To the Editor:
Re “You Must Never Vote for Bloomberg” (column, Nov. 11):
Charles M. Blow’s diatribe against Michael R. Bloomberg is a perfect example of why American progressives almost never succeed in electing anybody.
At the end of three terms of Mr. Bloomberg’s mayoralty in New York City, The New York Times said: “The crime rate is down, the transportation system is more efficient, the environment is cleaner.” All good reasons for people of any color to consider his candidacy for president.
And I largely agree with Mr. Blow’s opposition to stop-and-frisk, but it was not a “terror campaign” against young black and Hispanic men; it was an overreaction to gun violence, which, like mandatory sentencing for drug offenses, had racist consequences that were not anticipated when the program was begun.
Please, progressives, do the electoral math: If you take all those who wouldn’t vote for Elizabeth Warren because of “Medicare for all,” and all those who wouldn’t vote for Pete Buttigieg because he’s gay, and add those who wouldn’t vote for Mr. Bloomberg because of stop-and-frisk, your sum is likely a Trump victory.
David Berman
New York
To the Editor:
Charles M. Blow says “never vote for Bloomberg” because of a complete and nonnegotiable deal breaker, his expansion of stop-and-frisk. That’s foolish. Everyone has done something we can hate.
If we eliminate all candidates we believe to have committed a nonnegotiable deal breaker, we will re-elect a man who has committed a thousand nonnegotiable deal breakers. This election is not a process of elimination.
Ted Tsomides
Raleigh, N.C.
To the Editor:
I recognize the pain and suffering caused by Michael Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy as mayor of New York. If he runs for president, he will have to address this legacy directly. I would, however, challenge Charles M. Blow’s assertion that no black or brown people should ever vote for him.
Mr. Bloomberg’s legacy includes many extraordinary efforts that have revolutionized global health efforts worldwide and disproportionately improved the lives of black and brown people. Specifically, his ban on trans fats caused a drop in heart attacks, and his smoking ban helped create a 33 percent drop in smoking.
By the end of his mayoralty, New Yorkers had a three-year longer life span than when he began. His initiatives have had a positive domino effect across global health to this day.
I would love to know how many people — black, brown, white or otherwise — are alive today because of policies he put in place as mayor of New York.
Elanna Lazar
New York
To the Editor:
I admire and appreciate Charles M. Blow’s passion, but really? If I support Michael R. Bloomberg for president, you want nothing to do with me? Very harsh.
Cynthia Aronoff
To the Editor:
Re “Run, Mike, Run!,” by Bret Stephens (column, Nov. 9):
As a New Yorker, I’m no fan of Michael R. Bloomberg. He sullied the streets of my beloved city with bikes, drove rents skyward and has a penchant for telling people how to live their lives. But politically he’s as centrist as it gets, and that’s what the country needs.
Pushing the political pendulum to the far left will only provide the potential energy necessary to swing it back to the far right a few years from now. A Bloomberg presidency would be a victory for moderates of every stripe, and extremists on both sides would be left without a voice, as they should be.
For the life of me I can’t understand why Mr. Bloomberg wants this aggravation, but he’s hard-working, financially independent, and he’ll tame the National Rifle Association.
On the other hand he’s no socialist, and he probably thinks that being “woke” is what he pays his butler for.
He’s got my vote.
Gary Taustine
New York
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | A Litmus Test for Michael Bloomberg?
Opinion | A Litmus Test for Michael Bloomberg?
To the Editor:
Re “You Must Never Vote for Bloomberg” (column, Nov. 11):
Charles M. Blow’s diatribe against Michael R. Bloomberg is a perfect example of why American progressives almost never succeed in electing anybody.
At the end of three terms of Mr. Bloomberg’s mayoralty in New York City, The New York Times said: “The crime rate is down, the transportation system is more efficient, the environment is cleaner.” All good reasons for people of any color to consider his candidacy for president.
And I largely agree with Mr. Blow’s opposition to stop-and-frisk, but it was not a “terror campaign” against young black and Hispanic men; it was an overreaction to gun violence, which, like mandatory sentencing for drug offenses, had racist consequences that were not anticipated when the program was begun.
Please, progressives, do the electoral math: If you take all those who wouldn’t vote for Elizabeth Warren because of “Medicare for all,” and all those who wouldn’t vote for Pete Buttigieg because he’s gay, and add those who wouldn’t vote for Mr. Bloomberg because of stop-and-frisk, your sum is likely a Trump victory.
David Berman
New York
To the Editor:
Charles M. Blow says “never vote for Bloomberg” because of a complete and nonnegotiable deal breaker, his expansion of stop-and-frisk. That’s foolish. Everyone has done something we can hate.
If we eliminate all candidates we believe to have committed a nonnegotiable deal breaker, we will re-elect a man who has committed a thousand nonnegotiable deal breakers. This election is not a process of elimination.
Ted Tsomides
Raleigh, N.C.
To the Editor:
I recognize the pain and suffering caused by Michael Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy as mayor of New York. If he runs for president, he will have to address this legacy directly. I would, however, challenge Charles M. Blow’s assertion that no black or brown people should ever vote for him.
Mr. Bloomberg’s legacy includes many extraordinary efforts that have revolutionized global health efforts worldwide and disproportionately improved the lives of black and brown people. Specifically, his ban on trans fats caused a drop in heart attacks, and his smoking ban helped create a 33 percent drop in smoking.
By the end of his mayoralty, New Yorkers had a three-year longer life span than when he began. His initiatives have had a positive domino effect across global health to this day.
I would love to know how many people — black, brown, white or otherwise — are alive today because of policies he put in place as mayor of New York.
Elanna Lazar
New York
To the Editor:
I admire and appreciate Charles M. Blow’s passion, but really? If I support Michael R. Bloomberg for president, you want nothing to do with me? Very harsh.
Cynthia Aronoff
To the Editor:
Re “Run, Mike, Run!,” by Bret Stephens (column, Nov. 9):
As a New Yorker, I’m no fan of Michael R. Bloomberg. He sullied the streets of my beloved city with bikes, drove rents skyward and has a penchant for telling people how to live their lives. But politically he’s as centrist as it gets, and that’s what the country needs.
Pushing the political pendulum to the far left will only provide the potential energy necessary to swing it back to the far right a few years from now. A Bloomberg presidency would be a victory for moderates of every stripe, and extremists on both sides would be left without a voice, as they should be.
For the life of me I can’t understand why Mr. Bloomberg wants this aggravation, but he’s hard-working, financially independent, and he’ll tame the National Rifle Association.
On the other hand he’s no socialist, and he probably thinks that being “woke” is what he pays his butler for.
He’s got my vote.
Gary Taustine
New York
Source: Read Full Article