By Matt Rooney
Mike Bloomberg invested $2 million in freshman Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D, NJ-11). Mikie Sherrill subsequently endorsed Mike Bloomberg. That’s transactional politics for you, Save Jerseyans.
But here’s the rub: the rules espoused by the liberal media require Sherrill to answer for everything her endorsee (Bloomberg) says and said both on and off the campaign trail. Today’s revelation would prove a real whopper for her to explain.
Back in 2015, according to the NY Post, Bloomberg gave a speech aggressively defending stop-and-frisk policing practices. That’s an increasingly controversial position as memories of the urban crime rampages of the 70s, 80s and 90s fade from memory, but defending the practice is tantamount to declaring oneself a clansman among the woke, social justice-obsessed Democrat base voters any candidate needs to win a Democrat presidential nominating contest. It’s viewed as a form of insidious institutional racism. A non-starter.
Bloomberg’s past defense of stop-and-frisk is difficult enough for Democrat primary voters to swallow. In defending the practice (despite his recent “apology”), the former mayor went a step further on the tape and defended targeting black neighborhoods “because that’s where all the crime is.”
“Ninety-five percent of murders, murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops,” Bloomberg said, “They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.”
“So one of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true,” Bloomberg added. “Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
There are about 1,000 social justice sins packed into one speech! And those are just excerpts.
The truth is a little more complicated, of course. Something like 50% of all murders are perpetrated by a black assailant according to the last few decades of available, reported statistics; it’s true that well over 90% of black homicide victims are killed by a black perpetrator. Click here for a deeper dive on the topic if you’re interested.
The facts don’t really matter for the purposes of this discussion, do they? We’re talking about a Democrat primary fight where identity politics is the most important governing principle. Whether stop-and-frisk is constitutional, racist, effective, etc, is largely irrelevant.
Question #1: Can Sherrill defend Bloomberg?
Question #2: Will the Media make her defend Bloomberg? And his stop-and-frisk rationale?
I think we all know the answer to both questions is probably “no.” That’s too bad. It’d be worth seeing her try.