by Eric Martin
I don't vote for Republicans often - as in, almost never. However, I did vote for Mike Bloomberg (twice), the last time because he has done a solid overall job managing the NYC behemoth and, with respect to both occasions, because the Democratic Party nominated duds to oppose him.
Further, importantly to me, Bloomberg has actually been stronger on the environment than the Democrats in the State legislature - with the latter shooting down his congestion pricing scheme and other plans that would reduce pollution. It's not often that you see that in U.S. politics: a Republican taking a stronger stand than Democrats on protecting the environment. Suffice it to say, the Democratic Party in New York State is a bit dysfunctional, a victim to its long history o fdominance, with the State legislature warped in its own right by outdated districting and past gerrymanders that eliminate competitive races in almost all circumstances.
That aside, Bloomberg makes me proud that I gave him my vote with this clear-eyed and eloquent statement:
We have come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We've come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that, more than 250 years later, would greet millions of immigrants in the harbor, and we come here to state as strongly as ever – this is the freest City in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.
"Our doors are open to everyone – everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it is sustained by immigrants – by people from more than a hundred different countries speaking more than two hundred different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here, or you came yesterday, you are a New Yorker.
"We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.
"On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.
"Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. [...]
...The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
"The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said 'no' to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
"Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies' hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.
Amen.
(* Or rather, why I voted Republican once, and will vote for the now "Independent" and formerly Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, again.)
If he keeps saying stuff like that, he won't be a Republican for long...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 04, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Heh.
Posted by: Eric Martin | August 04, 2010 at 10:38 AM
That's what I think of when I think of "real American".
Posted by: russell | August 04, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Actually, he isn't a Republican any longer. He left the party in 2007 and ran as an independent in 2009.
Posted by: Theophylact | August 04, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Once upon a time there were sane Republicans. I was at a Barbara Boxer fundraiser and saw "McClosky" on one woman's name tag. I thought to myself "can it be?" Then I turned around and Pete McClosky was there.
He is the only Republican my wife ever voted for.
Posted by: ral | August 04, 2010 at 10:48 AM
I voted for Republican Gov. Spellman years and years ago because he opposed the Northern Tier project. His opposition ruined his career.
I can also remember decades ago Dan Evans warned his fellow party members that crazy people were taking over the party.
The crazy people don't piss me off as much as people like my neighbors. I live amongst many financially comfortable people who vote Republican because, when it comes to politics, they are simply profouundly selfish and irresponsible. They deny the extremism of the candidates tht they support and deny hisotrical fact (like deficit numbers!)while insisting that the Republican party is the party of fiscal conservatism and responsible economic policy. What they really mean is that they want big government programs for themsleves but want somebody else's taxes to pay for everything.
Posted by: wonkie | August 04, 2010 at 11:16 AM
I'll be voting for the Republican candidate in the Shelby County (TN) mayor's race. It will be my first Republican vote since 1998. The Democratic candidate comes from a corrupt local political dynasty, and the Republican candidate actually has the better stance on the most important issue facing the county, consolidation.
Unfortunately, there's an important Democratic congressional primary race in my district; if not for that, I'd totally vote in the GOP primary just to vote Basil Marceaux (dot com) for governor.
Posted by: tgirsch | August 04, 2010 at 11:39 AM
I'll never be 100% behind the guy because his behavior (and that of the NYPD) during the RNC convention in 2004 was flat-out reprehensible. That, and the whole "public office being sold to the highest bidder" thing are always going to stick in my craw.
But apart from that, he's the best mayor the city's had since I moved here in 1987.
And on this particular issue, he's not just on the right side: he's showing real guts and leadership, and I intend to call City Hall later today to say so.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | August 04, 2010 at 11:48 AM
In the other direction, I don't believe I'll be voting for Rick Scott for governor. This is kind of riffing off of UK's point about highest bidder. Scott has blown beaucoup bucks trying to buy the office. He's spent about $23M of his own money, so far.
Dunno who does get my vote. If Scott wins the primary (and right now it looks as if he will), I'm guessing he'll be up against Alex Sink. In that event, Sink will get my vote.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 04, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Yes: if you voted for Bloomberg in the last election, you weren't voting for a Republican. I think that's much more than a technicality. There's a big downside to Bloomberg's "I'm so rich I can do what I want" style of leadership (and it's the reason I didn't vote for him last time), but there are times when his independence is an advantage. If he were a Republican (or dependent on the good will of people like Giuliani), he probably wouldn't have made that speech.
Posted by: Mollie | August 04, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Actually, he isn't a Republican any longer. He left the party in 2007 and ran as an independent in 2009.
Yeah, but he runs with the Republican Party endorsement, right? I mean, it's not like the GOP runs a candidate to oppose him, while the Dems do.
But duly noted, and thanks for the correction.
Posted by: Eric Martin | August 04, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Right Mollie. And if he were a Dem, he might not have put forward a bold, green, congestion pricing scheme.
Bravo on both fronts, and shame on the two Parties likewise.
Posted by: Eric Martin | August 04, 2010 at 12:36 PM
This guy would not get my vote.
I mean, really.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 04, 2010 at 01:52 PM
" should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion?"
This is the specific question where I agree that certainly the answer is no.
Posted by: Marty | August 04, 2010 at 02:09 PM
This guy would not get my vote.
Uncle Fester went on a diet!
Posted by: russell | August 04, 2010 at 02:10 PM
Oh, he's much weirder than Fester.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 04, 2010 at 02:22 PM
This guy would not get my vote.
Cecil Turtle !
Posted by: cleek | August 04, 2010 at 02:58 PM
Hmm. Resemblance is uncanny.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 04, 2010 at 03:07 PM
Mollie: "If he were a Republican (or dependent on the good will of people like Giuliani)..."
He may not be dependent, but he certainly hasn't tried to disassociate himself. He probably owed his first victory to Giuliani's endorsement - the bloom was already off Rudy's rose for New Yorkers in general, but I think he was still relatively popular in Queens and Staten Island, the only boroughs Bloomberg won. Giuliani has campaigned for him in each election since then, and the pitch has been more or less about law & order, with unsubtle references to the Dinkins years and how Republicans saved New York from crime, etc. So I'd say people like Giuliani are still an important part of Bloomberg's base.
Posted by: Hob | August 04, 2010 at 04:29 PM
I used to sometimes vote for Republicans in Illinois - 30 YEARS AGO.
Kudos to Bloomberg. He looks better than plenty of Democrats on this issue (or 'issue').
Posted by: jonnybutter | August 04, 2010 at 04:45 PM
By the way, totally offtopic: today Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8, declaring that Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Queerty.com
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 04, 2010 at 05:32 PM
'This guy would not get my vote.'
Well, he's not in your district, but he is in mine. If I conclude that Chaffetz is really a neocon, voted for the recent cyber-security bill and is hobnobbing with the Post Office union, I'll have to give Shannon a look.
Posted by: GoodOleBoy | August 04, 2010 at 05:46 PM
Yeah, GOB, those aren't really good choices.
Posted by: Eric Martin | August 04, 2010 at 06:11 PM
Yes Jes, this is great news!!
Posted by: Eric Martin | August 04, 2010 at 06:11 PM
Great news indeed, and thanks for the link, Jes. IANAL but the language of those excerpts from the ruling is strikingly direct and categorical.
Let the wailing and rending of garments over "activist judges" (re)commence...
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | August 04, 2010 at 06:42 PM
Before you all get too teary eyed about Bloomberg's speech (a good thing) or the recent 9th District ruling on Prop 8 (also a good thing), you might try to track down this article:
"The Eighteenth Brumaire of Michael R. Bloomberg", by Ryan Ruby
The Baffler, Vol. 2, no. 1
You have to understand, ANY Rupublican shares the social mindset that is at heart inimical to peace, justice, economic prosperity for the greatest number, and possibly the very survival of our species.
Thus I never vote for any of them. Even the good ones.
Posted by: bobbyp | August 04, 2010 at 09:48 PM
I understand the vectors of this piece and the tenor of it. But it's hard for me to grasp why or how anybody can trust the Republicans given the wretched amount of bad faith they have governed by across a number of states, no less than mine, Idaho, one of the reddest states around and the home of one of the most wretched of them all, Larry Craig. I guess things clearly are different back East, which people from where I'm regard as another country.
The only thing that's more wretched, overall, is the golden opportunities Democrats have blown, miserably, to counter this cacaphony of bad faith on the right. Scalia? One of the most activist judges around. Let the gnashing of teeth begin...
Posted by: sekaijin | August 04, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Hmmm. If I lived in NYC, could I bring myself to vote for Bloomberg? Now that he's "officially" an independent, possibly.
I have a prejudice against business tycoons in executive posts in government, but it's a mild and rebuttable prejudice. One rebuttal that Bloomberg could offer me, in the present case, would be a full-throated denunciation of Palin and Gingrich BY NAME. Has he offered that?
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | August 04, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Doesn't matter if you like him or not, he's going to buy the vote as long as he wants the job.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | August 05, 2010 at 02:42 AM
bobbyp, sorry, but there are still a fair number of Republicans (as in registered voters who are registered as Republicans) who consider that the theocons and neocons who currently hold most offices as Republicans are nut cases at best. But we think that the nation really needs two sane parties, and the record of starting a new party and becoming viable is pretty poor over the last century and a half. So we stay here and try to provide votes for the occasional sane Republican candidate.
And there are some. See, for example, Tom Campbell in the California Senate primary earlier this year. He didn't win, but neither did he come in last. (Having someone with a personal fortune running against you is a problem. even if she got it while almost destroying the company she was supposed to be leading.)
Posted by: wj | August 05, 2010 at 02:57 AM
I'll have to give Shannon a look.
Just don't look him in the eye, or you'll find yourself telling bunny stories on YouTube.
Posted by: russell | August 05, 2010 at 08:12 AM
...on the other hand, you just might find yourself magically not wanting another cigarette, or having lost that 15 pounds you've been meaning to shed.
Or...both!
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 05, 2010 at 08:18 AM
But it's hard for me to grasp why or how anybody can trust the Republicans given the wretched amount of bad faith they have governed by across a number of states, no less than mine, Idaho, one of the reddest states around and the home of one of the most wretched of them all, Larry Craig. I guess things clearly are different back East, which people from where I'm regard as another country.
Yeah, Bloomberg is different.
He's pro-choice, staunchly pro-gay rights, better on the environment than local Democratic leaders, good on civil rights issues and generally sane and reasonable.
And, importantly, he has shown himself a competent manager of NYC - which is, in population and economic activity - akin to a small to mid-sized country.
I don't agree with every position he holds - he was once a Republican after all - but he has been the better option when compared to the Dem nominees in both elections that I voted for him.
I'm not doctrinnaire as much as I am pragmatic - within a certain range.
Posted by: Eric Martin | August 05, 2010 at 09:55 AM
He's pro-choice, staunchly pro-gay rights, better on the environment than local Democratic leaders, good on civil rights issues and generally sane and reasonable.
IIRC he was a lifelong Democrat who switched to the R's solely in order to run for mayor, the Democratic candidacy being locked up by the machine.
Like I said, I'm never going to be happy with the concept of public office being for sale to the highest bidder, but that is the reality in this city and it's increasingly going to be the reality for all public offices in this country, from the looks of things. "One dollar, one vote" shall be the law of the land.
So I'm pretty much resigned to a dysfunctional system that really isn't worthy of the name "democracy" in any real sense.
And once you resign yourself to that reality, Bloomberg doesn't look too bad. And when you consider all the other captains of industry and billionaire egomaniacs out there, he looks even better. Just imagine the kind of trouble this city would be in if Donald Trump wasn't a germophobe...[shudder]...
So, lemons into lemonade: our thoroughly broken system has ended up producing a competent, generally sane and reasonable manager. Mind you, when the interests of Wall Street happen to conflict with those of, well, just about anybody else, we know where Mike's loyalties will lie. But given that our Democratic president doesn't seem to be all that concerned about the welfare of working people (especially the ones who aren't working), I don't know why we should expect Michael Bloomberg to be.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | August 05, 2010 at 10:17 AM
And once you resign yourself to that reality, Bloomberg doesn't look too bad.
Yay, better plutocrats!
Posted by: russell | August 05, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Jonathan Schwartz summed it up nicely:
Almost all political conflict, especially in the US, boils down to a fight between the Sane Billionaires and the Insane Billionaires. It generally follows this template:
INSANE BILLIONAIRES: Let's kill everyone and take their money!
SANE BILLIONAIRES: I like the way you think. I really do. But if we keep everyone alive, and working for us, we'll make even more money, in the long term.
INSANE BILLIONAIRES: You communist!!!
So from a progressive perspective, you always have to hope the Sane Billionaires win. Still, there's generally a huge chasm between what the Sane Billionaires want and what progressives want.
Posted by: Hogan | August 05, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Hogan, you should copy and paste your 10:29 AM comment into the "Why Fiscal Conservatives Should Vote Democrat" thread. Two birds, one stone.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 05, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Mind you, when the interests of Wall Street happen to conflict with those of, well, just about anybody else, we know where Mike's loyalties will lie
This is true, and my biggest beef with him. But, I mean, it's not as if State Dems are any better. Look at Paterson, ie.
Posted by: Eric Martin | August 05, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Still, there's generally a huge chasm between what the Sane Billionaires want and what progressives want.
Very true. But the fact remains that our current Sane Billionaire is infinitely preferable to the Snarling Non-billionaire who preceded him in office.
It's all relative, y'know?
Oh, and that little vignette from Mr. Schwartz hilarious. I need to read ATR more often.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | August 05, 2010 at 10:53 AM