Lonely Citywide Office Seeking Extremely Well-To-Do Person for Election Day Romance
As Mayor Bloomberg's campaign proceeds towards near-guaranteed victory, more and more Democrats and civic organizations are throwing their support behind the mayor. As was reported in the New York Times, the civic organization Citizens Union has backed the incumbent in the mayoral election. As the Times reports:
"The organization, founded in 1897 to address the corruption of Tammany Hall, does not make formal endorsements but rather expresses preferences for candidates, as it did for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001. In making the same selection this year, its leaders called the election an 'unprecedented opportunity' for a two-term administration that can act in the public interest because Mr. Bloomberg, who is paying for his own campaign, 'owes no political favors to any special interest.'"
It is curious that the Citizens Union did not think about the consequences that its own words carry. While the fact that Bloomberg is not a hostage to special interests is wonderful, the only reason why this is the case is due to Bloomberg's enormous wealth. Meanwhile, Bloomberg is willing to spend $100 million of his own fortune to win another term in office (in addition to the approximately $70 million Bloomberg spent in the 2001 campaign), completely drowning the struggling Ferrer campaign, even though Ferrer is dependent on campaign contributions (and thereby, potential special interests). There is something unsettling about the fact that a candidate can unleash a deluge of media on an opponent due to a huge stockpile in the checking account.
You will need lots and lots of this if you plan to run for a political office.
Although Bloomberg is a superior candidate compared to Ferrer, it is not guaranteed that the candidate with that kind of money will be the better choice. Isn't there a better way to let the top candidates be decided for the office? There must be a better way than hoping the favored candidate has an impressive war chest that can buy commercials during "Desperate Housewives" rather than just enough to get a 15-second spot sometime in the middle of the morning. Bloomberg needed the vast sums of money in 2001, but he needs it less so now, as voters are becoming aware of the disappointment Ferrer has been as a candidate.
Anyone capable should have a shot to run a legitimate campaign for office.
"The organization, founded in 1897 to address the corruption of Tammany Hall, does not make formal endorsements but rather expresses preferences for candidates, as it did for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001. In making the same selection this year, its leaders called the election an 'unprecedented opportunity' for a two-term administration that can act in the public interest because Mr. Bloomberg, who is paying for his own campaign, 'owes no political favors to any special interest.'"
It is curious that the Citizens Union did not think about the consequences that its own words carry. While the fact that Bloomberg is not a hostage to special interests is wonderful, the only reason why this is the case is due to Bloomberg's enormous wealth. Meanwhile, Bloomberg is willing to spend $100 million of his own fortune to win another term in office (in addition to the approximately $70 million Bloomberg spent in the 2001 campaign), completely drowning the struggling Ferrer campaign, even though Ferrer is dependent on campaign contributions (and thereby, potential special interests). There is something unsettling about the fact that a candidate can unleash a deluge of media on an opponent due to a huge stockpile in the checking account.
You will need lots and lots of this if you plan to run for a political office.
Although Bloomberg is a superior candidate compared to Ferrer, it is not guaranteed that the candidate with that kind of money will be the better choice. Isn't there a better way to let the top candidates be decided for the office? There must be a better way than hoping the favored candidate has an impressive war chest that can buy commercials during "Desperate Housewives" rather than just enough to get a 15-second spot sometime in the middle of the morning. Bloomberg needed the vast sums of money in 2001, but he needs it less so now, as voters are becoming aware of the disappointment Ferrer has been as a candidate.
Anyone capable should have a shot to run a legitimate campaign for office.
posted by Will at 4:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home