Just Wondering...

Why is Bloomberg going after Thompson so hard? Conventional wisdom is he’s way ahead, unapproachable, undefeatable. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it make sense to run a happy, positive campaign?

Shouldn’t we be watching him kiss babies and smile?

Is is possible that Mayor Mike is running scared? Does he know something we don’t? Or is he just on the attack for the heck of it?

When does a blatant opportunist do anything whatsoever for the heck of it?

Pay No Attention to that Man Behind the Curtain

As President Obama has stated repeatedly, he does not support vouchers. Sure he supports merit pay, charter schools, mayoral control, and his education secretary believes everything Mike Bloomberg says without question, but vouchers is where he draws the line. After all, there's no evidence they're effective, and one has to draw the line somewhere.

The only exception to the President's absolute opposition to vouchers is when he supports vouchers. But let's make it very clear, the President absolutely opposes vouchers except in cases when he supports them. So please respect the firm stand this President has taken.

After all, voters have repeatedly rejected vouchers all over the country, and the will of the voters is the heart of democracy, except when Mike Bloomberg thinks it isn't. So remember, President Barack Obama absolutely, positively opposes vouchers. Except when he doesn't.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Lately there's been a lot of controversy over term limits. Mayor Mike Bloomberg, along with the City Council, has decided to explicitly overturn the express will of the people. In their view, that's that, and people have no right whatsoever to question them:

Arguing on behalf of the city, Stephen Kitzinger, senior counsel in the city’s Law Department, said the claims “have no merit whatsoever” and added, “This law does not preserve an incumbent’s position for another four years.”

Now it's certainly true that anyone with a war-chest rivaling Mayor Mike's, and the local tabloids in his or her pocket could give him a run for his money. Look, for instance, at Caroline Kennedy (though the press has not been quite as kind with her as they are with Hizzoner). But didn't the people vote? Isn't the will of the people sacrosanct in a democracy? I guess it all depends on just how far you want to take this whole "democracy" thing. I mean, sure Mayor Bloomberg bought the election fair and square, but is a billionaire really the sort of person we need to run the school system? He probably wouldn't be my first choice, particularly with this, "Ethics-shmethics, I'll do what the hell I like" attitude.

And why won't the UFT take a principled stand against this? Well, their record on democracy is not all that good either. When those goshdarn high school teachers had the temerity to elect a non-Unity VP, they contested the election and ended up losing by an even more decisive margin. To make sure this would never happen again, they opened Vice-Presidential voting to the entire UFT, so that the elementary teachers, who outnumber us and favor Unity, could help us decide. I understand such tactics were utilized after the civil war, to ensure that white politicians could represent absolutely everyone.

Also, District Reps used to be elected by Chapter Chairs, but are now hand-picked by Ms. Weingarten. Both she and Mr. Bloomberg interpret democracy to mean, "my way or the highway."

It's in the hands of we, the people to vote for or against this sort of democracy. But if we're getting our info from the Daily News, the NY Post, or Edwize--then it's pretty clear we're in for more of the same.