Bloomberg apparently thought that his wealth and support from certain anti-Sanders media pundits meant that he was above the fray. It was seemingly inevitable that Bloomberg was going to win the Democratic nomination, despite having been a Republican just five minutes ago. In Bloomberg's mind, this debate was just a dog and pony show that for some reason he had to join. Senator Warren didn't see things that way.
Professor Warren (she was my brother's professor at Harvard) not only laid hands on the supercilious Bloomberg, she broke his jaw, kicked in his ribs, hit him upside the head with a brick, kneecapped him with an icepick, and shot him twice with a .45. And THEN she really went to work on him. Before she was finished I was expecting to get a late night call from Warren telling me to meet her at my northern Michigan property with shovels, duct tape and a tarp.
Warren started the night with this effective attack on Bloomberg. And she kept the hammer down on Bloomberg all night. And anyone else who wanted some certainly got it from Senator Warren.
There is no way I would ever vote for Bloomberg. His dismissal of the constitutional rights of Black people in New York City makes him persona non grata to me. I have friends and close relatives who live in NYC. They shouldn't have to worry about some 6-4 cop boiling over with racism and 'roid rage seizing them, putting his or her hands all over their body, insulting them, assaulting them, and threatening to arrest or kill them if they breathe the wrong way.
That is what stop-and-frisk is. It is the complete dismissal of the concept that Black people have any rights that a cop must respect. In short under Michael Bloomberg police officers were encouraged, even ordered to treat every single Black person as if he (and it was mostly men and boys impacted) was a criminal.
But that is not what stop and frisk is. Stop and frisk says to police go out and look for Black people. Don't worry about any individualized reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Just harass, detain, and search them. All of them. Over and over again.
Bloomberg boasted about this in well, Trumpian tones.
95% … murderers and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city. And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed. You want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets.
Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods. So one of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you’re arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities!’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.
And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them. And then they start, ‘Oh, I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home."
Additionally, Bloomberg defended redlining-the practice of banks refusing to make mortgage loans to Black people- and implied that Black people were to blame for the 2008 financial crisis.
Although Warren said she would support whomever the Democratic nominee might be, I won't. There are no circumstances where I would vote for Bloomberg. He's odious. He's just as dangerous if not more so to Black people as Trump is. Bloomberg has a history of animus to Black people and of using his wealth to circumvent legal and constitutional limits. What if President Bloomberg decides he wants a third term, just as he did when he was Mayor? Are we ready for that possibility? We've seen how Bloomberg behaved when given power over the NYPD. Should such a person have authority over the FBI, the IRS, the DOJ?
Some people say that it is the duty of left leaning voters to "vote blue no matter who!".
Would anyone expect Democrat feminists to vote for an anti-gay or pro-life candidate if pundits told them that Governor So-n-So was the only person who could beat Trump? Imagine that Governor So-n-So had just appointed a pro-life majority to his state's Supreme Court.
Would anyone expect Jewish Democrats to vote for Farrakhan if pundits told them that Farrakhan was the only person who could beat Trump?
To ask the question is to answer it. No one would expect those groups to enthusiastically support a nominee who has either shown them his contempt or has worked against their most important political goals. It is pointless to remove Trump from office if we install someone who is just as horrible for certain communities. To exchange Trump for Bloomberg is like getting rid of Cersei Lannister and putting in Ramsay Snow.
There's a better choice.
And for those Black pundits, politicians, and lobbyists who are taking their thirty pieces of silver to tap dance for Bloomberg, I never want to hear them mumble anything about Republican racism again. They've lost the right to do that.
Would anyone expect Jewish Democrats to vote for Farrakhan if pundits told them that Farrakhan was the only person who could beat Trump?
To ask the question is to answer it. No one would expect those groups to enthusiastically support a nominee who has either shown them his contempt or has worked against their most important political goals. It is pointless to remove Trump from office if we install someone who is just as horrible for certain communities. To exchange Trump for Bloomberg is like getting rid of Cersei Lannister and putting in Ramsay Snow.
There's a better choice.
And for those Black pundits, politicians, and lobbyists who are taking their thirty pieces of silver to tap dance for Bloomberg, I never want to hear them mumble anything about Republican racism again. They've lost the right to do that.
