This is a great argument caught by the
Politicker , written by Greg Sargent at
The American Prospect. The article is a realistic portrayal of how the local NYC Mayoral race has national implications. It also shows how voting for Republican Michael Bloomberg is playing right (far-right, actually) into Karl Rove's playbook (excerpts below):
Why should Dems care if Bloomberg wins a second term? Partly because 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. Those gestures alone make one wonder just where Bloomberg's political sympathies really lie. If he's really a liberal Dem in GOP garb, as many of his supporters insist, why does he so often lend help and cover to those who should be his ideological enemies? The most charitable answer is that Bloomberg hopes to persuade the national GOP to look kindly on New York when handing out homeland security money. Opinions differ on whether that's worked, but one thing is clear: 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.
And what about Karl Rove?
here'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.
That's hardly Bloomberg's fault, of course. And what if you believe that Bloomberg, in many ways a successful mayor, would simply do a far better job than Ferrer? Shouldn't that trump such abstractions about GOP long-term machinations? Perhaps. But here it's worth considering another facet of the GOP's strategy. Republicans, out of step with most Americans on the issues, have, on one front after another, successfully tried another tack. They've portrayed Democrats (with a bit of help from the Democrats themselves, admittedly) as unfit to carry out the fundamentals of governing: managing the country's national-security affairs abroad and keeping Americans safe at home. For New Yorkers to elect a GOP mayor sends a powerful message to the rest of the country: Even the ultimate liberals -- that is, New Yorkers who are in sync with the Dems on just about everything -- don't trust them to run their own city.
And, finally...
Finally, if the Dems continue to desert Ferrer, it will help Rove achieve another key strategic goal: winning Latinos to the GOP, a minority-outreach effort that he actually takes seriously. A victory for Ferrer, New York's first Hispanic nominee -- coming right after Antonio Villaraigosa's election as the mayor of Los Angeles -- would mean that Latinos had won city halls in major cities on both coasts. That would be deeply meaningful for Hispanics nationwide, reaffirming Democrats as the party truly interested in elevating them and making it tougher for them to bolt. National Dems seem blind to the potent symbolism that such a bicoastal victory would carry. But you can bet Rove isn't blind to it. After all, if national Democrats won't support New York's first Latino nominee, why should Latinos support Democrats?
New York's mayoral election poses a dilemma for liberal Dems. New Yorkers may well decide that Bloomberg is superior to Ferrer, and vote accordingly. The question is, at what cost to the long-term health of the national Democratic Party?
As I've stated on numerous occasions, I do NOT feel you should vote for Ferrer just because of the issues outlined above. But, I do feel it is a really strong starting point and a reason to explore all options before pulling the lever for Bloomberg - no matter what line he appears on (e.g. Liberal, Independence Party).
Over the past week, a number of us have provided reasons why Ferrer is a good candidate and has great ideas. Some choose to absorb the comments, other not so much. A number of people can't seem to get over his association with the Dinkin years and/or a misguided perception of a vast corrupt Democratic machine (which boggles my mind since I assume many people here are Democrats and can't understand why they would be if they think the machin in NYC is corrupt).
I'm in no way saying the Democrats have not had their problems in the past with corruption (e.g., Brooklyn), or Dinkins not being the most dynamic mayor.
But Freddy is Freddy, and to paint him as part of someone else, without looking at his issues, is disengenious. I support Ferrer for Ferrer and look beyond his scruffy facade and non-Manhattan-centric roots. The argument above is just part of my reasoning for not voting for Bloomberg. Others views against Bloomberg may solely lie with the debate above. To each his own.
Finally, all I have to say is that Bloomberg Democrats should think long and hard before they pull the lever for him in November. Personally, if I didn't like Ferrer, I'd sit it out or vote Green.
There is no way, in good consciouness, that I could vote for Bloomberg after all I read about the people in New York he has ignored, and the people he secretly aligns himself with in the REALLY corrupt Republican machine.