Opinion/Editorial

The Race Is On (Printable Version , E-mail to a Friend )
Now that we know who’ll run, the question is: will the candidate of grassroots citizens or the moneyed elite prevail?
by Michael Bates

The filing period for Tulsa’s 2006 city election is closed, and the tourney brackets are set. Some we thought would be in are out, and some who planned to stay on the sidelines are in.

The Democrat mayoral primary field was sorted out by a double-double-cross. State Secretary of Commerce Kathy Taylor had committed to back former State Rep. Don McCorkell. Former Mayor Susan Savage and associates had committed to support City Councilor Tom Baker. On Monday the Savage bunch tossed Baker in favor of Taylor and left McCorkell without Taylor’s backing. Baker dropped out, realizing he had a better chance of being an über-bureaucrat in a Kathy Taylor administration than actually getting himself elected.

McCorkell has plenty cash of his own to continue the race without Taylor’s money, and grass-roots Democrats believe that he can not only beat Taylor but can prevail against any Republican, despite the GOP’s registration advantage.

Neither Taylor nor McCorkell have been visibly engaged in local issues, with one exception. Both took public stands on the initiative petition from Tulsans for Better Government (TBG), which would have dismembered three City Council districts in favor of three super-councilor seats elected citywide for four-year-terms.

McCorkell came out in opposition, while Taylor endorsed the proposal by signing up as a member of TBG’s advisory board. McCorkell, a northsider for most of his life, understood how the proposal would dilute the north community’s representation in city matters.

Word is that Taylor’s entrance into the race was at the urging of Leonard Eaton, a key supporter of the supercouncilor idea.

Taylor’s people seem to understand that her support for the at-large councilor proposal is a liability. Sometime after she announced her plans to run, her name mysteriously disappeared from the list of advisory board members at tulsansforbettergovernment.org. Thanks to Google, the modification to the list did not go unnoticed.

It’s easy to understand why Savage and her old team would be excited at the prospect of a Taylor administration. The resemblance between the two, not only in terms of appearance, but in terms of style and political image, is uncanny. Like Savage when she stepped into the Mayor’s office, Taylor is a polished, professional-looking woman with a non-controversial public image. She’s a Democrat, but comes across as a country-club Republican.

Savage had never run for public office before running to fill Rodger Randle’s term. She had headed up the Citizens’ Crime Commission and then served as deputy to Randle. Likewise, this will be Taylor’s first time to face the voters.

Observers say Taylor’s behind-the-scenes style is a lot like Savage’s too, unbending, quick to take offense, keeping a record of wrongs--literally, as Taylor is said to keep lists of those who have crossed her. And like Savage, Taylor has kept her pre-marriage name.

Taylor’s entry in the race caused a panic among certain Republicans, worried that Taylor was not only a shoo-in for Mayor, but also a threat down the road to run for higher office.

Nationally, Democrats have had a lot of success running candidates like Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl, Washington’s Maria Cantwell, and New Jersey’s Jon Corzine, who can self-finance a run for Senate. Taylor could easily follow in their footsteps, particularly with one successful election under her belt.

And with Taylor in the race, the Utica Square/Southern Hills axis, which backed Susan Savage before getting solidly behind Bill LaFortune in 2002, would swing behind her. LaFortune, who had the support of the Republican grass roots, the developers, and the old money in 2002, would be left with no solid base of support at all.

Counter Punch
A certain group of Republicans responded just as they did two years ago, when Sen. Don Nickles stepped down, and they despaired of holding on to the seat against Congressman Brad Carson, another Democrat with a moderate image. In 2004, they attempted to anoint Kirk Humphreys as the nominee. The grass roots of the party rebelled and rallied behind Tom Coburn. Humphreys backers dismissed Coburn as too much of a maverick to win, but Coburn beat Humphreys handily in the primary--no runoff required--and went on to do the same to Carson.

Playing the Coburn role this time is City Councilor Chris Medlock, as the maverick who supposedly can’t win, and the same group of consultants who tried to clear the field for Humphreys in 2004 is trying to clear the field for County Commissioner Randi Miller.

Miller’s backers are trying to position her as a reformer like Medlock, but electable. Her public stands on two recent issues make the “just like Medlock” claim doubtful.

Randi Miller is on the Tulsans for Better Government advisory board and evidently supports the idea of at-large city councilors, even though it would reduce her home turf of west Tulsa to political irrelevance. (Her name hasn’t been removed from their website, and she has yet to disavow the proposal.)

On the south Tulsa toll bridge issue, Miller now claims to be a skeptic, but she approved the original sweetheart contract with Infrastructure Ventures Inc., and she testified under oath that she did not review any supporting documentation prior to approving the contract. The spin is that she only went along with the bridge deal because she didn’t realize it would be so controversial. The counterpoint is that she must not have been paying attention to the terms of the deal or the opposition that had already gathered. (Medlock has publicly opposed both the toll bridge deal with IVI and the at-large councilor proposal.)

The electabilty claim is farfetched, as well. The last public poll of Republican voters gave LaFortune about 40%, Medlock about 16, and Miller only 4.

Looking at how their bases of support match up: In a head-to-head with Kathy Taylor, LaFortune or Miller would have only the support of hardcore party-line Republican voters, while Taylor would clean up with the midtown elite, and grass roots voters of both parties would stay home. The developers may be backing Miller now, but they will end up on the Taylor bandwagon.

But in a Medlock-Taylor matchup, Medlock would have the support of both Republican and Democrat grass roots voters, reflecting the bipartisan City Council coalition he forged with Councilors Mautino, Henderson, and Turner. The dynamics of the race with McCorkell as Democratic nominee are even worse for the GOP if LaFortune or Miller prevails, as some Republican grass roots voters would defect to McCorkell, while the Democratic grass roots would be energized. Only Medlock would be a strong head-to-head competitor with McCorkell.

So why aren’t the Republican deal-makers rallying behind Medlock? While Miller can be counted on to do as she’s told, they don’t think Medlock would feel sufficiently indebted to them when they need city help to make some deal, like the proposed east downtown soccer stadium, happen.

The attempt to squeeze Medlock out of the race only seems to have fired up his supporters and made him more determined to fight to the bitter end.

Consultants and deal-makers who only understand politics in terms of money may think of the grass roots as masses that can be manipulated by pouring money into image-making. The success of the reform councilors in the 2004 elections, the defeat of the recall attempts against Medlock and Mautino in 2005, and the quick failure of the at-large council petition in the face of grass-roots opposition show that ordinary Tulsans are paying close attention to City Hall and are able to organize, communicate, and build coalitions.

Don’t be surprised to see a grass-roots driven Medlock-McCorkell matchup in the April general election.