He must. Either that or he's just very clueless about the politics of this Democratic primary-which is quite possible. After all his strange criticism of De Blasio is more likely to help the candidate with Democratic primary voters than hurt him as this race has developed into the narrative of which candidate is the real anti-Bloomberg. In light of this, how did Bloomberg think his own criticism of De Blasio can do anything but help, particularly where Bloomberg's charge of racism not only makes no sense but is itself a borderline racist comment. I mean your not allowed to have a picture with your wife when you're a candidate if she happens to be black?
Yet it wasn't just the ugly race baiting aspect of his comments. He also went on his very own Pity the Billionaire rant that doesn't sound so different than Romney's attack on the 47%.
“… there’s Bill de Blasio, who’s become the Democratic front-runner,” New York Magazine’s Chris Smith asked Bloomberg early on in a wide-ranging interview. “He has in some ways been running a class-warfare campaign …”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/michael-bloomberg-bill-de-blasio-campaign-nyc-96408.html#ixzz2eWI2eRQw
You wonder why if he didn't mean racist he said it initially. While I think there are a number of positives in the Mayor's legacy, one very troubling aspect is the status of racial profiling and 'stop and frisk.' His 'Freudian Slip' where he said what he didn't mean to say will only make you wonder if on a deeper level what he really meant.
Yet, the other half of what he said is just as problematic-the claim that Blasio has been inciting 'class warfare.' There are the words that apologists for increasing income stratification always use. The plight of the poor and middle income has often been something he's seemed tone deaf on.
"In the interview, conducted in three sessions, Bloomberg called de Blasio’s campaign mantra of New York as a “tale of two cities” a “destructive strategy for those you want to help the most.”
“But his whole campaign is that there are two different cities here. And I’ve never liked that kind of division. The way to help those who are less fortunate is, number one, to attract more very fortunate people. They are the ones that pay the bills. The people that would get very badly hurt here if you drive out the very wealthy are the people he professes to try to help. Tearing people apart with this “two cities” thing doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s a destructive strategy for those you want to help the most. He’s a very populist, very left-wing guy, but this city is not two groups, and if to some extent it is, it’s one group paying for services for the other. It’s a shame, because I’ve always thought he was a very smart guy.”
Smells like Mitt Romney.
h ttp://www.ny1.com/content/news/188442/cuomo-defends-de-blasio-after-bloomberg-calls-mayoral-campaign--racist-
Yet it wasn't just the ugly race baiting aspect of his comments. He also went on his very own Pity the Billionaire rant that doesn't sound so different than Romney's attack on the 47%.
“… there’s Bill de Blasio, who’s become the Democratic front-runner,” New York Magazine’s Chris Smith asked Bloomberg early on in a wide-ranging interview. “He has in some ways been running a class-warfare campaign …”
“Class-warfare and racist,” Bloomberg interrupted him.
“Racist?” Smith asked.
“I mean he’s making an appeal using his family to gain support,” replied Bloomberg. “I think it’s pretty obvious to anyone watching what he’s been doing. I do not think he himself is racist. It’s comparable to me pointing out I’m Jewish in attracting the Jewish vote. You tailor messages to your audiences and address issues you think your audience cares about.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/michael-bloomberg-bill-de-blasio-campaign-nyc-96408.html#ixzz2eWI2eRQw
You wonder why if he didn't mean racist he said it initially. While I think there are a number of positives in the Mayor's legacy, one very troubling aspect is the status of racial profiling and 'stop and frisk.' His 'Freudian Slip' where he said what he didn't mean to say will only make you wonder if on a deeper level what he really meant.
Yet, the other half of what he said is just as problematic-the claim that Blasio has been inciting 'class warfare.' There are the words that apologists for increasing income stratification always use. The plight of the poor and middle income has often been something he's seemed tone deaf on.
"In the interview, conducted in three sessions, Bloomberg called de Blasio’s campaign mantra of New York as a “tale of two cities” a “destructive strategy for those you want to help the most.”
“But his whole campaign is that there are two different cities here. And I’ve never liked that kind of division. The way to help those who are less fortunate is, number one, to attract more very fortunate people. They are the ones that pay the bills. The people that would get very badly hurt here if you drive out the very wealthy are the people he professes to try to help. Tearing people apart with this “two cities” thing doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s a destructive strategy for those you want to help the most. He’s a very populist, very left-wing guy, but this city is not two groups, and if to some extent it is, it’s one group paying for services for the other. It’s a shame, because I’ve always thought he was a very smart guy.”
Smells like Mitt Romney.
Ok, so that's not him being cavalier. I wonder what that would sound like. He sure sounds clueless here,
a modern day Maria Antoinnette. Just because NYC is a wealthy place doesn't erase the fact that some
with it are more like a third world country than a first.
However, the most clueless part-and most of this interview was clueless- may be his praise of Christine Quinn. Assuming he wants her to do well tomorrow and doesn't want De Blasio to, this is the wrong way to do it:
Bloomberg also praised Quinn, whose work with the mayor has been a liability in a year when many Democrats want a new direction for the city.
“She did a very good job for 71/2 years of keeping legislation that never should have made it to the floor, that would have been damaging to the city, from ever getting there. And she deserves a lot of the credit for what’s gone on in the city in the last 71/2 years,” Bloomberg said.
Way to remind Democrats why they should be wary of her. Way to buttress De Blasio's anti-Bloomberg credentials in a race he's already winning by 10 miles. Meanwhile, Blooberg sets up De Blasio to be defended by Governor Cuomo.
h ttp://www.ny1.com/content/news/188442/cuomo-defends-de-blasio-after-bloomberg-calls-mayoral-campaign--racist-
"He called Mr. de Blasio a “very populist, very left-wing guy” and countered with his oft-stated view that the wealthy and prosperous make it possible to provide services to the rest of the city’s residents.
“Wouldn’t it be great if we could get all the Russian billionaires to move here?” Mr. Bloomberg said
This will only further reinforce De Blasio's credentials. Blloomberg is really bad at Game Theory. He might want to consult with Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill for someone who knows how to influence the other party's primary. She was able to pick her opponent-walking gaffe machine, Tod Akin. She did this not be criticizing him but by praising him. This is the way forward for Bloomberg; if he really wants to help Quinn, he should never mention that he is even her most casual acquaintance.
UPDATE: I voted this morning, I'm happy to report. I live in Nassau so I don't actually vote for Mayor. I'll certainly take de Blasio but I''l take Thompson or for that matter Quinn-though Bloomberg's comments really have soured me somewhat on her. She may have made the compromises she did in an over all good cause-it depends what she got in return, but it does make me wonder where her heart is.
I would love Weiner of course, though he's now the longest of long shots it goes without saying I mean I don't care about tweeting your balls or lying about tweeting your balls but I suspect I'm in a minority on this one. Though of course I have the right to privacy on whom I voted for in today's Democratic primary for Nassau County executive between Tom Souzzi and his challenger Adam Haber I'm going to go ahead and waive it and tell you I voted for Souzzi because I always tell you as much as I can about anything. I liked what I was hearing about Haber but at the end of the day it's the guy with the best chance of winning it for the Democratic party.
I did hit some turbulence at my polling place this morning. My name wasn't on the list and it has been for the lat 3 years I've been voting in Baldwin, NY. I had to do an affidavit vote. I suspect it's because I had always registered myself as 'unerolled' rather than a Dem. Then I was late for my 7:20 train to Amityville on my way to my home improvement job in Melville. Luckily I got a nice older gentleman to give me a ride or I would have missed the train and been late. As this was a day when my normal manager was out at the dentist I would have been late for the sub-a co-worker who is covering him this morning. As I had already joked yesterday about taking this day off-you'd have to work with this fellow to get why I'd skip just for him-it would have looked like I had gotten there later just for him. So the breaks went my way there.
P.S. Generally my bias is different- I usually go for the incumbent Democrat if anything. I have to be convinced that there's a real good reason to go against him/her as my goal is not to elect the most liberal person in the world but the most liberal candidate with a chance of winning the general election.
P.S.S. Telemarketing really is a fascinating social dystopian 'natural experiment'; for a laugh I may tell you more about it later.
I voted for de Blasio. Why you may ask? Why of course, he's a small "de" Democrat.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately he's got a runoff. I would have liked to have seen him sew it up.
ReplyDelete