NYC's GOP "moderate" mayor won't oppose Iraq war.

[Smarmie Doofus]

A few uncharacteristically professional reporters decided to get alleged moderate and confirmed billionaire Michael Bloomberg to clarify his murky position on Iraq on Monday, according to Tuesday's NY Times.

You remember Bloomberg: "The time for demonstrations has passed." No permit to march against the war at the UN. People in wheelchairs beaten up at the UN, thousands of others crowded into pens, thousands more prevented by police barricades from attending. No permit for antiwar rally at RNC. "Preemptive" arrests of of nonviolent demonstrators and "innocent" bystanders.

He's our "moderate" Republican mayor.

Back to our story: First the mayor said "It's not a local issue and I don't have anything to say."

Then, when pressed to state his personal view he said, "I'm not going to walk away from our young men and women (in Iraq)...". Implying that to oppose the war is to "walk away from our young men and women"? (Note also: apparently he thinks it IS a local issue after all.)

He then offered that all New Yorkers "understand" the need to fight against terrorists...". He doesn't explain what this has to do with the Iraq invasion. Is he getting his news from FOX or is he being disingenuous? Either way, a cause for alarm, IMHO.

Finally, there's this: "Asked if he believed the Bush administration has been 'dishonest', he said, 'I don't have any idea'."

Really? The Times didn't say so but I think that reflects an astonishingly low-level of curiosity about so important an issue.Do New Yorkers want to be led by someone so...LACKING in curiosity... not to mention judgment?

Two DEM candidates were quick to seize the day. Gifford Miller ( long shot) commented that B. was afraid of "antagonizing people because of his consistent support of George Bush." And Virgina Fields, who I thought had actually died sometime in May or June, actually emerged momentarily from the crypt with the most on-target comment: (Bloomberg had) "parroted the false justification George Bush had given for the war."

Candidate #3 ( Anthony Weiner) won't say too much since he voted for the IWR... though now he says he shouldn't have. Correct, Anthony.
And the front runner, Fernando Ferrer, doesn't say anything about anything..... ever.

If Gifford and Fields were well advised ( they aren't) they'd scrap all the silly "sitting- in- the- schoolroom-reading to-the-kiddies" ads they are wasting all their $$$ on and go negative on Bloomberg, exclusively.

There is no way a DEM can beat B as long as his negatives are so low, and there is only a month ( assuming there's a DEM runoff) in which to address B's failings directly.

There's lots wrong with Bloomberg, the misperceptions promoted by his media machine notwithstanding; but if no one makes the case, who's going to notice?

[robbedvoter]

1. I wish more people were aware of this - so they give a damn

about replacing him. Unfortunately, look at the play this thread is getting...

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Lot's of folks here like Bloomberg, sad to say.

It IS unfortunate. I think that, after Giuliani, some liberals are relieved to have a *low-key* Machiavellian type as opposed to all the yelling and screaming of the 1990's.

A benevolent despot... or so they'd prefer to believe. Trouble is, he ain't so "benevolent".

[robbedvoter]

3. As Miller said: Giuliani is a pretty low bar to hop.

Low expectations, low results. here's to more GOp conventions in NYC and BFEE parades...Morons earned it.

[AX10]

4. I want a Democrat in the blue city of New York.

No more Rethugs!

[HKTech]

5. Have you been paying attention?

The Bush White House is the most petty and vindictive organization in the history of Government, they outed a spy because her husband told the truth, they stabbed democrats in the back, and don't forget what they did to South Dakota after Daschele lost. They put Nixon to shame.

And now you want Bloomberg to start giving them sh*t for things he has no control over? You want NYC to lose the Empire State Building or the Brooklyn Bridge?

Bloomberg is doing what any smart politician is doing.

And let's be honest, Sharpton has helped more Republicans get elected than Democrats.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Diligently.

So you're saying that if Bloomberg doesn't support Bush they will blow-up the Empire State Building.

Ok.

But then shouldn't we ALL support Bush, then? Why Bloomberg, and not the rest of us?