WASHINGTON POST NEEDS A HISTORY LESSON. The Washington Post story on New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's potential presidential ambitions contains a bizarrely inaccurate assertion: "His money -- and a post-Sept. 11 desire for a steady hand -- helped elect Bloomberg mayor in 2001." I have never seen a shred of evidence, nor does the article's author, Michael Shear, offer any, that a "desire for a steady hand" explains Bloomberg's surprising victory in 2001. Prior to Sept. 11, Bloomberg was running well behind either likely Democratic mayoral nominee (Fernando Ferrer and Mark Green) in polls. It was only the fact that he was outspending them 10 to 1 (he ultimately spent $70 million on his mayoral bid) that put him remotely within striking distance. Then Sept. 11 blessed Bloomberg in two different ways, though not the one Shear alleges. First, it was supposed to be the day of the Democratic primary. The primary had to be rescheduled for several weeks later, thus dragging out the bloody fight between Ferrer and Green and giving the ultimate nominee, Green, less time to focus on the general election. Secondly, it transmogrified Rudy Giuliani from a divisive figure with low approval ratings into "America's mayor" with 90 percent approval. Therefore Giuliani's endorsement of Bloomberg was a watershed moment that put him over the top. I suppose one could interpret this as a desire for a "steady hand" in the sense of a "steady transition to Giuliani's chosen successor," but to simply assert it as fact in a news article is inappropriate. As a New Yorker I find this constant 9/11 revisionism to benefit the presidential ambitions of not just one but now two Republicans incredibly aggravating.
--Ben Adler
