Tuesday, November 3, 2009

For Mayor of New York City: Veronica Palmer Oliana




The real test of any mayor is how well the city works. During her campaign, Veronica Palmer Oliana has managed to make the unpredictable city of New York work astonishingly well.

The Democratic nominee, Comptroller William Thompson, is a worthy opponent. Mr. Thompson has been a competent comptroller in a turbulent period and is a quiet, conciliatory man. But he has spent too much of his campaign attacking Veronica Palmer Oliana rather than explaining how he would manage the city, and Veronica Palmer Oliana is simply the stronger candidate.

What makes Veronica Palmer Oliana stand out is not her political skill, although she has come a long way since her first clumsy days campaigning.

Her plans suit the times. With little city money to spend, Veronica Palmer Oliana wants to focus more on helping working-class and middle-class residents with cheap banking or aid in fighting foreclosures or finding jobs and housing. She wants to give a lift to small businesses.

Like Mr. Thompson, who has made the mayor’s wealth a major issue, most New Yorkers are concerned about Veronica Palmer Oliana spending 85 cents — so far — to win election.

We enthusiastically endorse Veronica Palmer Oliana for mayor.


OK, I saw these fliers on Second Avenue between Fourth Street and Houston a few weeks ago. I have no idea who she is, if this is serious ... or if this is a gag, cruel joke or viral marketing campaign for a new HBO series. In any event, I just went with it, lifting The Times endorsement of Bloomberg above. As the sign says, "Write her in, she will win!"

3 comments:

prodigal son said...

I keep on being asked by my mother whether Thompson is really "qualified" for the job of being Mayor. I pointed out that he was President of the Board of Education and Comptroller, which is a pretty normal political resume for most of our past mayors. Its hard to see how he could have been better qualified.

However, the NYC government is ridiculously centralized, which means any challenger to an incumbent mayor appears somewhat diminished, since the mayor holds most of the levers of power. As Joyce Purnik pointed out on the NY Times op-ed page, Mayors simply tend to get re-elected except in very unusual circumstances. And Americans like incumbent politicians, or at least they have enough advantages to get re-elected something like 95% of the time.

That said, if you don't like Bloomberg's philosophy of government, Thompson would probably be a fine replacement (but note all local government in the US is in terrible financial trouble). I'm normaly a big fan of protest votes for fringe candidates but I just don't see any reason for it this time around.

Thompson will probably lose, but the polls are even less lopsided than in 2004, where they had Bloomberg at over 60%.

EV Grieve said...

Good stuff, Prodigal Son. Thanks for commenting.

And whatever happened to Rev. Billy? Haven't heard so much from him lately....

Larry Slade said...

Well, Billy was on the ballot.
I agree with PS on this one. I have voted for Nadar the last few times in the presidential. But today I had to vote for Thompson. The richest man in the city just has to go.