This Dog Won't Hunt. Or Run. And It Forgot To Bark.

Bob Kerrey for Mayor of the greatest city in the world?  The Times giveth, and the Times taketh away, a bit.

Please.  We so enjoyed the Senator's star turn as Hamlet during the Clinton budget brawl that we feel obliged to excerpt this, as a bit of flavor for the current drama:

Early on Friday the Administration found itself still shy of a victory by just one vote, the holdout being Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, known among his colleagues as "Cosmic Bob" for his epic bouts of indecision. What struck White House officials most about Kerrey's resistance was what a senior Administration official described as the "inchoate" nature of his demands.

OK, enough nostalgia.  Well, one more. 

Now, I have no more idea than Kerrey does as to whether he will run or not.  But I know this - as a call to arms, his initial explanation to the Times is not likely to put people in the streets:

Mr. Kerrey said he began thinking about running for mayor as he watched the House of Representatives vote to repeal the estate tax. At the time, he said, he was filling out his own tax return and was reminded of how many New Yorkers had been hurt by provisions of the tax code - the Alternative Minimum Tax - which has had the effect of eliminating the deduction of state and local income taxes for many Americans.

"I am angry about the way New York City is being treated by Washington, D.C.," Mr. Kerrey said. "Who is fighting these guys? What would Giuliani and Koch be doing now? They'd be raising hell!"

Can you hear the people sing, singing the songs of angry men?  Me neither.

But the big non-barking dog in this story is 9/11.  Kerrey mentions it once, saying that "The hard truth of this is I became a New Yorker on the 11th of September, 2001.  "Now it's in my gene code. I lived here for four years, but thanks to Sept. 11, this is now my city. I care about what happens to it."

Good for him.  But for heaven's sake - Kerrey sat on the 9/11 Commission!  Surely he is deeply informed about the risks to which NYC is exposed, and the adequacy (or not) of the job being done by Bloomberg, Pataki, and Bush to protect the city.

If he is going to base his mayoral run on anything, shouldn't it be the safety of the city, rather than the alternative minimum tax?  Or, if he is not even mentioning that, is it fair to conclude that he considers Bloomberg to be strong enough on security that Kerrey won't find traction there?

Well, let's not get carried away - Kerrey may decide to run, realize that he needs a more compelling message, re-read his own resume, and base a campaign on city security.  But it is interesting that security does not seem to be his first concern, despite his mention of 9/11.  (Or maybe these quotes were unfair to him - who cares to hazard a guess at a possible Times agenda here?)

Developing...

Comments

[Forbes]

Maybe if NYC & NYS income taxes were lower the AMT wouldn't kick in. Imagine that. Lower taxpayers' burden by reducing the scale (and cost) of local government. Yet Kerrey's analysis is about how DC treats NYC. Since the itemized deduction for state and local income taxes is an implicit federal subsidy from low tax states to high tax states, I wonder what Kerrey's views were on the AMT when he represented Nedraska. Perhaps Google has the answer, if not Lexis/Nexis.

[Cecil Turner]

"If he is going to base his mayoral run on anything, shouldn't it be the safety of the city, rather than the alternative minimum tax?"

The problem with that approach is that security issues involving external threats are national-level, and the Mayor doesn't have a lot of impact on them. (Though the same could be said for the AMT.)

[Camp Runamok]

What is it with New York politics and out-of-state poseurs vying for top offices? Does Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska really believe he can pull another Hillary C? Does the editorial staff of the Times? I can hardly wait to see how he, miraculously, will show he is really a Jew after all...

[TM]

Imagine my surprise.