Posted on 02/17/2020 3:43:21 AM PST by Kaslin
Only in the weird world of ‘woke’ would Michael Bloomberg come under such intense fire for arguably his most significant accomplishment while serving as the Republican mayor of New York City - managing to keep the densely populated city’s crime rate in check. Well, it’s not so much the accomplishment itself that’s causing quite the stir, but rather the, er, less than ‘woke’ tactics he used to get the job done.
Political correctness being what it is, of course, the billionaire businessman had to apologize and back off the whole stop-and-frisk business early in his campaign. It was a ‘mistake’ don’t you know, because he didn’t understand the impact blah blah blah (you know the drill) … And it seemed, for the most part, that he’d gotten a pass. That is, until Bloomberg’s rationale for the policy came to light again last week via some quotes from a speech he gave from 2015, not so long ago in actual time but light years ago in terms of how far down the rabbit hole we’ve descended.
“Ninety-five percent of murders, murderers and murder victims fit one M.O.,” Bloomberg said in a 2015 speech to the Aspen Institute. “You can just take a 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.”
“One of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities,’” he continued. “Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
Bloomberg was naturally slammed as a “racist” for daring to use ‘hate facts’ to reason through his policy, although nobody to this day has made clear exactly what other ‘facts’ would justify focusing on black neighborhoods to the extent that the NYPD did during that time. A real racist would do exactly the opposite, of course. A real racist would just let those neighborhoods burn themselves down, innocent victims be damned. But no, like him or not, Bloomberg at the time dared to believe that black lives do matter, and he went about doing what he thought was the best way to actually save innocent ones during his mayoral tenure.
Now, predictably, the now-Democratic presidential candidate is forced to pretend that reality doesn’t exist: “There is one aspect of approach that I deeply regret, the abuse of police practice called stop-and-frisk," Bloomberg said. "I defended it, looking back, for too long because I didn't understand then the unintended pain it was causing to young black and brown families and their kids. I should have acted sooner and faster to stop it. I didn't, and for that I apologize."
That’s right, folks. Being forced to apologize for saving black lives is exactly where we are, circa 2020. What Bloomberg failed to say in all his hostage-video-like apologies is that any of the statements he made to justify stop-and-frisk were not true. Granted, there are arguably Constitutional issues with the practice itself, but not necessarily for police focus on high crime areas. However, legality is only part of what’s been getting Bloomberg in trouble these days. The real hornets’ nest lies in where the majority of actual stopping and frisking is taking place. Seemingly, leftists who otherwise love the idea of a police state would have no problem if the policy were being enacted in middle and upper class neighborhoods, golf courses or retirement homes, even if the odds are slim to none that any fruit would come of police efforts in such places. No, the left is in a tizzy because those poor neighborhoods where the stopping and frisking was happening just happen to be majority African-American and Hispanic. And no matter how many innocent lives are saved, we can’t have that.
I’m no Bloomberg fan, not by a long shot, but perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole matter is the criticism coming at the former NYC mayor from President Donald Trump and some of his supporters. Trump posted, then deleted a tweet calling Bloomberg a “total racist,” then backed up that contention in an appearance with Geraldo Rivera. White House advisor Kellyanne Conway, pressed on this by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, who showed her a video of Trump in 2016 specifically praising stop-and-frisk, smiled and contended Trump was “toying with everybody” because we all know what would happen had similar comments been made by the president.
Maybe so, but this isn’t a political point Trump World is going to win. In fact, by pressing it and trying to label Bloomberg as a “racist” for citing, back before the world lost what was already left of its damn mind, perfectly logical reasons behind the policy, the president and his team come off as disingenuous. Plus, they’re caving to the left’s definition of what is and isn’t ‘moral.’ We know Donald Trump supported the stop-and-frisk. We know he’d probably support it now. And we know the reasons why. Why pretend?
The next mayor, a radical left-wing Democrat, ended the policy and presumably the focus on high-crime neighborhoods, and predictably the crime rate has and will continue to spike. As atonement for his ‘sins,’ Bloomberg promised to “work to dismantle systems that are plagued by bias and discrimination” and “invest in the communities that borne the brunt of those systems for generations,” or something.
Will any black lives be saved? Of course not, because the left has always been more about controlling lives than actually working to save them.
While he’s right, I wish he’d leave the rats to eat their own on this.
Yup.
That should be the single most important consideration here.
We went through the same thing with Rudy Giuliani when he launched his comical bid for the White House in 2008. His similar claim to fame was NYC’s initiative to seize vehicles from drivers in DUI cases before the defendants had gone to trial.
We need to use their Alinsky tactics against them:
4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
So, continue to point out their own hypocrisy, even on the occasions that they accidentally did the right thing.
Until our side learns to play by the rules of the DEMOCRATS, we will never be able to crush the Left.
In this case, I could less whether Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk was a good idea or not (it certainly worked), what should matter to us, ONLY, is that the black community HATED the policy, and that gives us leverage (huge leverage) to weaken Bloomberg.
After Bloomberg is no longer a political threat to the country, then I have no issue in defending him or his policies. That’s how the Dems do it - when Bush Sr. died, they had nothing but great words for him. When he was in office, though, THEY DESPISED HIM, as much as they despise Trump, and they nearly drove Bush Sr. out of office over Iran-Contra.
The ‘moral high ground’ nearly cost us the country...we can, and should, go back to that, but only after DEFEATING the Democrats once and for all...and we are not there yet.
This is Bloomberg’s weak point. Trump’s instinct is to go for the kill.
Agree. If they are going to use Alinsky rules we must also. If Trump can use Mike’s Stop and Frisk against him do it. First you have to win.
Just because a policy is effective in reducing crime doesn’t mean it’s right. And more importantly doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Imagine how much more crime could be reduced with warrantless searches.
Two more facts:
The sharp drop off in crime in New York was the work of Bill Bratton who Giuliani installed as police chief and who basically invented modern data driven policing. Yes he also used stop and frisk but it was one of many policies he implemented and the crime rate kept falling after stop and frisk was ended.
On top of that even if stop and frisk was good policy speaking in such a dismissive manner of the people negatively impacted by policies that restrict our freedom is the province of nanny state totalitarians like Bloomberg.
We’re not criticizing MiniMike on Stop and Frisk.
We’re criticizing him on disavowing it in order to pander to ‘Rat voters.
Rules? What rules do the “Progressives” abide by?
There is no prize for 2nd place. You beat the heck out of them with everything you can.
It’s not about the facts, it’s about the perception and Trump understands this. I wish more people on our side understood that.
“Rules? What rules do the “Progressives” abide by?”
Rule #1 for the Democrats is DEMONIZE Republicans at every opportunity, even when it means flipping on issues on a near-daily basis.
They do have rules...but not constraints.
I read that, what was it, 5 years of aggressive “stop & frisk” saved 1600+ black lives. The “law-abiding community” in the black neighborhoods were for it. Mamas, too.
I want to add that it’s no excuse for police crime. (Am I contradicting myself?) It has to be a measured policy, not arbitrary and unlimited -— and the community has to see that.
This, and anything else that will rile the rat base needs to be brought out front! Let the chips fall...
BINGO!! Playing moral to half the country who is amoral is a losing position!
The right does not criticize Bloomberg for his former policy, but for his present cowardly hypocrisy.
Whoa there Mr. Morefield, pump the straw man brakes.
Nobody is criticizing the policy. They are criticizing Big Gulp’s insincere disavowal of it in a pathetic attempt at pandering. Anytime a tape or video arises of this former Fakepublicam vehemently defending it, you betcha we are going to hop on it. We are especially going to do that when he makes statements that, if made by a GOP candidate, would lead to screams of “white nationalist.”
Oh no, just cause Big Gulp changes jerseys does not mean he gets a pass. And if they left won’t beat him over the head with the tool they always misuse on us, then we will.
He’s running for a party that does not believe in it, and now he’s trying to pander.
Not our damn jobs to come to his aid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.