Stanislawski boasts Whirled non-endorsement
Gary Stanislawski is not at all bothered that his principal rival in the SD 35 Senate race received a certain endorsement:
The Whirled editorial board endorsed former City Councilor Cason Carter.
Stanislawski, a financial planner and Jenks school board member, has been endorsed by incumbent Sen. Jim Williamson, who is leaving the legislature because of term limits, and by the Tulsa Area Republican Assembly. Stanislawski is an ORU alumnus, an active member and sometime Sunday School teacher and officer at Victory Christian Church, and served 8 years in the US Air Force.
Here's what I had to say about Mr. Carter about a year ago, right after the vote on buying One Technology Center as a new City Hall:
Taylor's over-the-top speech should have been greeted with howls of derision. Some councilor should have told her, "Madame Mayor, come back to talk to us when you can do so without insulting our intelligence."Taylor claimed that the consolidation of city government offices at OTC would be the "key that will unlock the revitalization of downtown."
Four years ago, we were told that the new downtown sports arena was going to be the key to revitalizing downtown. Before that, we were told that the key was the Inner Dispersal Loop, the Williams Center, the Civic Center, putting the pedestrian mall in, and taking the pedestrian mall out.
It's as if we have a junk drawer full of house keys, skeleton keys, car keys, diary keys, piano keys, and plastic baby toy keys, and our civic leaders are trying them at random until they find one that works.
Taylor also told the Council that the OTC purchase would accomplish "transformation for our souls." I kid you not -- she really said that. Maybe it's because OTC looks like a crystal. Or perhaps Taylor has been reading The Secret.
Our current City Hall is ugly, and moving to OTC would give a boost to the Blue Dome District, but the deal isn't all that. Only the very gullible would buy the fake-it-'til-you-make-it hucksterism in Taylor's claim that going into debt to buy OTC would "change the trajectory" of our city.
And speaking of Cason Carter, he too professed faith in the transformational power of One Technology Center. I'm not sure whether he said that because he truly believes it or because he was trying to please Mayor Mommy by echoing her words.
Carter plans to run for State Senate District 35 next year, but anyone who spouts such nonsense doesn't have any business handling taxpayer dollars at City Hall, much less the bigger bucks at the State Capitol.
Cason is intelligent, a likable guy, and conservative on social issues. Many people I respect are supporting him. But he played it safe during his two years on the Council, taking care never to offend people who might be able to finance his next step up the political ladder. If someone isn't willing to take political risks and offend powerful special interests at City Hall, it's hard to believe he'll suddenly develop that level of courage at a higher level of government.
DISCLOSURE: Early in the campaign, having already decided by process of elimination that I would not be supporting Mr. Carter or Mr. Applekamp, I did some paid computer work for the Stanislawski campaign. This blog entry is at my own initiative, prompted only by a mention of the flyer on Chris Medlock's show. (Medlock was endorsed by the Whirled in his first State House run in 1994, which he lost to Fred Perry, another conservative who was proud not to be endorsed by the Whirled.)
MORE: This endorsement won't help Cason in Brookside:
"As a private developer looking to invest in Tulsa, Cason Carter was extremely helpful. He put me in contact with neighborhood leaders and was able to help facilitate a project that will be a great benefit for Tulsa."John Gilbert
Senior Vice President Bomasada Group, Inc.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Stanislawski boasts Whirled non-endorsement.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4237
Subscribe to this blog's feed:
One must remember that when Mr. Carter better known as Kathy's Clown speaks of his dedication to our roads if he becomes a state Senator then i ask,where was the dedication he speaks of for our roads in Tulsa? He wasd only interrested in Taxing for the river and supporting Mayor Taylor in al of her attemps to increase ever utility and property taxes and fee's. Mr Carter is what i call a republicrat.RINO !!!
I had been on the fence about the two candidates for a while.
I was pretty happy overall with the way that Carter represented my district. He always attended my neighborhood association meetings, showing up before they started, and staying until everyone there had a chance to ask any questions they had for him.
On several small issues I had called his office with question, and each time he called me back and provided me with the information and insight on the issue.
On all the small things, that probably didn't really matter or impact his political standings, or that gained him any notarity he always did his best. To me, you have to sta
The only thing that made me pause was that I disagreed with him on the River Tax initiative. But even then I saw him first hand help people research their opinions against the River Tax, despite his desire for it to move forward.
Stanislawski was an appealing candidate because he showed all the signs of having the "right makeup" for the type of person I would like to see represent me. His intelligence, strength of character, and strong Church ties made him appealing. However, his NEGATIVE radio ads in my mind erased all of those attributes.
It would have been easy to assult Carter's record on the river and City Hall move, but instead he attacked Carter's character. To me that showed a lack of intelligence, a lack of character, and didn't seem in keeping with the Christian beliefs that I belived him to hold.
Because of THAT I'm voting for Carter.
Carter does have one big character flaws-
A friend and I asked him if he supported the river tax...
Assuming that we did too, for whatever reason (perhaps our youth)
Carter "let us in" on his thoughts. He seemed to be trying to win our help.
Sad sad man.
He said
"I was morally against the River Tax, but I supported it." "Yes I voted for it" "who could turn that much free $?"
Then we let HIM in on the fact that we morally oppose such trickery no matter how much money was wagged at us,
OUCH
he backed himself out of his corner and conceded...
"I know that the money probably wouldn't go to the river- there's no guarantee- but for other things we could still use it. I mean, who could turn down that kind of money?"
I hope that enlightens your reactive voting "That Guy"
RE: Erin O
Well if its "reactive" to perceive negative campaign ads as a character flaw, then I would have to say I'm guilty as charged on that one.
To "ignore" Stanislawski choice to run negative campaign ads seemed irresponsible to me, since Stanislawski was making an emphasis on his moral character as a reason to vote for him.
As I stated before until the ad I was on the fence.
Stanislawski had no civil service ( other then the school board ) that I could use to reference his ability to serve us in a civil service role, and I had only his assertions of his character that I had read about and seen in his printed campaign materials. I should do a better job of keeping up with what school boards are doing in my community, but the truth is I don't. I'm sure he served the city well in that role.
Carter on the other hand serving on the city council had a lot of reference able action ( both good and bad ) that are of broad public knowledge and I had several personal interactions with him myself to form my opinion.
Stanislawski made his own decision how he wanted to represent his character when he approved those radio ads, and I found his choice to not be in keeping with the morals that he proclaimed.
that guy- I agree that negative ads reveal a character flaw. A much more effective way of combating an opponent is to go with their force. I.E. If someone runs at you, don't try to stop them, just move out of the way and they fall. In fact that's why I had a hard time supporting either one of them. I live about 350 yards out of the district however, so the district's decisions about rivers, roads, and developments affect me as well. I had wanted to help one of the candidates their, but I find a flawless man in any nary a one.
I would have liked to know more about applekamp, as he was a very nice man. His wife was just as congenial and they answered well every question Nathan and I asked them. However, his history as a lobbyist OF COURSE made me question him. Then he never really came around much. I suppose he doesn't like asking for help, as I saw him putting his own signs up a couple nights back. My point here is, being "nice" is far less important than having the right values. Being "negative" is something every human is guilty of. So about the ads- yes, it was a careless move. But Stanislawski opposes unbound tax/gifts such as the might-be-for-the-river initiative, as do I. So why would I vote for the other side of that issue? I see a lot more experience in Stanislawski as well. He may not be 100% the best, but I would have voted for him because of his ideology and political history, not because of his personality.