Blog: Mike Bloomberg

Not surprisingly, Albany legislators are reacting to soaring gas prices by giving away local cities and towns' revenue in order to placate drivers who have become addicted to cheap gas - and worse yet, with no way to guarantee that gas stations or oil companies won't just pocket the difference. True to form, Pataki and Shelly Silver pander, and Liz Krueger dares to speak some sense and question this ill-conceived idea.

"I empathize with the desire of government to try to be doing something, and it's not that I have opposition to this, it's that this isn't addressing the real problem," she said, adding that the nation should move towards tougher fuel economy regulations. . .

Proceeds from New York's gas tax are distributed to state and local governments. The legislative plan would effectively cap a state sales tax component of the tax at 8 cents per gallon, 4 cents less than the current tax.

At some point, in the far distant prehistoric mists of history, some state legislature actually instituted this gas tax. Funny how that kind of legislating doesn't ever happen anymore, even in New Jersey, with one of the lowest gas taxes in the nation while the transportation fund goes bankrupt.

Update: Bloomberg is on the right side of this one.

At Drinking Liberally Thursday night, Rudy's was emptier than I'd seen it in a long time. The reason? Mayor Mike Bloomberg had just announced that federal law enformcement had received a specific threat against the NYC subway system. Perhaps coincidentally, that very night was a debate in Harlem attended by Democratic nominee Freddy Ferrer and conservative third party candidate Thomas Ognibene, but not Bloomberg. Over the past week, Bloomberg had been forced to defend against growing criticism in the press over his refusal to attend, to the point of making silly excuses.

Later, federal officials said that the threat was of "dubious credibility." Would Bloomberg choose to elevate a warning, perhaps one commonly received by the NYPD, about a low likelihood threat, simply because it was politically expedient? After all, the Bush administration did just that during 2005. On Thursday, I said no, I doubt Bloomberg would do it. Unlike Bloomberg, Bush is not actually interested in governing. He doesn't believe in the federal government as a force for good, just as an opportunity to dole out favors to his friends. He is uninterested in actually governing, hence his copious vacations and seeinly baffling inability to respond quickly or compassionately to Hurricane Katrina. Mike Bloomberg, on the other hand, really is trying to be a good mayor. I disagree with his priorities, many of his policies, and his hostility toward the First Amendment, but I certainly don't think he is trying to let New York City wither and decay the way Bush is trying to do with our federal government.

However, I've started to wonder. At the New York Connection, K exposes the way a few Democrats, now working for Bloomberg, have decided to take the worst from Karl Rove's tactics and repeat lies, made by the Republican Noise Machine against recent Democratic presidential candidates, in an attempt to tar Ferrer. Jordan Barowitz, former Democratic operative, has started accusing Ferrer of exaggerating facts, and commented, "What's next? The Internet?" He is taking a vicious, false smear against Al Gore which was injected into the public consciousness by Rove, and actually perpetuating it, referring to it as if it were true, to score political points against another Democrat. Someone else in the Bloomberg campaign decided to call Ferrer a "flip-flopper," a totally unjustified attack when used against John Kerry last year and equally unjustified when applied to Freddy Ferrer.

We know, therefore, that there are some former Democrats inside the Bloomberg campaign who have no qualms about copying the dirtiest tricks Republicans used against them in the past. So what if one of these same operatives remembered Bush's abuse of terror alerts and, under pressure to solve the debate problem, suggested that the most recent advisory from the Feds be publicized? Could Bloomberg have gone along with that? It's not like he was making something up, just choosing to be more cautious than usual, perhaps. Given the way his campaign has been behaving recently, I'm not so sure Bloomberg, egged on by Barowitz and his ilk, would resist the temptation.

The NYPD continued its ignoble tradition of stifling freedom of speech and of assembly. Cindy Sheehan, tolerated by the police even in Crawford, Texas, was kicked out of Union Square Park on Monday. The Village Voice's Ward Harkavy writes, "It should be front-page news in this country that a prominent, peaceful protester, speaking to a crowd of 150 people, was silenced not far from a statue of Mahatma Gandhi, but it won't be. And that's frightening, because the bulwark of our security as a country is our cherished freedom to speak out."

For those not outraged by an administration that believes citizens' only right is to go about their orderly corporate lives, never to stand out, speak out, or assert any perogative to publicly participate in national or local civic discourse, the Prospect's Greg Sargent outlines the many reasons why a Bloomberg mayoralty is bad for New York and bad for America:

Bloomberg, for all his leftward feints, has at times been quite the loyal GOP partisan. He has defended the Iraq War, a hugely symbolic gesture coming from the mayor of the city attacked on September 11. He's raised millions of dollars for the national GOP. During last year's GOP convention in New York he presided over the highly questionable arrests of more than 1,500 protesters, in effect placing the GOP's desire for a peaceful convention above his own constituents' right to peaceful protest. . . .

Bloomberg has foresaken the New York Mayor's traditional role as someone who raises his voice to communicate the wants, needs and aspirations of his constituents to the national audience and the ruling party in D.C. It's a void that New Yorkers need filled more than ever, given the enormous ideological gap between this city's residents and the national GOP, as well as the Republicans' ongoing exploitation of Sept. 11.

There's another reason Dems should care if Bloomberg wins re-election: The success of Republicans like Bloomberg in Democratic strongholds is extraordinarily helpful to Karl Rove's strategy for building an enduring Republican majority. That strategy rests on offsetting the party leadership's endless pampering of the right wing base with hollow gestures designed to keep moderates from getting scared away by the party's hardcore conservatism. Hence Rove's much-ballyhooed outreach to blacks, which isn't really about winning over African Americans but is actually about signaling to white moderates that the party is tolerant and inclusive. To the extent that mild-mannered liberal Republicans like Bloomberg put a gentle face on today's GOP -- particularly in New York, the supposed capitol of liberalism -- they're helping Rove achieve his objectives.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

I just wrote that down by heart, and the only thing I got wrong were the conjunctions (I used "nor" instead of "or" in a few places, and didn't know that the last one is an "and").

This stuff is really important. I'm reading Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. A very weighty tome (especially since it only covers history up to Unification in 1898!), I'm only up to the period of British rule, but one thing that's very clear is how absent these freedoms, in particular, were during that time. Governors periodically tried to promote the Anglican church at the expense of other Protestant denominations, and even Catholics were never permitted to vote. Dissident pamphlets opposing corrupt land grants from Governors had to be printed in Boston.

The Establishment Clause ("no law respecting an establishment of religion") and freedom of speech have long been assailed, especially by the right. Lately, Republicans - espcially New York's Mayor Bloomberg - seem bent on curbing a less commonly discussed part of the First Amendment, freedom of assembly.

From denying a permit to peaceful protestors who wanted to gather in Central Park during the 2004 Republican National Convention, to harassing the Critical Mass bike ride, the Mayor seems to believe that if a group of people opposed to his policies wish to congregate peacefully, they must be led by "anarchists" and shut down to prevent "terrorism".

In Utah, police used military tactics and what many witnesses reported as excessive violence in breaking up a large outdoor rave concert last weekend. Crooks and Liars claims that "A source inside the Utah government reports that this action was undertaken out of fear that the Rave would be used to rally support for the protest against Bush's Utah visit."

Back in New York, Mayor Bloomberg tried to suppress yet another public gathering last week, this one a street fair whose organizer, Marc Ecko, received a legal permit. But when the Mayor heard that Ecko planned to spray-paint mock subway cars with graffiti-like art, he tried to shut it down. Judge Jed Rakoff stood up for the First Amendment, writing, "The City... claims the right to censor this exercise of free speech expression because, in the words of the Mayor on his radio program last Friday, the exhibition is tantamount to 'encouraging vandalism.' By the same token, presumably, a street performance of Hamlet would be tantamount to encouraging revenge murder. Or, in a different vein, a street performance of 'rap' music might well include the singing of lyrics that could be viewed as encouraging sexual assault. As for a street performance of Oedipus Rex - don't even think about it."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom wowed the Young Democrats of America, and me, at their annual conference on Wednesday. His message was simple, yet drew a contrast with many other Democrats: we should stand up for what we believe in, period. People will respect that, even those who disagree.

Newsom has been criticized by many for issing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco last year. But, he persuasively argued, when John Kerry claimed that he believed marriage should be between an man and a woman, most people just plain didn't believe him. He lost respect from those who supported marriage rights and credibility from those who did not. Instead, he should have stood up for equality. It's the right thing to do. It's what Democrats believe.

People respect a leader who stands up for himself and for what he believes. Democrats continuously fall into the fallacious trap of thinking that voters will make their decisions based on which politician agrees with more of their positions. Voters want a strong figure to follow. A charismatic leader who extolls a vision for a better future is very attractive no matter the specifics.

And Gavin Newsom did this. "I'm pro choice, period, exclamation point," Newsom shouted, to thunderous applause. We need more people like Newsom. State Senator Eric Schneiderman is cast from the same mold. A fierce partisan and persuasive speaker, he pulls no punches yet comes across as an appropriately zealous advocate for truth and justice. No matter what one's beliefs, that's hard not to be attracted to.

Justin argued that Newsom is the perfect argument for why we need a Democratic mayor in New York City. Too many Democrats believe that Bloomberg is a fine mayor despite being a Republican, because he has run the city efficiently. But Bloomberg has sucked up to state and national Republicans, burnishing their image through the use of New York imagery without getting much for the city in return. He hasn't pushed for progressive social principles or progressive economic policies. He has weakened unions and trod upon civil liberties. Meanwhile, Newsom is doing the exact opposite in every one of those ways, making San Francisco into a shining city of a hill - several hills, actually - of why liberalism is a viable and inspiring political philosophy. Conservatives may mock it, but they mock it because of its success, and its success will persuade millions.

At the Parks1 Mayoral Forum, Gifford Miller got the greatest applause and won the most fans when he broke out of the thoughtful, wonkish, mature discussion they had all engaged in and launched into a spirited defense of parks maintenance. Written down that doesn't sound like much, but his enthusiasm and eloquence made even maintenance funds exciting. Imagine what would happen if he exhibited that kind of fire all the time.

He'd be like Gavin Newsom.

And maybe, like Gavin Newsom, he'd be Mayor.

I'm fairly deep in Democratic politics now, but yet I wasn't sure I really opposed Mayor Bloomberg. He used to be a Democrat, after all, and he got the NYC smoking ban passed as well as some other policy measures I liked. I'd often defend him, at least to the point of saying "well, he's not really a Republican" when someone would say that having Republicans like Bloomberg and Pataki in New York is problematic.

Well, there's no way I'd ever vote for him now that he's decided the Constitutional right to a speedy trial is just a suggestion, throwing thousands of innocent people into oppressive pens for 36-48 hours in direct violation of arraignment laws during August's Critical Mass bike march and then the RNC protests (here's one person's experience and another). Mike Bloomberg, go to hell.