We Are All Philly Now
If nothing else, Cliff Lee’s no-earned-run complete-game mastery and brilliant fielding last night during Game One of the World Series between the Phillies and Yankees will be useful in that it may actually shut up the New York Post, which has been stupidly and relentlessly on Philadelphia’s case for some reason or other since the Yankees finally clinched the pennant.
You know the type of stories the paper is running — the ones where it takes like six reporters to go out and interview yahoos who will say stuff about how Philadelphia is “a nothing city” (I often wonder whether people outside of New York actually care about New York as much as people in New York want to believe people outside of New York care about New York) or that the Phanatic mascot isn’t even as cool as the “retarded” Mr. Met mascot (classy, printing that quote). I almost want the Yankees to lose just to chasten the Post.
As Lee continued to shut down the Yankees’ offense over the course of the game — while the Phillies’ Chase “WFC” Utley hit not one but two home runs against Yankees ace C.C. Sabathia — it was tough to resist that time-worn cliche of “that’s why they play the game.” And sometime last night — probably after Lee struck out A-Rod for the third time — it occurred to me that a Yankees World Series loss would lessen the sting of a Bloomberg victory: The Yankees could be the sacrificial lambs for the sins of Michael Bloomberg.
If Bill Thompson can’t fulfill the role of underdog, then maybe the Phillies can. It will prove that maybe you can’t just spend hundreds of millions to win. It will put the elite in their place. It will shut up the Post! And should this all transpire, I want to believe that Bloomberg sycophantically hanging around the Yankees clubhouse on Sunday night and pandering to fans in Times Square on Wednesday will be the curse that catalyzed the team’s World Series failure.
. . . .
Speaking of the Post, let’s keep picking on the Post. The paper’s noxious endorsement of the mayor hinged on three areas — education, crime and the city’s finances.
On education, the Post’s editorial board argues that “Mike Bloomberg will be remembered as the mayor who brought accountability to the system. Supervisors, principals, teachers, students — all are now expected to show results. And they have, often spectacularly.” Let’s put it into perspective. Bloomberg put the board of education under the control of the mayor, which allows voters to punish a mayor for an under-performing system. That’s nice if you’re a lazy voter, and can’t be bothered to pay attention to the machinations of the school system, much less figure out which board members to vote for when school board elections come up. But I question whether this mayor — or any mayor — can really take credit for success in the school system. Bloomberg knows this, which is why they’ve been puffing up the test scores, this despite questionable results (and I’m assuming there’s a perfectly good reason why the NAEP scores for New York City are going to be delayed two weeks). Bloomberg shouldn’t oversell mayoral control, and he shouldn’t go after Thompson for an under-performing school system during Thompson’s tenure as board president when the truth is much more complicated than that. Look at it this way — is it Bloomberg’s fault that the Department of Buildings was apparently infiltrated by the mafia? Hey, now that I think about it, maybe Bloomberg should be held accountable — goose, gander, etc. At least Board of Education incompetence didn’t cause actual deaths . . .
On crime, the Post writes “Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the ’60s. And they did so even while deploying significant resources into counterterrorism — helping to keep New York safe from another 9/11.” You don’t even have to read that closely — “a crime rate that was already declining.” Do you really think a mayor has much control over the crime rate? If so, then you’re much more idealistic than I am, though I’m guessing you probably also haven’t watched all that much of The Wire either. As for counterterrorism — well, for argument’s sake, let’s say the mayor actually does get out there, Jack Bauer-like, to keep us all safe. Actually, no, let’s not, because that is another absurd argument (though are you really impressed by the NYPD’s spurious sting operations and bungled investigations?). What’s more, it’s offensive to the many municipal and federal law enforcement officials who actually do their best to keep us safe to act like the mayor is somehow responsible for our safety. Giuliani’s recent Giuliani-like boasting about Bloomberg’s terror-fighting prowess was the quintessence of this asinine argument.
On finances, the Post writes “Eight years ago, Bloomberg took a city driven deep into recession by 9/11 and helped bring it back. Last June, he delivered a budget that cut spending by $1.5 billion — even as Albany’s budget grew by 10 percent” before acknowledging that the mayor’s deals with the unions may bankrupt the city (in so many words). I don’t buy that the city was “driven deep into recession” after September 11, 2001 because — especially compared with the current recession — the one following 9/11 wasn’t all that deep. And — let’s be crystal clear — mayors don’t fix the economy. Mayors may fix potholes and sanitation schedules, but they sure don’t do much for a worldwide economy. Even really smart businessmen like Michael Bloomberg. As for the second claim — that Bloomberg delivered a budget that cut spending — well, OK, maybe he cut spending a little. But A) I’m not convinced the budget savings weren’t merely the result of illusory accounting, since it’s easy to squirrel away or otherwise conceal $1.5 billion of a nearly $60 billion budget — and we’ll see how he manages a budget in 2010, should he make it that far; and B) you’re really comparing the city to what they do in Albany? Sounds like a backhanded compliment to me . . .
But you have to like an endorsement that starts out saying “It can be hard to warm to Bloomberg’s governing style, and we have little patience for his often arrogant nanny-state meddling in New Yorkers’ private lives.” Nice.
The Times’ Bloomberg endorsement — hidden in the Saturday paper, by the way — works similar debate-club style gymnastics to come to a conclusion. Their lede is absurdly fawning: “The real test of any mayor is how well the city works. In his eight years in office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has managed to make the unpredictable city of New York work astonishingly well.” Wow — “astonishingly”? Were you at any point “astonished” by how well the city ran during Bloomberg’s tenure?
Second paragraph: “Mr. Bloomberg has been a first-rate steady hand during unsteady times. He guided the city out of the post-9/11 recession, then tucked away money during the boom years that followed.” “Guided the city out of the post-9/11 recession” sounds familiar to what the Post wrote. Is this taken from bullet points or something? We’ll see just how much money has been “tucked away” — I question whether it will be anywhere near what is supposed to be needed to plug a 2011 budget gap — but it is interesting to note that candidate Thompson spoke out last year for an actual rainy day fund, and not just raiding random accounts.
And check out this important point: “He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency. He has chosen some of the best people in the country to work for him, and he has mostly let them do their jobs. As a result, many city services operate better than they have for years. The garbage mostly disappears on time.”
The garbage “mostly disappears on time.” Again — wow. If that’s the case, why not go for a fourth term? What else here . . . oh, “Public education is better over all” (no real data or argument to back that up) and “Crime is down under Raymond Kelly, the police commissioner” — at least they didn’t try to say that Bloomberg actually “drove crime levels down,” like the Post wrote.
Both editorials feel the need to admonish Bloomberg’s churlishness. That’s not insignificant. The Times writes, “Finally, like others who have not always agreed with the mayor, we worry about his difficulty brooking dissent.” I think they are talking about mayor’s leadership qualities, especially vis a vis building consensus, which Bloomberg is not good at and which is one of the few traits that actually matters in an executive. Take his West Side Stadium defeat and failed congestion pricing proposal — two initiatives that would have been cornerstones of his development/job creation and environmental record. Those failures can’t all be due to a recalcitrant state legislature (or even Sheldon Silver). There’s a pattern there, and that pattern shouldn’t be relegated to near the end of a lukewarm endorsement.
. . . .
You want to read something funny? Compare the Observer’s endorsement with the Times’ endorsement. First the Observer (emphasis added):
The mayor’s record speaks for itself. Critics complain that voters are being brainwashed by the mayor’s free-spending campaign, but Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity has more to do with his accomplishments than with the quality of his television commercials. His place in history was ensured the moment he took office, because on January 1, 2002, the city still was recovering from the attacks of 9/11. The city was on edge, emotionally and fiscally, on that January morning. Mr. Bloomberg helped lead the city from its despair with a combination of reassurance, compassion and financial acumen.
In the years since, Mr. Bloomberg has defied conventional wisdom, as he and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly continued to drive down crime even after the historic decreases under Rudolph Giuliani. He told us to hold him accountable for the performance of the city’s public schools, and he is now reaping the benefits of a school system that no longer is dysfunctional, unaccountable and unsafe. He returned the city to its rightful place as a leader in public health through his campaigns against smoking and trans-fats. He recruited capable deputies and let them do their jobs.
Then the Times (again, emphasis added):
What makes the mayor stand out is not his political skill, although he has come a long way since his first clumsy days in office. He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency. He has chosen some of the best people in the country to work for him, and he has mostly let them do their jobs. As a result, many city services operate better than they have for years. The garbage mostly disappears on time. The police and fire departments respond quickly. Mr. Bloomberg’s 311 phone line allows New Yorkers to complain to a live human being. Often, they even see tangible results.
Public education is better over all — although parents still need more access to their children’s teachers and schools. The mayor’s new complaint line for parents should help, as will other changes imposed by the Legislature. But in a third term, the mayor and his team should still work harder to listen to those who hand over their children each morning to his educators.
Crime is down under Raymond Kelly, the police commissioner, although there is concern again about stop-and-frisk actions, which seem to focus too heavily on Hispanics and African-Americans. Mr. Bloomberg also has been a national leader in gun control.
The mayor’s environmental efforts — stalled in Albany — show admirable concern about the city’s future. And he has worked hard to improve the city’s health — most effectively with the smoking ban.
The Post endorsement actually sounds even more similar to the Observer’s language on crime: “Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the ’60s.” The “accountability” portions in the Post and Observer endorsements sound similar as well. All three endorsements sort of lob up there the same hackneyed reasons to vote for the mayor. All three sound like stupid bullet points. None seem serious.
The largest issue for most voters is the third term nonsense — another “not insignificant” concern, but the Post brushes it off: “No doubt, some New Yorkers are angry about how Mayor Mike used his considerable resources to having them set aside to allow him to run again. It was a characteristic display of Bloombergian hubris, and we suspect that it will cost him on Election Day.” The Times doesn’t mind that the term limit issue went down the way it did because the editorial board happens to agree with the outcome (I recall similar arguments during the Iraq War and subsequent failure to uncover WMD). Instead, the Times somehow believes that allowing every city councilmember, borough president, the public advocate, comptroller and mayor to run again somehow offers voters “more choices” — and they’re right; after all is said and done, voters will get precisely one more choice. It’s Orwellian logic. The Daily News makes the same argument in its endorsement.
. . . .
But let’s move to real talk. The real problem with the third term isn’t that Bloomberg either bought off or wielded power to influence the elite — the editorial boards, the power players — to accept the proposal to ignore term limits. The most egregious thing is that Bloomberg poisoned the democratic well for those of us who aren’t in roles of power, and that will have a much longer effect on the city. When voter apathy is low everywhere, but especially in sclerotic New York (cf. eight percent turnout for last month’s runoff, a vote that actually had a significant outcome), it sends a bad message. And it doesn’t just send a bad message to educated, older voters who will participate anyway (and continue to vote in years to come) but rather to those who don’t see a reason to participate in the first place. How many youths — even people into their 30s — have come of age politically during Bloomberg’s tenure, and developed their ideas about democratic participation while he steamrolled through $200 million-plus to get himself elected? How will this third-term charade affect their ideas about democracy? Bloomberg and his supporters (Bono! Shilpa! Cherry!) haven’t answered for this or even acknowledged it. We deserve better.
. . . .
But what if the unthinkable happens? Is a Bloomberg victory really a foregone conclusion? Remember the Phillies. For one bright, shining moment last night, the Phillies reminded Yankees fans “that’s why they play the game.”
And if somehow both the Yankees and Bloomberg lose, then that would be epic. New York Magazine will craft a trend piece on the end of New York. Spike Lee could make a film about it, just like he did with 1977. Howard Wolfson will walk away looking like a huge dick. And maybe, just maybe, the rest of the country will breathe a huge sigh of relief knowing that New Yorkers are not nearly as vapid as they appear! It will be a victory for all. So go vote Tuesday. You know what to do.
See also: Bloomberg For Mayor 2009.
Posted: October 29th, 2009 | Filed under: Political, Sports, That's An Outrage!
