My use of “New York values” versus Ted Cruz’s use of “New York values”

As a lifelong Midwesterner, it’s hard to resist the opportunity to bash New York City. Another person who likes to bash New York City is Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, who has made “New York values” a common phrase in his stump speech.

However, the “New York values” I like to bash and the “New York values” that Ted Cruz likes to bash are two different concepts.

The “New York values” I like to bash are corruption and the political boss culture within New York State (especially within New York City), as well as corporate-owned politicians who represent Wall Street’s political interests and not the people of New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), a pro-Wall Street “Democrat” who is one of the most corrupt elected officials in America, is someone who exemplifies the New York values that I despise. I’ll often use “Chicago values” to mean the same thing in an Illinois context, “Milwaukee values”, “Philadelphia values”, “Los Angeles values”, “Detroit values”, etc. in the context of other states/regions, and, in a national context, “big-city values” or “DNC values” (the latter referring to the corporatist Democratic National Committee).

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, uses “New York values” as a form of coded racism, bashing New York because it has a lot of people who aren’t white, Christian bigots. Additionally, Cruz uses “New York values” to bash fellow Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who is from New York City. This is very common in the Republican Party, in fact, Wisconsin Republican politicians are known for bashing Milwaukee at every opportunity.

However, Cruz sure loves New York values when it comes to filling his campaign coffers with cash:

Ted Cruz might say he has a problem with “New York values,” but he seems happy to take New York money.

The Texas senator’s swipe at Donald Trump in Thursday’s debate didn’t just earn the ire of the New York Daily News (whose front page today showed the Statue of Liberty giving him the finger) and New York Mayor (Bill) de Blasio (who took to CNN demanding an apology) — it also might alienate the city’s donors he has been carefully courting.

Cruz’s campaign raised $223,750 from New Yorkers, according to finance reports available through September. Robert Mercer, the hedge fund investor who has given $11 million to a pro-Cruz super PAC and is one of his most important backers, lives on Long Island.

Ted Cruz may hate New York City just as much as the guys on the old Pace Picante ads, but loves taking New Yorkers’ money.

Advertisement

Hillary donors claim that Bernie is raising more money than Hillary

Well, this is interesting, to put it mildly…many of Hillary Clinton’s campaign donors expect Bernie Sanders to raise more money than her when the next round of federal campaign finance reports are filed next month, according to this POLITICO report:

Hillary Clinton’s donors say they think Bernie Sanders will raise more money in the fourth quarter than their candidate for the first time ever — a testament to the underdog’s online cash juggernaut and a harbinger of donor fatigue among the front-runner’s backers.

[…]

…Over the past few days, Clinton’s advisers have taken steps to stoke donor enthusiasm: Bill and Chelsea Clinton, who on Monday announced she is pregnant with her second child, have stepped up their fundraising for the campaign. They are expected to become even more involved in the campaign beginning in January.

And many of the donors POLITICO has interviewed over the last few months say the widespread perception that’s she’s a shoo-in is prompting would-be donors to remain on the sidelines — waiting to throw their financial support behind her for the only race they believe truly matters — the general election.

It’s also worth noting that the Bernie fundraising strategy of relying virtually entirely on small donors has one big advantage: Bernie can get many of the same small donors to donate to his campaign over and over again. This stands in contrast to the Hillary fundraising strategy, as many of Hillary’s big-money donors have already donated the maximum amount of money that one can legally donate to a federal campaign committee.

No surrender

I haven’t written much about Illinois state politics in recent months, largely because there’s not much going on due to the ongoing state government shutdown.

However, the website of The New York Times has published this report on how a handful of wealthy individuals, some of which aren’t Illinois residents, are holding the state of Illinois hostage by way of big-money politics:

In the months since, Mr. (Kenneth C.) Griffin and a small group of rich supporters — not just from Chicago, but also from New York City and Los Angeles, southern Florida and Texas — have poured tens of millions of dollars into the state, a concentration of political money without precedent in Illinois history.

Their wealth has forcefully shifted the state’s balance of power. Last year, the families helped elect as governor Bruce Rauner, a Griffin friend and former private equity executive from the Chicago suburbs, who estimates his own fortune at more than $500 million. Now they are rallying behind Mr. Rauner’s agenda: to cut spending and overhaul the state’s pension system, impose term limits and weaken public employee unions.

[…]

Many of those giving, like Mr. Griffin, come from the world of finance, an industry that has yielded more of the new political wealth than any other. The Florida-based leveraged-buyout pioneer John Childs, the private equity investor Sam Zell and Paul Singer, a prominent New York hedge fund manager, all helped elect Mr. Rauner, as did Richard Uihlein, a conservative businessman from the Chicago suburbs.

In short, Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, who spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money on his gubernatorial campaign last year, also spent millions upon millions of dollars of money from a handful of wealthy individuals, and now Rauner is holding Illinois hostage by demanding a Scott Walker-style far-right economic agenda that would hurt Illinois’s economy in return for a functional state government.

To the Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly and the people of Illinois, I have two words for ya’ll: No surrender! Illinois cannot afford busting unions, driving down wages, making it harder for working Illinoisans who are injured on the job to get workers’ compensation benefits, cuts to pension benefits, and every other item of right-wing economic policy that would hurt Illinois’s economy by taking away disposable income from Illinois consumers. Illinois cannot afford surrendering to Bruce Rauner and his big-money cronies from the finance industry.