Just when it seemed all politicians involved in the post-Sandy relief and recovery efforts were rising above the politics of personal ambition comes word that the Republican mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, declined a request from the White House last night for President Obama to survey the damage.
Bloomberg reasoned, disingenuously, that because the Republican governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, had already invited Obama to survey damage in his area, there was no need for him to survey damage in NYC. He concluded, self-righteously, that:
We’ve got lots of things to do.
No shit, Sherlock! Or is that Napoleon? Because only preternatural insecurity about his own stature and power could have caused the diminutive Bloomberg to defy the president in this way: a defiance made all the more craven because he knows full well that even though Obama could ignore him and arrange the trip in concert with the Democratic governor of NY, Andy Cuomo, the political spat that would ensue would be too distracting and demoralizing at this point.
But make no mistake, this diss says far more about Bloomberg’s political megalomania than about any political motivation Obama may have had. For nothing betrays Bloomberg’s reasoning quite like the Republican mayor of NYC, Rudy Giuliani, inviting President George W. Bush to survey damage within 48 hours after 9/11 – and appropriately so. And we all know that NYC had even more to do back then.
Therefore, I urge all New Yorkers to make it plain to this little Schmuck that they do not appreciate him dissing Obama in this petty and spiteful way.
NOTE: The reason presidents become so actively involved when such disasters strike is that the federal government invariably takes the lead – not only in organizing the recovery and rebuilding efforts (most notably through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), but also in providing the tens of billions necessary to fund these efforts.
UPDATE
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Bloomberg endorses Obama
The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast – in lost lives, lost homes and lost business – brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief…
We need leadership from the White House — and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks…
Mitt Romney, too, has a history of tackling climate change… But since then, he has reversed course, abandoning the very cap-and-trade program he once supported. This issue is too important. We need determined leadership at the national level to move the nation and the world forward…
One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.
One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.
One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.
(Bloomberg, November 1, 2012)
He clearly offers a compelling case for his endorsement. But you’ll forgive me for thinking that Bloomberg rushed it out today because New Yorkers heeded my call to let him have it for dissing Obama yesterday.
All is forgiven, Bloomy.