New York Times Endorses Bloomberg for Re-Election

Paper Says Republican Mayor Might Be One of City's Greatest Leaders

NEW YORK (Oct. 23) - The New York Times enthusiastically endorsed Mayor Michael Bloomberg for re-election, saying he was on course to be one of the best mayors the city has ever had.

The overwhelmingly positive editorial published in Sunday's editions said Bloomberg, a Republican, has not been as entertaining as his predecessors but "has been better at running the city."

"If he continues his record of accomplishment over the next four years, he may be remembered as one of the greatest mayors in New York history," the editorial said.

Recent opinion polls put Bloomberg well ahead of his Democratic challenger, Fernando Ferrer.

The Times praised Bloomberg for accomplishments including bringing down the crime rate, establishing the 311 telephone hot line for reporting city complaints and remaining "focused on getting things done, not getting headlines."

The Times endorsed Bloomberg's Democratic opponent, Mark Green, in 2001, criticizing Bloomberg's "out-of-control campaign spending" and saying he was unwilling to engage his opponent in "an even fight."

Bloomberg, a billionaire who is financing his own campaign, spent US$75 million in the 2001 race and is on track to spend even more this year.

The editorial praised Ferrer for running "a creditable race" but said his major campaign theme - that the city is divided between rich and poor - made the case for Bloomberg. By improving city schools and hospitals and by pledging to build more affordable housing, one of Ferrer's campaign themes, the mayor is addressing the problem, the Times said.

Ferrer's camp was disappointed with the editorial, spokeswoman Jen Bluestein said.
---------
Oh, sooooooo liberal. :rolleyes: :p

There is Liberal-biased media, and there is Conservative-biased media. It's a two way street.

"FOX NEWS IS TEH ULTRA CONSERVATIVE-BIASED!"

Who saw that SOUTH PARK episode last week?

"Tom, I'm outside of Chicago, where the panic over Global Warming has caused the deaths of billions of people."

"Oh my God, did you see this?"

"No, but reports indicate that some cases of cannibalism are occuring as well"

I'm not surprised none of the liberals on this site have said anything about Pat's generalization. I suppose if a conservative member would have said something about Fox, we would've had a whole three page tirade.

Anyways, I didn't realize that one story, or support of one candidate in particular around election time, canceled out or superceded trends across years. After all, no liberal could ever support Bloomberg... :rolleyes:

Come to think of it, if we're judging by individual stories, the New York Times supported Kerry in the 2004 election. And they followed Dan Rather like an obedient little dog with the falsified documents scandal about President Bush's service record that brought down Rather's career and certainly damaged the credibility of the Times.

That's 2-to-1 Pat, in favor of liberal leaning, by your "logic." :rolleyes:

Best,
Double-J

Good job DJ, you responded to a generalization by making a generalizing post. No wonder most of us don't bother in such posts, because someone somehow creates a piss-fight over nothing.

I replied to his post, pointing out the fallacy of his argument, and posed a similar argument had it come from conservatives. Perhaps if a logical argument (i.e. not a "piss-fight") was wanted, we wouldn't have a thread started and topic named with such an generalization and with virtually no support as to why that would be so.

But that is atypical of the situation at hand.

Best,
Double-J