Why is NYC's Bloomberg getting a pass on Iraq?

[Smarmie Doofus]

And why are the DEM candidates for Mayor giving it to him?

Bloomberg is an outspoken supporter of the Iraq fiasco and a determined opponent of the anti-war movement. He has abused the power of his office by harassing antiwar activists and discouraging public expressions of dissent. His most famous utterance in this regard, "the time for demonstrations has passed", is a window into his totalitarian thought processes and into his lack of understanding of democratic government.

What's hard to figure though, is this: where are the DEM candidates? They should be POUNDING the bleep out of B. on this issue. Instead, we get inexplicable silence.

Made more inexplicable by the fact that they seem to be pulling their hair out trying to: 1. get some attention and 2. distinguish themselves from each other.

There is NO question that Iraq is a legit issue in the NYC mayoral race. NYC is an international city with a long history of electing mayors who become world figures and who comment prolifically ( and in many cases idiotically: the simple-minded rantings of Koch and Giuliani come to mind).

Opposing the war is both morally correct and, at least at the moment, EXTREMELY popular among rank and file New Yorkers.

NYC mayoral candidates: W H E R E A R E Y O U ?????

[iwantmycountryback]

1. Because he's the mayor of a city

He does not hold a federal office so his view on Iraq is irrelevant to the issues of the city.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. His view on Iraq is NOT irrelevant.

Bloomberg himself does not believe it is irrelevant. If he did, we wouldn't know what his view IS, would we?

New Yorkers are affected by the war. New Yorkers have been killed and maimed in Iraq. New Yorkers' tax money is wasted and stolen in Iraq as a result of the war.

Under Bloomberg, New Yorkers have been denied the right to assemble peaceably to protest the war. New Yorkers, while trying to demonstrate against the war, have been assaulted by city police supervised by Bloomberg. New Yorkers have been arrested illegally and held illegally by city police supervised by Bloomberg. New York taxpayers will have to pay compensatory damages to victims of police assaults and false arrests by city police supervised by Bloomberg.

Bloomberg was quite open in his support of the Iraq intervention when, because of government propaganda and bad journalism, the intervention was relatively popular among New Yorkers.

Opinion has turned as reality has set in. New Yorkers should speculate about the JUDGMENT of a man who so avidly endorsed this disastrous federal government policy. Bloomberg's abysmal judgment re. the war is doubtless reflected in other areas of his mayoralty. Bad judgment of this magnitude rarely occurs in isolation.

In a democracy we look to the political opposition to hold the incumbent's feet to the fire. There are four announced DEM candidates for mayor.

Someone please tell them that THEY CAN TALK ABOUT IRAQ.

[K-W]

5. Not to you it isnt,

but to most voters it is not relevent enough to matter.

I think it could certainly be used a little, but any significant focus on it would draw criticism for irrellevance. People care about the things the mayor will have jurisdiction over.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. How can you KNOW that ...

it is not "relevant enough to matter"?

Koch had no jurisdiction over US policy in the middle-east.He nonetheless
spoke publicly about in on a regular basis. It HELPED him immensely politically because it deflected attention from the *rampant* corruption in his administration.

Like Bloomberg ,he traveled regularly to the mideast to support and advocate one possible course of action at the expense of ANOTHER possible course of action.

I cannot recall *anyone* harping on the technicality that since the mayor of NYC does not have "jurisdiction" over US policy in the ME, Koch or Bloomberg were being "irrelevant".

Similarly, to go back a few extra years, Lindsay was outspokenly critical of US war against Viet Nam. Lindsay did not have "jurisdiction". I'm recall that opponents criticized him for this ( not for expressing an opinion, but for the opinion ITSELF) but it helped him to defeat two pro-war candidates in '69.

History simply does not support the view that NYC voters believe in any significant way that mayoral candidates must restrict themselves to expressing opinions on matters over which a NYC mayor has "jurisdiction."

I sometimes wonder if DEMS, and especially NYC DEMS, are seriously interested in winning this election. The four candidates seem to be approaching this election as though Bloomberg is going to win no matter what they do and they are trying to simply win the nomination because the exposure will be good for them if they decide to run for something else in the future.

Fine... but don't ask me for money to help finance a campaign which you are not seriously interested in winning.

[K-W]

7. Your selective history doesnt prove anything.

Actually Bloomberg's victory didnt happen because he talked about the mideast. I never said the democrats shouldnt talk about it, simply that this isnt going to win them an election and they should focus on bread and butter issues. Did the democrat differ significantly from Bloomberg , was it even an issue of contention?

As you admit, Koch was helped by discussing foriegn policy because it was a distraction, not because the voters actually care alot about what the mayor thinks on foriegn policy.

Then you take us back to the vietnam war for a case where the issue itself seems significant, not just a distraction or window dressing.

Even if all three of these examples were legitiamte cases of a local election being significantly influenced by foriegn policy issues, they are exceptions to the rule.

People care about thier bottom lines. If Iraq tanks and the public starts to really turn on it, then yes, running on it would be wise, at that point emotion would overcome reason on the issue for the public, because they would be mourning the deaths.

But unless that happens running on the war would not be wise. It should certainly be a part of the campaign, make him look stupid and out of touch for backing Bush, but if someone wants to beat bloomberg they need to appeal to people's bottom lines.

I would say Bush's lack of focus on domestic security particularly new york is a MUCH bigger thing to hit bloomberg with than the Iraq war.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. You said that ...

Bloomberg's view on Iraq is not "relevant enough to matter to most voters."

You added, my guess is as a point of comparison, that people "care about the things the mayor will have jurisdiction over." ( Yes, you did allow that it ...Iraq... could "be used a little".)

My point is that it ( foreign policy advocacy) appears to have been sufficiently relevant to the voters to have helped Koch,and Lindsay ( I should have included Guiliani). I'm not sure that "proof" is a reasonable yardstick here; few things can be "proven" historically, and certainly this cannot be. I'm not aiming to prove that which can't be proven, I'm aiming to supply "evidence" in the hope of persuading people to recognize the obvious.

Your paragraph 1.: Perhaps I was unclear (?): I'm saying that Bloom erg's outspoken position supporting the war in Iraq AFTER he became mayor is a position for which his democratic opponents should hold him accountable. In his first run there was no debate... that I can recall... on the wisdom of starting a war with Iraq. It was not on the horizon... except in the deep recesses of the minds of Washington policymakers.

Your paragraph 2 is a puzzle as the example you cite appears to support my argument and detract from yours.

The rest of your post seems dedicated to the idea that the DEM candidates should continue to stress "bread and butter" issues and avoid the question of B's foolish advocacy of the Iraq catastrophe and leaving out, for good measure, his supervision of civil rights violations that occurred in connection with the Iraq catastrophe (which have been numerous, flagrant and LARGE-SCALE) should be barely mentioned and essentially back-burnered.

This is what they are doing and will , in all probability, continue to do: Drone on about their various "bases", garnering endorsements, issuing "position papers". ( Yesterday, poor Virginia Fields issued her " economic development plan".It was all people were talking about on the train this morning.)

Sorry, this is just more of the same NYC conventional DEM wisdom and is setting up for another GOP blowout in NOV. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over no matter how many times it fails to work.

This will be the fourth GOP victory in a row in a city with a 5 to 1 dem registration edge. There is something PROFOUNDLY wrong here. DEM conventional wisdom in NYC needs a huge overhaul in short order or the primary winner is headed for a one-way ticket to permanent political "palookahville".

Or should I say to "Ruth Messingerville".

[K-W]

2. At most they could take a few swipes at him, but it isnt a city issue.

People are more concerned with their jobs and taxes and such than whether the mayor is on the right side of issues he has no say on.

[KurtNYC]

3. Bloomberg is looking unbeatable

the only person who could beat him is Bill Clinton (and he isn't running). Bloomberg will get out his checkbook and spend whatever it takes (should be cheaper this time around) to stay in City Hall.

I think the best we can do it get Bloomberg to make some promises related to a couple of issues: school funding, gatherings in the parks, MTA reforms. Something.

My best guess is that Ferrer will win the primary and then burn down like a roman candle in the election.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. A five to one registration edge and already....

the DEMS are conceding the election to a THUNDERING mediocrity like Bloomberg whose only assetts are A$$ETTS and fawning press coverage from the tabloid media.

That says a lot about the state of the DEM party in NY.

[ElTexican]

9. Because the mayor of NYC has the power to control a war ....

What are we coming to? :eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

11. No one I know is voting for Bloomberg. This city is going down the

toilet...and it is Bloomberg's fault.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. According to today's NY Times....

Bloomberg leads Ferrer by 13 points. Ferrer, the dullest of four profoundly dull DEM candidates, leads Fields by 14 points among DEMS.


Bloomberg has unlimited capital with which to buy TV time with which to deceive the voters; Ferrer has none.

Except for the Times, there is basically no "free" media coverage of this race.

What miracle is going to occur that is going to enable the DEMS to unseat Bloomberg?