Michael,
Probably one of your best UTW pieces to date:
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17257
I can't say I agree with every editorial you've written nor your picks for public office, but I was nodding my head throughout while reading last week's editorial.
Except for all the innuendo...
"Perhaps to build a support base with left-wing donors for a run for higher office, Taylor has been unilaterally committing Tulsa as a city to causes that most Tulsans don't support...By signing the document, Taylor committed Tulsa to the scientifically dubious notion that global warming is caused by human activity and can be reversed by draconian restrictions on the economy. It's a view that is obviously in the minority in Tulsa, given that we keep sending the likes of Jim Inhofe to represent us in Washington..."
Because Mayor Taylor signed an agreement that hundreds of mayors across America (both republican and democrat) have signed, she is looking for support from left wing donors and might run for higher office...
Great leap of logic there...and I like this one too...because Inhofe won an election, Tulsans must not believe in science.
And Mayor Taylor never said she would hire 200 officers, but this column implies that instead by saying..."I've talked to many people who feel certain that they remember that Taylor promised to add 200 police officers..."
Michael Delgiorno kept lying with this statement...I guess it is true that if you say it enough times, people will believe it.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Except for all the innuendo...
"Perhaps to build a support base with left-wing donors for a run for higher office, Taylor has been unilaterally committing Tulsa as a city to causes that most Tulsans don't support...By signing the document, Taylor committed Tulsa to the scientifically dubious notion that global warming is caused by human activity and can be reversed by draconian restrictions on the economy. It's a view that is obviously in the minority in Tulsa, given that we keep sending the likes of Jim Inhofe to represent us in Washington..."
Because Mayor Taylor signed an agreement that hundreds of mayors across America (both republican and democrat) have signed, she is looking for support from left wing donors and might run for higher office...
Great leap of logic there...and I like this one too...because Inhofe won an election, Tulsans must not believe in science.
And Mayor Taylor never said she would hire 200 officers, but this column implies that instead by saying..."I've talked to many people who feel certain that they remember that Taylor promised to add 200 police officers..."
Michael Delgiorno kept lying with this statement...I guess it is true that if you say it enough times, people will believe it.
read the comments on the article, Randi Miller promised 200 more cops.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
And Mayor Taylor never said she would hire 200 officers, but this column implies that instead by saying..."I've talked to many people who feel certain that they remember that Taylor promised to add 200 police officers..."
What I wrote is true -- a lot of people remember her making that promise. It's been mentioned to me time after time without any prompting on my part. I don't personally remember it, although I do remember Randi Miller making such a promise.
At the time I wrote my column, I did not have access to her position paper on crime, because Mayor Taylor deleted all her promises, position papers, and commercials from her campaign website.
Since then, someone sent me a link to a cached copy of Taylor's crime position paper, which I posted at BatesLine, along with comments from a TPD insider and the FOP as to how well she has fulfilled her promises to date. I still don't have access to her campaign commercials, so I can't positively verify that she didn't make the 200-officer promise.
Taylor did promise in her position paper to increase the ratio of police to citizens, which she has yet to do. Her proposed FY 2008 budget will result in a net decrease of officers when attrition is taken into account.
Conan, thanks for the kind words.
The City of Tulsa police budget for 2007/2008 is nine million dollars greater than for the previous year.
I think she went out of her way to give them higher raises than firefighters, public works, employees, etc.
Which would you have done...higher salaries or more officers?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The City of Tulsa police budget for 2007/2008 is nine million dollars greater than for the previous year.
I think she went out of her way to give them higher raises than firefighters, public works, employees, etc.
Which would you have done...higher salaries or more officers?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
May I introduce the Mayor's mouthpiece, Recyclemichael!
Everyone please give him a round of applause and make him feel at home!
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The City of Tulsa police budget for 2007/2008 is nine million dollars greater than for the previous year.
I think she went out of her way to give them higher raises than firefighters, public works, employees, etc.
Which would you have done...higher salaries or more officers?
Your credibility dwindles even further....
Yatta Yatta Yatta.............
My take on this... MH is opening the door for Bates to round up his resume again..
Bates has something to fill the void in his blog...
And everyone other than MH can sing chorus.
Why don't we discus something meaningful.. Like the program, the TPD candidate for Chief has, called "Reliable Informant"...?
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Ladies and Gentlemen,
May I introduce the Mayor's mouthpiece, Recyclemichael!
Everyone please give him a round of applause and make him feel at home!
I have never spoken to the Mayor about a police issue...not budget, hiring, academies, nothing.
My comments are my own.
I think she is doing a good job on police issues, remember the previous Mayor cancelled all police academies for two and a half years.
City of Tulsa Police personnel costs are up 7.2 million dollars this year, while other departments like Parks got pink slips. That is almost nine thousand dollars more per sworn officer.
There is not enough money to do everything. I again ask, what would you fund, pay raises for the current officers or another academy?
Originally posted by Michael Bates
quote:
What I wrote is true -- a lot of people remember her making that promise. It's been mentioned to me time after time without any prompting on my part. I don't personally remember it, although I do remember Randi Miller making such a promise.
At the time I wrote my column, I did not have access to her position paper on crime, because Mayor Taylor deleted all her promises, position papers, and commercials from her campaign website.
Just one question.. Could this question not be resolved by one Board Member asking another Board Member if his recollection is true...?
Or are the
grass roots not in tune with one another.?
forgive me that is two questions.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
And Mayor Taylor never said she would hire 200 officers, but this column implies that instead by saying..."I've talked to many people who feel certain that they remember that Taylor promised to add 200 police officers..."
That's why I call him Spincycle. Hire,add, or increase the ratio? Depends on what the definition of is-is, I guess. Keep spinning that broken record of broken promises. Make life bitter.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Ladies and Gentlemen,
May I introduce the Mayor's mouthpiece, Recyclemichael!
Everyone please give him a round of applause and make him feel at home!
I have never spoken to the Mayor about a police issue...not budget, hiring, academies, nothing.
My comments are my own.
I think she is doing a good job on police issues, remember the previous Mayor cancelled all police academies for two and a half years.
City of Tulsa Police personnel costs are up 7.2 million dollars this year, while other departments like Parks got pink slips. That is almost nine thousand dollars more per sworn officer.
There is not enough money to do everything. I again ask, what would you fund, pay raises for the current officers or another academy?
We weren't talking about LaFortune but since you brought him up. It was incredibly stupid to cancel two academy classes. The citizens of Tulsa paid the price by living with high crime rates and the city paid the price in officer overtime.
Tulsa police officers received a raise because an independent arbitrator decided that the officer deserved one and could afford it. The city administration presented their version of the city's economic picture and it was found to be false. The arbitrator found that the 8% raise was reasonable and that there was money in the city budget for it.
As a result of the FOP winning the arbitration, the other unionized city employees received raises equal to the police. The mayor did this on her own and we applauded her for it.
In reference to the parks people, it is sad that the city decided to eliminate positions. It will probably come back to bite them like canceling two police academies.
As far as "not enough money for everything". The arbitrator ruled that the 8% raise would not harm the city's functioning. The money was there for the raises and it is there for the academies.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010 It will probably come back to bite them like canceling two police academies.
Just heard on KRMG that crime went
down despite the cancelled academies. The spokesman credited extra hard work by the TPD for this. Sooooo crime goes down TPD takes the credit, crime goes up TPD is helpless.
As far as the Master's comments about Taylor they are purely partisan. Why no editorial about the Sherriff's inability to schedule a sit-down with our Congressman? Why did it take the Congressman so long to let Tulsans in on the secret that TPD needs to feed numbers to ICE to order an extension office? And what was Sullivan's Chief of Staff doing in Mayor LaFortune's office talking about the City's police chief during that scandal?
Nope, let us not talk about that or T-town's falling crime rate. Let us take pot shots at Lady Kathy. More parfuffle and dribble from Urban Tulsa Weakly.
Here is the KRMG story...
Crime in Tulsa is Down (Tulsa, Ok)--A downward trend is noted in the latest crime statistics for Tulsa. The largest drop was in theft. The numbers for murder, rape, and larcency all showed declines. The crime rate numbers are for 2006. Compared with the 2005 statistics all crime catagories in Tulsa were down. Tulsa Police Officer Jason Willingham says the department is pleased, but not satisfied with the numbers. He says efforts are ongoing to try and continue to bring the number of crimes down. The latest numbers are: murder down 6.7%, rape down 4.3%, robbery down 8.3%, assault down 1.7%, burglary down 4.3%, larceny down 2.2% and all theft down 14.1%.
I think that kudos should go all around...the Mayor, the police department, the citizen's crime commission...everybody.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010 It will probably come back to bite them like canceling two police academies.
Just heard on KRMG that crime went down despite the cancelled academies. The spokesman credited extra hard work by the TPD for this. Sooooo crime goes down TPD takes the credit, crime goes up TPD is helpless.
The police get credit for the crime rate going down or blame for it going up, only in years where there's
not a mayoral election, in those years, the credit or blame belongs to the mayor, silly. [;)]
I think it's important we remember a candidate's promises and hold them to those promises. I don't recall Ms. Taylor saying we would hire X number of new officers, just that crime was a priority in the commercials where she showed up at the crime scene with a cop car. I believe for transparency, a candidate who is elected should keep campaign promises and position papers in an accessible place for constituents to hold them accountable. She wasn't elected for not having any promises to perform.
Personally, I don't think MB is too far off the mark on her not working closely with the council, and I believe she is running the show somewhat as a monarchy. I also think she has been too covert in some of her actions, i.e. the police chief issue and the Fairgrounds annexation.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010 It will probably come back to bite them like canceling two police academies.
Just heard on KRMG that crime went down despite the cancelled academies. The spokesman credited extra hard work by the TPD for this. Sooooo crime goes down TPD takes the credit, crime goes up TPD is helpless.
As far as the Master's comments about Taylor they are purely partisan. Why no editorial about the Sherriff's inability to schedule a sit-down with our Congressman? Why did it take the Congressman so long to let Tulsans in on the secret that TPD needs to feed numbers to ICE to order an extension office? And what was Sullivan's Chief of Staff doing in Mayor LaFortune's office talking about the City's police chief during that scandal?
Nope, let us not talk about that or T-town's falling crime rate. Let us take pot shots at Lady Kathy. More parfuffle and dribble from Urban Tulsa Weakly.
In 2006, we were almost back to our authorized strength. That is the crime statistics KRMG is talking about.
I remain unimpressed by any of the elected leadership of Tulsa. They either have no vision or do a poor job sharing it with the masses. I make a half hearted attempt at staying informed and have little information as to what is going on - the average Joe who makes no effort must be totally clueless.
I'll be shopping for a new mayor in 3 years. I hope we can find someone better.
Michael Bates, Agree with most of what you wrote in the editorial message.
As a Republican, I made a difficult decision and voted for Taylor..now with regrets. Knowing the citizens of Tulsa voted for a Charter with provisions for civil service for city employees, now seeing every effort being made to destroy the provisions of the Charter, without a vote of the citizens of City of Tulsa. Since the provisions of the Charter were initially enacted in about 1957 it (the charter) has been subject to review by commission and now city council members, with no effort being made to revoke the provisions of civil service, except by violating it's process and procedures.
We how have a "acting city attorney" for over five months, without any effort to secured a city attorney, we have an interim director of human services, we have a directive to follow the charter provisions in securing public defenders for the Tulsa Municipal Court, We have outside attorney hired by the Mayor to represent the city, thus should be defending the lawfully enacted Charter, and of course with have the private attorney to represent the mayor in her version of the powers she possesses. Now we have an interim Chief of Police who, according to the Tulsa World, has yet to be sworn into office. Thus I have to concur the Mayor's actions have been and are a total disappointment.
During the four years of when LaFortune was Mayor, we got a new Police Chief, a new City Attorney, a new HR Director, a new head of the Airport, a new Parks Director, a new head of RiverParks, a new head of Tulsa Transit, and more I can't recall off the top of my head.
I don't recall the challenges from the public except for the Police Chief.
Is there a double standard because Kathy Taylor is a woman or is it because she is a democrat that you guys want to question her judgement?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
During the four years of when LaFortune was Mayor, we got a new Police Chief, a new City Attorney, a new HR Director, a new head of the Airport, a new Parks Director, a new head of RiverParks, a new head of Tulsa Transit, and more I can't recall off the top of my head.
I don't recall the challenges from the public except for the Police Chief.
Is there a double standard because Kathy Taylor is a woman or is it because she is a democrat that you guys want to question her judgement?
The word "interim" makes it sound like she cannot make up her mind on anything. At the very least, I'm wondering if there is some cronyism she wants to do but wants to make sure she can do it without wearing grey and white pin stripes.
Maybe the problem is, she approaches her job as a CEO. CEO's can operate in a vacuum and complete secrecy and don't have to justify any action except when called on the carpet by shareholders. The difference as mayor is there are about 375,000 shareholders who, as taxpayers, have a right to a transparent and competent government. Also, her employees are employees of the city, not a publicly or privately-held company which brings another set of rules with that.
I just feel that if crime was a top priority, we wouldn't be into, what, the fourth or fifth month of trying to figure out who will be the next police chief. What is that doing for morale down at the cop shop?
As I said in Bruno's post, her party affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with my dis-taste for her job performance. I'd be saying the same thing if she were a Republican. I was ready to vote for her until a few trust issues came out during the campaign.
I voted for and was a fan of Susan Savage who was a Dem.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
During the four years of when LaFortune was Mayor, we got a new Police Chief, a new City Attorney, a new HR Director, a new head of the Airport, a new Parks Director, a new head of RiverParks, a new head of Tulsa Transit, and more I can't recall off the top of my head.
I don't recall the challenges from the public except for the Police Chief.
Is there a double standard because Kathy Taylor is a woman or is it because she is a democrat that you guys want to question her judgement?
Those new department heads replaced long-serving department heads who chose to leave on their own due to normal retirements.
If anyone believes Been, Bates, Jackerie and others left on their own under Taylor just has their head stuck in the sand. You just have to look at how old they were when they chose to "retire" under Taylor.
I will agree with RM that many department heads change under a new mayor's administration, although, having been here for a couple decades, I haven't seen this many people "retire" under these circumstances.
Tulsa is unique for cities its size in that it grants civil service protection to department heads, which mean they can only be fired for cause. Those who chose to "retire" early, usually do so because of political pressure because the mayor doesn't have the stuff necessary to fire them.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
During the four years of when LaFortune was Mayor, we got a new Police Chief, a new City Attorney, a new HR Director, a new head of the Airport, a new Parks Director, a new head of RiverParks, a new head of Tulsa Transit, and more I can't recall off the top of my head.
I don't recall the challenges from the public except for the Police Chief.
Is there a double standard because Kathy Taylor is a woman or is it because she is a democrat that you guys want to question her judgement?
I had rather a lot to say about LaFortune's choice of City Attorney, as did the "Gang of Four" on the Council. And his appointment of Clay Bird and Sam Roop as Deputy Mayor and Chief Information Office didn't escape criticism from his fellow Republicans, either. You may even remember that there was a teensy bit of controversy over some of his board and commission appointments.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
I had rather a lot to say about LaFortune's choice of City Attorney, as did the "Gang of Four" on the Council. And his appointment of Clay Bird and Sam Roop as Deputy Mayor and Chief Information Office didn't escape criticism from his fellow Republicans, either. You may even remember that there was a teensy bit of controversy over some of his board and commission appointments.
But what was the action line? Where did you lead the faithful? Your whole jihad seemed geared to electing Chris and not inspiring accountability on behalf of GOP politicians. You said a lot of things during the election, including the accusation that Henry Primeaux comped Mayor Bill a free car (and using your kid to take a pic of the vehicle? sheesh) because the Mayor was going bankrupt. As interesting as all this back-office stuff may be, your stuff is little more than tawdry political gossip if, in the final analysis, you have one standard for your fellow Partisans and one for your opposition.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
I had rather a lot to say about LaFortune's choice of City Attorney, as did the "Gang of Four" on the Council. And his appointment of Clay Bird and Sam Roop as Deputy Mayor and Chief Information Office didn't escape criticism from his fellow Republicans, either. You may even remember that there was a teensy bit of controversy over some of his board and commission appointments.
But what was the action line? Where did you lead the faithful? Your whole jihad seemed geared to electing Chris and not inspiring accountability on behalf of GOP politicians. You said a lot of things during the election, including the accusation that Henry Primeaux comped Mayor Bill a free car (and using your kid to take a pic of the vehicle? sheesh) because the Mayor was going bankrupt. As interesting as all this back-office stuff may be, your stuff is little more than tawdry political gossip if, in the final analysis, you have one standard for your fellow Partisans and one for your opposition.
I began holding LaFortune's accountable for his actions shortly after he took office in 2002, when neighborhood leaders protested his decision to reappoint Joe Westervelt to the TMAPC. I haven't been any harder on Taylor than I was on LaFortune, despite the fact that I supported LaFortune in the 2002 primary and general election and was involved in his campaign.
The "action line" was for Republican voters to nominate someone in 2006 who would actually introduce the kinds of City Hall reforms and improvements that LaFortune promised. While a majority of Republican primary voters voted against LaFortune, that majority was split between Medlock, Miller, and Harper, and there are no runoffs in City of Tulsa elections, so LaFortune was the nominee.
In the general election, the choice was between LaFortune and Taylor, and I argued that re-electing LaFortune was the better option, particularly for conservatives. I haven't seen anything in Taylor's year in office to make me regret my recommendation, which you can read here:
http://archives.urbantulsa.com/article.asp?id=3232
Regarding LaFortune's car: I never accused Henry Primeaux of any wrong-doing, I never asked my kid or any other kid to take a picture of LaFortune's car, and I never said that Bill LaFortune was bankrupt. You can read what I actually wrote here:
http://www.batesline.com/archives/002137.html
I think you are confusing Michael Bates and Michael Delgiorno making these statements.
It is easy to get us Michael(s) mixed up.
I bag on Michael Bates because he uses innuendo and nuanced phrasing to attack people I support, but I don't unduly disrespect him for doing it.
He is a operative and official in the republican movement in Tulsa and Oklahoma. If I had a website and a weekly column, I would probably do the same but for just the other side.
But I also think that his words should be challenged sometimes...as should most of what most of us say on this site.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I think you are confusing Michael Bates and Michael Delgiorno making these statements.
It is easy to get us Michael(s) mixed up.
So to avoid confusion, should I just refer to Michael Bates, Michael Delgiorno, and yourself as un-recycled, spin-cycled, and recycled?
Do you have the segment where you discussed this on-air? I know it is hard to disprove, but what you wrote is different from what was said.
"I began holding LaFortune's accountable for his actions shortly after he took office in 2002, when neighborhood leaders protested his decision to reappoint Joe Westervelt to the TMAPC. I haven't been any harder on Taylor than I was on LaFortune, despite the fact that I supported LaFortune in the 2002 primary and general election and was involved in his campaign."
Well Mister Bates I am so glad you clarified these points for us....
I for one thought you were opposed to LaFortune right up until Medlock lost his bid in the primary...
See... the way I remembered it... The both of you were opposed to LaFortune prior to the Primary... and I am so glad you did not think Clay, Sam, and eventually LaCroix were deserving of their positions..
Medlock made his opinion known from the beginning....
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Mayor_Cabinet.jpg)
"In the general election, the choice was between LaFortune and Taylor, and I argued that re-electing LaFortune was the better option, particularly for conservatives. I haven't seen anything in Taylor's year in office to make me regret my recommendation,"
You see.. it is much more clear to everyone... when you come right out and say "you supported LaFortune in the Primary and General Election... "Simply said we all did not attend "Boston Tech." see there I even forget they changed the name to "Massachusetts Institute of Technology" "MIT".........
Now I think I can begin to understand the campaign slogan... LaFortune Part Deux.
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/26947928.gif)
Finally; I am glad you clarified that "LaFortune was a Conservative Republican" See I would have described him as a Neo-Con Republican...
And I guess I would have been wrong.. Even though, when he attempted to be the District Attorney for a while, he pursued to Verdict a punishment of 99years... for a fellow that had MS or something...? that got caught growing Marijuana in his home...
That man had the Verdict overturned anyway... so what the hay...
Even when Mayor LaFortune tried to tempt the PD with Higher Wages for their endorsement... When he knew he was in trouble... and then there were the smaller items regarding Milford Carter and the fellow that wanted to display Bible figures in the Zoo...
I just did not get it.... but you and Mister Medlock surely did....
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/MadOkie.jpg)
And the rest.... as they say is History.. You are now over here on Tulsa Now.... making a particularly strong case against this self educated, liberal spending, lady that took the "Big Man's" jobee job...
Taking care of it quite handily... if I do say so myself...
It had to be... "Better the Devil I Know....Than the one I don't"
kinda a strange way to choose a leader but what do I know anyway.
In with the new boss, same as the old boss. Don't get fooled again.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/gif/VOTE4TAY.gif)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/gif/KathyTaylor-sm.jpg)
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/makelifebitter-2copy.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
"I began holding LaFortune's accountable for his actions shortly after he took office in 2002, when neighborhood leaders protested his decision to reappoint Joe Westervelt to the TMAPC. I haven't been any harder on Taylor than I was on LaFortune, despite the fact that I supported LaFortune in the 2002 primary and general election and was involved in his campaign."
Well Mister Bates I am so glad you clarified these points for us....
I for one thought you were opposed to LaFortune right up until Medlock lost his bid in the primary...
See... the way I remembered it... The both of you were opposed to LaFortune prior to the Primary... and I am so glad you did not think Clay, Sam, and eventually LaCroix were deserving of their positions..
In
2002, I supported LaFortune in the Republican primary in
2002, when he ran against Terry Simonson and Carlton Pearson, and in the
2002 general election, when he ran against Councilor Gary Watts, the
2002 Democratic nominee. In
2002, Susan Savage was the incumbent but decided not to run for re-election in
2002.
In
2006, I supported Chris Medlock in the
2006 Republican primary, when he challenged Bill LaFortune, who was the incumbent. Also in
2006, I supported LaFortune in the
2006 general election against the
2006 Democratic nominee, Kathy Taylor.
Clear now?
Clear as crystal Mike... Any thing you say....
You supported Medlock... But, when he lost, were able to find it within yourself to prepare a resume for LaFortune....
That you had spent so much time pointing out that he was incompetent and didn't amount to a hill of beans was then somehow irrelevant.
just climb down the tree and assume the position eh...
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Mayor_Cabinet.jpg)
Maybe you should make it a tad more clear....
You support whatever Republican happens to be on top of the "Dogpile"....
Regardless of what you know and what you can prove about them...
I seem to have gotten 2002 confused with 2006... I admit that.
Will you ever be able to explain how those pages and pages of blog entries, regarding the quasi illegal, LaFortune motivated you enough to drop all that belief? and join him.
Damn..! I am so glad my mind does not think along party lines..
And remember the Great Satan, Great Plains Airlines? Who pointed out that Sullivan tried to secure something like $10 MILLION in Federal funds for that in his first term? Who has 'blogged' that? And when McCorkel was being sued for his role in Great Plains did you 'blog' that? Who did?
Did you 'blog' your scurulous accusation uttered on-air about Randi Miller? Or is the dissociation so complete you forget what you mutter and what you write?
I think I can distill Rico's questioning:
How much incompetence can you tolerate before a candidate like LaFortune no longer earns your endorsement?
From multiple sources and my recollections:
Bill LaFortune lost his race for a second term as mayor when Michael Bates, Chris Medlock, and the Tulsa County Republican Chairman (whatever his name was) at the time used a significant campaign donation to the party to pay (Bates or associate thereof) to run a survey designed to convince Michael DelGiorno that Ben Faulk could not win. The final nail in the LaFortune coffin, however, was strictly LaFortune's attitude when he did finally did go on the DelGiorno show. He sounded so timid. He pandered for votes from these fruits, flakes, and nuts that had personally and professionally lied about and slandered him during his entire term. It sounded (whether he intended to do so or not) like he was going to let Medlock and Bates play an active role in his second term. At that point, mid-town Tulsans, who carried LaFortune to success in the primary, abandoned him like a cheap floozy.
Kathy Taylor has three things going for her that Bill LaFortune never had: 1) Basic intelligence, 2.) High work ethic, and 3.) Interest in public policy. I may disagree with her policy positions, but I will give her those three. I was loyal as a friend and fellow Republican to Bill LaFortune until the end of his term of service – the operative word there is end. I will not support him again for any elected position.
Both the Democrat and Republican parties are undergoing significant leadership and policy issues. Media is also fragmented locally as vanity publishing melds with pure profit publishers and broadcast stations lacking coherent editorial judgment.
We are living in interesting times.
quote:
Originally posted by David Arnett
Media is also fragmented locally as vanity publishing melds with pure profit publishers and broadcast stations lacking coherent editorial judgment.
We are living in interesting times.
An interesting observation. Why is it, in your view, that so many media outlets lack this judgement. I do not often agree with yours, but at least you have reasoned opinions. Are the issues too complex for editorial types? Or, do they simply underestimate our ability to understand complex issues? Or, are they just plain scared of having an opinion?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I think I can distill Rico's questioning:
How much incompetence can you tolerate before a candidate like LaFortune no longer earns your endorsement?
It wasn't LaFortune vs. the Platonic ideal of a Mayor. It was LaFortune vs. Taylor vs. Tay vs. Faulk. Tay and Faulk were did not have a chance of winning, as a survey which I developed (as a volunteer -- I received no compensation for it) clearly showed. The real decision was Taylor vs. LaFortune. And Michael Dukakis's slogan notwithstanding, both ideology and competence matter to me.
LaFortune was not cruising to victory prior to his appearance on DelGiorno's program. The survey had LaFortune at 31%, and he had committed support from only 41% of Republicans. 24% of Republicans were supporting Taylor and 35% were undecided or backing other candidates. On election day, his actual vote total was 47%. Support from DelGiorno, Medlock, and others convinced Republicans who were inclined to vote for Faulk or just stay home to show up and vote for LaFortune.
The upper-crust midtown Republicans (not all midtown residents are upper crust) who supported Taylor in the general supported her all along, as her list of contributors clearly shows. LaFortune lost that group as soon as Taylor entered the race. They voted for LaFortune in the primary with no intention of supporting him in the general. To them, LaFortune was preferable to his primary opponents and was a fallback in the unlikely event that Taylor lost her primary.
LaFortune's only hope of winning the general election was to win back the majority of Republicans who had voted for his opponents in the primaries, and that meant convincing his critics that his second term would be closer to what they thought they were getting when they voted for him in 2002.
But I believe the topic at hand is Michael Patton's assertion that I and others are criticizing Kathy Taylor simply because she's female and a Democrat. I think we've established that most of Taylor's male Republican critics have been just as critical of their fellow male Republican elected officials.
<Michael Bates wrote:
It wasn't LaFortune vs. the Platonic ideal of a Mayor.
<end clip>
We're aware of that. But it was obvious that no matter how pure LaFortune's ideals were, his track record showed he had problems with basic fundamentals and execution during his first term.
It's like enduring a .220 batter in the cleanup spot during baseball season. No one in his or her right mind would put that person in the cleanup spot again the next season.
Many, many voters thought it was crazy to re-elect a failure of a mayor. So they decided to jump parties. It was clearly a case where the incumbent's lack of competence was trumping partisanship.
If you didn't like LaFortune or Taylor in the general election, you simply could have said "no endorsement" instead of giving the nod to a known failure and thus damaging your credibility.
quote:
An interesting observation. Why is it, in your view, that so many media outlets lack this judgement. I do not often agree with yours, but at least you have reasoned opinions. Are the issues too complex for editorial types? Or, do they simply underestimate our ability to understand complex issues? Or, are they just plain scared of having an opinion?
I will do my best to answer.
First, media is a business funded by advertising and subscriptions. For this discussion, let us set aside blogs and other self-funded expressions in print or broadcast.
The most common approach for media in mid-size and smaller markets is to avoid controversy in the fear that it will drive away advertising. Crime news is king and "if it bleeds it leads" in broadcast. Also, broadcast has no more than 45 seconds to explain the Federal Budget, so bullet points are about as substantive as the format allows. There are, of course, exceptions and special "in-depth" material produced that is outstanding.
Another approach is to seek controversy for controversy's sake under the operating belief that controversy generates readership and readership generates advertising impressions which generates sales thus funding more advertising. This approach fails when respect for the presentation becomes so low that business owners and managers are embarrassed to be affiliated.
I established www.TulsaToday.com in 1996 after; publishing 32 print editions (half million copies) of various community publications, employment as the city beat reporter for The Tulsa Tribune, and a long professional free-lance career for regional and national newspapers. From the beginning, the mission was to provide a platform for diversity in public discussions – as the Tribune editorial pages had been – as opposed to the Tulsa World editorial philosophy which, as told to me by Joe Worley, "our editorial pages exist to convince people that what we believe is right is right." That was also the day he told me, "you will never work in this town again" thus beginning an economic war upon my family that has lasted to date 13 years – all because I disagreed with an editorial position of the Tulsa World – not their news integrity mind you, but their editorial opinions.
With the arrival of blogs and forums like this one, the need for diversity in public discourse, in my opinion, has been fulfilled and part of Tulsa Today's mission achieved.
However, this new media evangelicalism means that anyone motivated with a little pocket change can launch a continual stream of opinion – reasoned or not, true or not, evil or not. The advantage professional media has in crafting editorial judgment is the internal discussions, conflicting perspectives, diverse backgrounds, wisdom earned by years of experience that should, in the ideal, work together for the greater good. (I have always appreciated copy editors – the benefit of which this work has not received.)
Old think in the newspaper industry says you must write to the ninth grade level – average education. However, the masses do not read newspapers so writing to the average is pointless and condescending. Only newspaper readers read newspapers and they are an elite group getting smaller each year.
In Tulsa, we have the Urban Tulsa which has made a career off the "angst of youth" in criticizing Tulsa for no good cause other than they think that is "hip." Now with the "Batty Mr. Bates" they truly demonstrate no coherent editorial philosophy, principles, or purpose. As the last executive editor of the Tulsa Tribune said of Urban Tulsa's publisher, "The worst thing that ever happened to Keith is that he got his own publication – the boy can't edit himself or others."
By the way, in Republican circles, my battle with Michal Bates, Chris Medlock and the Nazi wing of the Tulsa County Republican Party is a long and storied effort. I believe they are not what they represent themselves to be – spokesmen for the grassroots, but more like dandelions – harmful, pointless, and difficult to remove. My eyewitness story stated in brief above on Bill LaFortune's loss is far more accurate that Bates' reply that follows. I consider Bates a journalism apostate – one that knows the truth and how to report it, but has deliberately turned away to serve his own unjustified ambitions.
I have placed ownership of Tulsa Today, Inc. in a trust for my grandkids and I seek a publisher, editor, and other team members to carry on that effort. I don't care if my friends or total strangers agree or disagree with my opinions, but I don't make mistakes of fact. We write without regard to the average, but try to produce the best work possible each and every day.
I will also speak to any church, social, or civic club in the area and have done so for many years. I would even debate Bates if he has the courage – on neutral ground of course. Would Tulsa Now host such an event or would that be too ...
I hope this answers some of your questions or at least sheds some light in areas you may not have considered. All the best, David
Nice post. Thanks for keeping our gears whirring. And thanks for the dandelion simile.[:)]
Hey David, what ever happened to your effort to get part of northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas to secede from the states? You did a great job promoting it, even getting air time then it vanished like a fart in the wind.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
And remember the Great Satan, Great Plains Airlines? Who pointed out that Sullivan tried to secure something like $10 MILLION in Federal funds for that in his first term? Who has 'blogged' that? And when McCorkel was being sued for his role in Great Plains did you 'blog' that? Who did?
Did you 'blog' your scurulous accusation uttered on-air about Randi Miller? Or is the dissociation so complete you forget what you mutter and what you write?
Tim, if your memory is so sharp, please name the date on which I uttered a scurrilous accusation against Randi Miller and the date on which I accused Bill LaFortune of being bankrupt. I don't believe I did either one.
I wrote about the lawsuit against the Great Plains board when McCorkell's name first surfaced as a candidate for Mayor. It's easier to find the blog entry if you spell his name with two Ls.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/002169.html
Great Plains, like every other airline, sought post-9/11 Federal airline aid, specifically loan guarantees in compensation for financing it lost when financing for airlines dried up after the attack. Sen. Inhofe and five of Oklahoma's six congressmen (all but Istook) signed a letter in support of Great Plains' aid application. That happened in July 2002, and I didn't start my blog until May 2003. Even if I had been blogging, I don't have time to write about every news item, and I doubt I would have thought a courtesy letter from a company's home state congressional delegation was worth writing about.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'll be shopping for a new mayor in 3 years. I hope we can find someone better.
Can Tulsa afford 3 more years of Taylor?
That is why I am no longer one of your pinko pachyderms, because my memory is not that sharp. But I believe I remember about the kid-taking-car-incident, someone called in to the AM show did he not? I know I am not simply fabricating this.
Nope, cannot recall the exact date you dragged Miller's name into the gutter with you. Funny thing is, no matter who the Dem is, no matter what foolishness she has foisted upon Tulsans, you will be in the bag for her in the General.
Oh, you started to dig into Mc until Kathy Taylor jumped in, alright. But of course your Googling and scurulous interest ended well before the primary.
On principle, despite the circumstances, why would any true conservative even ask for a hand-out for something that was so abysmally bad like Great Plains?
quote:
Hey David, what ever happened to your effort to get part of northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas to secede from the states? You did a great job promoting it, even getting air time then it vanished like a fart in the wind.
Conan71
Thanks for remembering that multi-level tongue-in-cheek effort from the early 90s to draw attention to both historical fact and current government policy inequalities.
Before we became the State of Oklahoma, what was once known as Indian Territory (Eastern and Southern Oklahoma) proposed to be the State of Sequoyah. There was a constitutional convention and a well-written document approved by a vote of the people 6 to 1. Against our will, the U.S. Congress combined us with the other "Twin Territory" of Oklahoma.
The policy inequality is the lack of State and Federal investment in this area and the government payrolls that could greatly help raise the standard of living and moderate economic downturns.
However, after the Murrah Building bombing, that is not an argument I will forward – it ceased to be amusing. I do continue to believe that Oklahoma government is more harmful than helpful to Tulsa, but we as Tulsans also have an obligation to become more informed and involved in the business of the entire state. Simply said, the evil corruption of the "Gene Stipes" here has gone on long enough.
http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Simply said, the get-along-to-go-along sychophantic GOP of DeLay and Abramoff is alive and well in Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by tnt0916
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'll be shopping for a new mayor in 3 years. I hope we can find someone better.
Can Tulsa afford 3 more years of Taylor?
Sure...she's free.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by tnt0916
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'll be shopping for a new mayor in 3 years. I hope we can find someone better.
Can Tulsa afford 3 more years of Taylor?
Sure...she's free.
At least she was for the first year until she hired a trusted
friend advisor at her pay scale. Is she on the payroll yet, or did she decline this year's salary?
She is still free.
Come on Conan. She should hire an untrustworthy stranger?
I think most of her hires have been worthy, there are a few in every bunch that I would disagree with, but I trust her judgement in hiring so far.
Remember, the previous guy paid Sam Roop $106,000 a year.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Remember, the previous guy paid Sam Roop $106,000 a year.
And we fired the previous guy, remember? [;)]
I object to the removal of the previous post. As much as has been written by Bates and others about so many others, it is a shame that a Tulsa Now moderator would protect one of the Tulsa Now board members from a perfectly proper word.
The aformemetioned post wasn't deleted by TulsaNow staff, it was deleted by the poster.