Deconstructing Andrea Peyser
Andrea Peyser has a column in the Post supposedly explaining how Mark Green’s arrogance doesn’t let you like him.
But if you deconstruct the column, it’s not clear what Green did wrong.
Here are parts of the column and my comments:
I was running [for mayor] after 9/11 in the face of $74 million" spent by Mike Bloomberg, a lean Green told me yesterday over eggs easy …
"If I told you I ran for election in Hawaii and the date was Dec. 7, 1941…, would you say the attack had nothing to do with the election?
"He [that's Bloomberg] kept up campaigning and spending. I wound up losing by 2 points!"
Is any of that not true?
But in the final days, he panicked. Green tossed away his newly cultivated centrist image, and adopted the teachers union's leftist agenda.
He did? I don’t recall Green issuing any last minute positions on education. Does anybody else remember this major event in the campaign?
On Election Day, I kept thinking about the psycho TV commercial Green put out. His tasteless ad unfairly - and inaccurately - accused Bloomberg of having once taunted a pregnant employee with the words, "Kill it! Kill it!"
I think all will agree that the ad was terrible and hurt Green. But it’s not been shown that is was inaccurate. Bloomberg has stonewalled on this question. He’s never proven that the quote is inaccurate.
As attorney general, Green's main goal would be to reform health care, which he said is too costly because of fraud within HMOs and health-care companies.
And if elected, he'd like to get involved in a case now on its way to the Supreme Court.
The suit would limit the amount of money billionaires may spend on political campaigns.
That’s how the column ends. Maybe Peyser thinks this shows arrogance. I don’t see it.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Post new comment