Politics makes for strange bedfellows they say, and maybe they are right. During the past few weeks I did find two politicians -Charles Barron and Mayor Michael Bloomberg- apparently sleeping in the same bed (politically speaking, of course), and pensively it was a mini-orgy of sorts; one of convenient morality, one lacking in common sense, an immolation of political principles, a flagellation of standards, a confusingly strange devaluation of ethics for self-serving reasons, an unnecessary questioning of professed values, and of course too many meaningless words for radio, television and newspaper reporters -willing be manipulated (and unrepentant too).
There is more, sadly enough; and the problem is that this might be more than just some casual one-night stand between these two. They could be shacking up for another 4years (or more: God forbid!), since incumbents have a tremendous built-in advantage over challengers -given the way things are structured nowadays.
Ahhh! New York, New York: the big apple.
It is always a sad day for our city when our political leaders undress themselves in public; whether black or white it’s the size of their injudiciousness that matters. And although these two politicians (Barron and Bloomberg) rarely stick together, they are surely birds of a feather; at least when it comes to the term limits issue. They are strange bedfellows alright; they just can’t see it, that’s all.
If you have been tuned-in lately, you can see that Michael Bloomberg has earnestly started his immoral run for an illegal third term in Gracie Mansion. Nowadays it seems like you can’t watch a single local television show without being subjected to his obscene re-election commercials. I think this is political harassment at its worst. Michael Bloomberg should be prosecuted for stalking New York City’s voters. These political commercials have become nauseating to many in my orbit. This man, who for years, kept telling us that overturning term limits through legislative fiat was wrong, suddenly uncovered what Maxwell Smart would have called: “the indispensable mayor trick”. He sure had us fooled.
And now he is once again spending money like a drunken sailor trying to repurchase the respect he has lost from his term-limits-extension debacle. It is some sorry sight for those who try to think deeply. It is some appealing sight for those who only see politics as a bag of tricks (politricks).
Bloomberg; the same man who often opined that to overturn the eight year term-limit would be against the people’s expressed will (twice), did exactly what he said shouldn’t be done (overturn the limit). The same man who didn’t allow Rudolph Giuliani’s power grab -at a time in 2001 when the city faced one of its biggest crises ever- has now used a similar excuse to do almost exactly what he refused to let Giuliani do: extend his legal term in office.
Michael “Robert Mugabe” Bloomberg has acted as though the highly impressionable young children of this city aren’t watching. Has acted as if they don’t pay attention; as if they don’t understand what he did; as if they can’t separate right from wrong. He even told the cowardly members of the council -who voted along with the spineless council speaker (Christine Quinn) for his extension bill- that the voters will forget soon enough. How cynical. Shame! Shame! Shame!
By the time you finish reading this column, Mike Bloomberg -New York City’s self-crowned “mayor for life”- would have shamelessly spent about ten million dollars on video commercials alone, during this spring’s television splurge. We need to show “Mr. Mayor for Life (self-appointed)” that New Yorkers won’t be bought again; not so soon; and definitely not this time around. We need to vote him out of office if the courts won’t run him out. We can do it: yes, we can. It’s just going to take some hard work by all of us who believe that what he did deserves punishment and retribution.
Too many of our elected officials tend to forget that it is mainly about the children and the future. They tend to think in the now, the only, and their lasting forever. They tend to become rather foolish, selfish, self centered and self absorbed after a lil time in office. They tend to indulge themselves in exercises of self-aggrandizement. It’s the curse on most politicians. It’s the bane of their existence. Their rah-rah crowd of hangers-on refuses to tell them the truth(s), and their humungous egos blind their decency. That’s when dishonesty usually becomes a coin toss, or an insatiably horny mistress, or an inadvertent recording device, or worst yet: the subject of their demise. And our kids and grandkids see this; and they see it too often. And it’s not just with the politicians they see it; they see it with too many of society’s supposed role models.
Look; not one of us is a perfect human being, but our words should stand for something. And politicians should be always aware of this, given the artificial spotlight in which they tend to find themselves near all the time. Elected officials are nearly always under the microscope. Whether it is in the legislative chamber, on the streets of their district, or in their personal and private lives: they are nearly always under the microscope.
Too many electeds are full of shit, and that’s why we (as a people) are in this crap today; and that’s why we continually find ourselves in a mess that’s hard to clean up. But we voters must share some of the blame: we re-elect the same jokers, year in year out; as if we can’t do better. We can. Let’s start this year. Let’s vote for the right people. Let’s study our options long and hard before we cast our votes this year. Let’s remember those who betrayed our will and trust.
Take Charles Barron for example. He is probably the second most disappointing of all the black electeds in this city -after David Patterson of course. Barron offered so much promise before he was elected to public office that many of us dropped some of our own personal stuff to help him get elected. We sacrificed time, money, energy, brain-power, and anything else you can think of to the effort; to the cause. After all, he had sold us on the promise that he was building “a movement”.
Many people (myself included) felt he ostensibly possessed the charisma, wit, talent, conscience, imagination, instincts and articulativeness that some of us hoped for in a solid potential representative. He seemed intelligent and credible. He also appeared reasonable and cerebral: but it was all an illusion. His latest acts of media-hogging desperation lead me to no other conclusion; but I am always hopeful that people would grow and change: always. So I still pray for the lost brother. I still hope that he will find his way again one day. He is heading up the road to marginalization; or is he already there?
When the term limits fight started last fall, many of us were impressed with Barron’s impassioned defense of the people’s voice via referendum. He fought valiantly to convince his fellow council members that what they were doing -by overturning the eight year term limit plebiscite- was a glaring affront to true democracy. He was as articulate on this issue as any he had championed. He was in fine speaking form. Some of us saw glimpses of the old “Chuckie B” who we once admired, respected and cherished.
During that struggle, there were many who spoke out eloquently against the tem limits extension. Shoot; I even spoke out against it a few times -probably not as eloquently as I should have though- since I was too incensed, too hyper. I remember Norman Siegel giving me speaking time in one of his press conferences on City Hall’s steps (via Senator Eric Adams), where I used a “John the Baptist” analogy to castigate our “savior” Mayor Bloomberg. It brought some levity to a sorry situation.
The five most impressive speakers against the extension were: -activist/civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, Congressman Anthony Wiener, State senator Eric Adams, NYC council members Tish James and of course Charles Barron. I don’t even think this is disputable anymore. Others who deserve honorable mention include council members DiBlasio, Liu and Weprin, State Senator Kevin Parker, along with Assembly members Hakeem Jeffries and Ruben Diaz jnr. There were others of course, but I have to stop here for brevity’s sake.
Then one day during an interview, Barron said that he will only run for re-election if “the people” of his district said he should (be drafted). Now, remember that “the people” only speak legally and concretely through elections. It was a shocking statement once examined. That remark hung out there like a Florida chad during the 2000 presidential election. It was a harbinger of things to come. It was capitulation being finessed. Barron’s crafty conniving cunning scheming flaws were being exposed through this political lap dance. He underestimates other people’s intelligence.
Many started saying that it would be disingenuous for him to seek re-election after voting against the extension, and after so passionately speaking out against the bill and its implications of political immorality. Some argued that he would be terribly insincere if he were to run again now, since he claimed that only the “people” through another referendum could extend the terms of city council members. He not only implied it was illegal, he also called it immoral. He was powerful in his pious pontifications; and in this regard, he was also quite impressive by the way.
So when he made his “draft” remark, many started wondering: did he hear some of the things he had said? Did he truly believe in what he was saying? Was it all about media exposure and sensationalism? Was he sincere about term-limits? Was his position one of convenience? Is this guy credible anymore? Or is he just incredible as many whites have claimed? Was this another ambulance being chased?
I remember telling people that Barron couldn’t run, and that his former chief of staff (Paul Washington) would run instead: with his support of course. To me it was a question of integrity. If you believe in what you are fighting for then you have to do the honorable thing: don’t seek another term unless there is a referendum allowing it. After all, there are other political opportunities for Charles Barron.
Now, I knew all along that Paul Washington was a political coward, since he had demonstrated this to me -over and again- for more than a dozen years. He is also an ass-kisser and a liar by the way; but that’s another story for another day. Paul had raised money for a council run; registered with both State and City Boards of Elections; and also registered with the NYC Campaign Finance Board program. Plus, he had been campaigning for over a year at least, so I did feel that he was finally serious about running for public office this time around: something he had been threatening to do for more than a dozen years. Well, I was wrong. And it’s true that leopards never lose their stripes.
Charles Barron recently announced that he was seeking re-election for a third straight term in office, a direct contradiction to his anti-term limits-extension vote. It reminded me of the California referendum on same-sex marriage. There we had two of my fellow bloggers -who generally operate on the Daily Gotham website- exposed for their duplicity (some others were also exposed).
These two were hard hitting when it came to what Bloomberg, Quinn and others in the city council did with the term-limits extension. They argued strongly that the people’s voice (and will) must be heard and honored (always). Then they (Bouldin and Mole) both supported the same-sex marriage side of the California proposition on that issue. After their side lost the vote, they called for the proposition to be squashed or overturned by the court. It was done as unconsciously as I have ever seen anything done in blogdom. Look; you can’t have it both ways and still lay claim to the moral high ground; you just can’t. It is illogical. Plebiscites can’t count in one instance but not in another, just because you were on the wrong side of the vote. This isn’t rocket science people. This is elementary-school stuff.
Sometimes I wonder how the hell some people can fix their faces to speak out of both sides of their mouths so easily. Do people study “logic” anymore?
I do respect both Bouldin and Mole for their political writings over the years, but to me, this duplicity was the nadir of their blogging tenure. Political discourse must be grounded in logic. Yes, I know we all get emotional on some issues, but as a political commentator you must strive for fairness, credibility and consistency at all times; elected officials should do likewise.
Look; credibility is trump in this political game. It’s also about compassion, common sense, decency, integrity and honor. In politics, the stakes are generally too high for civic-minded people to ignore the obvious character flaws of their leaders. I am sure we have learned a few things from Eliot Spitzer’s demise.
All this reminds me of a popular song in the seventies; parts of it went like this:
“Oh the games people play,
Every night and every day,
Never meaning what they say,
Never saying what they mean.”
Another part goes like this:
“First you’ve given up your sanity,
For some pride and some vanity,
You’ve turned your back on humanity,
‘Cause you don’t give a damn”.
The writers of this song are probably unaware of how deep this song gets into contemporary politics: but it sure does.
When I saw Charles Barron out on a limb threatening to personally and physically pull down the sign of a legal business, solely because the owner chose to name the entity “Obama Fried Chicken”, I personally felt that he (Barron) had finally lost it. Doesn’t he have better things to do?
In Kenya the most popular beer is named “Obama Beer”. All over this country (and world), people started using the Obama name before he even attempted to run for president. Barron’s antics reeked of desperation for media coverage. How sad! Is this what Barron has sunk to?
After all, this is the same man (Barron) who refuses to this day to castigate the inhumane behavior of Zimbabwe’s leader Robert Mugabe. Here he is castigating a business owner for naming a business after Barack Obama, the current president of the USA: the first bi-racial person to become president. I will say this until the day I die, mainly because it is an irrefutable fact: Barack Obama is neither black nor white; he is both black and white. I wish people (especially black people) could square this away forever. Geeze!
Even when irrefutable evidence of Mugabe’s wrongdoings had surfaced, Barron still defended him like nobody’s business. It as though the fact that Mugabe was a hero in the colonial struggle, exonerates him from the evil things he has done while in power: it’s the flawed logic of a one-track mind (Charles Barron’s).
The Obama-prefix to messages, products and services will continue long after our president leaves office. It’s a tribute to his accomplishments; especially once the message, product or service isn’t offensive, odious, obnoxious, obscene or degrading. What is the problem here? Barron’s anachronistic mind has continued to embarrass even some of his more ardent admirers; and then this re-election announcement!
What Barron could (and should) have done all along, was let his wife run to replace him in the city council. Once she was victorious, he could then run to replace her in the state assembly -given they both want to hold on to the little political power placed in their eager hands. It will still be slightly obscene, but it won’t be as vulgar. After all, Al Vann and Annette Robinson did it; or are we forgetting? Over the years, switcheroos have been done in near all five boroughs at some time or the other. Politicians, their offspring(s), their relatives and cronies, have juggled the federal, state and city food chains for eons.
If Barron is serious about being drafted by “the people of his district”, then he would let them write in his name on Election Day, not visibly and openly seek the position by placing his name on the ballot. He is contradicting himself. What he has done is self serving to the bone. He knows the harsh political realities relating to the power of incumbents in the election process.
Claiming that you have asked a few people (supporters) in the district, whether or not to seek re-election -and getting a positive answer- is disingenuous at best. There is no way over the past six months, that you could have asked that question to the roughly one hundred and sixty thousand people who live there. Where are the mailings? Where are the questionnaires? Where are the written responses? What are the totals?
At the core, it seems that Charles Barron is a crass opportunist and not the principled politician that he so vehemently claims he tries to be. Sure, his votes in the council are mainly progressive, but his consistent behavior is no different to Bloomberg’s. They both want to be the “HNIC” all the time.
For some of you unfamiliar with the term “HNIC”, let me just say that there are two ways to explain it. My way is this: “Head Negro in Charge”. However, the kids on the inner city streets have another way to say it. They substitute the “Negro” for a euphemism (niggah), and sometimes it is appropriate to do this, since that euphemism itself carries with it, all the negative connotations befitting those who consistently act like Barron and Bloomberg do.
These two power-hungry, egomaniacal, conniving brothers are cut from the same cloth: they both use people. They use them and discard them like toilet tissue. They are both sad. Barron has gone through more supporters since he started running for public office, than you could ever imagine; and yet he refuses to introspect. And yet he refuses to be retrospective as to why so many have turned against him now. In his strange and troubled mind, he is never wrong: he is always right. Mike Bloomberg is not much different, is he? Think about that as you sip on your drambuie, chardonnay or latte while reading this column.
Michael Bloomberg is a “john” who thinks everyone in this city is a prostitute. He thinks NYC is personally his great big whore-house. He believes he can buy anyone at anytime: he is wrong. We have to show him this at the polls next time out.
After the term limits vote, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called up Charles Barron to offer an olive branch of sorts. In an attempt at (re)conciliation, Bloomberg offered to work with Barron on various pressing issues; Chucky B was non-compromising; he promised Bloomberg that he would take the fight to the streets, in order to overturn the extension vote. His response to the mayor’s overture was nothing short of rambunctious.
Now, today, he is running for a third term -against the expressed wishes of the majority of New York City voters- just like Bloomberg: same difference. They are indeed birds of a feather. I hope they fail together in this year’s elections. I hope they both lose (either in the courts or at the polls); they are both hypocrites. It is not about the people, it’s about their own self-interest, tyrannical egos and power accumulation. How sad! I hope enough people wake up to this reality soon enough.
It’s time for a new way of doing politics in New York. We can start by electing better representatives. Those of us who worked hard to get Barack Obama elected, need to roll up their sleeves once again and get out into the trenches: there is work to be done.
Stay tuned-in folks.