Times Endorsement Further Sinks Ferrer's Campaign
In a long editorial in today's Sunday paper, the New York Times "enthusiastically" endorses incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) to keep his post.
The editorial briefly explains why it backs the Republican to be elected once again, stating that Bloomberg finally laid to rest any notions that New York City is ungovernable. The examples of this are seen in that subway cars are not plastered with neverending graffiti, that the fiscal crisis of the 1970's is now but a distant memory, and that legions of homeless are no longer marching the city streets.
However, the bulk of the piece goes on to attack the mayor for the flood of dollars that he has poured into his campaign. The Times' editorial board explains their problem with the fact that although Bloomberg needed to spend $75 million in the 2001 election to gain name recognition in a heavily Democratic city, this year the great advantages of an incumbent (especially one that has been on as high a profile as Bloomberg has) are there, reducing the need to spend $50 million thus far on the campaign.
As the Times states:
"This year, with all the advantages of an incumbent, he was still unwilling to take on the less well-known Mr. Ferrer in an even fight. He bypassed campaign spending limits and blanketed the airwaves with almost $20 million in ads. His lavish purchase of TV time drove up the cost of advertising, making it even more difficult for any other voice to be heard.
"Money cannot compensate for a terrible candidate; there are plenty of very rich men who could not spend their way into office. But it can undermine the election process. Mr. Bloomberg, safe in his self-financed campaign, has felt free to ignore the city's excellent campaign finance laws on every issue from spending limits to where and when he should debate Mr. Ferrer. The result has been a muffled, unsatisfactory race."
"Enthusiastically" endorses but has one major problem with Bloomberg.
And while the Times is jumping to endorse the mayor, had it not been for him making the city governable, he would not have received their support.
"This page cares deeply about making elections fair and open, and if Mr. Bloomberg's administration had been anything less than distinguished, his insistence on undermining the campaign finance system would disqualify him from our support. As it is, with that one caveat in mind, we enthusiastically endorse Michael Bloomberg for mayor."
It certainly does not sound enthusiastic given most of the piece attacked Bloomberg over his campaign financing. However, it is a New York Times endorsement nonetheless and it is something that carries a great deal of weight, especially in Manhattan. Although this editorial will give the Ferrer campaign some ammunition, they certainly will not be able to bring it up that often due to their struggle to keep the campaign funded.
I'd like to say that I'm ahead of the curve and that I influenced the New York Times, having had these same sentiments on Tuesday. But it is far more likely that the Times had all this in mind well before this piece was published. The Ferrer campaign, if it wasn't already so, is in serious trouble at this point as we're crawling closer and closer to the November 8 elections.
UPDATE ON DISTRICT 45: It seems that there was a smear campaign against Democratic primary challenger Sam Taitt on the eve of the primary election. Whether it was coordinated by Councilman Stewart or some other group or individual is not easily known. However, I apologize to Mr. Taitt and agree that he was wronged by this reprehensible tactic. Let it be known that my opinions on the matter are exactly the same, as I had given Mr. Taitt the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that post. He will need to do a lot of work should he decide to look ahead to 2009.
Articles on the smear campaign can be found at the New York Daily News and the Nation News.
The editorial briefly explains why it backs the Republican to be elected once again, stating that Bloomberg finally laid to rest any notions that New York City is ungovernable. The examples of this are seen in that subway cars are not plastered with neverending graffiti, that the fiscal crisis of the 1970's is now but a distant memory, and that legions of homeless are no longer marching the city streets.
However, the bulk of the piece goes on to attack the mayor for the flood of dollars that he has poured into his campaign. The Times' editorial board explains their problem with the fact that although Bloomberg needed to spend $75 million in the 2001 election to gain name recognition in a heavily Democratic city, this year the great advantages of an incumbent (especially one that has been on as high a profile as Bloomberg has) are there, reducing the need to spend $50 million thus far on the campaign.
As the Times states:
"This year, with all the advantages of an incumbent, he was still unwilling to take on the less well-known Mr. Ferrer in an even fight. He bypassed campaign spending limits and blanketed the airwaves with almost $20 million in ads. His lavish purchase of TV time drove up the cost of advertising, making it even more difficult for any other voice to be heard.
"Money cannot compensate for a terrible candidate; there are plenty of very rich men who could not spend their way into office. But it can undermine the election process. Mr. Bloomberg, safe in his self-financed campaign, has felt free to ignore the city's excellent campaign finance laws on every issue from spending limits to where and when he should debate Mr. Ferrer. The result has been a muffled, unsatisfactory race."
"Enthusiastically" endorses but has one major problem with Bloomberg.
And while the Times is jumping to endorse the mayor, had it not been for him making the city governable, he would not have received their support.
"This page cares deeply about making elections fair and open, and if Mr. Bloomberg's administration had been anything less than distinguished, his insistence on undermining the campaign finance system would disqualify him from our support. As it is, with that one caveat in mind, we enthusiastically endorse Michael Bloomberg for mayor."
It certainly does not sound enthusiastic given most of the piece attacked Bloomberg over his campaign financing. However, it is a New York Times endorsement nonetheless and it is something that carries a great deal of weight, especially in Manhattan. Although this editorial will give the Ferrer campaign some ammunition, they certainly will not be able to bring it up that often due to their struggle to keep the campaign funded.
I'd like to say that I'm ahead of the curve and that I influenced the New York Times, having had these same sentiments on Tuesday. But it is far more likely that the Times had all this in mind well before this piece was published. The Ferrer campaign, if it wasn't already so, is in serious trouble at this point as we're crawling closer and closer to the November 8 elections.
UPDATE ON DISTRICT 45: It seems that there was a smear campaign against Democratic primary challenger Sam Taitt on the eve of the primary election. Whether it was coordinated by Councilman Stewart or some other group or individual is not easily known. However, I apologize to Mr. Taitt and agree that he was wronged by this reprehensible tactic. Let it be known that my opinions on the matter are exactly the same, as I had given Mr. Taitt the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that post. He will need to do a lot of work should he decide to look ahead to 2009.
Articles on the smear campaign can be found at the New York Daily News and the Nation News.
posted by Will at 5:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home