Kudos to Scott Cooper and the powers that be at Oklahoma Gazette for the concise and informative page dedicated to the election for mayor of Oklahoma City (News, "Election," Feb. 24, 2010). It was a great idea and a format that should continue in the future.
Much could be learned from this: First thing would be the lack of experience Steve Hunt has compared to Mayor Cornett, although Mayor Cornett's connection to Ackerman McQueen is a huge conflict of interest, to say the least. Second would be the three sections following the "Employment" part; these truly speak volumes: One man seemed to be truly speaking his mind, whereas the other seemed to be running for re-election. One seemed to come from honest views and feelings, whereas the other seemed to be a strategic "be sure to say just the right things" PR response, suspicious of being concocted in a backroom by more than just the one person running. Maybe I'm a little biased for one over the other because I happen to agree with his views, but maybe it's because the alternate views are so general and seem to be catering or fishing for approval.
I think these responses are a shining example of why our forefathers intended the common person, and not the career politician, to serve these positions temporarily and not as a lifelong prospect. This is precisely why I believe Washington, D.C., has made such an incredible mess of everything; or is it Washington's fault? It is truly the fault of the slick, lifelong career politician, or is it we, the voter, who consistently put these people back in office? We like the generalized, feel-good "I care" approach, even if it doesn't say anything substantial about the candidate.
We enjoy the fuzzy warm feeling we get, especially when the message is something we don't have to think too much about. The situation we face is our own; no one else to blame. Time to start voting for the real person you can relate to.
Sorry, Mick, I like you, honestly. But in this case, for me as of now, that would have to be Steve.
Everyone wants good health care, that's a no-brainer, non-debatable issue. These days it's about the easiest, most generalized thing a politician can say and pretty much guarantee roaring applause. The real question is do we want health care by the ever benevolent hand of government, or do we want an economic reality that places the individual in a position of authority over their own situation and allows them to make decisions accordingly?
Nobody's more motivated to make good decisions for you, than you.
The most aggravating thing to me on this issue is that with so many who are struggling to pay bills and stay in their homes, I doubt very many of them have health care on their minds. I would have to say you're sincerely out of touch if you think otherwise. It must be nice.