I was scratching my head a bit about all the praises being sung by some of you’all for Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg in response to yesterday’s post about the teachers’ contract in NY. And, then, this a.m. The New York Times helps the discussion a bit with the headline: “Mayor May Not Shout G.O.P. But At Times His Checkbook Does.” (registration required)

Let’s check out some choice passages. “As mayor, he gave $250,000 to the same Republican party-building effort that Representative Tom DeLay is now charged with using to launder political money. Mr. Bloomberg has also doled out thousands of dollars to politicians who are far more conservative than he is.”

Or, “Mr. Bloomberg also donated $2,000 to President Bush in 2003 and, as has been widely reported, gave $5 million in cash to support the Republican National Convention here. He has given $4,000 to Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is a friend, and thousands more to congressional Republicans from New York. He has also given $5,000 to a political action committee tied to Rudolph W. Giuliani.”

Look, I’ve been pretty clear that I’m no fan of the Democratic Party. My own view is that we should be running progressive labor candidates against lame Democrats (need I say “CAFTA 15”) and also work third-party alternatives where feasible (with the emphasis on “feasible”).

But, folks, it seems pretty lame to just say we shouldn’t judge people by party label. Bloomberg is opening his quite healthy checkbook to help some pretty bad folks destroy the labor movement. Yes, he’d likely do that in private life, too–but to portray himself as some sort of protector of the working person is off the wall. And I respectfully disagree with one commenter who says Bloomberg’s anti-union stance in the private sector is not relevant: to quote George Bush, I know his heart…

In a relative world, of course, Bloomberg is not as bad as DeLay and certainly he’s a big improvement over Guiliani, at least in style. But, it strikes me that labor’s political calculation and strategy (if one calls it that) comes from weakness, not strength: endorse a mayor so that he won’t be mad at labor and will give unions what they need. RATHER than the labor movement improving workers’ lives because it has the power and leverage to force a mayor to deliver.

In the short-term, it may be logical for individual unions to hug an anti-union billionaire who has his hand on the public treasury. But, haven’t we done enough short-term thinking for one lifetime? When I look at New York City, I don’t see a success story–and maybe it’s because we’ve so lowered our expectations that others do. I see huge poverty throughout vast parts of the city, people staggering with huge personal debt and a chronic shortage of affordable housing (of course, the mayor has no issue there)…to mention just a few things.

I’m not arguing that Ferrer is the ideal candidate–though I think it’s a cheap shot to say he came out of the corrupt Bronx machine and, then, say, that he’s not corrupt himself (hell, that’s what the world does to tar labor). Ferrer is, at worst, mediocre. But, if we’re thinking of a long-term coalition that supports the rights of unions to organize, I don’t see how snubbing Ferrer does anything but make the building of such a coalition even harder.

So, at best, I’d understand a view that honestly says, labor has no choice but to endorse Bloomberg–which would acknowledge the weakness of the movement and its failure to act cohesively. But, let’s not make this guy out to be something he isn’t.

P.S. at least one commenter revealed himself as a Sox fan…I’m assuming a Red Sox fan (that’s in vogue among liberals/progressives), though perhaps he has switched loyalties in light of yesterday’s score. But, it’s never over ’til…