Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
UPDATE: City To Remove 14 Blocks Of Bike Lanes On Bedford Ave.
Catholic League Pissed at PETA
Hamster Rides The 4 Train
Bouncer Beatdown at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club
It was the Democratic mayoral hopefuls' second-to-last-debate-gasp to get in some good punches, but it was actually kind of boring because the answers were 25 seconds. Former Bronx Borough President and frontrunner Fernando Ferrer, Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, City Council Speaker Gifford Miller and Congressman Anthony Weiner mainly tried to attack the Mayor whose popularity with Democrats is confounding their campaigns. And with Hurricane Katrina very much the top story of the news, they all said the Mayor's plans in the event of a disaster woudl be "muddled". The NY Times noted that the candidates "in many cases they either overstated their own accomplishments, exaggerated problems facing the city or did not have sufficient backup for their claims about the state of the city." Read the transcripts here and here's Gotham Gazette's handy primer on the Mayoral race.
The only candidate to distinguish himself was Weiner, who attacked Ferrer and was the only candidate to say which of his rivals he would support (Fields, for the record). The NY Post had some Weiner love today, with a story about how Weiner is "on a roll"; yeah, we're sure Weiner hasn't heard that one before. In these waning days before the primary, Miller will not be spending as much on TV advertising because of finance issues, Ferrer won't have a 1199 union endorsement to crow about and Fields will hold a fundraiser on the day before the primary (maybe her staff gets paid only after the 13th?).
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
is it just me, or does gothamist seem like one of those bloomberg-leaning democrats? Nevermind that in the Gotham Gazette "handy primer" it lists detail after painstaking detail about the mayor's poor handling of emergency management, refusal to support the repeal of the urstadt housing law which would help us lower rents, his veto of the equal benefits bill for same sex partners, the record-high homeless rate, and his inability to get the billions of dollars that courts ordered albany to give us for education.
Bloomberg's rolling over and not getting our school funds back from Pataki is very, very bad. we're talking billions here, and he's acting like it's no big deal.
Gotham Gazette's handy primer also points out bloomberg's stance on tax kicks to developers, his outright refusal to give teachers competitive pay, his trimming of new cops' pay to unbelievably low levels.
the gazette also details bloomberg's new handling of outreach programs. funding for people 'who aren't really homeless' is gradiated out, so that many people are basically dumped out in the streets.
some of the democrats running against bloomberg are outlining plans for universal healthcare, for credits for renters, and for tax cuts for middle class. all of the dems are for repealing the urstadt law. half of the dems don't want to give a tax break to developers if they don't build affordable housing in return.
So Why are democratic voters ignoring all of this? because they aren't really democrats. democrats believe in progressive programs to help people. democrats believe in sharing a little sweat to help out our fellow humans. democrats believe that it's wrong to let people starve just becasue we want to save a buck. republicans believe in cuts to save money, no matter what the consequences. republicans believe that the poor are poor because of their own doing. Republicans believe that if someone is chronically homeless, they don't deserve to be housed if the homeless screw up.
Bloomberg is not a lifelong democrat. He's only held public office once in his life, and that started in 2002. This is is first time as a public servant, and that was as a Republican.
Mayor Weiner? WTF?
blike, could you at least identify yourself when you post so people can choose to skip your broken-record partisan rants.
it's a partisan rant. you got me. doesn't change the fact that every (every) single bloomgerg democrat will vote for bloomberg in spite of everything that's all over the news, all over the Gazette. By the very definition, these aren't democrats.
republicans, could you at least identify yourselves when you vote so people can choose to skip your partisan backstabbing?
The new wave of New York transplants seem to have conservative roots, yet are self-identified liberals. But voting patterns seem to show the roots.....hence the Republican-voting Democrats. It's not surprising, considering the changing demographics of neighborhoods. The more suburban neighborhoods become, the more suburban their voting patterns become. It's a simple math equation. I'm curious how the Democratic Republicans will vote in the primary. Will they vote for the next-best, or will they purposefully try to sabotage the vote? This should be interesting.
This Dem who likes Mike is going to vote in the primary for only Dem candidate he can even imagine serving as mayor. If said Dem outperforms Bloomberg during the real head-to-head campaign then I'll happily switch sides.
Personally, I think the reason Dems lose so often in the city is that they nominate people who do not exude competence, and their associated interest groups pollute the discourse with ideological BS. It was actually the Dems last-minute "kill it! kill it!" ads that finally turned me off Green - god, that was such crap.
thankfully, not everyone defines themselves purely by political party loyalties. it takes a more thoughtful person to assess the candidates and vote for who they think will do the best job than to simply check 'democrat'.
Politics suck; find a new religion kids.
From the NY Times
The numbers don't lie. Obviously that 26 percent of thoughtful Democrats are too busy to take a look at the Mayoral Issue Grid. I don't think anyone has room to support or condemn a candidate they don't know a thing about. And apparently, 26% of voting Democrats wouldn't know Bloomberg's record if it hit them in the face.
perhaps that's because they are satisfied with bloomberg's performance so they don't feel the need to immerse themselves in a demeaning political spin circus.
What is all this stuff about Bloomberg? The primary is to choose the person who deserves to go up against MB. It is true that people should not vote if they do not feel qualified to make that important call (I remember that editorial very well, it was called something like "it's the voters who really suck.")
The problem with that grid of yours, blike, is that people also choose on perceived "character" - intelligence, integrity, etc. Half of the campaign promises will never be acted on, but you want to believe that when some new curve-ball is thrown the mayor will not blow it.
Miller, for example, seems to attract a lot of funds, young enthusiastic support, and obviously he's got connections. He's even put together a policy or two that makes sense. But I wouldn't trust him to pick me up a sandwich at the corner deli.
hijiki, how does one truly know Bloomberg's performance if one doesn't do fact checking on his performance? How can you be satisfied with no info?
If you live on the Upper West Side, how are you going to know that there's about seven additional homeless guys living in the Second Avenue F Station?
If you have a job, how do you know how hard it is for someone else to find a job?
If you happen to have lived in your apartment for a while, how do you know what the current rental market is like? In another borough?
I fully admit that my personality is unliked and my manner is harsh. A lot of people dislike me. But try to look past my persona and wake up and see what's going on in New York. Every single old time New Yorker hates what New York has become. Bloomberg is accelerating this deconstruction of our home.
Take the five minutes to look up this stuff, man! You're voting for a mayor who affects five boroughs of New Yorkers. It's your duty to look up this stuff before you impose this leader on everyone else. Otherwise, don't vote.
And you call the Gazette's grid a "political spin circus"! It's probably one of the most unbiased and non-partisan sources of information around. The grid shows exactly what every person has said and done, good or bad.
Different people interpret the grid differently. I personally judge a mayor on his record. And a *lot* of stats got worse from 2002 to 2005. A lot of things could've been done but hasn't. You do the detective work: who was mayor during those years?
Your argument is not even based on verifiable stats. I can't believe this. I'm shaking my head in disbelief. You are essentially admitting to not knowing much about Bloomberg's record, because you seem to be "satisfied." Selfish. There's about 8 1/2 million other people in this city who don't have the same life as you.
Do us all a favor and stay home if you aren't even bothering to research the candidates. This is ridiculous. If you liked Bloomberg's trimming of homeless shelters despite the high homeless stats, then just admit it. It's absolutely 100% true. Look all over the place; Daily News, NY Post, NY1, NY Times, NY Observer, etc etc etc.
Lazy. I choose not to be an ostrich and stick my head in the sand.
Hey "democratic republican", I didn't write the grid. Gothamist put a link up to it too. I'm just trying ever so gently to remind people that the information exists.
Bloomberg promised a lot of stuff and it didn't get done.
Are rents more affordable? Highest rates since records began 90 years ago.
Did we get Albany's school funding for the city back? Over 20 billion dollars are not here. It's been almost four years.
Did he rebuild Ground Zero? Look at the gaping hole.
Honestly, I liked Bloomberg in the beginning. He had no record. I went on my gut. I went on his perceived character. Over time, I learned I was wrong.
When I see dying and starving people on the street, purposefully dumped there by Bloomberg's changes in outreach policies, I fail to see a man of great "character."
I admit I personally have an abrasive character. But why don't you judge the candidates on facts rather than hunches? I've got hijiki up here voting because of complacency, and I've got you voting based on "perceived character." You guys are real sharp.
"Perceived character" can be based on facts, too. Like the fact that Miller opposed MB's trash plan because it stank up his UES district, and recently spent a huge chunk of public money on one of those stupid PR mailings - then said it was "supposed to" cost a fraction of what it actually did. He said he didn't know whether he'd send his kids to public school and doesn't ride the subway.
I know you didn't write the damn grid. I'm just saying that the choice for mayor goes beyond a bunch of policy statements.
Meanwhile, you still want to rant and rave about Bloomberg. Where is your brilliant insight on how to pick the best person to beat him? You ARE going to vote for the leader of the Kangaroo Congress, aren't you...
i'm not voting for anything here, blike. i'm not a supporter of bloomberg either. i just think you're talking like a divisive partisan tool.
people can be entirely satisfied with life in new york without looking up useless stats spun by party camps. to me, assessing values, honesty and leadership traits is a better guage than hunting down every little stat you can find to make someone look incompetent (or as you call them 'facts') without taking the whole of the person into account. if voters would have honestly assessed dubya based on these factors instead of party loyalties, he would not have gotten elected.
being satisfied doesn't equate to being ignorant or complacent. it is approval. many people simply disagree with your values.
"if voters would have honestly assessed dubya based on these factors instead of party loyalties, he would not have gotten elected"
Exactly! Couldn't have summed it up better.
Call me selfish. I enjoy status quo. I will vote for Bloomberg to continue it.
Isn't looking up candidates' voting records and other information about what they've done in office a way to "assess their values, honesty and leadership traits"? Or should we all just vote for whoever has the nicest smile?
Democrats for Bloomberg! vote for bloomberg. The guy is more liberal than I ever thought a republican could be. The only reason I'd vote for Weiner is cause if he were mayor you could call him the BIG WEINER! I wouldn't vote for virginia fields cause she is clueless and ferrer is a asshole! I don't know jackshit about gifford miller except that maybe he is gay.
gentrifica-tion~~~HEY!!!!
double digit infla-tion~~~Oh YEAH!!!!
no place to stay for children
who need medica-tion WHOAH!!!!!
Oh YEs We love
the Status Quo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gentrification - increase in wealth is driving middle class to move to previously undesirable neighborhoods. It's called progress
Double digit inflation - Blame the Mayor for that?!?! Haha! You need to aim a little higher suchas the White House and Congress for that one.
No place to stay for children - When has there ever been?
Medication - Obviously you want universal healthcare. Who's going to fund it? You?!
Reality hurts kids...
So the above comment proves the point that Bloomberg fans are closet republicans. Universal healthcare costs money. Of course we'd fund it. Not having it costs lives. Lives are more important than money. Obviously to some, money is more important than lives.
Selfishness hurts kids...
Where are those homeless guys in the F station? They're certainly not on the 1st ave side, since I go through it all times of day/night everyday! Stop making stuff up.
PS - what other mayor besides mike bloomberg took the subway to work??
Hello F Man (aka hijiki)
Give me a break.
When you walk up the stairs on the 1st Aveue side, take a good hard look at the bench. Nearly every seat has a person sitting on it. Judging by the odor, tattered clothes and self-mumbling, I'd say they were all homeless. Also, nearly every week or two there's a bunch of junk being sold by the brooklyn-bound side. Sold by a guy who has a home--right. Plus, while you're busy writing in your Palm Pilot or twiddling with your iPod, you don't notice the people hopping into the darkness on the southernmost end of the tunnel.
x-eyes, who is hijiki? too bad our IPs aren't displayed because then you would see just how wrong and inept you are. I have yet to see the daily homeless people on the bench you are referring to - but if you see them, why don't you bother to call 311 and try to get them into a shelter instead of complaining about it here? Also, I see the peddler in the station, much like the peddler outside of the station. They are friendly to me, why not you? I don't think they want anything to do with the city gov't, personally. PS - I don't have a palm pilot or an ipod, douche. I'll be on the lookout for you though, I assume you are unshaven, don't use deoderant, and are missing a couple teeth? Oh and are wearing some tshirt protesting something like the west side stadium or bag checks or something similar? Please contribute and try to help people, rather than just complaining about it and slinging mud here.
F Man, I may have been wrong about your identity and whether you have an iPod, but you are completely wrong about me, what I look like, what I smell like, and what I wear. And back to the topic, you are wrong about the non-existence of the homeless guys at the station. You asked a question, and I answered it, F Man. Don't jump down my throat for answering your question, son. Your rabid insistence that the homeless guys aren't there is really odd, bordering on obsessive.
Not to dilute my point, but how many years has it been since a "Palm Pilot" was made, anyway, 5-7 years I'm guessing? I dunno but it's been a long time. But back to my point:
Went through the station twice today. No homeless in the station, no homeless on the benches. As everyday, there was the peddler on the street. Oh and in case you were wondering, I'm not a liar, either. I saw what I saw.