The more Mike Bloomberg is challenged, the more obvious his regal arrogance becomes-as Daily Politics and City Room both underscore. The testiness devolves from the temerity of anyone-even reporters who are assigned to cover the mayor-to challenge his royal prerogatives.
As Liz reports, Bloomberg defended his right to, basically unlimited spending, with the following revealing comments: "Asked this morning why he won't agree to a self-imposed spending cap for his bid for a third term, given that his Democratic opponents will be forced by the public financing program to limit their expenditures, Mayor Bloomberg replied:
"I have no idea what they're doing. They have to decide what they're going to do and I'll decide what I'm going to do. I might also point out it is very difficult to get a message out to the public about what we have done and what we believe."
"Sometimes, there's going to be shock at this, but sometimes some reporters don't accurately describe what we have done, are doing or will do, and so we have to find another venue."
Oh, so now we have a seven year incumbent mayor, someone who told New Yorkers that he wouldn't spend in 2005 what he spent to "introduce himself" in 2005 (circ. $80 million), saying that he needs to spend comparable obscene amounts of money a third time. Why? Because of a negligent and nefarious press corps. This would be laugh out loud funny, if it wasn't so outrageous.
Given this level of guile, we now believe that Mike Bloomberg is the one who can navigate the city through this dire fiscal crisis; and can do so, simply by selling the Brooklyn Bridge to gullible buyers-over, and over again. This is clearly someone who believes that every one is, not only for sale, but also fully malleable if enough "education money" is allocated for their edification.
Bloomberg even has the unmitigated gall to posture that this is only virtue in action; falsely arguing that his self financing is simply a righteous refusal to take public dollars. As City Room outlines: "A few minutes later, another reporter, from NY1 News, asked essentially the same question, reworded slightly" To which the mayor replied: "And I will self-finance. There is no reason for me to take public money. I don’t need the public money, and I think it would be an outrage if I took it. Period. End of story."
What classic misdirection; as if spending over $160 million on three elections-two where Bloomberg's the incumbent-wasn't an even greater "outrage." The arrogance is breathtaking, and we're hoping that the press starts to really go after all of the pretense and hypocrisy of this monarchical pretender.