Mike Bloomberg for President, 2008

[chris]

.



I support an independent run for the Presidency by New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg. If you're interested to learn some reasons why, please have a look here:

Mike Bloomberg for President, 2008
http://www.RunMikeRun.com

And if you feel the same, please sign this petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/runmikerun/index.html

Being a New York centric board, I figure this is a good place to find Bloomberg supporters. I hope this will spur some conversation and bring the prospect to the attention of people who may not have been following these developments.

Very truly,
Chris




.

[lofter1]

Don't pursue this ^ unless you want to see a Republican take the White House in '08.

Bloomberg, although an attractive candidate to many, would mostly capture votes from disgruntled Democrats who can't bring themselves to vote for Hillary. A Bloomberg candidacy would lead mainly to a split of the Democratic Parties' voting base, with far fewer Republican voters moving over to his side. Unless, perhaps, the Presidential campaign devolves into a full fledged "Who's the better friend of Jesus" situation. That < could lead to a big number of dissatisfied Republicans who find Bloomberg's economic platform to be of more importance than Huckabee's piety -- and more palatable than taking a chance on a candidate as old as McCain.

[chris]

You're assuming I'm a disgruntled Democrat, and I'm not.

Depends on who the Republican candidate is. I could deal with a President Romney. He might be as slippery as Kerry, and I voted him (damn Kerry and Romney remind me of each other). At least Romney made his own money, and he has substantial executive management experience. The only positive thing about Hillary is that she brings Bill along with her, and he could be very useful as a diplomat. Obama is a nice young wide-eyed guy with a positive message, all the wrong ideas, and no qualifications at all. McCain, I like him ok. His shameful sucking up to Bush has been pathetic, but he wanted to be the "establishment candidate" this time around. A Huckabee Republican ticket would be ideal, because Bloomberg would then have a real chance.

If Bloomberg gets in the race, I will vote for him, no matter who runs what candidate.

This whole two party duopoly needs to be torn down. Whatever it takes.

[chris]

Don't pursue this ^ unless you want to see a Republican take the White House in '08.


Oh, incidentally, on boards I goto where there are conservative (omg, shock, there are conservatives on the internets!), they all say the mirror of your statement.

They say, "A vote for Bloomberg is a vote for Hillary." and Bloomberg will only be stealing votes away from the pro-business wing of the Republican party, "Don't vote for Bloomberg unless you want Hillary in the Whitehouse."

[ZippyTheChimp]

This whole two party duopoly needs to be torn down. Whatever it takes.And you do that by voting for Bloomberg?

Just don't see it.

[ablarc]

^ Why not?

Certainly a worthy goal.

[lofter1]

on boards I goto where there are conservative (omg, shock, there are conservatives on the internets!), they all say the mirror of your statement.


More indication that a 3rd party candidate will do nothing but split votes -- no matter what position(s) that candidate might take.

The only strategic use of a 3rd party candidacy: Find one who will whittle down support for your most challenging opponent. Then get behind that new 3rd Party guy in order to weaken the real opposition. Use the 3rd Party candidate as a means to an end. But don't fool yourself that the 3rd Party guy will ever get elected -- not in this generation anyways.

[ablarc]

But don't fool yourself that the 3rd Party guy will ever get elected
Lincoln?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^ Why not?

Certainly a worthy goal.The goal is worthy, but I don't see it being pursued by a vote for Bloomberg.

He's would not be a true third party candidate. The way he's moved effortlessly between Republican and Democrat (how would you even define him now - a REP with DEM tendencies, or vice versa?), it seems you would be replacing a duopoly with a monopoly.

If the intent is to send a message protesting the two party system, a vote for Ron Paul is the most effective.

[chris]

.




If Bloomberg enters the race, I will be voting for him.

You, on the otherhand, can vote for whomever you choose.
That's the way it works.




.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Don't assume that, unlike you, I was trying to tell anyone who to vote for. You can do whatever you want.

I was commenting on your idea of breaking up a duopoly. It doesn't make sense.

A "third party" run is just a variation of the mechanism that elected the Democrat/Republican as mayor.

[BrooklynRider]

An independent candidate wouldn't have the stripes of Republicans or the spots of Democrats. Bloomberg has both and any person that holds a dual citizenship - in this case USA / Israel - should be unqualified to hold ANY public office. I want to hear a clear renouncement of any "citizenship" other than American, whether it is birthright, a pursued dual citizenship, or a bestowed citizenship.

I also don't think Bloomberg will find much traction with his self-supposed notion that he is an independent or that he bridges the gaps between ideologies. He has given hundreds of thousands to elect Republicans in the past eight years. He arrested and illegally held peaceful protesters during the RNC in NYC. He is hostile to freedom of speech and particularly progressive and liberal freedom of speech. You wouldn't know if you haven't actively protested anthinbg in New York. His illegal use of video taping peaceful protesters (a legal challenge brought by his own City'S PBA) is a good indication of his acceptance of domestic surveillance.

The guy has done NOTHING for the middle class in NYC and has no record to run on in regard to bolstering it nationwide. He is YET ANOTHER pro-corporate candidate. Pro-business. Pro-wealth. Pro-elitist. He throw's a bone to lower income constituencies once in a while to shut up the poor black and hispanic communities when they become agitated.

What has he given us? Stadiums. Whoopdee doo. That's his legacy.

[MidtownGuy]

^what he said!
I agree totally.



any person that holds a dual citizenship - in this case USA / Israel - should be unqualified to hold ANY public office.

Especially this. A US president having Israeli citizenship is outrageously inappropriate and he would do more damage to relations in the Middle East than just about any other candidate I could think of.

[Ninjahedge]

So you would support Cheney for President over Bloomie? ;)

[MikeW]

I'm thinking a Bloomie run is looking more and more likely, since none of the Major party candidates seem particularly popular. Whomever the majors nominate will likely get damages enough in the primary battles that an indie, especially one with the bottomless pockets of Mikie, could blast a hole between the two of them large enough to drive a winning campaign through.

[MidtownGuy]

Bloomberg could never, ever win the general election. It's just an expensive fantasy.

[BrooklynRider]

I'm thinking a Bloomie run is looking more and more likely, since none of the Major party candidates seem particularly popular. Whomever the majors nominate will likely get damages enough in the primary battles that an indie, especially one with the bottomless pockets of Mikie, could blast a hole between the two of them large enough to drive a winning campaign through.

I think that the facts bear out that none of the Republicans are wildly popular and Mike Huckabee and John McCains "surge" is media fabrication.

The Democrats fielded a decent slate of candidates this year.

Overall, I sense a national attitude that assumes the pendulum swings the other way this election. However, if every office-holding Democrat and every office-holding Republican disappeared in the devil's version of the rapture, you'd probably see a lot of people relieved and cheering.

Mike Bloomberg is an opportunist, not an independent third party candidate. If one wants a fair illustration of a Bloomberg foreigh policy, look no further than Joe Lieberman. Pro-war. Pro-preemptive action. Blindly pro-Israel. An AIPAC lobbyist on the hill. Anti-constitution. Pro-domestic spying. Pro-torture. Pro-war funding. Believe Iraqi is GOOD, GOOD, GOOD. Ran as an independent, causcuses with Democrats and votes with Republicans. He's a snake.

Bloomberg is like Giuliani. Accomplished on a local level and totally inappropriate for national office.

As for blasting a hole between Dems & Reps, I would expect him to run a rather divisive campaign further exasperating Dem / Rep animosity for his own gain. In that case, he would have a Congress that would foil him at every turn. Third-party president that can do nothing.

[MikeW]

^
None of what your saying makes any difference as to who is going to move in to the White House on Jan 20, 2009.

Both of the major parties have the same problem. In order to win the nomination, the candidates have to kowtow to the extremes of the party, who usually control the party apparatus, especially at the local level. This forces them to espouse positions that run counter to the view of the mainstream majority that decides the general election. But since its usually a choice between the candidate who pitched to the extreme right to get the Republican nomination, vs the one who did the same on the extreme left, the one who wins is usually the one who does a better job convincing the center they really didn't mean what they said to get the nomination.

But Bloomberg, who doesn't have to distance himself from a nomination run, who is not beholden to any party apparatus, and who has $5,000,000,000 to get out whatever message he wants, can exploit this weakness like no one ever has before.

[BrooklynRider]

But Bloomberg...who has $5,000,000,000 to get out whatever message he wants...

You're exactly right on that point. ANY MESSAGE he wants - regardless of truth - regardless of his record. Seems the argument you pose is that billionaires are impervious to all obstacles. Certainly, they can buy an election. I never doubted that. However, I think you originally stated that people should support him if they are tired as politics as usual. I don't think he's more appealing because he seeks to avoid the scrutiny of the campaign trail and wants to substitute glossy marketing for hard questioning.

[MidtownGuy]

He won't win the Presidency with 10 billion. This country still has greater than its fair share of bigots (especially widespread in red states). He'll get enough votes from both sides to mess things up, but never to win the general election. Face it.

Obama probably couldn't win either, no matter what. It is just so sad but true. One more generation and they might have a chance...some dinosaurs have to die off first.

[lofter1]

That bigotry ^ problem ...

Will it thwart a female candidate as well?

[Jasonik]

If Bloomberg stays in politics, it will be in Clinton's Senate seat.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
That's probably true.

On national recognition, Bloomberg is Giuliani without the 09/11 issue.

[lofter1]

And when Mike goes to DC then Betsy Gotbaum will become the Mayor of NYC ...

[MikeW]

Should? No really.

Will? He'll certainly pitch it that way.

It's a strange Catch-22. Either we get candidates beholden to whatever special interests that give them the money to run, or we get candidates who'll do whatever the hell they want to do because they have their own money. Essentially they're their own special interest.


<snip> However, I think you originally stated that people should support him if they are tired as politics as usual. <snip>

[MikeW]

We're almost guaranteed that the democratic candidate will be a non-white male. So this means we're pretty much guaranteed a Republican (who ever gets the nod)?

See, I think this works for Bloomie. The bigot factor rules out Hillary/Obama. I don't get the feeling that the country really wants another Republican. This is where the white/male (albeit Jewish) Bloomberg can step in and walk away with it. He may not get the hard core bigot vote, but he may get the voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black or a woman.

Oh, and don't kid yourself. Out in the country, new dinosaurs are born every minute.


He won't win the Presidency with 10 billion. This country still has greater than its fair share of bigots (especially widespread in red states). He'll get enough votes from both sides to mess things up, but never to win the general election. Face it.

Obama probably couldn't win either, no matter what. It is just so sad but true. One more generation and they might have a chance...some dinosaurs have to die off first.

[eddhead]

The goal is worthy, but I don't see it being pursued by a vote for Bloomberg.

He's would not be a true third party candidate. The way he's moved effortlessly between Republican and Democrat (how would you even define him now - a REP with DEM tendencies, or vice versa?), it seems you would be replacing a duopoly with a monopoly.

If the intent is to send a message protesting the two party system, a vote for Ron Paul is the most effective.

I don't agree.

I see Bloomberg as niether a democrat in republican clothing or vice-versa, as witnessed by his propensity to both befriend and annoy Republic and and Democrats alike in the pursuit of his agenda. True, he does leverage his vast political skills, and party politics to suit his aims and achieve his objectives, but the difference is his prioties are defined by his values, not political loyalites and obligiations. Politics is a tactic for him, a means to an end, but party ideology does not define him. Nor does it influence his agenda. For instance, he is a liberal who balanced the NYC budget without raising taxes and by taking a hard line with municlple unions. He is a republican, who worked to exact greater influence on the NYC Public School system.

More to the point, he is not encumbered by special interests,and party affiliation. He can finance his own campaign, and put K-Street out on its ear. He is also perhaps the most capable Government Policy maker and adimisitrator within the public sphere today.

The impact of his candidacy in the General Election is hard to predict at this time.. I think it depends on the Republican and Democratic nominees. For instance, while think he would pose a threat to a Hillary Clinton candidacy, I also think he would pull votes from Guillinani and McCain because they represent candidates who, like Bloomberg, are popular with independents..

[ZippyTheChimp]

I see Bloomberg as niether a democrat in republican clothing or vice-versa, as witnessed by his propensity to both befriend and annoy Republic and and Democrats alike in the pursuit of his agenda.In the general election, people want a clear message. So what will his agenda be? Battle entrenched interests? Not easy for a multi-billionaire businessman to pull off.


True, he does leverage his vast political skills,I wouldn't describe Bloomberg as having political experience. He spent much of his first term stumbling to learn the politics of New York City - witness his handling of the Jets Stadium. On the national scene, he'd be a neophyte.


but the difference is his prioties are defined by his values, not political loyalites and obligiations.Every candidate says that.


Much of what you say about him will be tough to define nationally. One attack is going to be that he became mayor by switching parties, not by running as an independent -that he's a political opportunist. Given the prevailing attitude across the country of New York as a ruthless place, he'd have a tough time shedding that label.

An independent candidate needs charisma; I don't see that in his personality.

[BrooklynRider]

... he is a liberal who balanced the NYC budget without raising taxes and by taking a hard line with municlple unions...

My memory of it was a huge property tax increase after he came into office and caving to the PBA and NYFD.

[eddhead]

In the general election, people want a clear message. So what will his agenda be? Battle entrenched interests? Not easy for a multi-billionaire businessman to pull off.

His message: Let's put an end to the paritsan bickering that characterizes the administration of government today, and do the people's business for the benefit of the people. Let's put an end to the influence exacted by the military/medical/energy industrial complex. Elect someone who is beholding to neither special interests nor party affiliations.

It is not unlike the John Edward's Populist message.



I wouldn't describe Bloomberg as having political experience. He spent much of his first term stumbling to learn the politics of New York City - witness his handling of the Jets Stadium. On the national scene, he'd be a neophyte.

I think his revamping of the Public Education system was a political masterpiece. As BR noted above, he also raised property taxes, and although there was criticism around that, the fact withstood the storm is a testament to his polical acuman. I will admit that he blew it on Jet's stadium, a rare but significant failure.


Much of what you say about him will be tough to define nationally. One attack is going to be that he became mayor by switching parties, not by running as an independent -that he's a political opportunist. Given the prevailing attitude across the country of New York as a ruthless place, he'd have a tough time shedding that label.

I really do not see his switching parties as an issue the broader electorate would concern itself with. Afterall, Hillary Clinton was also labled an opportunist ... an Arkansas woman, raised in Illinois who ran for the NY Senate race. She took some flack initially, but people got over it. Besides, I think the electorate is growing weary of party politics and affiliations.

A more important concern would be his lack of Geopolicital policy experience, and a lack of understanding on where he stands on foreign policy matters.[/quote]


An independent candidate needs charisma; I don't see that in his personality.

well, charisma certainly helps, but given the lack of competency characterized by the current administration, this might just be the year where intelligence and competence wins out. we suthis just might be the election cycle. Jimmy Carter wasn't exactly Mr. Personality, but the public perceived him as being smart and able and as a result compared him favorably (if unfairly) to Ford. It got him over the top.


My memory of it was a huge property tax increase after he came into office and caving to the PBA and NYFD.

After researching, I agree you are correct about the property tax increases, although he did rebate the incremental revenues a year later when the budget reflected a surplus. I cannot find anything on PBA and NYFD though, other than the fact that he closed Fire houses and withstood that political storm as well.

[RandySavage]

I agree that Bloomberg, Obama and Hillary are not electable. Edwards would stand a fair shot of winning but the media and his own campaign seem to have written him off. As was posted here, Edwards needs to come up with something that will get him attention and separate him from the pack (maybe wins in Iowa and NH will do that). If Hillary or Obama are the democratic ticket, I would be surprised if a Republican does not take the White House.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Eddhead, I think you're missing my point.

I'm not stating whether or not Bloomberg would make a good candidate or president, but his effectiveness as a independent.


It is not unlike the John Edward's Populist message.

Afterall, Hillary Clinton was also labled an opportunistBut they're running for a major party nomination.


well, charisma certainly helps, but given the lack of competency characterized by the current administration, this might just be the year where intelligence and competence wins out. we suthis just might be the election cycle. Jimmy Carter wasn't exactly Mr. Personality, but the public perceived him as being smart and able and as a result compared him favorably (if unfairly) to Ford.Although Ford has been more favorably viewed from the present, his persona in 1976 was Chevy Chase, and he was the man that pardoned Nixon. The current crop is not so bad compared to that, or the fiasco four years ago.

As noted by others, he'll draw off votes and be a spoiler.

[investordude]

Bloomberg was born in Boston. To my knowledge, he has never even resided in Israel. I could be wrong. What's the source of your information that he has Israeli citizneship?

[ZippyTheChimp]

I don't know if Bloomberg actually holds dual citizenship, since it is not automatic just because he is Jewish.

The US/Israel rule of citizenship is the same as that for other countries, like France and the UK. The determining factor is if the countries' own laws permit dual citizenship.

There might be some confusion because of Israel's Law of Return, where a Jew may immigrate and become an Israeli citizen automatically, but it doesn't mean that all Jews everywhere are citizens of Israel.

I think any candidate for federal office should renounce dual citizenship with any country.

[lofter1]

A google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7RNWE&q=%22michael+bloomberg%22+%22israeli+citizenship%2 2) shows NO indication whatsoever that US-born / US citizen Michael Bloomberg has obtained or intends to obtain dual citizenship with Israel -- or any other nation other than the USA.

Requirements for Israeli citizenship (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Acquisition%20of%20Israeli%20Nationality) indicate that Bloomberg is not even a likely candidate for dual US / Israeli citizenship.

[investordude]

Like other candidates, we should hear Bloomberg's views on the middle east and Israel. Given both political parties and 87 percent of the US public are pro-Israel, I think the likely pro-Israel views he will state are not a reflection of some secret Israeli citizenship.

I think it would be insulting for him to renounce Israeli citizenship since he isn't an Israeli citizen - and I would reiterate that it strikes me as an antisemitic requirement to expect US Jews to be suspect on this note. If he's not a dual citizen, he no more should need to renounce Israeli citizenship than he should need to renounce Mexican citizenship. He's not a citizen of either country.

[MidtownGuy]

87 percent of the US public are pro-Israel

The scientific side of me would like to know exactly what was the question asked in the survey...was it literally "are you pro-Israel?" Might I suggest a reputable and/or meaningful poll would craft a question slightly more specific?
That's so general it is actually meaningless. Must be an AIPAC poll of some sort, they do call themselves the "Pro-Israel Lobby".

[investordude]

I'm having trouble identifying the poll where I read that - I think it was one of those Pew polls though. I was surprised numbers were as high as 87 percent too, but I think if you consider the essentially unanimous perpective on this subject by Congress the number is probably right. Even if its only 60 or 70 percent, that's still a very high number. Getting 87 percent of people in a poll to agree on any given question is hard.

[investordude]

I can't find the report I read, but this Pew research is asking "do you take Israel's side or the Palestinians." Without an answer of "they both are acting like idiots" I think the numbers are unsurprising - in fact I would imagine even most western European countries with greater misgivings on Israel would also agree they are acting better than the Palestinians (if you ever have watched memri TV or similar Palestinian propaganda, its truly awful in its hatefulness in a way Israel just isn't). But I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean "pro Israel" in terms of people thinking Israel's actions are Ok.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/39/the-us-publics-pro-israel-history

[RandySavage]

It seems to me that most American politicians (and Americans?) are blindly pro-Israel because they know life will be much easier that way. Any criticism of Israel brings on the vitriol of the AIPAC, the media, Sunday morning neo-con talking heads like Kristol and Pearle and the thinktanks they represent, and even Jewish friends and colleagues (of which I have plenty). More often than not, it is insinuated that a rebuke of Israel is, at best, misguided and subconscious antisemitism and at worst, Nazi propaganda. The vast majority of politicians are too terrified of confronting Israel or the AIPAC, with one or two exceptions on the left (Jimmy Carter) and the right (Pat Buchanan). Israel should not be free from condemnation, rebuke, or even punishment when they do wrong (ie, I don't think we should prop up the IDF with billions of US tax dollars, when the IDF uses that money to annihilate Lebanon's non-combatants and infrastructure in an unnecessary mini-war).

[ZippyTheChimp]

Why is it assumed that Americans are blindly supportive. A pejorative attitude.

American popular support for Israel has usually been near 50%, but has dropped significantly during times of Israeli aggression. So maybe there's some thought in the preference.

What has been consistent is the low support for Palestinians, regardless of the attitude toward Israel.

July 2005: Israel 37% Palestinian 12%
May 2006: Israel 48% Palestinian 13%

Almost all the shift goes to the BOTH or NO OPINION category.

Maybe the problem of Palestinian support is their own image, or more broadly, the image of the Mideast. Justified or not, a large segment of Americans see the Muslin Mideast as a hostile place, regardless of attitudes toward Israel.

[investordude]

I don't know if we want to dredge up the Israeli debate since its harped on elsewhere, but Americans are correct in assuming that Palestinian society is run by thugs. That's unfortunately a true statement. Whether that justifies Israeli policies - my own opinion is in certain cases like forced settlements it doesn't. But if I had to pick between the two sides to have as a friend, its a no brainer you pick the Israelis.

[MidtownGuy]

OK, but when my friends do something wrong I tell them about it. The Israelis have never stopped building their illegal settlements. It's all just a calculated plan to "change the facts on the ground" as they say, and make any tenable two state solution increasingly more difficult to negotiate. Unfortunately they just make the situation more intractable. I guess sometimes friends need to be told the hard truth because it can be difficult for them to discern what's in their own long term self-interest.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Getting this discussion back to Bloomberg...


I think it would be insulting for him to renounce Israeli citizenship since he isn't an Israeli citizenWhat's the point? If he isn't a citizen, there's nothing to renounce.

But should a president hold dual citizenship with any other country?

[RandySavage]

Of course not. That's how the Israel debate came up. Does Bloomberg a have blindly pro-Israel stance, and, if so, how would that affect his candidacy or presidency?

I feel that a contributing factor to the apathy of American public today is that a growing proportion of Americans, particularly those who immigrated or whose parents immigrated, feel that they have dual nationalities (i.e., I'm Korean, but I my family and I live in the US), and those that have been here for a longer time feel like the newcomers don't have the same loyalty (for lack of a better word) to America.

Looking back at our history, after the tide of European immigration in the early 20th century, the country was heavily divided, and it took World War II, where the entire populace, regardless of origin, was dedicated to the war effort, to fuse the new American self-identity that lasted for the rest of that century.

In the past several decades we have experienced another great bout of immigration, mainly from Latin America and Asia. But with no great, joint struggle to fuse us all together as Americans (along with the challenge of the "new" Americans being visibly different from the "old"), I feel the country has again lost its identity.

[BrooklynRider]

I agree completely. I grew up in a family that flew the flag all the time. Not only doesn't anyone in family fly the flag, but the American flag has all but disappeared from display on private buildings. The symbolism of the flag has been lost, because the principles of the country have been turned on its head.

I don't think Bloomberg is a candidate that redefines or restores those principles. He is not a "middle class" candidate. I hear the arguments that he is not Republican and not a Democrat (even if I don't agree.) However, no one has presented or demonstrated any principles he would bring to the office. Well, perhaps one, that his vast fortune would make him impervious to political pressures. That seems rather naive as the office of President is the lightning rod of politics (and sometimes the source.)

Footnote: Challenging a Jewish politician on policy towards Israel is not akin to anti-semitism. Our blindly pro-Israel policy and continuous bucking of the international community in imposing censure or sanctions on the state has done NOTHING to promote peace in the Middle East. We certainly support them and give them more consideration than we receive in return. How many times have we convicted Israeli agents in our own government passing on intelligence? When is the last time we heard of British, French, or German spies stealing intelligence? Israel is no friend of this country.

[BrooklynRider]

Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid

First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government


By David S. Broder
Sunday, December 30, 2007;


New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.

Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.

Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h001028/) (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.
Boren, who will host the meeting at the university, where he is president, said: "It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."

The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Bloomberg, a former Democrat who was elected mayor of New York as a Republican, left the GOP this past summer to become an independent. While disclaiming any plan to run for president in 2008, he has continued to fuel speculation by traveling widely and speaking out on both domestic and international issues. The mayor, a billionaire many times over, presumably could self-finance even a late-starting candidacy.

"As mayor, he has seen far too often how hyperpartisanship in Washington has gotten in the way of making progress on a host of issues," said Bloomberg's press secretary, Stu Loeser. "He looks forward to sitting down and discussing this with other leaders."

Until plans for this meeting were disclosed, the most concrete public move toward any kind of independent candidacy was by Unity08, a group planning an online nominating convention to pick either an independent candidate or a ticket combining a Republican and a Democrat. The sponsors, an eclectic mix of consultants who have worked for candidates including Jimmy Carter (D) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/a000360/) (R-Tenn.), have not aligned with a specific prospect.

Now, some people with high-level political and governmental credentials are moving to put muscle behind the effort. A letter from Nunn and Boren sent to those attending the Jan. 7 session said that "our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion in America's power of leadership and example."

At the session, Boren said, participants will try to draft a statement on such issues as the need to "rebuild and reconfigure our military forces," nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and restoring U.S. credibility in the world.

"Today, we are a house divided," the letter said. "We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available -- without regard to political party -- to help lead our nation."

Boren said he and Nunn, who often collaborated when they headed the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees, respectively, issued invitations to other moderates with whom they had served, and found that almost everyone was willing to come.

"Our hope is that the candidates will respond with their own specific ideas about how to pull the country together, not just aim at getting out their own polarized base," Boren said. "But we will have a couple months before the nominees will be known, and we can judge in that time what their response will be."

Boren said the meeting is being announced in advance of Thursday's Iowa caucuses "because we don't want anyone to think this was a response to any particular candidate or candidates." He said the nation needs a "government of national unity" to overcome its partisan divisions in a time of national challenge he likened to that faced by Great Britain during World War II.

"Electing a president based solely on the platform or promises of one party is not adequate for this time," Boren said. "Until you end the polarization and have bipartisanship, nothing else matters, because one party simply will block the other from acting."

Danforth said he remains a Republican but finds little cause for optimism among the current GOP candidates. "My party is appealing to a real meanness," he said in an interview, "and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy. I hope it will be less extreme, but I'm an American before I'm a Republican." Danforth has also written critically about the impact of religious conservatives on the Republican Party.

Cohen said his emphasis will be on the issues rather than on a candidacy, adding that he and Nunn will co-sponsor a series of "dialogues" on key topics, aiming to build planks for a possible consensus platform for the next president.
"The important goal all of us share," Cohen said, "is to get government back to the center."

Nunn, for his part, described Bloomberg as "an enormously capable man" but said: "I've made no decision who I'm going to support. Most of us hope to shape the Republican or Democratic side's response, but who knows where this is going to go? I think the country's at the tipping point, and it's going to take a lot more understanding by the electorate for anybody to be able to lead."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476_pf.html

[investordude]

BrooklynRider, challenging any candidate (Jewish or not) on Israel is perfectly legitimate. Expecting him to secrectly hold Israeli citizenship when he clearly doesn't and expecting him to have to renounce it because he's Jewish - that's antisemitic as far as I can see.

As far as I can tell, someone born in the United States who doesn't hold Israeli citizenship shouldn't be suspected of that. On the other hand, asking him anything you want on his policy positions about Israel, including whether you think he can be objective as a Jewish person, is completely fine and reasonable.

[Jasonik]

BrooklynRider, this is all a CFR (http://www.cfr.org/) scam. Chuck Hagel is all about the Council on Foreign Relations unity ticket (http://www.observer.com/2007/hagel-cfr-would-consider-running-dem-ticket-calls-hillary-capable?page=0%2C0).

All of these politicians believe in continued military intervention abroad -- just managed properly. More war, more military interventionism and more irresponsible spending and enemy creation. More sanctions and economic containment. More of the same. This is the establishment presenting a false alternative. Don't be fooled.

[BrooklynRider]

Jasonik,

I can't say I support Blooomberg nor am I interested in a candidacy by him. I just posted the article because it was news.

I'm not interested in anyone out to buy an election. I'm also not interested in anyone talking about religion or who can be construed as "religious" in anyway. Religion is poison in politics.

[investordude]

Listen, the Iraq War was moronic and foolish as a preemptive war. But I think its ridiculous to advocate the US never intervene in a foreign conflict. If someone genuinely threatens our national interests (Iraq didn't) then we should reserve the ability to defend it - and that clearly means a willingness to fight overseas as an option of last resort. By "managed properly" I think Hagel wants war to be the last resort and not the first resort, and to follow the Powell doctrine of a clear limited objective, overwhelming force, and a defined exit strategy, as well as diplomacy to get broad support when we need it.

Applying those principles would have precluded the fight in Iraq or prematurely forgetting about Afghanistan. Unless we're really going to argue for the ridiculous Ron Paul position that the US should just disappear from world affairs, its important to examine the candidates on how they would respond internationally to crises. I don't know where Bloomberg stands and Obama seems the closest to a sound policy maker abroad to me, but I think any candidate like Ron Paul who advocates a withdrawal of the US from world affairs should be cross examined more carefully if he has a serious chance to become president. America should defend itself from real harm to its interests, even if the Bush administration has abused that privilege.

[pianoman11686]

There's a difference between intervening on select occasions, as other countries do, when imminent threats to national security are identified, and what we do. What we do is sustain a massive military infrastructure around the world. I think it's 700 international bases. There are still thousands of US troops stationed in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. And we spend billions each year on military "aid" to various countries, some of which are enemies with each other. We don't need to be in anyone's backyard, and we could use the extra money on domestic expenses and paying down the deficit. Don't forget that the single most significant source of bin Laden's hatred of the US was its bases in Saudi Arabia.

Paul's got it right: we don't need to be the policeman of the world. It's no longer the Cold War, and terrorism is not a uniquely American threat. We should be working with other countries that face the same threats, yet refrain from costly military adventures.

[eddhead]

Jasonik,
I'm not interested in anyone out to buy an election.


Well, that eliminates .. just about everyone now that I think about it... ;)


I
However, no one has presented or demonstrated any principles he would bring to the office. Well, perhaps one, that his vast fortune would make him impervious to political pressures. That seems rather naive as the office of President is the lightning rod of politics (and sometimes the source.)

It is true that from a policy perspective, Bloomberg's postitons are thin. We do know from a speech he have to Cooper Union that he is a proponent of Universal Heath Care and and advocate of use of health information technology to support preventive care and reform health care financing.

http://www.mikebloomberg.com/en/issues/healthcare/mayor_michael_bloomberg_proposes_sweeping_changes_ in_health_care_financing_through_new_use_of_inform ation_tBut

Still, that is pretty broad.
We also know too little about his geopolictcal views at this point.

We do know he is a competant administrator, and a social liberal.

Potential Guiding principles of a Bloomberg administration, beyond those mentioned with respect to his non-affiliation to special interestes and political parties would probably focus on fiscal responsiblity and the importance of balancing the budget and restoring the dollar to its historical standard as the Global Currency of Last Resort. This in turn would enhance the US postion as the World's pre-eminant Global Trade partner, and lead to reduced interest rates, increased capital investment, and a lessened tax burden on the middle class.

But clearly we need more.

[eddhead]

Eddhead, I think you're missing my point.

I'm not stating whether or not Bloomberg would make a good candidate or president, but his effectiveness as a independent.

I think I will have to disagree on that one. In my view, Bloomberg is already perceived as an independent, a perception he bolsters by advocating policies are not dicatated by r or d planks.


But they're running for a major party nomination.

Not sure that makes a difference in this regard.


Although Ford has been more favorably viewed from the present, his persona in 1976 was Chevy Chase, and he was the man that pardoned Nixon. The current crop is not so bad compared to that, or the fiasco four years ago
As noted by others, he'll draw off votes and be a spoiler.

True enough about Ford, in fact that was my point, but I do not think the current crowd especially on the Republican side is viewed as well as all that either.

[MidtownGuy]

There's a difference between intervening on select occasions, as other countries do, ...costly military adventures.

Well said.

[Moebius]

Of course not. That's how the Israel debate came up. Does Bloomberg a have blindly pro-Israel stance, and, if so, how would that affect his candidacy or presidency?

I feel that a contributing factor to the apathy of American public today is that a growing proportion of Americans, particularly those who immigrated or whose parents immigrated, feel that they have dual nationalities (i.e., I'm Korean, but I my family and I live in the US), and those that have been here for a longer time feel like the newcomers don't have the same loyalty (for lack of a better word) to America.

Looking back at our history, after the tide of European immigration in the early 20th century, the country was heavily divided, and it took World War II, where the entire populace, regardless of origin, was dedicated to the war effort, to fuse the new American self-identity that lasted for the rest of that century.

In the past several decades we have experienced another great bout of immigration, mainly from Latin America and Asia. But with no great, joint struggle to fuse us all together as Americans (along with the challenge of the "new" Americans being visibly different from the "old"), I feel the country has again lost its identity.


Last I checked, Mike Bloomberg can trace his ancestry to Russia and maybe Poland. I'm not sure why you are focusing on Israel. Hmmm... was that Putin he was walking around with the other day?

[chris]

.


Well, I'm glad to see that the post has generated plenty of conversation!

Incidentally, it has now jumped to the #3 slot on Yahoo!'s natural search results the popular search term: Michael Bloomberg for President (http://www.RunMikeRun.com)

http ://search.yahoo.com/search?p=michael+bloomberg+for+president (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=michael+bloomberg+for+president)

Which is generating a lot of traffic to the site. I'm still barely on the radar with Google, but hey, that's not bad SEO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization) for a site that's 2 weeks live.

I've made a few revisions to the site. It's still evolving (as any good site does).
http://www.RunMikeRun.com



.

[missPepper]

Please forgive me but...I still have not gotten past Randy Savage's anti- Israel rant. My mother warned me about people like you...You are one scary, naive dude. Please stay in your little world and don't invade mine!

[Jasonik]

Maybe I'm out of line here because my mother doesn't wear combat boots, but it appears that some people didn't get the memo that one particular nation is above criticism by virtue of whom control and populate it. Additionally, the memo that states lobbyists may be criticised only when they are not advocating for these exempt people appears to have gone undelivered.

missPepper, more people should, like you and your mother, make sure that topics that are off limits -- are kept that way. Here's to none of our little worlds being invaded by any dudes!

[RandySavage]

Relax, Miss Pepper. I'm trying to have an open dialog. I didn't make any anti-Israel rant. I obviously side with Israel over the radical Islamists who want to kill us. What I'm suggesting is that Israel's actions are not always right or good (nor are America's). I'm suggesting America's and Israel's interests are not always aligned (like the Irag invasion). However, when I - or others - voice criticism of Israel, some people wrongly consider that criticism to be anti-semitic in nature. You and your mother have illustrated that point perfectly. Please make an argument as to why my opinion is "scary and naive" and then, maybe, we can both learn something. If you're not prepared or able to have a serious debate, then go away.

Look, we all want peace and prosperity, especially in New York, the likely target of another Jihadist attack. But to get there it's not as simple as waging an unending war against the Muslim world. Yes, military action will be necessary in some places, but we need to work at the roots of the problem and one of the major roots is the situation between Israel and Palestine. If an acceptable peace/land settlement can be reached there, then think of how many fewer moderate Muslims will turn to extremism. Muslim extremism will die when Muslims are free from destitution, joblessness and hopelessness.

I believe some of what Israel is currently doing is not helping to establish a long-term peace for them or for the world. For instance, I think building settlements on the Palestinian side of the Armistice Line in order to annex territory works against the long-term peace. I think building the Great Wall works against the long-term peace. On the flip side, I am aware that the wall is has been working to lessen attacks. Here is a interesting article that recently appeared in National Geographic that describes the situation that Palestinians and Israelis currently face on both sides of the wall: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-12/bethlehem/finkel-text.html

It's a complex problem and it's useful to discuss it. What disturbs me are the people like Miss Pepper who see this criticism as anti-semitic. If you do, please explain why.

[investordude]

Look, like the other candidates, its important to know what Bloomberg thinks about Israel just like the other candidates - and I'd be stunned if he wasn't generally sympathetic to Israel like the overwhelming majority of Americans and both political parties. I'd especially like to hear (to all of the candidates) a more demanding explanation of what they know about the Israeli Palestianian conflict and how they plan to actually end up with a sustainable peace deal (or alternatively, how they plan to extricate the US from trying to achieve a peace deal if they think that's the right solution).

But what troubles me is when you claim Bloomberg's an Israeli citizen or other such nonsense - it seems like that's making assumptions he's got some secret agenda shared secretly by Jews, which is on fact value ridiculous. He's not an Israeli, and he's never behaved as an agent of Israel - in fact, I think its fairly unequivocal he's less pro Israel than most other NYC mayors (Giuliani for example). The typical New York mayor kicks Arafat out of Lincoln Center - Bloomberg went out of his way not to grandstand about Ahmadenijad at Columbia and has defended free speech rights for Islamists and has tried to support an Arabic public school until Alamonster dug her own political grave. The patriotism, specifically to America and America alone, of Bloomberg should not credibly be in question by someone who isn't antisemitic.

[RandySavage]

But what troubles me is when you claim Bloomberg's an Israeli citizen or other such nonsense

If you reread the thread you'll see that I never made any such claim. I did say that IF Bloomberg is blindly pro-Israel, like so many other politicians, then I would be wary of voting for him. I want politicians that will do what they sincerely believe is in America's best interest (based on experience, information and rational debate), not what AIPAC tells them is in America's best interest (because it is the best interest of Israel). Please read this article below written by Ari Berman and published in The National:



"AIPAC's Hold


In early March, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its forty-seventh annual conference in Washington. AIPAC's executive director spent twenty-seven minutes reading the "roll call" of dignitaries present at the gala dinner, which included a majority of the Senate and a quarter of the House, along with dozens of Administration officials.

As this event illustrates, it's impossible to talk about Congress's relationship to Israel without highlighting AIPAC, the American Jewish community's most important voice on the Hill. The Congressional reaction to Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's retaliatory bombing of Lebanon provide the latest example of why.

On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8.

AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."

AIPAC is the leading player in what is sometimes referred to as "The Israel Lobby"--a coalition that includes major Jewish groups, neoconservative intellectuals and Christian Zionists. With its impressive contacts among Hill staffers, influential grassroots supporters and deep connections to wealthy donors, AIPAC is the lobby's key emissary to Congress. But in many ways, AIPAC has become greater than just another lobby; its work has made unconditional support for Israel an accepted cost of doing business inside the halls of Congress. AIPAC's interest, Israel's interest and America's interest are today perceived by most elected leaders to be one and the same. Christian conservatives increasingly aligned with AIPAC demand unwavering support for Israel from their Republican leaders. (In mid-July, 3,000-plus evangelicals came to town for the first annual "Christian United for Israel" summit.) And Democrats are equally concerned about alienating Jewish voters and Jewish donors--long a cornerstone of their party. Some in Congress are deeply uncomfortable with AIPAC's militant worldview and heavyhanded tactics, but most dare not say so publicly.

"The Bush Administration is bad enough in tolerating measures they would not accept anywhere else but Israel," says Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress and a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the Congress, if anything, is urging the Administration on and criticizing them even at their most accommodating. When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups, like AIPAC, that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics."

There are a few internationalist Republicans in the Senate and progressive Democrats in the House who occasionally dissent. Representative Dennis Kucinich and twenty-three co-sponsors have offered a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire and a return to multiparty diplomacy between the United States and regional powers, with no preconditions. But even the resolution's supporters admit it isn't likely to go anywhere. Another bill introduced by several Arab-American lawmakers that stressed the need to minimize civilian casualties on both sides was "politically swept under the rug," according to Representative Nick Rahall, a Lebanese-American Democrat from West Virginia who voted against the House resolution. Dovish American-Israeli groups, such as Americans for Peace Now, have largely stayed out of the fight.

The latest hawkish Congressional activity is primarily intended to show voters and potential donors that elected officials are unwavering friends of Israel and enemies of terrorism. "It's just for home consumption," said Representative Charlie Rangel, a powerful New York Democrat who signed on to Kucinich's resolution. "We don't have the support of countries that support us! What the hell are we going to do, bomb Iran? Bomb Syria?" His colleagues, said Rahall, "were trying to out-AIPAC AIPAC."

Discussion in Congress quickly widened beyond Israel to include a broader policy of confrontation toward the entire Middle East. Congressmen sent a flurry of "dear colleague" letters to one another, hoping to pressure the Administration into tightening sanctions on Syria and Iran, Hezbollah's two main state sponsors. Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross addressed a packed AIPAC-sponsored luncheon on the Hill, where, according to one aide present, Ross told the room: "This is all about Syria and Iran...we shouldn't be condemning Israel now." Said Representative Robert Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey and co-chair of the Iran Working Group, which this week hosted an official from the Israeli embassy: "I concur completely with that approach."

Democrats, as they did during the Dubai ports scandal, used the crisis to score a few cheap, easy political points against the Bush Administration. The new prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, found himself engulfed in a Congressional firestorm after he denounced Israel's attacks on Lebanon as an act of "aggression." Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel, who volunteered in Israel during the first Gulf War, called on Maliki to cancel his planned address before Congress. Asked Senator Chuck Schumer, who skipped Maliki's July 26 speech: "Which side is he on when it comes to the war on terror?" Howard Dean one upped his colleagues, labeling Maliki an "anti-Semite" during a speech in Palm Beach, Florida.

Ironically, during the 2004 campaign Dean called on the United States to be an "evenhanded" broker in the Middle East. That position enraged party leaders such as House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who signed a letter attacking his remarks. "It was designed to send a message: No one ever does this again," says M.J. Rosenberg of the center-left Israel Policy Forum. "And no one has. The only safe thing to say is: I support Israel." In April a representative from AIPAC called Congresswoman Betty McCollum's vote against a draconian bill severely curtailing aid to the Palestinian Authority "support for terrorists."

Not surprisingly, most in Congress see far more harm than reward in getting in the Israeli lobby's way. "There remains a perception of power and fear that AIPAC can undo you," says James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. He points to the defeats of Representative Paul Findley and Senator Charles Percy in the 1980s and Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard in 2002, when AIPAC steered large donors to their opponents. Even if AIPAC's make-you-or-break-you reputation is largely a myth, in an election year that perception is potent. Thirty-six pro-Israel PACs gave $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Rahall said his opponent for re-election issued his first press release of the campaign after Rahall voted against the House resolution. "Everybody knew what would happen if they didn't vote yes," he says.

AIPAC continues to enjoy deep bipartisan backing inside Congress even after two top AIPAC officials were indicted a year ago for allegedly accepting and passing on confidential national security secrets from a Defense Department analyst. "The US and Israel share a lot of basic common values. The vast majority of the American people not only support Israel's actions against Hezbollah but also the fundamental US-Israel relationship, and the bipartisan support in Congress reflects that," says AIPAC spokesman Josh Block. Rosenberg, himself a former AIPAC staffer, puts it another way: "This is the one issue on which liberals are permitted, even expected, by donors to be mindless hawks."

By blindly following AIPAC, Congress reinforces a hard-line consensus: Criticizing Israeli actions, even in the best of faith, is anti-Israel and possibly anti-Semitic; enthusiastically backing whatever military action Israel undertakes is the only acceptable stance.

Recent Gallup polls show that half of Americans support Israel's military campaign, yet 65 percent believe the United States should not take sides in the conflict. But it's hard to imagine any Congress, or subsequent Administration, returning to the role of honest broker. What the region needs now, according to Brzezinski, is an American leader brave enough to say: "Either I make policy on the Middle East or AIPAC makes policy on the Middle East." One can always dream."

[ZippyTheChimp]

Bloomberg’s Exercise in Vanity

by Joe Conason | January 1, 2008

This article was published in the January 7, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.

As political buzzwords, “bipartisan” and “non-partisan” and “independent” sound elevated and even virtuous, which must be why we so often hear them touted as remedies for our national ills. Every four years the promoters of these miracle cures seek a vessel for their illusions, preferably someone whose fortune is as limitless as his ego. This year’s model seems to be Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York and billionaire owner of the national business news service.

The immediate charm of a Bloomberg candidacy—or the candidacy of any other such supposed savior—is that it serves as a blank screen suitable for the projection of whatever obsessions, beliefs, projects or personal qualities are desired.

He is not only independent but free-floating, at least in the imaginations of his would-be supporters; he is not only devoid of ideology but practically free of content altogether, like nonpartisanship itself.

Or at least that is how he appears, until he is subjected to closer scrutiny.

For now let’s leave aside the most obvious impediments to presidential victory for a short, divorced, secular Jewish New Yorker who lives in unwedded sin with his girlfriend and whose speaking style is most politely described as uninspiring. Let’s focus instead on the logic behind his anticipated bid and what Americans will learn about him if he does run.

For most of his life, Mr. Bloomberg was a Democrat, and that is what he remains to this day, despite his repeated re-branding. Voters who expect to discover something new and different in his beliefs will be badly disappointed. On many issues, in fact, he sits on the leftward end of the Democratic spectrum—along with those who share his strong opposition to the death penalty; his eagerness to regulate cigarettes, fatty foods, handguns and cars; his zeal against global warming; and his admirable desire to improve the lives of the poor. He has spoken out against restrictions on immigration and the growing income gap between wealthy Americans like himself and the rest of us.

In short, he shares most of the beliefs and concerns of the Democratic Party. But back in 2001, when he decided to run for mayor, he worried that his fellow Democrats wouldn’t nominate him. So he bought the New York City Republican Party, which was on sale for cheap, and became a nominal Republican.

After 9/11, Mr. Bloomberg embraced his new political identity. He welcomed the Bush Republicans to New York City for their convention, arrested and detained peaceful protesters in blatant violation of their civil rights and enthusiastically endorsed the invasion and occupation of Iraq back when that was still a popular position.

By last spring he realized that most Americans regard the war as a mistake at best. “Nobody wants the war in Iraq to continue,” he told The New York Sun, “but how are you going to pull out, and what happens next? You’ve got to be able to say, if pulling out of Iraq causes this, this is what I would do; if staying in Iraq causes that, this is what I would do.”

So far, the mayor has yet to form a coherent response to those questions, but he is reportedly taking foreign affairs tutorials with Nancy Soderberg, a former Clinton National Security Council official, and Henry Kissinger, a Manhattan social friend of Mr. Bloomberg who happens to be responsible for several of the worst policy initiatives ever perpetrated by an American president.

While pondering the mysteries of world affairs, he repented his support of President Bush and of the Republican Party, which he has formally abandoned. The G.O.P. label was never much use to him as mayor of New York, a city legislatively dominated by Democrats. Much as he complains about the rise of partisanship, the truth is that his successful administration has enjoyed a high degree of bipartisan cooperation and support. (It’s the Republicans who despise him now.)

Presumably Mr. Bloomberg won’t run for president unless he believes he has a real chance to win, but that is hard to imagine today, when his national name recognition remains low and his standing in many polls is lower than “undecided.”

Even harder to imagine is why he would spend billions to divide liberals and moderates in the general election, risking another four years of failed right-wing government, partisan stasis and national decline. Exactly what is it about him that makes such a risk worth taking?

[Jasonik]

Glenn Greenwald writes (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/31/bloomberg/index.html):
Bloomberg is basically just Rudy Giuliani with a billion or two dollars to spend to alter the election. When it comes to foreign policy, war-making and government power, he offers absolutely nothing that isn't found in destructive abundance among the most extremist precincts in the Republican Party, while his moderate to liberal stance on social issues would prevent him from actually winning the support of his natural GOP base.

In fact -- despite his steadfast neoconservatism -- it's hard to see how the candidacy of a divorced, unmarried, stridently pro-gun-control, pro-choice, socially liberal New York City billionaire would accomplish anything other than offering the Republicans their best hope of winning in 2008. All of this seems to be intended as punishment meted out by the Establishment to the Democrats -- using Bloomberg's billions as the weapon -- for not repudiating their loudmouth, restless liberal base strongly enough... to stifle the populist anger at our political establishment after 8 years of unrestrained Bush-Cheney devastation...

[investordude]

Not that I give a damn what he thinks - but I'm curious why you quote him as an authority since he's clearly a partisan hack - exactly the kind of person that poisons the system and would be healthfully purged by a third party victory. There are a lot of very obvious ways that Bloomberg is different than Giuliani, and on a variety of non-economic Bloomberg actually seems more liberal than most dems (gun control, free speech, environmental issues, etc).

The main issues he differs from dems are his belief that the private sector can be constructive, that overregulation can damage economies, and that one major job of government is to allow the private sector to function. In other words, he's more socially liberal than most dems, and more economically conservative than most republicans (in my opinion, one major problem with republicans is they haven't walked the talk on free markets when there is something to demagogue about).

I think there's a valid question of whether a third party candidate draws votes away from candidates in a self defeating manner, but the claim Giuliani and Bloomberg are identical smacks of partisanship to me, especially coming from a guy like Greenwald.

[212]

The main issues he differs from dems are his belief that the private sector can be constructive, that overregulation can damage economies, and that one major job of government is to allow the private sector to function.

Every Democratic candidate would agree with you on these points (even Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel), as would every presidential nominee in the history of the party.

[lofter1]

Dream on -- Bloomberg has as much chance of becoming President as does Donald Trump.

[MikeW]

^
No. While I don't think he's a favorite to be president, his chances aren't 0%, as Trump's would be be if he ran. Trump is considered a clown by most of the population. I don't get that feeling from anyone about Bloomberg.

He has two things going for him that he could leverage. First is a major dissatisfaction with party politics. The fact that he used, abused, and discarded the Republicans, while alternately affiliating and distancing himself from the Democrats makes look both independent, and smart enough to make independence work in a party dominated enviroment.

The second is his $5,000,000,000 net worth. He has all the money he needs to run his campaign without having to go begging for it. Because of it he could bludgeon the major party candidates mercilously about being beholden to their campaign doners (and have the money to do it with).

[lofter1]

A heck of a lot of good that "independence" will do a supposed-President Bloomberg in regards to a bi-partisan Congress -- with whom he would have to deal in order to actually accomplish anything once elected.

He's a smart enough guy to know he could win the battle but lose the war -- and go down in history as a big ZERO.

[ZippyTheChimp]

There are a lot of very obvious ways that Bloomberg is different than Giuliani,You didn't list any.


economically conservativeWhat exactly does that mean?

[MikeW]

They'd have to deal with him as much as he'd have to deal with them.

In point of fact, without the bugaboo of supporting a president of their own party or opposing a president of the opposition party in play, it's possible (I won't say likely, but possible) that there'd be a work workable, less politicized dynamic between the president and congress.

And BTW, first your saying there's no way he could win, now your saying he could win but be useless. Which is it?


A heck of a lot of good that "independence" will do a supposed-President Bloomberg in regards to a bi-partisan Congress -- with whom he would have to deal in order to actually accomplish anything once elected.

He's a smart enough guy to know he could win the battle but lose the war -- and go down in history as a big ZERO.

[pianoman11686]

What exactly does that mean?

You mean nowadays, or what did it used to mean? :D

(I think he's referring to fiscal conservatism.)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Just because Bloomie's Wiki Bio states that he's a fiscal conservative doesn't mean he is one.

From WSJ:


Tax-Hike Mike
By PAT TOOMEY
July 2, 2007

You can't open a newspaper or turn on the television without the mainstream media swooning over New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Though the media's latest political darling disavows an independent run at the presidency, the former Democrat turned Republican recently traded in his Republican badge for an Independent affiliation and took time out of his busy schedule to speak at a Los Angeles political conference featuring White House aspirants.

The Big Apple mayor has been touted as the ideal candidate -- a nonpartisan CEO and the perfect combination of a social liberal and fiscal conservative. But even a cursory analysis of his five-year record demonstrates the absurdity of the "fiscal conservative" moniker.

Mr. Bloomberg began his first term with a firm pledge not to raise taxes, declaring in his 2002 inaugural address: "We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot drive people and business out of New York. We cannot raise taxes. We will find another way." Seven months later, Mr. Bloomberg raised taxes on cigarettes 94% from eight cents to $1.50, followed by another 50-cent increase in 2006.

Mr. Bloomberg followed the initial cigarette tax hike by proposing a whopping 25% property-tax increase, eventually reduced to 18.5% by his Democratic City Council. In 2003, the "fiscally conservative" mayor added insult to injury by piling on a raise in the city's income and sales taxes. Although Mr. Bloomberg offered tax rebates and is now implementing property- and sales-tax cuts, this relief is small compared to the additional burden imposed on homeowners and businesses in his first term. A study by New York City's Independent Budget Office published this year concluded that the tax burden is 90% higher than the average of other major cities. Amazingly, Mr. Bloomberg appears indifferent to the effect his fiscal policies have on beleaguered taxpayers, justifying them, in part, by arguing that New York City is "a high-end product, maybe even a luxury product."

Naturally, these tax hikes went hand-in-hand with a dramatic increase in city-funded spending. Over his first term, spending increased by an average of 10% per year according to New York City's Independent Budget Office -- wildly outpacing inflation and population growth, easily surpassing the 2.84% average during Rudy Giuliani's two terms and even beating out David Dinkins's four-year spending spree.

Mr. Bloomberg's concern -- or lack thereof -- for New York City taxpayers was further evidenced throughout his first term. Desperate to build a stadium on New York's West Side in order to bring the Olympics to the city in 2012, the MTA -- at Mr. Bloomberg's urging -- agreed to sell city-owned land to the New York Jets for considerably less than the appraised value and even less than a competing bid. Mr. Bloomberg also thumbed his nose at many of his predecessor's cost-cutting achievements. He has shied away from privatizing government services and scrapped some of Mr. Giuliani's plans to sell off government assets that the city has no business owning, like U.N. office buildings and Off-Track Betting. What kind of fiscal conservative believes that New York City should be in the real estate and gambling business?

The big-government liberalism didn't stop there. Mr. Bloomberg's paternalistic policies reveal a father-knows-best conceit that gave birth to the quip that "If Bloomberg wants to be my daddy, then he better put me in his will." Ironically, the man described by the press as a consummate businessman devoid of the ideological zeal plaguing national politics at times exudes the aura of a missionary bent on reforming misbehaving hordes.

Most famous is Mr. Bloomberg's 2003 law banning smoking in all public gathering places, including bars, restaurants and offices. The ban went so far as to outlaw ashtrays lest they encourage people to smoke, unleashing an anti-smoking brigade to raid public gathering places and issue "ashtray violations."

Three years later, Mr. Bloomberg banned all artificial trans fats in restaurants, bestowing on the Big Apple the dubious honor of being the first city in the country to do so. More recently, the one-time political novice who poured $150 million of his own money into two mayoral races is now pushing for the strictest city-wide campaign finance laws in the nation. When questioned about the obvious irony, Mr. Bloomberg defended an individual's right to self-finance a campaign as being upheld by the Supreme Court. Too bad Mr. Bloomberg couldn't muster the same concern for the free speech rights of individuals not blessed with his billion-dollar bank account.

Now that John McCain has lost his magic, the mainstream media is in desperate need of a new maverick. Who better to fill those shoes than a big-government businessman who has the luxury of shunning party labels? But calling Mike Bloomberg a fiscal conservative doesn't actually make him one. As a presidential candidate, the Independent Mike Bloomberg may not bear a party name, but his ideology is pretty hard to distinguish from the Democratic Party to which he belonged not so long ago.

Mr. Toomey is the president of the Club for Growth

[investordude]

If Greenwald and the Club for Growth both dislike Bloomberg, I'll take that as proof he's doing something right. Club for Growth is more partisan hackery - they associate fiscal conservative with tax decreases. I associate it with balanced budgets and letting the private sector work.

My own take is when republicans blame Bloomberg for raising expenses following a terrorist attack on the country, that indicates everything that's wrong with them. The only other person who cut taxes during a war besides George Bush was LBJ. The fact they both have similar fiscal policies indicates what's wrong with republicans deciding what a fiscal conservative is.

To the best that I can tell, Bloomberg is a fan of private sector solutions, balanced budgets, and getting government regulations on things like capital markets and zoning out of the way of legimate business.

And despite what you may say, dems don't really believe in those things either.

[pianoman11686]

Just because Bloomie's Wiki Bio states that he's a fiscal conservative doesn't mean he is one.

To the extent that Bloomberg prioritized balancing the city's budget and paying down the debt, he fits the classification of fiscal conservative.

I thought it was a widely-held belief that, had he not raised taxes in the aftermath of 9/11, a decline in city services would have caused more long-term economic damage.

While I certainly wouldn't label him conservative, economically-speaking, to the extent that a Libertarian (or even a more traditional Republican candidate) would aspire, Bloomberg seems to have (for the most part) earned his reputation for limiting "wasteful spending" - earmarks, pork-barrel, etc. I think his strategy, more than anything, harks back to Clinton-era Rubinomics.

[lofter1]

... BTW, first your saying there's no way he could win, now your saying he could win but be useless. Which is it?

I never said I thought Bloomberg could win the Presidency. Quite the opposite.

But Bloomberg's ego probably tells him he can win. And then his more logical mind whispers in his ear "What good would it do you?"

Ambition can be a nasty monster.

[ZippyTheChimp]

they associate fiscal conservative with tax decreases. I associate it with balanced budgets and letting the private sector work.You throw around a lot of buzzwords, but never explain what you mean.

With the interfering he's done, advancing a smoking ban and increasing cigarette taxes, advocating congestion charges, allocating public funds to Goldman Sachs, Morgan-Chase, the Mets and Yankees - how is this "letting the private sector work?" How is he a fiscal conservative?

Don't bother stating that these things may be beneficial; that's not the point.


My own take is when republicans blame Bloomberg for raising expenses following a terrorist attack on the country, that indicates everything that's wrong with them. The only other person who cut taxes during a war besides George Bush was LBJ.That's the point. Sometimes spending is necessary, but it doesn't mean you get to call yourself a fiscal conservative because you might be a "fan" of the concept.


To the best that I can tell, Bloomberg is a fan of private sector solutions, balanced budgets, and getting government regulations on things like capital markets and zoning out of the way of legimate business.That doesn't mean anything. To the best you can tell, show me the record.

And what about all the Giuliani differences?


And despite what you may say, dems don't really believe in those things either.Which, if you take that to be true, brings us to the rebuttals to Bloomberg-for-President: he's not unique among the pack.

[Jasonik]

John Zogby on Bloomberg (http://www.youtube.com/v/jPydwZTGw4w&rel=1) (3:10 video)

Bear in mind this is 8 months old but there are some salient points.

[eddhead]

You throw around a lot of buzzwords, but never explain what you mean..

Considering that the NYC budget has increased by 23% sinced he took office in 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/nyregion/17bloomberg.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, one would be hard pressed to identify the mayor as a fiscal conservative.

It is also worth noting that when confronted with a huge budget deficit upon taking office, Bloomberg decided early on to raise taxes rather than cut back on city services and quality of life initiatives, tactics that are anthema to libertarians. So he is probably not a fiscal conservative in the traditional sense.. i.e. an advocate for minimalist government. Rather I would classify him as fiscally responsible (which is actually more appealing to me anyway). To that end, I wonder if we are getting a bit hung up on syntax here.

Investordude has already stipulated that he more equates fiscal conservatism with the achievement balanced budgets than he does with specific tactics used to get there, in this case increases in property taxes. Granted, it is a broad application of the term, and perhaps not entirely accurate, but I get his point.

I would also point out NYC mayoral powers are limited in terms of the specific tools and taxes available to increase revenues in order to close budget gaps ... most other venues require the approval of the state assembly. I do not think this increase was palatable to Bloomberg.. Instead, I think he held his nose and pulled the trigger on a distastefull but necessary tactic required to fulfull a greater objective a balanced budget.

On balance I give him a "A" grade for his stewardship of the budget, but it might be interesting to see how a larger NYC Govt. responds to the next unforeseen crisis.

[ZippyTheChimp]

What I objected to was the characterization of Bloomberg as a fiscal conservative , a label that would set him apart from the rest of the field.

A mayor can't print money; he must balance the budget, either by borrowing, raising taxes, or cutting services. He chose, correctly in my opinion, to raise taxes and expand the budget. His subsequent balanced budgets were fueled almost entirely by revenues from the hot real estate market.

The federal landscape is quite different.

[investordude]

OK, I'll change my jargon to fiscally responsible. I'm not sure it matters - my point is republican notions of cutting taxes while raising spending on misguided social and military advantures are most similar to LBJ than they are to any other president in recent memory. The objections of previous generations to runaway spending or preserving the currency are not being heard even though I think most Americans think they are important, and Wall Street in particular is just flat wrong when they want tax cuts that lead to budget deficits (tax cuts that don't lead to budget deficits are good, of course).

[eddhead]

^ zippy

I am not sure I am ready to concede that subsequent balanced budgets were fueled entirely from revenues derived from the real esate boom, although that was certainly a mjor factor. Other factors include negotiated productivity gains with municiple unions, increased population and tax base, and elimination of the costly and corrupt NYC local school board administration system.

Still, I agree with you. As I previously posted, given the size of the current budget, it will be interesting to see how the city responds to the next fiscal buget crisis, including one that might result from a burst in real estate.

[BrooklynRider]

Is there a decline in the school budget under Bloomberg? The old system might have been corrupt, but the new system doesn't seem less costly.

[MikeW]

If the major party candidates are Obama vs Huckelberry (taking the Iowa results as being more definitive than they should be), I think Bloomberg will be running.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I don't see the logic.

For both parties, the Iowa results were a repudiation of the party machine, the main attraction for an independent candidate.

Most people vote along party lines, and an independent depends on defections and apathy. Bloomberg would stand a better chance against Clinton and Romney.

[MikeW]

Oh, let's see.

If Hillary is in, she can battle Bloomberg for New York. With Obama, Mike stands a good chance of taking NY. And, let's be honest here, Mike is white. While most democrats would be insulted if anyone asked them if they cared about that, I'm sure a good number privately do. And voting is a private matter.

Huckabee vs Romney, I don't think it much matters. The more secular Republicans, they ones who aren't thrilled the the religous right's hijacking of the Republican Party might get turned off to either, and might be open to a successful independent businessman.


I don't see the logic.

For both parties, the Iowa results were a repudiation of the party machine, the main attraction for an independent candidate.

Most people vote along party lines, and an independent depends on defections and apathy. Bloomberg would stand a better chance against Clinton and Romney.

[ZippyTheChimp]

And, let's be honest here, Mike is white.On that tack, he's also a short, Boston-New York Jew, with a bland personality and terrible voice.

Not exactly a get-out-the-vote sort of guy.[/quote]

[eddhead]

Is there a decline in the school budget under Bloomberg? The old system might have been corrupt, but the new system doesn't seem less costly.

nominally the school budget has not declined (increased by $2.5Bn 0r 20% since 2002) but that does not mean cost savings have not been achieved. It just means the rate of increase is less than it would have otherwise been had the same improvements been made and reforms not taken place. Comparisons depend on benchmarks, and my benchmark is not what the budget was set at in 2001.

[eddhead]

I don't see the logic.

Most people vote along party lines, and an independent depends on defections and apathy. Bloomberg would stand a better chance against Clinton and Romney.

Sorry Zippy but the idea that most people would vote along party lines when given a chance to vote for a VIABLE third party candidate is conjecture. I cannot find the source at the moment but 1/3 of voters are registered independents... that constitutes a major wild card. I actually think Bloomberg would also pull votes from Guilliani and Edwards. Probably less so from Obama and MCCain both of whom seem to benefit from strong independent support. I do tend to agree with you on Huckabee except I still do not see him as a viable national candidate despite his success in Iowa. I just cannot believe that broader electorate will buy his b.s.

[BrooklynRider]

While I don't think I would let race be a determinig factor in my voting. I would definitely eliminate candidates who emphasize "god" and "faith" too much. Religious candidates do get scrutinized but are uniformly overlooked by me in the voting booth. I want a person of reason in the White House - not a person of faith or other useless tendencies.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Sorry Zippy but the idea that most people would vote along party lines when given a chance to vote for a VIABLE third party candidate is conjecture.That he is not VIABLE as an independent, i.e. differentiate himself from the party candidates, is what I've been saying.

What's his appeal, fiscal responsibility? That's Mitt Romney. He did a pretty good job as Mass governor.

I see nothing that will turn heads enough to win the election; just an expensive ego trip that might influence the outcome.

[BrooklynRider]

But, this is exactly the way he came into the Mayoral race - on a flatbed of rumors.

[ZippyTheChimp]

January 6, 2008

Scratch an Independent Bloomberg and Get a Democrat, Positions Show

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

Hundreds of miles from the hustings of New Hampshire lurks a possible presidential candidate who supports gay marriage, abortion rights and stricter regulation of handguns. Who doesn’t mind taxing the rich on their income or big companies on their carbon emissions. Who says that deporting illegal immigrants would destroy the nation’s economy. And who is not necessarily averse to adding more bureaucrats to the government payroll.

That politician — Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York — has spent months laying out his vision for a post-partisan approach to politics that would take the best from left and right.

Yet a close reading of the policies Mr. Bloomberg has promoted during his mayoralty suggests that Mr. Bloomberg actually has a lot in common with one party’s leading candidates — the Democrats — and not so much with the other’s. Indeed, on issues like gay marriage and gun control, Mr. Bloomberg stands well to the left of top-tier Democratic candidates like Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama.

Mr. Bloomberg has long coyly denied rumors that he would undertake an independent bid, even as some of his aides have laid the groundwork for one. On Sunday in Oklahoma, Mr. Bloomberg was scheduled to meet with a bipartisan group of elder statesmen to discuss ways of defeating “partisan polarization,” according to organizers, and to urge the creation of a national-unity government. But judged strictly on the issues, it is hard to discern the grounds on which Mr. Bloomberg might midwife a new kind of fusion politics, even if he wants to.

“If you want to place him in the spectrum of American politics, he’s a liberal Democrat on all the major litmus test issues, and he’s a liberal Democrat on taxing and spending,” said Douglas A. Muzzio, a professor at the Baruch College School of Public Affairs. “I don’t see the product differentiation, except for the $4 billion bank account and the aura of the philosopher-king.”

Privately, Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters and advisers say that the mayor’s stances on a few hot-button issues are beside the point. His large personal fortune and ability to self-finance a campaign, they argue, would insulate him from the demands of special-interest groups, allowing him to serve as an honest broker in the White House, much as he has in City Hall.

Moreover, Mr. Bloomberg’s appeal to a national electorate could be rooted in broader qualities: His emphasis on accountability in government, openness to private-sector thinking and ability to build consensus on complicated problems.

“The space for what I’ll call ‘fusion politics’ is at least as much a matter of tone and temper and basic orientation as it is policy specifics,” said William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

“It’s a tone of very self-conscious bipartisanship,” said Mr. Galston, who is supporting Mrs. Clinton for president. “It’s a tone of uttering certain uncomfortable truths that partisans of both parties don’t want to hear. And it’s a way of leading that seems oriented towards unity rather than division. There is definitely a market for that kind of politics.”

In areas like education and poverty, some experts say, Mr. Bloomberg has blended traditionally liberal and conservative policies with notable success.

In city schools, for example, he has pursued greater centralization, stringent performance accountability measures and merit pay — the last of which has few adherents among Democratic candidates — while sharply increasing teacher salaries. He has proposed a new, nuanced definition of poverty, something liberals have long supported, while starting a pilot program that offers cash incentives to the poor to attend school or job training, a policy that echoes the thinking of some conservative scholars.

“The mayor’s style is to look at the facts — what we know and can measure — and listen to smart people on both sides,” said Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg. “It’s about finding the best solution, not toeing a party line. And that’s what’s worked in New York.”

But Mr. Bloomberg has also presided over one of the largest expansions in the city budget in decades, increasing spending 23 percent, adjusted for inflation, since 2002. Early on, he also raised income taxes on upper brackets to help preserve government services during the post-9/11 recession, though the increase has since lapsed.

“He may not have an ideology about political parties, but he definitely has an ideology about government — that it has a progressive role in our lives,” said Andrea Batista Schlesinger, executive director of the Drum Major Institute, a New York-based liberal research group. “The idea that he’s some kind of middle-of-the-road candidate doesn’t do justice to his own values.”

Moreover, on some of the issues that have figured prominently in past presidential campaigns, Mr. Bloomberg appears to be more conventionally liberal.

He has started a national campaign for stricter rules on handguns, something even most Democrats in Washington gave up on years ago because it was too politically risky. And he has come to publicly support the right of gay couples to marry, which most Americans oppose.

“If you put him on the national Congressional spectrum,” said Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University, “he would be in the middle — of the Democratic Party.”

In running for president, some Democratic leaders quietly worry, he would draw heavily from their own voters, making a Republican victory possible.

Mr. Bloomberg has also said it is crucial for the next president to recruit talented people to government, regardless of party, and has been widely praised for the quality and competence of his own political appointees. But in Democratic-dominated New York City, he has had, at best, a limited opportunity to test the proposition. Indeed, according to public records, of Mr. Bloomberg’s seven deputy mayors, all but one are registered Democrats.

Similarly, Mr. Bloomberg has often shown a deft touch in negotiations with Albany Republicans and the Bush administration. But much of his reputation for consensus-building rests on his work with labor groups and the Democratic-dominated City Council, who are relatively close to him ideologically. As a unity presidential candidate, Mr. Bloomberg would need to find common ground with people and groups that are more politically and culturally conservative, while still trying to build a majority-winning coalition.

“You can’t extrapolate how he did in New York City with how he might appear to voters on a national level,” said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster who was a consultant to Joseph I. Lieberman’s independent senatorial campaign in 2006. Voters nationwide respond very positively to messages about bipartisanship and unity, Mr. Newhouse said. But they tend to vote for major-party candidates. And Mr. Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat who was elected mayor as a Republican, abandoned the G.O.P. to become an independent this summer.

Mr. Bloomberg’s hosts in Oklahoma don’t see that as a problem. In a letter to invited guests, the conference organizers, the former Democratic senators David L. Boren and Sam Nunn, blame “partisan polarization” for the lack of progress on important issues. They also attack the current crop of candidates, Democratic and Republican, for ostensibly refusing to lay out plans for change.

Still, their own proposals are also vague, referring to a need to “restore our standing, influence, and credibility in the world” and to “our fiscal challenges, our educational challenges, our environmental challenges.”

Exactly where a Bloomberg presidential platform would fit in — or would not fit in — is hard to discern. In a June speech that many viewed as an unveiling of his own national platform, Mr. Bloomberg spoke at length about applying a “nonpartisan, results-oriented approach” to government, illustrating his point with examples from his time as mayor.

But he laid out few specific proposals on national issues like health care, Social Security or the federal budget deficit, focusing instead on management principles that he said should be applied to the federal government.

His proposal for a national immigration plan, laid out in a May 2006 article in The Wall Street Journal, was much more detailed — but, tellingly, was not all that different from those of some Democratic contenders.

“If your only calling card is, ‘I can execute your program more competently,’ no one is going to vote for you” Mr. Galston said. “You have to take bold positions.”

Diane Cardwell and Jo Craven McGinty contributed reporting.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[eddhead]

That he is not VIABLE as an independent, i.e. differentiate himself from the party candidates, is what I've been saying.

What's his appeal, fiscal responsibility? That's Mitt Romney. He did a pretty good job as Mass governor.

I see nothing that will turn heads enough to win the election; just an expensive ego trip that might influence the outcome.

I have responded to questions regarding his appeal in other posts. You obviously do not agree which is fine. But I cannot keep reiterating his virtues as a candidate. I will agree with you that we need to here more about where he stands on certain policy matters, but he is socially liberal, politically pragmatic, and extremely competant as an administrator. He also has the wearwithal to run an unencumbered campaign and change the way k-street and special interests influence Govt. That may not seem like much to you, but I find it an extremely appealing attribute. I am completey appalled by the military industrial complex ... by the fact that energy companies design our national energy strategy... by the ineffectualness of the FDA and other Govt agencies who act like they are no more than pawns to Big Business. It needs to stop and I have no faith whatsoever in the ability or willingness of ANY of the major party candidates to step up and put an end to it. The Republican candidates do not even want to talk about this as an issue, and while the Dems talk the talk, they do nothing.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I stated very early in this thread that I wasn't questioning Bloomberg as a candidate or as president, but as an INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE in the current field.

Some of it was iterated in the article I posted.

[eddhead]

What distinguishes him as an INDEPENDENT candidate is his ability to seperate himself from the special interest groups the major party candidates are so depenedent on .... from both the left and the right. To ward off the military industrial/medical/whatever complex. His success at doing so will to a large degree depend on who he runs against. The dynmics are kind of complex. For instance if he reuns against Clinton and Huckabee or Romney, he'll pull votes from both sides. Same with Guilianni. If he runs against McCain and Obmama he may also pull votes from both sides as both sides. I think there are some combinations of major party candidates that if they come to fruition will lead him to conclude he cannot win, and will not run.

I do not see him running for the sake of vanity alone.. he is too pragmatic for that. If he perceives that the Rep/Dem slate leaves him no opening, he'll stay away

[BrooklynRider]

Even if we are to accept the presumption that he is truly and "independent" candidate immune from special interests, the Congress is not. Our system has been infiltrated by special interests. We have not had any effective lobby reform, election reform, and, until the repeal of individual rights for corporations, we will remain a faux democratic republic.

[eddhead]

^^THAT I agree with.

Look, I am not as solidly in Bloomberg's camp as I appear to be.. some of this is devil's advocate. Still, I think he has appeal, and potential but I need to hear more about his stance on important policy concerns, and I also would need for him to articulate his approach for dealing with partisan bickering in Congress. But he has enough going for him to get me interested.

I guess my pont is that while candidates' stances on issues will certainly play a part in my selection, regretably it is not enough. Truth be told, if it were, I would proabaly vote for Kusinech or Edwards. But I have to know that the candidate has the competance and wearwithall to complete his agenda, and to tear the system apart. You may think that is idealistic, but I am so fed up with the Republicans, and so disappointed in the Dems, that that feeliing may be enough to carry my vote.

[MikeW]

So if Rudy and the Hildabeast are out, does this increase Mikey's chances of running? You bet it does. He'll likely lock up NY and probably NJ. That's probably enough to get him in the race.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Like I said, just the opposite.

January 8, 2008

Obama’s Surge Deflates Forum and Talk of a Bloomberg Run

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

NORMAN, Okla. — He arrived here for what seemed like it could be a big moment. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, eyeing a third-party presidential bid, joined Republican and Democratic elders at a forum to denounce the extreme partisanship of Washington and plot how to influence the campaign.

But even as the mayor gathered on Monday with the seasoned Washington hands on the campus of the University of Oklahoma, the surging presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama seemed to steal energy from the event and set off worry elsewhere among Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters.

Mr. Obama has stressed that he wants to move beyond gridlocked politics and usher in an era of national unity. A key organizer of the effort to draft Mr. Bloomberg for a presidential run acknowledged in an interview on Monday that that Mr. Obama’s rise could be problematic.

“Obama is trying to reach out to independent voters, and that clearly would be the constituency that Mike Bloomberg would go after,” said Andrew MacRae, who heads the Washington chapter of Draft Mike Bloomberg for President 2008. “An Obama victory does not make it impossible, but it certainly makes it more difficult.”

The event was organized by former Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia, with former Senator David L. Boren, Democrat of Oklahoma. In the days leading up the event here, just outside Oklahoma City, Mr. Boren suggested that he would encourage Mr. Bloomberg to run if the major party nominees failed to heed the call for bipartisanship.

But several leading participants took pains to say that they had no intention of abandoning their own parties in the election. Some even cast Mr. Obama’s success as evidence that the nation was yearning for the type of leadership they were offering.

“I believe he is demonstrating, in the support he is getting, that the American people share this concern about excessive partisanship,” said Bob Graham, a Democratic former senator from Florida, who said he would support a Democrat for president.

Gary Hart, a Democrat from Colorado who also served in the Senate, said he intended to endorse one of the Democratic presidential candidates in the next 48 hours, though he declined to identify the candidate.

“I am a Democrat, and I will endorse a Democratic president,” he said. “There are no independent candidates. I won’t endorse a Republican.”

The forum attracted students, faculty members and some who said they were intrigued by a third party approach. Still, they were also taking notice of the momentum Mr. Obama has been gaining since his victory in the Iowa caucuses last week.

“I wonder about all this,” said Tobi Padwick, 36, who drove to the event from Texas. Mr. Padwick said he believed the eventual nominees would be Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain, and “that sort of steals a lot of thunder, since they’re the two more moderate candidates.”

Despite public denials that he plans to run, aides close to Mr. Bloomberg have been laying the groundwork for a candidacy, should he declare one.

Mr. Bloomberg kept a low profile at the forum. In response to a question during the panel discussion about the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Bloomberg did not talk about Mr. Obama or the Republican winner, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, but said that perhaps the discussion the group was looking for had already begun.

“I hope that all the candidates say to themselves that the public is tired of the partisanship and the special interests, and if I’m going to get elected, I’ve got to stand up and say what I believe, face the big issues, hold myself accountable, and maybe you are seeing that.”

As he usually has in recent weeks, Mr. Bloomberg played down the notion that he would be a candidate himself, saying during the forum that the goal he shared with others at the conference was to be a “catalyst” for a discussion of the nation’s problems.

But even Mr. Bloomberg’s effort to influence the debate in the presidential campaign has hit challenges. The mayor recently paid out of his own pocket for ads in Iowa and New Hampshire newspapers demanding, on behalf of mayors concerned about gun violence, that candidates complete a questionnaire detailing their positions on gun issues.

The candidates were given until Jan. 2 to respond, but none of the campaigns complied, and Mr. Bloomberg and his colleagues have now pushed back the deadline.

People close to the mayor say that he will probably decide in March whether he will run, assuming that Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees. His aides have been researching the cumbersome process for starting an independent campaign, and a crucial date is March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating petitions to get a spot on the ballot in Texas.

Mr. Bloomberg would have to decide, among other things, whether there was an opening for a self-styled progressive centrist like him. Aides have said that he would be prepared to spend $1 billion.

Other participants at the forum included John Danforth, a Republican former senator from Missouri; Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska; William Cohen, former secretary of defense; and Christie Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and a Republican.

Like other participants, Mrs. Whitman has been seeking to distance herself from any third-party bid by Mr. Bloomberg. In a recent blog post on the Web site of the Republican Leadership Council, a centrist group of which she is co-chairwoman, Mrs. Whitman wrote, “While other attendees may assert their personal interest in a third party, I am a Republican and will remain one.”

Asked Monday whether she would support an independent presidential bid by Mr. Bloomberg or anyone else, Mrs. Whitman echoed those comments, saying, “I’m focused on the Republican Leadership Council.”


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[lofter1]

So if Rudy and the Hildabeast are out ...

She ain't out yet, baby

(but Rudy is dead in the water)

[BrooklynRider]

He could win Florida. In that state, it is all about the machines - not the voters.

[lofter1]

We'll see -- polls show Rudy in a nose dive down Florida ...

Poll Tracker (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/poll-tracker.htm?loc=interstitialskip)

But considering what those same polls show for Dems in NH it could be that polls really mean little to nothing.

I'd much prefer that it all remain something of a mystery -- and is decided only when folks make their mark in the voting booth.

[eddhead]

@ Zippy

I really do not think it is that simple. For instance if Rudy, Obama, and Bloomberg were to run, I am not quite sure I know who would take votes from whom. One could argue that Obama and Bloomberg would split the independent vote and open the door for Rudy. Or that Bloomberg and Rudy would split the old Rockefeller coalistion and open the door for Obama. Or that the 2 years of experience thing would finally catch up with Obama and open the door for Bloomberg.

One thing we learned from last night, is that anything is possible. Another is don't listen to pundits.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'm going by voting results, not pundits.
Huckabee, McCain, and Obama are pulling in Independent votes.

In the NH Independent vote:
Females: Obama 50-50 with Clinton.
Males: Obama outdrew Clinton 3 to 1.

Clinton won based on Registered Democrats.

I've no doubt that Bloomberg would pull votes from the other candidates (thats obvious in a 3-way race), but in the current campaign climate, not enough to win.

But I think if it's Clinton or Obama against McCain or Huckabee, Bloomberg would help the Republicans.

After NH, I don't think he's going to run.

[ZippyTheChimp]

January 11, 2008

Calls Grow for Bloomberg to Make Up His Mind

By DIANE CARDWELL and RAY RIVERA

Nearly every day a tiny new development trickles out from the stealth presidential campaign of Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York.

He has talked with Chuck Hagel and Sam Nunn, potential running mates. He has delivered a tart critique of the presidential field. He is conducting intricate polling to test his appeal in all 50 states.

Mr. Bloomberg’s dalliance with the idea of running for president has stretched on and on, with his enthusiastic approval despite the public denials. But even before actually entering the contest, Mr. Bloomberg may have already risked losing something: people’s patience.

The political parlor game — Will he run? When will he decide? How much could he spend? — that has so delighted Mr. Bloomberg is suddenly sparking a backlash. Editorial pages from The Wall Street Journal to The New York Post, The Village Voice and The New Yorker have taken him to task. Members of the administration have been rolling their eyes and referring to Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s political architect, as the deputy mayor for presidential politics.

And a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 61 percent of New Yorkers thought Mr. Bloomberg had a “moral obligation” to serve out his full term. The survey, of 1,162 New York City voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points, also found that while 16 percent wanted to see him run for president rather than for governor, 32 percent did not want him to run for either office.

“People might be saying, ‘C’mon, do your job,’ ” said Maurice Carroll, director of the polling institute at Quinnipiac. “Maybe people are thinking, ‘Look, it’s such a long shot; why don’t you think about what to do about traffic congestion in Bay Ridge?’ ”

Others offered a blunter assessment.

“It’s a very long prelude, and I think it is becoming a very old story very fast,” said Robert Zimmerman, a communications specialist who is one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raisers. “Mike Bloomberg has failed to make a case that he represents an independent movement, as opposed to a former Democratic liberal, former Republican, former Bush-backer running a campaign of opportunism.”

To be sure, there is little indication that ordinary voters around the country have given much thought to a Bloomberg candidacy, especially given the dramatic primary races in the two major parties. But his enormous wealth and willingness to spend it make him someone who cannot be ignored within the political world.

At this point, the fatigue with Mr. Bloomberg’s national ambitions seems highest within the political chattering class, but it could spread if the mayor continues to dance around his intentions without saying clearly what they are, analysts said. The speculation began in earnest last June, when he switched his registration from Republican to independent.

“With the way that he’s playing this right now, it features all the things that we like least about Michael Bloomberg,” said David S. Birdsell, dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. “It features him as the testy, hard-to-satisfy critic of candidates who are already in the race, and it buttresses, the longer this goes on, the aloof critic role we might associate with a billionaire above the political fray rather than the dedicated politician and competent manager.”

Adding to the potential for national ennui, Mr. Birdsell said, was “the very long and frustrating Fred Thompson dance over the summer,” which reduced the tolerance for indecision.

“That is going to make everybody considerably more focused on getting him to declare and to not have an erosion of enthusiasm that Fred Thompson experienced,” he said.

Closer to home, though, the impatience is already palpable, and could grow as the city’s economic situation turns more dire. After five years of ballooning surpluses, the Independent Budget Office last week projected a $3.1 billion deficit in 2009 and $4.6 billion in 2010, driven by the housing slump and softening Wall Street profits.

“There’s been a sea change where we’re moving into choppier fiscal waters that we haven’t had to navigate before,” said Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president. With the convergence of what is shaping up to be a painful budget process this month and the presidential campaign calendar, he said, “they’re going to have to show their cards.”

“He has this great political good will,” he said, “but this is the day-to-day work of being the mayor and it’s going to be hard to do the day-to-day work while slipping off to Oklahoma, unless we New Yorkers know what the program is.”

George Arzt, a political consultant who was press secretary to Mayor Edward I. Koch, said that Mr. Bloomberg was risking the political fate of Mayor John V. Lindsay, whose 1972 presidential campaign took a hit when Brooklyn’s powerful Democratic Party boss, Meade H. Esposito, urged him to end his cross-country campaigning and address the city’s growing economic ills.

In a comment that was splashed across front pages at the time, Mr. Esposito said, “Little Sheba better come home.”

“There are people who have been watching Kevin Sheekey for a long time doing what he’s doing now,” Mr. Arzt said, adding that they wonder, “What’s the endgame?”

Stu Loeser, the mayor’s chief spokesman, said that he did not worry about New Yorkers becoming frustrated with Mr. Bloomberg’s handling of his national ambitions, and that the speculation helped bring Mr. Bloomberg more attention to advance his agenda in Washington and elsewhere.

“I’m not sure that increased speculation or increased elevation is harmful,” he said. “We spent part of the day in Albany yesterday, and judging from reaction of the rank-and-file members that we met with, it seemed that they were more focused on what the mayor had to say than less.”

And others played down the notion that Mr. Bloomberg was sowing ill will because the city is largely perceived to be well run.

“I find just as many people who like that he’s a big star as are concerned that he’s out of town too much,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a likely candidate for mayor in 2009 who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens. “Now, obviously, you don’t want to be caught giving a speech in California if the streets are clogged with snow in Queens, but so far, so good.”

Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist College polls tracking New York politics, said he does not believe frustration will grow over Mr. Bloomberg’s denials of interest in the presidency, mainly because there is not a groundswell of support for him to run.

“I’m thinking about when Mario Cuomo was hemming and hawing for several years, and I think that was more frustrating for people because there was a huge support base for him to do it,” Mr. Miringoff said. “And that’s not there right now for Bloomberg.”

A WNBC/Marist poll of 505 registered voters released last week said 60 percent of New York State voters wanted a strong third political party, but only 27 percent said they thought Mr. Bloomberg should run and only 12 percent thought he would win.

Whether momentum will build for his candidacy remains to be seen. Although there are several groups working to support an independent run this year, one of them, Unity08, is significantly scaling back its operations and stopping its project designed to help independent candidates get on the ballot. In a letter released to members Thursday, organizers said that they did not have enough members or money to get on the ballot in all 50 states and create an online convention to nominate a bipartisan ticket.

Two of their leaders, the letter said, were forming a committee to draft Mr. Bloomberg “should the circumstances seem right.”

Jonathan P. Hicks contributed reporting.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[chris]

Fancy the New York Times doing the Democratic party's bidding. At least in this opinion piece they were honest enough to point out that their "expert" was a completely unbiased Hillary Clinton fund raiser.

As for the substance of the article- Total bullshit. The fact is, unlike New Yorkers who know Bloomberg and read this stuff everyday, and the 2% of people who follow side-bar political news, for most people in this country Michael Bloomberg (http://www.RunMikeRun.com) isn't even on the radar. I talk to friends and family around the country, intelligent educated people who read the paper (their local paper) and watch the news. Most of them are only vaguely aware of who Mike Bloomberg (http://www.RunMikeRun.com) is, 'That rich guy who owns that Wall Street company who is mayor of New York, right?' And until this event last week in Oklahoma, not a person I've spoken to was even the slightest bit aware that he was thinking about running for president (http://www.RunMikeRun.com). Anyone who thinks there is voter fatigue over reading or hearing about a possible Bloomberg presidential run (http://www.RunMikeRun.com) is so deafened by the sound of their own echo chamber they can't see past their own navel.

-----

Here is my take— It is rare that you find a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue. But at the end of the day, the President (http://www.RunMikeRun.com) is the executive manager of the world's most powerful enterprise, the US government. I believe most voter's underestimate the value of competence and management experience. What is most important to me is, do they have the competence and the experience to manage such an enterprise? Will they keep the economy strong? Will they make sound judgement in a crisis? Will they hire competent people, or just give valuable positions to unqualified individuals because they either have party connects or "owe" someone because of a campaign contribution?

This makes Bloomberg (http://www.RunMikeRun.com) the right man at the right time.

His money buys him independence of a sort no other candidate can claim.

He doesn't look at decisions from an ideological point of view. He's very pragmatic.

The reality is, in our competitive society, the most talented among us do not often pursue positions in government, they pursue fortune in the private sector. To get the best of what is available to us, I wish to see a seasoned executive manager from the private sector in the White House.

This is what I see in Michael Bloomberg (http://www.RunMikeRun.com). And sorry, unlike other people here on this board, I don't see his business background as a bad thing (there are few things I find more repugnant than a career politician).

When the economy is strong. When everyone has a job. People tend to be less concerned about the differences among us. When the economy is bad, and people are unemployed, everyone looks for someone to point the finger at, and politicians look for divisive wedge issues to distract their constituents from the real problems at hand.

The fact is, presidents rarely get to implement even a fraction of the so-called promises and policy positions they campaign on. A president's term in office is most largely shaped by events of the day. And a president's successes and failures in dealing with crisis that emerge define most president's term in office more so that any specific piece of legislation that gets passed on their clock.

What the country needs is private sector competence.

That's where I stand.

[pianoman11686]

^Strong post...but expect it to get ripped apart.

[Jasonik]

A politically unaccountable plutocrat buying the presidency would be the worst thing for this country since George W. Bush.

Bloomberg is simply a financial sector hedge in case neither Clinton nor Romney (nor Giuliani or even McCain) make the cut. If the bought and paid for media fail to uphold the status quo by force-feeding the approved candidates, then the status quo à la Bloomberg will do some force feeding of its own.

[ZippyTheChimp]

But at the end of the day, the President is the executive manager of the world's most powerful enterprise, the US government.I'm the CEO of America, Inc

Uh, what's wrong with this?

[lofter1]

Oh, geez, there is so much wrong with that ^

I've just just finished reading "The Island at the Center of the World" about the beginnings some 400 years ago of what we now call New York City by the Dutch West India Company -- yes, the city was started as a corporate endeavor -- and the way that the citizenry of that time interacted with & fought back against the ruling corporate types, and how that ongoing conflict shaped who we became, both as NYers & as Americans.

A CEO of any corporate entity does not and will not take into consideration all of the various aspects of a society which encompass a Republic, whereby each individual person is entitled to specific rights.

Bloomberg is not the man for the leadership we need as America moves forward.

[ZippyTheChimp]

What annoys me most is that if Bloomberg believes he has the vision to be an effective president, why isn't he in the race now? What's changing as time goes by, his policies?

No, what he's doing in acting out this farce is what he can afford to do - sit on the sidelines, not risk any positions he may have to explain later, and hope the others throw themselves on the rocks. At some point, his analysts with computer models may advise him it's statistically advantageous to take advantage of the situation.

Is this how we should elect a president?

The point goes beyond Bloomberg; at best it's 8 years. But what about the institution that survives him? How do we know that the next plutocrat will be competent?

[eddhead]

What annoys me most is that if Bloomberg believes he has the vision to be an effective president, why isn't he in the race now? What's changing as time goes by, his policies?



The fact that state democratic and republican parties have accelerated the primary process does not take away from the fact that we still have some 10 months or so before the general elections. Plenty of time to jump in and make a splash. Also plenty of time to evaluate the candidates.

The primaries will be over by 2/5 but the conventions will not begin until Sept. The major party candidates will take that time to raise additional funding and as a result will likely be less active campaigning and more importantly spending after February, than they are today. That in turn will create a huge media void. Sounds like the period from March to Sept could be the ideal time for an independent to fill the media void. If he makes a decision to run over that period, he could come close to monopolizing media coverage while the major parties retrench for the fall run. It is good strategy to wait until the primary hoopla dies down, and there is nothing wrong with doing so. His timing does not have to be guided by what the republican and democrats dictate.. those are artficial time tables.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Do you know if his timetable is dictated by when to get in, or by if to get in?

[BrooklynRider]

I'm not a Bloomberg supporter (you can thank me now for not obnoxiously using his name as a url link to his website.) However, I think there are plenty of reasons not to jump in now, if he is considerig a run.

Primary season is about party politics. It is a bloody sport. It eats resources and money. It is about winnowing out the field and, in this election year, silencing dissenting voices.

Bloomberg (again, note there is no OBNOXIOUS url) can actually jump into this after the primaries are mostly completed. At that point, people are going to be sick and tired of hearing "Clinton" "Obama" "McCain" "Huckabee" "Edwards" and "Giuliani." Bloomberg announcing will put a new name in the headlines at precisely the time the sheeple population are tired of hearing about these other candidates. They'll actually listen to what he's saying, because he will grab headlines and they won't know who he is.

Bloomberg can come into this race when he wants. He can compete on a dollar for dollar basis. The Repugnant vs. Demoncrat race is going to be nasty and personal. The minute anyone critcizes Bloomberg his supporters and AIPAC will start screaming anti-semitism, which will be more polarizing than any party crap. Lieberman did it in Connecicut and Schumer yelled anti-semitism in his NY race as well.

We're going to here a lot of this crap this year: anti-semitism, racisim, sexism, chauvinism...ism...ism...ism. It's going to be the election year of -isms. Oh, and we'll also hear about religious bigotry from HuckaChrist and MormonMitt.

The voting machines will decide this election once again. Corporate America has made its choice and now its media will sell us its candidate.

Either way, Mike will be hailed as a breath of "fresh air" and will be sold as an unlikely underdog, making his every move seem like a true accomplishment.

American politics has no surprises.

[eddhead]

^
Do you know if his timetable is dictated by when to get in, or by if to get in?
It could be either, but I will put to you that it doesn't really matter. As a citzen of the US who is not beholding to the major parties, his only obligation as a perspective candidate is to fulfill the obligations of each state's ballot requirements, including the states' timeframes for declaring. The other time restrictions were created by the major parties and have nothing whatsoever to do with the election cycle otherwise. To reiterate my previous, should he choose to run, the ideal time to jump in the race is after Super Tuesday far in advance of the conventions. Each party will take the time to retrench and raise funds during that period, leaving him as the only election cycle story until September. Given he'll have over $1BN to spend, and almost sole media attention for 7 months, I cannot see how he will not be formidable should he elect to run.

[MikeW]

Sorry L, you're wrong. this is exactly what we need. We waste way to much time pandering to every little minority, locality, and interest group. We need someone who can decide what is in the best interest of the country as an whole on various subjects, and push through the implementation.

We've gotten to the point where nothing gets done because anyone can block anything. We need someone who can end this.

Now, is Bloomberg the guy? Maybe. What idiology he does have, I'm not so wild about. But I do like the hard driving, successful, take no bullshit, corporate CEO type as President. I'm sick of whiny lawyer/politician types.


<snip>

A CEO of any corporate entity does not and will not take into consideration all of the various aspects of a society which encompass a Republic, whereby each individual person is entitled to specific rights.

Bloomberg is not the man for the leadership we need as America moves forward.

[MikeW]

Why should he be? He doesn't even know who he'd be running against at this point. The only reason things are this hot and heavy now is because of the needs of the political parties to pin down their candidates. This isn't something he has to worry about.


What annoys me most is that if Bloomberg believes he has the vision to be an effective president, why isn't he in the race now? What's changing as time goes by, his policies?

No, what he's doing in acting out this farce is what he can afford to do - sit on the sidelines, not risk any positions he may have to explain later, and hope the others throw themselves on the rocks. At some point, his analysts with computer models may advise him it's statistically advantageous to take advantage of the situation.

Is this how we should elect a president?

The point goes beyond Bloomberg; at best it's 8 years. But what about the institution that survives him? How do we know that the next plutocrat will be competent?

[ZippyTheChimp]

How can you cite my post, and then completely miss (ignore?) what I said?

[lofter1]

We waste way to much time pandering to every little minority, locality, and interest group. We need someone who can decide what is in the best interest of the country as an whole on various subjects, and push through the implementation.

... I do like the hard driving, successful, take no bullshit, corporate CEO type as President. I'm sick of whiny lawyer/politician types.

Doesn't it just kill you that Cheney isn't running?

How can he dare to fail us and NOT fulfill his own Manifest Destiny as the One True Ruler of the Western World ???

He'd sure as hell know what to do with those whiny types.

:cool:

ps: And SCREW the legislative branch !

[ZippyTheChimp]

At least for a while, no form of government is more efficient than a dictatorship.

[pianoman11686]

Doesn't it just kill you that Cheney isn't running?

What is this a reference to? Cheney's been in politics since at least the Ford administration, when he was Chief of Staff. He's one of the longest-serving politicians we have. And living proof that that's the worst kind. He's as corrupt as they come.

[lofter1]

(you ^ need to read MikeW's post that I was responding to. until then ...)

Don't you dare come in here and say bad things about Dick.

What has the Big C Man ever done to hurt you? Or anyone, for that matter?

He is a paragon of Honor and a servant to Truth & Liberty.

I would give my first born for the man, should he ever ask me directly to do so.

[pianoman11686]

I did read the post, and I don't see what I'm missing. MikeW said he wanted a hard-nosed, CEO /corporate leader type. It sounded to me like you were asking him to justify that in the case of Cheney. I thought I should point out that long before he became a CEO of Halliburton, he was a career politician.

Cheney = politician first, CEO later. Bloomberg would be the reverse of that.

(And I'm no fan of Cheney, so I don't get the sarcasm.)

[lofter1]

Cheney is the corporate politician par excellence.

[eddhead]

Before this gets out of control, I want to assure everyone that I am NOT making the case for totalitarianism. MikeW, I am not sure if you are, but you sure seem to be heading in that direction by suggesting that we need a strong leader that will force is agenda down our throats.

My point once again is that if he runs, Bloomberg is free to do so on his own terms. Whatever his reasons for timing (and I really do think they are what I previously suggested) he is a citizen, he has the right to run, and he does not have to abide by the schedule of the democratic and republican parties.

[MikeW]

Cheney, at least in his stint as VP, has been a little to transparent about the fact that all he's doing is protecting/furthering his own interests.

Whatever you want to say about Bloomberg, you really can't accuse him of that, at least based on his actions so far.

Also, as the economy deteriorates, someone with proven business acumen is going to look better than the standard issue political hacks.


Doesn't it just kill you that Cheney isn't running?

How can he dare to fail us and NOT fulfill his own Manifest Destiny as the One True Ruler of the Western World ???

He'd sure as hell know what to do with those whiny types.

:cool:

ps: And SCREW the legislative branch !

[Jasonik]

Also, as the economy deteriorates, someone with proven business acumen is going to look better...

IF we accept that the POTUS can do one wit about "business cycles" then maybe your contention might be valid. To the contrary, Bloomberg is at the very least deeply entwined in the financial industry to which the current economic downturn can be attributed. I don't fault Wall Street for wanting their very own presidential inside man, but anyone besides their cadre of sycophants and hangers on that thinks moving the nation ever more toward an overt oligarchy is misguided and, dare I say -- treacherous.

[MikeW]

As opposed to the mostly bought and paid for political hacks that are running in the primaries. Where do you think they're getting their money?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The point being advanced in this thread is that Bloomberg is somehow different, not that the others are just like him.

So tell me in what way (specific policies) Bloomberg acted as the CEO of New York City during his terms as mayor?

[MikeW]

He's different in at least one very specific way:

Everyone else currently in the race has to go begging for money to fund their campaigns. That money comes with strings attached. We all know this.

Bloomberg doesn't.

As to the rest of your question:

The two I can think of off the top of my head are raising prices, er, taxes, when the city had a big budget deficit (actually I wish he had been more corporate and had big layoffs. It would have been a great opportunity to prune some dead wood). Also, he managed to wrest control of the school system from the Board of Ed, giving him essentially direct control.


The point being advanced in this thread is that Bloomberg is somehow different, not that the others are just like him.

So tell me in what way (specific policies) Bloomberg acted as the CEO of New York City during his terms as mayor?

[ZippyTheChimp]

So tell me in what way (specific policies) Bloomberg acted as the CEO of New York City during his terms as mayor?
The two I can think of off the top of my head are raising prices, er, taxes, when the city had a big budget deficit (actually I wish he had been more corporate and had big layoffs.
Whathttp://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif


He's different in at least one very specific way: Everyone else currently in the race has to go begging for money to fund their campaigns. That money comes with strings attached. We all know this. Bloomberg doesn't.That's how he's different from others running for office, not different from others in office. Do you think everyone is just going to fall into line and do what he wants?

I can think of one good example of Bloomberg acting as the CEO of New York - when he first promoted his Westside Railyard plan. Fell flat on his face.

[BrooklynRider]

January 20, 2008

Bloomberg Creates a Task Force to Advocate for U.S. Infrastructure Needs

By RAY RIVERA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ray_rivera/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) attacked Washington politicians on Saturday for what he called short-sighted, politically motivated spending while the nation’s roads, bridges and airports fall apart.

“Infrastructure isn’t sexy or glamorous, and it doesn’t make for great headlines,” Mr. Bloomberg said in Los Angeles, “but it is one of the most important issues facing our country.

“And make no mistake about it, we have an infrastructure crisis.”

Joined by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arnold_schwarzenegger/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of California, a Republican, and Gov. Edward G. Rendell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/edward_g_rendell/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, the mayor announced the creation of a nonpartisan organization that will advocate for more, and smarter, federal spending on infrastructure.

The organization, Building America’s Future, will comprise elected officials and others, and it will be financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, a frequent collaborator with the mayor on pet projects.

Drawing on images like the levy failures in New Orleans, the bridge collapse (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/bridges_and_tunnels/bridge_disasters/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in Minnesota and the nation’s congested airports, Mr. Bloomberg said China, Malaysia and other countries were investing in infrastructure at higher rates than the United States.

As he lashed out at Congress, his possible presidential ambitions seemed never far from the surface. While maintaining that he is not a candidate, the mayor met with Clay Mulford, who was Ross Perot (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/ross_perot/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s campaign manager and is an expert at third-party ballot access, in Austin, Tex., during the first leg of his trip on Friday.

Building on the nonpartisan theme he has cultivated since at least June, when he dropped his Republican affiliation and became an independent, Mr.

Bloomberg took aim on Saturday at party bickering, saying it had contributed to the country’s crumbling infrastructure.

“In politics, winning elections and protecting a party majority is more important than solving problems,” he said. “So short-term pork invariably wins over long-term investing, and the special interests win over the rest of us.”


Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[chris]

.



Cheney is the corporate politician par excellence.


Cheney is in no way what so ever part of the private sector. He is the living embodiment of a career politician. After an entire life in federal politics, he took a brief hiatus when the other party was in power to be CEO of a govertment contractor to the military. A company whose board wanted to hire someone with major Washington insider connections to slop up big-pork goverment contracts, and Cheney agreed to take the job to make some big dough for himself during his brief downtime, until his party got another shot at the oval office.

Your pathetic attempt to paint private sector candidates with Cheney's brush is laughable.



.

[lofter1]

Cheney is the CEOs' Man in Washington. He does their bidding.

Corporate America is far more powerful than the politicians. They own them. Some end up with a good payback. Cheney is one who gets a HUGE payback from corporate America.

And just wait and see what they shower him with once he's out of office.

[chris]

.




Cheney is the CEOs' Man in Washington. He does their bidding.

Corporate America is far more powerful than the politicians. They own them. Some end up with a good payback. Cheney is one who gets a HUGE payback from corporate America.

And just wait and see what they shower him with once he's out of office.


You're delusional. Cheney is Texas and big oil's man in Washington. That's a different club.

Will he make lots of dough when he leaves office? I'm sure he will. As a former Vice President of the most powerful country in the world, he is a hyper-connected career politician, Washington insider. Any company that wants to get to the ear of important people in Washington will pay him a fat consulting fee for access. That's what politicians do when they "retire".



.

[chris]

On another note, it always blows my mind how many anti-Capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-business people there are here on a New York skyscraper forum.

Do you not understand that these buildings are the physical manifestation of corporate America? These towers that you all spend hours, nay, years worth of hours of your life, reading about, writing about, studying and reporting upon are both the trophies of and containers for the very companies, executives, and CEOs of Capitalist corporate America that you then come here and poo-poo in the political forum.

Is there anybody else besides me that sees the irony in this?

[pianoman11686]

You're definitely not alone.

[ZippyTheChimp]

It amazes me that some people who live in representative republics don't realize that good business does not mean good government.

[Jasonik]

Are you really amazed?

I was struck when watching the last republican debate in Florida by the different jobs the candidates seemed to be interviewing for.

Romney - CEO of USA Corp.
Giuliani - Sheriff of USA County
Huckabee - Dr. Phil of USA Network
McCain - President of VFW Post USA
Ron Paul - People's advocate of the USA

Were the federal gov't to be run more like a corporation, we'd do well to realize that "we the people" aren't the shareholders.

[MikeW]

Actually, maybe we'd be better off if the government were run like a corporation. Maybe it wouldn't be losing money at the vast rate it now is.

[Ninjahedge]

In some ways Mike, yes. But you have to realize that private industry is out for the bottom line. there are VERY FEW in corporate America that are interested in their clientèle in any more of a fashion than to keep them around long enough to keep buying stuff.

The Pharmaceuticals are a good example of private industry in a mainly civic role. The only one that comes out worse may be the HMO's... But that is another subject.

I think certain things should be run more like businesses, but thinking that the entire thing should is not very healthy....

You think a private industry would try to make itself smaller and take less money? ;)



And Chris, what's with the belligerent attitude there?

Most of the people here are not against business, but you have to realize that Business is a VERY powerful animal. Our government has let the beast ride us instead of the other way around. Government should not control the beast, mind you, nit should make sure that it does not eat our babies! ;)

[Jasonik]

Corporations can't just print money and deficit spend into oblivion like governments with a central bank and fiat currency can. Without first solving this problem with a convertible commodity backed currency or other real check against profligate money creation then budgets and bottom lines will continue to mean little to spendthrift Washington.

A corporation can issue only so much stock without driving the share price down. And shareholders are only wiling to hold for so long as dividends go to zero.

Now imagine being a shareholder of a company that can print its dividend checks and mail them out just by going deeper into the red. The share price might even retain some value, and the company would probably be able to keep selling shares. At what point is your bank going to refuse their checks?

Lets take a look at the shares of USA (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd_debtposactrpt_0712.pdf) that are out there. At what point is the dollar going to be refused by these shareholders?

[lofter1]

Cheney wants the country run without any regulations except those that the CEO says are in effect.

His connection to Halliburton goes way beyond some little Texas oil clique.

Chris: I'm wondering --- Do you have a crush on Dick?

[voodoochild]

I know I will get pounded for this one but I would so vote for Mike if he decided to run. I think he is brilliant. He is all about helping New York and the fact that he doesn't take a salary is awesome. I know that he has momey and doesn't need the pay, but you could never have enough money. I have met and dined with him several times and his views blow me away.
This election coming up is awful.
You have iceberg Clinton who I don't trust at all then you have Obama who was sent to Muslim school and raised that way, and even though he is not Muslim...he still has that background. I don't think that our president should have anything to do with the religion that took us down.
As for the Republicans....ouch..They all suck. I have no clue what to do on election day.

[lofter1]

What you should do on election day?

Try crawling back into the hole you came out of ... :cool:

[voodoochild]

What you should do on election day?

Try crawling back into the hole you came out of ... :cool:
What's that suppose to mean?:(

[lofter1]

The place ^ where they tell you lies about Obama and the so-called Muslim connection.

The same lies you seem so willing and eager to pass on.

[Optimus Prime]

I also missed the news about Islam taking down the United States. I didn't even realize we were "up," let alone taken "down."

[voodoochild]

I also missed the news about Islam taking down the United States. I didn't even realize we were "up," let alone taken "down."

I said Muslims took as down as in 9/11. I also said that Obama is NOT muslim.

[eddhead]

Getting back on point, more and more it is looking like a Bloomberg candidacy is not in ghe offing for this election cycle, and I say this as someone who genuinely would like to hear more about what he can offer. Once McCain became the almost certain presumptive republican nominee, Bloomberg's chances became significantly diminished. Bloomberg's independent appeal would be crowded out by a McCain/Obama election both of whom have considerable appeal to unafilliated voters. He cannot out "left" Obama, and he cannot out "center" either McCain or Obama, his only road would be to the right and conservatives will never support him (nor would he want that) Even Hillary / McCain would be tough for him... there are just not enough center votes for him to pick up. Zippy made a point a while back about Bloomberg's chances being enhanced if 2 polarizing candidates ran ... say Romney or Hujckabee against Hillary ... in retrospect he was right... such a ballot would have created a solid middle for him to capture. At this point though, I do not see Bloomberg entering the race.

[infoshare]

What's that suppose to mean?:(

The fact is: Obama did go to muslim school, and So What! Even if he didn't VChild is not (or anyone else) obligated to be correct about everything she says here on this forum. Most importantly the rudeness with with she is being addressed seems a bit much: she is a guest here and a valued member - why the hostility.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
When young Obama was six, his mother married an Indonesian oil manager, a "non-practicing Muslim," and the family moved to Jakarta, where his half-sister Maya was born. In this exotic Islamic country, wrote Obama's good friend, the liberal lawyer and best-selling novelist Scott Turow, Barack Obama spent "two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school."

[MidtownGuy]

In developing nations, sometimes the only chance for a relatively decent education is by attending a school with religious connections. The fact that the two years at a "muslim school" were followed by two years at a catholic school says it all. It's a goofy thing to be concerned about.

[lofter1]

I thought that this very general & broad swipe from VC towards the entire Muslim population was worthy of a bit of disdain. It seemed the rudeness displayed by VC towards a very large group of people was quite a bit greater than whatever little blow back was received from me.


... then you have Obama who was sent to Muslim school and raised that way, and even though he is not Muslim...he still has that background. I don't think that our president should have anything to do with the religion that took us down.

Such statements are reminiscent of the anti-Catholic bashing that was aimed towards JFK 50 years ago.

Still -- apologies extended.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Maybe they can sell the RunMikeRun domain.


I have met and dined with him several times and his views blow me away.Exactly what views blow you away?

[voodoochild]

I thought that this very general & broad swipe from VC towards the entire Muslim population was worthy of a bit of disdain. It seemed the rudeness displayed by VC towards a very large group of people was quite a bit greater than whatever little blow back was received from me.



Such statements are reminiscent of the anti-Catholic bashing that was aimed towards JFK 50 years ago.

Still -- apologies extended.
Lofter1, I don't think I am bashing anybody. I have plenty of Muslim friends that share my OPINION. It's like having a Muslim become ruler of Israel or vice versa. I am not ready to have him as president. I am not prejudice, ignorant, or bashing anyone. We all have our opinions and I would NEVER be cruel or horrible to anybody because of their race or religion. I am still getting over 9/11, it was a very horrible thing for me and I almost lost my mother because that was her building so if I feel that I am not ready to open up an Encyclopedia and see Obama listed as our president, I feel I have the right. Sorry if I have insulted anyone but it's just my feelings.

[voodoochild]

The fact is: Obama did go to muslim school, and So What! Even if he didn't VChild is not (or anyone else) obligated to be correct about everything she says here on this forum. Most importantly the rudeness with with she is being addressed seems a bit much: she is a guest here and a valued member - why the hostility.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
When young Obama was six, his mother married an Indonesian oil manager, a "non-practicing Muslim," and the family moved to Jakarta, where his half-sister Maya was born. In this exotic Islamic country, wrote Obama's good friend, the liberal lawyer and best-selling novelist Scott Turow, Barack Obama spent "two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school."

^Thanks.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I have plenty of Muslim friends that share my OPINION.Your Muslim friends think that they, or one of their family members, are unqualified to become president because of their religion?

I find this hard to believe.

[212]

^ Yeah, wow, or even a Christian like Obama who's spent time around Muslims is unqualified?

Then again ...

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l176/musiclover1992/BushSaudiKing.jpg

[voodoochild]

Your Muslim friends think that they, or one of their family members, are unqualified to become president because of their religion?

I find this hard to believe.
My Best Friend Lili who is 100% Persian from Iran believes that anyone with any ties should not be president right now. Just because some one does not believe in what you believe does not mean you should act hostile. I told you why I feel that way and that is all I need to do to support my issue. If I was going around bashing the religion that would be another story and as far as saying you don't believe what I say, well I would NEVER lie. There are some people that do still feel upset about what has happened here in the US and if they feel a certain way then so be it.

[voodoochild]

Maybe they can sell the RunMikeRun domain.

Exactly what views blow you away?
I will start off with his desire to clean uo the public school system. He has said that he will be personally responsible for this and he has done well. Test scores have gone up greatly, along with the graduation rate. He is all about schooling and really make it his goal to help the children in the public school system.
He has also launched the larget affordable housing program ever undertaken by an American city. Also his view on illegal guns are great and I agree with them 100%. The fact that he doesn't use our tax $ for his salary, awesome.
Should I go further?

[MidtownGuy]

I have plenty of Muslim friends that share my OPINION.
This is hard to believe, "Lilli" notwithstanding.

It's like having a Muslim become ruler of Israel or vice versa.
No, it isn't. Not at all.

I am not ready to have him as president. I am not prejudice, ignorant, or bashing anyone.
If you aren't 'ready' to have a man as President who had nothing at all to do with the attacks you are referring to, based simply on a dubious connection to Islam that is not even convincing, than YES THAT IS PREJUDICE.:rolleyes:

[ZippyTheChimp]

I will start off with his desire to clean uo the public school system.Local issue. Nothing to do with national politics.


He has said that he will be personally responsible for this and he has done well. Test scores have gone up greatly, along with the graduation rate.Do some research. Results have been mixed.


He has also launched the larget affordable housing program ever undertaken by an American city.Has housing in NYC become more affordable over the last 8 years?


Also his view on illegal guns are great and I agree with them 100%.Gun control is pretty much a Democratic platform.


The fact that he doesn't use our tax $ for his salary, awesome.And how would a no-salary president improve the national condition?


Should I go further?By all means.

[voodoochild]

This is hard to believe, "Lilli" notwithstanding.

No, it isn't. Not at all.

If you aren't 'ready' to have a man as President who had nothing at all to do with the attacks you are referring to, based simply on a dubious connection to Islam that is not even convincing, than YES THAT IS PREJUDICE.:rolleyes:
it is not prejudice. When you lose loved ones and almost lose your mother in an incident that is done by a certain group, emotionally it takes a long time to get over. I have been reading up on Obama after being told on this forum that he did not attend Muslim school and have realised that he has not. An ignorant person would just say certain things about certain groups and not even give anyone a chance to show them another side.

[ZippyTheChimp]

My Best Friend Lili who is 100% Persian from Iran believes that anyone with any ties should not be president right now.Any ties? Ties to what? Does being a Muslim mean you have sinister intent?

That's what I find hard to believe is the attitude of your Muslim friends - just being a Muslim is some sort of character flaw.

In which case, Lili has a personality disorder.

[voodoochild]

Any ties? Ties to what? Does being a Muslim mean you have sinister intent?

That's what I find hard to believe is the attitude of your Muslim friends - just being a Muslim is some sort of character flaw.

In which case, Lili has a personality disorder.

Im being totally honest in the fact that I have 2 best friends that come straight from Iran and one that was born here that believe that. I only repeat the truth and it is weird but true. Some people have been redirected in how they feel about these issues. It's a crazy world.

[MikeW]

I think it would be interesting to see, if he ran, whether he could outdraw the
Democratic candidate, whether or not he wins or loses.

[voodoochild]

I think it would be interesting to see, if he ran, whether he could outdraw the
Democratic candidate, whether or not he wins or loses.

I have a feeling that he will run for governor soon.

[eddhead]

I think it would be interesting to see, if he ran, whether he could outdraw the
Democratic candidate, whether or not he wins or loses.
0
Interesting question. I think he would have a hard time outdrawing Obama who is well positioned with unaffiliated voters ... clearly Bloomberg's target constituents. He might have better luck against Hillary due to her "insider" perception. He might even draw some blue dogs, indies and moderate GOP voters away from McCain due to his positions on the war (that 100 year thing is going to kill him weather he meant it or not) and confessed lack of expertise on the economy (again real or perceived) could undermine his personal appeal. But that is a harder sell

I have a feeling that he will run for governor soon.

I would be surprised. I think Bloomberg would like to enter the national arena when his term is up,if not as president than perhaps in some presidential advisory role. I really get the sense he wants to influence the national debate

VC, regarding your Obama comments, I think you are well-intentioned, but I also think you are missing the point. The suggestion that by his attending a Muslim school for 2 years as a child he is somehow affiliated with Islam as an institution, or radical islamism is misguided and wrong in many different ways. First, there is nothing to suggest that he is in anyway connected to Islam or Muslim-ism. Next, even if he were (which he is clearly not), that does not necessarily affiliate him with islamo-terrorists. I believe you when you say you have Muslim friends who feel simarlirly They are misguided as well.

This is a very dangerous and discriminatory way to think - and I do not mean this personally - but categorically dismissing someone as talented as Obama because as a small child he spent 2 years in a muslim school that we know nothing about... it smacks of guilt by association and it is distasteful.

[voodoochild]

0
Interesting question. I think he would have a hard time outdrawing Obama who is well positioned with unaffiliated voters ... clearly Bloomberg's target constituents. He might have better luck against Hillary due to her "insider" perception. He might even draw some blue dogs, indies and moderate GOP voters away from McCain due to his positions on the war (that 100 year thing is going to kill him weather he meant it or not) and confessed lack of expertise on the economy (again real or perceived) could undermine his personal appeal. But that is a harder sell


I would be surprised. I think Bloomberg would like to enter the national arena when his term is up,if not as president than perhaps in some presidential advisory role. I really get the sense he wants to influence the national debate

VC, regarding your Obama comments, I think you are well-intentioned, but I also think you are missing the point. The suggestion that by his attending a Muslim school for 2 years as a child he is somehow affiliated with Islam as an institution, or radical islamism is misguided and wrong in many different ways. First, there is nothing to suggest that he is in anyway connected to Islam or Muslim-ism. Next, even if he were (which he is clearly not), that does not necessarily affiliate him with islamo-terrorists. I believe you when you say you have Muslim friends who feel simarlirly They are misguided as well.

This is a very dangerous and discriminatory way to think - and I do not mean this personally - but categorically dismissing someone as talented as Obama because as a small child he spent 2 years in a muslim school that we know nothing about... it smacks of guilt by association and it is distasteful.
As I stated before, an ignorant person would make a statement and never give anyone a chance to show them another side. I looked intot he schooling situation and read that I was wrong with my prior statement. However, as far as distasteful, this is a forum where people can state their opinions and feelings. You think he is talented and that is your opinion. There are many other things that dismiss him from my vote. I am a Republican and we do not see eye to eye on many things. I felt comfortable enough here to tell you how I felt. I am not proud of it in any way but I feel that way. I do not preach my word everywhere. There was a discussion and I gave my emotional view on his running. I have severely emotionaly scarred from 9/11 and for me, a lot of small things hit home. I am going to end answering on this thread because I am not ignorant, distasteful or a bad person and would like to end this debate.

[eddhead]

First and foremost, I suggest you re-read my post. I never suggested you were ignorant or a bad person. I never even suggested YOU were distasteful. In fact, what I said was that you were well-intended.

What I wrote was that I consider the notion expressed by that you and your friends that you would not vote for Obama because as a small child he attended a muslim school for 2 years was distasteful. Saying that post, or more specifically that line of thought is distasteful is much different than saying you are.

And I stick by my comments. I too was scarred by 9/11. But the perspective that you can paint with that broad of a brush, or categorically dismiss the candidacy of a very talented politician in the basis of where he went to school for 2 years as a child, or because he has a muslim sounding name, is in my view prejudicial. That would be my view on that particular perspective, but not as you as a person. I am not that presumptuous. You see, after all, I am not a bad person either ;)

[voodoochild]

:p
First and foremost, I suggest you re-read my post. I never suggested you were ignorant or a bad person. I never even suggested YOU were distasteful. In fact, what I said was that you were well-intended.

What I wrote was that I consider the notion expressed by that you and your friends that you would not vote for Obama because as a small child he attended a muslim school for 2 years was distasteful. Saying that post, or more specifically that line of thought is distasteful is much different than saying you are.

And I stick by my comments. I too was scarred by 9/11. But the perspective that you can paint with that broad of a brush, or categorically dismiss the candidacy of a very talented politician in the basis of where he went to school for 2 years as a child, or because he has a muslim sounding name, is in my view prejudicial. That would be my view on that particular perspective, but not as you as a person. I am not that presumptuous. You see, after all, I am not a bad person either ;)

[MidtownGuy]

Bloomberg couldn't win anything nationally. He's a mousy-looking corporatist fink. Uninspiring, and anyone who thinks this guy would have a chance in hell is seriously deluding themselves.

[kliq6]

I know I will get pounded for this one but I would so vote for Mike if he decided to run. I think he is brilliant. He is all about helping New York and the fact that he doesn't take a salary is awesome. I know that he has momey and doesn't need the pay, but you could never have enough money. I have met and dined with him several times and his views blow me away.
This election coming up is awful.
You have iceberg Clinton who I don't trust at all then you have Obama who was sent to Muslim school and raised that way, and even though he is not Muslim...he still has that background. I don't think that our president should have anything to do with the religion that took us down.
As for the Republicans....ouch..They all suck. I have no clue what to do on election day.

The Muslim school is a lie and he was not raised a Muslim and if he was why should that be a reason not to vote for him. I lost two friends on 9/11 so saying that because some Muslims killed our friends taht day means one cant vote for any Muslim, is just plain wrong.

If MCCain gets in we basically will have Israel running our foreign policy, which truly scars the shit out of me.

As for Mike, not for President but Yes for Governor and id even volunteer to help get him elected. Spitzer is without a doubt the biggest let down ive ever had, he really was not and is not ready to be a acting Governer and his AG record when looked at closely is not impressive at all

[voodoochild]

The Muslim school is a lie and he was not raised a Muslim and if he was why should that be a reason not to vote for him. I lost two friends on 9/11 so saying that because some Muslims killed our friends taht day means one cant vote for any Muslim, is just plain wrong.

If MCCain gets in we basically will have Israel running our foreign policy, which truly scars the shit out of me.

As for Mike, not for President but Yes for Governor and id even volunteer to help get him elected. Spitzer is without a doubt the biggest let down ive ever had, he really was not and is not ready to be a acting Governer and his AG record when looked at closely is not impressive at all

You're too late, I have already been repremanded for my comments. I know he didn't attend Muslim school now, there are many other things that contribute to me not voting for him. I am a Republican and we just don't see eye to eye on a lot. I too am scared from 9/11 and unfortunately I have my emotional and irrational moments of rage.
On the brighter side of things..YES to Bloomberg for governor. I know a few people very close to him and he may be considering the run.yay..and yes boo to Spitzer, very dissappointing.

[Ninjahedge]

Im being totally honest in the fact that I have 2 best friends that come straight from Iran and one that was born here that believe that.

So, just because they came from Iran does not make them experts. There are many Americans that don't know what a "true NYer is". Many still see NYC as if it were still as it was in the 70's!

Does that mean that they are right about NYers because they are from the US?


I only repeat the truth and it is weird but true.

No, you are saying your opinion which you are entitled to. But when someone calls you on it, you can't say "Well my 2 muslim friends say it is so" or "My mother nearly died in 9-11!!!!".

That is emotional reasoning and holds no water.

Are you saying that all the muslims in the US are out to get us and if any of them get to be President that they will somehow change our whole country to some despotic rule governed by those that sympathized with the 9-11 hijackers?

And you are saying that Obama will be lik ethat NOT because he is Muslim (which he isn't) but just beacuse, for 2 years as a kid, he attended a muslim school, that he somehow poses a threat?

That IS prejudice and that IS unfounded!


isn't Some people have been redirected in how they feel about these issues. It's a crazy world.

Um, what the heck are you saying there?

I don't think you are thinking this through logically before you post. It seems to all be coming off of the top of your head. Think about it a bit before you hit the reply button, re-read what you are saying and realize just what you ARE saying.

Read up a bit on Obama first before you listen to your oh-so-knowledgeable friends thoughts and form your OWN ideas about this man.

Right now you seem to be calling fear and hate on a man that has no connection to them.

[Ninjahedge]

PS, which you seemed to have stepped back from a bit in the posts following the one I replied to.

I hope you are getting something from the information the people here are providing. Sometimes a differing opinion can let you see things from a different perspective, even if you do not agree on what that perspective is interpreted to be.

Hopefully you can, in turn, inform your errant friends of the misinformation they have been told/sent/gathered and get a better understanding of the whole situation.

Will that make them like him? Probably not, but still, it will cut down on the misinformation pipeline that the Republicans are even now preparing J.I.C.

[voodoochild]

PS, which you seemed to have stepped back from a bit in the posts following the one I replied to.

I hope you are getting something from the information the people here are providing. Sometimes a differing opinion can let you see things from a different perspective, even if you do not agree on what that perspective is interpreted to be.

Hopefully you can, in turn, inform your errant friends of the misinformation they have been told/sent/gathered and get a better understanding of the whole situation.

Will that make them like him? Probably not, but still, it will cut down on the misinformation pipeline that the Republicans are even now preparing J.I.C.

OH BOY....are you kidding me? If YOU took the time to read my replies you would see that I am calming down. What I meant by "redirected" is that many people after 9/11 have formed different opinions of the Muslim race, and I went on to say that it is a crazy world, crazy being that stuff like this happens.
I do read my posts before I reply. Scroll up a bit more and you will see that I said I have come to realize that Obama's schooling in a Muslim school was incorrect. That was the only fact I through out there, everything else was my OPINION. I also remember saying that I feel bad for feeling this way and would like to end this convo. Soooooooooo....thank you for your OPINION on me and hopefully you can see that I am a person that keeps an open mind.:)

[kliq6]

You're too late, I have already been repremanded for my comments. I know he didn't attend Muslim school now, there are many other things that contribute to me not voting for him. I am a Republican and we just don't see eye to eye on a lot. I too am scared from 9/11 and unfortunately I have my emotional and irrational moments of rage.
On the brighter side of things..YES to Bloomberg for governor. I know a few people very close to him and he may be considering the run.yay..and yes boo to Spitzer, very dissappointing.

Actually im what you would call a Obamacain. I actually am a registered republican, but am a anti-Bush republican that believes that we are going at this war all the wrong ways and as a Fiscal Conservative, his managment of the Economy is a joke!

[lofter1]

Bloomberg couldn't win anything nationally. He's a mousy-looking corporatist fink ...

Maybe this Bloomberg thread should be merged > Boom Time for Rats (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3116&highlight=rats) :confused:

[voodoochild]

Actually im what you would call a Obamacain. I actually am a registered republican, but am a anti-Bush republican that believes that we are going at this war all the wrong ways and as a Fiscal Conservative, his managment of the Economy is a joke!
Amen! LOL:p

[voodoochild]

Maybe this Bloomberg thread should be merged > Boom Time for Rats (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3116&highlight=rats) :confused:
Ahahahha......wait, doesn't anyone think he looks like that guy from The Simpsons????? I forgot his name. Still love him though...sorry.

[voodoochild]

Actually im what you would call a Obamacain. I actually am a registered republican, but am a anti-Bush republican that believes that we are going at this war all the wrong ways and as a Fiscal Conservative, his managment of the Economy is a joke!
How do you think we are going about this war all wrong? Don't get me wrong, I TOTALLY agree with you, just wondering. I think our troops should NEVER have waited so long to go in....AND.....I understand there is oil at stake...but come on, how many people do we have to lose before we can clearly see that our presence there is rediculous?

[NYatKNIGHT]

......wait, doesn't anyone think he looks like that guy from The Simpsons????? I forgot his name.Principal Skinner?

[Ninjahedge]

OH BOY....are you kidding me? If YOU took the time to read my replies you would see that I am calming down.

Re-read the first line in my post.

What do you think "stepping back" meant? That you were doing the Watoosey? ;)

[Ninjahedge]

Principal Skinner?

Smithers.

[ZippyTheChimp]

No, Skinner.

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/images/Skinner1.gif

It would make a great campaign button.

[Ninjahedge]

I am going more by voice.

Skinner's is too manly, even for a nancy boy! ;)

[voodoochild]

I am going more by voice.

Skinner's is too manly, even for a nancy boy! ;)
Seeeeeeeee......now this thread isnny, now that I'm not being dumped on. Yaaaaaaay.:p:D

[kliq6]

How do you think we are going about this war all wrong? Don't get me wrong, I TOTALLY agree with you, just wondering. I think our troops should NEVER have waited so long to go in....AND.....I understand there is oil at stake...but come on, how many people do we have to lose before we can clearly see that our presence there is rediculous?

Are troops should have been sent into Afganistan to capture and kill the newtwork responsible for the attack against us, not into Iraq to grab oil and get contracts for Halliburton to make money rebuilding a coutry we invaded.

There should never have been a war,a so called surge or anything in Iraq!

[voodoochild]

Are troops should have been sent into Afganistan to capture and kill the newtwork responsible for the attack against us, not into Iraq to grab oil and get contracts for Halliburton to make money rebuilding a coutry we invaded.

There should never have been a war,a so called surge or anything in Iraq!
Which just goes to show.....it's only about the oil. As soon as Bush gets out of office, hopefully our next leader will worry about us and get us out of places we don't belong. I love how we are "trying to liberate" Iraq, but I'm sorry...where the hell is Bin Laden again?????? Have we forgotten about the master mind behind the terrorist attacks?

[voodoochild]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/sk1222/mikebloomberg8x10.jpg

[Ninjahedge]

Which just goes to show.....it's only about the oil.

It was more than that, but it was not all that they told us it was about.

Oil was a major player. Just like playing a strategy game, you do not try and conquer tiles that have no real needed or valued resource (unless they have some tactical advantage).

Iraq was seen as relatively stable (or mollified), not overtly hostile to western interests (civilian population) and it had a resource that could make it self sustaining, to say the least, and provide the US with a profit in a best case scenario.

They goofed on the analysis, had no gameplan for occupation, and basically not only handed the ball to the other team at their own goal line, but also paid for every seat in the stadium.



But that is OT anyway.

Back to tacks. I like some of the things Bloomie has done, but I do not think he would be a very good candidate for President. I agree that he might do better as governor, but I think he still needs to learn a bit more about the national political scene before he even ventures forth.

[Jasonik]

The Candidate of the Permanent Will

Posted on Feb 15, 2008
By David Sirota (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080215_the_candidate_of_the_permanent_will/)

To the consternation of news bureaus, political consulting firms and has-been politicians, the Wall Street Journal’s poll last month shows that America is hostile to an independent presidential candidacy by Michael Bloomberg. The New York mayor is viewed more unfavorably than favorably by voters. In head-to-head general election polls, he gets crushed everywhere, losing even the city he now governs.

Yet, despite the unprecedented enthusiasm for the major parties’ 2008 presidential contenders, the media and political gatekeepers keep floating the possibility of Bloomberg’s candidacy, showing just how much change frightens the status quo.

To review: Bloomberg is the billionaire who spent roughly the same amount to buy New York’s mayoralty as Bill Clinton spent on his entire national presidential campaign in 1992. By most measures, he is the antithesis of what Americans want in a president.

He is a CEO at a time when his own Bloomberg News polls show Americans overwhelmingly distrust CEOs. He heads a media conglomerate and is considering an independent presidential candidacy in an era when Gallup surveys show voters strongly distrust media companies and are satisfied with the current field of major-party candidates.

Bloomberg is an icon of Manhattan’s effete aristocracy in an election pivoting on working-class voters in Ohio and the Mountain West. He is the caretaker mayor of a city that is an embarrassing spectacle of economic inequality—at a moment when Americans are worried about inequality.

Even on foreign policy he is out of step. With the public outraged at the Iraq war, Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has documented Bloomberg’s pro-war extremism echoing right-wing attempts to dishonestly connect 9/11 to the conflict; telling America to support President Bush because of the war; and offering a post-"Mission Accomplished” parade for the president.

Bloomberg is positioning himself as an issues-based alternative to both parties’ aspiring nominees. Yet his confidante admits the Bloomberg candidacy would be a Seinfeldian display of arrogance: a campaign about nothing, other than one egomaniac’s self-importance. “It isn’t about which candidate Mike could live with,” the Bloomberg friend recently told New York magazine. “All Mike cares about is whether he can win or not.”

Regardless, the portrayal of Bloomberg as Principled Savior continues. Late last year, Newsweek’s editor penned a brown-nosing front-cover love letter to the mayor, lauding his “American odyssey.” In January, Doug Schoen, a Bloomberg pollster, popped up in articles pushing the Bloomberg candidacy. Just weeks ago, a group of retired lawmakers trumpeted a Bloomberg run.

Some of the motives are obvious. Washed-up politicians are looking for White House jobs. News executives and political consultants see dollar signs in potential Bloomberg for President ads. Reporters would like to ingratiate themselves to the head of a burgeoning media empire. Power-worshipping pundits see in Bloomberg a fellow upper-cruster they can relate to at social gatherings.

But this is about more than just Cabinet slots, cash, careerism and cocktail parties.

In years past, campaign contributors controlled figurehead candidates like Bush, and corporate front groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council pummeled threatening challengers like Howard Dean. These were reliable instruments of corruption that enforced what Alexander Hamilton once called the Establishment’s “permanent will.” Now, though, voters are forcing both parties to ignore that “permanent will” and embrace real, unbridled change.

The Wall Street Journal notes that the ascendance of Republican John McCain, a sometime opponent of corporate America, is downright “nerve-wracking” for insiders already “jarred by intensifying populist attacks from the Democratic field.” Barack Obama (D) is now hammering away at lobbyist-written trade deals that help companies outsource jobs, and even Hillary Clinton (D)—the candidate who has taken the most cash from the health care industry—is criticizing health insurance profiteering.

Thus, the elite are desperate for a stooge, and in Bloomberg, they’ve found one. Politically repugnant to most Americans and representing no mass constituency whatsoever, his wallet nonetheless imparts “legitimacy,” and his corporate career ensures a candidacy working to suppress the change impulse under meaningless bromides about “bipartisanship.”

Bloomberg’s machinations will be the subject of ongoing media speculation. However, the real story is not about one prima donna, but about the entrenched interests pushing him to run in the first place. Whether this billionaire becomes a candidate or not, you can bet those interests will keep working hard to trip up change on its way to the White House.

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” will be released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network—both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.

[MikeW]

I seems that an old scandal has come back to haunt John McCain. If this weaken/kills his candidacy, will Bloomberg be back in the hunt?

[Jasonik]

He was never "in the hunt."

[MidtownGuy]

He has ZERO chance. Zero.
Give it up Mike.

[Ninjahedge]

Give it up Mike.

Which one?

[MikeW]

Anyone with $5,000,000,000 has a chance. Perot proved that. A chance doesn't mean he'd win, but he's be competitive.

If McCain flames out, he could win.

[ZippyTheChimp]

If McCain flames out, it's President Obama.

The "scandal" could wind up helping McCain.

Among the Republican conservative base, the NY Times is probably the poster boy of the hated "liberal press." The Times sat on this story while they endorsed McCain, and then put it on page 1, with rather tenuous corroboration. Conservatives could see this as typical bias by the press and circle the wagons around McCain.

Unless the Times has more stuff, the only disadvantage I see for McCain came from watching his press conference today, where he explained his relationships with lobbyists.

This could work to the advantage of Obama.

[Jasonik]

^ Yeah, radio guys who have strongly panned McCain for weeks have been busy vilifying the 'liberal' Times while backhandedly defending the divisive GOP nominee.

*****

MikeW, if the media stays true to form and brands any criticism of him as anti-semitism then yes, he has a chance.
Bloomberg supports (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/31/bloomberg/index.html) Bush's hawkish foreign policy (think Joe Lieberman (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/David_Brooks_McCainLieberman_Party_still_emerging_ 0809.html) with scads of money).

Since being a racist is more acceptable than opposing Israel (see recent NH (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010908.shtml) Bradley Effect apologizing (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=268328)), and Obama's (soft) opposition to endless Middle East military interventionism should he find himself (http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12366) fingered for being against Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953566.html) (and a closet anti-semite (http://grizzlygroundswell.com/archives/1101)) the door may be open for Bloomberg -- that is IF he doesn't run as John McCain's VP.

[MidtownGuy]

I meant Mike Bloomberg. And no, he doesn't have a chance even if he had 10 billion dollars and an endless supply of those full color direct mail campaigns that filled my mailbox when he ran here.

From the Haaretz piece:

Hoenlein said that Israel's supporters should be worried by "the heightening of the bar and the greater tolerance of anti-Israel statements that wouldn't have been allowed in the past."

He singled out the Walt-Mearschimer book on the Israel lobby, that "has become a bestseller and a college textbook" and said that there "is a steady poisoning of the elites, mainly on campuses that could trickle down."

Warning *anti-Israel statements to follow..
The Jewish lobby in Washington and their cohorts in Jerusalem are dangerous and anti-democratic. I wish we would stop sending them the billions to prop up their segregationist warmongering theocracy.
Of course, that statement would now brand me an "anti-semite" in the eyes
of Zionist Jews. What utter crap, just because I don't believe religion, ANYWHERE, should entitle you to a better house, better neighborhood, better schools, and better tanks to roll over your neighbors who don't share that religion.
Israel is an abomination. Just because people there vote doesn't make it democratic. You have to look at the way the country actually functions and how it conducts itself. After all, they also vote in Cuba, and they vote in Iran. I wouldn't really call them democracies.

[MikeW]

Surprised no one's talking about Mikie's 'definitive' denial.