Posted on 10/30/2003 6:22:46 AM PST by NYC GOP Chick
udolph W. Giuliani is lending his clout to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's campaign to ban party primaries, appearing in a mailing that the mayor is sending out urging voters to support the ballot measure.
Mr. Giuliani was Mr. Bloomberg's not-so-secret weapon during the 2001 mayoral campaign, and now, as the effort to abolish party primaries enters its final days, he is being rolled out once again to try to sway another tough election.
It is hardly surprising that Mr. Giuliani favors nonpartisan elections: he called for the change as mayor, and two of his charter revision commissions studied the idea, but did not put the question before voters.
Now that Mr. Bloomberg's commission has put a proposal to ban party primaries on the ballot next Tuesday, Mr. Giuliani is lending his star power to Mr. Bloomberg's sizable mail campaign.
A Bloomberg administration official said that the Giuliani mailing should begin arriving in mailboxes by Friday or Saturday. Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican, is spending at least $2 million of his own money on his campaign to ban the primaries.
"Rudy Giuliani is voting YES for nonpartisan elections, Proposal 3," says the mailing, which features a photograph of Mr. Giuliani in front of an American flag. It goes on to quote Mr. Giuliani as saying that the proposal "promises to free voters and elected officials alike from the grips of excessively partisan politics."
Mr. Giuliani's decision to come out publicly in favor of the proposal to ban party primaries came as the plan's opponents ratcheted up their own campaigns.
Howard Dean, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, sent an e-mail message to his supporters in New York City urging them to vote against the measure. Union leaders held a news conference denouncing it. Members of the Working Families Party, a left-leaning party supported by labor unions, descended on City Hall dressed up in top hats, with tails, cigars, and glasses of champagne to illustrate their contention that the plan would favor the rich.
Suddenly the debate, which has been waged for months at a pitch inaudible to most New Yorkers, is beginning to be heard.
Newspaper editorial boards are weighing in. Editorials in The New York Times, The New York Post and Newsday have urged people to vote against the plan. Editorials in The New York Daily News and The New York Observer supported it. The Democratic Party argues that the proposal is an attempt to undermine Democrats in a city where they have a five to one enrollment advantage.
"In the closing days we will highlight the fact that nonpartisan elections advantage Republicans and the wealthy at the expense of Democrats and minorities," said Howard Wolfson, a strategist hired by the Democrats to fight the plan.
Dr. Dean used that theme in his message. "Why is this proposal on your ballot?" it asked. "The answer is easy. A Republican mayor wants to weaken the Democratic Party in a city where there are more than 2.7 million registered Democrats."
To counter such criticism, Mr. Bloomberg sent out a mailing that says, "Nonpartisan elections strengthen the Democratic Party," and notes that the mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, a Democrat, was elected under a nonpartisan system.
The Democrats are sure to note that the proposal's three best-known proponents are Republicans: Mayor Bloomberg, Gov. George E. Pataki, and Mr. Giuliani.
Mr. Bloomberg, a former Democrat who joined the Republican Party to run for mayor, said yesterday that he was convinced that the plan would open up the electoral process and take power away from party bosses and special interests.
"The fact that you hear all this screaming tells you exactly how prevalent special interests are in the city," he said. "The only argument against this is you have an advantage over someone else, and you don't want to give it up."
Mr. Bloomberg would not say whether he would make television commercials promoting the proposal. Asked twice yesterday whether he planned to, he said only that he would make the necessary public disclosures if he did.
"I will report when I report when I report what I have to report," he said. "And if I buy something, and you're privy to seeing it, you'll be able to see it at that time."
William T. Cunningham, the mayor's communications director, said that the mayor had no plans to do television commercials. "We've booked no time; we've produced nothing," he said yesterday.
The Democratic Party, which says it expects to spend $400,000 on its campaign, is expected to send out its own mailing soon. Several unions are also spending money trying to oppose the plan, and some Democratic City Council members running for re-election have included requests that residents vote against the change on their re-election campaign mailings. Opponents still predict that the mayor will outspend them.
On the steps of City Hall yesterday, officials from the Working Families Party announced the creation of a Web site to fight the plan, www.themayorslatestbadidea.com, with the help of a party member dressed in a top hat and tails who called himself "Mayor Bloombucks."
Then again, this reminds me of the "Bad Rudy" -- the one who endorsed Cuomo in 1994 and who supports just about all forms of abortion, including partial-birth abortion...
It would make more sense to have the city commission elect one of their own to be mayor - at least there would be some consensus.
And the disarming of citizens.
In general, it is a bad idea, because most voters are poorly informed and vote by party affiliation, which at least gives them some idea of who is to the left and right.
In New York City and State, there is the added fillip of the Independence Party trying to exert its influence here. They gave themselves that phoney name so that people who wanted to register as unaffiliated would be confused and register as members of their party, and so that people who are constitutionally incapable of voting Republican could vote for a Republican on the Independence line and feel good about themselves at the same time.
The Conservative Party should sue these people, since the IP has usurped the third place on the ballot lineup, which used to belong to the CP. And the GOP should start standing up for Republican principles and end its dependence on Fulani oil.
Seriously, I don't know. I've gone back and forth on this one. Non-partisan elections would undeniably favor incumbents and the rich; on the other hand, they would go a long way toward reducing the power of corrupt party bosses.
Another issue that I haven't heard discussed is that by running on party tickets, candidates (especially Dems) are forced to take positions on issues on which they may have no strong conviction and that have nothing whatsoever to do with the position for which they are contending.
As for hurting the GOP, I think the Dummycrats have more to lose: look at the labor bigwigs (not to mention Mayor Stinkins, Gifford Miller, etc.) who are ranting against the change. Besides, it seems to me an undeclared Republican may have as good if not better a chance of being one of two top vote-getters in September than of actually getting past a Dummycrat nominee in November.
Still, I'm undecided, and probably will waver until I step into the voting booth. Any input appreciated.
It goes on to quote Mr. Giuliani as saying that the proposal "promises to free voters and elected officials alike from the grips of excessively partisan politics."
I happen to *like* partisanship. To me, that's what politics is about -- defending and advancing your ideals and values, not compromising them and winding up in the mushy middle. I value working for and achieving these ideals and values over getting together for a rousing rendition of Kumbaya with the leftists as the RINOs take pride in convincing the left that lower tax increases are great, instead of hammering away for tax cuts.
Whenever something is presented as a "good government" move, watch out. Nobody does anything for that reason. The chronically uninformed voters will not vote for "the candidate on his own merits"--they will go to the voting booth just as ignorant as ever and vote either for (1) the person whose name they have heard most often, i.e. the richest one or the celebrity; (2) the Democrat; (3) the one they think has their own ethnicity, gender, religion, etc., as far as they can judge by the name. Or else they will just stay home, as has happened in many cities where nonpartisan elections have been adopted.
Or else they will just stay home, as has happened in many cities where nonpartisan elections have been adopted.
That's not what the pro-nonpartisans are telling us...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.