New York Times endorses Bloomberg for re-election

[Renew Deal]

NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Times enthusiastically endorsed Mayor Michael Bloomberg for re-election, saying he was on course to be one of the best mayors the city has ever had.

The overwhelmingly positive editorial published in Sunday's editions said Bloomberg, a Republican, has not been as entertaining as his predecessors but "has been better at running the city."

"If he continues his record of accomplishment over the next four years, he may be remembered as one of the greatest mayors in New York history," the editorial said.

Recent opinion polls put Bloomberg well ahead of his Democratic challenger, Fernando Ferrer.
<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/23/bloomberg.ap/index.html

[Ignacio Upton]

1. So much for the Liberal Media

Endorsement aside, Bloomberg is not that bad a Mayor for a Republican with the exception of his campaigning for Bush and unfairly treating Republican National Convention protestors last Summer, and Ferrer is a scumbag himself (his Diallo comments were bullshit) and Ferrer will not do much to improve NYC economically (while his lower-income rebate is a good idea, his tax of individual stock transactions is beyond foolish). Personally, I don't like either candidate, and if I was a NYC resident I would stay home. However, and I'll get flamed, but I think that NYC would be better off with Bloomberg but not much so.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. But PaulHo endorses Ferrer... as the lesser of two evils.....

... but *significantly* lesser.

Bloomberg's popularity is based on money... and little else. He's Ron Lauder... transplanted to a political time and place so polluted and corrupted by $$$,celebrity worship, nonsense media and instant gratification that nothing more than cold,hard cash ( LOTS of it) is necessary to establish one's self as a viable candidate for public office.

Last time around ( 2001) some pundit described our hero as " a graceless sack of dollar bills". He's that... and little more.

Bloomberg's judgment isn't just bad; it's * horrendous* He loves Bush, likes the war, wanted to saddle the city with that moronic stadium and the Olympics, doesn't understand that he is, as mayor, responsible for seeing that the constitutional right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech is respected.

Bloomberg is *creepily* disingenuous. He says he's pro-choice... but works with unequaled zeal to reelect a president that Bloomberg KNOWS is going to appoint anti-choicers to the SCOTUS. He say's he's pro-gay rights and pro-gay marriage....but instructs city lawyers to do everything under the sun to see that it NEVER happens.(See the post, Bloomberg's Gay Problem, on the NY Forum; click the VV article. Read.)

Ferrer was the best of four extremely weak ( i.e. relatively unaccomplished, relatively unpromising DEM primary candidates.) He has a spotty record and seems ( who knows ,really as we never really see or hear from him, since Bloomberg's cornered the market on the political dialogue in this $$$media market) to be without a compelling message. But give Ferrer 100,000,000 dollars to run mind-numbing 15 and 20 second spots every 5 minutes, and he'd look MONUMENTAL relative to the republican candidate.