I don't get it. Every day I hear complaints that Bloomberg is stealing the election with his money. "His millions give him an unfair advantage!" "He's broken the law with term limits!" "He's buying votes!"
Is he, really?
I think this attitude is more an emotional reaction than an accurate assessment. It comes from an inherent distrust of the rich. We've seen all too often how money corrupts. Greed destroys. Favoritism of big businesses crushes the middle class. It seems the person with the most money is sure to win because he or she will get the most exposure, the most publicity and the most popularity. And in today's fast paced, instant access, short term memory environment, that's what people will remember most and nobody votes for a less memorable candidate. Sounds logical. But it's an insult to the mindset of the progressive liberal.
One of the ways the left has gone askew is that they have a habit of getting stuck in "complaint mode." They've been the champions of the noble (and losing) cause for so long and they've honed their skills at exposing corruption and wrong doing so well that when there is none, they'll find some. As a prime example we need to look no further than our current Congress. Even though they have a majority all they can do is wallow and whine. Oh, they're really good at instructing how the ball should be handled but when they're given it, they drop it -- or more accurately, they throw it away. Then they return to indignant complaining - just 'cause they're so good at it.
It's a similar situation with Mike Bloomberg. Now, I don't want this to sound like this is an endorsement. There's a big risk in over-praising anyone who is still living. At some point they can do something really disappointing -- like neglecting to see major corruption or hiring a staff member who was once a crack dealer or finding out they've been carrying on an affair with several farm animals for the last three years. Then I can expect to hear: Hey Montana! Good call with that A-hole you liked so much!"
But I will go out on a limb with this one.
Mike Bloomberg is exactly what left wing New Yorkers have been asking for. He's liberal in most every way. He crosses party lines and isn't beholden to anyone. He has mostly a Democrat staff. He's pro-education. He supports the arts. He's kept Central Park a virtual paradise. He has a good relationship with the black and Latino communities. He's supported public housing and worked to make it better. He's done more than almost any other politician to create a greener living atmosphere by creating bike lanes and attempting to limit traffic into the city.
He works for free.
He can't be bought.
So what's the problem? Is it the fact that he's pro-big business at a time when New York was teetering on financial collapse after 9/11 and he brought it back? Is it the fact that turned around term limits ? Why? If someone is doing a good job they can stay there for the rest of their life as far as I'm concerned. Why replace them with someone less competent? If they fail to perform there's a little procedure called voting that can change the circumstances.
Is it because he spends so much money on his campaign? Hey, it isn't your money! That's more than I can say for 99% of the rest of the buffoons running this country.
And what of Bill Thompson? Is he getting a raw deal because he can't compete with Mike's money? This is another area with the left fails to see the forest through the trees. Just because he's the underdog, and just because he's the Democratic candidate, doesn't mean he's preferable. I've examined his record and it's less than sterling. If there wasn't one thin dime spent in advertising, in a straight up comparison, Bloomberg is clearly the better man.
Mike Bloomberg isn't perfect and there are a few issues where I disagree with him, but I have to ask: when will New York Democrats be happy? When we get another Mayor like Dinkins in? What does it take to be satisfied?
It's time for liberals to get out of the loser mindset and start taking charge. We need to stop shouting from the sidelines and get in the game. Great things can be accomplished, but it requires action. And I don't mean gestures like feel good bills that do nothing, or appeasing special interests or placating the public with promises. I'm talking about actually getting things accomplished! Mike Bloomberg has done just that. And I urge all New Yorkers who care about this great town to get out and vote on Nov. 3.
Now don't disappoint me Mike. I'll be watching.
Alan Singer: "Show Me The Money"
Is Michael Bloomberg buying votes? Will Arne Duncan bring a "revolution" to the way our schools operate? Some who responded to recent blogs wanted more evidence for my claims. Here it is.
Jarrett Murphy: Back to the Future With Mike Bloomberg
He says he will deliver us a city "safer, stronger, greener and healthier -- and better than ever." Who can argue with that? As for the details, polls indicate he'll have four years to nail those down.
Sam Leff: Top 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Michael Bloomberg
This country was born of a revolution that overthrew the rule of royalty. Why should it be ruled by pseudo royals like Bloomberg who have no respect for truth or justice?