Bloomberg or Ferrer?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Seems Bloomberg will win based on his "performance" (in the debate, that is) because he appeared smart, level-headed, unflustered and dismissive. Ferrer came across as a whiney twerp and no doubt Bloomberg played his cards right to get more of a reaction from him so the contrast between level-headed and whiney twerp would be striking.

However, I noticed that when Ferrer actually made points about the way Bloomberg was doing things, Bloomberg's response was basically a dismissive, "It's easy to complain. Anyone can complain, but being a complainer is not being a leader. It's more difficult to lead than it is to complain and I'm a leader not a complainer." Well, that's great, but how about addressing the complaints about your leadership, jerkoff?

Ferrer's new commercial makes a good point about Bloomberg. When he wants something, he really goes for it. When he wanted the Olympics in NYC, he went all over Europe campaigning for it. But, when it came to getting more funding for our education, he didn't go to Albany. Of course, this is simplified and it probably wasn't really necessary for Bloomberg to go to Albany, but it does make a decent point about Bloomy's priorities, doesn't it? It reminds me that he wasn't interested in campaigning until the END, so that if he lost, he wouldn't have wasted his money. Smart business move, but it comes off a bit arrogant or disinterested. Do I want my mayor to be arrogant or have a "take it or leave it" attitude toward being mayor?

Clinton is backing Ferrer. Bloomberg is a fucking Republican, possibly in name only (?), which might be even more annoying.

― Vote For Jerks Campaign, Thursday, 3 November 2005 19:01 (twenty years ago)

I couldn't bear to watch the two debates. Ferrer's run a lousy campaign, but Bloomberg's priorities are not mine (fellating Big Biz and the 9/11 Jingoist Families, throwing demonstrators in jail) ... I was inclined to vote third-party since Bloomie's romping, but since he's outspent Ferrer SEVENTEEN TO ONE, Ferrer essentially IS third-party (with the second party missing).

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 3 November 2005 19:14 (twenty years ago)

No matter who wins, we lose.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Thursday, 3 November 2005 19:29 (twenty years ago)

i can't back ferrer. he's just too ineffectual. despite bloomie's despicable corporate interests, he hasn't done a bad job running the city.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 3 November 2005 22:57 (twenty years ago)

I am standing by my earlier inclination to sit it out. Or sitting by my inclination, I guess. Bloomberg will be re-elected, which is not a terrible thing or a great one. He won't do it with my help, but I'm not gonna actively oppose him.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 3 November 2005 23:08 (twenty years ago)

don't forget to vote yes on the transportation bond act!!

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 3 November 2005 23:09 (twenty years ago)

http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/bondact.htm

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 3 November 2005 23:11 (twenty years ago)

i'm voting for ferrer.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 3 November 2005 23:17 (twenty years ago)

I would vote for ferrer too.

― JimD (JimD), Friday, 4 November 2005 01:58 (twenty years ago)

thanks, Jim. i was worried i killed the thread (this post might do it).

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 01:59 (twenty years ago)

i think i'm more depressed that new york is actually gonna reelect their bush stooge than i was when the uk decided to reelect their bush stooge. for shame!

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:02 (twenty years ago)

yeah, blount, as bad a candidate ferrer is, bloomberg is sooo much worse. i know august '04 is over a year ago, and new yorkers don't have long memories, but sheesh.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:04 (twenty years ago)

at least the olympics thing is off our backs now.

new york is in pretty good shape, and i say this as someone who's been involved with local policy/advocacy stuff lately. shit gets done here. we're doing so much better than we were 20 years ago. i don't mind voting a republican in if we can keep crime down and the economy up. i wish bloomberg cared more about schools, but the public schools here have been in dire shape for as long as i can remember.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:28 (twenty years ago)

" i don't mind voting a republican in if we can keep crime down and the economy up." - JESUS CHRIST JODY - THIS LINE OF THOUGHT HAS SEALED AMERICA'S DOOM YOU REALISE SURELY YES?

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:31 (twenty years ago)

depends on the republican.

ain't like bush has done jack shit for the economy.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:32 (twenty years ago)

i'm no centrist, but i'm hardly one of those "omg i will never vote for a republican EVER EVER EVER" types.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:33 (twenty years ago)

a vote for bloomberg is a vote for bush. you vote for the thumb you vote for the whole hand.

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:37 (twenty years ago)

bloomberg has not done much for the economy in new york. there are still wide swaths of the city beset by unemployment, especially in so-called "minority" areas. a jobless recovery is no recovery, imo.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:37 (twenty years ago)

and that ties into the public schools: with the dropout rate so high, the unemployment rate ain't gonna change either.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:39 (twenty years ago)

there are lots of jobs here! we take it for granted, but every major business in the civilized world has an office in nyc. in most of the country, there's nowhere to work if you want to be paid more than minimum wage.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:44 (twenty years ago)

bloomberg has not done much for the economy in new york.

The executive branch, whether in city, state or federal government, rarely ever does. Frankly I'm not sure what policy implements a mayor really has at his disposal to address a huge macro problem like "minority" unemployment or underemployment.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:46 (twenty years ago)

Bloomberg needs to kick some ass to get more state funding into the city schools, for sure. It's insane that we have a court order mandating it and the Legislature is just basically twiddling its thumbs. (Although our legislators have got some to answer for too, hello Mr. Silver.) But look, it's easy from outside to say "a vote for Bloomberg is a vote for Bush"; obviously it doesn't look like that from the inside, or Bloomberg would've been in a lot more trouble from the start. He has some serious flaws, but on balance he hasn't been a bad mayor so far. And like I said, there's no evidence Ferrer would be in any way better, unless you just think that having a "D" next to a name confers superior civic administrative skillz. As for the Bush administration, I don't think they care much who's mayor of New York, they're not gonna give a shit about the city nohow.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:50 (twenty years ago)

and honestly, if you're a high school dropout, you can get a ged, you can get a little financial assistance and take some cheap classes at devry or one of the cunys -- the opportunities are out there. and there are community development organizations that help poor people develop their resumes, put together interview outfits, etc. (xpost)

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:50 (twenty years ago)

jbr, you're straying a bit into the "bootstraps" argument which i'm not sure i buy into.

that is very true, but i don't see these issues being on bloomberg's agenda. certainly not to the degree that the west side stadium and the olympics were.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:52 (twenty years ago)

As for the Bush administration, I don't think they care much who's mayor of New York, they're not gonna give a shit about the city nohow.

http://static.flickr.com/12/17881729_f86aded77b_m.jpg

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:53 (twenty years ago)

gypsy they were happy enough to have new york under a republican governor and mayor when they used the city to get bush reelected. i thought most nyers had a problem with that. i thought most brits were against the war in iraq also. i was wrong on both counts apparently.

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:53 (twenty years ago)

jbr, you're straying a bit into the "bootstraps" argument which i'm not sure i buy into.

they're liberal bootstraps though. i'm not under any illusion that anyone under the sun can become a billionaire THROUGH HARD WORK -- but there are pretty good resources here for anyone who has the initiative to take advantage of them. you don't need an ivy league education to get a decent job.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:56 (twenty years ago)

you don't need an ivy league education to get a decent job.

oh. : (

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:59 (twenty years ago)

gypsy they were happy enough to have new york under a republican governor and mayor when they used the city to get bush reelected.

erm, only about 28 percent of nyc voters chose bush.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:59 (twenty years ago)

you're proving his point.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:00 (twenty years ago)

I think New Yorkers were plenty pissed about the convention and the way 9/11 was exploited, and if Bloomberg had had to run last year in the middle of that it would have hurt him more. But he's been pretty deliberate in distancing himself from any close association with the administration. Even at the convention, he basically gave a little "Howdy" speech and then zipped off to a reception for the Log Cabin Republicans. Part of it is that he's pretty unlikely to ever run for another office, so he hasn't seemed worried about cozying up to party bigwigs (the way Giuliani has). I'm not saying he's a "good guy," I think he's kind of a dick. But the city's pretty livable right now (at a price), and right or wrong it's hard to oust an incumbent absent some kind of crisis. It doesn't have much to do with Bush one way or another.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:01 (twenty years ago)

(plus maybe there's some security in having a billionaire mayor, I don't know; maybe people figure if worse comes to worst we'll just all move in with him)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:02 (twenty years ago)

But he's been pretty deliberate in distancing himself from any close association with the administration.

which is cowardly and dishonest.

Even at the convention, he basically gave a little "Howdy" speech and then zipped off to a reception for the Log Cabin Republicans.

he's done as much damage to gay marriage in nyc (and possibly the state) as bush has done nationally - so maybe he shouldn't do them any more favors?

It doesn't have much to do with Bush one way or another.

hello, hole in the ground over there on church street.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:04 (twenty years ago)

Bloomberg certainly has a problem with his fanciful stadium ideas and what not. The thing is, I don't believe Ferrer has any real answers for any of the city's pressing economic or educational issues either. Even if he did, and he somehow miraculously won the election, he'd wind up spending most of his time servicing the Democratic patronage machine that got him elected. Ferrer has been around too long and has too many favors to repay. The New York City Democratic Party is a horror show.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:05 (twenty years ago)

The thing is, I don't believe Ferrer has any real answers for any of the city's pressing economic or educational issues either.

maybe he doesn't, but at least he sees them as ISSUES.

Even if he did, and he somehow miraculously won the election, he'd wind up spending most of his time servicing the Democratic patronage machine that got him elected.

maybe that's trickle-down economics at work though!

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:06 (twenty years ago)

trickle-down economics

Don't go Laffer Curve on me now, man!

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:07 (twenty years ago)

Bloomberg did give a massive donation to the Bush campaign, so it's not like he's got nothing to do with the guy.

I'm very wary of Republicans, but I'm relatively okay with Bloomberg, so I'm not totally upset about the inevitability of his second term. I generally agree with JBR on this, and I'm also eternally grateful for the smoking ban. But I'm glad that I'm not eligable to vote in this race, cos I'd feel bad for voting against a Democrat in times like these, and I'd feel worse for caving and voting for a chump like Ferrer.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:07 (twenty years ago)

Bag searches, people. The pot delivery guys are taking cabs now!

― Keith C (lync0), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:11 (twenty years ago)

the bag searches are just an alarmist fad. they'll go away soon.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:13 (twenty years ago)

no, they won't. ok maybe long-term if the aclu wins, but in the near-term, bag searches which don't actually do anything will reign.

(mind you, i've never been subject to one nor seen anyone subject to one, but still.)

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:19 (twenty years ago)

I saw what I thought was a bag search at Fulton St shortly after they started them. Turned out it was just a cop trying to help some lady who was having an asthma attack find her inhaler.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:21 (twenty years ago)

no, they won't. ok maybe long-term if the aclu wins, but in the near-term, bag searches which don't actually do anything will reign.

yeah they will. transit police have a very short attention span.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:26 (twenty years ago)

"yeah they will" being the answer to "no, they won't."

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:26 (twenty years ago)

i miss, y'know, principles.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:27 (twenty years ago)

that would imply that they existed before.

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:28 (twenty years ago)

they did!

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:29 (twenty years ago)

nope!

― jbr: the little-known, idiosyncratic nutball (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:29 (twenty years ago)

"civil society" and whatnot. just ask that old broad from the white house press corps.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:29 (twenty years ago)

he's done as much damage to gay marriage in nyc (and possibly the state) as bush has done nationally

He has? I thought he said he was pro-gay-marriage?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:30 (twenty years ago)

that's why the city's lawyers are challenging gay marriage in court.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:31 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 62 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

A Green racist?

Voting makes aphorisms useful.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 8 November 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

Mayor Bloomberg Romps to Win in New York

By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg won a second term in a blowout Tuesday, easily defeating former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer by drawing a wide majority of Democrats away from his opponent in this strongly left-leaning city.

Bloomberg, the billionaire former executive who was elected four years ago as fires still smoldered at the World Trade Center, said he would be "thrilled if I won by one vote or more."

With 26 percent of precincts reporting, Bloomberg had 177,268 votes, or 56 percent, compared with Ferrer's 130,061 votes, or 41 percent.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 03:13 (twenty years ago)

and ferrer has just called bloomie to concede the election. battle mayorfish is ovah! < /iron chef>

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 03:17 (twenty years ago)

"our boy did good!"

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 05:20 (twenty years ago)

haha that's an snl sketch waiting to happen

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 05:26 (twenty years ago)

a vote for bloomberg is a vote for bush. you vote for the thumb you vote for the whole hand.

i'm as anti-bush as anyone but "republicans = ALWAYS BAD AND WRONG" is not a particularly helpful attitude if you want to live in the actual real world.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 05:47 (twenty years ago)

"he's not one of the bad republicans, he's ok really, besides they're really really good with the economy and fighting crime" is not a particularly helpful attitude if you want to live in the actual real world. although i guess i'll have to live in a crazy utopia where a democrat can be elected mayor or governor in new york. maybe next decade.

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 05:52 (twenty years ago)

blount wasn't talking about all republicans, he was talking about bloomberg!!

and bloomberg, in his own strange way, is one of the most atypical republicans on the face of the planet -- but then, so is GWB

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 05:53 (twenty years ago)

j.d. otm. they're a little obsessed with family values and not paying taxes for anything ever but most of 'em aren't bush-level baddies.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 05:54 (twenty years ago)

it's so amazing how everyone on ilx who keeps saying "nyc needs a democrat mayor" didn't even live anywhere near new york in the days when we HAD democrat mayors.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 05:55 (twenty years ago)

i will also confess: i probably also would've voted for bloomberg if i lived in NYC.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 05:58 (twenty years ago)

i mean it'd be swell to have a strong democrat in gracie mansion but in the "real world" we'd prolly just get another dinkins.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:00 (twenty years ago)

blount do you think that a vote for any republican is a vote for bush?

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:00 (twenty years ago)

i have a question -- what leadership has bloomberg shown, on anything? i'm thinking about such disparate things as 1. education .... 4. policing ....... 697,112. the wtc site

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:01 (twenty years ago)

1,344,364. the smoking ban -- i forgot about what peerless courage that took, to propose a measure that would automatically be supported by 70% of the public

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:03 (twenty years ago)

anyway, since i DON'T live in NYC and i DO live in a state where we had a REAL democrat run against a REAL bushco-style republican -- and i voted for the real democrat over the real bushco-style republican -- my musings on what i would've done if i could've voted in NYC are really irrelevant.

though how i vote NEXT november depends on who the real democrat we just elected governor selects to replace him in the Senate.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:03 (twenty years ago)

this is a dude who let police officers work without a contract

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:10 (twenty years ago)

also though, i'm really much more interested in the little-known nutjob guys who actually go to bat for the stuff we want -- city council/public advocate/judges. i don't particularly care about bloomberg other than that there haven't been any transit strikes or garbage piling up in the streets for months on end or newspaper articles telling our city to drop dead. he's not my favorite guy but on the development-out-of-control front, things could be WAY more dystopic than they are. new yorkers are vocal about what they don't want, and bloomberg isn't stupid.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:12 (twenty years ago)

i think a vote for any republican that represents the face the national party wants to put out, that threw a big ol' fashioned new york style cookout for bushco last fall that sealed the deal bumpwise for them in the national election. he's a loveable old moderate republican, yknow, like george bush the elder! and he's TOUGH ON CRIME - GRR TAKE THAT YOU CRIMINALS! and who could be against the further disneyfication corporate clean giulianiburg of NYC? (note: besides black dudes that don't want to get shot - can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs right?). i hear he TOTALLY makes them trains run on time.

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:12 (twenty years ago)

but like i said, the people complaining weren't even HERE in the '80s so they don't have a clue what our city has contended with.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:13 (twenty years ago)

the rnc didn't seal any deals. we sure as fuck didn't want those people in our city. we didn't extend any hospitality -- if they wanted a hotel room, they had to pay the same $500 a night everyone else pays. we made fun of their out-of-town-ness in our commercials!

and all told, they didn't have much of a presence here. because we wouldn't let them. they did what they had to do and they left.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:18 (twenty years ago)

it's morning in nyc again

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:19 (twenty years ago)

i hear he TOTALLY makes them trains run on time.

shows how much you know -- there is no "on time" with our trains. they come when they come.

nice try with the hitler reference, but bloomie's 100% jewboy.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:21 (twenty years ago)

it's a ~~giuliani~~ mussolini ref

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:23 (twenty years ago)

anyway, i gotta get to bed. goodnight hymietown!

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:26 (twenty years ago)

i don't want to get shot either and i remain convinced that the "flood danger zones with rookie cops" approach -- the centerpiece, if you can call it that, of bloomberg's crime policy, if you can call it that -- simply hardens violent attitudes, and i also remain convinced that the ballyhooed drop in crime is a result of several factors, none of which have anything to do with said ballyhooing and everything to do with 1. underreporting because of greater fear of police 2. comparable drops all across the country 3. compstat-driven pressure on cops to improve their numbers, resulting in gimmicking the statistics, and probably not helping with what the patrolmen's benevolent association has called an all-time low morale

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:30 (twenty years ago)

bloomberg on crime is like dep. ops rawls on "the wire"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:38 (twenty years ago)

or he would be if he had any, you know, experience with that kind of thing

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 06:38 (twenty years ago)

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/did_mussolini_m.html

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 07:08 (twenty years ago)

now go to bed.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 07:11 (twenty years ago)

>we'd prolly just get another dinkins.<

And that means what, exactly? A "washroom attendant," as the racist cops at that rally where Giuliani screamed "bullshit" put it?

Dave was no great mayor, but ppl seemed not to notice that his mayoralty coincided with crack & 'killer' heroin eras that would've been a plague under any administration.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:46 (twenty years ago)

the idea that one bad democratic mayor = all democratic mayors must be bad is pretty fucking stupid.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:36 (twenty years ago)

still looking at nyc mayors through the "wire" prism, bloomberg and giuliani have been classic "rainmakers" when it comes to crime -- you elect us, we'll make it rain, maybe not today, but it'll rain, and when it rains, it'll be because of us

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:43 (twenty years ago)

Bloomberg doesn't have a whole lot to brag about, it's true. But I think his biggest strength -- or perceived strength -- is that he is, as Brian Lehrer just put it on WNYC, a "good-government technocrat." He seems like a not-particularly-political manager, with a kind don't-give-a-fuck willingness to say what he thinks that New Yorkers sort of like -- especially because the things he thinks are generally not offensive to New Yorkers' social and political orientations. The idea that he's connected in anything but name to the Bush wing of the party is laughable. He doesn't like them, and they very much don't like him. I mean, you notice that he's not actually in that photo of Cheney up above.

But the biggest thing is entropy. New Yorkers didn't come into this election year with any great sense that Things Need to Change. It's hard to beat an incumbent in that circumstance, especially with an not-very-inspired candidate who I think a lot of people feel like has been sort of hacking around for years and finally became the de facto candidate (sort of the way Bob Dole was finally granted the presidential nomination). There was NO REASON to think Ferrer would be in any practical way a BETTER MAYOR, and given the possibility that he could be worse, why should a city throw out an administration that's working OK? To give the finger to George Bush? We already gave him the finger, check the NYC vote totals last November. He does not give a shit about NYC either way, Bloomberg or no Bloomberg. He doesn't even give a shit about Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a nonentity as far as the national GOP is concerned, which is probably the way he likes it. It's just silly to see this race in terms of national politics.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

Also, I'm not naive enough to think that there was no race or class factor -- a good number of upper-middle-class white liberals no doubt felt more comfortable with a rich white liberal Republican than a Bronx Hispanic liberal Democrat. But if there had been more dissatisfaction with Bloomberg personally or the state of the city, those things would have mattered less.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:20 (twenty years ago)

He seems like a not-particularly-political manager, with a kind don't-give-a-fuck willingness to say what he thinks that New Yorkers sort of like -- especially because the things he thinks are generally not offensive to New Yorkers' social and political orientations. The idea that he's connected in anything but name to the Bush wing of the party is laughable. He doesn't like them, and they very much don't like him. I mean, you notice that he's not actually in that photo of Cheney up above.

i don't buy this. if he has a "don't-give-a-fuck willingness to say what he thinks that New Yorkers sort of like" and no particular ties to bush-cheney, then why doesn't he press them more on anti-terrorism money for the city, the dismantling of hud, etc., etc., etc.?

you're right that it's hard to beat an incumbent with no burgeoning scandal.

There was NO REASON to think Ferrer would be in any practical way a BETTER MAYOR, and given the possibility that he could be worse, why should a city throw out an administration that's working OK?

again, this "possibility that he could be worse" comes out of nowhere, and some ways it's manifested (i'm not accusing you of this, btw) pretty much convinces me that it's racism. ferrer "can't" govern new york because the last (read: only) time there was a minority mayor, it was dinkins (nevermind the fact that the crack epidemic wasn't his fault and would've tested any mayor).

To give the finger to George Bush? We already gave him the finger, check the NYC vote totals last November.

yeah, 46th in voter turnout. some finger.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:22 (twenty years ago)

anyway, my point is this: if former mayors are such a big factor, then how is the party that gave the city john lindsay any more responsible at governing? there's more factors at work, and instead of exploring them, i think the nyc media's more willing to exploit them.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

and then there's the Jets and Nets projects.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, Bloomberg's been pretty ineffective in pushing either Washington or Albany. That's definitely a mark against him, especially because theoretically one advantage to having a Republican should be his greater clout with state and national Republican leadership. I think Hillary and Chuck have done more on that front than him, or at least they've been a lot more outspoken about it. So you're right, "don't-give-a-fuck" isn't the right way to describe it; "arrogance" is probably closer. And his arrogance pissed off a lot of people for the first few years, what was his approval rating, like 30 percent? But I think people ultimately kind of warmed to it. Not necessarily for good reasons, but I think NYC is a place where arrogance can work to your advantage because it's part of the city's sense of itself.

And sure, there's racism involved re: Ferrer, but I think fears about his executive competence had more to do with his standing as an embedded party operative and the idea that his administration might tend to be staffed with more of the same. The bigger issue, though, was just a reasonable level of satisfaction with the state of the city. Whether or not Bloomberg or any executive really deserves credit for that (or blame when things aren't so great, like Dinkins), that's just the way things work. People can't vote for or against broad economic and social trends, so they use executives as proxies. Bloomberg's re-election had way more to do with that than any of these other issues.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:39 (twenty years ago)

i met bloomberg once. at the bloomberg place. he gave a speech and gave us a little recording device that looks like a microphone. it was a mic bloomberg.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:54 (twenty years ago)

btw, the staten island ferry hasn't been really on-schedule since sept. 11

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

uh, isn't it every half-hour?

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:09 (twenty years ago)

yes, but my sources say that it's routinely 5-10 minutes late, throwing the bus hook-up on the other side into anarchy and confusion

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:13 (twenty years ago)

i voted for bloomberg almost solely because of how he managed the city's budget crisis in early 2002 (or was it 2003?). the city was close to having to declare bankruptcy, and rather than borrow more money, bloomberg raised property taxes, killed recycling temporarily and made similar other efforts to get the city into the black (or, at least, less in the red). this could have been a monumental catastrope a la 77 (or was it 78?), but he did what a nyc mayor has to do: said fuck all yall and just got things done the best way he knew how. also, a dude i'm friends with (we took a cooking class together) is a big-time lefty idealist sorta dude and he is a bloomberg aide. that made me trust him more. and yes he's a rino -- dude was a lifelong democrat but switched parties solely to avoid the primaries.

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:15 (twenty years ago)

also, aside the rnc bullshit -- which, indeed, was teh suck -- can anyone point to anything particularly republican that bloomie has done?

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:16 (twenty years ago)

y'all should've voted for this guy

― lol xbox is hueg (Adrian Langston), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:26 (twenty years ago)

http://host318.ipowerweb.com/~rentisto/CD_Rent_3.JPG

― lol xbox is hueg (Adrian Langston), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:27 (twenty years ago)

http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/05083010011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/10070000/10074133.jpg

― lol xbox is hueg (Adrian Langston), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:28 (twenty years ago)

http://bestmessageboardever.com/uploads/post-1078-1131558920.jpg

― lol xbox is hueg (Adrian Langston), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:29 (twenty years ago)

two years pass...

a vote for bloomberg is a vote for bush. you vote for the thumb you vote for the whole hand.

"hand?" As in TRACER HAND? I knew he was a republican operative, no real Dem would spend so much time defending Hillary.

― gershy, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 08:35 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.