|
 emember
when the Florida election was the Story of the Century?
That was before
September 11, 2001. Seventeen days later, the aftershocks continue.
All now ask,
"Whither Rudy?"
And, "Whither
Rudy's legacy?"
Those are the
questions New Yorkers want answered. But no one really knows what
the final result will be.
A sort of answer
was presented after Tuesday's disaster-delayed primary election.
On the other hand, for some, the results themselves qualify as a
disaster.
With the two
most liberal candidates, Public Advocate Mark Green and Bronx Borough
President Fernando "Freddy" Ferrer, making the runoff
election, Democratic voters have selected, respectively, Rudy Giuliani's
longest-lasting political foe and the candidate who most explicitly
ran against the Giuliani years.
Green is an
attention-getting perennial candidate who has in the past run for
Congress, governor and Senate. In '93, he won the public advocate
race. Through the blessings of New York City's odd charter, the
advocate position — basically a taxpayer-funded gadfly and
"ombudsman" — is second in line to the mayor. Had
Rudy actually run for and won the Senate race against Hillary Rodham
Clinton, liberal Democrat Mark Green would become mayor.
That's one
reason why the New York Post's editorial page has consistently
called for either scrapping the advocate office — or at least
changing the order of succession.
As it happened,
the media-savvy Mark Green, creatively used the office to increase
his own profile. A liberal Democrat technocrat, he is, it has been
said, "Al Gore — without the personality."
Meanwhile,
Groucho-Marx look-alike Freddy Ferrer ran on a platform vowing to
bring together the "Two New Yorks." By this, he meant
to portray himself as the champion of the "New York" that
somehow missed out on the boom of the Giuliani years. The inference
was obviously to the city's black and Latino populations. Ferrer
never explained how the 1400 less murders (the difference between
1993 and 2000 murder rates) didn't disproportionately benefit those
same minority groups.
Ferrer was
clearly and unapologetically the "anti-Giuliani," demanding
a stronger surveillance on the cops, endorsing the belief that racial
profiling was a serious problem for the NYPD.
Something odd
happened in the few weeks coming up to the September 11 primary.
Al Sharpton, fresh out of the federal lock-up (he got 90 days for
protesting/trespassing on Vieques) endorsed Ferrer. After trailing
the pack for most of the summer, Ferrer moved up in the polls. The
huge health-workers union came out for him. Days before the primary,
Ferrer caught Green — inching a point or two ahead in some
surveys.
Then, all hell
broke loose.
The primary
was canceled because of the 9-11 Attack.
Not only were
the candidates not able to continue campaigning in the days following
— out of obvious decorum — they were forbidden
from doing so because of New York City's bizarre campaign-finance
rules. The campaign-finance board said that because the rules said
the primary season ended September 11, candidates couldn't spend
extra money for the rescheduled election date.
Remarkably
though, the people came out to vote on Tuesday. The turnout was
the highest since 1989. Score one for democracy (if not for Democrats
and their choices). Ferrer came out on top, edging Green by three
points. The very next day, third-place finisher, the relatively
conservative City Council Speaker Peter Vallone endorsed Ferrer
On the Republican
side, millionaire Mike Bloomberg (who was a Democrat until about
a year ago), beat the estimable Herman Badillo (a liberal Democrat
in the 60s, who became a reformer relatively conservative Republican).
While Badillo might be more ideologically consistent than Bloomberg,
the fact was he had no chance against the billionaire willing to
spend whatever was necessary to win. Given the challenges facing
New York now (rebuilding the financial district and trying to convince
businesses not to relocate permanently), Bloomberg might actually
have a chance. But, the fact is, he's a newbie. Thus New Yorkers
are faced with a choice between one of two liberal Democrat hacks
and a liberal Republican-come-lately.
Which brings
us back to, "Whither Rudy?" Wednesday, the mayor declared
that, if the three remaining candidates all agreed, he would serve
an additional three months, to provide as seamless a transition
as possible in what remains a defacto state of emergency for the
city. Giuliani hinted that if there wasn't unanimity amongst the
candidates, he would drop the plan and instead try to get the city's
term limits law overturned.
As it happens,
Bloomberg and Green agreed on Thursday to the extended transition
period. Ferrer has refused. And so, the stage is set. Rudy may have
a real say on what his complete legacy will be.
Large black-on-white
posters saying, "RUDY GIULIANI FOR MAYOR" already began
appearing a week or so ago (paid for by "GRATEFUL CITIZENS
OF NEW YORK").
Who knows where
it all ends? Conservatives have to be of two minds on the thought
of a Giuliani third term (as opposed to an extension). It goes without
saying that Giuliani — even before September 11 — was
one of the greatest mayors New York has ever had. Following Attack
Day, his calm demeanor and straightforward leadership put him into
the realm of the politically untouchable. In temperament, experience,
and ideology, he is head-and-shoulders above any of his wannabe
successors. But all that aside, conservatives have to be mindful
of precedent.
In the context
of New York City and state law, the governor and the legislature
have the power to fiddle with city elections in all manner of ways.
Citing extreme circumstances, Governor George Pataki (with the legislature's
approval) could have suspended the primary and elections for three,
six, or twelve months as late as a week ago. But he chose not to
(there is some speculation that Pataki — up for reelection
in 2002 — didn't want to offend Latino Democrats).
The hot rumor
is that Giuliani may be able to get himself on the Conservative
Party line, and then win office as an independent. It is not impossible
for the state politicians to pass a law that throws out city term
limits. However, with the primary now having transpired, this would
be a case of "changing the rules in the middle of the game."
Sound familiar,
fans of Florida 2000?
New York City
voters have twice endorsed term limits (at one time, most national
conservatives were pro-term limits). Even today, polls show voters
not wanting term limits over-ridden — even though those same
voters would vote for Giuliani were he on the ballot. On top of
that, anybody want to guess what Freddy Ferrer and Al Sharpton would
say if the rules got changed just when it looked like the city might
be about to elect the first Puerto Rican to City Hall? One might
expect lawsuits aplenty as well, of course.
New York City
may be getting ready to sail into dangerous waters that have nothing
to do with another terrorist attack.
|
