Skip to content

Bloomberg Spent Over $100 Million to Win Third Term

November 27, 2009

For those of you not so keen on Bloomberg, I thought you’d all be interested in discussing the obscene amount of money Bloomberg spent on his close call of a third term. Here are the details:

To eke out an election victory over the city’s low-key comptroller, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spent $102 million of his own fortune — or about $174 per vote — according to data released Friday, making his bid for a third term the most expensive campaign in the city’s history.

Mr. Bloomberg, the wealthiest man in New York City, shattered his own records: He poured $85 million into his campaign in 2005 (or $112 per vote) and $74 million into his first bid for office in 2001 ($99 per vote).

And the $102 million tab is likely to rise, because the mayor has not yet doled out postelection bonuses to campaign workers, which have routinely exceeded $100,000 a person in years past. That spending will not be reported until after his inauguration in January.

Mr. Bloomberg has now spent at least $261 million of his own money in the pursuit of public office, more than anyone else in the United States

Government watchdog groups criticized the nine-digit price tag for his re-election, saying it undermined a widely admired campaign finance system that Mr. Bloomberg helped install in the city. Mr. Bloomberg did not participate in the system, which rewards candidates who raise small donations with large matching money from taxpayers.

The downside for the billionaire mayor: It caps spending at $6 million in the general election.

“He has done long-term damage to the system,” said Gene Russianoff, staff attorney at the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Throughout the campaign, the mayor’s aides sought to project an air of inevitability, but data released on Friday revealed just how anxious they had become in the final weeks.

From Oct. 20 to Nov. 26, his campaign burned through $18.6 million, much of it on last-minute television and radio advertising.

As the mayor’s consultants and pollsters realized that a large bloc of undecided voters either favored Mr. Thompson or planned to stay home on Election Day, the campaign scrambled.

A few hours before the polls closed on Nov. 3, the campaign issued a flurry of recorded telephone calls to registered voters, in which Mr. Bloomberg requested that New Yorkers head to the polls and pull the lever for him.

At the start of the race, Mr. Bloomberg’s aides promised to run a political operation that mirrored the austere times. But that promise quickly evaporated.

The mayor’s campaign, which leased a 35,000-square-foot headquarters in Midtown Manhattan and paid a disc jockey $300 to perform as volunteers called voters, was widely expected to crush his Democratic opponent, William C. Thompson Jr., the city’s chief financial officer.

Mr. Thompson, who participated in the campaign finance system, was outspent by 14 to 1, and he struggled to attract experienced staff members and raise money.

His press releases misspelled his own name; his aides groused about their jobs on Facebook; and his media team was so short on cash that it resorted to running 15-second blink-and-you-miss-it TV commercials.

But Mr. Bloomberg’s unpopular drive to overturn the city’s term limits law, his lavish campaign and a sputtering economy soured thousands of New Yorkers on him, even though most admired his record in office.

On Election Day, their frustration erupted into public view: Mr. Bloomberg won by fewer than 5 percentage points, at a cost of about $20 million for each point.

Turnout was unusually low — 585,000 New Yorkers cast votes for him, compared with 753,089 in 2005 and 744,757 in 2001, records show.

“He didn’t seem to get very much for his money,” Mr. Russianoff said.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the mayor’s campaign, said that a harsh political environment helped oust incumbents in Westchester County and New Jersey.

“The reason this anti-incumbent wave stopped at the Hudson’s edge,” Mr. Wolfson said, “is because the mayor ran an effective campaign based on eight years of success.”

A free-spending ethos infused the Bloomberg campaign. The latest filing shows that staff members charged Mr. Bloomberg for expensive meals, rides home, even to retrieve a towed car.

The campaign’s union coordinator, Patrick J. Brennan, spent $520 to dine with labor leaders at Smith & Wollensky, the Midtown steakhouse.

Mark Botnick, who focused on outreach to Jewish voters, charged the campaign $223 for taxi rides. And a Republican operative, Matthew Mahoney — whose campaign wages totaled $100,000 — sought about $5,400 in reimbursements from the campaign, for items big and small. A rental car bill from Hertz exceeded $700. A burger meal at Wendy’s cost $8.36.

Some of the spending seems to have directly benefited taxpayers. A campaign worker named Andres Berry paid $185 to a tow pound in Brooklyn, presumably after he ran afoul of parking rules that, under the Bloomberg administration, are strictly enforced, even if you work for him.

Mr. Bloomberg, the wealthiest man in New York City, shattered his own records: He poured $85 million into his campaign in 2005 (or $112 per vote) and $74 million into his first bid for office in 2001 ($99 per vote).

And the $102 million tab is likely to rise, because the mayor has not yet doled out postelection bonuses to campaign workers, which have routinely exceeded $100,000 a person in years past. That spending will not be reported until after his inauguration in January.

Mr. Bloomberg has now spent at least $261 million of his own money in the pursuit of public office, more than anyone else in the United States.

Government watchdog groups criticized the nine-digit price tag for his re-election, saying it undermined a widely admired campaign finance system that Mr. Bloomberg helped install in the city. Mr. Bloomberg did not participate in the system, which rewards candidates who raise small donations with large matching money from taxpayers.

The downside for the billionaire mayor: It caps spending at $6 million in the general election.

“He has done long-term damage to the system,” said Gene Russianoff, staff attorney at the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Throughout the campaign, the mayor’s aides sought to project an air of inevitability, but data released on Friday revealed just how anxious they had become in the final weeks.

From Oct. 20 to Nov. 26, his campaign burned through $18.6 million, much of it on last-minute television and radio advertising.

As the mayor’s consultants and pollsters realized that a large bloc of undecided voters either favored Mr. Thompson or planned to stay home on Election Day, the campaign scrambled.

A few hours before the polls closed on Nov. 3, the campaign issued a flurry of recorded telephone calls to registered voters, in which Mr. Bloomberg requested that New Yorkers head to the polls and pull the lever for him.

At the start of the race, Mr. Bloomberg’s aides promised to run a political operation that mirrored the austere times. But that promise quickly evaporated.

The mayor’s campaign, which leased a 35,000-square-foot headquarters in Midtown Manhattan and paid a disc jockey $300 to perform as volunteers called voters, was widely expected to crush his Democratic opponent, William C. Thompson Jr., the city’s chief financial officer.

Mr. Thompson, who participated in the campaign finance system, was outspent by 14 to 1, and he struggled to attract experienced staff members and raise money.

His press releases misspelled his own name; his aides groused about their jobs on Facebook; and his media team was so short on cash that it resorted to running 15-second blink-and-you-miss-it TV commercials.

But Mr. Bloomberg’s unpopular drive to overturn the city’s term limits law, his lavish campaign and a sputtering economy soured thousands of New Yorkers on him, even though most admired his record in office.

On Election Day, their frustration erupted into public view: Mr. Bloomberg won by fewer than 5 percentage points, at a cost of about $20 million for each point.

Turnout was unusually low — 585,000 New Yorkers cast votes for him, compared with 753,089 in 2005 and 744,757 in 2001, records show.

“He didn’t seem to get very much for his money,” Mr. Russianoff said.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the mayor’s campaign, said that a harsh political environment helped oust incumbents in Westchester County and New Jersey.

“The reason this anti-incumbent wave stopped at the Hudson’s edge,” Mr. Wolfson said, “is because the mayor ran an effective campaign based on eight years of success.”

A free-spending ethos infused the Bloomberg campaign. The latest filing shows that staff members charged Mr. Bloomberg for expensive meals, rides home, even to retrieve a towed car.

The campaign’s union coordinator, Patrick J. Brennan, spent $520 to dine with labor leaders at Smith & Wollensky, the Midtown steakhouse.

Mark Botnick, who focused on outreach to Jewish voters, charged the campaign $223 for taxi rides. And a Republican operative, Matthew Mahoney — whose campaign wages totaled $100,000 — sought about $5,400 in reimbursements from the campaign, for items big and small. A rental car bill from Hertz exceeded $700. A burger meal at Wendy’s cost $8.36.

Some of the spending seems to have directly benefited taxpayers. A campaign worker named Andres Berry paid $185 to a tow pound in Brooklyn, presumably after he ran afoul of parking rules that, under the Bloomberg administration, are strictly enforced, even if you work for him.

 

Advertisements
26 Comments
  1. An open, public comment to Chairman Craig A. Eaton permalink
    November 28, 2009 11:29 am

    http://suburban.typepad.com/files/2009-02-22_nyyr_letter_to_chairman_eaton-1-2.pdf

    Thank you Craig Eaton Esq., for helping saddling New Yorkers with 4 more years of the Honorable Mayor Bloomberg. He could not have done it without your valued assistance, acquiescence and energy! Craig, You were the very first GOP borough chairperson to go along with the status quo!

    I know now the NYC GOP will be further revitalized and invigorated as the recently re-elected Mayor continues to builds up the NYC Republican Party!

    http://www.brooklynyr.com/byrc_bloomberg_letter.pdf

    Craig, you rarely listen to opinions and outlooks other than your own. Why the intransigence?

    Do the right thing for the good of the Party and resign. It would be a “mitzvah” and a selfless act.

    When Mitzvah is considered to be an act of human kindness, it transcends all religions. While historically, Mitzvah is considered to be a term related to Judaism, anyone in any religion can perform a Mitzvah. While they may not refer to it by that name, they can still perform an act of kindness for another person.

    In order to successfully fulfill a Mitzvah you have to perform an act of kindness that is above and beyond the normal act of kindness. It is performing an act that is completely selfless. One such act of kindness that is often referenced when referring to a Mitzvah is burying someone unknown. This is completely selfless and considered to be a Mitzvah. While other acts can also be a Mitzvah, they need to follow the same lines. They need to be acts that help someone else, but do not actually help the person who performed them.

    A Mitzvah is really what religion should be built upon. Random acts of kindness will always have a place in religion, and they help society every time they are performed. Mitzvahs are necessary in order for religion to remain powerful in the world today. They get to the heart of religion and remind people what faith is really about.

    Goodness has a place in every religion as well as for those people who are secularists and/or “non-believers” in anything theistic. Performing a mitzvah is one of the most important things anyone can do in a religion. When people perform acts of kindness, they remember why they believe in their religion. They believe because of the goodness, and that goodness allows them to help others.

    Craig, be a “mensch” for a change.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch

    • Masada permalink
      November 28, 2009 7:08 pm

      Very well said!

    • Young Republican permalink
      November 30, 2009 9:09 am

      It would be appropriate to call on the chairman to resign if he had conned his way into the job, if he had promised to do one thing and then did something else. Nobody can claim they didn’t know what he would be like; he is doing the same thing he was doing the first two years. At the convention, the committee was warned what another two years of Eaton would be like, and they voted for him by a large margin anyway. It’s a little childish to call on someone to resign because you disagree with them, especially when you voted against them.

      The fact that he is chairman is a result of the fact that 2/3 of the county committee wants him to be chairman, and until that changes we shouldn’t expect to see anything else change in the near future.

      • Gerry permalink
        November 30, 2009 10:45 am

        I think you’re wrong.

        We have an obligation to be honest with ourselves and deal fairly. Craig Eaton’s reelection was executed because he himself engineered it by using county funds to bankroll his proxy votes. That is totally inappropriate.

        Then, at the convention, it seemed to me that the two reasons people were supporting Eaton were that they themselves were his personal hacks or they were unaware of the less visible issues plaguing the party (such as atrophying membership in our party and a lack of diversity, as this blog has mentioned, not to mention failure in last years elections).

        I think at the time there wasn’t a clear example of utter failure that Eaton could “own” for himself. For that reason and due to his various schemes, he was reelected.

        Now, those that voted for Craig Eaton must confess that the level of failure coming out of this election is so great, so destructive, that only his resignation and new leadership could assure us of any decent probability of success next year.

        We cannot and should not overlook that very pressing reality.

        It’s not childish to want to win and to desire success for your party. It’s just good politics, Young Republican.

      • JJJ permalink
        November 30, 2009 12:44 pm

        It’s good politics, to use this blog to destruct our candidates, and our leadership. Time to lead and ready to serve or get out of the way.

        The leadership of the YR’s are the ones who are childish, and have continued to wedge this party more and more.

        Did the YR’s help any candidates at all this year, great politics not to help your former predecessor.

        Reform right?

      • Young GOP Kid permalink
        November 30, 2009 3:31 pm

        Oh, JJJ. What a tangled web you’ve woven for yourself…

        You know nothing of the YRs. They’ve helped a number of candidates and have hosted a great many of them, including Joe Nardiello, Lucretia Regina-Potter, Alex Zablocki, and Gene B. (who sometimes appears on this blog), to name a few.

        Moreover, Mr. Capano, by my understanding, alienated HIMSELF from the YR’s, not the other way around. He did so because the Brooklyn GOP feels threatened by the higher class of GOPer that attends the meetings of the YRs.

        The carelessness with which you comment is blatant, and your bias is clear.

        People on Atlas aren’t the dim little minions you might be used to in the GOP establishment.

        Show some respect, fool.

      • YR With A Spine permalink
        November 30, 2009 9:15 pm

        Ok, some people need to get their facts straight. I joined the Brooklyn YRs in 2008. I found out about Bob Capano because Johnathan Judge pushed people to help his state assembly campaign. From what I can tell, Bob was a do nothing YR President. No one knew who he was in the club. He never came to meetings. He was against every good and principled idea the club supported. He looked and acted like a spineless loser. He never had the guts to stand up to the dysfunction party leadership. Nobody wanted to help him, but John pushed us anyway because he was the former President. Then the bus thing happened. John killed himself to get YRs to help with a Brooklyn GOP campaign event in Bay Ridge for Bob. I came from the other end of Brooklyn that day just to help Bob out. So what happens? Bob put this horrible little woman Clarinda in charge who bitched at us all day like we were her slaves, refused to let us put up the YR McCain campaign banner on the bus, and then told us there were no seats for YRs on the bus. The bus was the only reason we came out to help Bob. When John and the other YRs asked Bob as the candidate to intercede, he did nothing. All these people came out to help him, and he did nothing. Bob pissed off all the YRs and whimpered out of the club in shame. John probably did try to get people to help his city council campaign, but no YR in their right mind would help that ungrateful has-been.

  2. Seeds of local GOP descent in the Brooklyn GOP began in 2007! permalink
    November 28, 2009 1:34 pm

    “Republican political operative Gerry O’Brien says it can, and that Eaton has the formula for turning Brooklyn blue into Republican red, and it starts one vote at a time.

    “All politics are local,” O’Brien said. “We are going to start at the infrastructure, and we are going to bring the blue-collar Republicans back to the party.”

    Ghost of Nixon is Eaton Craig, By Matthew Lysiak
    The Brooklyn Paper, May 12, 2007

    http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/19/30_19craigeaton.html

    • Harry O'Brien permalink
      November 28, 2009 7:12 pm

      That man was clueless then; he’s clueless now. He’s become so desperate, he spent his summer stealing election materials, threatening fellow Republicans, and physically attacking a young GOPer. He needs to be excommunicated.

  3. Miffed permalink
    November 28, 2009 1:54 pm

    Craig resigning is like waiting for pigs to fly. He does not know the meaning of the word “Mitzvah” nor can he ever be a “mensch”. Craig will not be satisfied until there is nothing left in this party except complete destruction and chaos.
    All Republicans should give him a vote of no confidence and show him the door.
    Until we take control our our own destiny in this party, all is lost to ruin.

  4. November 28, 2009 3:22 pm

    The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress is :
    NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

    The American voter must IMPOSE term limits by NEVER REELECTING ANYONE IN CONGRESS, AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION! In other words, don’t let anyone serve more than one term. That’s the only way to teach them that the voter is boss! The “one term limit” can be eased AFTER citizens get control of Congress.

    Congress will never allow us to constitutionally term limit them by an amendment. Our only choice is to NEVER REELECT them. All of them!

    The number of ‘good guys’ left in Congress is negligible, so if we threw ALL 535 members out, we wouldn’t do as much damage as the good we would gain by by turning Congress into a bunch of honest, innocent freshmen.

    Some of the reasons in favor of this approach:

    • It gives us a one-term-limited Congress without using an amendment
    • It encourages ordinary citizens to run for Congress
    • It is supported by 70% of the country (see Rasmussen and Cato polls)
    • It is completely nonpartisan
    • If repeated, it ends career politicians in Congress
    • It opens the way to a “citizen Congress” of guys like you and me
    * It would open a torrent of fresh ideas to improve our government
    • It ends the seniority system that keeps freshmen powerless
    • It doesn’t cost money. But you MUST vote! Just don’t vote for an incumbent
    • It takes effect immediately on Election Day
    • It is the only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to “Throw the Bums Out”
    • When the ‘pros’ stop running, ordinary citizens will run and win
    • If it doesn’t work, do it again and again! It will work eventually,without a doubt.

    NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

    Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com
    send for your free NEVER REELECT bumper sticker

    • Government is the Problem permalink
      November 28, 2009 11:53 pm

      Sounds like a libertarian’s only option.

  5. Sahel Kazemi permalink
    November 28, 2009 4:25 pm

    Craig Eaton himself checks the Atlas Shrugs blog once a day at least, sometimes more often, for articles and comments. As things come up on the Atlas blog that mentions his name, then one or more of his minion, follower miscreants calls him to report. In addition, the staff over at Marty Golden’s senatorial office regularly “monitors” the Atlas blog for anything negative about Marty.

    Both Craig Eaton and Marty Golden are nervous and edgy about Atlas Shrugs in Brooklyn. They figuratively defecate in their skivvies.

    • Sarah Sunshine permalink
      November 28, 2009 7:13 pm

      Marty would have nothing to worry about if he hadn’t advocated for a man who can’t deliver a single victory for the GOP in Brooklyn.

  6. John Stratum permalink
    November 28, 2009 5:03 pm

    Marty should be more nervous because it is obvious that Craig is going to cost him his Senate seat. Way to go Craig…take everyone down with you!

  7. Republican Reformer permalink
    November 28, 2009 8:17 pm

    Marty Golden committed the largest mistake of his political career by supporting Craig Eaton. He and his staff obviously knew Craig was the cause of many problems, and they did nothing about it.
    Instead of replacing Craig, Marty goes and openly votes for his
    re-election as Chairman.
    The question is: How many people, especially Republicans, want to
    re-elect Marty Golden?

    • Simon permalink
      November 28, 2009 9:04 pm

      I will not vote for anymore hacks.
      I will not vote for anymore minions.
      I will not vote for anymore lies.
      I will not vote for anymore failures.
      I will not vote for Marty Golden anymore.

  8. Gangasta permalink
    November 28, 2009 11:13 pm

    Jake I took a bath thanks for asking, I have my soul too thanks for asking again, it’s great to know you care so much. It shows from your actions. Must be easy here to complain about Sen. Golden, the chair, and everyone else, must be hard to pound the pavement though dawg.

    • Logical Response Please permalink
      November 29, 2009 12:08 am

      Again, how do you people know I or other of these commentators aren’t ‘”pounding pavement”? People can’t be critical of establishment unless they are lazy? Such poor logic. I expect no less from a gangsta.

  9. Gangasta permalink
    November 29, 2009 12:19 am

    The people on this site most of them are lazy, that’s the point Russell and others are making, it’s easy to criticize at home. I am willing to work with anyone, and I will continue to lead and ready to serve. This blog could be very useful, but all I see is everyone criticizing the chair, Sen. Golden, Bob and others.

    If their were people pounding the pavement we would have done a lot better across the board. Next year is huge this is the last one before redistricting, otherwise there will be nothing left, some here on this blog seem though that’s okay with them to have nothing. No party is perfect, but a two party system is worth fighting for, and we have a few winnable races next year to ensure that here in Brooklyn.

    We can all be just like the Bronx and Manhattan right? If we do nothing, then how will that feel, we might as well be living in the Soviet Union then no difference in those boroughs.

    • Jake RIIS permalink
      November 29, 2009 12:54 am

      The rest of Brooklyn outside Bay Ridge neither has nor experiences any kind of two-party system. That scenario of no Republicans at all actually won’t change anything for probably a good 90% of Brooklynites. That is what these “lazy” people are complaining about, that’s what they are trying to fix, and that’s exactly what Eaton, Golden, Capano and the rest of them should be helping everyone across Brooklyn fix. Brooklyn needs more elected Republicans in Bed Stuy, East New York, Sunset Park or Williamburgh. We don’t need MORE insular Bay Ridge Republican elected officials, at least the non-hacks who have real jobs don’t. Instead, that crew prefers to strictly play defense to save their own hides for as long as they can. If that’s the name of the game, then I say let them get crushed underneath the walls that they built to separate themselves from the rest of Brooklyn when the barbarian horde of machine Democrats finally does them in for good.

      • Young Republican permalink
        November 30, 2009 4:11 pm

        Thanks Jake for explaining the problem. Where I live there is one republican whose name is on the ballot every year for a different office. He never campaigns and gets between 4% and 8% of the vote, depending on the year. Once, I tried calling the phone number to get some information, and whoever picked up the phone (it seemed like a home number) didn’t even know he was running for congress.

        I only met my district’s leaders once at the county convention, where they said they would contact me – they never did, and I have no way of contacting them. We don’t run candidates in this side of Brooklyn anymore. If I wanted to volunteer on a campaign I’d have to choose between Letitia James and Delia Hunley-Adossa.

  10. Joe Nardiello permalink
    December 1, 2009 3:03 pm

    Do you realize the state of the GOP here, statewide and nationally – and what nonsense some of the back & forth we’ve been reading (for months, and written in anonymity) on this very website vs. reality of the Perfect Storm that was build across the November to November of 2008 to 2009? We can only imagine — if there would have been POSITIVE ENERGY from the devotees, presumably younger and energetic with good ideas, etc. etc. and out to make a difference, etc. instead of sitting back.

    Bottom-line was and is..that Mayor Bloomberg is THE most recognizable current NYC political figure — and he drew another in Rudy Giuliani to his side for support. You’re talking the last 5 terms of NYC Mayors, and ALL non-Democrats. The Democrats were reeling against him, and it was the ONLY race where the Democrat had to answer to their OWN media-shield about “their chances” vs. someone on the Republican line. Anthony Wiener ran off scared at his chances. The UFT for crying out loud did NOT endorse the Democrat for MAYOR of NYC! And what did the rank & file of the GOP do with all this, across the election year.. that’s right, fell right into the Democrats hands, and nearly lost the Mayoralty to the Democratic Party?

    As a result, MORE Democrats rushed to the polls to support their “underdog” candidate — that oddly has the numeric advantage of voters. Go ahead and find another REPUBLICAN candidate 4 years from now that can win out — without even more money spent?…

    Like him or not. Dislike the ‘3rd term’ debate of ’08 or not, you had the winner of the NYC mayoralty as your candidate– an election that even the PRESIDENT of the USA stayed away supporting the Democrat in (now how is that, for political power of Mayor Bloomberg?). That was supported by the Brooklyn leadership of the GOP, and that was a correct move. At what point — does anyone not recognize that politically-speaking, the GOP failed (meaning every one of its leaders and bloggers, whether reluctantly or fervently) to use Mayor Bloomberg as a foundation. Our collective reticence was evident, and what resulted — because of the use of the THIRD TERM by the DEMOCRATS (putting DeBlasio in citywide office, and in line for a run at the Mayoralty despite a scant record, at best across 8 years) — was that the Democrats and the media had a field day with the “third term” as a campaign issue.

    – The Economy? that wasn’t mentioned.
    – The Working Families Party’s parasitic takeover of the Democratic party? not a factor in the General Elections.
    – Acorn and the WFP’s end-around rules and sharing of public monies was a nation issue — but NOT in Brooklyn, which is the birthplace and epicenter of both.

    Instead of trying to capitalize on having a pro-business, virtual political superstar at the top of the ticket for the Republican party to benefit from… many local Republican groups groused, grumbled and gave away a clear advantage. Our VOTERS stayed home — thanks to this myopic stance. Principle was the topic in 2008 — in 2009 it was about supporting GOP candidates that were engaged in the very fights that can only be typed about, now. Opportunity was lost. And we had Mayor Bloomberg to rally around, which is now lost to historical perspective…

    For all the bickering, the Brooklyn Republicans interested in reform or whatever rhetoric is bounced around on this anonymous, kvetchy website… we lost the chance and we lost near every race.

    Want to bitch about $ spent by a mego-millionaire?.. Complain about thi$:

    http://wcbstv.com/local/jon.corzine.campaign.2.1343220.html

    • Young Republican permalink
      December 1, 2009 4:41 pm

      There is no question that it’s a great accomplishment that New Yorkers elected the republican backed candidate for 5th time, (although Bloomberg only got about 37% on the GOP line.) But for me and many people I speak to, it’s not about how many people checked the GOP box on their ballot it’s about what type of candidate wins the election. The Republican Party is supposed to be the party that represents the people’s interest, and it is understandable that party members will get annoyed when our party leaders nominate a candidate who puts his personal political interest above those of the people he claims to represent.

      It wasn’t Republican voters who made term limits an issue, it was Mayor Bloomberg who made it an issue when he refused to let the people make their own decision on the matter. Republicans could have turned this past election into a referendum over the expansion of government authority and power over New Yorkers, and instead we took the side of more government power.

      The reason I’m a Republican is because I believe in individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility. Mayor Bloomberg does not represent any of those ideas, and was therefore not my candidate. I didn’t vote for Thompson because I thought he would be a better mayor, I voted for him because I wanted to send a message to the mayor and the county chairmen who supported him that they will not hold me hostage and force me to vote for Bloomberg by saying “you can’t vote for Thompson.”

      I disagreed with every one of the Republican candidate running for city/borough-wide office as well as my council district on certain issues, but I voted for all of them besides Bloomberg. With Bloomberg it wasn’t that I disagreed with him on a certain issue, it is his whole approach to governing that disgusts me.

      For Mayor Bloomberg the honorable thing to was to put term limits up for a referendum and ask the people who enacted it in the first place to repeal it. I can promise if he would have done that he would have gotten much more support from New Yorkers. For the GOP county chairmen the honorable thing to do was to have a primary where Republicans can have their say on who they want their candidate to be. I can promise you that many republicans who disagree with Bloomberg would have been able to support him as the party’s choice because at least he would have been selected in an open and fair process.

  11. Miffed permalink
    December 1, 2009 3:48 pm

    The current powers-that-be in the Brooklyn Republican Party works with and makes deals with all the Brooklyn Democrats. A very cozy nest indeed.
    There is no infrastructure in the Brooklyn GOP to instigate any change. Instead it has become insular, exclusionary, and almost incestuous. Those that have written on this blog, entertaining as it might be, have forced changes and have made many Brooklynites aware of the incompetence of the current Brooklyn GOP.
    While everyone agrees that Bloomberg was probably the right choice to endorse for Mayor, especially in Brooklyn, the Chairman “dropped his pants” and did not negotiate a better deal for the party nor its candidates. No one knows for sure, and we can only speculate what these leaders received on their own for this endorsement.
    Republicans stayed home on election day because a good, solid, substantial “Get Out The Vote” program never has, and most likely never will be implemented by the current powers that be. It is not convenient for the current party leadership to cultivate new candidates, and establish strong Republican foundations in Brooklyn. They are happy with the status quo, and will continue to have the perpetuation of one person as their highest priority. The “Prima Donna” factor, if you will, has been the bane of the existence of the current Brooklyn GOP.
    Joe, you ran a good race, and established your Republican base in your area which is impressive and commendable. Do not expect any assistance from anyone at the moment, but keep at it and you will win. These so-called Brooklyn leaders have proven their incompetence over and over again, and will eventually fall from grace.
    It is only a matter of time…..

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: