Post #287,391
6/20/07 8:56:10 AM
|
Bloomberg leave GOP
[link|http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/20/bloomberg.ap/|CNN] Speculation that Mayor Michael Bloomberg was interested in a third-party presidential run was merely simmering last summer when he was asked about the idea of leaving the GOP and becoming an independent.
The billionaire mayor pointed out that the Republican Party had given him an opportunity to get elected in 2001, when he switched his lifelong Democratic registration to avoid a crowded primary.
"There's no reason for me to change my party at the moment," Bloomberg said then.
Apparently the moment has come. Widely speculated that this move is the first step in a presidential run as an independent. Normally I would say that is a fool's goal, but the current political situation at least makes it plausible. And in any case he has the money to have at least some impact. Bloomberg was always an marginal player as a Republican, having picked the party more to avoid the heavy competition of the Democratic primary. And his political position always put him at the far left of the Republican party. I'm don't know enough about his history or politics to know if I would vote for him, but given what I do know I consider it. Jay
|
Post #287,395
6/20/07 9:52:14 AM
|
This might be the year.
The climate seems to be that there's a hunger for an outsider - even more than in 1992. Too many Democrats don't want to create a Clinton Dynasty by electing Hillary, but Obama seems too light-weight (as does Edwards in some respects) and the other major player have too much baggage (e.g. Biden and Dodd), or seem flaky in some respect or other (e.g. Richardson, Kucinich).
On the Republican side, only Ron Paul seems to be willing to say that the mess we're in is, to a very large extent, the result of "conservative" Republican policies. Most of them are running as a continuation of Bush and I don't think the country will buy it again. There are also far too many lightweights (e.g. Romney, and Thompson when he gets in) and religion advocates (e.g. Huckabee) for most people to get excited about their prospects.
That leaves a very big opening for an independent. Bloomberg is a very smart, very rich man who knows how politics works. He's had a significant elected office, and he wouldn't make the mistakes that Perot did in debates and in interactions with the press. He would be a formidable national candidate, but he would have a great deal of difficulty fighting the party establishments for access to ballots and debates and the like.
I don't know if he's going to run or not, but his [link|http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2007a%2Fpr205-07.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1|statement] certainly makes it sound like he has national ambitions (3rd and 4th paragraphs).
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #287,443
6/20/07 5:17:45 PM
|
If nothing else, he will direct some of the national debate.
For one thing, Bloomberg is not a fruit cake like Perot was before the 1992 election. He doesn't have to kiss butt to get monetary support. He's a billionaire.
I recall [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bayard_Anderson|John Anderson] in the 1980 election who left the Republican Party and ran as an Independent. Indeed I heard the man speak in Charlotte's Independence Square. The campaign turned out to be a fool's errand and shows the two party system to be impregnable.
I think Bloomberg can only help things by stirring the pot.
Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
|
Post #287,457
6/20/07 8:55:34 PM
|
The world would be amazingly different if JA had won...
|
Post #287,459
6/20/07 10:05:02 PM
|
The world would have to have been different for him to win.
As for Bloomberg, it'll take more than just money to break the two party scam open.
-----------------------------------------
Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
|
Post #287,491
6/21/07 9:13:41 AM
|
The situation is primed for it though
Both major parties are imploding. The Republicans are falling apart as the machine that put Bush in power has reached the end of the road and the price on their various illegal schemes is coming due. And the Democrats can't get organized enough to vote for a bill that says "Democrats are cool." If this situation continues into 2008, the country will be primed for an outsider to come in.
Perot managed 18% of the popular vote, and that despite some serious problems with his campaign. Bloomberg is a much more experienced politician and isn't likely to such blunt mistakes and should be able to organize better ahead of time. I do think that if he really wants to win he needs to move soon.
If his goal is just to shake up current politics and force some issues to the front, he can wait longer. He has the money to make a splash even if he waits till the last minute. Remember that Perot may not have won, but he did force deficit spending by the federal government to the level of a national issue and force discussion of other things the major parties would have rather left unsaid.
Jay
|
Post #287,397
6/20/07 10:02:55 AM
|
Openly stated lack of principles?
Politicians changing parties to improve their chances is nothing new but to avoid a crowded primary? Don't politicians at least pretend to follow some principle? Claiming the previous party has adopted unacceptable policies is common. Or is it openly acknowledged that both parties are the same and interchangable?
Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
Post #287,399
6/20/07 10:50:08 AM
|
Seems very pragmatic to me
For someone who doesn't fit either party very well... I'd say Bloomberg is fairly close to Libertarian principles, but he'd never get elected under that party's banner.
At the very least it's tacit acknowledgment that the parties are pretty much the same.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #287,402
6/20/07 11:23:56 AM
|
Also....
it's different in a republic than it is in a parliamentary democracy. In a parliament, switching parties is in all but the rarest of cases the killer of one's ambitions, but that's not nearly as true in a republic.
|
Post #287,405
6/20/07 11:37:41 AM
|
Imagine my surprise, I read it as "broomberg"
And was glad to see I was wrong.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Alternate Fingerprint: 455F E104 22CA 29C4 933F 9505 2B79 2AB2
|
