How bad was Bill de Blasio’s inauguration?
So bad that even the New York Times, which avidly supported Mr. de Blasio, couldn’t let it go by without commenting.
Excerpted from yesterday’s editorial:
Mr. de Blasio’s words carried an indictment: the city had become unjust and unlivable for too many of the poor and working class. But he tempered this complaint, as he should have, with a New Year’s Day call to civic unity and optimism. “We will succeed as One City,” he said.
Too bad the speakers on stage with him didn’t get the unity part, marring the event with backward-looking speeches both graceless and smug. Worst among them, but hardly alone, was the new public advocate, Letitia James, who used her moment for her own head-on attack: on the 12 years of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Mr. Bloomberg had his mistakes and failures, but he was not a cartoon Gilded Age villain. He deserved better than pointless and tacky haranguing from speakers eager to parrot Mr. de Blasio’s campaign theme. It was up to former President Bill Clinton, ad-libbing some gracious thanks to Mr. Bloomberg, and Mr. de Blasio, who did the same, to try to bring the event back to a grown-up level.
Graceless and smug? Pointless and tacky haranguing? From the decidedly leftward, de Blasio-supporting New York Times?
Do you need me to tell you how bad it really was if that is how the Times described them?
I hope I’m wrong about this, but I can’t help thinking that, with the ugly (and I’m not talking facial looks) crew Mayor de Blasio had on that stage, coupled with his just-named choice of al Sharpton’s tax fraud lawyer, Zachary W. Carter, as New York City’s Corporation Counsel (i.e. head lawyer), I don’t hold out much hope for the “civic unity and optimism” heralded by the Times’ editorial.
Of course, the Times being what it is these days, maybe we have a different definition of those terms….