Mayor Bloomberg isn’t really much like Ross Perot. He has successful political experience and is not nuts. And to tell the truth, he’s continued much of Giuliani’s good work in a less confrontational way. NYC’s increasingly favorable stats are a reflection of Bloomberg’s undeniable competence. It’s also true he’s basically a moderate Democrat in Republican’s clothing with some rather extreme socially liberal or libertarian inclinations (with the exception of his puritanical/prohibitionist/paranoid views on health and safety). In a race that featured, say, Brownback vs. Ms. Clinton or Obama, would he have a chance? Would Bloomberg mobilize that new liberal/libertarian voting bloc that we read about on so many blogs.
As someone living in Manhattan, let me offer a thought. Bloomberg was elected as a default over the obvious political hackery of the Democratic party candidates--the assumption that a self-made zillionaire businessman could continue the path the city was following due to Guiliani’s corrective proscriptions. That assumption has proved to be generally accurate.
But Bloomberg has little in the way of actual achievements to credit to his record. Two of his biggest initiatives--education/city schools, and public housing, are showing little in the way of progress or results, and may be going in the wrong direction. And his spending actions would have busted the budget had Wall Street-related tax receipts not soared the last four years.
And his nickname of "Nurse Bloomberg" tells you all you need to know about his overbearing desire to improve your personal lifestyle through social engineering.
It’s a sad statement when political accumen is redefined to mean did what works and avoided disaster.
Sounds almost like "trains ran on time".
Our long national nurse shortage is over.