Why Does Anyone Want To Be Mayor of New York?

As a public Max Rose fan, I was happy to see he's apparently bouncing back from his 2020 re-election defeat and pursuing a run for mayor of New York City. The re-election defeat was disappointing, but it should not be a career-ender -- along with Joe Cunningham (SC) and maybe Kendra Horn (OK), Rose's 2018 win was probably among the biggest upsets of the last midterm and was always going to be difficult turf to hold onto once the blue wave inevitably receded. So I'm glad he's getting back on the horse, though I suspect it will be a crowded field and (to the extent anybody cares what I, a non-New York, thinks) I'd want to give everyone a chance to make their case.

But really, my main reaction when I read Rose's announcement was to wonder why anyone would want the job of New York City mayor? From my vantage point, the mayor of New York appears to the official home base of political no-win situations. There are a million-and-one interest groups, a barely functioning bureaucracy, all the challenges facing any urban center (but bigger, because New York), all with just enough influence to be blamed but not enough to actually hold responsibility.

I mean, look at de Blasio. I remember when he first ran for the post, he had a progressive-populist left (remember when the NYPD literally turned their backs on him? That'd be progressive gold if it happened in 2019 instead!). Now, six years into his term, everybody hates him. He almost impresses in the degree to which he's forged a cross-city, cross-ideology, cross-everything coalition united around the core conceit of despising Bill de Blasio (the pandemic isn't helping things, but this dynamic predates that). De Blasio's predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, was rich enough that essentially nothing mattered about his tenure, but it certainly didn't end up helping him one whit when he ran for President this year. And before that we have of course Rudy Giuliani, who managed to take a gift-wrapped political present as "America's mayor" and parlay it into perhaps the most embarrassing presidential campaign of my lifetime (and following that ... well, we all know where that story goes). Who on earth looks at that history and thinks "me next!"?

To be clear: I'm glad that there still are talented figures who want the job. It'd be far worse if they didn't; a place like New York needs and deserves smart, ambitious politicians who are willing to tackle the myriad problems it faces as the biggest city in America. And there's an alternate universe where mayor of New York is considered a real prize.

But boy oh boy, count me as glad I'm not one of the candidates for the job. Whoever ends up emerging out the other side as the next mayor of the Big Apple, wish them luck, because I'll bet they need it.

Getting Specific

Back in the day, I noted the absurdity of anyone railing on Obama's "lack of experience" while giving anything but scorn to Rudy Giuliani. Alas, Hizzoner's brilliant campaign strategy ("1.Lose state after state by resounding margins. 2. ? 3. Victory!") somehow foundered, so that rule is now moot. However, we have a replacement: neither John McCain nor his supporters get to complain about Obama's supposed lack of specificity, or his supposed lack of policy knowledge, or his supposed appeal that is based solely on his personal attributes.

McCain takes a strong interest in foreign policy, to be sure, but his main public appeal has been to endless remind voters of his history as a POW. On economics, he's repeatedly admitted that he knows very little. And on social issues, he doesn't even know what his own positions are. (See this hilarious report from last year.)

McCain is like Obama in that he's appealed to voters largely on the basis of broad themes and his personal charisma and history. The difference is that Obama is a former law professor who's actually done his homework on the policy, and McCain is still winging it.

Of course, this is St. McCain we're talking about, so rest assured he'll never be called on it.

Riding the Youth Wave

Andrew Sullivan reminds us that neither Hanover (Dartmouth) nor Durham (UNH) have reported yet. Based on the folks I know at Dartmouth, I know that Giuliani probably will gain at least one vote there. And he's in a tight enough duel with Paul that he could actually use it.

But obviously, this is where Obama needs to clean up. Youth powered him to victory in Iowa, and I know for a fact how lop-sided college towns can go. Can it be Obama's savior here?

Yay, drama!

What I'm Doing Right Now

In theory, I'm doing reading for class tomorrow, but thus far I've been totally ineffective at it. In reality, I'm trying to exercise my latent mental powers to influence the New Hampshire primary results. Aside from trying to will Obama past Clinton in the New Hampshire primary (the obvious one), I'm also pulling for Ron Paul to squeak past Rudy Giuliani on the Republican side. It's not because I particularly care for Ron Paul, but I do like the idea of humiliating Giuliani, and a fifth place finish behind a Texas nut-case would accomplish that goal rather nicely.

Though when I think about it, it's a tough call between "I'm not a racist but..." Paul and the only man who makes Dick Cheney look like Patrick Henry in terms of love for boundless executive power.

Book Jacket Time!

OxBlogger Patrick Porter, reviewing Giuliani adviser Norman Podhoretz's World War IV:

If Kenneth Anderson's writings are the vintage Pinot Noir of the neocon vinyard, Podhoretz's manifesto is the rancid two-dollar Spumante.

Yikes.

Fire Away

Earlier today, the co-chairman of "Veterans for Rudy in New Hampshire" made a rather impolitic remark on how Rudy was the guy who will "chase them [Muslims] back to their caves or in other words get rid of them."". Kind of indicative of the sort of fellow who supports Rudy Giuliani, but I figured that the story would take a predictable course: the speaker would backtrack, saying that he only meant "Islamofascists" or something of the like, Rudy would disavow him, and the guy would quickly decide to spend some more time with his family.

Instead, when contacted for a follow up, the man in question, John Deady, stood by his comments and expanded on them:

"I don't subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims," Deady told me by phone from his home in New Hampshire. "They're all Muslims."

Yikes! He did, however, clarify that when he said "get rid of them", he "wasn't necessarily (!) referring to genocide." Which is good, I suppose, though I'd rather he dropped the "necessarily" entirely. But nonetheless, this is absolutely extremist territory. What should Giuliani do about Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress? Should he be forced to take a Glenn Beck-style loyalty test? How about Israel's Muslim cabinet Minister -- does he need to be chased back into a cave?

Nobody is saying that this is Giuliani's actual beliefs, but given the flap over Clinton campaign surrogates saying the word Madrassa, shouldn't this be somewhat of a big deal? Thus far, the Giuliani campaign has no comment. If they don't have a comment within 24 hours along the lines of "we deplore these sentiments and totally disassociate ourselves from them", there better be some hard questioning going on about -- at the very least -- whom Giuliani feels comfortable associating with.

UPDATE: Mr. Deady has offered his resignation, and the Giuliani campaign has accepted.

The Real Reason To Say No To Giuliani

Steve Benen has the scoop on the latest Giuliani scandal to hit -- this one having to do with him using official resources to conduct (and cover up) his affair with Judith Regan Nathan (too many scandals, too little time....).

Eh. I mean, maybe I'm just jaded. But while I certainly find this very distasteful, it annoys me that we have to use this has the route to derail his campaign. Giuliani is a nut. He has authoritarian instincts, a foreign policy that seems to consisted of blowing up any country that winks at us the wrong way, and really just doesn't seem to have the skill set needed to be an effective President. I'd be far happier if that became the reason his campaign lost steam.

Too idealist, I guess.

Give Him More Rope

So I didn't get my one wish for election night. And, in fact, CNN is reporting that now-reelected Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour could be on the Republican Vice Presidential short-list.

At first, my reaction was disgust. I find it viscerally offensive that Barbour could be elected to anything but "model prisoner", much less Governor or Vice President. But, upon reflection, this might be a good thing. Barbour has a massive amount of skeletons in his closet. He just screams slime (TNR had a great article on him that, unfortunately, I can no longer find -- but here is some info from The Washington Note). Putting him on a ticket would shout to the heavens: "K Street Corruption is Back!", and if Democrats can't exploit that come 2008, they don't deserve to win.

I mean, can you imagine a Giuliani/Barbour ticket? I'm squealing just thinking about it. And it isn't unreasonable either -- Giuliani needs to shore himself up in the south, and Barbour is about a south as you can get without resurrecting Strom Thurmond. But together, that's the sort of ticket that could give Nixon/Agnew a run for its money.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

(Anti-)Primary Colors

I have to think Rudy Giuliani's anniversary letter to the Stonewall Veterans Association may come back to haunt him in the GOP primaries.

For those of you who don't know about the 1969 Stonewall Riots, they are considered a landmark event in the American gay rights movement. See the Wikipedia article for more information.

Lamb Chops

Apparently, Rudy Giuliani has written ("has written") a foreign policy manifesto for Foreign Affairs magazine. It's called "Toward a Realistic Peace," though in his nut summary, Jim Henley provides the alternative title of "Don't Say You Weren't Warned." Best part of his distillation:

You will not enjoy a day of peace so long as Rudy has anything to say about it. Peace is something we will "achieve" in the distant future when the lion has been clubbed senseless with the lamb.

Now that's biblical imagery!

Running on "Racist"

I understand my definition of "racist", while supported in the academic literature, is much broader than the popular conception. So, there a persons (more often, policies) I consider to be "racist" that other people do not. I think that's a problem, but it is irrelevant to the forthcoming conversation. For "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani has decided the best way to win back conservative primary votes is to brag about how he's viewed by some of his Black former constituents.

The campaign also helpfully provided a bunch of quotes from New York papers that demonstrate Giuliani's conservative credentials, such as this one from The Amsterdam News in 2000 (before Giuliani dropped out of the U.S. Senate race):

"[Giuliani's] Only Hope For An Overwhelming Victory In Upstate New York Would Be To Remain As He Is: A Hard-Nosed, Evil, Racist Republican Conservative."

The Amsterdam News is a NYC-based paper catering to the Black community. Remember, Giuliani thinks that being called a racist will gain him votes in conservative primaries.

Know-Nothing Candidate

Continuing on the theme of why are we giving Rudy Giuliani a pass on the "experience" issue, when his Presidential resume consists of two terms at the Municipal level of government, Jon Chait points out that there is nothing in Giuliani's background that would remotely suggest he knows anything about foreign policy. Given that America's foreign policy stance likely will remain an important issue come 2008, this, to say the least, should be a problem.