Big News from Bloomberg
He appears on the cover of Time with Arnold Schwarzenegger with the headline “Who Needs Washington?”
He’s the subject of a BusinessWeek special report, “The CEO Mayor: How New York’s Mike Bloomberg is creating a new model for public service that places pragmatism before politics.”
He’s rumored to have recently had a “long, private discussion” with former Dem senator David Boren about the possibilities of an independent run in ’08.
On Monday, he spoke at Google HQ, where he declared “The country is in trouble” and went after the current crop of presidential candidates, the campaigns, and the debates. Of the latter, he said “They have absolutely nothing to do with the job and the qualifications. And they don’t tell you anything about whether or not any of those candidates would be good or bad presidents. What they really say is, did they memorize their notes of ‘What to say if …’ and whether their staff was able to anticipate. If you look at both debates, they pandered, what I would argue, the same ways.”
At an LA conference last night titled Ceasefire! Bridging the Partisan Divide, Bloomberg said “Washington is sinking into a swamp of dysfunction….We’re talking about a serious and harmful addiction here. Unfortunately, there’s no ‘Promises’ clinic for partisanship.” He added “When you go to Washington these days, you can feel a sense of fear in the air, the fear to do anything or say anything that might affect the polls or give the other side the advantage or offend a special interest group. The federal government isn’t out front – it’s cowering in the back of the room.”
And just this evening, Mayor Bloomberg has announced that he is leaving the Republican Party and declaring himself unaffiliated. His statement reads in part:
“Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City.
A nonpartisan approach has worked wonders in New York: we’ve balanced budgets, grown our economy, improved public health, reformed the school system and made the nation’s safest city even safer.
We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face.
Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.”
Tim Russert said tonight on NBC News that Bloomberg is preparing for a potential ’08 run, depending on where things are in early 2008 and whether he concludes it’s possible to go all the way.
I still say we could do much worse. Go for it, Mike.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “Big News from Bloomberg”
*yawn* Bloomberg *yawn*
What was irritating was the LA Times article I read about how state and local officials, including Bloomberg, met to press Washington to fight less and “do more,” which includes giving the states and cities more money, no doubt — smothered with smarmy “cooperation” and “bipartisanship” drivel…
and adding to the irritation was the statement that the issues of concern are those that “traditionally have been the realm of the federal government.” (state and local affairs, that is) What a disgusting New Deal-Great Society distortion!
“Ceasefire! Bridging the Political Divide” *gag*
[CORRECTION: "Cease Fire! Unite to demand more from Washington rather than doing it and paying for it yourselves, as you should."]
I like Bloomberg, and think his talents are needed in uberpartisan Washington, but hope he decides not to run, because of our dismal history with third party candidates. Perhaps if they passed a law that any candidate who received less than 50% would have to endure a runoff between the top two vote-getters. Unfortunately, third party candidates often act as spoilers.
K. Ritter:
I like Bloomberg
He says “my plans for the future haven’t changed” and so if he runs later, he’s simply another rotten apple in the pile like the rest.
*claps* If anything Bloomberg took a swipe at the ignorant media hacks that have asked the “questions” in the debates so far. If you can call those debates at all is a good question.
I’d like to hear his ideas in depth, and if he’s going to run we will very soon I’d expect.
Considering the pile of uselessness the current crop is Bloomberg might be what the country needs.
I’d guess DLS is yawning him off as just another one in the pile because he becomes an instant threat to peel off alot of the independants leaning GOP. Don’t yawn off someone untill you hear what ideas they have, and anyone that takes a swipe at the media for the lack of performance in asking questions deserves atleast a small consession. Because we sure could do without questions about haircuts and over the top 24 “what if’s” parading as thoughful debate questions.
While I’m not going to jump onto some kind of Bloomberg bandwagon I would definitely listen to what he has to say. DLS just yawns him off because DLS is one of the ideologues that has contributed to the current mess. He has his worldview and no facts will ever change it.
[...] (NYT); Crooks and Liars; The Reaction; MyDD; All Spin Zone; Dr. Rachel Maddow (Air America Blog); The Moderate Voice; [...]
I know he’s sworn off elected office, but Colin Powell as Bloomberg’s running mate would give any such independent ticket some serious potential.
If it’s Hillary and Rudy I’d give Bloomy a serious look, esp. if Nader or some Green is not saying good things. However, Colin Powell- after having W’s hand up his ass at the UN presentation of WMDs, has no luster left.
A mod Dem, with a lower profile (Bloomy’s ego needs catering to) is the ticket. Boren’s a good fit.
I wonder if Senator Clinton has promised a cabinet seat or an ambassadorship to Bloomberg in order to get him to run and split the Republican vote two ways.
If Bloomberg runs, the Republicans will probably get less than 10% of the vote in New England and could possibly lose automatic ballot access (depending on state laws).
When an independent candidate is running, one should always look for the hidden adventure.
[...] And be sure to re-read Jeremy Dibbell’s excellent earlier post on the issue HERE. [...]
It might make things hard for Giuliani if he’s not even the best mayor of NYC in the race.
SD- Clinton has as much to fear as the GOP nominee from Bloomberg- he’s another centrist from NY who could run on a record of competence, not ideology. Sen. Clinton is still regarded as a polarizing figure in her party, which means she wouldn’t get a lot of crossover votes, but would galvanize Republicans to vote against her.
Also, don’t forget that Bloomberg was a RINO, who only changed his affiliation from Democrat to Republican to win the primary for NYC’s mayoral race. His millions did the rest and he’s won twice.
I would think independents and moderates from both parties would be attracted to him. That would leave the hard-core base for the Democratic and Republican candidates. If 33% of the voters consider themselves conservatives, and 22% consider themselves liberals, it would elect the Republican.
All bets would be off if Obama won the Democratic nomination, however, since he is even attracting some Republicans.
Of course Bloomberg would pull from Giuliani, but that and $1.50 gets you a cup of coffee 18 months out.
kritter, you may be understating his liberal bent. Mayors are paid to make a city government function, not showcase their ideology. If RINO’s are Republicans in name only, then Bloomberg is a RINO is name only.
Third party candidates really need an issue not covered off in the 2 party match-up. If “gridlock” goes front and center over the next year……maybe.
[...] And be sure to re-read Jeremy Dibbell’s excellent earlier post on the issue HERE. [...]
Casual- To me he seems like a centrist- but that may be because I’m more liberal than you are. I also see the Clintons as centrists, but many conservatives see them as liberals. Just like some conservatives see Bush as liberal- but to Democrats he is anything but.
I did say Bloomberg would pull from the Democrats and Independents more than the GOP- so I think it would help the Republican. No Conservatives would vote for him- which helps the GOP.
I wish we had the type of system where third party candidates enabled a majority candidate to win, but we don’t.
As your mistaken comment is much more intelligent than Satterfield’s, I’ll answer yours. I’m yawning him off because he is as over-hyped as Giuliani, among other things.
DLS- How is he overhyped? He has proven he is competetent and smart. He came from a humble beginning and is a self-made billionaire- unlike the elitist who inherited wealth that sits in the WH now.
Many who support him are convinced that the ideological clash of the two major partieshas become so intense that it keeps them from working together to solve this country’s problems.
While I am skeptical of third-party candidates in general because they usually cannot win but can help the majority candidate lose by splitting support, I tend to agree with the main concept.
Bloomberg probably only hurts the Republicans IF Guiliani is the nominee. Otherwise, he may do the the Democratic nominee what Perot did to George H.W. Bush in 1992.
That’s what I think, too, Jason, since he was truly a RINO, and was the last Nelson Rockefeller (liberal) Republican. In a three-way race between Bloomberg, Clinton and Thompson (Fred not Tommy), you could see Clinton and Bloomberg split the liberal and centrist vote, while Thompson wins by getting the traditional Republican and Conservative voters.
[...] And be sure to re-read Jeremy Dibbell’s excellent earlier post on the issue HERE. [...]
[...] And be sure to re-read Jeremy Dibbell’s excellent earlier post on the issue HERE. [...]