Bloomberg: Both Parties Have Become Meaningless
With a pitch like this, Bloomberg could well tap into some disgruntled voters from both parties (and from no party):
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who became an independent last week, showed his non-partisan colors Wednesday by criticizing both political parties.
Bloomberg, who left the GOP and is asked almost daily about running for president, said Wednesday that neither the Republican nor Democratic Party “stands for anything.”
“There isn’t any philosophy” for either party, he said after a speech on improving public schools.
Bloomberg has repeatedly expressed frustration with Congress, saying lawmakers favor partisanship over progress and have failed to deal with immigration, health care or education.
“Party discipline requires you to make decisions based on what’s good for the party rather than what the merits are of the piece of legislation before you,” he said.
This is an argument could hit a nerve in some: that both political parties are now less hotbeds of ideas and principles than bedpans of political expediency. The idealism and principles are often finessed when the actual “crunch” votes are taken (and when the Presidential candidates from each party get through pitching themselves to more ideological primary voters and then attempt to inch towards offering a broader appeal once the general campaign begins).
The Bloomberg boomlet is definitely one to watch — but so is a man named Ralph Nader. What would Bloomberg AND Nader do to a race?
23 Responses to “Bloomberg: Both Parties Have Become Meaningless”
Amen. A classic example of this is Arlen Specter’s terrific speech about the rights of habeas corpus and its fundamental importance to a free country – right before he voted along with his party to remove it. (Commenters, please correct me if I am wrong on this.)
The polls are going to be all important to Bloomberg. If I could just vote for a person, I would give him serious consideration. But if I see the polls come November with the Republican party ahead of Dems and Bloomberg polling right around the same as the Dems, then I can’t risk a vote on Bloomberg.
Courting Disgruntled Voters?
Michael Bloomberg said Wednesday that neither the Republican nor Democratic Party “stands for anything.†Joe Gandelman observes: “This is an argument could hit a nerve in some: that both political parties are now less hotbeds of ideas and principl…
it may be a message that resonates with some, but when it comes time to vote? A short, divorced, Jewish man from New York with a whiny voice and show repeatedly on TV wearing a bright pink sweater – now THAT is a winning combination in the Midwest, South & West.
Q- ‘What would Bloomberg AND Nader do to a race?’
A- Give voters two candidates who would actually be competent, rather than zero.
Paca: ‘then I can’t risk a vote on Bloomberg.’
Shame on you. Cowards are universally despised for a reason.
Throw your vote away if you wish, but I feel the same as Pacatrue. I’m also not convinced that Nader who has held no elected office or Bloomberg who has only run NYC would be the best choices. Whoever wins without party alliances will have difficulty working with both and will be attacked by both extremes.
Yours is the thrown away vote, because you vote for people you do not believe in. Thus, nothing ever changes, and you whine in perpetuity.
Truly American productivity at its most absurd.
Exactly.
So, who is Kritter voting for and when did he/she decide she didn’t believe in them but will vote for them anyway?
The Amazing Kreskin called and want’s his fancy hat back.
Davebo: Paca said ‘But if I see the polls come November with the Republican party ahead of Dems and Bloomberg polling right around the same as the Dems, then I can’t risk a vote on Bloomberg.’
Kim said: ‘Throw your vote away if you wish, but I feel the same as Pacatrue.’
That means she agrees with, ‘But if I see the polls come November with the Republican party ahead of Dems and Bloomberg polling right around the same as the Dems, then I can’t risk a vote on Bloomberg.’
Therefore neither Paca nor Kim are voting based upon competence nor ideas, but upon gaming. The lesser of two evils gambit.
This is not Kreskin but logical deduction 101. If you actually read a post and the thread, rather than cherry-pick and strawman, there is no confusion.
What did your 2000 vote for Ralph Nader achieve? Or do you think we have been better off the last 7 years with Bush/Cheney than we would have been with Gore/Lieberman???
Also you should note I believe problems with major parties are not reason enough to vote for Ralph Nader who has made his career out of being the ultimate outsider. What qualifications does he possess that would make him a good president?
It’s not as if Bloomberg is some fairy god-mother to cure all ills,
He is definitely a Bush type pro-business guy.
Not that there is anything wrong with being pro-business, per se, but the trade-off is important.
In Bloomberg’s case, he’s for develpment, develpment, develpment. At almost any cost to other concerns..
Voting for third party candidate just because they’re third party candidates is foolish.
Sometimes the real hero is the coward who recognizes the reality and the consequences of chasing unachievable ideals and just plays the best game he can with the cards he’s been dealt.
Kim: ‘What did your 2000 vote for Ralph Nader achieve?’
It told the D’s and R’s that folk like me are fed up with their do nothing games, and if they do not change they will lose even more. What did your vote for Gore achieve? Nothing, but allowing the duopoly- R&D, to continue to grind this nation and its electoral process into the ground. You actively participated in the diminution and destruction of representative politics, because both big parties don’t give a shit about you, save for your vote. With that, they are ready to go hammertime on your ass and wallet for another 4 years.
‘Or do you think we have been better off the last 7 years with Bush/Cheney than we would have been with Gore/Lieberman???’
Perhaps we would be a little better than the path we’re on, but we’d likely be less further along on another path to nowhere. And you don’t really want to use an execrable hack like Lieberman as an example of progressive politics, do you?
‘What qualifications does he possess that would make him a good president?’
He understand macro-economics betetr than anyone on the planet. He has a career history of doing the right thing for consumers, working class people, and is an avowed devotee of separation of church and state. He has led a generation of Nader’s Raiders, which led to the Green Party. And that’s just off the top of my head. Let’s see. Bush and Cheney- failures and chickenhawks. kerry a mummy lacking ideas and balls. Gore, a hack who has now embraced Green policies because he’s no longer in the ring. Yes, a true man of vision- willing to stand up for things only when not held accountable. Next.
Doma: ‘Voting for third party candidate just because they’re third party candidates is foolish.
Sometimes the real hero is the coward who recognizes the reality and the consequences of chasing unachievable ideals and just plays the best game he can with the cards he’s been dealt.’
No one has ever advocated voting for a Third Party just for a Third Party. I would likely vote for Obama or Edwards if they win the D nod. I won’t vote for Hillary nor any R’s. However, if a Hillary-Rudy faceoff takes place, and Bloomberg is running, I’ll seriously look his way. In cards, there are often more than just two hands in play.
And, on your way out of the casino, when done with your Coward’s Manifesto, you can pick up your testes. Their bronzing is now finished, and you can hang them up on your mantle, since you have no further need for them in life. $24.99 please.
Cosmoetica, it is quite unnecessary to call someone a coward that is universally despised because they disagree with you. The only effect such comments have is to make me ignore your ideas in the future.
I’ll leave it at that.
Cosmoetica- If you can win an argument with your ideas then you don’t need to use ad hominem attack. Do you really think calling someone a coward will make them agree more with you?
Great you and the remainder of Nader’s 2% made a big statement. And the two major parties sure learned their lesson that they’d better not ignore you and voters like you? No it taught the GOP that if they contribute to the Green Party it will pull more votes away from the Democrats.
Paca,
Thanks, but don’t worry.
Temper tantrums are just temper tantrums. They just freflect basly on the toddler throwing them.
Paca: If you act in a craven fashion, and then take pride in that craven view, you gets what’s comin’.
Kim: It’s called humor. I realize that everything is deadly serious because your opinions are crafted from the mind of the Creator. But, if they’re silly and or craven I will mock them, just as I’ve seen you mock many a person, and with far less wit, and far more bile.
As for Nader, ’tis the Dems whinin’ about Nader having cost them the last 2 elections. So which is it- is he a force or a nuisance?
Don’t you just love indecisiveness?
Doma: True, and good way to put Paca and Kim in their place.
Cosmo-
I’m beginning to worry about you.
It might be time for a check-up. Living with all that rage, can’t be healthy.
Doma- that you see rage says that you need a checkup- of the intercranial sort.
Say: Ohmmmmm….
Cosmo- As you can see I’d rather look at the results than the intentions. Nader’s intentions were to wake up both parties. The results were 7 years of the worst administration in my lifetime ( I was a toddler during Eisenhower so that’s alot of CIC’s) If he runs again with the best intentions and we get similar “results” I may consider moving to Canada! Yes I admit this is not a particularly humorous subject, especially in view of SCOTUS recent swerve to the hard right.
Cosmo-
My check up results showed me to be 100% perfect.
Your turn to go AAHH.
So person one states, “I want to use my vote to get the best result I possibly can for the nation based on my what I believe in.”
Person two responds: “You are a craven despicable coward.”
Does person two really act this way with his friends and coworkers in person? If not, why does he act this way online?
Pace:
That’s just the way Person 2 is.
After a while, you learn which commenters not to take seriously, which to ignore altogether, which to laugh at.
Kim: So, you think if maybe you’d voted for someone worth being Prez it may have not changed things?
Doma: ‘Twas a shrink, not a mechanic I urged you to see.
Paca: You said, ‘‘But if I see the polls come November with the Republican party ahead of Dems and Bloomberg polling right around the same as the Dems, then I can’t risk a vote on Bloomberg.’
That is not consistent with, ‘“I want to use my vote to get the best result I possibly can for the nation based on my what I believe in.‒ no matter how you spin it.
It is consistent with I have no guts nor vision so want to waste a vote keeping the same old duopoly in power, so I can bitch some more, later.
And that is 100% consistent with being craven.
Doma: You stuck the tongue depressor in the wrong end.