Bloomberg, Michael R

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Cellphone Bans in Schools? NYC Is ‘Not There Yet,’ Mayor Says

      by

      Districts and states across the United States have supported restrictions on student usage, but New York City’s leaders are backing away from the idea because of logistical concerns.Los Angeles became the largest school district in the United States to ban cellphones in June. Entire states, such as Virginia, Ohio and Minnesota, have moved to institute broad crackdowns on phones in schools. But not New York City.At least not yet, Mayor Eric Adams said on Tuesday.Mr. Adams said at a news conference that New York City was a “unique animal” and that while there would be “some action,” the city was not yet ready for a full ban.“We’re not there yet,” he said. “We have to get it right.”Earlier in the summer, David C. Banks, the schools chancellor, suggested that new cellphone restrictions would be unveiled before the fall semester. So the mayor’s announcement — a week before the city’s first day of school — came as a surprise to many families.Mr. Adams’s comments will likely placate some parents and educators concerned about the logistics of a ban, while worrying others who argue that the devices harm students.A growing list of states, cities and school districts have curbed students’ cellphone use as concerns rise over their mental health. Officials point to the potential damage that access to social media and an “always online” culture may do to children.Mr. Adams said that while he did not want any distractions in city schools, he also wanted to be careful about the implementation of any eventual ban, so that the city wouldn’t have to backtrack on its plans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      $1 Billion Bloomberg Gift to Hopkins Makes Tuition Free for Most Medical Students

      by

      The gift, made by Michael R. Bloomberg’s philanthropic organization, will also cover living expenses for some Johns Hopkins University students.A $1 billion gift from Michael Bloomberg to Johns Hopkins University, announced on Monday, will allow most students at the university’s medical school to attend free of cost and will also increase financial aid for other students in the university’s schools of nursing and public health and other graduate programs.Bloomberg Philanthropies, which oversees Mr. Bloomberg’s charitable efforts, said in a statement that the gift would ensure that “the most talented aspiring doctors representing the broadest range of socio-economic backgrounds will have the opportunity to graduate debt-free” from the university.Starting with the fall semester, Johns Hopkins will offer free tuition for medical students from families that earn less than $300,000 annually, Bloomberg Philanthropies said. The university will also pay for living expenses and other fees for students from families earning up to $175,000.Mr. Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York City and a graduate of Johns Hopkins, said in a statement that the high cost of medical school and graduate school “too often bars students from enrolling” at a crucial time when the United States faces a shortage of medical professionals.“By reducing the financial barriers to these essential fields, we can free more students to pursue careers they’re passionate about and enable them to serve more of the families and communities who need them the most,” Mr. Bloomberg said.Other universities have also been able to waive tuition for medical students in recent years. Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx did so after Ruth Gottesman, a longtime professor there, made a $1 billion donation earlier this year. In 2023, Kenneth G. Langone, a billionaire financier and a founder of Home Depot, and his wife, Elaine Langone, made a $200 million donation to the N.Y.U. Long Island School of Medicine, making tuition free for medical students.This is not the first large contribution to Johns Hopkins from Mr. Bloomberg, who routinely makes donations toward the arts, education, the environment and public health. Bloomberg Philanthropies made a $1.8 billion donation to the university in 2018 as part of an effort to ensure that undergraduate students would be accepted by the university regardless of their family’s income.Ron Daniels, the president of Johns Hopkins University, said in a statement on Monday that “removing financial barriers to individual opportunity fuels excellence, innovation and discoveries that redound to the benefit of society.”The new gift from Mr. Bloomberg will mean that nearly two-thirds of medical students who currently attend Johns Hopkins or who will enter programs at the university soon will be eligible for free tuition or both free tuition and living expenses, according to the university. Those who are eligible will soon receive updated financial aid packages.José Luis Castro, the president and chief executive of Vital Strategies, a nonprofit public health organization, said on social media that the gift to Johns Hopkins was “transformational and inspiring” and that it would “help meet the growing need for doctors and public health professionals.” More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Bloomberg Backs Biden With $20 Million Donation

      by

      Michael R. Bloomberg, who is the former mayor of New York City and a Democratic megadonor, has donated nearly $20 million to support President Biden’s re-election campaign, a Bloomberg representative said.Mr. Bloomberg gave $19 million to Future Forward, the main Democratic super PAC supporting Mr. Biden, and $929,600 to the Biden Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee between Mr. Biden and the Democratic National Committee, said Howard Wolfson, the Education program lead at Bloomberg Philanthropies.Mr. Bloomberg’s donation was first reported by The Washington Post.“I stood with Joe Biden in 2020, and I am proud to do so again,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement.Mr. Bloomberg, who spent $1 billion of his own money on his failed presidential campaign in 2020, ultimately backed Mr. Biden in the Democratic primary that year and was a significant financial supporter of his campaign. He spent tens of millions of dollars through his political action committee on television ads supporting Mr. Biden and vowed to spend heavily in Florida, which then-President Donald J. Trump ultimately won by about three percentage points.Mr. Bloomberg’s $19 million donation to Future Forward is significant, but pales in comparison to the super PAC’s spending ambitions for the election. The group has reserved a $250 million ad campaign in seven battleground states, starting in August and running through Election Day. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Rich Candidates Burned Cash on Running for Office

      by

      It is a time-honored tradition in U.S. politics: wealthy people burning through their fortunes to ultimately lose an election.The costly realm of campaign politics has claimed its share of the fortunes of yet another business magnate with aspirations to higher office.Representative David Trone, Democrat of Maryland who co-owns the largest wine retailer in the country, poured more than $60 million of his personal fortune into his Senate campaign in Maryland, according to campaign finance reports filed to the Federal Election Commission. He lost the Democratic primary this week to Angela Alsobrooks, a county executive whose campaign had spent about a tenth of that amount.A day after Mr. Trone’s loss, Nicole Shanahan, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s running mate and a Silicon Valley investor who recently divorced the Google co-founder Sergey Brin, announced that she was doubling her stake in Mr. Kennedy’s independent presidential campaign. Her donation of another $8 million brings her total contributions to nearly $15 million, despite the fact that no third-party or independent candidate has come close to winning a presidential election in modern U.S. history.Mr. Kennedy’s campaign is so far only about half as expensive as the costliest self-funded presidential campaign this cycle: Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican entrepreneur, spent more than $30 million of his own wealth on his failed candidacy, dropping out in January after spending $3,500 per vote won in the Iowa caucuses. Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota who sold his software company to Microsoft for $1 billion, didn’t even get that far: He dropped out before a single vote was cast after having spent nearly $14 million on his presidential campaign.It is a time-honored tradition in U.S. politics: wealthy people burning dizzying sums of money to fuel their political ambitions through long-shot candidacies, or — as in Mr. Trone’s case — campaigns with good odds that simply don’t end up working out.A self-funded campaign is not always a recipe for disaster. Mr. Trone, for example, was successfully elected to Congress after spending a combined $31.3 million of his fortune to run in two House races. He lost to Jamie Raskin in the 2016 Democratic primary, but he won the 2018 primary to succeed Representative John Delaney, another wealthy Democrat. Jon S. Corzine, a liberal Wall Street executive, spent about $60 million, or $108 million adjusted for inflation, to win a Senate seat in New Jersey in 2000.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Bloomberg and Other Billionaires Donated to Adams’s Legal-Defense Fund

      by

      Mayor Eric Adams of New York set up the fund amid a broad federal corruption investigation into his campaign’s fund-raising practices.Mayor Eric Adams raised $732,000 in less than two months to pay for legal expenses related to a federal investigation into his campaign fund-raising, according to a filing submitted Tuesday.The contributors to Mr. Adams’s defense fund include an array of wealthy players in business and politics, among them at least four who have been described as billionaires: the former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Ukrainian-British oligarch Leonard Blavatnik, the real estate and fertilizer tycoon Alexander Rovt and the cryptocurrency investor Brock Pierce.The fund has so far spent $440,000, most of it on WilmerHale, the law firm Mr. Adams hired to represent him in the investigation, the filing shows.City law permits elected officials to set up defense funds to pay for expenses related to criminal or civil investigations that are unrelated to their government duties and cannot be paid for with public money. The funds can collect up to $5,000 per donor but are not permitted to solicit or receive contributions from anyone with city contracts or business before the city.The Eric Adams Legal Defense Trust was set up late last year after the F.B.I. searched the home of Brianna Suggs, who was then Mr. Adams’s chief campaign fund-raiser. It made its first filing with the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board on Tuesday.Mr. Adams, who unveiled his preliminary city budget on Tuesday, said the support had come from donors who appreciated his “life of service,” from his time as a transit police officer to his tenure as mayor.“They said, ‘We want to help,’” he said. “People have known my character, and they said, ‘We want to help.’”The four billionaires and their relatives contributed a total of $40,000 to the fund. Mr. Pierce, a former child actor who is now a cryptocurrency investor, has previously supported the mayor. Mr. Adams has praised cryptocurrency, and he flew on Mr. Pierce’s private jet to Puerto Rico shortly after he was elected mayor. Since his campaign, Mr. Adams has also nurtured a relationship with Mr. Bloomberg, who left City Hall at the end of 2013.Frank Carone, Mr. Adams’s first chief of staff and a longtime adviser, and his relatives pitched in $20,000, while Lori Fensterman, the wife of Mr. Carone’s former law partner, gave $5,000. The mayor himself gave two donations totaling $120.Among the other donors were Jenifer Rajkumar, a state assemblywoman from Queens and a close ally of Mr. Adams, who gave $2,500; Angelo Acquista, a pulmonologist and diet book author, and his wife, Svetlana Acquista, who gave Mr. Adams a total of $10,000; and Michael Cayre, an owner of Casa Cipriani who, with two family members, donated $15,000. Mr. Cayre recently organized a gala at the club that reportedly raised about $10 million for victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, with Mr. Adams in attendance. The bulk of the fund’s expenses so far, about $397,000, was paid to WilmerHale, where Mr. Adams’s defense team includes Brendan McGuire and Boyd Johnson, two former top prosecutors at the Southern District of New York, which is conducting the investigation along with the F.B.I. Mr. McGuire also formerly worked as Mr. Adams’s chief counsel in City Hall.The fund also paid $7,500 to Pitta L.L.P., a law firm whose co-managing partner, Vito Pitta, is overseeing the fund. It paid about $25,000 to two companies for “vetting and investigative services” and “forensic data collection.”The City Council authorized legal defense funds in 2019 after the Conflicts of Interest Board ruled that city gift restrictions prohibited Mr. Adams’s predecessor, Bill de Blasio, from soliciting more than $50 per donor to pay for legal bills he had accumulated during state and federal investigations into his fund-raising.The investigation into Mayor Adams’s fund-raising came into view in early November. On the same day as the search of Ms. Suggs’ home, F.B.I. agents also searched the New Jersey houses of Rana Abbasova, an aide in Mr. Adams’s international affairs office, and Cenk Ocal, a former Turkish Airlines executive who served on his transition team. A few days later, agents stopped Mr. Adams after a public event and seized several electronic devices from the mayor.Federal officials in Manhattan are examining whether the Turkish government conspired with Mr. Adams’s campaign to funnel donations into campaign coffers and whether Mr. Adams pressured Fire Department officials to sign off on a new high-rise Turkish consulate despite safety concerns.Neither Mr. Adams nor anyone else connected to the investigation has been accused of wrongdoing. The mayor and his representatives have said that he has followed the law scrupulously.On Tuesday, new campaign fund-raising disclosures for the 2025 mayor’s race also became public — the first such filings since the federal investigation into the Adams campaign came to light. They showed that Mr. Adams’s campaign raised $524,800 since July — a significantly lower figure than in the first half of 2023, when he raised $1.3 million.The mayor’s campaign received nearly 600 donations from lawyers and real estate leaders, but only about two dozen of the donations came after the Nov. 2 raid on the fund-raiser’s home. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Should Joe Manchin Run for President?

      by

      In the emotional life of the liberal mediasphere, there was so little space between the release of the New York Times/Siena poll showing President Biden losing to Donald Trump handily across a range of swing states (doom! doom!) and the Democratic overperformance in Tuesday’s elections (sweet relief!) that one of the striking features of the polling passed with relatively little comment.This was the remarkably strong showing for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent candidacy. When added to the swing-state polls, Kennedy claimed 24 percent of registered voters against 35 percent for Trump and 33 percent for Biden.That number is notable along two dimensions. First, for showing Kennedy drawing close to equally from both likely nominees rather than obviously spoiling the race for one or the other. Second, for its sheer Ross Perotian magnitude, its striking-distance closeness to the major party candidates.Yet I don’t see a lot of people entertaining the “Kennedy wins!” scenario just yet, and for good reasons: Most notable third-party candidates eventually diminish, he may be artificially inflated by his famous name, and his crankishness is so overt (whereas Perot’s was gradually revealed) that many voters currently supporting him in protest of a Biden-Trump rematch may well abandon him after a light Googling.The world being strange, we shouldn’t take this conventional wisdom as gospel. But if we assume that Kennedy’s 24 percent is mostly about people seeking a third option rather than explicitly supporting his worldview, the immediate question is whether someone else should try to fill that space.Someone like, say, Joe Manchin, the West Virginia senator who spiced up his announcement bowing out of a re-election bid with some talk about “traveling the country” for a movement to “mobilize the middle.”There is already a potential vehicle for a Manchin candidacy in the No Labels movement, along with an effort to draft Manchin and Mitt Romney to run together, with Romney at the top of the ticket.But the ideal ticket would probably lead with Manchin. For an independent run, his branding as a moderate with strong ideological differences with the left seems stronger than Romney’s branding as a conservative with strong moral differences with Trump.When elites pine for a third-party candidate, they usually imagine someone like Michael Bloomberg, a fiscal conservative and social liberal. But the sweet spot for a third-party candidate has always been slightly left of center on economics and moderate to conservative on cultural issues — and that describes Manchin better than it does most American politicians. (It arguably described Biden once but not as he’s evolved in the past decade.)The West Virginian could run, authentically, as an unwoke supporter of universal health care, fiscal restraint and a middle ground on guns and abortion. That’s a better basis for a run than Bloombergism or Kennedy’s courtship of the fringes, with a chance of claiming votes from Never Trumpers and the center left.But is it worth the effort? Stipulate that Kennedy will remain in the race and hold on to some share of the vote that might otherwise be available to a third-party moderate. Then the question becomes whether both Trump and Biden could fall below their 35 and 33 percent levels in the Times/Siena poll, giving Manchin a plurality of the popular vote and a chance at an Electoral College win (because merely deadlocking the Electoral College would just send the race to the House, where — pending the results in 2024 — Trump would probably prevail).In a polarized landscape, that kind of mutual G.O.P. and Democratic collapse seems unlikely. But if you were drawing up a scenario for it to happen, it might resemble the one we’re facing — in which one candidate seems manifestly too old for the job and the other might be tried and convicted before the general election. Such a landscape seems as if it should summon forth a responsible alternative. Confronting the American people with a Trump-Biden-Kennedy choice would be a remarkable dereliction by our political elites.But comes the response from anxious liberals: Isn’t an even greater dereliction for a Democrat — however ornery and moderate — to embark on a run that could help re-elevate Trump to the White House?Let’s allow that it might be, but then let’s also allow that, if current polling holds, it’s not running an alternative to Biden that seems most likely to put Trump back in the presidency.That Trump-friendly polling may change. But it’s entirely possible to begin an independent candidacy and then suspend it (just ask Perot) if the situation looks entirely unpropitious. Which is what I’d advise Manchin to consider, if the donors and infrastructure are there: a patriotic attempt, to be abandoned if it’s going nowhere, but to be seen through if enough of the country desires a different choice.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Oprah Floated a 2020 Presidential Ticket With Mitt Romney, Book Says

      by

      Ms. Winfrey wanted to form the independent ticket to stop Donald J. Trump, according to a forthcoming book. Mr. Romney listened to the pitch but passed on the idea, the biography says.Concerned that the Democratic field wasn’t up to the task of stopping President Donald J. Trump in 2020, Oprah Winfrey pitched Mitt Romney on the idea of running for president as an independent, with her as his running mate, according to a forthcoming biography of the Republican senator from Utah.Ms. Winfrey floated the unusual ticket in a phone call she placed to Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, in November 2019, according to an excerpt from the book, “Romney: A Reckoning,” that was shared with The New York Times.Mr. Romney at least listened to the idea. (It was Oprah calling, after all.) He “heard the pitch, and told her he was flattered, but that he’d have to pass,” the author, McKay Coppins of The Atlantic, writes.Liz Johnson, an aide to Mr. Romney, declined to comment on Monday. A spokeswoman for Ms. Winfrey said in a statement that she had urged Mr. Romney to run, but not with her.“In November 2019, Ms. Winfrey called Senator Romney to encourage him to run on an independent ticket,” the statement said. “She was not calling to be part of the ticket and was never considering running herself.”Mr. Coppins’s book was based on hours of interviews with Mr. Romney, as well as emails, texts and journals that the senator had been saving to potentially write a memoir. Realizing he could not be objective about himself, Mr. Romney has said he chose to have a journalist write about him instead.Ms. Winfrey’s interest in forming an independent ticket with Mr. Romney, which was reported on Monday by Axios, is among several dishy items from the book, which is to be released on Oct. 24.She has known the Romneys since 2012, when she interviewed them at their lakeside home in New Hampshire as Mr. Romney was running for president. Ms. Winfrey had also seen Ms. Romney at various social events, and was “especially fond” of her, according to the book.On the phone with Ms. Romney, Ms. Winfrey explained that Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, was preparing to enter the race and had approached her about joining his ticket. Before she decided, she wanted to gauge Mr. Romney’s interest.She doubted that Joseph R. Biden Jr. or Pete Buttigieg could beat Mr. Trump and was “certain” that Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts could not, according to the book.Ms. Romney responded that her husband would not run for president in 2020, either as a Republican or as an independent, Mr. Coppins writes. Mr. Romney also politely batted down the idea, according to the book.An aide to Mr. Bloomberg declined to comment.Ms. Winfrey has at times been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate herself.In 2018, after she delivered a rousing speech at the Golden Globes, some were clamoring for her to run. But she told “60 Minutes Overtime” that she would not become a candidate in 2020 even though “I had a lot of wealthy men calling, telling me that they would run my campaign and raise $1 billion for me.”“I am actually humbled by the fact that people think that I could be a leader of the free world, but it’s just not in my spirit,” she said. “It’s not in my DNA.”Mr. Romney, 76, recently announced that he would not seek re-election in 2024, saying he wanted to make way for a “new generation of leaders.” He strongly suggested that Mr. Trump and President Biden should also bow out, arguing that neither was effectively leading his party to confront the “critical challenges” the nation faces. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Will New Yorkers Ever Have Another Mayor They Like?

      by

      Eric Adams — like most of his recent predecessors — hovers around a 50 percent approval rating. It’s hard to govern when only half the city is on your side.In the early 1990s, the historian Melvin Holli set out to solve a problem with a book called “America’s Big City Mayors.” Although governing a place like New York or Philadelphia was one of the most important political jobs in the country, we had no scholarly ranking of mayors, no orderly system of evaluating them as we did for presidents, thanks to the work of midcentury academics. Relying on surveys of biographers, social scientists and experts in urban policy and on an elaborate methodology, Mr. Holli concluded that Fiorello La Guardia was the best mayor in the history of the United States. No other New York mayor appeared on the “best” list; three were included among the worst.New York City is a notoriously difficult place to manage, and measuring success in real time is also complicated. On the face of it, the question of whether the current mayor is popular or not would appear to be a simple one determined by statistics, anecdote and so on, but it is knottier than that. In polling at the end of June, fewer than half of New Yorkers — 46 percent — indicated that they had a favorable opinion of Eric Adams, a decline of four points from his numbers in December.By contrast, Bill de Blasio, whose mayoralty was dominated by conversations about his irresponsible gym habits and deficits of personality, was doing a lot better at the same point in his tenure. Even as the bourgeois creative class and the business elites were coming to reject him as if he were rancid fast food, 18 months in, he was holding at a 58 percent favorability rating, with 81 percent of Black voters expressing a positive view of him.Mr. Adams’s problems occupy a wide space well outside the parameters of charisma. He has been criticized for a lack of vision or signature initiatives analogous to universal pre-K; a cronyist’s approach to staffing; a habit of petty and bizarre distortions of the truth. Some of this was predictable. During the campaign, his evasiveness led to headlines like, “Where Does Eric Adams Really Live?” because it was not obvious, a confusion that he blamed on shoddy paperwork at the hands of a homeless accountant.Last week, we learned that a picture of an old friend, a cop who died in the line of duty 36 years ago, had not in fact been held closely by the mayor in his wallet for decades as he had previously suggested. Rather, it was printed in his office last year by underlings, in response to the death of two police officers in Harlem.These shortcomings justify apprehension and may lead voters to turn toward someone new in 2025. And yet it is also true that New Yorkers hoping for a galvanizing figure, a mayor for all people, might need to adjust their expectations and make do with a mayor for half the people.Our current political landscape makes it too hard for a broad-consensus affection to emerge for anyone — it’s almost impossible to imagine how widely embraced La Guardia was, or even Ed Koch in his first term. Over the past 10 years, most mayoral approval ratings have hovered just above or below 50 percent. Although Michael Bloomberg had an approval rate of 31 percent early in his tenure, he briefly reached 75 percent during his deft handling of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, before slipping down in the years ahead.The 50 percent benchmark is so hard to surpass now, said George Arzt, a longtime political consultant in the city, because the electorate is so fragmented. La Guardia could govern well in part because as a liberal Republican who supported the New Deal he could connect to voters across constituencies. And there were simply fewer constituencies to think about.Lacking the sharp ideological divisions that burden the party today, Northeastern Democrats were unified by a strong labor movement. La Guardia had to forge an alliance with Jews and Protestants, with immigrants from Northern Europe and Southern Europe, but he was not operating in a city of 600 spoken languages. Between 1960 and 2000, the number of Dominican immigrants to the city alone multiplied more than tenfold, reaching 1.1 million.Supporters of Eric Adams — and most people presumably — appreciate that violent crime and hate crimes are trending downward. Shootings have fallen 25 percent year to date. “I don’t think people are looking for vision; I think they’re looking not to get killed,” Alan Fishman, a banker, philanthropist and Adams backer, told me. “What you hear about cronyism and dysfunction, that doesn’t affect people day to day. It’s inside baseball.”What does touch people is the sincerity of the commitment. Whatever you thought of his policies, it was hard to doubt Michael Bloomberg’s devotion to New York. Mr. Adams and Mr. de Blasio have been cast as temperamental opposites, but they share a prominent trait, a deep investment in their own marketing. (This was evident most recently in Mr. de Blasio’s case, with the long, moody interview he and his wife, Chirlane McCray, gave The Times announcing their separation, when the alternative in situations like this is typically an aloof three-line news release.)Mr. de Blasio chased a national profile more or less from the moment he was elected mayor, and he was absent from the city for stretches when he ran for president, remaining in the race even though it had become clear his bid would go nowhere. Eager to engage the high-style factions of New York his predecessor ignored, Mr. Adams has been selling us on his “swagger” since his first week in office. History shows us that it is a very rare for the mayor of New York to move on to higher office. The goal ought to be legacy rather than fame. More