Ferrer's Depressing Campaign
I listen to a lot of urban radio (I'm sitting here enjoying the hell out of Wendy Williams as I type this) and I can't help but be bummed by the Freddy Ferrer radio spots I've been hearing.
I want to start by saying that despite the fact that I think Bloomberg is an okay guy, I will not vote for Bloomberg. What ever he may believe in his heart, he is raising gobs of money for the enemy and in my book that is unforgiveable.
So I keep waiting and hoping for Ferrer to impress and give me a reason to vote for him. But he hasn't. Now in all fairness, his radio spots have improved. The first one was one of those "meet the candidate" type spots whose theme was how Ferrer pulled himself up by the bootstraps and made himself into someone. Frankly, I don't care about his past and I don't feel like I need to know about his hard-knock childhood. Seriously, this is a tired theme that was beat to its final death in the recent presidential campaign with John Edward's 18 millionth mention of his father's tough life as a millworker.
Ferrer's latest spot is better. It's an attack on New York's educational system and it charges that blacks and latinos are getting screwed as reflected by high drop-out rates. Still, this is an ad I wanted to hear six months ago not two months before the election.
I'm feeling shades of the Kerry campaign and it bums me out. I know Ferrer is a good man who did great things in the Bronx and yet like the Kerry campaign, Ferrer seems to be stumbling along in fits and starts. The heart of who he, what he's accomplished and what he wants to accomplish is not getting through to me. It's like hearing the feint sounds of an outdoor concert from six blocks away--it sounds like it might be good, but you're just not sure.
Now the other night at the Kossak meetup, Liza and I were talking and she told me that she thinks it's a travesty that this campaign has been essentially abandoned by the party. Even Sharpton, who has an opinion on EVERYTHING, has opted out on endorsing a candidate.
Liza said she thinks it reflects greater problems within the party. I don't know about that. Sure, the party has lots and LOTS of issues, but I dont' see Ferrer as one of them. Not to be harsh, but I think in this case, politicians--who are generally obsessed with power--are seeing this contest a lot like they see New York's two baseball teams. I don't know about you, but if I were thinking about getting my hands on high-profile post-season seats, I would NOT be wasting my time cozying up with Mets management.
p.s. Funny, as I'm finishing this up, I'm hearing Bloomberg's comeback radio spot education commercial, which basically tears Ferrer's spots to shreds. That didn't take long.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2005 Elections | Mayor | New York City | Democratic Party | Fernando Ferrer
Agree
Submitted by mole333 on 27 August 2005 - 3:18pm.
I will enthusiastically support any of the Dem candidates over Bloomberg, the man who called me a terrorist because I protested against the RNC and the man who is selling our city piece by piece in backroom deals to rich developers. Bloomberg seems mild, but he has been helping Bush in too many ways and he does not represent the average New Yorker in any way.
I have heard all except one of the Dem candidates. Fields has not been working the Brooklyn grassroots at all as far as I can tell...or, at least, not in the sphere where I work. So far I have found no reason to vote for her over the other candidates, but I also have no strong opposition to her. Ferrer I have problems with because of what he and Green did last time around, basically allowing Bloomberg to take the election because of their immaturity. But Ferrer seems somewhat better than last time...like maybe he has learned some lessons. I like both Wiener and Miller. Both have excellent ideas and I think would make good mayors. I have yet to decide which of the two I will vote for. I think I like Wiener better overall, but I like Miller better in the details. Both are too pro-development, but would still be an improvement over Bloomberg. Both have said excellent stuff on education. Both are working the grassroots well and I greatly appreciate that.
Today I lean towards Miller. Tomorrow maybe I will lean towards Wiener. Perhaps I will simply vote for whichever of the two is ahead in the polls.
Ferrer's tactics are not that depressing
Submitted by Liza Sabater on 27 August 2005 - 8:33pm.
It's the hands-off attitude of the DNC that drives me insane. They've written off the NYC elections. They don't seem to care if Bloomberg wins. If Howard Dean was supposedly bent on making Illinois, California and New York true blue again, then why have they not made a point to get out the vote here in NYC? What is keeping them back?
Interesting question
Submitted by mole333 on 27 August 2005 - 8:56pm.
It reminds me of something a Kerry organizer said about the DNC--she said they had no interest in working with the local groups. They certainly canvassed in the streets of NYC enough, but they really didn't help elect anyone locally.
I am certainly hoping Dean is changing things. I am sure it will take time for him to make the needed changes and it is clear that the DNC HAS been improving. It seems like their main focus so far is to a.) raise money, particularly from more grassroots sources rather than just the big spenders (so far they have been amazingly successful in this), b.) make their website and structure more open to input from regular folks (also they seem to be successful in improving this...but they also were starting from rock bottom!) and c.) start boosting the local groups in the reddest of states. I noticed the states they focused on first (whether by sending money or sending Dean) have been mostly very red states. If that is their priority, it does make some sense and it would mean NYC mayor's race is not a high priority.
Maybe I am just making excuses, and I do wish they were here. But maybe they do have better things to focus on (e.g. VA Gov race??)
The Mayoral Candidates
I agree. Ferrer's campaign has not inspired me, either. When I consider how these campaigns are professionally packaged and fine tuned at vast cost, it's hard to attribute his listless campaign to the candidate.
Up close at pre-endorsement mayoral forums, the most polished and focused candidate was the most conservative: Anthony Weiner. His good looks, clarity and wit gave him serious star quality. (Although he reminds me so much of Schumer, it was startling)
Any of the candidates, would, in my view, be an improvement over Bloomberg. If Ferrer wins the nomination I will be an enthuiastic supporter, but -- for me -- I've decided my voting issue this year is education and the mayoral candiate who has been most supportive of improving the schools has been Miller. He's been seriously supportive of the efforts of parents and advates of smaller class size.
It may be that Miller sees smaller class size as a political opportunity, but by placing the issue squarely in the center of his campaign, he raises what is to my mind a crucial issue for my child and, for that, he gets my vote and support. (Bloomberg, by contrast budgeted not one extra penny for smaller classes and strongly opposed city council efforts in that area)