NYC DEMS should be pounding Bloomberg re. support of Bush.

[Smarmie Doofus]

These mayoral candidates are beyond belief. It boggles the mind to think that they are paying top-dollar to "political consultants" who think they can beat $$$Bloomberg by running a few pathetic "I played stickball on these streets" ads...along with petty attacks on each other.

Bloomberg's money will * bury* you. Don't play on his home turf.


Instead, stress B's support of Bush ( widely unpopular here), and cheerleading for this insane war in Iraq ( * hugely* unpopular here, esp among primary voters).

Is is relevant? Yes. It goes to the issue of B's *judgement*. ( It's baaaadd!) Someone who would support this catastrophic misadventure would support a stadium boondoggle, would blow the 2012 Olympic bid, would fail to make any inroads in NYC's historic housing crunch.

To say nothing of the police misconduct( supervised by B.) associated with RNC ( yet another example of B's poor judgement, plus questionable CHARACTER), and B's own misconduct in violating the consitution by refusing antiwar demonstrators a permit to hold a rally.

Some will say Iraq and foreign policy have nothing to do with being mayor of NYC. First, while the mayor has no *technical* role in foreign policy he also has no "technical" role in many issues which become relevant in a nyc mayoral campaign: eg. abortion, death penalty, etc. Second, voters have to be reached on a level other than a "literal" level. Reagan was not reelected by a landslide because most people agreed with him on issues. Most didn't. He was reelected because he projuected an IMAGE that comforted them ( or charmed them).

This mayoral election will not turn on "reducing class size" schemes. It migh turn on the question of whether or not team Bloomberg "cooked the books", (ENRON style; Republican billionaires have a fondness for this sort of thing), to make test scores go up dramatically in an election year. Unfortunately, according to yesterday's NY TIMES, the DEMS are failing to pick up on this. Too bad. I thought airing issues like thes were what this system was all about.

Maybe they should ask my son's public school teachers. Hmmmm. Something about an " election year special."

It goes to character. It goes to judgement. It goes to image.

[Renew Deal]

1. Collectively they suck!

They are a mess. Ferrer is a horrible candidate with nothing to offer. Fields was interesting until she photo-shopped an ad which was just plane lame. Gifford Miller is interesting, but under-experienced and too polished by consultants. Weiner is pretty good. He is tough and would probably do a good job, but he's too far behind.

One thing I have to say about Bloomberg. He hasn't been a cheerleader for the war. He's complained about lack of funds and made sure the second big anti-war protest went off without a fight from the cops. He was too hands off on the first and he fixed that.

Bloomberg is probably going to win this thing if Ferrer is the candidate. Ferrer is so dis-likable and Bloomberg is not controversial. The city is in pretty good shape. I think if Weiner can somehow pull through, we have a shot. He was super aggressive against Miller in the last debate and I think won it. Hopefully he can gain some support.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Point is: the DEMS have to *drive up his negatives*.

You say he's not controversial. You are right in that he is cast this way by his fabulously-paid handlers and media people. Thus , generally *perceived* that way. Also the corporate media love him. ( He IS corporate media!)

But he's plenty controversial to people w. kids in public schools, teachers, people who want to exercise their right to demonstrate against the Bush foreign policy without getting beaten -up by city employees, and people of limited means... and around here that means an income of below 85,000 ...who need a decent place to live.

DEMS should be busting that non-controversial bubble, 'cause it ain't real.

But they don't.

Re. Weiner: he shows flashes of promise. However his opposition to Iraq appears to be belated. I want to be led by someone who's at least as smart as me and saw the approaching war for the calamity it is. Also, a visit to his congressional website describes a different person than the one who is running for mayor this year.

At this point, it might be wise to coalesce around Ferrer as the Bloomberg camps only fear is that there will be no divisive and time consuming DEM runoff.

F is dull and lightly accomplished but it's true of the other three as well.

[jrthin]

2. Our only hope --- a new face.

Otherwise, Bloomberg, whom I detest, will be mayor again.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. A little bit late. The primary is in two weeks. But I'll be ....

happy to support a third party candidate with judgment and vision ( if they can get on the ballot, which I doubt).

The NY STATE DEM party should take a hit for providing us with this sorry group of candidates. None of them can win and... what's more disturbing... they don't even seem interested in *trying* to win.

[robbedvoter]

5. I think they are afraid - Bloomberg is a Tony Soprano type.

Last election he intimidated all potential financial backers of his GOP opponent. This time we know he uses union to physically scare oponents (see protest in front of Weiner's office).
I am afraid that the billionaire who said "make your client think he is getting laid when in reality he's getting screwed" is here to stay.
I am not blaming the candidates. Miller seems pretty good to me. it's the media hiding this race and mostly I am blaming New Yorkers. Their inertia allowed this mob boss at the trough to begin with and is going to allow it to suck us dry for as long as he wants.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Unions endorsing Bloomberg is an interesting phenomenon....

In the case of DC 37 (municipal workers) it seems their *board* (26 people) not their delegate assembly, not their membership, voted to endorse... and then only narrowly, 14-12.

I think of Bloomberg as more of a robber barron than a crime boss, but there are some parallels. It seems like it might be relatively easy for a determined billionaire to favorably influence 14 officers of a HUGE union as opposed to winning a membership vote. Alas, this is not unheard of in the history of the labor movement.

I don't know the bylaws of that particular union but perhaps there is a mechanism for the membership... if any truly brave souls can be found among them... to challenge the endorsement and force a vote of the full membership.. or at least of the delegate assembly.

Re. Miller and the other candidates: it's up to them to DO SOMETHING to change the dynamics of the campaign . We know the deck is stacked against them. That's a given.

So they have to throw-out the Messinger playbook, and think outside the box.