Our options for mayor

| | Comments (14)

My column in this week's Urban Tulsa Weekly is a look at our four choices in the mayoral race. There you'll find why I can't vote for Taylor, Faulk, or Tay, and why I'm voting for LaFortune. I'm not going to try to summarize or elaborate here -- click the link and read the whole thing.

Elsewhere in this week's issue, Ginger Shepherd has a story about the state of Eastland Mall and one about the projects being funded by the Vision 2025 neighborhood fund.


Michelle said:

I am with you on everything you wrote. I get it. Except this: "What the mayor lacks in courage, he has shown character through repentance." I must have missed his repentance. I have not seen any. All I have seen is desperation and a realization that he is going to be looking for a new job soon. I totally understand why you are going to vote for MisFortune. I will be thinking about it long and hard myself. However, I don't think it's necessary to exaggerate about his contrite heart, or lack thereof. If I do end up voting for him (which I don't think I will) it will not be because I believed anything he said. It will be a vote against Kathy Taylor. That is it. I think there will be a lot of noses held on LaFortune's behalf on Tuesday. The question is this: Is Kathy Taylor really any worse than LaFortune? I don't know the answer to that, because I don't see how anyone could have been a better democrat than Bill was for four years.

Michelle, thanks.

For what it's worth, the line you quote is the "slug", which, like the headline, is added by the copy editor after the story is out of my hands.

As with all repentance, only time will tell if it is genuine.

Joseph Wallis said:

You are letting your faith blind the truth, and the very last paragraph of your article is telling.

"but with a strong Council (which were certain to have) and strong mayoral advisers (which he promises) hes the best of the choices available to us. "

He has made no public promises to getting "strong mayoral advisors" and anything he said behind closed doors is off the table and under the bridge. You only have one chance to retaliate against failure and it is now. When he breaks all of these election year promises you are going to feel mighty had. It doesn't matter though, cause the man is going to lose next week. The rest of Tulsa doesn't vote with their heart, they vote with their head. You should too and keep the forgiveness stuff reserved for friends and family. The current commercial Misfortune has blaming the previous administration has me and others seething with anger. What a dolt and a whiner. Talk about taking the easy way out...its always easier to blame the previous person who had your job. He knew what he was getting into when he got elected, coming out now and trying to excuse his failure is ridiculous.

Joseph, I didn't say anything in my column about forgiveness, and anyway, it would be reasonable to forgive an elected official without entrusting the office to him for another term.

LaFortune has promised to conduct a nationwide search for a "managing director" -- someone with experience as a city manager who would work under the Mayor to oversee the operational side of city government. He has also promised publicly to a top-to-bottom review of his staff with a view to changes. Although he hasn't made promises publicly or privately about specific individuals leaving or coming on board, he has said there need to be and will be changes.

A vote to "retaliate against failure" is an emotional vote. This isn't a retention ballot like we have for judges, where it's just Bill LaFortune's name and YES or NO next to it. We have to weigh whether things would be worse under Kathy Taylor as mayor, whether it's worse to have someone who is weak about standing up for what's right (pushed along by a strong Council) or someone who will be ruthlessly efficient in leading us in the wrong direction (while playing divide-and-conquer with the Council). For all the reasons that I elaborated in the column, I believe that Tulsa would be worse off under Taylor.

W. Author Profile Page said:

Michael, you've done such a good job cataloging all of LaFortune's screw-ups and leadership problems in the past few years that it's completely understandable why voters are willing to take a chance on Taylor.

It's not certain what a Taylor administration would be like. It's agreed that she's largely an unknown quantity.

However, it's also agreed that LaFortune's been a bad mayor. So why would anyone in his/her right mind want to have him around for another four years so he can mess things up more?

That's why a lot of folks are mad at you -- they think you're valuing your loyalty to the GOP over basic common sense.

You wanted a change in how things are done in the mayor's office. Watch what you wish for.

W., it's a choice between Taylor and LaFortune, and if I honestly believed that Tulsa would be better off with Taylor as Mayor, she'd have my vote, party notwithstanding. But for the reasons I outlined in my column, I don't think that's the case.

The people who seem angriest at me and Medlock are Taylor supporters who are really sorry that we didn't sulk on the sidelines or back a spoiler candidate to make it easier for their candidate to win.

I don't find it easy to vote for Bill LaFortune, but a vote for Kathy Taylor would be a vote against everything I've worked for on the local level and the state level. Kathy Taylor is the candidate of the same old special interest groups that have neglected and are now working to disenfranchise East and North and West Tulsa. And the only way to keep Kathy Taylor out of the Mayor's office is to vote for Bill LaFortune.

W. Author Profile Page said:

I read the column. I simply don't buy the largely assumptive logic.

I've read many, many comments on other boards. The angriest ones by far are from Medlock supporters.

Taylor supporters aren't mad; they're laughing -- at least for now.

BTW, you'd better fix the link in your last comment. It's not working.

Joseph Wallis said:

"LaFortune has promised to conduct a nationwide search for a "managing director" -- someone with experience as a city manager who would work under the Mayor to oversee the operational side of city government."

Do you have a publicized source for this information? I have heard of no such promise.

sbtulsa said:

"I have no illusions about Bill LaFortune. He is what he is, and I dont take back a word Ive written about him, but with a strong Council (which were certain to have) and strong mayoral advisers (which he promises) hes the best of the choices available to us. "

i think that says it all about this election. we are voting for the lesser of evils when oiur city is at an historic crossroads. my thought on the candidates is surley we can do better than this.

taylors commercials and campaign speeches brand her. "lengthy policy statements that appear to be a hodgepodge of think-tank buzzwords, thrown together without any thought as to how they fit Tulsas situation." tells a lot about how dedicated she will be to seeing all of tulsa progress. i predict she will only interact with those who speak her language, meaning gooble de gook and not translatable in to action. she will try to stop the "bickering" by executive order and belligerence. she will not lead, she will whip.

i don't plan on bowing to her on election day. i am mad at lafortune for getting himself (and us) in to this mess, but i will vote against taylor and hope the council takes the lead and runs over her in an administrative sense.

Joseph, he said it at the KRMG/Kiwanis Club debate and on several occasions since then. I'm pretty sure he said it again on KFAQ yesterday.

Joseph Wallis said:

Rule #1, never believe a word that exits a politicians mouth. If it isn't documented on paper it has zero merit.

Dan Hicks said:


Which is worse, the wolf (Taylor) or the wolf in sheep's clothing (LaFortune)?

At least when you see the wolf coming, you recognize the wolf and can defend yourself. The wolf in sheep's clothing, or in the this case the RINO (Republican In Name Only), will smile at you and tell you what you want to hear while devouring your children.

If the polls are correct, Bill LaFortune will no longer be a threat after Tuesday's election. Our families, however, will still be paying the tax on his arena for the next 11 years.

I will be casting my vote for a man who would never assault my family by raising our tax burden. My vote will be cast for the conservative independent, Ben Faulk.

Dan Hicks

I will be casting my vote for a man who would never assault my family by raising our tax burden.

How do you know that he would never do that, Dan?

susan said:

the independent candidate will not have a chance of winning in this race. Basically if you cast a vote for an independent, you are casting a vote for Taylor by taking away from LaFortune votes.

I have already been getting several calls a day for who would wish me to vote for them -- personal and recorded calls.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on March 30, 2006 11:24 PM.

Mautino's bipartisan appeal was the previous entry in this blog.

LaFortune endorsed by Oklahoma Eagle, Marvin Blades is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]