WHAT IF? That’s the question raised by the three televised debates conducted yesterday, with the New York mayor’s race about to reach its climax.
Two of the debates were among the Democratic candidates. One was between the two Republican candidates. And if these 11th-hour debates had taken place a few months ago instead of two days before the primary, the mayor’s race would have been very different – and very much better.
What happened was that the candidates started to mix it up for real. Peter Vallone took out after Freddy Ferrer. Herman Badillo took out after Michael Bloomberg. And both of them scored powerful and potent blows against their rivals.
Vallone accused Ferrer of fomenting racial and ethnic division with his claim that he speaks for “the other New York” – explicitly connecting the Bronx borough president’s rhetoric with the now-notorious endorsement of Ferrer by the repulsive anti-Semitic felon, Sonny Carson.
At the tail end of the first of the two Democratic debates, Ferrer began to lose his temper as Vallone pressed the point. “We are not two cities, we are one city,” the City Council speaker said. Showing remarkably poor news judgment, moderator Gabe Pressman cut the confrontation off just when things were finally getting interesting.
The confrontation was revisited in the second debate, broadcast an hour later on Channel 7. And for the first time in the course of this campaign, Peter Vallone seemed to find his voice and his sea legs by, in essence, defending New York City and its citizens against a charge of racism and injustice against the poor and minorities.
So, what if he had done this earlier? What if he hadn’t waited until Freddy Ferrer was surging in the polls to stake his campaign on a true theme of unity – rejecting racial division in favor of a truer and fairer picture of a peaceful and prosperous city? What if he had shown some fire in the belly rather than hoping the voters would simply prefer him because he’s a nice white guy from Queens?
Vallone has also chosen to go negative in his last-minute TV commercials, pointing out that he was endorsed by the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association in part because “the others haven’t earned their trust.”
This provoked an angry response from Alan Hevesi yesterday. The heat with which Hevesi and Ferrer reacted to the newly tough Vallone indicates that he’s hit some sore spots. But it’s probably weeks too late.
As for Bloomberg and Badillo, the question is: What if Bloomberg hadn’t been a big, fraidy-cat chicken? What if he had actually debated Badillo more than twice?
As it is, the two debates went as follows: One was on the radio, on the Friday morning before Labor Day. The other was yesterday at 7:30 in the morning. You read that right – 7:30 in the morning.
Bloomberg didn’t want you to see him debating Badillo. And while that’s understandable as a political tactic – the billionaire is a novice candidate and debater who bought all the television time he needed – it was unforgivable for someone who actually wants to be a political leader.
And it was unnecessary. Because while Badillo certainly won yesterday’s debate, as he had their previous debate, Bloomberg didn’t embarrass himself.
The other what-if has to do with the weekend’s big political story – the discovery by New York magazine’s Michael Wolff of a privately-printed collection of the wit and wisdom of Michael Bloomberg (done not by Bloomberg himself but by a former staffer).
Full of obnoxious and crude efforts at raillery, the Bloomberg book is the Big Skeleton some of us have been expecting would emerge from the billionaire’s closet.
What if it had been discovered a month or six weeks ago? I think it would have dealt his candidacy a mortal blow. But it may again be a little too late.
E-mail:podhoretz@nypost.com
