>Yes-- all to the nice rhetoric, just as Bush is a "compassionate
>conservative." What policies that Green is proposing- other than expanding
>health care for children, jailing abusive cops, defending labor unions right
>to organize, and expanding affordable housing - do people find so
>objectionable.
Bet you $100 that these policies will be mainly rhetorical, and that almost nothing of substance will come of them.
>I remember meeting with Doug near his home a couple of years back and he
>noted that a few years earlier, we couldn't have sat at the cafe without
>being harassed by street people. He noted this as a sign of Guiliani's
>repression, but he also enjoyed his latte as well.
Nathan, I wish you'd put your formidable skills to better use than crafting left apologias for Democrats. I was stating a fact of NYC life, but that doesn't mean I support sweeping the Upper West Side of homeless people. That's a barbaric compounding of the U.S.'s already barbaric treatment of the poor, and it makes me feel more than a bit creepy to "enjoy" its results. Since mendicants are now largely gone from the better neighborhoods, New Yorkers don't even have to think about the dire state of many of their fellow city residents.
> It would be politically
>stupid by Green to announce that his prime goal was to reverse every result
>of Guiliani's policies, including enjoying lattes at street cafes, instead
>of saying, as he has, that New York can enjoy safer streets without the
>excessive repression and police brutality that florished under Guiliani.
>
>Or is it a sign of progressive policy now to campaign for dangerous streets?
This is a nice touch - confounding the homeless with dangerous criminals. How can you clear affluent neighborhoods of beggars without being repressive? Does the cop smile nicely and offer an apology as he pokes the homeless guy in the butt with his nightstick? Is that the Green approach? Is it now progressive to support zero tolerance, and stop talking about poverty and desperation?
Doug