With Mike Bloomberg preoccupied with getting more representation in the US Senate for the Upper East Side, it is a good time for some to evaluate just how well he is doing himself; under the premise that perhaps he should get his own house in order before lobbying for someone else. This time, the critique of the mayor comes from the left (via Liz): "In this moment of jubilation for Democrats and progressives--even Indiana and North Carolina have gone blue--one open wound remains: the voters of New York City, who, for nearly sixteen consecutive years, have ceded Gracie Mansion to deeply anti-progressive men. As Michael Bloomberg's bid for a third term proceeds virtually unimpeded, that winning streak seems set to expand to twenty. New York City, wild child of American metropolises, bastion of political liberalism? Well, deep in its heart, maybe. But not among its leadership, not in a long time."
Interesting thought here-Mike Bloomberg as the anti-progressive: "Bloomberg would have it that he is a center-left technocrat, a liberal even, from the uppermost upper crust. It's part of the mythology that made him victorious in 2001...But, as is often the case with opportunistic politicians, Bloomberg's rhetoric bears little relationship to his record. Beyond the confines of his tireless propaganda machine, there is one salient fact: the Bloomberg Administration cannot point to one major success and credibly claim it as its own. The technocracy he promised has, in practice, more closely resembled autocracy. The center that he claims to occupy has often given way to the right."
Well, we would agree about the disparity between the Bloomberg record and his rhetoric-that gap is a chasm; and Porter is correct about the top-like spinning of the Bloomberg propaganda apparatus. But in our view, Bloomberg's failures are not those of someone who has governed from the right-to argue this, is to obfuscate why Bloomberg is such a failure at governing.
In fact Mike Bloomberg, as Mark Green would argue, has governed from the left; with a social policy on health and welfare in particular that has expanded the reach of government paternalism. What he hasn't done, is effectively deal with a government structure that is way too large and inefficient. And it is this chicken that is coming home to roost as the city's budget implodes.
Still, Porter has it right about the mayor's exaggerated tenure: "And yet. Despite this assemblage of failures and embarrassments, Bloomberg backers will argue that the Mayor has three trump cards: the economy, the crime rate, and education. Indeed, the crime rate in New York City has been at historic lows throughout Bloomberg's administration. But there's little evidence that anything Bloomberg has done is responsible. Criminologist Franklin Zimring, in his book The Great American Crime Decline, argues that Rudy Giuliani's crime prevention measures during the 1990's--COMPSTAT and the commitment to efficiency it represented, additional police on the beat, and a more aggressive policing philosophy--were responsible for the historic drop in crime that Bloomberg merely inherited."
And, as far as the economy is concerned, Bloomberg has done little to merit a term extension: "As for the economy, whatever success Bloomberg has enjoyed can be attributed to others--and the success is overshadowed by failure. The city's economy, as measured by overall growth, boomed between 2001 and 2007 because the financial services sector boomed. At the same time, Bloomberg did nothing to combat the decline of New York's middle class. Income disparity has spiked so much in recent years that, in 2006, a Brookings research,er Alan Berube, could declare that, in New York, "the middle class is missing." New York has the smallest proportion of middle-income families among all major American cities."
We could say the same thing about his small business record as well. As much as we disagree with Porter's perspective as to the Bloomberg shortcomings, he does make a strong and cogent deconstruction of the Bloomberg myth-and deserves the final word: "As his try for a third term begins, it's worth considering whether or not the legacy of Mike Bloomberg will be proof, once and for all, that money can buy anything--including respect for a record that, if it exists at all, is largely unaccomplished.'
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Bloomberg record. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Bloomberg record. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Money Bet
So now we can get busy with the real mayoral race-or, can we? Bill Thompson has one the Democratic nomination a yawner that most party members avoided yesterday-and it will be a real challenge for the comptroller to take the fight to Mike Bloomberg, and beat him, But, as the NY Times reports, he is not without some advantages: "Here is the Michael R. Bloomberg that his Democratic rival wants you to see: a power-hungry politician who broke his promise not to seek a third term; an insensitive billionaire who raised taxes on the middle class; an overrated manager who failed to accomplish anything big in his second term."
The problem. however, lies with the lack of money Thompson has raised to get their message across, And, despite what Dan Gerstein tells us in yesterday's, NY Daily News, money does matter: "To rationalize this sorry situation, presumptive nominee Bill Thompson and his defenders have come up with about 36 million excuses. That is the amount of cash Bloomberg has spent (as of the last filing) to win a third term, a total that will likely double by November. That bankroll, we're told, gives the mayor such an unfair edge that no Democrat could effectively compete against him."
Not so, says the Democratic turned sycophant Gerstein: "This line may hold comfort for partisans, but it doesn't hold water. If you know anything about how campaigns work, Thompson's more money myth falls apart quicker than his campaign has. Start with the dubious assumption this argument is premised on - that money is the decisive factor in electoral campaigns. There is no doubt that money matters. But history is littered with candidates who massively outspent their opponents only to get outgunned at the polls."
Massive disadvantages elsewhere, doesn't do justice to the disparities operating in the NYC mayoral race-or to the fact that the Bloomberg presence has dried up the usual sources of campaign funds that are relied upon by Democrats in this city-since the giving cohort can be seen as charter members of the Bloomberg fan club. The rich, and those who normally look for aggrandizement from government, are all gonna sit out the Thompson's effort; and the outspending Bloomberg's cash will be overwhelming any Thompson media message.
That being said, Gerstein has a point about the Thompson opportunity: "That same poll showed the mayor with a commanding 50%-to-35% lead over Thompson. But it bears noting that Bloomberg's reelect number is 10 points lower than his job approval rating. This indicates that Hizzoner has serious liabilities, ripe to be exploited. Chief among them: a fairly broad sense among middle-class voters that he's arrogant and out of touch, which was reinforced by the damaging term limits fight. If Thompson were a skilled candidate and offered a compelling counternarrative and agenda, he could have seized on Bloomberg's vulnerabilities and made the race competitive."
And the incessant ads are in fact a turnoff: "In fact, the most recent Quinnipiac poll suggests Bloomberg's ad avalanche may be doing as much harm as good: 47% said they found all his efforts annoying, and 57% said they amounted to overkill."
But Thompson does need to capitalize on the Bloomberg vulnerabilities-weaknesses that acolyte Gershman can see clearly. As the Times tells us: "Wednesday is the first day of the general election campaign for mayor, but the outline of each side’s message is already emerging. And this much is clear: The race will be combative. It will be expensive. And it will be personal.
“The incumbent Republican mayor defends Wall Street executives, the rich and developers,” begins a new radio advertisement from Mr. Thompson’s campaign."
The Bloomberg retort: politics as usual-with the mayor droning from script at last night's gathering for the Bloombergistas. But nothing could be more politics as usual than the mayor's usurpation of the popular will with his term limits power grab. Nothing independent about that old school arrogance. And the effort by Bloomberg to respond to allegations of out of touchness ring hollow to our ears: "At every possible turn, Mr. Thompson will attack Mr. Bloomberg for what Mr. Castell described as “broken promises” and “for playing by a different set of rules.” He will critique his record on homelessness, his autocratic approach to the schools and his tax increases. “Life in this city has become more expensive, not less,” Mr. Castell said. He will deride Mr. Bloomberg as a Republican, even though the mayor is a registered independent, because he is running on the Republican ballot line."
The Bloomberg campaign will counter with an attack on the Thompson record-and Gerstein's observation will likely be a theme: "This might explain why, even though I follow the race more closely than the average voter, I can't name a single accomplishment of Thompson's seven years as controller or one good policy idea he has that speaks to Bloomberg's shortcomings." How many times has a comptroller, given the nature of the job, been able to point to his record? Alan Hevesi had the same problem eight years ago.
And then there is the schools issue. Here's the Times: "Mr. Bloomberg’s aides have already started to mock Mr. Thompson’s record as the president of the Board of Education, and as comptroller, suggesting he is a creature of the political machine." But here the mayor better tread softly-as more and more stuff emerges about how shallow the educational record Bloomberg is touting really is.
But what's missing from Gerstein's critique-and his admonition about Thompson's so far lack luster efforts is fair up to a point-is how the Bloomberg money machine has laundered cash throughout the political system for over seven years-suborning quite a few, while intimidating even more folks. Just look at the "independent" local newspaper endorsements for a small clue. Incumbency, combined with a cash avalanche employed in astro turf fashion, is a formidable opponent. The fact that the race is as close as it is, attests to the mayor's vulnerabilities.
So, we will see if Thompson can fire up and exploit these weaknesses. And Gerstein misses the boat when he tells us: "It's the city, though, that is the poorer for Thompson's poor excuse for a campaign, and I say that as someone who supports the mayor's reelection. Beyond being denied a serious debate about our future, New Yorkers are losing our last big bit of leverage to keep the mayor on his toes. That's something no amount of money can buy - and that my fellow Democrats should have thought of before picking their nominee."
If we have been denied a serious debate-and the jury is still out about that-it's because of the power of money to intimidate potential opposition-leaving Thompson standing alone just about. Not to mention a supine cohort of editorialists who are even more sycophantic than Jacob's ladder to fame and fortune.
The next few weeks will tell if Thompson can craft the kind of resonating narrative that will throw the Bloomberg campaign off its game and make this contest a real race. There is quite a lot to exploit, but the clock is running and Bloomberg's three corner offense is looking to stall things so time runs out before Thompson can really gear up.
The problem. however, lies with the lack of money Thompson has raised to get their message across, And, despite what Dan Gerstein tells us in yesterday's, NY Daily News, money does matter: "To rationalize this sorry situation, presumptive nominee Bill Thompson and his defenders have come up with about 36 million excuses. That is the amount of cash Bloomberg has spent (as of the last filing) to win a third term, a total that will likely double by November. That bankroll, we're told, gives the mayor such an unfair edge that no Democrat could effectively compete against him."
Not so, says the Democratic turned sycophant Gerstein: "This line may hold comfort for partisans, but it doesn't hold water. If you know anything about how campaigns work, Thompson's more money myth falls apart quicker than his campaign has. Start with the dubious assumption this argument is premised on - that money is the decisive factor in electoral campaigns. There is no doubt that money matters. But history is littered with candidates who massively outspent their opponents only to get outgunned at the polls."
Massive disadvantages elsewhere, doesn't do justice to the disparities operating in the NYC mayoral race-or to the fact that the Bloomberg presence has dried up the usual sources of campaign funds that are relied upon by Democrats in this city-since the giving cohort can be seen as charter members of the Bloomberg fan club. The rich, and those who normally look for aggrandizement from government, are all gonna sit out the Thompson's effort; and the outspending Bloomberg's cash will be overwhelming any Thompson media message.
That being said, Gerstein has a point about the Thompson opportunity: "That same poll showed the mayor with a commanding 50%-to-35% lead over Thompson. But it bears noting that Bloomberg's reelect number is 10 points lower than his job approval rating. This indicates that Hizzoner has serious liabilities, ripe to be exploited. Chief among them: a fairly broad sense among middle-class voters that he's arrogant and out of touch, which was reinforced by the damaging term limits fight. If Thompson were a skilled candidate and offered a compelling counternarrative and agenda, he could have seized on Bloomberg's vulnerabilities and made the race competitive."
And the incessant ads are in fact a turnoff: "In fact, the most recent Quinnipiac poll suggests Bloomberg's ad avalanche may be doing as much harm as good: 47% said they found all his efforts annoying, and 57% said they amounted to overkill."
But Thompson does need to capitalize on the Bloomberg vulnerabilities-weaknesses that acolyte Gershman can see clearly. As the Times tells us: "Wednesday is the first day of the general election campaign for mayor, but the outline of each side’s message is already emerging. And this much is clear: The race will be combative. It will be expensive. And it will be personal.
“The incumbent Republican mayor defends Wall Street executives, the rich and developers,” begins a new radio advertisement from Mr. Thompson’s campaign."
The Bloomberg retort: politics as usual-with the mayor droning from script at last night's gathering for the Bloombergistas. But nothing could be more politics as usual than the mayor's usurpation of the popular will with his term limits power grab. Nothing independent about that old school arrogance. And the effort by Bloomberg to respond to allegations of out of touchness ring hollow to our ears: "At every possible turn, Mr. Thompson will attack Mr. Bloomberg for what Mr. Castell described as “broken promises” and “for playing by a different set of rules.” He will critique his record on homelessness, his autocratic approach to the schools and his tax increases. “Life in this city has become more expensive, not less,” Mr. Castell said. He will deride Mr. Bloomberg as a Republican, even though the mayor is a registered independent, because he is running on the Republican ballot line."
The Bloomberg campaign will counter with an attack on the Thompson record-and Gerstein's observation will likely be a theme: "This might explain why, even though I follow the race more closely than the average voter, I can't name a single accomplishment of Thompson's seven years as controller or one good policy idea he has that speaks to Bloomberg's shortcomings." How many times has a comptroller, given the nature of the job, been able to point to his record? Alan Hevesi had the same problem eight years ago.
And then there is the schools issue. Here's the Times: "Mr. Bloomberg’s aides have already started to mock Mr. Thompson’s record as the president of the Board of Education, and as comptroller, suggesting he is a creature of the political machine." But here the mayor better tread softly-as more and more stuff emerges about how shallow the educational record Bloomberg is touting really is.
But what's missing from Gerstein's critique-and his admonition about Thompson's so far lack luster efforts is fair up to a point-is how the Bloomberg money machine has laundered cash throughout the political system for over seven years-suborning quite a few, while intimidating even more folks. Just look at the "independent" local newspaper endorsements for a small clue. Incumbency, combined with a cash avalanche employed in astro turf fashion, is a formidable opponent. The fact that the race is as close as it is, attests to the mayor's vulnerabilities.
So, we will see if Thompson can fire up and exploit these weaknesses. And Gerstein misses the boat when he tells us: "It's the city, though, that is the poorer for Thompson's poor excuse for a campaign, and I say that as someone who supports the mayor's reelection. Beyond being denied a serious debate about our future, New Yorkers are losing our last big bit of leverage to keep the mayor on his toes. That's something no amount of money can buy - and that my fellow Democrats should have thought of before picking their nominee."
If we have been denied a serious debate-and the jury is still out about that-it's because of the power of money to intimidate potential opposition-leaving Thompson standing alone just about. Not to mention a supine cohort of editorialists who are even more sycophantic than Jacob's ladder to fame and fortune.
The next few weeks will tell if Thompson can craft the kind of resonating narrative that will throw the Bloomberg campaign off its game and make this contest a real race. There is quite a lot to exploit, but the clock is running and Bloomberg's three corner offense is looking to stall things so time runs out before Thompson can really gear up.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Small Business Sham
In this week's Village Voice, the paper's Wayne Barrett devastates the Bloomberg record on women and minority-owned businesses, with a full evaluation of the shameful record of Commissioner Rob Walsh. The context of the article is the record percentages of voters Bloomberg achieved among Blacks and Hispanics, and the meager results of programs touted by Bloomberg during his 2005 campaign: "These signature programs—touted in the campaign's radio and television ads—have since disappeared from both the public's consciousness and the mayor's agenda. Bloomberg issued a "Campaign Accountability Report" last year, claiming success in 96 of the 100 promises he'd made in 2005. That list of campaign pledges did not include the MWBE or construction- apprenticeship initiatives."
This shouldn't really surprise anyone, since Walsh's agency has never done a damn thing for small and minority business and, on the contrary, has been the active catalyst for their demise-witness the SBS role in the eviction of the merchants from the Bronx Terminal Market, and his midwifing of IKEA to the detriment of the retailers in Sunset Park. And as far as Bloomberg is concerned, Black and Hispanic businesses are expendable, just ask all of those firms at Willets Point that the mayor's looking to give the heave-ho to.
Of course, as we have commented, all of this has not really been scrutinized by a supine press. As Barrett points out quoting Freddy Ferrar: "Ferrer, who dropped out of politics and now works for a private public-relations firm, tells the Voice that these programs "are only successful in the eyes of the initiator." The former Bronx borough president insists that "if it were anyone else, there would be much more accountability on these promises," and he also decries the media "quiescence" that has selectively protected the Bloomberg administration. "I have never seen it so still," he says, contrasting the media's lack of penetrating questions about Bloomberg's second-term record with the coverage of his three immediate predecessors: Giuliani, David Dinkins, and Ed Koch."
Our problem with this transcends the contracting charade and Walsh's evident obsession with his soft ball team. The tone and tenor of the Bloomberg administration was set in 2002 when the Fernandez brothers were by-passed by Dan Doctoroff on the Bradhurst project in Harlem for his friend Steve Ross, Since then, the Related Company and Vornado Realty have been living large, with no attempt to reach out to qualified minority firms.
But why should Bloomberg when existing minority businesses are being trampled by the mayor's development policies? Here' the money quote: "Robert Walsh, who has run SBS since Bloomberg took office, conceded during a three-hour Voice interview that he hasn't had a single meeting with the mayor to discuss the MWBE program since the new law went into effect in late 2005. He also acknowledged that, from the beginning of the administration, his conversations with Bloomberg about aiding small businesses "had not been focused on gender or race." Asked if they'd ever had a conversation in which Bloomberg gave him "a sense of how important an MWBE program was to him," Walsh replied: "I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. I can't remember a conversation like that."
Hats off to Barrett. As we have said, the real hard looks at Bloomberg have started to come, and this Voice piece, coming as it does from one of the mayor's staunchest defenders, is truly devastating, Councilman James Sanders' commentary on Walsh's failures to achieve anything positive for minority contractors should serve as an epitaph for Bloomberg's appear to be good administration: "He contends that the failure of SBS "to enforce the rule of law and economic justice as far as MWBEs are concerned is at best a dereliction of duty, and at worst a failure of character."
This shouldn't really surprise anyone, since Walsh's agency has never done a damn thing for small and minority business and, on the contrary, has been the active catalyst for their demise-witness the SBS role in the eviction of the merchants from the Bronx Terminal Market, and his midwifing of IKEA to the detriment of the retailers in Sunset Park. And as far as Bloomberg is concerned, Black and Hispanic businesses are expendable, just ask all of those firms at Willets Point that the mayor's looking to give the heave-ho to.
Of course, as we have commented, all of this has not really been scrutinized by a supine press. As Barrett points out quoting Freddy Ferrar: "Ferrer, who dropped out of politics and now works for a private public-relations firm, tells the Voice that these programs "are only successful in the eyes of the initiator." The former Bronx borough president insists that "if it were anyone else, there would be much more accountability on these promises," and he also decries the media "quiescence" that has selectively protected the Bloomberg administration. "I have never seen it so still," he says, contrasting the media's lack of penetrating questions about Bloomberg's second-term record with the coverage of his three immediate predecessors: Giuliani, David Dinkins, and Ed Koch."
Our problem with this transcends the contracting charade and Walsh's evident obsession with his soft ball team. The tone and tenor of the Bloomberg administration was set in 2002 when the Fernandez brothers were by-passed by Dan Doctoroff on the Bradhurst project in Harlem for his friend Steve Ross, Since then, the Related Company and Vornado Realty have been living large, with no attempt to reach out to qualified minority firms.
But why should Bloomberg when existing minority businesses are being trampled by the mayor's development policies? Here' the money quote: "Robert Walsh, who has run SBS since Bloomberg took office, conceded during a three-hour Voice interview that he hasn't had a single meeting with the mayor to discuss the MWBE program since the new law went into effect in late 2005. He also acknowledged that, from the beginning of the administration, his conversations with Bloomberg about aiding small businesses "had not been focused on gender or race." Asked if they'd ever had a conversation in which Bloomberg gave him "a sense of how important an MWBE program was to him," Walsh replied: "I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. I can't remember a conversation like that."
Hats off to Barrett. As we have said, the real hard looks at Bloomberg have started to come, and this Voice piece, coming as it does from one of the mayor's staunchest defenders, is truly devastating, Councilman James Sanders' commentary on Walsh's failures to achieve anything positive for minority contractors should serve as an epitaph for Bloomberg's appear to be good administration: "He contends that the failure of SBS "to enforce the rule of law and economic justice as far as MWBEs are concerned is at best a dereliction of duty, and at worst a failure of character."
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Bloomberg-Induced Coma
It appears as if the Bloombergistas may be worried that New Yorkers, lacking enthusiasm for the ebullient billionaire, and exhausted by his relentless huckstering, will simply stay home next week. As the NY Times reports: "His administration’s record aside, and his campaign’s unmatched spending notwithstanding, Michael R. Bloomberg’s aides in the field mince no words about exactly what will determine the outcome of next Tuesday’s mayoral election. “At the end of the day, every election is about one thing: making sure your supporters get to the polls and vote,” Lenny Speiller, the campaign’s get-out-the-vote director, declares on the Bloomberg Web site. Recalling the record-low turnouts in last month’s primary and runoff, Mr. Speiller exhorts Bloomberg volunteers to shift into overdrive."
And, of course, there's plenty of money for that as well-leaving us to wonder whether the Beatles can be resurrected to do a reprise-with altered lyrics-of their "Money Can't Buy You Love" single. As Speiller (what an apt name for those of you who understand Yiddish) says: "“Our efforts have been and will continue to be the most expansive and effective grass-roots operation this city has ever seen,” he said in a blog post dated Friday. “Tonight we will knock on our 1,500,000th door, make our 550,000th volunteer phone call and hand out literature at our 4,000th transit stop and high traffic location — and if you think that’s impressive, you haven’t seen anything yet!”
These folks are actually patting themselves on the back for an ability to spend Bloomberg's unlimited funds-as if that's a sign of acumen and sophistication. The reality, it seems, is that there could be a record low turnout next Tuesday: "With the mayor leading in public opinion polls by 16 percentage points or more, most New Yorkers might think he has nothing to worry about. But elections have been lost — most notably David N. Dinkins’s 1993 re-election race — because people who insisted to pollsters that they supported a candidate ultimately did not bother to vote. And a number of political analysts say that a predicted record-low turnout next Tuesday may jeopardize Mr. Bloomberg’s projected double-digit victory margin and even deliver him a third term with the lowest total vote received by a New York City mayor in nearly a century."
And this is in spite of how grateful we all should be for Bloomberg providing us with more choice in this election season. What the mayor failed to tell us, was that the best choice he has given us is the one to stay home in protest of his arrogant over turning of the term limits law, and his record attempts at numbing us to death with Soviet-style campaign pronouncements.
But the low projected turnout could well mean a much closer race than the latest polls are indicating: "Those analysts discount the projections of a large margin of victory because, they argue, the most motivated voters are likely to be those who are angry with the mayor and inclined to vote against him, largely because of his reversal last year over term limits. Still, few, if any, independent analysts are going so far as to predict that Mr. Bloomberg will lose, given his sophisticated and amply financed get-out-the-vote operation, abetted by the support of major unions. “There’s no doubt that the term limit issue will be driving a lot of voters to the polls,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, “but my guess is so will Bloomberg’s vans.”
So it may come down to Bloomberg's ability to hire chauffeured limos for every voter-along with the free beer that Tammany Hall used to use as a motivator back in the day: "Mr. Bloomberg won in 2001 with 744,000 votes. He won a second term four years later with 753,000 of the 1.3 million cast. If as few as 20 percent of eligible voters turn out and Mr. Bloomberg wins even by a 10-percentage-point landslide, he would be re-elected with fewer than 500,000 votes — the lowest total since John F. Hylan’s in 1917."
So we're back to the future it seems.-with enthusiasm as low as it can be. This is some legacy for the greatest campaign profligacy of all times. The Bloombucks have done their job in driving voters into a coma; a sad day for democracy in NYC.
And, of course, there's plenty of money for that as well-leaving us to wonder whether the Beatles can be resurrected to do a reprise-with altered lyrics-of their "Money Can't Buy You Love" single. As Speiller (what an apt name for those of you who understand Yiddish) says: "“Our efforts have been and will continue to be the most expansive and effective grass-roots operation this city has ever seen,” he said in a blog post dated Friday. “Tonight we will knock on our 1,500,000th door, make our 550,000th volunteer phone call and hand out literature at our 4,000th transit stop and high traffic location — and if you think that’s impressive, you haven’t seen anything yet!”
These folks are actually patting themselves on the back for an ability to spend Bloomberg's unlimited funds-as if that's a sign of acumen and sophistication. The reality, it seems, is that there could be a record low turnout next Tuesday: "With the mayor leading in public opinion polls by 16 percentage points or more, most New Yorkers might think he has nothing to worry about. But elections have been lost — most notably David N. Dinkins’s 1993 re-election race — because people who insisted to pollsters that they supported a candidate ultimately did not bother to vote. And a number of political analysts say that a predicted record-low turnout next Tuesday may jeopardize Mr. Bloomberg’s projected double-digit victory margin and even deliver him a third term with the lowest total vote received by a New York City mayor in nearly a century."
And this is in spite of how grateful we all should be for Bloomberg providing us with more choice in this election season. What the mayor failed to tell us, was that the best choice he has given us is the one to stay home in protest of his arrogant over turning of the term limits law, and his record attempts at numbing us to death with Soviet-style campaign pronouncements.
But the low projected turnout could well mean a much closer race than the latest polls are indicating: "Those analysts discount the projections of a large margin of victory because, they argue, the most motivated voters are likely to be those who are angry with the mayor and inclined to vote against him, largely because of his reversal last year over term limits. Still, few, if any, independent analysts are going so far as to predict that Mr. Bloomberg will lose, given his sophisticated and amply financed get-out-the-vote operation, abetted by the support of major unions. “There’s no doubt that the term limit issue will be driving a lot of voters to the polls,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, “but my guess is so will Bloomberg’s vans.”
So it may come down to Bloomberg's ability to hire chauffeured limos for every voter-along with the free beer that Tammany Hall used to use as a motivator back in the day: "Mr. Bloomberg won in 2001 with 744,000 votes. He won a second term four years later with 753,000 of the 1.3 million cast. If as few as 20 percent of eligible voters turn out and Mr. Bloomberg wins even by a 10-percentage-point landslide, he would be re-elected with fewer than 500,000 votes — the lowest total since John F. Hylan’s in 1917."
So we're back to the future it seems.-with enthusiasm as low as it can be. This is some legacy for the greatest campaign profligacy of all times. The Bloombucks have done their job in driving voters into a coma; a sad day for democracy in NYC.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Rose Colored Glasses
Wayne Barrett continues his awe inspiring crusade against all things hypocritically Bloomberg-this time he's all over Bloomberg muñeco Charlie Rose for an embarrassing interview he held with retiring senator Evan Bayh: "Charlie Rose turned his hour-long Public Broadcasting interview Monday with Indiana Senator Evan Bayh into a commercial for his show's number one backer, Mike Bloomberg, virtually fashioning his own Bloomberg/Bayh 2012 ticket on the air without a whisper of honest disclosure."
As it turns out, Rose is one of those wholly owned Bloomberg subsidiaries: "Rose is a Bloomberg acquisition. Bayh, whorecently announced this would be his last year in the Senate, may be on his way to becoming one. From Bloomberg's studio, where the Rose show has been shot for a decade and a half, Rose steered Bayh into a protracted, and largely favorable, discussion about Bloomberg's upcoming presidential race. Rose did not mention that Bloomberg has supplied Rose with a free office and studio virtually since the show began, or that Bloomberg L.P. is a financial underwriter of the show and agreed last year to pay to rebroadcast it nightly on Bloomberg TV and Bloomberg Radio. When Bloomberg L.P. recently bought Business Week, it added "columnist" to Rose's resume. Rose's sometime companion, Amanda Burden, is Bloomberg's planning commissioner."
Why, that's almost as obsequious as Morticia's news platform for Bloomberg. But we can't let a few of Rose's whoppers go unchallenged. In selling his jefe, Rose leads with the following observation for the malleable Bayh about Bloomberg's supposedly protean appeal: "And an appeal to both Democrats and Republicans because of some positions he has which are Democratic, some -- certainly on fiscal issues, some positions that are conservative."
Rose is clearly one toke over the line. Mike Bloomberg is as fiscally conservative as the late John Lindsay-and he only draws the tax line when the levies are directed at his own Wall Stret cohort. And his nanny state mentality would drive independents-not to mention Republicans-batty. But this reality check doesn't stop Rose from fantasizing: "So that's the profile of somebody, a lot of money and an appeal to independents. And it's in your judgment, knowing politics, doable if certain convergences take place?"
Oh, please! But as Barrett points out, the easily distracted Bloomberg has big ideas for 2012: "While Bayh was in town, Kevin Sheekey, the Deputy Mayor for Politics who ran Bloomberg's last presidential campaign, announced he was leaving to work at Bloomberg L.P. As serious as the 2008 exploration was, and there is no doubt that Bloomberg spent a small fortune assessing it, Sheekey did it all from a public perch. The fact that he is leaving suggests that they are far more serious this time."
All of which encourages us to hope that the mayor really gets cracking-oh, and yes, and resigns early to pick up his quixotic lance. The idea that Bloomberg's capable of leading this country off of his mediocre NYC performance is laughable-and we can't wait for the Obama loving media to go after his record here and his over inflated pretensions for national leadership as well.
Once a truly critical lens is put to the Bloomberg performance, the king will be seen in the "altogether:" A naked example of naked ambition-with few leadership abilities to lead this country.
As it turns out, Rose is one of those wholly owned Bloomberg subsidiaries: "Rose is a Bloomberg acquisition. Bayh, whorecently announced this would be his last year in the Senate, may be on his way to becoming one. From Bloomberg's studio, where the Rose show has been shot for a decade and a half, Rose steered Bayh into a protracted, and largely favorable, discussion about Bloomberg's upcoming presidential race. Rose did not mention that Bloomberg has supplied Rose with a free office and studio virtually since the show began, or that Bloomberg L.P. is a financial underwriter of the show and agreed last year to pay to rebroadcast it nightly on Bloomberg TV and Bloomberg Radio. When Bloomberg L.P. recently bought Business Week, it added "columnist" to Rose's resume. Rose's sometime companion, Amanda Burden, is Bloomberg's planning commissioner."
Why, that's almost as obsequious as Morticia's news platform for Bloomberg. But we can't let a few of Rose's whoppers go unchallenged. In selling his jefe, Rose leads with the following observation for the malleable Bayh about Bloomberg's supposedly protean appeal: "And an appeal to both Democrats and Republicans because of some positions he has which are Democratic, some -- certainly on fiscal issues, some positions that are conservative."
Rose is clearly one toke over the line. Mike Bloomberg is as fiscally conservative as the late John Lindsay-and he only draws the tax line when the levies are directed at his own Wall Stret cohort. And his nanny state mentality would drive independents-not to mention Republicans-batty. But this reality check doesn't stop Rose from fantasizing: "So that's the profile of somebody, a lot of money and an appeal to independents. And it's in your judgment, knowing politics, doable if certain convergences take place?"
Oh, please! But as Barrett points out, the easily distracted Bloomberg has big ideas for 2012: "While Bayh was in town, Kevin Sheekey, the Deputy Mayor for Politics who ran Bloomberg's last presidential campaign, announced he was leaving to work at Bloomberg L.P. As serious as the 2008 exploration was, and there is no doubt that Bloomberg spent a small fortune assessing it, Sheekey did it all from a public perch. The fact that he is leaving suggests that they are far more serious this time."
All of which encourages us to hope that the mayor really gets cracking-oh, and yes, and resigns early to pick up his quixotic lance. The idea that Bloomberg's capable of leading this country off of his mediocre NYC performance is laughable-and we can't wait for the Obama loving media to go after his record here and his over inflated pretensions for national leadership as well.
Once a truly critical lens is put to the Bloomberg performance, the king will be seen in the "altogether:" A naked example of naked ambition-with few leadership abilities to lead this country.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Bloomberg's National Delusion
Once again, this time in an Adam Lisberg column, the NY press corps is focusing on the giddy possibility of a Bloomberg third party run for president in 2010: "Mayor Bloomberg is ready to lead a national march to the middle. He's just waiting to see if anyone will follow.
Our mayor is steadily building his nationwide profile by presenting himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative - the same formula that got him elected nine years ago."
This fantasy reminds us of Karl Marx's snarky put down of fellow socialist Proudhon; "He seeks synthesis, but all he achieves is composite error." The idea that Mike Bloomberg could craft an independent presidential run based on the synthesis of social liberalism and economic conservatism founders on the facts of his governing style and substance-something that Lisberg should have made the effort to document with at least one gainsayer of this mayoral fantasy.
As we have said-in reaction to a NY Times speculative story in the same vein-the mayor is ill fit for the current national move back to right/center politics: "Could anyone be more detached from the national mood-or more clueless about what it means? Certainly, the Bloomberg effort underscores the mayor's isolation from the country's concerns and passions-not surprising for someone who spends most of his weekends at a Bermuda estate: "Mr. Bloomberg described the Tea Party movement as a fad, comparing it to the short-lived burst of support for Ross Perot in 1992. The mayor suggested that the fury it had unleashed was not a foundation for leadership. “Look, people are angry,” he said. “Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. Government seems to be paralyzed and unable to solve all of our problems. Anger, however, is not a government strategy,” he said. “It’s not a way to govern.”
Bloomberg, in endorsing candidates from both parties, is trying to create a moderate centrist brand. But, in doing so, he mischaracterizes the source of the public's anger. It's not about paralysis and inefficiency; it's directed at governmental over reach-something that Mike Bloomberg is ill positioned to run against, given his continual need to intrude on the everyday lives of New Yorkers with one Nanny experiment after another.
The anger in the electorate isn't, in Ed Koch-like fashion, isn't about corruption and the failure to compromise-it is about ideological over reach and the growth of a national government that is unsupportable without massive increases in taxes and levies. How does Mike Bloomberg's record jibe with this critique? In his almost nine years the mayor has raised taxes and fess, increased the size of the public payroll-while all the time turning government into Big Brother.
And can we think of any elected official in the country who is more detached from the popular mood than Bloomberg/? Which is why, in the same elitist vein as as many of our more liberal columnists, he sees the popular anger as an ephemeral temper tantrum-missing the incisive, targeted nature of the Tea Part assault. As we said earlier, "A corollary to the big government alarm that has been raised, is a growing fear of the regulatory reach of the public sector-to wit the virulent antagonism to national health care. This isn't an inchoate public anger, but Bloomberg isn't an isolated figure, and he comfortably fits into the liberal Eugene Robinson, "temper tantrum," critique of the voters' anger. (or, alternately, the voters are, "clueless." or "bewildered") Bloomberg, of course, would miss this side of the Tea Party critique because he is the ubber-regulator and Nanny in chief; and is now going forward to restrict outdoor smoking. Talk about tacking against the political winds-this guy is, to mix a metaphor, pure salmon.
But there is another glaring impediment to the Bloomberg pipe dream-who he is, and where he comes from. Part of the current populist anger-and it connects the Left as well as the Right-is directed at our financial elites; and the way, in the popular mind, in which the government and Wall Street have colluded. Bloomberg, as the staunchest defender of Big Capitol would, charitably, not be cast as a sympathetic national player in the current environment.
Lisberg also goes to a pollster who may not be best situated to accurately gauge the national angst: "His national voice dovetails nicely, though, with what pollsters say is a growing disgust in America with the two-party system - and a hunger for solutions instead of gridlock. "There's a marketplace for new movements, and not just movements of the right and left but for the center," said Democratic pollster Mark Penn, whose partner Douglas Schoen has worked with Bloomberg for years. One of their polls last week found 54% of likely voters in battleground districts believe a third party would be good for America."
This is what's known as an audition statement-what pollster, or political consultant, wouldn't salivate at participating in a billion dollar Bloomberg magical mystery tour? As if on cue: "The Tea Party is just the tip of the iceberg," countered Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist who believes a legitimate third-party candidate will run for President in 2012."There is a silent majority of Americans starving for another alternative," McKinnon said. "Mike Bloomberg is the prototype of the kind of leader that could represent a third-party movement."
And, as far as solutions go, what about the Bloomberg educational miracle-built on a Potemkin Village of fraud and deception? Imagine the blow back from the voters when the opposition tells them how Bloomberg paid out millions of dollars to teachers and administrators based on fraudulent test scores-and then proceeded to successfully run for re-election based upon these fraudulent barometers of educational success?
Speaking of Bloomberg's educational record, isn't it also problematic on a center/right national stage, where folks are questioning the need for a federal department of education, to have a record of doubling the size of the education budget, and adding thousands of fully pensioned teachers, to get meager results at best?
But the Bloomberg effort to garner mayoral control, and to fully centralize the approach to school reform, is contrapuntal to another key feature of the national mood-concern with the size and scope of government: "Today's Rasmussen Reports illuminates some basic American attitudes that are antithetical to the Democrats: only 16 percent of Americans think the government spends our money wisely and fairly; 70 percent think it does not. (And these are all Americans, not likely voters.) Only 14 percent say the government has too little power and money, while 61 percent think the government already has too much power and money."
Mayor Mike, however, simply loves big government-and we have likened his governing philosophy to that of another NY mayor, one John V. Lindsay: "But beneath all of the phony mayoral posturing about how well the city balances its budget-eliding the high taxes and confiscatory regulations-is the stark reality that this Mini Me John Lindsay has exacerbated the city's fiscal problems by a reckless ballooning of the size of the municipal payroll-a situation that the ever vigilant Gelinas pointed out over a year and a half ago: "It's almost jaw-dropping that the mayor, faced with these projections and with no hope of a return to a bubble-era "normal" on Wall Street, has made things worse. City workers' salary growth, for example, is set to rise 13 percent between now and our drop-dead year - largely because the mayor late last year voluntarily entered into labor contracts granting hefty raises to both civilian and uniformed workers. The cost of higher pay adds nearly $1.7 billion to the drop-dead-year deficit."
And this is the guy that some people speculate is the one man to offer a unique middle way between ideological extremes? Please! Penn and McKinnon should stop pontificating with dark glasses and a tin cup.
One thing that Lisberg does not mention-and he does remark that the mayor's mosque position would jar mainstream American voters-is the issue of immigration. Here Bloomberg is way to the left of most of the electorate-as he is on so many of the so-called social issues. Given these extreme views, he won't ever be able to create a sense that he is really one of us.
So what really will hold him back, aside from all of the ideological incompatibility-is his haughty elite style; someone whose actions and words drip with the condescension of believing that he knows what's good for everyone. It is exactly what the voters are not looking for-especially when they want to get government off of their backs and out of their lives.
But we want to encourage Mike to go for it-but with one proviso. He needs to resign as mayor in order to make the run-and thus give us the two-fer we long for; a fantasy run for president, along with his swift exit from the city that he has bamboozled for all these years.
We'll give ourselves the last word. As we wrote last month: "But in spite of our biting critique of all of this quixotic self absorption, we encourage Mike to keep it up: Run Mike Run. Even a billionaire like Bloomberg can't buy his way into national prominence and acceptance. We look forward to his comeuppance-and the awakening will be a rude one if he continues along this path with any real delusions of grandeur. But, after buying New Yorkers at a premium rate, who can blame the mayor for believing the H.L. Mencken observation that, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Our mayor is steadily building his nationwide profile by presenting himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative - the same formula that got him elected nine years ago."
This fantasy reminds us of Karl Marx's snarky put down of fellow socialist Proudhon; "He seeks synthesis, but all he achieves is composite error." The idea that Mike Bloomberg could craft an independent presidential run based on the synthesis of social liberalism and economic conservatism founders on the facts of his governing style and substance-something that Lisberg should have made the effort to document with at least one gainsayer of this mayoral fantasy.
As we have said-in reaction to a NY Times speculative story in the same vein-the mayor is ill fit for the current national move back to right/center politics: "Could anyone be more detached from the national mood-or more clueless about what it means? Certainly, the Bloomberg effort underscores the mayor's isolation from the country's concerns and passions-not surprising for someone who spends most of his weekends at a Bermuda estate: "Mr. Bloomberg described the Tea Party movement as a fad, comparing it to the short-lived burst of support for Ross Perot in 1992. The mayor suggested that the fury it had unleashed was not a foundation for leadership. “Look, people are angry,” he said. “Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. Government seems to be paralyzed and unable to solve all of our problems. Anger, however, is not a government strategy,” he said. “It’s not a way to govern.”
Bloomberg, in endorsing candidates from both parties, is trying to create a moderate centrist brand. But, in doing so, he mischaracterizes the source of the public's anger. It's not about paralysis and inefficiency; it's directed at governmental over reach-something that Mike Bloomberg is ill positioned to run against, given his continual need to intrude on the everyday lives of New Yorkers with one Nanny experiment after another.
The anger in the electorate isn't, in Ed Koch-like fashion, isn't about corruption and the failure to compromise-it is about ideological over reach and the growth of a national government that is unsupportable without massive increases in taxes and levies. How does Mike Bloomberg's record jibe with this critique? In his almost nine years the mayor has raised taxes and fess, increased the size of the public payroll-while all the time turning government into Big Brother.
And can we think of any elected official in the country who is more detached from the popular mood than Bloomberg/? Which is why, in the same elitist vein as as many of our more liberal columnists, he sees the popular anger as an ephemeral temper tantrum-missing the incisive, targeted nature of the Tea Part assault. As we said earlier, "A corollary to the big government alarm that has been raised, is a growing fear of the regulatory reach of the public sector-to wit the virulent antagonism to national health care. This isn't an inchoate public anger, but Bloomberg isn't an isolated figure, and he comfortably fits into the liberal Eugene Robinson, "temper tantrum," critique of the voters' anger. (or, alternately, the voters are, "clueless." or "bewildered") Bloomberg, of course, would miss this side of the Tea Party critique because he is the ubber-regulator and Nanny in chief; and is now going forward to restrict outdoor smoking. Talk about tacking against the political winds-this guy is, to mix a metaphor, pure salmon.
But there is another glaring impediment to the Bloomberg pipe dream-who he is, and where he comes from. Part of the current populist anger-and it connects the Left as well as the Right-is directed at our financial elites; and the way, in the popular mind, in which the government and Wall Street have colluded. Bloomberg, as the staunchest defender of Big Capitol would, charitably, not be cast as a sympathetic national player in the current environment.
Lisberg also goes to a pollster who may not be best situated to accurately gauge the national angst: "His national voice dovetails nicely, though, with what pollsters say is a growing disgust in America with the two-party system - and a hunger for solutions instead of gridlock. "There's a marketplace for new movements, and not just movements of the right and left but for the center," said Democratic pollster Mark Penn, whose partner Douglas Schoen has worked with Bloomberg for years. One of their polls last week found 54% of likely voters in battleground districts believe a third party would be good for America."
This is what's known as an audition statement-what pollster, or political consultant, wouldn't salivate at participating in a billion dollar Bloomberg magical mystery tour? As if on cue: "The Tea Party is just the tip of the iceberg," countered Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist who believes a legitimate third-party candidate will run for President in 2012."There is a silent majority of Americans starving for another alternative," McKinnon said. "Mike Bloomberg is the prototype of the kind of leader that could represent a third-party movement."
And, as far as solutions go, what about the Bloomberg educational miracle-built on a Potemkin Village of fraud and deception? Imagine the blow back from the voters when the opposition tells them how Bloomberg paid out millions of dollars to teachers and administrators based on fraudulent test scores-and then proceeded to successfully run for re-election based upon these fraudulent barometers of educational success?
Speaking of Bloomberg's educational record, isn't it also problematic on a center/right national stage, where folks are questioning the need for a federal department of education, to have a record of doubling the size of the education budget, and adding thousands of fully pensioned teachers, to get meager results at best?
But the Bloomberg effort to garner mayoral control, and to fully centralize the approach to school reform, is contrapuntal to another key feature of the national mood-concern with the size and scope of government: "Today's Rasmussen Reports illuminates some basic American attitudes that are antithetical to the Democrats: only 16 percent of Americans think the government spends our money wisely and fairly; 70 percent think it does not. (And these are all Americans, not likely voters.) Only 14 percent say the government has too little power and money, while 61 percent think the government already has too much power and money."
Mayor Mike, however, simply loves big government-and we have likened his governing philosophy to that of another NY mayor, one John V. Lindsay: "But beneath all of the phony mayoral posturing about how well the city balances its budget-eliding the high taxes and confiscatory regulations-is the stark reality that this Mini Me John Lindsay has exacerbated the city's fiscal problems by a reckless ballooning of the size of the municipal payroll-a situation that the ever vigilant Gelinas pointed out over a year and a half ago: "It's almost jaw-dropping that the mayor, faced with these projections and with no hope of a return to a bubble-era "normal" on Wall Street, has made things worse. City workers' salary growth, for example, is set to rise 13 percent between now and our drop-dead year - largely because the mayor late last year voluntarily entered into labor contracts granting hefty raises to both civilian and uniformed workers. The cost of higher pay adds nearly $1.7 billion to the drop-dead-year deficit."
And this is the guy that some people speculate is the one man to offer a unique middle way between ideological extremes? Please! Penn and McKinnon should stop pontificating with dark glasses and a tin cup.
One thing that Lisberg does not mention-and he does remark that the mayor's mosque position would jar mainstream American voters-is the issue of immigration. Here Bloomberg is way to the left of most of the electorate-as he is on so many of the so-called social issues. Given these extreme views, he won't ever be able to create a sense that he is really one of us.
So what really will hold him back, aside from all of the ideological incompatibility-is his haughty elite style; someone whose actions and words drip with the condescension of believing that he knows what's good for everyone. It is exactly what the voters are not looking for-especially when they want to get government off of their backs and out of their lives.
But we want to encourage Mike to go for it-but with one proviso. He needs to resign as mayor in order to make the run-and thus give us the two-fer we long for; a fantasy run for president, along with his swift exit from the city that he has bamboozled for all these years.
We'll give ourselves the last word. As we wrote last month: "But in spite of our biting critique of all of this quixotic self absorption, we encourage Mike to keep it up: Run Mike Run. Even a billionaire like Bloomberg can't buy his way into national prominence and acceptance. We look forward to his comeuppance-and the awakening will be a rude one if he continues along this path with any real delusions of grandeur. But, after buying New Yorkers at a premium rate, who can blame the mayor for believing the H.L. Mencken observation that, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Royal Shaft
The reign of King Michael I, and the prospect that it might continue, brings to mind a royal screwing of yet another kind-that paean to divorce sung by Jerry Reed: "They split it right down the middle, And then they give her the better half. Well, it all sounds sorta funny, But it hurts too much to laugh. She got the gold mine - I got the sha-a-aft."
Well, Mike Bloomberg brought his own goldmine to the city; yet it's New York's tax payers, ignored by a cavalier and mindless spender, who have gotten the shaft-beginning with the whopping commercial real estate tax in 2002, and continuing with a less than austere response to the demands of a municipal labor force that the mayor has cultivated without regard to the fiscal consequences.
In yesterday's NY Post, Fred Siegel underscores this grim reality, one that has been masked by a less than scrupulous media oversight (which, thankfully, has begun to change). And the term limits power grab initiated the beginning of a more careful evaluation of the mayor's tenure: "When Mayor Bloomberg deployed his vast personal and political power to overturn the term limits law, he began to demystify the public relations image he had purchased at considerable expense. It was only then that New Yorkers began to recognize the danger of making Gotham's wealthiest man its chief executive."
So what does Siegel see in the Bloomberg Error? He sees a mayor, who just last week was refusing-illegally as it turn out-to send out rebate checks to homeowners, who has acted with fiscal irresponsibility in the pursuit of his own ambition: "But the cupboards are bare because Bloomberg has emptied them for his own political ambitions. While the stock market was heading south, Bloomberg, one eye on a potential presidential run, raised his approval numbers by expanding the city payroll. Since 2004, he has hired at least 40,000 new city employees, while bringing his own mayoral staff to record levels."
An item in yesterday's NY Post on the DOT's hiring makes the same point: "JUST weeks before Mayor Bloomberg ordered city agencies to come up with $1.5 billion in savings to help balance the battered city budget, the Transportation Department doled out raises and promotions to four dozen top managers." This isn't something new, but a trend that has characterized the Bloomberg approach to government.
As Siegel reminds us: "Similarly, to help clear the way for a third term, Bloomberg has been shoveling out considerable money in the form of newly negotiated union contracts with the Policeman's Benevolent Association, DC37 and the Corrections Officers that run above the rate of inflation. If it wasn't above an elegant gentleman such as the mayor to stoop to such measures, you might call this what Tammany Hall did: vote buying. Bloomberg is only too happy to raise property taxes on the unorganized middle class if that's what it takes to keep the power of the city's politically well-organized unions in his corner or on the sidelines come election time."
Siegel also deconstructs the mayor's the phony, "Great Manager," appellation:
"As mayor, he's been little interested in management. When the Staten Island Ferry crashed, killing 11 people, the politically well-connected Transportation Commissioner was spared a reprimand, let alone fired. When the mayor was informed that a set of subway switches had burned out and couldn't be replaced for months or even years, guaranteeing massive delays, Bloomberg nonchalantly said fine, that's the way it will have to be. He reversed himself only after howls of public protest. When a blackout produced by Con Ed incompetence left more than 100,000 Queens residents without electricity for a week, Manager Mike declined even to visit the affected areas until the press began to hound him. Even then he declared, "I think [Con Ed CEO] Kevin Burke deserves a thank you from this city. He's worked as hard as he can."
Then there's the mayor's complete failure to negotiate with his Albany equals: "Bloomberg touts himself as a CEO who can negotiate the best deal for the city. But part of running the city includes bargaining with people he can neither give orders to, nor buy like the City Council. That's made Bloomberg a singular failure in Albany, where the mayor tried to steamroll his ill-conceived congestion pricing plan through the Assembly...While arguing over whether to reauthorize Off Track Betting, the Mayor clashed with the normally mild-mannered Governor Paterson, whose support is essential for the city; Paterson came away describing the mayor to the Post's Fred Dicker as "a nasty, untrustworthy, tantrum-prone liar who has little use for average New Yorkers."
Yet when it comes to self promotion, there's no one better than Mayor Mike: "While Bloomberg has been little interested in management, he has been superbly self-promoting. Early on he sold credulous journalists on the idea that he was a post-partisan mayor, a man who rose above conventional party politics. This is in a sense true. He has been only too willing to buy support from either of the major parties to achieve his own ends." Post partisan he is-elevating the Bloomberg banner while transcending those grubby political interests that serve other, less noble, individuals and groups.
And then there's Bloomberg's ironic reversal of the, "controlled by the special interests," charge: "The traditional danger with party candidates is that they can be bought up by special interest groups. Bloomberg reverses the old game; he's won office by buying up the interest groups. When in office, Bloomberg - like most mayors - used public funds to keep the organized interests happy while putting the city at fiscal risk. But Bloomberg adds a twist, by dipping into his own vast treasury to buy support through "anonymous" gifts to non-profit institutions."
And if you want to see how this kind of anonymity produces results, take a look at Greg Canada's treacly paean to the mayor's stewardship of the schools in yesterday's NY Daily News: "The key to the success of the new system has been holding officials truly accountable. It is not about any one mayor, but about having an elected official whose job description includes a clear mandate to improve school performance as much as he or she is responsible for making sure that the streets get swept and that emergency services are operable. New layers of bureaucracy will take us straight back to the bad old days, when corrupt and self-interested bodies answered to no one. We can't have it both ways: either one person is in charge, or no one is."
Any time an Op-Ed like this appears, the author should be required to disclose how much he or she has received from one of the mayor's philanthropic conduits; it certainly was no accident that Canada had an honored place in the front of the line at the term limits hearing down at city hall. Rank has its privileges, and all that.
But Canada's praise is way off base with the school reality. As Siegel points out: "There is no better monument to Bloomberg failures as a CEO - of his arrogant inability to negotiate, of his purchased reputation - than with New York's education system. Bloomberg, who has had whole subway cards plastered with ads and full-page spreads in the newspapers touting his educational "achievements," has done a far better job of promoting himself than improving the schools. He has nearly doubled the education budget. Yet his "reforms" have created considerable chaos in the schools, which have now been re-organized three times to little educational effect. What the changes haven't produced, Bloomberg's vast PR operation notwithstanding, is improvement on the national education tests. His education legacy to date: the debts that will have to borne by a work force ill-prepared for the economy to come."
Many of these themes are well mined by Wayne Barrett, but Siegel goes further to demonstrate the extent to which Bloomberg's philosophy of government (sic) has been destructive from the get-go: "For years, our so-called "business savvy" mayor has only one strategy: Spend. In 2007, the city took in 41% more in taxes than it did in 2000. And yet that wasn't enough to cover Bloomberg's gargantuan vote-buying spree. During Bloomberg's first six years as mayor, notes The Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas, city spending shot up about 50% - from $41 to $62 billion. That meant that even in the midst of an unprecedented boom, Bloomberg's genius required the city to incur record levels of debt."
This is from our great fiscal steward-someone who uses the bad old 1970s in both an ill informed and disingenuous fashion: "It's not clear if this argument is willfully ill-informed or merely self-serving evasion. But it was John Lindsay's tax hikes in the years leading up to the fiscal crisis that sent the city spiraling down into effective bankruptcy. The upshot was that in the 1970s, the city work force faced major layoffs, which only deepened the downturn. We're again headed down that path. Even as Bloomberg hikes the wages of senior workers who are crucial to the leadership of their respective unions, and hence Bloomberg's royal re-election bid, he's threatening sizeable layoffs for the newest hires."
And all the while, the mayor tries to pass this off as tough love-dramatizing the extent to which abuse can be redefined when the abuser has unlimited cash reserves. In yesterday's NY Daily News, Adam Lisberg hits on this mantra: "Bloomberg, however, is not in the dumps - because he thinks he's seen this all before. He made even harsher decisions to balance the budget when he took office; today, he loves to use them as examples of how when politicians make the tough calls instead of ducking, the public appreciates it later. "If any of you want to close firehouses, put a smoking ban in and raise property taxes, and then do a parade on Staten Island, you can join me," he told a Senate panel in June. "Today all of those things are popular, so what do I know?"
This is as good an example of the mayor's arrogance and tone deafness as we've ever come across. The property tax hike is now popular? Well, what do we know? But it does appear that the mayor may be falling into the trap of all those army generals who are always fighting the last war: "The first time Bloomberg tried those cuts, it helped get him reelected - or so he thinks. This time may be tougher. "You like a good fight if there's a good win at the end," Quinn said. "After one round of tough choices, there's going to be another round of tough choices."
Not only will it be tougher, but the Bloomberg will be further off of this rose as we devolve from, and further into, the term limits issue. Here's the money quote on this from Siegel:
"Bloomberg is so committed to his ideal of the "luxury city" run by and for the wealthy and organized interest groups that the Wall Street collapse took him completely by surprise. Like Lindsay's successor, the hapless Abe Beame, Bloomberg seems not to understand what's happening around him. His budget projections are based on the notion that the future economic path will be shaped like a U, but it's more likely to look like an L. New York, which became ever more dependent on Wall Street's high rollers to create each new job a thousand-dollar meal at a time, is going to have to rethink its economic future. Wall Street as we knew it is never coming back. The high taxes and over-regulation Bloomberg prefers pushes out the small- to medium-size businesses that will have to drive much of our economic growth in the future."
The harsh reality is that business man Bloomberg had a great opportunity to build on some of Rudy's hard won reforms-he simply lacked any real understanding of government, and was shackled with a Nelson Rockerfeller world view that made him ill-equipped to govern creatively: "We're likely to look back on the Bloomberg years as a time of lost opportunities to build on the gains of the Giuliani years. Between 2003 and 2007, the vast flow of revenues produced a boom that gave the city a chance to dig out from under its massive debt and restructure its labor contracts. Instead, Bloomberg's agenda added costs that will plague the city long into the future."
In contemplating giving Mike Bloomberg a third term, the cliche about finding oneself in a hole and understanding that it would be useful to stop digging comes immediately to mind. We must never forget that it was the little engine who couldn't that got us into this sinkhole in the first place.
Well, Mike Bloomberg brought his own goldmine to the city; yet it's New York's tax payers, ignored by a cavalier and mindless spender, who have gotten the shaft-beginning with the whopping commercial real estate tax in 2002, and continuing with a less than austere response to the demands of a municipal labor force that the mayor has cultivated without regard to the fiscal consequences.
In yesterday's NY Post, Fred Siegel underscores this grim reality, one that has been masked by a less than scrupulous media oversight (which, thankfully, has begun to change). And the term limits power grab initiated the beginning of a more careful evaluation of the mayor's tenure: "When Mayor Bloomberg deployed his vast personal and political power to overturn the term limits law, he began to demystify the public relations image he had purchased at considerable expense. It was only then that New Yorkers began to recognize the danger of making Gotham's wealthiest man its chief executive."
So what does Siegel see in the Bloomberg Error? He sees a mayor, who just last week was refusing-illegally as it turn out-to send out rebate checks to homeowners, who has acted with fiscal irresponsibility in the pursuit of his own ambition: "But the cupboards are bare because Bloomberg has emptied them for his own political ambitions. While the stock market was heading south, Bloomberg, one eye on a potential presidential run, raised his approval numbers by expanding the city payroll. Since 2004, he has hired at least 40,000 new city employees, while bringing his own mayoral staff to record levels."
An item in yesterday's NY Post on the DOT's hiring makes the same point: "JUST weeks before Mayor Bloomberg ordered city agencies to come up with $1.5 billion in savings to help balance the battered city budget, the Transportation Department doled out raises and promotions to four dozen top managers." This isn't something new, but a trend that has characterized the Bloomberg approach to government.
As Siegel reminds us: "Similarly, to help clear the way for a third term, Bloomberg has been shoveling out considerable money in the form of newly negotiated union contracts with the Policeman's Benevolent Association, DC37 and the Corrections Officers that run above the rate of inflation. If it wasn't above an elegant gentleman such as the mayor to stoop to such measures, you might call this what Tammany Hall did: vote buying. Bloomberg is only too happy to raise property taxes on the unorganized middle class if that's what it takes to keep the power of the city's politically well-organized unions in his corner or on the sidelines come election time."
Siegel also deconstructs the mayor's the phony, "Great Manager," appellation:
"As mayor, he's been little interested in management. When the Staten Island Ferry crashed, killing 11 people, the politically well-connected Transportation Commissioner was spared a reprimand, let alone fired. When the mayor was informed that a set of subway switches had burned out and couldn't be replaced for months or even years, guaranteeing massive delays, Bloomberg nonchalantly said fine, that's the way it will have to be. He reversed himself only after howls of public protest. When a blackout produced by Con Ed incompetence left more than 100,000 Queens residents without electricity for a week, Manager Mike declined even to visit the affected areas until the press began to hound him. Even then he declared, "I think [Con Ed CEO] Kevin Burke deserves a thank you from this city. He's worked as hard as he can."
Then there's the mayor's complete failure to negotiate with his Albany equals: "Bloomberg touts himself as a CEO who can negotiate the best deal for the city. But part of running the city includes bargaining with people he can neither give orders to, nor buy like the City Council. That's made Bloomberg a singular failure in Albany, where the mayor tried to steamroll his ill-conceived congestion pricing plan through the Assembly...While arguing over whether to reauthorize Off Track Betting, the Mayor clashed with the normally mild-mannered Governor Paterson, whose support is essential for the city; Paterson came away describing the mayor to the Post's Fred Dicker as "a nasty, untrustworthy, tantrum-prone liar who has little use for average New Yorkers."
Yet when it comes to self promotion, there's no one better than Mayor Mike: "While Bloomberg has been little interested in management, he has been superbly self-promoting. Early on he sold credulous journalists on the idea that he was a post-partisan mayor, a man who rose above conventional party politics. This is in a sense true. He has been only too willing to buy support from either of the major parties to achieve his own ends." Post partisan he is-elevating the Bloomberg banner while transcending those grubby political interests that serve other, less noble, individuals and groups.
And then there's Bloomberg's ironic reversal of the, "controlled by the special interests," charge: "The traditional danger with party candidates is that they can be bought up by special interest groups. Bloomberg reverses the old game; he's won office by buying up the interest groups. When in office, Bloomberg - like most mayors - used public funds to keep the organized interests happy while putting the city at fiscal risk. But Bloomberg adds a twist, by dipping into his own vast treasury to buy support through "anonymous" gifts to non-profit institutions."
And if you want to see how this kind of anonymity produces results, take a look at Greg Canada's treacly paean to the mayor's stewardship of the schools in yesterday's NY Daily News: "The key to the success of the new system has been holding officials truly accountable. It is not about any one mayor, but about having an elected official whose job description includes a clear mandate to improve school performance as much as he or she is responsible for making sure that the streets get swept and that emergency services are operable. New layers of bureaucracy will take us straight back to the bad old days, when corrupt and self-interested bodies answered to no one. We can't have it both ways: either one person is in charge, or no one is."
Any time an Op-Ed like this appears, the author should be required to disclose how much he or she has received from one of the mayor's philanthropic conduits; it certainly was no accident that Canada had an honored place in the front of the line at the term limits hearing down at city hall. Rank has its privileges, and all that.
But Canada's praise is way off base with the school reality. As Siegel points out: "There is no better monument to Bloomberg failures as a CEO - of his arrogant inability to negotiate, of his purchased reputation - than with New York's education system. Bloomberg, who has had whole subway cards plastered with ads and full-page spreads in the newspapers touting his educational "achievements," has done a far better job of promoting himself than improving the schools. He has nearly doubled the education budget. Yet his "reforms" have created considerable chaos in the schools, which have now been re-organized three times to little educational effect. What the changes haven't produced, Bloomberg's vast PR operation notwithstanding, is improvement on the national education tests. His education legacy to date: the debts that will have to borne by a work force ill-prepared for the economy to come."
Many of these themes are well mined by Wayne Barrett, but Siegel goes further to demonstrate the extent to which Bloomberg's philosophy of government (sic) has been destructive from the get-go: "For years, our so-called "business savvy" mayor has only one strategy: Spend. In 2007, the city took in 41% more in taxes than it did in 2000. And yet that wasn't enough to cover Bloomberg's gargantuan vote-buying spree. During Bloomberg's first six years as mayor, notes The Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas, city spending shot up about 50% - from $41 to $62 billion. That meant that even in the midst of an unprecedented boom, Bloomberg's genius required the city to incur record levels of debt."
This is from our great fiscal steward-someone who uses the bad old 1970s in both an ill informed and disingenuous fashion: "It's not clear if this argument is willfully ill-informed or merely self-serving evasion. But it was John Lindsay's tax hikes in the years leading up to the fiscal crisis that sent the city spiraling down into effective bankruptcy. The upshot was that in the 1970s, the city work force faced major layoffs, which only deepened the downturn. We're again headed down that path. Even as Bloomberg hikes the wages of senior workers who are crucial to the leadership of their respective unions, and hence Bloomberg's royal re-election bid, he's threatening sizeable layoffs for the newest hires."
And all the while, the mayor tries to pass this off as tough love-dramatizing the extent to which abuse can be redefined when the abuser has unlimited cash reserves. In yesterday's NY Daily News, Adam Lisberg hits on this mantra: "Bloomberg, however, is not in the dumps - because he thinks he's seen this all before. He made even harsher decisions to balance the budget when he took office; today, he loves to use them as examples of how when politicians make the tough calls instead of ducking, the public appreciates it later. "If any of you want to close firehouses, put a smoking ban in and raise property taxes, and then do a parade on Staten Island, you can join me," he told a Senate panel in June. "Today all of those things are popular, so what do I know?"
This is as good an example of the mayor's arrogance and tone deafness as we've ever come across. The property tax hike is now popular? Well, what do we know? But it does appear that the mayor may be falling into the trap of all those army generals who are always fighting the last war: "The first time Bloomberg tried those cuts, it helped get him reelected - or so he thinks. This time may be tougher. "You like a good fight if there's a good win at the end," Quinn said. "After one round of tough choices, there's going to be another round of tough choices."
Not only will it be tougher, but the Bloomberg will be further off of this rose as we devolve from, and further into, the term limits issue. Here's the money quote on this from Siegel:
"Bloomberg is so committed to his ideal of the "luxury city" run by and for the wealthy and organized interest groups that the Wall Street collapse took him completely by surprise. Like Lindsay's successor, the hapless Abe Beame, Bloomberg seems not to understand what's happening around him. His budget projections are based on the notion that the future economic path will be shaped like a U, but it's more likely to look like an L. New York, which became ever more dependent on Wall Street's high rollers to create each new job a thousand-dollar meal at a time, is going to have to rethink its economic future. Wall Street as we knew it is never coming back. The high taxes and over-regulation Bloomberg prefers pushes out the small- to medium-size businesses that will have to drive much of our economic growth in the future."
The harsh reality is that business man Bloomberg had a great opportunity to build on some of Rudy's hard won reforms-he simply lacked any real understanding of government, and was shackled with a Nelson Rockerfeller world view that made him ill-equipped to govern creatively: "We're likely to look back on the Bloomberg years as a time of lost opportunities to build on the gains of the Giuliani years. Between 2003 and 2007, the vast flow of revenues produced a boom that gave the city a chance to dig out from under its massive debt and restructure its labor contracts. Instead, Bloomberg's agenda added costs that will plague the city long into the future."
In contemplating giving Mike Bloomberg a third term, the cliche about finding oneself in a hole and understanding that it would be useful to stop digging comes immediately to mind. We must never forget that it was the little engine who couldn't that got us into this sinkhole in the first place.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Dishonest to the End
It is finally election day, which means one thing to us-when game six starts tomorrow, we will not have to reach for the remote whenever another insufferable Bloomberg attack on Bill Thompson pollutes the airwaves. But in the final day of campaigning yesterday, Bloomberg added real insult to injury by doing a city wide sweep of small businesses in a final demonstration that he simply has no sense of shame. In fact, both candidates finally took a look at the city's economy-what should be the most pressing campaign issue; after all, it was the single justification for changing the term limits law in the first place.
As the NY Times reports: "On the eve of Tuesday’s election, the top two mayoral candidates put aside their bitter arguments over term limits, campaign spending and the city’s schools to try to reassure voters about a more pressing worry: the economy. The Thompson theme reminded us of what coulda-shoulda been: "With the unemployment rate at a 16-year high, tens of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and the city’s budget deficit topping $5 billion, Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered strikingly different messages to an unsettled electorate. Mr. Thompson, the Democrat, described two New Yorks. One, he said, was for people like Mr. Bloomberg: the superrich Manhattanites and Wall Street titans. The other was for hardworking wage-earners and small business owners who, he said, were being endlessly taxed and driven out of the city."
Now there's a theme that has resonance; and its late appearance is sad-but not as sad as the Bloomberg magical mystery tour: "Mr. Bloomberg, during a tour of the five boroughs, dropped in on small businesses and greeted commuters, stressing his financial acumen and background as a businessman. He acknowledged the troubled economy — “it has big problems” — but did not seem eager to dwell on it, instead emphasizing the stories of small businesses that have thrived: “We’re trying to help small businesses that need loans, give them advice on how to structure a loan application, or how to deal with city government, trying to reduce taxes.”
There he goes again! How to structure a loan application is right up there among the most compelling solutions for the economic difficulties being faced by New York small businesses-and notice how, "reduce taxes," is used as a throwaway line-delivered almost sotto voce. It allows Bloomberg to once again avoid his own record and culpability. Loan applications indeed!
In fact, as the Times reminds us, the emphasis on economic turmoil should have been central in this campaign from the McDuck vault, but never was, as Bloomberg successfully changed the subject-never so much as with his disgraceful last two month effort to demonize Thompson, in spite of the fact that he had a double digit lead and had out spent the challenger 16-1: " With a return to the economic theme, Mr. Bloomberg seemed to quietly remind New Yorkers of his reason for seeking a third term: that his financial expertise was required to guide the city through an extraordinary time. It is an argument that he offered with less and less frequency as the campaign wore on, in part to distance himself from his unpopular flip-flop on term limits."
There is the smoking gun of Bloomberg disingenuousness. With enough money to sell ice to Eskimos, the mayor couldn't bring himself to level with the folks and campaign on why he was The Man in these troubled economic times. His whole campaign was a concerted effort to change the subject, and the gap between his supporters and those of the comptroller underscores just how self aggrandizing and basically pusillanimous Bloomberg really is: "Despite the mayor’s healthy lead in the polls, the surveys show a big divide among voters along income lines. A Marist poll released on Friday showed that among registered voters, wealthier respondents overwhelmingly support Mr. Bloomberg, while the race is essentially tied among those who make less...In some neighborhoods, resentment over Mr. Bloomberg’s spending on the race has intensified the sense of economic imbalance. The mayor is on track to spend more than $100 million to be re-elected, and some residents say his nonstop advertisements and mailings serve as reminders of how distant he is from their lives."
So we head into today's election with only one real uncertainty-will Bloomberg's record spending give him a double digit margin or not? Make that two questions, because we also simply have no clue how the mayor, who spent and taxed us into this hole, will respond to the serious crisis ahead. The campaign didn't offer us even a small clue. Perhaps, as circumstances worsen we can all look forward to getting one of those Bloomberg loan applications.
As the NY Times reports: "On the eve of Tuesday’s election, the top two mayoral candidates put aside their bitter arguments over term limits, campaign spending and the city’s schools to try to reassure voters about a more pressing worry: the economy. The Thompson theme reminded us of what coulda-shoulda been: "With the unemployment rate at a 16-year high, tens of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and the city’s budget deficit topping $5 billion, Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered strikingly different messages to an unsettled electorate. Mr. Thompson, the Democrat, described two New Yorks. One, he said, was for people like Mr. Bloomberg: the superrich Manhattanites and Wall Street titans. The other was for hardworking wage-earners and small business owners who, he said, were being endlessly taxed and driven out of the city."
Now there's a theme that has resonance; and its late appearance is sad-but not as sad as the Bloomberg magical mystery tour: "Mr. Bloomberg, during a tour of the five boroughs, dropped in on small businesses and greeted commuters, stressing his financial acumen and background as a businessman. He acknowledged the troubled economy — “it has big problems” — but did not seem eager to dwell on it, instead emphasizing the stories of small businesses that have thrived: “We’re trying to help small businesses that need loans, give them advice on how to structure a loan application, or how to deal with city government, trying to reduce taxes.”
There he goes again! How to structure a loan application is right up there among the most compelling solutions for the economic difficulties being faced by New York small businesses-and notice how, "reduce taxes," is used as a throwaway line-delivered almost sotto voce. It allows Bloomberg to once again avoid his own record and culpability. Loan applications indeed!
In fact, as the Times reminds us, the emphasis on economic turmoil should have been central in this campaign from the McDuck vault, but never was, as Bloomberg successfully changed the subject-never so much as with his disgraceful last two month effort to demonize Thompson, in spite of the fact that he had a double digit lead and had out spent the challenger 16-1: " With a return to the economic theme, Mr. Bloomberg seemed to quietly remind New Yorkers of his reason for seeking a third term: that his financial expertise was required to guide the city through an extraordinary time. It is an argument that he offered with less and less frequency as the campaign wore on, in part to distance himself from his unpopular flip-flop on term limits."
There is the smoking gun of Bloomberg disingenuousness. With enough money to sell ice to Eskimos, the mayor couldn't bring himself to level with the folks and campaign on why he was The Man in these troubled economic times. His whole campaign was a concerted effort to change the subject, and the gap between his supporters and those of the comptroller underscores just how self aggrandizing and basically pusillanimous Bloomberg really is: "Despite the mayor’s healthy lead in the polls, the surveys show a big divide among voters along income lines. A Marist poll released on Friday showed that among registered voters, wealthier respondents overwhelmingly support Mr. Bloomberg, while the race is essentially tied among those who make less...In some neighborhoods, resentment over Mr. Bloomberg’s spending on the race has intensified the sense of economic imbalance. The mayor is on track to spend more than $100 million to be re-elected, and some residents say his nonstop advertisements and mailings serve as reminders of how distant he is from their lives."
So we head into today's election with only one real uncertainty-will Bloomberg's record spending give him a double digit margin or not? Make that two questions, because we also simply have no clue how the mayor, who spent and taxed us into this hole, will respond to the serious crisis ahead. The campaign didn't offer us even a small clue. Perhaps, as circumstances worsen we can all look forward to getting one of those Bloomberg loan applications.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Fear and Loathing
Errol Louis has an interesting take on the mayoral race in today's NY Daily News-especially for all of us wishful thinkers. Louis believes that the race will tighten in the closing weeks, and here's why: "Leadership of a city is also about projecting - and protecting - civic virtues like honesty, inclusion, humility and compassion. That's where Bloomberg is vulnerable, and why the race for mayor will surely tighten in these final weeks. The mayor has brazenly purchased the shallow loyalty of too many people and organizations to credibly pass it off as a genuine referendum on his mayoralty. The roster of the bought-and-paid-for includes the Republican and Independence parties and a seemingly endless crowd of preachers and nonprofit managers who suckle at the bosom of Bloomberg's private largess."
And the Bloomberg support is, as the News writes elsewhere, a mile wide and an inch deep: "Mayor Bloomberg's campaign may look unbeatable - but some insiders see troubling signs that he could be tossed out of City Hall. They fear lingering voter anger about term limits, low-turnout primaries, passionate anti-Bloomberg Democrats and complacent Bloomberg supporters could combine to create the biggest political upset of a generation."
Which is why the third term wannabe is spending millions to attach challenger Thompson-a tactic that could well backfire: "I'd be worried," said one of the mayor's prominent backers, who fears moderate pro-Bloomberg voters won't bother voting Nov. 3 if they assume the mayor will win."If you're just a voter who kind of likes Bloomberg, you don't come out," this backer said. "If you hate Bloomberg . . . you come out."
And those attack ads just might be counterproductive: "That has prompted Bloomberg's campaign to fire back with attack ads against Thompson - giving the controller more exposure than he could ever afford with the $3.8 million he has spent on his campaign. "The negative ads give Billy credibility, and I think they give him recognition among voters," said one experienced political consultant and Bloomberg backer..."You've never seen that with them. The fact that they're doing that means that they have to be nervous," said another veteran Bloomberg ally. "They have a problem. And I think turnout could wind up very low."
And by attacking, Bloomberg undermines his ersatz "above politics" persona-and reinforces the city for sale nature of his tenure. As Louis points out: "I'm not out there buying votes," Bloomberg said, drawing snickers. Thompson eagerly seized the high ground. "It's a matter of right and wrong," said Thompson, repeatedly invoking the shabby, shameful maneuvers through which the mayor abolished the term limits law. "Mike Bloomberg lied to the people of New York City."
So what we can expect is Bloomberg going for the lowest common denominator-a shameful strategy for the city's richest man, and a two term incumbent to boot: "Expect the final weeks to feature a heavy dose of negative campaigning by Bloomberg. He has spent about $65 million trying to increase the thin majority - about 53% of voters - who tell pollsters they will vote for him. The idea is not to make Thompson voters switch to Bloomberg. The real aim of negative campaigning is to make undecided voters so cynical and disgusted that they stay home, enabling the mud-thrower's people to carry the day."
Mudslinging has its drawback, however, and the News underscores this potential problem: "The mayor's campaign on Wednesday released a minute-long Internet ad that used footage from Tuesday night's debate to paint Thompson as a liar running away from his record. "You've never seen that with them. The fact that they're doing that means that they have to be nervous," said another veteran Bloomberg ally. "They have a problem. And I think turnout could wind up very low."
And for the Bloombergistas to call out any one else for lying, when the mayor's third term effort is itself built on a blatant falsehood, raises hypocrisy to an art form. We'll give Louis the last word on this: "I do not recall anyone calling the Mayor a liar to his face in public before.
And the mayor had no answer. "They have lost absolutely nothing," he said of New Yorkers whose votes for term limits he nullified. And Bloomberg promised not to run for a fourth term, seemingly unaware that he has no credibility on the issue. After more hammering from Thompson on term limits, Bloomberg threw in the towel, bluntly advising people who feel all that strongly about his double cross to pull the lever for Thompson."
Seems like good advice to us.
And the Bloomberg support is, as the News writes elsewhere, a mile wide and an inch deep: "Mayor Bloomberg's campaign may look unbeatable - but some insiders see troubling signs that he could be tossed out of City Hall. They fear lingering voter anger about term limits, low-turnout primaries, passionate anti-Bloomberg Democrats and complacent Bloomberg supporters could combine to create the biggest political upset of a generation."
Which is why the third term wannabe is spending millions to attach challenger Thompson-a tactic that could well backfire: "I'd be worried," said one of the mayor's prominent backers, who fears moderate pro-Bloomberg voters won't bother voting Nov. 3 if they assume the mayor will win."If you're just a voter who kind of likes Bloomberg, you don't come out," this backer said. "If you hate Bloomberg . . . you come out."
And those attack ads just might be counterproductive: "That has prompted Bloomberg's campaign to fire back with attack ads against Thompson - giving the controller more exposure than he could ever afford with the $3.8 million he has spent on his campaign. "The negative ads give Billy credibility, and I think they give him recognition among voters," said one experienced political consultant and Bloomberg backer..."You've never seen that with them. The fact that they're doing that means that they have to be nervous," said another veteran Bloomberg ally. "They have a problem. And I think turnout could wind up very low."
And by attacking, Bloomberg undermines his ersatz "above politics" persona-and reinforces the city for sale nature of his tenure. As Louis points out: "I'm not out there buying votes," Bloomberg said, drawing snickers. Thompson eagerly seized the high ground. "It's a matter of right and wrong," said Thompson, repeatedly invoking the shabby, shameful maneuvers through which the mayor abolished the term limits law. "Mike Bloomberg lied to the people of New York City."
So what we can expect is Bloomberg going for the lowest common denominator-a shameful strategy for the city's richest man, and a two term incumbent to boot: "Expect the final weeks to feature a heavy dose of negative campaigning by Bloomberg. He has spent about $65 million trying to increase the thin majority - about 53% of voters - who tell pollsters they will vote for him. The idea is not to make Thompson voters switch to Bloomberg. The real aim of negative campaigning is to make undecided voters so cynical and disgusted that they stay home, enabling the mud-thrower's people to carry the day."
Mudslinging has its drawback, however, and the News underscores this potential problem: "The mayor's campaign on Wednesday released a minute-long Internet ad that used footage from Tuesday night's debate to paint Thompson as a liar running away from his record. "You've never seen that with them. The fact that they're doing that means that they have to be nervous," said another veteran Bloomberg ally. "They have a problem. And I think turnout could wind up very low."
And for the Bloombergistas to call out any one else for lying, when the mayor's third term effort is itself built on a blatant falsehood, raises hypocrisy to an art form. We'll give Louis the last word on this: "I do not recall anyone calling the Mayor a liar to his face in public before.
And the mayor had no answer. "They have lost absolutely nothing," he said of New Yorkers whose votes for term limits he nullified. And Bloomberg promised not to run for a fourth term, seemingly unaware that he has no credibility on the issue. After more hammering from Thompson on term limits, Bloomberg threw in the towel, bluntly advising people who feel all that strongly about his double cross to pull the lever for Thompson."
Seems like good advice to us.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sharpton Pimps Bloomberg's Ride
Adam Lisberg has thankfully stayed on Mike Bloomberg's tail-following the money and naming names. In yesterday's NY Daily News he gives voice to the dog that didn't bark-the lock jawed Reverend Al Sharpton and his pecuniary relationship to the mayor: "The Rev. Al Sharpton finally disagreed with Mayor Bloomberg a week ago on how to change elections in the city. It was a long time coming.The most prominent African-American voice in New York has a warm and productive relationship with its richest and most powerful white man. They don't always agree, but they always get along. On Aug. 7, Sharpton said he would fight any push to make city elections nonpartisan - which Bloomberg hoped to do this fall. His public stand helped kill the idea. Barely 48 hours later, Bloomberg pulled the plug. Two years earlier, though, Sharpton stayed mum while Bloomberg rammed through a law to extend term limits so he could run again."
And Lisberg rightfully asks, why? And, as in everything else political, the answer lies with Bloomberg's version of the golden rule: you take my gold and let me rule: "Perhaps because, as the city was convulsed over term limits, Sharpton's National Action Network got a $110,000 grant from a brand-new nonprofit funded by Bloomberg. In fact, on the very day Bloomberg announced he wanted to run again, the first $50,000 of the grant was transferred to the National Action Network.The details are buried in filings from the Education Equality Project, a group started two months earlier by Sharpton and Bloomberg's school chancellor, Joel Klein, to close the gap between white and minority students."
All of this comes as no surprise to us-and the smartest thing Mike Bloomberg did in 2001 was to put the morally suspect Sharpton on the pad. It's certainly made his life easier-and has allowed the mayor to staff his administration almost like the Augusta Country Club with nary a peep from the normally loquacious, and bombastic rabble rouser. The fact that Sharpton has parted company on nonpartisan elections is of little note, because his silence over the over turning of term limits gave Bloomberg his undeserved third term-and that's really was the whole enchilada for the solipsistic billionaire.
Sharpton, of course, remains true to his unprinciples to the very end: "The details are buried in filings from the Education Equality Project, a group started two months earlier by Sharpton and Bloomberg's school chancellor, Joel Klein, to close the gap between white and minority students. The project reported only two cash donations in 2008, gifts of $250,000 each from two anonymous donors. Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser would not discuss specifics, but said the mayor gave money to the education project in 2008 - which means Bloomberg was one of those two donors.The National Action Network got $50,000 on Oct. 2, 2008, and the remaining $60,000 on Oct. 17, 2008. The Education Equality Project's tax filing claims there was no conflict of interest in giving money to a group run by one of its own founders: "There is no relationship between the Organization and NAN." Sharpton told the Daily News last week the National Action Network never got any of Bloomberg's money - "not that I know of." He insisted he spoke out against Bloomberg changing term limits, though it doesn't show up in any news clips from the time. "When the mayor changed term limits, I've been on the record against it all along," Sharpton insisted. "The mayor has no financial arrangements, before or after, with us."
A real Chico Marx lyin' eyes moment. We would suggest that Al take a lie detector test, but have no doubt that the sociopath would pass it with flying colors-and this is the man who has become a respected power broker for the Democratic Party; even though Sharpton has been pulling his punches for the past eight years: "Sharpton endorsed the African-American William Thompson against Bloomberg last year but was barely visible. Sharpton denounces the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program at his Saturday rallies, but not on the steps of City Hall."
Lisberg concludes his expose with this amusing comment: "Rejecting nonpartisan elections showed Bloomberg that Sharpton can't be bought. But taking a dive on term limits showed Bloomberg that Sharpton might be able to be rented." We demur. What this has shown is that Sharpton will take a dive for Mike Bloomberg whenever the mayor deems it to be important enough. The Sharpton stand against non partisan elections is simply a misleading epilogue to an eight year intimacy.
And Lisberg rightfully asks, why? And, as in everything else political, the answer lies with Bloomberg's version of the golden rule: you take my gold and let me rule: "Perhaps because, as the city was convulsed over term limits, Sharpton's National Action Network got a $110,000 grant from a brand-new nonprofit funded by Bloomberg. In fact, on the very day Bloomberg announced he wanted to run again, the first $50,000 of the grant was transferred to the National Action Network.The details are buried in filings from the Education Equality Project, a group started two months earlier by Sharpton and Bloomberg's school chancellor, Joel Klein, to close the gap between white and minority students."
All of this comes as no surprise to us-and the smartest thing Mike Bloomberg did in 2001 was to put the morally suspect Sharpton on the pad. It's certainly made his life easier-and has allowed the mayor to staff his administration almost like the Augusta Country Club with nary a peep from the normally loquacious, and bombastic rabble rouser. The fact that Sharpton has parted company on nonpartisan elections is of little note, because his silence over the over turning of term limits gave Bloomberg his undeserved third term-and that's really was the whole enchilada for the solipsistic billionaire.
Sharpton, of course, remains true to his unprinciples to the very end: "The details are buried in filings from the Education Equality Project, a group started two months earlier by Sharpton and Bloomberg's school chancellor, Joel Klein, to close the gap between white and minority students. The project reported only two cash donations in 2008, gifts of $250,000 each from two anonymous donors. Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser would not discuss specifics, but said the mayor gave money to the education project in 2008 - which means Bloomberg was one of those two donors.The National Action Network got $50,000 on Oct. 2, 2008, and the remaining $60,000 on Oct. 17, 2008. The Education Equality Project's tax filing claims there was no conflict of interest in giving money to a group run by one of its own founders: "There is no relationship between the Organization and NAN." Sharpton told the Daily News last week the National Action Network never got any of Bloomberg's money - "not that I know of." He insisted he spoke out against Bloomberg changing term limits, though it doesn't show up in any news clips from the time. "When the mayor changed term limits, I've been on the record against it all along," Sharpton insisted. "The mayor has no financial arrangements, before or after, with us."
A real Chico Marx lyin' eyes moment. We would suggest that Al take a lie detector test, but have no doubt that the sociopath would pass it with flying colors-and this is the man who has become a respected power broker for the Democratic Party; even though Sharpton has been pulling his punches for the past eight years: "Sharpton endorsed the African-American William Thompson against Bloomberg last year but was barely visible. Sharpton denounces the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program at his Saturday rallies, but not on the steps of City Hall."
Lisberg concludes his expose with this amusing comment: "Rejecting nonpartisan elections showed Bloomberg that Sharpton can't be bought. But taking a dive on term limits showed Bloomberg that Sharpton might be able to be rented." We demur. What this has shown is that Sharpton will take a dive for Mike Bloomberg whenever the mayor deems it to be important enough. The Sharpton stand against non partisan elections is simply a misleading epilogue to an eight year intimacy.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Bloomberg's Glass House
Picking up on our own post yesterday, Wayne Barret chimes in on the hypocrisy of Mike Bloomberg accusing anyone of flip-flopping on taxes: "What neither Mike, nor the Mike media want you to know, is that first step of the Thompson rate increase in the city personal income tax (PIT) -- from 3.65 percent to 4.3 percent for people making from $500,000 to a million -- is less than the one Bloomberg himself imposed in 2003. Bloomberg imposed a three-year surcharge on everyone earning more than $500,000, elevating the bracket to 4.45 percent, more than Thompson urges now."
But that was then-and this is now: "The Bloomberg ad also quotes Thompson's argument against a millionaire's tax, namely that "we don't want to drive people out of New York," which happens to have become Bloomberg's 2009 mantra. A Bloomberg campaign spokeswoman explained their own ad by saying "Mike Bloomberg opposes the millionaire's tax because it would drive residents out of New York, the same position Thompson had before he flip-flopped."
What unmitigated gall! Mike Bloomberg went back on his own 2001 no tax pledge-remember his attacks on Mark Green as a tax and spend liberal?-and instituted one of the largest tax hikes in NYC history. One conservative critic nails him: "In his 2002 inaugural address, Bloomberg declared: "We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot drive people and business out of New York. We cannot raise taxes." But Bloomberg proceeded to hike the city's cigarette tax rate from 8 cents to $1.50 per pack, increase property taxes 18 percent, and raise income and sales taxes."
And it is because of these actions that NYC is in such dire fiscal condition today-with small businesses sucking wind, and store vacancies at record levels. The mayor has been as unfrugal a manager as possible, and in the process has exacerbated the city's already poor business climate. Hardly an advertisement for an additional term.
As Steve Malanga also noted, a few years later: "The mayor has emerged as a guardian of the local status quo, the defender of big government and the municipal workforce. Proclaiming that forces beyond his control are compelling him, he has instituted the largest tax increase in the city’s history, apologized for even the smallest cuts in government services, declared that everything New York City’s massive government does is vitally necessary, and confidently announced that tax increases won’t drive out citizens or businesses."
But, as Gilda Radner's character on SNL would say; "Never mind." Bloomberg has enough money to re-write history, as long as he has a lazy and compliant media to cover for him. As Barrett reminds us: "But it's actually not hard to figure out who the leading New York politician was who convinced us in 2003 that a PIT hike wouldn't drive the rich out of New York, as unlikely as it is that the dailies will discover it in their own clips. "I don't think anyone's going to leave," Mike said then, "because no matter where they go, every state, every city is facing a similar situation." If Bloomberg thought that about New York in the aftermath of 9/11, wouldn't it go double now? But all Bloomberg says now is that "the first rule of taxation is -- you can't tax too much those that can move."
But did Mike learn this from his own foray into tax hiking? No way: "If you're thinking that this might be a lesson he learned from the hikes of 2003, think again. A study released in 2005 by none other than Bill Thompson revealed that the people least likely to leave the city in the early Bloomberg years, when the PIT hikes and the largest property tax boost in history were imposed, were those making $250,000 or more."
The folks who did leave were middle income homeowners who were so much refuse to be discarded by the patrician mayor when he proposed his 25% property tax hike, a raise that was later reduced to only 18% by the city council. So, given this lamentable record on taxes, anyone else would have had the grace to remain silent-and not try to go off on an opponent who changed his mind, something that our own Mr. Consistent Mayor has thankfully never done himself-at least on any important policy issue.
But that was then-and this is now: "The Bloomberg ad also quotes Thompson's argument against a millionaire's tax, namely that "we don't want to drive people out of New York," which happens to have become Bloomberg's 2009 mantra. A Bloomberg campaign spokeswoman explained their own ad by saying "Mike Bloomberg opposes the millionaire's tax because it would drive residents out of New York, the same position Thompson had before he flip-flopped."
What unmitigated gall! Mike Bloomberg went back on his own 2001 no tax pledge-remember his attacks on Mark Green as a tax and spend liberal?-and instituted one of the largest tax hikes in NYC history. One conservative critic nails him: "In his 2002 inaugural address, Bloomberg declared: "We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot drive people and business out of New York. We cannot raise taxes." But Bloomberg proceeded to hike the city's cigarette tax rate from 8 cents to $1.50 per pack, increase property taxes 18 percent, and raise income and sales taxes."
And it is because of these actions that NYC is in such dire fiscal condition today-with small businesses sucking wind, and store vacancies at record levels. The mayor has been as unfrugal a manager as possible, and in the process has exacerbated the city's already poor business climate. Hardly an advertisement for an additional term.
As Steve Malanga also noted, a few years later: "The mayor has emerged as a guardian of the local status quo, the defender of big government and the municipal workforce. Proclaiming that forces beyond his control are compelling him, he has instituted the largest tax increase in the city’s history, apologized for even the smallest cuts in government services, declared that everything New York City’s massive government does is vitally necessary, and confidently announced that tax increases won’t drive out citizens or businesses."
But, as Gilda Radner's character on SNL would say; "Never mind." Bloomberg has enough money to re-write history, as long as he has a lazy and compliant media to cover for him. As Barrett reminds us: "But it's actually not hard to figure out who the leading New York politician was who convinced us in 2003 that a PIT hike wouldn't drive the rich out of New York, as unlikely as it is that the dailies will discover it in their own clips. "I don't think anyone's going to leave," Mike said then, "because no matter where they go, every state, every city is facing a similar situation." If Bloomberg thought that about New York in the aftermath of 9/11, wouldn't it go double now? But all Bloomberg says now is that "the first rule of taxation is -- you can't tax too much those that can move."
But did Mike learn this from his own foray into tax hiking? No way: "If you're thinking that this might be a lesson he learned from the hikes of 2003, think again. A study released in 2005 by none other than Bill Thompson revealed that the people least likely to leave the city in the early Bloomberg years, when the PIT hikes and the largest property tax boost in history were imposed, were those making $250,000 or more."
The folks who did leave were middle income homeowners who were so much refuse to be discarded by the patrician mayor when he proposed his 25% property tax hike, a raise that was later reduced to only 18% by the city council. So, given this lamentable record on taxes, anyone else would have had the grace to remain silent-and not try to go off on an opponent who changed his mind, something that our own Mr. Consistent Mayor has thankfully never done himself-at least on any important policy issue.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Labor Pains and the NYC Press-With a Special Look at the Paper of Record
It is really getting quite upsetting to see the relative paucity of campaign journalism in this city. Our specific beef is with the relative absence of any hard-hitting looks at the shortcomings of Mayor Mike. This is especially important in the context of the mayor's huge spending spree. Without much in the way of journalistic critique all we are left with is the Bloomberg echo chamber.
With the air waves saturated in an all Bloomberg all the time fashion it is incumbent on the city's political journalists to look at the last four years with a critical eye. Unfortunately, we don't see much of this happening. Some of the worst aspects of this political blindness can be seen in the NY Post's blow-up of Freddy Ferrer's putative sell-out to 1199 in exchange for the union's endorsement.
As Jarrett Murphy's piece in the current Village Voice highlights, the Bloomberg team has a whole series of union deals that would be seen as suspect if subjected to the same standards of scrutiny that the Ferrer campaign is forced to endure. On top of this we have the endorsement by the Bodega Association in exchange for receiving additional security cameras and the unexamined impact of the mayor's charitable largesse on the support that he is getting from some members of the Black clergy.
This lack of a critical approach to the Bloomberg administration is not a recent phenomenon. It has, in fact, been characteristic of some of the NY Times coverage from the inception of the mayor's term (With the righteous exception of the work of Charles Bagli, especially his expose of Deputy Dan and his work on the West Side Stadium).
If we examine the Times' coverage we can see a sanguinity about the mayor that goes back to even the dark days of Bloombrg's 24% approval ratings. Just take a look at some of the stories on the mayor done by Jennifer Steinhauer. The paper's former City Hall reporter actually wrote that the mayor was greatly loved by small business at a time when the Bloombergers were raising taxes and fines to record levels.
Just a couple of days ago the Times did, by our count, its ninth story on Democrats who will vote for Bloomberg. We are still waiting for the paper's first prominently displayed piece on Bloomberg's complete evisceration of the city's campaign finance laws. Can you imagine what the paper would do to a national Republican on this issue? The reality is that the Times is a conservative force in NYC, especially when you understand how an entrenched wealthy liberal cultural elite simultaneously shares and wields power in New York.
In the city, this power is primarily wielded by between cultural elites and real estate developers – C Wright Mills would have a field day with all this but in his absence we have only to turn to the late Jack Newfield and the, thankfully, not late Wayne Barrett for a clear picture of NY's power elites in operation (The Times' support of the Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision opens a window to the elite mindset).
As we have mentioned elsewhere, it is an urban renewal impulse melded with a belief in the benevolent role of government. Embedded within this Weltanschauung is a hostility to entrepreneurism as well as to populism in any of its possible manifestations. In this world view the Planner and his faithful bureaucrat are seen as urban heroes, closely followed by wealthy philanthropists whose beneficence offers hope to the downtrodden. Mike Bloomberg is the quintessential leader to those who see the world in this way.
As a result, what we have in this election cycle is the interesting confluence of coverage from putatively disparate newspaper outlets. The Posts' demonization of Freddy is met not only by the Times' demeaning of the challenger's qualifications and chances of electoral success but by that paper's candy-coating of the mayor's record (Closely followed by the Daily News' series of glossy reviews of Bloomberg's first four years). We should, however, exempt the NY Sun from this charge since the more conservative Sun has offered up a wide range of Bloomberg critiques, many of which, like those of Alicia Colon, come from the Right.
What's incredible here, in the face of all this media shirking and record mayoral spending, is that the mayor has only 52%-53% percent in the latest two polls. It speaks to the lurking possibility that Mike Bloomberg is only one snafu away from imploding. If that happens it will, no doubt, come as quite a shock to some of our journalistic guardians.
With the air waves saturated in an all Bloomberg all the time fashion it is incumbent on the city's political journalists to look at the last four years with a critical eye. Unfortunately, we don't see much of this happening. Some of the worst aspects of this political blindness can be seen in the NY Post's blow-up of Freddy Ferrer's putative sell-out to 1199 in exchange for the union's endorsement.
As Jarrett Murphy's piece in the current Village Voice highlights, the Bloomberg team has a whole series of union deals that would be seen as suspect if subjected to the same standards of scrutiny that the Ferrer campaign is forced to endure. On top of this we have the endorsement by the Bodega Association in exchange for receiving additional security cameras and the unexamined impact of the mayor's charitable largesse on the support that he is getting from some members of the Black clergy.
This lack of a critical approach to the Bloomberg administration is not a recent phenomenon. It has, in fact, been characteristic of some of the NY Times coverage from the inception of the mayor's term (With the righteous exception of the work of Charles Bagli, especially his expose of Deputy Dan and his work on the West Side Stadium).
If we examine the Times' coverage we can see a sanguinity about the mayor that goes back to even the dark days of Bloombrg's 24% approval ratings. Just take a look at some of the stories on the mayor done by Jennifer Steinhauer. The paper's former City Hall reporter actually wrote that the mayor was greatly loved by small business at a time when the Bloombergers were raising taxes and fines to record levels.
Just a couple of days ago the Times did, by our count, its ninth story on Democrats who will vote for Bloomberg. We are still waiting for the paper's first prominently displayed piece on Bloomberg's complete evisceration of the city's campaign finance laws. Can you imagine what the paper would do to a national Republican on this issue? The reality is that the Times is a conservative force in NYC, especially when you understand how an entrenched wealthy liberal cultural elite simultaneously shares and wields power in New York.
In the city, this power is primarily wielded by between cultural elites and real estate developers – C Wright Mills would have a field day with all this but in his absence we have only to turn to the late Jack Newfield and the, thankfully, not late Wayne Barrett for a clear picture of NY's power elites in operation (The Times' support of the Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision opens a window to the elite mindset).
As we have mentioned elsewhere, it is an urban renewal impulse melded with a belief in the benevolent role of government. Embedded within this Weltanschauung is a hostility to entrepreneurism as well as to populism in any of its possible manifestations. In this world view the Planner and his faithful bureaucrat are seen as urban heroes, closely followed by wealthy philanthropists whose beneficence offers hope to the downtrodden. Mike Bloomberg is the quintessential leader to those who see the world in this way.
As a result, what we have in this election cycle is the interesting confluence of coverage from putatively disparate newspaper outlets. The Posts' demonization of Freddy is met not only by the Times' demeaning of the challenger's qualifications and chances of electoral success but by that paper's candy-coating of the mayor's record (Closely followed by the Daily News' series of glossy reviews of Bloomberg's first four years). We should, however, exempt the NY Sun from this charge since the more conservative Sun has offered up a wide range of Bloomberg critiques, many of which, like those of Alicia Colon, come from the Right.
What's incredible here, in the face of all this media shirking and record mayoral spending, is that the mayor has only 52%-53% percent in the latest two polls. It speaks to the lurking possibility that Mike Bloomberg is only one snafu away from imploding. If that happens it will, no doubt, come as quite a shock to some of our journalistic guardians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)