affordable, effective transit without nodes of good urban zoning.

Bartlett is for the status quo.  I have a feeling that I know where Taylor stands.   I have no idea where Christiansen resides on those issues, anyone know?

Christiansen told Rich Fisher on KWGS Studio Tulsa that transit was "not a priority for him"

http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kwgs/audio/2013/06/studiotulsa130605.mp3 (http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kwgs/audio/2013/06/studiotulsa130605.mp3)

Quote from: carltonplace on June 10, 2013, 09:18:07 AM
Christiansen told Rich Fisher on KWGS Studio Tulsa that transit was "not a priority for him"

http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kwgs/audio/2013/06/studiotulsa130605.mp3 (http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kwgs/audio/2013/06/studiotulsa130605.mp3)

Bartlett is no great visionary on transit either. Other than a north/south line on Peoria (underwhelming) none of the candidates has expressed much excitement.

Isn't anyone concerned about a poll done on cell phones and land lines that has a margin of error of 4.9%? I know you have to go with what you've got, but that isn't a very strong poll imo.

Nonetheless I guess it could be off by 15% and it would still be a Bartlett/Taylor runoff. The executive president vs the CEO.

My interest is primarily in development of the river.

On this issue Bartlett showed more insight and involvement than the other two. He correctly noted that progress on the river would follow putting water in the river and activities on the river NOT development of its shores. That is something I was soundly criticized around here for pointing out nearly a decade ago. He also has made sure infrastructure for the gathering place is being planned for by the city. Raising the height of the dam was supported by all three candidates, but after that they differed significantly.

Bartlett recognizes that Tulsa is the main player re the river. As such he sees Tulsa taking the leadership in partnership with private interests to make improvements and changes. That will act as the catalyst for further improvements up and downstream from us. That is simply borne out by history. The burbs have their own interests and they're unlikely to work well with their big brother on projects that slow them down. V2025 was the only exception and that included lots of free bologna to get their attention.

Christiansen wants to partner with the Tribes to effect building a dam and putting water in the river downstream. That's a no brainer for Jenks and south Tulsa where the casino resides and they own businesses on both sides of the river, yet not very palatable upstream. The tribes are players downstream whether they want them or not but I don't relish seeing them increase their participation upstream.

Taylor focused on creating a large authority to oversee any development and operations on the river with input from the public. Because the current 35 year old authority has been so successful?  That implies another decade of non-activity and sleight of hand by the same types of players. And her favored partner? The refineries. The same ones that in the past had so little respect for the river. Pragmatically, they have money and influence and perhaps can re-create what Devon did in OKC but refineries ain't like office workers.

IOW, they are all going to be the River Development Mayor!

Quote from: AquaMan on June 10, 2013, 09:49:52 AM
My interest is primarily in development of the river.

On this issue Bartlett showed more insight and involvement than the other two. He correctly noted that progress on the river would follow putting water in the river and activities on the river NOT development of its shores. That is something I was soundly criticized around here for pointing out nearly a decade ago. He also has made sure infrastructure for the gathering place is being planned for by the city. Raising the height of the dam was supported by all three candidates, but after that they differed significantly.

Bartlett recognizes that Tulsa is the main player re the river. As such he sees Tulsa taking the leadership in partnership with private interests to make improvements and changes. That will act as the catalyst for further improvements up and downstream from us. That is simply borne out by history. The burbs have their own interests and they're unlikely to work well with their big brother on projects that slow them down. V2025 was the only exception and that included lots of free bologna to get their attention.

Christiansen wants to partner with the Tribes to effect building a dam and putting water in the river downstream. That's a no brainer for Jenks and south Tulsa where the casino resides and they own businesses on both sides of the river, yet not very palatable upstream. The tribes are players downstream whether they want them or not but I don't relish seeing them increase their participation upstream.

Taylor focused on creating a large authority to oversee any development and operations on the river with input from the public. Because the current 35 year old authority has been so successful?  That implies another decade of non-activity and sleight of hand by the same types of players. And her favored partner? The refineries. The same ones that in the past had so little respect for the river. Pragmatically, they have money and influence and perhaps can re-create what Devon did in OKC but refineries ain't like office workers.

IOW, they are all going to be the River Development Mayor!

You hit on something very important.  Bureaucracy is (and was) the house that Kathy Taylor lives in.  The one thing I admired about Bartlett is that he is rather uninterested in building layers of consensus before making common sense decisions.  Taylor likes to build committees, authorities, and other funded groups who's existence always turns to prolonged self preservation.  Again, if you read through the "issues" section of her website, you see the seeds of several new bureaucracies, and layers of impotent committee management.  This form of governance also shields her from being challenged on issues, because it provides the option to deflect criticism to whatever group she has assembled or proposed.

I am critical of Christiansen's connection to the tribes, because their sole intrest is related to expansion of gaming.  It's not a moral thing with me, it's pragmatic.  The casinos serve a poor purpose.  They produce nothing, and drain resources.  From a productivity standpoint, there is very little difference between someone addicted to Meth, and the guy that sits in front of a slot machine all day draining his paycheck. Both are seeking a similar thrill at great expense. 

This election sucks!

You do what you know. Corporate people love bureaucracy for its obvious shielding abilities but it does often work. Just like increasing cubic inches will usually increase horsepower.

And some sort of umbrella needs to be in place for co-ordinating policy, procedures, rules and regs for the river if nothing else to keep the upstream partners from shutting the valve on downstream partners. But I thought INCOG was the vehicle for that.

It is interesting that all three have a different view on this issue but it won't be the deciding issue. Likely party voting.

What we need to see is some sort of Tesla thinking.

Quote from: AquaMan on June 10, 2013, 09:49:52 AM


Bartlett recognizes that Tulsa is the main player re the river. As such he sees Tulsa taking the leadership in partnership with private interests to make improvements and changes. That will act as the catalyst for further improvements up and downstream from us. That is simply borne out by history. The burbs have their own interests and they're unlikely to work well with their big brother on projects that slow them down. V2025 was the only exception and that included lots of free bologna to get their attention.

Private/public development: Channels anyone?  We all know how that worked out.

Considering the promises of filling the river in the subsequent 2007 River Tax smash & grab proposal and the myriad of problems with the Zink Lake LWD not holding water-even though there were supposedly funds in V-2025 to correct that, "The Landing" on the west bank would have been looking out over sand bars the last couple of years.  Not real attractive!

I'm with you, I'd love to see development along the river, well-thought out development not development for the sake of saying we did it.  Of course, Kaiser's concept for the east side is really intriguing.  Whomever is mayor when that is shepherded in will get to take credit for it.

I'm not sure that four more years of Bartlett inertia is what we need. I don't think Chrisitansen will focus enough on downtown and I'm most interested in seeing the momentum in this part of town continue to grow. So I'm following my Downtown District 4 councilor and backing Taylor.

I got water in the river. I made some phone calls and did a rain dance.

You are welcome.

Let me be more specific. Clear or reasonably clean water. Not that yellow stuff you might be putting in there.

Seriously, I think what is meant by "water in the river" is how water is managed in the river to effect its usability. I will always prefer my canalization concept but whether its state of the art dams, breakwaters, canals or simply pumping the water we were going to sell to the burbs into it, water is key.....(what did he just say?)

Looks like Dewey has a good chance at four more years.

I don't know about that. An incumbent Mayor only getting 34% in a three way race ain't anything to be proud of. The very high turnout in South Tulsa because of a contested County Commissioner race helped him as well. I don't see how many of the Christiansen voters can forgive Dewey for his negative campaigning against their candidate.

In November, there will be a bond issue for streets that will bring out a more balanced voting pattern citywide. It will be hard to get past the fact that 2 out of 3 Tulsans voted against him.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 12, 2013, 08:13:23 AM
I don't know about that. An incumbent Mayor only getting 34% in a three way race ain't anything to be proud of. The very high turnout in South Tulsa because of a contested County Commissioner race helped him as well. I don't see how many of the Christiansen voters can forgive Dewey for his negative campaigning against their candidate.

In November, there will be a bond issue for streets that will bring out a more balanced voting pattern citywide. It will be hard to get past the fact that 2 out of 3 Tulsans voted against him.

I'm in South Tulsa and was surprised that Dewey won my Precinct. The signs in my neighborhood were like 60% Bill, 39% Kathy, 1% Dewey.

I think perhaps the challengers have underestimated the fact that stuff is actually getting done without all the hoopla, and bureaucracy. 

Dewey is a wet noodle when it comes to presentation, but he seems to be accomplishing things without the need to do a media blitz or glamour shot every time he walks out of a building.

OMG!  Google "Glamour Shots"  The images will keep you busy for hours!
(http://umbrella-eqal.s3.amazonaws.com/s3photo/S9oJimz6GWaMbQyeLK35g6v6.jpeg)

There was a well-played strategy on the Bartlet (sic) campaign.  I don't recall hearing ads going after Taylor, but there were plenty of ads airing on the radio and TV against Christiansen.  They correctly estimated that they needed to marginalize Christiansen as much as possible and hope for a run-off with Taylor.  I don't know why they wouldn't have gone after Taylor and tried for an out-right win or perhaps they figured even though this was a non-partisan election that the (R) vote was splitting between Dewey and Bill. 

Now what happens to the Christiansen voters?  Do they like Dewey less than Taylor or Taylor less than Dewey?  Will they buy into advertising painting Taylor as a tax-and-spend liberal, a gun-grubber, and Obama supporter?

Kathy Taylor seems to have a pretty steady following and she should retain all the voters from yesterday, but how does she appeal to the conservative base that Christiansen has?  That will be a really tough task.

Good analysis. I think Bartlett played it well by understanding this as a party race and picturing Christiansen as too much of a fringe guy. Now the race gets real close and people watch for mistakes. Bartlett's proposed counter to the city counsilors budget may be that mistake. Guns or butter?

Taylor took my area and most of the North it looks like by 2-1. But the combo of Bartlett/Christiansen was just as strong out south.  If the majority of Christiansen followers lean Bartlett's direction this could expose a real North-South-East-West division in the city.

I still see KT's emphasis on gender as the deciding factor. Look at the pictures in the World the last few days. Bartlett is backgrounded with mostly men and family. KT is backgrounded with women, no family. It is a factor.

Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2013, 09:53:23 AM
There was a well-played strategy on the Bartlet (sic) campaign.  I don't recall hearing ads going after Taylor, but there were plenty of ads airing on the radio and TV against Christiansen.  They correctly estimated that they needed to marginalize Christiansen as much as possible and hope for a run-off with Taylor.  I don't know why they wouldn't have gone after Taylor and tried for an out-right win or perhaps they figured even though this was a non-partisan election that the (R) vote was splitting between Dewey and Bill.  

Now what happens to the Christiansen voters?  Do they like Dewey less than Taylor or Taylor less than Dewey?  Will they buy into advertising painting Taylor as a tax-and-spend liberal, a gun-grubber, and Obama supporter?

Kathy Taylor seems to have a pretty steady following and she should retain all the voters from yesterday, but how does she appeal to the conservative base that Christiansen has?  That will be a really tough task.

I think the media will play a big part too.  When she was mayor, Taylor was always in front of a camera.  You could hardly escape a day in the Tulsa Whirld without at least two shots of KT at a fundraising event, or a dinner, or awards ceremony.  She provided layers of eloquent statements, and sound-bytes.  If someone was giving money, taking money, or having a dedication, KT was there front-and-center. She was an excellent PR figure for Tulsa.  Dewey is just not all that.  

I think the media recognizes this, and will work very hard to present KT in a favorable light.

Besides that, KT's own internal campaign media machine is amazing.  My wife has kept all of the KT swag from the past couple of weeks that was posted on our door/doorstep.  We have 2 different door hangers, one large glossy brochure, and 4 or 5 small postcard sized sheets.  In the mail we received 4 different mailers, all made of the best paper with high gloss aqueous coating.  I think we probably have 1/2 a trees worth of campaign swag from Taylor.  For Bartlett, we received a single postcard and one door hanger.  Both were the same design with the same copy, and the photography was amateur.  His PR group sucks, but at least he's not blowing a bunch of money on paper.  He's going to have to step it up if he is going to compete against the Taylor media machine.

That Taylor media machine was something. She must have good people (disclosure...I kinda know one of them).

Remember that Kathy beat an incumbent republican Mayor for her first term. Bill LaFortune and Dewey very similar candidates and LaFortune had a high primary turnout against Chris Medlock and Randi Miller then. In the general election, those voters either stayed home or voted for Taylor.

Bill Christiansen campaigned against Dewey Bartlett and Dewey against him. The mailings and commercials I saw got a little testy, including this one...

http://deweybartlett.com/which-bill-christiansen-is-running-for-mayor

There is an imbedded link where Dewey makes fun of Christiansen supporters as well. If I was one, that would sure make me not support him in November.

If Dewey should put Christiansen in his administration, then he takes it.

Quote from: carltonplace on June 12, 2013, 10:46:56 AM
If Dewey should put Christiansen in his administration, then he takes it.

That partnership is a given.  Look for the announcement in the coming weeks.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2013, 12:52:52 PM
That partnership is a given.  Look for the announcement in the coming weeks.

I see him endorsing Dewey and having nothing to do with him for the next few years while he solidifies his "you should've elected me" campaign strategy for next time.

Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2013, 10:20:36 AM
Besides that, KT's own internal campaign media machine is amazing.  My wife has kept all of the KT swag from the past couple of weeks that was posted on our door/doorstep.  We have 2 different door hangers, one large glossy brochure, and 4 or 5 small postcard sized sheets.  In the mail we received 4 different mailers, all made of the best paper with high gloss aqueous coating.  I think we probably have 1/2 a trees worth of campaign swag from Taylor.  For Bartlett, we received a single postcard and one door hanger.  Both were the same design with the same copy, and the photography was amateur.  His PR group sucks, but at least he's not blowing a bunch of money on paper.  He's going to have to step it up if he is going to compete against the Taylor media machine.

My wife got one thing from Taylor, I got zero, and the only vote I've missed in ten years was a school bond issue. My mailbox was stacks of County Commish flyers and probably 4-5 from Dewey and another 4-5 from Bill.

Quote from: sgrizzle on June 12, 2013, 01:11:13 PM
My wife got one thing from Taylor, I got zero, and the only vote I've missed in ten years was a school bond issue. My mailbox was stacks of County Commish flyers and probably 4-5 from Dewey and another 4-5 from Bill.

You also ran as a dirty dirty libertarian. You are marked with the stink.

They didn't just drop them off at our door, they were well dressed professional canvassers.  They rang the doorbell in hopes of talking to us before leaving swag.  We have cameras, so we saw them coming.

I don't answer the door for folks wearing a tie!  

. . .Only occasionally for folks with a spray bottle willing to drink their own cleaning product.  :D

Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2013, 12:52:52 PM
That partnership is a given.  Look for the announcement in the coming weeks.

Not so fast...
This is from Bill Christiansen facebook page...

Official campaign statement:
After a long campaign of over 9000 meetings and thousands of phone calls it is important to express how humbled I am for all of your support. For those that worked with me I am deeply indebted to you and I will never forget you. As for an endorsement I have decided to take a breather for a week to watch the NY Mets play a ball game and spend some time with my family. Upon my return I will meet with both of my opponents and then do what is best for Tulsa. I love Tulsa and may God Bless this great city.

The normal rule of thumb is that that second place finisher has the advantage going into a runoff election.  This is typically because the front runner has maxed out his/her support and the bottom finishers' supporters tend to coalesce around the second place candidate.  Then it is about who's voters turn out.

It seemed pretty clear from the get go that no one was likely to get over 50% in this election, so it made since for Bartlett to focus his efforts on simply being in the top 2 to move on to November.

I did not study the precinct results in detail, but the few in midtown I looked at had Bartlett running pretty close to Taylor.  If you combine the Bartlett/Christianson vote, Bartlett wins many /most of the midtown precincts that Taylor won.

Channel 6 reported that Christianson already endorsed Bartlett - based on the above, that was apparently incorrect.

None of the general rules may apply to this election, however, because: 1) the long gap between now and the runoff creates a lot more unpredictability.  It is also likely that Taylor will continue to outspend Bartlett by a wide margin and a longer campaign could accentuate that difference.  2)  Both candidates are essentially running as the incumbent and both are touting their records as mayor as the reason to support them, so there is no outsider versus insider dynamic at play.  3)  Turn out in November will be heavily influenced by other issues on the ballot.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Christiansen_may_not_endorse_Bartlett/20130612_767_0_Former127950

Christiansen may not endorse Bartlett

Former City Councilor Bill Christiansen says he is unsure whether he will follow through on a promise to endorse Mayor Dewey Bartlett after losing Tuesday's primary election, saying mudslinging from Bartlett's campaign over the months has irked him and supporters.

"I think I said I probably would endorse him, yes, but I said that many months before he, in my opinion, started lying about me in his campaign," Christiansen said. "It's just hard to swallow, and I just have to make sure I'm endorsing the right person for the city of Tulsa."

Christiansen was quoted in news media early in the mayoral race saying he would endorse his fellow Republican if he were to lose in the primary, and he said after his concession speech Tuesday that "I've given my word that I will endorse him, and I am a man of my word."

He softened that by adding that he would have to meet with Bartlett to make a final decision. He said Wednesday that both Bartlett and former Mayor Kathy Taylor, a Democrat, have negatives and positives as candidates and that he will meet with both of them before making an endorsement decision.

No endorsement is also a possibility, he said. He said he plans to take a weeklong vacation with family before arranging the meetings.

Taylor captured 42 percent of Tuesday's vote over Bartlett's 34 percent and Christiansen's 23 percent. The candidates competed directly as part of the city's new nonpartisan election system. Taylor and Bartlett will compete again in the Nov. 12 general election, and both will focus on swaying Christiansen supporters.

But many of those supporters are bitter after months of mudslinging from Bartlett, including efforts to paint Christiansen as the "big union" candidate, mailers linking Christiansen to Taylor's decision to move City Hall and live cold calls spreading incorrect information, Christiansen said.

Read more in Thursday's Tulsa World

Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 12, 2013, 03:07:38 PM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Christiansen_may_not_endorse_Bartlett/20130612_767_0_Former127950

Christiansen may not endorse Bartlett

Former City Councilor Bill Christiansen says he is unsure whether he will follow through on a promise to endorse Mayor Dewey Bartlett after losing Tuesday's primary election, saying mudslinging from Bartlett's campaign over the months has irked him and supporters.

"I think I said I probably would endorse him, yes, but I said that many months before he, in my opinion, started lying about me in his campaign," Christiansen said. "It's just hard to swallow, and I just have to make sure I'm endorsing the right person for the city of Tulsa."

Christiansen was quoted in news media early in the mayoral race saying he would endorse his fellow Republican if he were to lose in the primary, and he said after his concession speech Tuesday that "I've given my word that I will endorse him, and I am a man of my word."

He softened that by adding that he would have to meet with Bartlett to make a final decision. He said Wednesday that both Bartlett and former Mayor Kathy Taylor, a Democrat, have negatives and positives as candidates and that he will meet with both of them before making an endorsement decision.

No endorsement is also a possibility, he said. He said he plans to take a weeklong vacation with family before arranging the meetings.

Taylor captured 42 percent of Tuesday's vote over Bartlett's 34 percent and Christiansen's 23 percent. The candidates competed directly as part of the city's new nonpartisan election system. Taylor and Bartlett will compete again in the Nov. 12 general election, and both will focus on swaying Christiansen supporters.

But many of those supporters are bitter after months of mudslinging from Bartlett, including efforts to paint Christiansen as the "big union" candidate, mailers linking Christiansen to Taylor's decision to move City Hall and live cold calls spreading incorrect information, Christiansen said.

Read more in Thursday's Tulsa World

LOL!  Foreplay.  Love it!

None of the 3 people running were conservatives, I don't like to re-elect current office holders. IMO it's anyone but Dewy and I'm a conservative. I think he's like a scatter brain. The boondoggle of the airport thing and taxpayer money for AA, then you had that vission 25 thing or was it vision 2, the roads are in shambles with construction all over it's affecting commerce, costing people money- now they want to shut down highway 75 North bound, and start work on north Riverside drive, and in the busy summer time they tear up a major intersection at Admiral & Memorial. As if it can't wait. The RiverSide Jogging Trail is being re-built from I-44 to 56th street right in the middle of the summer and will be closed till October- why does it take 4 months to re-build a 1 mile section of trail that's right in the middle of a high useage area, to be sure the trail needed replacement but why not do in the off season? Then we have more construction on highway 169 & the BA, not to mention neighborhood streets being closed down and torn up, then next year they will be torn up again to put in new water lines. They were tearing up side streets for over two years and still not done. Admiral & Sheridan, Yale & Pine and  side streets  by RiverSide Drive. It's a mess. They need to do one major project and then do the next when the first one is finished. Anyone but Dewy! Choking off commerece is not good. They have Yale a mess and west 71st street is one lane the list is endless. That's not good for the city.

Quote from: sauerkraut on June 15, 2013, 03:43:36 PM
None of the 3 people running were conservatives, I don't like to re-elect current office holders. IMO it's anyone but Dewy and I'm a conservative. I think he's like a scatter brain. The boondoggle of the airport thing and taxpayer money for AA, then you had that vission 25 thing or was it vision 2, the roads are in shambles with construction all over it's affecting commerce, costing people money- now they want to shut down highway 75 North bound, and start work on north Riverside drive, and in the busy summer time they tear up a major intersection at Admiral & Memorial. As if it can't wait. The RiverSide Jogging Trail is being re-built from I-44 to 56th street right in the middle of the summer and will be closed till October- why does it take 4 months to re-build a 1 mile section of trail that's right in the middle of a high useage area, to be sure the trail needed replacement but why not do in the off season? Then we have more construction on highway 169 & the BA, not to mention neighborhood streets being closed down and torn up, then next year they will be torn up again to put in new water lines. They were tearing up side streets for over two years and still not done. Admiral & Sheridan, Yale & Pine and  side streets  by RiverSide Drive. It's a mess. They need to do one major project and then do the next when the first one is finished. Anyone but Dewy! Choking off commerece is not good. They have Yale a mess and west 71st street is one lane the list is endless. That's not good for the city.

Wow, takes one to know one?
Unfortunately I think this is typical and most voters hold the mayor responsible for things that they (said mayor) have no control over.

Quote from: carltonplace on June 17, 2013, 08:26:19 AM
Wow, takes one to know one?
Unfortunately I think this is typical and most voters hold the mayor responsible for things that they (said mayor) have no control over.

Remember, this comes from a person who purportedly lives here.

Quote from: Hoss on June 17, 2013, 09:06:10 AM
Remember, this comes from a person who purportedly lives here.

While I have experienced disappointment in his term, I have to take into account that much of it was spent cleaning up after his predecessor, which could account for lackluster performance.  The "LightsOn!" stunt was mindless, and more akin to corporate gratuity than public service.
...actually I just replied to ask what Hoss's new avatar is...   ;)

Quote from: patric on June 17, 2013, 10:30:16 AM
While I have experienced disappointment in his term, I have to take into account that much of it was spent cleaning up after his predecessor, which could account for lackluster performance.  The "LightsOn!" stunt was mindless, and more akin to corporate gratuity than public service.
...actually I just replied to ask what Hoss's new avatar is...   ;)

Faster than a speeding bullet, huh?

Quote from: patric on June 17, 2013, 10:30:16 AM
While I have experienced disappointment in his term, I have to take into account that much of it was spent cleaning up after his predecessor, which could account for lackluster performance.  The "LightsOn!" stunt was mindless, and more akin to corporate gratuity than public service.
...actually I just replied to ask what Hoss's new avatar is...   ;)

As BC said, if there was a crisis, you wouldn't have five people in your office making six figures. Dewey claimed there was a crisis, but he was also confused by the fact he couldn't just pay his staff whatever he felt like. He made comments about how many people he could hire and he wasn't overspending because he still had open positions.