Election wars: A new hope
Under his administration New York has seen drops in homicide, violent crime and car theft rates, drops that outpaced national averages. Schools have also improved under his pay-bumps-for-test-score-bumps salary scale for teachers. He's a staunch supporter of reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, abolition of the death penalty and gun control, all of which I can get behind.
Despite his alumnus appeal, Bloomberg isn't ideal, at least from where I stand. I can't support his backing of the U.S. Patriot Act and am repulsed by his advocacy of a federal DNA database of all citizens, even if it is to help grant legal status to illegal aliens. But I can deal with it for all of the other things he does represent.
Bloomberg grew up a Democrat, became mayor as a Republican and has abandoned both parties. His affiliations have changed over the years for reasons convenient to him. Some might see this as opportunistic and it probably is.
But the fact stands that he's changed party affiliations and is still successful, and committed to the same ideals as always. Bloomberg represents something better than bipartisanship and that is no-partisanship. He is unconcerned with association with a party because, with billions of dollars, he doesn't need it. And with independent thoughts and aims, neither party really fits.
Bloomberg wouldn't need to be concerned about answering to donors, as he ranks as one of the richest men in the world. When he first ran for mayor he accepted no public funds and ran on his own dime.
Now some might see financing one's own campaign as buying an office. But if money is power, then the man has it in spades already. If he wanted to buy political influence, he could do so outright. Plus he's got a proven track record showing he's not grasping for anything but public service and legacy, which I still believe for some people may be a more powerful incentive to serve in public office than power alone. I'm unafraid of some crazy billionaire scenario playing itself out in our White House. It hasn't in Gracie Mansion (metaphorically speaking), and there's no reason to think it ever will. If Bloomberg wanted anything besides the chance to do a little good, he could have bought it long ago.
What he doesn't necessarily have locked up is a positive, widespread legacy and maybe, just maybe a man with a passion for civic service, reform and a man unphased by the machinations of party leaders also has the will to do some good in the world before he dies. He could make for one of the most fascinating, dynamic, unexpected and truly inspiring presidents in U.S. history.
If he runs and if he wins, both of which seem less and less likely with each passing day. But I think that this long-shot, this political wildcard could run, could win and could change the world.
Now how's that for hope?
Despite his alumnus appeal, Bloomberg isn't ideal, at least from where I stand. I can't support his backing of the U.S. Patriot Act and am repulsed by his advocacy of a federal DNA database of all citizens, even if it is to help grant legal status to illegal aliens. But I can deal with it for all of the other things he does represent.
Bloomberg grew up a Democrat, became mayor as a Republican and has abandoned both parties. His affiliations have changed over the years for reasons convenient to him. Some might see this as opportunistic and it probably is.
But the fact stands that he's changed party affiliations and is still successful, and committed to the same ideals as always. Bloomberg represents something better than bipartisanship and that is no-partisanship. He is unconcerned with association with a party because, with billions of dollars, he doesn't need it. And with independent thoughts and aims, neither party really fits.
Bloomberg wouldn't need to be concerned about answering to donors, as he ranks as one of the richest men in the world. When he first ran for mayor he accepted no public funds and ran on his own dime.
Now some might see financing one's own campaign as buying an office. But if money is power, then the man has it in spades already. If he wanted to buy political influence, he could do so outright. Plus he's got a proven track record showing he's not grasping for anything but public service and legacy, which I still believe for some people may be a more powerful incentive to serve in public office than power alone. I'm unafraid of some crazy billionaire scenario playing itself out in our White House. It hasn't in Gracie Mansion (metaphorically speaking), and there's no reason to think it ever will. If Bloomberg wanted anything besides the chance to do a little good, he could have bought it long ago.
What he doesn't necessarily have locked up is a positive, widespread legacy and maybe, just maybe a man with a passion for civic service, reform and a man unphased by the machinations of party leaders also has the will to do some good in the world before he dies. He could make for one of the most fascinating, dynamic, unexpected and truly inspiring presidents in U.S. history.
If he runs and if he wins, both of which seem less and less likely with each passing day. But I think that this long-shot, this political wildcard could run, could win and could change the world.
Now how's that for hope?
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Bonnie Cohen
posted 2/07/08 @ 11:58 PM EST
Well Jackie, you've got to be kidding!I Or I guess you just have spent too much time in the "big apple." As someone who has actually sat in Professor Zinn's class back in the day, you could not be more wrong! And although you clearly have a right to your opinion, perhaps that is the reason many seem not to care and true corruption flourishes. (Continued…)
Post a Comment