Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Mr. Dinkins, Would You Please Be My Mayor?
You'll Be Doing Us A Really Big Favor.

I don't exactly understand Mike Bloomberg's strategy in running this election for his third term. I mean, if he didn't have ads on every 20 seconds saying how bad Bill Thompson sucked, I would bet a good amount of money that most New Yorkers wouldn't have the slightest idea of who was running against him. The only reason people know Bill Thompson's name is because of those ads.

What he should have done was just put those ads on where he's walking around an idealized city and people talk about how great he is, whether it's actually true or not, and just put out the image of himself that he wants out there. He's outspending this gie a trillion to one, but he's essentially advertising for Thompson. The smear campaign is so overused at this point that it's just standard fare. All it really serves to do is get the names out there. Bloomy doesn't need to counter any negative ads from Thompson, because Thompson isn't running any ads at all. I know it's just a reflex to run negative ads at this point, but seriously, you're doing yourself a disservice here.


Open Bar said...

For an overwhelmingly Democratic town like NYC, it's ridiculous how pathetic Bloomberg's opponents have been. No wonder he totally crapped on the rules to go for a third term. Who's gonna stop him?

If only he'd quit with all the nanny-state bullshit, I'd consider voting this time around.

Side Bar said...

You need to relax about the smoking thing. You are not a civil libertarian like Goldy and we all know it. You're just some gie who likes to smoke. It's bad for you. Just get over and quit like all normal thirtysomethings.

Does it piss you off that you have to wear a seatbelt? What about the fact that you aren't allowed to jaywalk? The government doesn't have to let you do stuff -- particularly in public -- that (almost) everyone agrees is harmful, gross and stupid.

And it begins . . .

Open Bar said...

Relax? I'm calmer than you are.

It's not just that either. It's the trans fats ban. In fact, it's the general idea of the government outright and wholly banning what they in their infinite wisdom deem bad for you.

Obviously I know smoking is bad for me, and I don't even mind going outside the bar to do it. But why must there be absolutely no place at all where I can smoke indoors? (My private apartment, grace of God, excepted.) Why not sell a smoking license and let those bar owners who choose to pay the extra money (which the city can use to fund its nightmare-fuel anti-smoking commercials that are on more than Law and Order reruns) provide those customers the smoking environment they desire and are willing to pay the health consequences for?

If there's a choice, doesn't everyone end up better off?

Of course, smokers are a small minority, easy to pick on. It starts there sure, then it's trans fats, and pretty soon they'll try to ban something all you paragons of virtue enjoy. And I'll be on the sidewalk, smoking a butt and farting in your general direction. (If, pray, outdoor farting is still legal.)

ChuckJerry said...

You could probably make a cogent argument about the government banning some random harmful things and not banning others. And then you could draw a pretty straight line from the random things that make the most money and have the more powerful lobbies and such being the legal ones.

Anyway, I'm hoping for a day that will never come where we manage to remove politics from government. Of course, in a system that's based on popular opinion, that's an impossible goal. I just wish everyone would calm down sometimes. Or at least stay informed before they say stupid things.

Open Bar said...

Not that I would necessarily support this, but you know what else I could make a good case for banning in bars?


-Everyone in the bar suffers because of their presence, and they themselves suffer for being there as well.

-A significant percentage of people find these to be annoying as hell when forced to be around them in a bar-like environment.

-There are plenty of places outdoors where these things could be and not be nearly as bothersome to the rest of the folks who are just trying to enjoy the game.

ChuckJerry said...

drunk people?

Side Bar said...

cats? dogs? women? kids?

I think you mean kids (but as I read it again you really might mean women). I agree. Hence the slightly-negligent-but-also-kind-of-responsible tag-team drinking/NFL watching that Mrs. Side Bar and I pulled off a few Sundays ago.

Open Bar said...

Yeah, it's children. Bring your brats to Applebee's and keep 'em the hell outta the Pourhouse, dammit. (Exceptions, of course, can be made for Minibar and Lil Jerry. As long as they keep it down.)

(Do we have a name for Lil Jerry yet?)

Matt Dabney said...

Lil Jerry-