Engage Your Opponent, Mayor Bloomberg
Years ago, as I was starting out my TV news career in Kingsport, Tennessee, I was interviewing the district’s veteran congressman, Rep. James “Jimmy” Quillen. (Quite the character was he; he served 17-terms, and yet managed to sponsor only three pieces of original legislation. Once when I was interviewing him about the Eqypt/Israeli peace agreement, he repeatedly referred to citizens of the former as “e-GYP-ians.” Near the end of his career, one fellow Republican in Congress was quoted as saying, "Jimmy's one helluva nice guy, ... but let's face it. He couldn't organize a one-car funeral." But I digress. Here’s a link if you’d like to continue your own exploration of Congressman Quillen’s storied career).
The interview I was referring to came during one of Quillen’s many re-election campaigns. During our talk, I had the nerve to bring up the name of the democrat he was running against, in such a way that HE also had to say the name in his answer. After we were done, the congressman pulled me aside to tell me that he had never once spoken the name of an election opponent, and that he didn’t appreciate having to do it now. I screwed up as much courage as a newbie reporter could have in that situation, and told him I wasn’t sure if never acknowledging an opponent was really a worthwhile political goal.
I’ve been reminded of this since the day last month when Mayor Bloomberg said this very strange thing about HIS opposition in his upcoming bid for re-election: "They've got to make the case that they're not just political animals," the mayor said. "I'm not running against anybody.”
Well, well, well. Where to begin? First of all, Mayor, as a politician, you don’t want to be reminding even one person (me) of being just like Jimmy Quillen. Trust me on this. Secondly, this is hardly the thing to say if you’re trying to dispel the notion held by many that you’re too rich and arrogant to understand ordinary New Yorkers. Denying the ability of your opponents is fine. Denying their existence is arrogant. And if you were denying the existence of opponents because you know you can just outspend them exponentially and win that way, than you ARE too rich for the job.
Engaging with an opponent is a key way for voters to decide who deserves to be elected. One might even say it’s a pillar of our democratic system. Since Mayor Bloomberg is in this race at all because he worked quite diligently to overturn a term limits law passed by voters twice, he owes it to New Yorkers more than ever to explain exactly where he stands in relation to the policies and ideas of Bill Thompson, winner of this week’s democratic mayoral primary, and someone who, to put it mildly, didn’t think the term limits move was fair play.
Bloomberg may be way ahead of Thompson in the polls right now, but he does the city a disservice if he plans to coast and/or spend his way to a default victory. There’s no glory in having so much money you can crush any opponent, acknowledged or otherwise, in an avalanche of slick television ads. There is some glory in looking an opponent in the eye, and telling him and voters why you really are the best choice at this time. Otherwise, electorally speaking, Mike Bloomberg is just another Jimmy Quillen. Albeit with much nicer suits.
| Search Blog
|
Comments: 7
What Bloomberg did is a classic act of politicians - one set of rules for others, another special set rules just for himself. Like you said, he overturned the term limit law (using the economy as an excuse) to let himself possibly run for a third term. Yes, this is surely a very good example of how to use tricks, power and money to stay above the law, and change it to your advantage when necessary. Don't he ever dare teach anyone to respect the law.
And all his previously PR stupidity just shown that he doesn't need to respect anyone, and will turn into a red face when he feels like someone doesn't respect him, just because he is a rich guy who owns a TV station.
I've a few thoughts on the man. During that massive Northeastern power outage a few years ago he kept telling people during the crisis to drink alot of water. HUH? then ya gotta find the bathroom. His Times Square shutdown to vehicular traffic is now almost universally acknowledged to be ridiculous but he proceeds anyway. Didn't like his ticket blitz a few years ago going after everyone from pregnant women resting on steps to bodega owners with too many letters on their awnings. Never liked the man but apparently New Yorkers do, never got this.
Like old habits, stupidity (which is often part of old habit) die hard.
NYers are fooled to think the whole city depends on him. No, what he is good at is to think of new and efficient ways to grab money for the city from the people, and this exactly what we don't need right now. Even though he is the mayor, his mind is still a businessman.
And I especially don't like those who can stay in politics just because they have money to do campaign, mailing out ads and make expensive TV ads. After 8 years, it's time to change the mayor.
I still can't believe the city counsel were willing to give him a third shot, unbelievable.
His arrogance even exceeds his wealth! When Giuliani tried for just a 90 day extension of his term in the wake of 9/11 (a greater catastrophe than the Lehman collapse) he was rebuffed by the City Council. And Rudy was supposed to be a bully, right? Yet he couldn't get to first base with the same body that offered token resistance to the guy who came to them for four more years - and with a vote that was safe while looking close (29-22). So what, pray tell, might be the difference between the two situations? Well, the answer should be OBVIOU$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The only difference between corruption of the greedy and of the wealthy as in whether power is traded for wealth, or wealth for power.
Yes, the voters still have the final choice. But New Yorkers display an acute case of "incumbency fever", especially in their awarding of third terms to the most undeserving political hacks over the last quarter century. (Koch and D'Amato among others) But with the last word, the voters will still shoulder the ultimate blame for what appears to be the inevitable outcome.
Sure, he may be arrogant; he may be rich enough to buy an election; he may be an out-of-touch bully; he may look like a reptile (lizard? turtle?); but... but... Okay, I guess I really don't have a point to make here after all.
PIX's MORNING NEWS STILL SUCKS !
Your rent is not high enough! Re-elect Bloomberg!
My political sentiments sarcastically expressed here are genuine, but I'm also posting a comment here as a test since I'm having trouble posting another comment to one of your other blog entries.