As promised earlier today, we're liveblogging from the Working Families Party's Mayoral Forum, at the Hotel Trades Council Union Hall in midtown Manhattan. We'll be joined by two leading Democratic candidates, Bill Thompson and Tony Avella, and the incumbent Michael Bloomberg. If you have any questions, comments or thoughts for us, please let us know in the comments, and we'll try to reflect those interests in our coverage.
7:55 Thompson finishing up. They all handled themselves respectably. People are ready for dinner in back. Is it a standing O for Bill or for the food line?
Thanks to Charles, Levitan and crew for welcoming blogging and getting wi-fi back up.
And thank you, WFP, for planning this forum a 3-minute walk from Rudy's...it is Drinking Liberally night (and we're late!). Come on out to keep the conversation going. -jk
7:50 From Thompson's case for his electability: "This is not 2005. The economy was booming, people liked where they were. This is 2009, the economy is failing, people are scared and want change in City Hall." -jb
7:48 To the final question, from Dan Cantor, about convincing WFP Thompson could beat the Bloomberg behemoth, Thompson just had the first laugh-out-loud line of the night: "I'll quote someone who said, 'Rich guys don't always win.'"...which was Bloomberg's defense of spending $100 million on the campaign just 40 minutes ago.
A second reference to Obama too... -jk
7:47 Judging by this forum, one line that is going to be used against Bloomberg consistently is that hat his response to every economic question is "But we love the rich." Oh, and "Why is Michael Bloomberg willing to run on the Republican line if he doesn't believe in parties?" -jb
7:46 Uh-oh, Bill...people in the backroom are starting to eat. You're competing with food!
Good answer on the pride of running on party lines...and asking "Can anyone imagine Barack Obama on the Republican line?" got some laughs. -jk
7:44 By the way, we're not the only ones watching. Public Advocate candidate just made this his Facebook status update: "is not impressed that the Mayor said at the WFP forum that calling 311 is a solution for tenants facing eviction from their home. Wrong answer!" (He's a WFP endorsed candidate) -jk
Later today, the Working Families Party will be hosting a Mayoral Forum for the two leading Democratic candidates, Bill Thompson and Tony Avella, and the incumbent Michael Bloomberg.
There's a great debate in New York State right now -- great because it reflects a larger debate around the country: shouldn't the wealthiest New Yorkers pay their fair share?
As this video shows, there's some confusion already over who is paying what:
All New Yorkers earning over $20k, pay the same rate. Fair Share Tax Reformers in NY are calling on the Governor to follow the President's lead and ask those earning $250,000 to pay a higher rate.
One counter argument: "If we raise taxes on the rich, they'll move away."
Beside the fact that if you like NYC, you sort of can't imagine living anywhere else, you also run into this problem, as noted on the Fair Share Blog: Iowa's tax rates are higher than New York. And for folks earning more than $500,000, so are New Jersey's.
The good news: the city's wealthiest resident isn't going anywhere -- in fact, he changed the law to ensure that he could stay in office 4 more years...and giving us 4 more years to raise his taxes.
It's time to continue our look at the Cabinet in the upcoming Obama administration. Second - Secretary of the Treasury, perhaps the most important appointment President-elect Obama will make, given the current economic circumstances.
There are several excellent options - some who served in the Clinton Administration - some outsiders - and even some paradigm breaking choices. For convenience, I've taken the list from a betting site (yes, it is in the order of the oddsmakers' favorite).
There were Republicans on the list, and I've left out the "I don't believe it" names still on the betting lines such as Phil Gramm and Bob Zoellick. There's also some chatter about keeping Paulson on, temporarily to administer the bailout. So as distasteful as it seems, I kept his name on the list.
Perhaps one key criteria (which you're free to throw to the side of the road) is whether the candidate would inspire confidence in the markets.
(X posted at MyDD - will X post at DK, as soon as the clock allows me to post another diary there)
New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has scheduled a vote for thus Thursday on extending theirs and the Mayor's term limits.
One argument for term limits is that incumbents may misuse the power of their office to stay in office. Regardless of whether you believe in term limits in principle, you see that concern come true in the case of New York.
Council Member Bill de Blasio, who along with the Working Families Pary's Its Our Decision campaign, has been leading the charge against the change, outlined the process concerns at a forum last night: Council members are voting on their own jobs; the publishers of the major dailies were on board with the Mayor before their editorial boards were approached; the major proponent of term limits in the past has been offered a seat on the review commission in return for his cooperation now; there are reports that the Speaker has threatened to strip committee chair posts from recalcitrant members; the Mayor's advocates have hired people to sit in hearings as supporters; and all of this is being rushed through an uncustomary two-week process that has left hundreds of New Yorkers who have come to testify closed out of the hearing rooms.
To de Blasio, it's not about term limits -- it's about the problems of corporate media, self-funded candidates and a willingness to ditch democratic process.
Mayor Bloomberg is usually pretty calm and confident, one of the many qualities that has given him impressive approval numbers among New Yorkers.
So why has he been snapping at reporters? He lost his cool as a reporter asked about the pressure he and Speaker Christine Quinn were putting on Council Members to rush through their proposal to extend their own term limits.
Look I am not here to debate you; ask your question and I'll answer it...When you get done with your speech, let us know. You can write it out. Whenever you have a question, I'll be happy to answer it.
(Check out the video segment from NY1 -- the Mayor is 30 seconds in.)
What bee's in Bloomie's bonnet? Well, it's simple: rich, older men know best, and when anyone suggests otherwise, sometimes they flip out.
As issues like Obama's position on FISA, or the various Supreme Court rulings causes a lot of debate about Obama's need to move right or to the center, I thought I would raise a point I heard or saw somewhere (but can't remember or I would credit better): The public already thinks of Obama as a "liberal" and they like him just fine.
Q33. How would you describe the views of Barack Obama on most matters having to do with politics: Do you generally think of Obama as very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative or very conservative, or haven't you heard enough about him yet to say?
Those saying liberal were split 30% saying "very liberal" and 26% "somewhat liberal." Among Democrats only 19% said "very liberal" so it isn't us driving this number up, and Obama is doing just fine (remember he was ahead by 12 in this same poll).
Apparently being a liberal is not toxic.
I do see a positive in this situation though. Even if Obama never embraces the liberal label, if he gets elected and governs well that will do a lot to improve the brand regardless. The public already thinks he is a liberal, so seeing him govern well wears well on liberalism.
After all, we don't need marketing tricks to redeem liberalism. All we have to do is govern better than conservatives, which isn't hard at all. That bar is low. Government that merely functions being run by a person deemed "liberal" is real world proof liberalism works. All Obama has to do is not purposely run a kleptocratic, scorched earth travesty of an administration full of flat earthers and theocrats, where the only debate among historians will be whether Orwell, Kafka or Heller best analog its absurdity and malice.
I could write at least four or five posts on that LA Times/Bloomberg poll that had Obama up 12 points on McCain, not for that result (noteworthy and heartening as it is), but for all the other questions they asked.
I particularly like questions 24 and 25, so here they are in detail (with some attempt at formatting and yes my colour choices suck)
Q24/25 Do you have a positive or negative feeling about the (24)Democratic/(25)Republican Party? (IF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) Is it very or only somewhat (positive/negative)?
