So Dewey Bartlett is the new mayor of Tulsa

[buckeye]

Want an outsider's perspective?  I grew up in the Great Lakes (obviously). 

As far as we knew, Oklahoma was just like Texas only fewer Mexicans.  Talk funny, open spaces, they all have guns, they're friendly but don't mess with 'em.  Okie had no connotation, it was a nickname like Buckeye, Hoosier, Mainer, etc.

Now to call somebody a Pittsburg Steelers fan, that was an insult.

Sorry to jump back off topic, but some things are so absurd a person just can't let them slide.

I voted for Perkins.  I'd be happy to send his inexperience to the office, he'd quickly recognize the ridiculous practices of local government for what they are, unlike the already initiated/mildly corrupted candidates.

[SXSW]

Want an outsider's perspective?  I grew up in the Great Lakes (obviously). 

As far as we knew, Oklahoma was just like Texas only fewer Mexicans.  Talk funny, open spaces, they all have guns, they're friendly but don't mess with 'em.  Okie had no connotation, it was a nickname like Buckeye, Hoosier, Mainer, etc.

Now to call somebody a Pittsburg Steelers fan, that was an insult.

Sorry to jump back off topic, but some things are so absurd a person just can't let them slide.

I voted for Perkins.  I'd be happy to send his inexperience to the office, he'd quickly recognize the ridiculous practices of local government for what they are, unlike the already initiated/mildly corrupted candidates.

I think Perkins will get his chance in the next election.  He was a complete nobody when he first announced he was running and ended up taking 18% of the vote as an Independent getting his name out there in the process.  I'm not sure where he lives but think it would be better for his political aspirations if he runs for a council seat first, or another city office. 

I wonder with the budget crisis and the 'no new taxes' Bartlett as mayor if that means we shouldn't expect any kind of grand public improvements package like Vision 2025 or OKC's MAPS?  OKC has a conservative mayor like Bartlett but at least their mayor understands how public improvements can change a city. 

[TheArtist]

I think the main public improvements we need to see is with our schools (that includes colleges) and public safety/health, and adopting the new master plan.

We have got a lot of bling and good sized projects lately (areana, ballpark, river parks trails, good start expanding colleges, road repair should start soon, etc.) But now I think its time to focus on some structural, zoning, financing, how things work and operate (that inculdes schools), type things. Of course keep an eye on continuing to nurture the budding revitalization of downtown and north Tulsa, but imo lets shift away from that being the main topic of conversation/argument. For by doing those things I mentioned, we will be helping downtown and north Tulsa, actually the whole city, anyway.

[TulsaSooner]

He's gonna walk around and learn stuff.

     http://www.slickdawg.com/showpost.php?p=1970790624&postcount=10

[rwarn17588]

A couple of threads to address ...

I grew up in the Midwest, a few states over from Oklahoma, and I don't know anyone who viewed the term "Okie" as demeaning. It was equivalent to calling someone from Texas as a Texan. It was a regional identifier, and nothing more.

Perhaps Okie was an insult many, many moons ago, but that's no longer the case and hasn't been for a very long time.

I don't think Perkins will do much to add to his political capital. His 18 percent of the vote came not so much from him being a viable candidate as much as a significant percentage of voters didn't like Adelson or Bartlett. He was little more than a protest vote. I thought the video he put out a couple of days before the election showed he didn't handle things well when pressed, and that doesn't bode well for him taking a campaign to another level in the future.

I think Perkins simply was in the right place at the right time for a semi-viable third-party candidacy, but that he will sink into obscurity and be little more than a trivia question in a few years. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

[Conan71]

Well, if nothing else, RW.  It might get a drink or beer bought for him every now and then.  "I ran for mayor of Tulsa once".

[Renaissance]

I think Perkins simply was in the right place at the right time for a semi-viable third-party candidacy, but that he will sink into obscurity and be little more than a trivia question in a few years. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

I know the guy pretty well and watched him campaign from a distance with curiosity.  I can tell you three things about him: 1) he's 100% invested in Tulsa; 2) he cannot stand the myopia and pettiness of the current stewards of either party; 3) he's very charismatic and knows just about every Tulsan under 35. 

Put those three together and think about it . . . you haven't heard the last of Mark Perkins.

[rwarn17588]

I know the guy pretty well and watched him campaign from a distance with curiosity.  I can tell you three things about him: 1) he's 100% invested in Tulsa; 2) he cannot stand the myopia and pettiness of the current stewards of either party; 3) he's very charismatic and knows just about every Tulsan under 35. 

That's fine 'n' dandy. A good attitude is good. His heart's in the right place.

But talk is cheap. What's his solutions? What's his approach? What's going to set him apart from any other schlep that wants better things for his town? Zeal without knowledge or ability doesn't mean much, and can actually be harmful.

This isn't meant to be tough on him. But if Perkins is really going to break the stranglehold of the two major parties, he'd better come up with some really innovative remedies and, even more importantly, the ability to implement them. He's got to be able to really stand out from the crowd in a tangible way.

[buckeye]

Because the two major parties have presented so many effective solutions to tough problems themselves, eh?  Perkins just needs to say something besides, "I'll look into it."

[rwarn17588]

Because the two major parties have presented so many effective solutions to tough problems themselves, eh?  Perkins just needs to say something besides, "I'll look into it."

I never said the two major parties had good solutions for anything.

But the fact is the two major parties have huge, inherent advantages in getting voters. Independent candidates do not. That is indisputable.

Therefore, Perkins really needs to stand out from the crowd and have really good ideas to get mainstream support. Maybe it sucks that he has to work twice or three times as hard as a Republican or Democrat to get voters, but that's the way it is. He can't change reality.

[Conan71]

Here's my thinking:

I don't think Perkins ever thought he'd wind up with near the votes he did when he got in the race.  No one really took a good look at him until the primaries were over.  I don't know if he got in for idealogical reasons as an independent or felt he'd be lost in a crowded GOP primary.  I tend to think the latter.

However, I think between Adelson and Bartlet (sic) annihillating each other, he got a second look as a viable candidate.  Sure it was a "no" vote for some voters, but for many, like myself, I honestly felt he was the least owned of the three real candidates.  

Now he's got name recognition and enough votes to be taken seriously.  He's certainly better versed on city issues than he was six months ago, and if he's really interested in the office, he'll come off a lot sharper in four years.  So long as he wants to be a part of the process, he's got a seat at the table and a following.  

[Renaissance]

Here's my thinking:

I don't think Perkins ever thought he'd wind up with near the votes he did when he got in the race.  No one really took a good look at him until the primaries were over.  I don't know if he got in for idealogical reasons as an independent or felt he'd be lost in a crowded GOP primary.  I tend to think the latter.

However, I think between Adelson and Bartlet (sic) annihillating each other, he got a second look as a viable candidate.  Sure it was a "no" vote for some voters, but for many, like myself, I honestly felt he was the least owned of the three real candidates.  

Now he's got name recognition and enough votes to be taken seriously.  He's certainly better versed on city issues than he was six months ago, and if he's really interested in the office, he'll come off a lot sharper in four years.  So long as he wants to be a part of the process, he's got a seat at the table and a following.  

I'm pretty sure he wants nothing to do with the local Republican party.  From his point of view it's a worthless vestige.  He doesn't want to have to pander to the absurdities of the paranoid grassroots on one hand (see, e.g., his sarcastic reference to his home in the "midtown money belt" in his rebuttal to Bartlett's ads) and the entrenched development lobby that acts sub rosa on the other.  From his point of view, it doesn't make sense that such different groups caucus together locally just because neither likes Nancy Pelosi.  So he's determined to act outside of local party politics.