About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC's Tapper, Stephanopoulos call Bloomberg a "liberal Democrat," despite endorsement of Bush in 2004

June 25, 2007 7:10 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

19 Comments

On the June 24 broadcast of ABC's This Week, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper and host George Stephanopoulos, discussing a possible independent presidential run by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, described him as a "liberal Democrat." However, Bloomberg endorsed Bush's re-election in 2004 and has expressed support for the Iraq war and tied it to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In addition, no mention was made of a significant Bloomberg controversy that undermines the assertion that he is a "liberal Democrat": the New York Police Department's (NYPD) surveillance of nonviolent anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war activists and protesters prior to the 2004 Republican National Convention -- a story that, as Media Matters for America noted (here and here), has been covered several times in recent months.

In his August 30, 2004, speech to the Republican National Convention, Bloomberg stated: "The president deserves our support. We are here to support him. And I am here to support him." Moreover, as noted by New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer in his June 23 column (subscription required), Bloomberg has "offer[ed] quiet, unambiguous support" for the war. In particular, Dwyer pointed to a statement of Bloomberg's from May 2004:

In May 2004, a year after the invasion, Mr. Bloomberg served as host to Laura Bush, who had come to New York in an effort to rally support for the war effort. Mrs. Bush visited a memorial for Sept. 11th victims. Standing next to Mrs. Bush, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, Mr. Bloomberg, right, suggested that New Yorkers could find justification for the war at the World Trade Center site, even though no Iraqi is known to have had a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks.

''Don't forget that the war started not very many blocks from here,'' he said that day in 2004.

Furthermore, regarding Bloomberg's handling of the 2004 Republican National Convention, CNN correspondent Tom Foreman reported on May 17 that "[s]ix hundred pages of secret police files were released to the public [on May 16] as the result of a lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union. They reveal that New York's finest began spying on performers like Jay-Z, LL Cool J, and others, months before they were to perform at a protest rally during the GOP convention." Foreman reported that, according to the released documents, police also "monitored websites and a guy known for throwing pies. They spied on meetings of Billionaires for Bush, who were not for Bush at all. ... While some protesters were self-declared anarchists, most planned performances or marches or theater. One group planned to sing about the war." On May 5, The New York Times reported how a January 23, 2004, "secret key findings" report transformed a self-described "pacifist anarchist['s] ... plea for non-violence" into a series of "recommended new activism strategies with regard to the Republican National Convention."

In March, Bloomberg defended the surveillance activities by saying, "We were not keeping track of political activities. ... We have no interest in doing that." But the New York Times reported on March 28:

[T]he scope of the preconvention operations, in which officers traveled widely, is just emerging from records in federal lawsuits brought as a result of the mass arrests as well as from still secret reports reviewed by The New York Times.

[...]

[T]he records show that the police did covertly monitor political activity. Virtually every intelligence report, even those about expressly peaceful groups, described the political viewpoints of the organizations.

As Media Matters noted, in February 2003, a federal judge -- at the request of the city and with Bloomberg's support -- relaxed requirements governing police surveillance of political groups, which the NYPD had agreed to in 1985 in order to settle a lawsuit over surveillance abuses by the NYPD in the 1960s and 1970s. The Times reported on December 22, 2005, that, in that earlier lawsuit, "the city acknowledged that the Police Department had used infiltrators, undercover agents and fake news reporters to spy on yippies, civil rights advocates, antiwar activists, labor organizers and black power groups." The settlement required, in part, "the creation of an oversight panel that included a civilian appointed by the mayor," and also required that the police "have 'specific information' that a crime was in the works before investigating such groups."

From the June 24 broadcast of ABC's This Week, which also included Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria and Washington Post columnist George F. Will:

TAPPER: You know, when you talk to people, Republicans and Democrats, they will tell you that there is an opening, that the country does want some sort of post-partisan leader. They want somebody to get beyond the bickering in Washington. But is Mike Bloomberg the man? I don't know. He seems to me to be basically a very wealthy, successful mayor who's a liberal Democrat.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And is liberal -- he definitely is a liberal Democrat. His selling point would be competence, but picking up on what Jake says, Fareed, he is tapping into a national mood.

[...]

TAPPER: But the point you're making, George, is that you can envision a third-party candidate who has some of the Democratic Party platform, some of the Republican Party platform, perhaps a little bit more conservative on immigration reform. But when I hear Bloomberg talk, with the exception of his bashing of the two-party system, he's a liberal Democrat. His platform is the liberal Democratic platform.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He supports gay marriage, gun control --

TAPPER: Gay marriage, gun control, pro -- you know, environmental regulations --

ZAKARIA: Fiscally, very pro-market on the other hand, you know, very sound on fiscal issues, common-sensical on foreign policy issues. Look, he's a Democrat, I would agree with that. I don't know how much I'd describe him as a liberal Democrat.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by snoopy (June 25, 2007 7:28 pm ET)
         

      Didn't he switch to (I) from (R)? They must be in full swing to disown him because 1st round polling shows him getting most of his vote support from republicans....

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Craig (June 25, 2007 8:08 pm ET)
           

        Snoopy, he first changed from (D) to (R) to run for mayor. Now he's changed from (R) to (I) to run for president.

        And just about everyone seems to think his candidacy would only hurt the democrats, including Eric Alterman.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by steve expat (June 25, 2007 9:26 pm ET)
             

          Are we voting for the person or the party?  I don't support Bloomberg and I don't think that he is a liberal, nor do I support Clinton or think that she is a liberal.  They can hide behind whatever Party label they want, and it makes no difference to me.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (June 25, 2007 9:53 pm ET)
               

             I don't support Bloomberg and I don't think that he is a liberal

            Well Steve this sure doesn't sound like anything a Conservative would come up with...

            Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Department of Education has just approved a plan to pay poor kids to get higher test scores. The city will pay kids if they take tests, pay them if they pass tests and pay them if they get high scores. It will pay them to pass high school graduation exams. It will pay their parents to get library cards and to meet with the children's teachers. It will pay them if their children have a good attendance record.

            This plan is insulting to poor kids and poor families. It assumes that they won't do the right thing for themselves unless the government pays them to do it. It demeans the poor parents who do meet their children's teachers; who do have library cards; who do care desperately about their children's schooling. And it insults the kids who are trying their best but having trouble because New York City has the most overcrowded classrooms in the state of New York.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/bloombergs-misguided-pay_b_53387.html

            -----------------------------------------

            Poor Could Draw $6,000 a Year Under Bloomberg PlanBy ELIZABETH GREEN

            Staff Reporter of the SunJune 19, 2007

            Getting a library card, going to the dentist, and keeping a job will soon yield up to $6,000 a year in bonus cash under a test program that New York City is trying as part of Mayor Bloomberg's anti-poverty initiative.

            About 13,000 families will be eligible for the payments, part of a $50 million program whose details were announced yesterday by the deputy mayor for health and human services, Linda Gibbs.

            The idea is to offer payments to encourage behaviors that have been shown to reduce poverty. A library card for an elementary or middle school student will bring his parents $50; a preventive dental visit brings $100 for each family member; and a steady full-time job pays $150 extra a month.

            http://www.nysun.com/article/56868

            Report Abuse
            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 26, 2007 12:19 am ET)
                 

              Actually, Jeter, it sounds very much like a conservative plan to fight poverty. It seems to assume that if somebody's struggling, it's because they're ignorant and lazy,and that the only motivator is money. ;0)

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 26, 2007 11:30 am ET)
                   

                I don't buy that argument at all.  Pretty much all college scholarships have performance requirements in order to maintain them.  Does that assume that the recipient isn't studious?  (In fact, many are awarded to students with already positive academic performance.)

                Targetted assistance is simply far more effective at achieving the intended goals.  There are both practical and psychological reasons for that, which I won't try to cover here. The bottom line is that hand-outs may assuage our guilt, but are more effective at suppressing the impoverished than helping them improve their lot.

                That said, if someone is starving or in need of immediate medical assistance, I believe we have a moral obligation to fulfill the critical need without judgment.  But I don't think that precludes any use of incentive programs.

                Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (June 25, 2007 9:54 pm ET)
             

          Maybe, but this is what I based my comment off of:

          http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

          Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (June 25, 2007 9:25 pm ET)
           

        Bloomberg was a Democrat up until he decided to run for mayor in 2001.  There was something like seven Democrats running in the Democratic primary and the republicans had one crappy candidate.  He switched parties and ran as a republican and won the nomination easily.  After the eventual Democratic candidate (Mark Green) made a mistake during the campaign, Bloomberg won the election (I voted for him in 2001).  If Bloomberg had not supported Bush's reelection, I would have voted for his reelection.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Meremark (June 26, 2007 3:07 am ET)
             

          Running this way, and running that, he's going to run like a scalded cat, trying to hide from the long arm of the law, p.d.q., as he sees his personal fat goes in the moneybags fryer.

           

          Report Abuse
    • Author by valentinian (June 25, 2007 7:46 pm ET)
         

      To Jake Tapper, the term "liberal" is not a modifier of the word "Democrat," it is a synonym.

      So he's basically saying Bloomberg is the Democrattiest of the Democratic Democrats. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (June 25, 2007 8:08 pm ET)
           

        No.  Liberal is a philosophy.  Democrat in the context of his statement refers to a member of the Democratic Party, which in only a handful of ways has a platform that is drawn from the Liberal philosophy.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (June 25, 2007 8:08 pm ET)
             

          (I meant, of course, to say that LiberalISM is a philosophy.)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bittermarv (June 25, 2007 8:09 pm ET)
               

            Arrgh.  And to cap it off, I think I misread your comment.  =)

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Damian G. (June 25, 2007 8:43 pm ET)
           

        To Jake Tapper, the term "liberal" is not a modifier of the word "Democrat," it is a synonym.

        So that makes Zell Miller a liberal, then?

        On a related note, does his endorsement of Mr. Bush automatically undermine Ed Koch's liberal street cred?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by aDifferent McCain (June 25, 2007 8:24 pm ET)
         

      I think we forgive you Bittermarv :)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by aDifferent McCain (June 25, 2007 8:31 pm ET)
         

      Huh? that's odd, I hit post and a message appeared saying, "you have not posted here enough, your post needs to go through a moderator and than if it does not violate our rules it will appear"

      I've posted thousands of times here and never had an issue, anyone know whats going on?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lukas_mm (June 25, 2007 10:38 pm ET)
           

        Just a little glitch with the comment probation system. Sorry for the inconvenience.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (June 25, 2007 9:21 pm ET)
         

      A Liberal Democrat who ran as a two term Republican.  Interesting

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 26, 2007 11:52 am ET)
         

      Where has Rip van Stephanopoulos been sleeping all this time?   Bloomberg would appear to hold a contrary position on the issue of greatest concern to voters, i.e., Iraq.  So how is that tapping into a national mood? 

      I'd also like Zakaria to explain how Bloomberg's apparent support of Bush foreign policy is a common-sensical approach.  I thought he understood that it's not just Bush's execution that stinks, but the whole policy strategy.   I guess I was mistaken...or Zakaria hasn't read Bloomber's comments on the subject.

      Anyway...this is a great example of the inadequacy of the black-and-white, Democrat-vs-Republican view of politics.  Bloomberg is liberal on some issues, conservative on others.  I'm glad to see a prominent politician rejecting the two-party system.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.