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-ee-ans." 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Quillen ">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.