I have noticed a pattern among Bloomberg apologists here on Daily Gotham. They jump on any anti-Bloomberg statement and deny it. They seldom offer evidence for their view, but demand evidence of anti-Bloomberg statements. When provided with evidence of something Bloomberg is doing poorly they either say, "well it's been worse," or "Bloomberg has nothing to do with that," or they complain that this site is too anti-Bloomberg. They don't actually DEBATE the evidence.

What's up? I have nothing against someone coming on here and advocating for Bloomberg. But their advocacy is pretty lame. Many of them claim that Bloomberg has been great for education. So I ask what has he done other than take control, require more testing and failing to properly fund any reform programs he calls for. How is that different than Bush's education policy? None of them address the fact that some schools are so starved for money that students have to bring their own toilet paper to school. I mean that is just EMBARASSING that we make elementary school students in poor schools bring their own toilet paper! When I brought up the closing of fire houses, I was challenged to support that statement (which is FINE, though shows the person hasn't been paying attention to the news). So I provided the support. Did the person comment on the fact that Bloomberg has closed fire houses? No, he told me I was too entrenched in my view to listen to him. Ummm...pot, kettle, black.

I understand that many people are not too happy with the Dem candidates. I consider this a two-way flaw. Democrats somehow expect to be spoon fed enthusiasm, so anyone short of a JFK or Bill CLinton is considered boring and not worth our attention. That is a problem with how we approach our candidates. It is also a problem with the campaigns. They are failing to make the proper connection with the voters. I guess they are failing to spoon feed us our enthusiasm. I have gone out of my way to learn about the Dem candidates and have grown to like them. They are good candidates, but that isn't my point here. I am not really addressing those who are voting for Bloomberg out of inertia.

I am criticizing those who are actively DEFENDING Bloomberg because you are not backing up your arguements and are not addressing criticisms against him. Are these Bloomberg apologists plants from the Bloomberg campaign? Are they actually deluded by Bloomberg's huge and expensive advertising campaign? Or are they uninformed and not willing to get informed. Not knowing that fire houses are closed? not knowing that the new cop contract will make recruiting nearly impossible and isn't even an up-to-date contract but rather a stop gap for a previous missed contract?

I am more than happy to debate pros and cons about any candidate. But don't just come on here, make your claims without supporting them, then call ME too entrenched to listen when YOU are failing to listen.