The Democrats’ Decisions
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

As The New York Sun went to press, it was unclear whether the Democrats had decided to hold Fernando Ferrer and Rep. Anthony Weiner to a runoff. If they turn out to have forced one, they will have set up an important moment for a party that, internally, has been out of the serious debate in this city about public policy. We don’t belittle Mr. Ferrer’s long and earnest struggle for a shot at the mayoralty he feels was denied him by the shenanigans of Mark Green’s campaign four years ago. But the news last night was the remarkable surge for the only candidate, in Mr. Weiner, to have stood on any kind of plank for tax cutting.
We have previously quarreled with Mr. Weiner’s feeling that he had to “pay for” the middle-class tax cuts he wants by putting through tax increases on the rich. The fact is – and there is much experience to teach us this going back in our own lifetimes to President Kennedy’s tax cuts on the richest Americans – that when tax cuts are constructed properly, they pay for themselves by igniting an economic expansion, fuel for which New York certainly needs. But if it turns out that there is a runoff, Mr. Weiner will have time, though not much, to adjust his position to help him to go up against the mayor.
Mr. Ferrer has managed to leave himself standing on a platform without any tax relief for any New Yorkers. He has been running a campaign much further to the left of Mr. Weiner. There might have been some logic in that with C. Virginia Fields in the race. But what’s the former president of the Bronx going to offer now in the form of economic relief and incentives for growth that will be of significance to ordinary New Yorkers? Mr. Weiner, on the other hand, can, if he does end up in a runoff, leave the demagoguery on the rich to Mr. Ferrer and start right now crafting a tax-cutting campaign with which to confront the mayor in November.
The decision of the Democrats to deny one of the most promising figures in the party, Eva Moskowitz, the nomination for president of Manhattan will give her, we’d like to think, time to reflect on her mistakes. We thought she did good job as chairwoman of the education committee in the City Council, but not an inspiring job. An inspiring performance would have been one in which she took on the issue of vouchers and made herself a heroine to lower-income and middle-income parents who want the same choices in education that wealthy families have. We’d like to think that she’ll learn from this and get back in the fray on one front or another.
The fate of Gifford Miller can, we’d like to think, be instructive to the up-and-coming generation. Mr. Miller started out as one of the most promising figures in his party, the more so because of his high rank at a young age. But he used his power to plump for higher taxes, to move an appalling anti-war resolution through the Council at a time when our soldiers were appearing in arms against enemies of our country on foreign soil, and to cast himself in opposition to even the most progressive reforms of Mayor Bloomberg.
The exposure, by our Jill Gardiner and others, of his abuses of public money to further his campaign provides a sad denouement to his career. This included not only his outrageous campaign mailings at the public expense but also his efforts to evade the rules to which he agreed when he took taxpayers’ money to fund his campaign. Let it be a sad lesson to liberals who think that public financing of campaigns is the way to deal with wealthy candidates; the way to deal with wealthy candidates is to make it easier for ordinary candidates to go out and raise large sums from campaign contributors.
The district attorney of New York County, Robert Morgenthau, won a famous victory that was all the more sweet because when one got down to the nub of it, Judge Snyder’s attack on him really came down to ageism. She had no real issue save age. Even the dispute over capital punishment was hard to get excited about, given that the kinds of crimes against which one might use capital punishment have been falling so sharply on Mr. Morgenthau’s watch, even without the use of the gallows.
It is illuminating that the endorsement of Judge Snyder by the New York Times – an editorial that once might have made a difference in this city – hardly moved the needle. A lot can be said about New Yorkers but not that they fail to appreciate an honest, committed, steady, incorruptible prosecutor when they see one and that they might be prepared to toss him out of office just because he has done a fabulous job for 30 years.
Mayor Bloomberg is nothing but smart and on his game. He threw quite a party last night and let it be known that whomever the Democrats nominate he’s ready. It’s but the latest example of the shrewdness and aplomb with which he’s conducted his mayoralty. It wouldn’t be right to make an endorsement before the Democrats have even chosen their candidate. But if it does turn out that the Democrats are in a runoff and they go on to choose Mr. Weiner and if Mr. Weiner crafts the right tax-cutting campaign, we could be in for an educational and exciting time between now and November.