This year election was a landslide for democrats especially for progressive liberals. The 49 points victory for Bill de Blasio was one of the worst defeat for the GOP after a 20 year mayoral control.
The landslide in part was led by 96% of the 30% black population. Capturing more votes then the first elected black mayor David Dinkins in 1989.
Many voters believed his charismatic personality, pledging to help the poor and the working class with a progressive change. His biracial family helped affect voters decision during the primary and a landslide in the general, using his children in commercials and bring his wife in every campaign event. By using his family it helped showed a connection between a relationship of blacks and whites. They believe it will help model a better relationship of connections.
This victory is said to help bring a black voice to city hall after a feeling of neglected for almost 2 decades. They want a change in the stop question and frisk program in terms of ending it and de Blasio has made a promise to end this program. During the primary, de Blasio ran an ad using his son on this issue of stop and frisk by bashing it as a racial profiling. His frequent voice of this program on black men helped receive an electric reception throughout the campaign trail. The message helped make an impact winning majority of black votes with a win in the tough primary battle after polling with only 10% in June.
Many blacks feel optimistic of the future. A continuation of all the good that has happened in 20 years might not continue under de Blasio since he stated he will change many of Mayor Bloomberg policy such as public safety, education and zoning.
Instead of thoroughly explaining how de Blasio will implement his progressive reform in city hall, in which its not in details and the short notes is scary unrealistic, his campaign strategy was based on relationship with diverse voters based on shared experience and values which helped bring a record of turn out numbers. Being vague on his progressive populist view will come out once in office and how he works with city council, unions and Albany to get what he stated in his campaign platform. His main campaign platform was raising tax on an income of over $500,000 to sponsor universal pre-k programs in NYC. In regards to public safety, he wants community policing but to end the stop and frisk program, which help bring crime down to a record low. Retro active pay in unions was a big deal in this election where de Blasio has been vague on how to deal and negotiate with unions contracts. It will cost the city $7 billion, 10% of the city budget in which the city can’t afford can bankrupt the city or cause major budget cuts in schools, public safety and programs the city funds yearly. Will de Blasio turn NYC as another Detroit or keep the fiscal spending reasonable? Will crime rise after a 12 year drop? Will de Blasio become another Dinkins 2.0?
The daily news endorsed Bill de Blasio for mayor with less than 24 hours left before the polls open. The endorsement doesn’t come as a shocker since the daily news is a liberal newspaper catering to democrats and union leaders. De Blasio a candidate with 20 years of political service but no managerial experience is expected to run a $70 billion budget –but how?!
The daily news endorsement editorial if read by readers in details will show a great disservice to this election. Quotes from daily news show how this endorsement was like a back room deal to help his mayoral campaign with its final push. Quotes shows it’s double standard such as “The silly season of Bill de Blasio vowing to exile carriage horses as a first order of business is over. De Blasio must soon face reality — and tackle tough issues.” There is no progressive way to help bring this city booming. It can only bring it backwards.
The article continues with de Blasio strong campaign that bashes the twenty years of booming capital and safer city that he believes will continue with his stances differ than what is in use. His tale of two cities campaign platform of wishful thinking will come to an end once it comes time to be a manager by balancing the city budget especially with union endorsements siding with de Blasio in hopes for a new contract and retroactive pay. A budget with no room to for retroactive pay will only happen if there is a trigger in tax increase on the middle class.
Using his family to help with his campaign strategy as a coy to cover his resume to run this city by imploding an unrealistic vision of progressive platform. Naive voters are taking them for granted by bring nothing to the table then empty promises and dead end issues due to his ideology. If elected mayor, de Blasio is going to have to rethink his views and come to reality when issues that many New Yorkers change such as public safety and education.
De Blasio issue on public safety is disgusting to even hear. The centerpiece of his campaign was a full on attack on the department’s program of stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking people suspected of criminality. An anti police candidate with no respect to the 34,000 New York finest, flipped flopped during the debate against republican candidate Joe Lhota. On one debate he attacked the finest for doing their jobs but the last debate he praised the officers for doing their job and keeping New Yorkers safe. After the federal judge was overthrown for believing stop and frisk was unconstitutional, de Blasio lashed out after praising officers the day before, by promising to occupy the police department continuing the fight to end stop and frisk. He also promised to remove Ray Kelly as police commissioner, whose record of strategically anti-crime that helped drastically reduce crime.
On education, de Blasio promised to increase universally Pre-K by taxing the wealthy. This main campaign slogan will be dead in Albany by governor Cuomo who seeks re-election in 2014. If it does go through Albany, this promise might take years or as de Blasio stated 5 years. Sounds like Lenin right?
De Blasio is not in favor of charter schools due to being in the pockets of the UFT and wants to charge rent on charter schools. His few ideas of helping schools achieve is to get parental involvement and retain new teachers to help with the new academic Common Core standards. He opposed Bloomberg education reform and wants to reform and replace them with better insinuation even though it has helped many kids grades improve.
Lacking managerial skills to run this city unlike his opponent Joe Lhota, he is known to flip flop on issues and make promises as an elected official he can’t keep. De Blasio is “willing to reverse course to suit political needs”. A typical political democratic candidate willing to say anything to get elected. As public advocate, he promised to create low income housing near Barclay center as a deal to create this arena. The center is there but no housing has been built. Joining the fight to save the Long Island hospital was the heart of his primary campaign when he was lagging behind. As public advocate he did nothing to get the attention to save the hospital or helped with getting governor Cuomo help on this issue.
A negative endorsement and not a vote of confidants is what the daily news is suggesting. Vote for de Blasio and you are on your own is basically what they are implying. Vote for Joe Lhota. Be safe not sorry
Ladies and Gentlemen, the story you are about to see is true. The names have not been changed to protect the asinine.
So the above quote is modified from Dragnet, a great police procedural from the 1950s and 60s. If you haven’t seen the show, you’ve probably seen a show like it…the call goes out to the officers in the squad car, something like, “10-20 (Robbery) at Broadway and Reade. Suspect is a tall white male, mid-thirties, brown hair, wearing a brown shirt and blue jeans. Suspect is believed to be armed, and should be considered dangerous. Last seen fleeing north on Broadway. Apprehend.”
Of course, police procedural shows like Law and Order have these types of calls, because that’s how police officers talk. The easiest way by far to identify a subject is by age, gender, and color. This is how cops do their job.
Except that Mayoral Candidate Christine Quinn wishes that the nasty cops didn’t use things like age, gender, and color when describing a suspect. And, being Speaker of the New York City Council who needs to revive her flagging and lackluster mayoral campaign, Quinn wants to do something about it. And fast, because the safety of the citizenry is no excuse for losing one’s primary race.
Juumaane Williams, City Council member from Brooklyn, introduced a bill that bars the NYPD from using race, age, gender, or disability in identifying a suspect, or risk a profiling lawsuit. Not surprisingly, and perhaps showing the modicum of intellectual ability that is so rare on amongst our esteemed public servants, Public Safety Committee chair Peter Vallone Jr. refused to let the bill out of committee. Quinn, who the New York Times claims typically responds to opposition by threatening castration, chose a different option, and is bringing the bill for an immediate floor vote.
Not surprisingly, the NYPD, the Policeman’s Benevolent Association, and anyone with mental acuity of a dimwitted chipmunk are against the bill. Because barring the NYPD from broadcasting a suspect’s age, race, and gender is asinine.
In fact, Quinn has actually pledged to vote against the bill, once she was assured that there were enough votes for the bill to pass. What this means is that Quinn has engineered the passage of a bill designed to shore up her voting bloc, while at the same time casting a meaningless vote against that very same bill. On second thought, maybe Quinn isn’t as foolish as she seems. Of course, not being one of the 100 people who bought her book last week(again, according to the New York Times), I can neither confirm nor deny whether Quinn is a fool.
So where does this leave our police friends? Certainly less able to handle crime in Dragnet fashion, since they can’t use race, gender, or age to describe a suspect. Tt puts them square in the Chief Wiggum camp. Paraphrasing from The Simpsons episode 4:11, Homer’s Triple Bypass:
Chief Wiggum: Put out an APB for a suspect, driving a… car of some sort, heading in the direction of, uh, you know, that place that sells chili. Suspect is hatless. Repeat, hatless.
I’ve written on mayoral candidate “Bungalow” Bill de Blasio’s inanity before (Bungalow Bill) and on Thursday afternoon his latest suggestion hit our email inbox. De Blasio, who is currently using his public office’s mailing list as little more than an information dissemination vehicle for his mayoral campaign, provided an email outlining an effort to make New York City “A Safe, Open City for Immigrants.”De Blasio has a five part plan, the most troublesome aspect of which is part three, where he promises to “End City Collaboration with the Abusive Federal Detention and Deportation Process.”
De Blasio’s proposes ending the City’s co-operation with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) division of the Department of Homeland Security. To quote de Blasio “Federal officials regularly submit ‘detainer requests’ (also known as ‘ICE holds’ or ‘immigration holds’) to local law enforcement and Department of Corrections officials. These requests ask local officials to detain an arrested immigrant for up to 48 beyond when he or she would otherwise be entitled to be released, based solely on immigration status…This policy forcibly deputizes local officials and devotes scarce local police resources to enforcing federal immigration law.”
De Blasio’s hortatory on ICE co-operation, which becomes more tedious and less grammatical the further one reads, finishes with a suggestion that New York City enact legislation to “End cooperation with all federal detainers, except those pertaining to arrestees who have been convicted of violent and serious felonies, including drug and human trafficking. Detainers for those with previous misdemeanor convictions will not be honored. Under this proposal, the City will continue to honor ICE detainers for individuals suspected of terrorism and gang activity.”
Although De Blasio’s entire proposal presents all sorts of problems, I’ll confine myself to two. First, you may remember the Arizona immigration case that recently came before the Supreme Court. In the case, Arizona passed a law that, among other things, required police officers to determine immigration status when making a lawful stop. De Blasio called the law “un-American” and claimed it did “nothing to address the pressing problems of our broken immigration system,” and favored the Supreme Court striking down the immigration law. Much as de Blasio hoped, the Court ruled that Federal authority over immigration law was pre-eminent, that Congress “has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so.”
Long story short, the Federal Government gets to exercise authority over immigration, alien status, and removal, and it gets to tell local governments what to do. That includes 8 U.S.C. §1373“Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
So while de Blasio can criticize the Arizona immigration law all he wants, the decision striking down that law, which he’s supported, requires him to obey Federal law. He’s suggested that New York City flout federal law instead.
On to my second point; de Blasio blithely ignores a federal program known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (“SCAAP”). To help local police departments, the federal government enacted SCAAP to provide grants to aid in ICE immigration detention. These funds can be used by local law enforcement for all sorts of things, ranging from hiring guards at the jail, to overtime costs, to developing disaster preparedness plans, medical treatment for those suspected of immigration violations, construction of correctional facilities, vehicle rentals and purchases, officer training, and a whole host of other activities. To receive SCAAP funds, local governments are expected to co-operate with ICE detention requests.
Since 2008, New York City has received $65 million in SCAAP funds. That’s a lot of SCAAP funds. Chicago only received $15 million. Of course, this $65 million not only triggers a moral obligation to assist ICE (since that’s what they’re paying you for), but more importantly that $65 million represents people’s salaries, medical care for immigrants, and officer training, and it hinges on co-operation with ICE.
Why does Mr. de Blasio believe he can break federal law, and why does he favor a plan which puts grant money flowing to New York City at risk?
On April 19, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services announced an $8 million contract with public relations firm Weber Shadwick to educate the public about various aspects of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA,” aka Obamcare). The contract follows a previous public relations contract with Weber Shadwick for $3.1 million, and another with PR firm Porter Novelli in May of 2012 for $20 million.
To date, it doesn’t seem that the public education campaigns have had much effect. According to the Kaiser Foundation, 57% of Americans have nary a clue about how the ACA will impact them, including 67% of those who are uninsured. More than half of Americans think that the ACA created a public option (it didn’t), 7% think the Supreme Court struck down the ACA, and 78% indicate that they haven’t heard enough about the law to know how it will affect them.
Of course, surveys indicate that 73% of Americans don’t know why we fought the Cold War, and 29% don’t know the name of the Vice President (ignorance is bliss, after all) so perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised at America’s lack of understanding about the ACA.
But we’d at least expect President Obama to be in the know about how the ACA is working out. At a rare press question and answer session on Tuesday, President Obama informed us all that “a huge chunk of its [the ACA] already been implemented…for the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing’s already happened, and the impact is that their insurance is stronger, better, more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. Now they don’t have to worry about anything else… On those high risk pools, those who can’t afford it, we’re going to provide them with some subsidies. That’s it. I mean, that’s what’s left to implement because the other stuff’s been implemented and it’s working fine.”
Whew. Big sigh of relief. Most of Obamacare has already been implemented, 85% to 90% of Americans don’t have to worry about anything else, and the high risk pools are going just swimmingly, thank you very much.
Except that the President’s wrong. All that’s been implemented so far are a Medicare drug benefit change, and increasing the mandate for insurers to cover children up to age 26. Still left are the mandates to buy coverage, the increase in taxes and fees that are coming down the pike, massive regulations that tower over 7 feet when printed out, and, let’s not forget, the state run exchanges that are so far behind schedule that even Max Baucus, one of the bill’s primary proponents, called them a “train wreck.” Enrollment in the exchanges begins on October 31, 2013, with coverage starting January 1, 2014.
85% to 90% of us have nothing to worry about? Surely the President isn’t counting the 7 million workers whom the Congressional Budget Office expects will lose their job based coverage due to Obamamcare, or the millions of senior citizens that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said will lose their private Medicare Advantage Plans once the law’s sharp payment cuts go into effect. What about the insurance rate increases that Blue Cross and other health insurers have announced because they have to comply with Obamacare’s many market regulations? Maryland’s largest insurer announced a 15% rate hike, and in Missouri rates are expected to go up 89%. Not a thing to worry about.
Thank heaven at least the implementation of the high risk pools are going great. Well, except for the fact that they’ve only attracted a third of the expected amount of applicants, and even at that rate they’re already over budget.
Maybe the good folks at Weber Shadwick and Porter Novelli can spend some of their PR money educating the President about the bill. If he doesn’t understand it, how can we?
A few words from Thatcher”s vast amount of insightful conservative quotes:
“In the Conservative Party we have no truck with outmoded Marxist doctrine about class warfare. For us it is not who you are, who your family is or where you come from that matters, but what you are and what you can do for your country that counts.”– Margaret Thatcher 1984
“Without economic liberty, there could be no true political liberty.”– Margaret Thatcher 1979
“Let me give you my vision: A man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master. These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free country, and on that freedom all of our other freedoms depend.” — Margaret Thatcher 1975
Merry Christmas! (even if it is a little late)
Here’s a review of this Thomas L. Friedman article by William M. Palumbo.
This article is written by a socialist. I mean that in the following way: it has the mentality behind it that regards government and its leaders as being the reason for progress in the world. It gives little credit to everyday individuals and looks to the Nietzschean Übermensch as the catalyst of change. This elitist charge is becomes doubly offensive to the defender of a free society because Friedman, at the same time, presumes that this person comes from government. (Keep in mind that only agents of government possess the ability to affect change through legal use of force.)
Thomas Friedman, while implicitly recognizing what sort of production actually benefits living standards and those that do not (re: his argument, that to the detriment of society, the best intellectually are entering the financial services industry and not engineering or manufacturing, etc.) does not seem to apply this argument to which direction progress should take; to what voyage should our country next embark on? Instead of leaving this uncharted course to be navigated on the free market, he presumes, incredibly, to know what must be done. For example we need investment in new energy and it should be governmentally imposed at a cost to us all, a cost presumably acceptable to Friedman and thus his class. It is an argument for how best to readjust the classes under him so as to make his own life more accommodating, and is argued in a way an aristocrat might to the peasantry if he had no worry for revolt. I believe we can see this aristocratic attitude clearly in the first three snobby paragraphs, bragging, as they are, in blasé self-contentment.
Immediately the column, as it enters
Two points here: first, the money being spent is largely on pork, and, while it will not be the end of us, it will certainly prolong this recession. Second, if we are going to spend money on infrastructure, do we really have to focus on international airport terminals before, say, roads and bridges? Is a less than 12’ high terminal really going to offend the tastes of your average business traveler enough that they stop conducting business with the largest, most productive and prolific economy in the world? I, for one, sincerely doubt that, and I also doubt that if Friedman took the time to consider his own argument as formulated he would find practicality either. The man is, in all probability, in and out of airports frequently, some surely with less than grand terminals (which speaks to how little effect they have on him business-wise) and thus views “infrastructure” not as a middle-class person or blue-collar worker, but as one of privilege.
Friedman views Americans as “dumb as we wanna be.” Besides infrastructure, his wish list includes shoveling pork to teachers (a popular idea based on the fallacy that money alone yields higher standards in education), nationalizing education standards, changing immigration laws (a very good idea, though I very much doubt Friedman would support sealing the southern border as a complement to relaxing other restrictions to increase the importing of intellectual capital), and dictating what cars private industry should produce. It’s a laundry list of which Mao would see much merit.
Back to the socialist attitude: are Friedman’s not the pretenses of every socialist? The assumptions made by one whom considers too exclusively his own position and/or personality in society, not sufficiently able to extend their ethics past current personal conditions? Friedman shows disdain for genuine choice when he states that cheap “energy prices” (that is, energy that is already inflated in price due to our own government) is delaying investment in new fuel. (He misses the fact that future research by energy companies is figured into the price.) Would he like to make gasoline $8 a gallon by tax and fund the energy research publicly rather than privately? One gets the sense he would, yet I would ask he justify subsidizing the research costs of energy companies. His instincts in problem solving have a theme of centralization, and that has proved economically, and intellectually for that matter, backwards.
Finally, the very title suggests that he views
The New York Young Republican Club will be hosting a watch party with the Metropolitan Republican Club to cheer on McCain in the last Presidential Debate.
Join the NYYRC and Met Club for another great Debate Watch Event!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Met Club, 122 East 83rd Street
b/w Park and Lexington Avenues
$15 – Includes Beer, Wine and Light Food
RSVP at email@example.com
Media Contact: Jen Saunders firstname.lastname@example.org
A question to those Americans who are planning on voting for Barack Obama in November: Do you like being thought of as malleable fools?
No, I’m not talking about his liberal positions, though will undoubtedly lead our economy further into the tank, among other ill effects. I’m talking about his almost parody-like, double talking duplicity when it comes to gaining political advantage. Consider the promises he’s now renegged:
1) “Disowning” Wright, only after Wright called him a typical politician
2) Embracing NAFTA, after suggesting he would renegotiate the agreement to benefit American workers
3) Supports legislative protection for phone companies who help federal agencies engage in wiretapping
4) Abandoning the public financing system system after collecting record amounts of donations – shiftily blaming this decision on Republican smear groups, of which there are effectively 0 operating at the current time. Ironically, it’s MoveOn.org, the liberal smear group, that is the most active thus far in the election.
5) The latest, most unbelievably comical example: claiming to support gun ownership in light of the Heller decision, and claiming his former stance on gun ownership restrictions was a misconception based on fallacy, after HIS AIDE checked the wrong box on a questionnaire.
There are more, I’m sure. But seriously, Sen. Obama is now trying to have the American electorate believe that an aide is responsible for his reputation as being against the 2nd Amendment. He’s bet on the stupidity of the American people, and unfortunately, according to the polls, he’s got a 50/50 shot in winning.
The WSJ editorial board brings us encouraging news on the school choice front out of Florida – a number of Democrats that initially opposed a school-choice program voted to extend it because their constituents have embraced it.
The teacher’s union is a powerful lobby, but hopefully as more and more of these programs help poor families secure a better education for their children and word spreads of their success, more families will gain access to alternatives to failing public schools.
The Wall Street Journal – Democrats for School Choice