Why is the man above smiling? Because, apparently, he has a RIGHT to.

If all goes according to projections and Senator Hillary Clinton somewhat narrowly wins the Indiana Democratic primary (CBS has projected she will narrowly win it), he has a right to smile. Because if early indications are correct, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have provided a textbook case of the influence of radio talk show hosts on partisans in the 21st century.

His “Operation Chaos” — designed to get his listeners to vote whenever they can in Democratic primaries for Clinton to prolong the Democrats’ highly divisive Clinton/Barack Obama Presidential nomination — could have given the Cinton the winning edge, if the victory margin in the end is like what seems to be shaping up now. The New Republic’s The Plank:

Some reporters have speculated about the impact of the “Limbaugh effect” — partisan Republicans crossing over to vote fr Hillary Clinton solely to help weaken the Democrats against John McCain. The sieze of the effect is hard to measure. But there is one numerical measurement, first pointed out to me by the Pew Survey’s Richard Auxier following the Pennsylvania primary, that gives some sense of it.

One exit poll question asks Indiana voters who they would support in a Clinton-McCain contest. 17% of them say McCain. Of those voters, 41% say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. In other words, these voters, 7% of the Indiana electorate, voted for Clinton in the primary but have no intention of supporting her in the fall.

Now, this isn’t a precise measure of the “Limbaugh effect” — no doubt there are some Republicans who backed Obama in the primary out of anti-Clinton sentiment, but plan to vote for McCain in November. But it is a good place to start when making a ballpark estimate. And it’s a sizeable number — 7% may wind up being as big as her margin of victory.

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein looks at exit polls and reaches the same conclusion: Limbaugh played a role in motivating some voters whose motive was basically to sabatoge the Democratic primary…something some Democrats have tried in cross-over primaries the past but not on such an organized, sustained and serious scale. Stein’s post must be read full but here are some excerpts:

Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary?

The loud-mouthed radio talk show host has been encouraging Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to continue the “chaos” in the Democratic race. And a sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect.

Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said “neither candidate” shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.

These are not small numbers. By comparison, of the 33 percent of voters who said Sen. Barack Obama does not share their values, only seven percent cast their ballots in his favor. Basically, more people who don’t relate to Clinton are, for one reason or another, still voting for her. These are not likely to be loyal supporters.

He goes into some detail then writes:

The numbers suggest one of three things: A) Clinton’s support in Indiana, while clearly there, is not entirely solid; B) a large swath of Indiana primary goers simply didn’t like the nominees and thought of Clinton as the lesser of two evils; or C) Limbaugh’s hatchet plan could be having political ripples.

Perhaps it’s a mix of all three.

Republican partisans will applaud what truly seems to be a Limbaugh success. And his “legend” as someone who can press a button and get followers to do his bidding (or jettison previous beliefs and get with the party line) will grow. Some Hillary Clinton supporters will say Well, what does it matter why they vote the way the do — they have the right to vote as they vote. (Which they do.)

But there is an ineffable stench of political sleaziness when Republicans — and Democrats — decide to cross party lines to sandbag the other party. Who would have ever thought 20 or 30 — or 10 — years ago that partisans of either party would vote in another party’s primary specifically to prolong the other party’s turmoil or weaken that party’s candidate? There have been charges that siphoning off another party’s votes has been used via third parties but this hasn’t been an actual calculated strategy until now. Welcome to mega partisan 2008.

Perhaps when Superdelegates look at these numbers, it might influence their perceptions on the components of the Indiana vote….particularly as Limbaugh starts hyping his impact and if the mainstream media latches on to the story.

P.S. Limbaugh’s power isn’t just because he’s a partisan. He is also a talented, first-class broadcaster who knows how to use the broadcast medium and get and hold an audience. He makes it look easy, and it isn’t — which is why so many other conservative and progressive talk show hosts have failed.

This may be the first vote in which his influence can be measured in qualitative terms.

UPDATES:
–Read Andrew Sullivan.

Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

The Most Powerful People in America

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

They are not the rich and superrich, nor the politically powerful running the two-party plutocracy, nor the greedy heads of banking and finance companies, and certainly not the media moguls and bloviating pundits.

The most powerful people are US, American consumers that account for over 70 percent of the economy. It is exactly now, when the economy is in the toilet, that consumers hold the maximum power. So why are we the people still deluding ourselves that the path to a better future rests on electing a new president?

We are suckers, conditioned by decades of clever marketing and advertising to believe the lies of politicians, and worst of all to believe that elections and our votes provide us with power. Wrong. Our real power can only be manifest through our spending dollars.

The overwhelming majority of Americans have been severely damaged by economic oppression by government policies that have produced historic economic inequality. Yet, despite revolting conditions, Americans seem unwilling to revolt by using their remaining economic power. They have let themselves become economic slaves.

What is amazing and depressing is that there are no national leaders from the worlds of politics, religion, education, media or public interest that are attempting to harness consumer power at this critical time. No one is capturing the public’s attention by making it crystal clear that consumers could obtain any political or economic reform in the public interest by joining together to withhold their discretionary spending.
Read the rest of this entry »

Last night, former Independent Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura was on Larry King Live to discuss the War in Iraq, the 2008 Presidential Election, and what he really thinks of the Democratic and Republican Parties and our two-party system:

PART ONE:

PART TWO:

PART THREE:

Read the rest of this entry »

The news-cycle over the past few days has been filled with some Democratic bigwigs, unnamed sources and others hinting or flatly clamoring for Hillary Clinton to get out of the 2008 Democratic race since they contend she doesn’t have a realistic chance. But now she’s getting moral support to stay in from a former Presidential candidate — but it’s unlikely to impress Democratic Superdelegates:

Senator Clinton:

Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race.

Believe me.

I know something about this.

Here’s my advice:

Don’t listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore.

That’s just political bigotry.

Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice.

This is America.

Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run.

Whenever you like.

For as long as you like.

It’s up to you, Hillary.

Just tell them –

It’s democracy.

Get used to it.

Yours truly,

Ralph Nader

To Superdelegates, will Nader’s comments represent this?

A new Zogby poll shows that GOP nominee-to-be Senator John McCain would beat both Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama in a general election — and that third party candidate Ralph Nader would definitely have an impact.

In fact, Pollster Zogby writes, there are signs that Nader may win enough support in the polls to get into the Presidential debates.

McCain would beat Clinton 45% to 39% with Nader getting 6% of the vote. McCain would beat Obama 44% to 39% with Nader getting 5% of the vote.

The introduction of long-time activist Ralph Nader into the mix is having an effect on the race, as he wins enough support to make a difference, the poll shows. Nader entered the race recently, charging that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and their presidential candidates. Using the same argument eight years ago, his presence on the ballot in Florida may well have tipped the presidential election away from Democrat Al Gore and in favor of George W. Bush. His run four years ago yielded less dramatic results, but the political atmosphere has changed since 2004, and may be more favorable for him again, the Zogby survey shows.

At first glance, the reaction might be that it’s too early for an analysis since McCain himself has not faced a Democratic onslaught. But the increasing acrimony of the Obama-Clinton race, and the likelihood that in the battle over the delegate count there will be more controversies (like this) and that the Superdelegates may intervene, the prospect for the Democrats seems more grim each day.

The prospect is for a significant chunk of the Obama or Clinton side deciding to sit on its hands on election day — or cast a protest vote. Which is where Nader comes in:

As is the case in the McCain-Clinton-Nader contest, Obama wins among voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters age 30 and older. Nader wins 15% support among those under age 30, but has little support among older voters.

Pollster Zogby writes:

Nader’s presence in the race can potentially turn a lulu of a race into an absolute tizzy. The messages to Democrats are clear – number one, Nader may win enough support to get into the general election debates. Number two, what could be at risk is support among several key constituencies that the Democratic Party candidate will need to win in November, notably younger voters, independents, and progressives.

The great Penny Wit thinks he knows. And he could be right.

Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant

Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

God Bless Ralph Nader

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

Because he wants to salvage American democracy and help Americans, Ralph Nader is running for president again. He deserves the support of all Americans that see themselves as progressives, dissidents, independents, and patriots who want to remove the stranglehold of the two-party plutocracy on our political system.

When it comes to being an honest, proven and trustworthy change agent, Nader is the gold standard. So why are so many Democrats going ballistic and spewing hate towards Nader?

They are in denial about both Obama and Clinton. Both owe much to the corporate and business world that Nader has waged war against for decades. Like Clinton, Obama has taken huge amounts of money from several business sectors. Both refuse to advocate a single payer universal health care system that Nader champions; this protects the enormously profitable health insurance industry.

They are crazy-glued to their misplaced blame of Nader for the Bush victory in 2000, even though several other indisputable factors also explain Gore’s loss, including his poor campaign that was unable to deliver his home state of Tennessee, the incompetence of the Democratic Party to stop the Supreme Court’s disgraceful action, and the cowardly behavior of the Democratic Party over many decades that kept them from working to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote. And rather than blame Nader for the Iraq war, the Democrats have only themselves to blame, not only for authorizing the war but for many assaults on the Constitution that Bush has gotten away with.

They fear the public becoming more aware of the many policy positions of Obama and Clinton that are downright asinine, in contrast to Nader’s sound positions. For example, Nader is against nuclear power, while Obama has had a very cozy relationship with powerful people in that industry. And Nader wants a carbon pollution tax to combat global warming, that neither Obama nor Clinton favor. And no surprise, Nader makes the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney that Obama and Clinton are too cowardly to embrace. He also straightforwardly supports total public financing of political campaigns – the only way to rid our political system of corrupt forces. Meanwhile, Obama is backing away from his written commitment to using public financing for the general election.

They fear Nader siphoning enough votes away from the Democratic nominee to make McCain president, despite Nader having little campaign money compared to the Democratic nominee. What happened to all that yes-we-can confidence?
Read the rest of this entry »

Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner

Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune

Three bloggers give their views with Jill Miller Zimon — where else? — in the middle. The You Tube takes a few seconds to start but is well worth it:

Onetime iconic consumer advocate Ralph Nader has announced yet another run for the White House — but past-campaign political hubris plus a loss of a big chunk of his previous voting constituency is unlikely to make him a major factor. Even so: his presence in the race threatens to siphon some votes away from the Democratic Party’s 2008 nominee.

Several factors have converted Nader from a onetime-youthful consumer advocate, idolized on college campuses, to what he is today: the modern Harold Stassen whose philosophy, resentment towards both major parties and apparent love of the national political spotlight probably means he’ll run again until his aging legs can’t carry him. The news reports give you some of the story and his prospects — but not all of it.

The Associated Press:

Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will “shift the power from the few to the many.”

Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

“You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected,” he said. “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”

“In that context, I have decided to run for president,” Nader told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a “bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.

The AP story also noted that Republican former Gov. Mike Huckabee said that GOPers will welcome Nader into the race, since he draws votes away from Democrats.

Reuters neatly summarizes the context:

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Sunday that he is launching another long shot independent campaign for president of the United States.

Nader, who will turn 74 this week, announced his presidential bid on NBC’s “Meet the Press” saying that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are addressing the problems facing Americans.

Nader also ran for president in 2000 when he got about 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate and played a role in deciding the final presidential outcome. He also ran as an independent in 2004 and got only a tiny fraction of the vote.

Many Democrats blame Nader’s participation in the close race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush in 2000 for tipping the election in favor of Bush. They believe that but for Nader’s name on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have been the clear winner and president today instead of Bush.

Nader called Washington “corporate occupied territory” that turns the government against the interest of its own people.

The MSNBC video of Nader’s announcement is HERE.

The Chicago Tribune’s The Swamp says times have changed — but that Nader could indeed play a role:

The days of a third-party candidate claiming a large share of the American vote — such as the nearly 20 percent that H. Ross Perot won in 1992, playing a role that many Republicans will never forget — may be gone.

Yet, with elections contested on the margins in many states — from Iowa to Wisconsin, and from New Hampshire to Florida in recent years — any active third-party candidacy could have an impact on the Electoral College balance.

And already this year, sizable numbers of people have voiced discontent with the leading candidates — discontent manifested in the campaign of Republican Ron Paul, for instance. So the question looms this year: Might Nader play the spoiler once more?

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that current Democratic party primary front-runner Senator Barack Obama professes not to be concerned:

Barack Obama said today during a visit at the Ohio State University Medical Center that he wasn’t terribly concerned about the prospect of a Nader campaign. “I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”

An email to supporters from Nader’s presidential exploratory committee ticked off a list of issues that have been “pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year,” including defense budget cuts, opposition to nuclear power, and a single-payer national health insurance system.

Obama responded to criticism from Nader, who has suggested that the Democratic hopeful lacks substance, by noting that Nader has reached out to his campaign. “My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies thinks you’re not substantive,” Obama said, before praising Nader as a “heroic” and “singular figure in American politics.

So that gives a clue how Obama — if he wins the Democratic spot — will deal with Nader, respectfully but assertively. It sounds as if Obama won’t ignore the Nader challenge but won’t kowtow to it.

In realistic political terms, three party bids have been losing propositions in American politics because of our winner-take-all system. Third parties have (a) influenced the future policies of a major party, (b) didn’t have much of an impact, or in some close races (c) siphoned votes away from a major political party, often giving victory in some cases giving victory to the party the siphoning party’s voters agreed with the LEAST.

See the Boston Globe’s review of third parties’ history HERE.

Even though his followers and third party advocates hate to hear it, there is virtually no chance Nader can win. And his influence on the American electoral scene has waned from the days when he was an iconic young crusading lawyer taking on the car manufacturing corporations in his landmark book Unsafe At Any Speed.

I was then a student from Connecticut — his home state. Nader would be often be on the radio, on TV talk shows — he was the epitome of the serious, incorruptible, idealistic young crusader with his devoted “Nader’s Raiders” followers all over the country.

What has happened to him since is sad because he became overexposed politically and weighted-down with hubris — so the most he will gain in 2008 would indeed be siphoning-off Democratic votes if it’s a razor-thin-victory-margin election. He is not an up and coming force — or even as respected as he once was — any longer.

Some reasons why it has changed:

Read the rest of this entry »

While Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fight tooth and nail to win the Texas primary, a new CNN poll underscores a fact: as of today, Texas is John McCain country — to a certain point:

Texans appear poised to favor Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain over either of the Democratic candidates for president in the general election, a CNN/Opinion Research Poll released Thursday shows.

Assuming McCain is the Republican presidential nominee, 52 percent of poll respondents said they would vote for him, compared with 44 percent for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the current Democratic front-runner.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton fares slightly worse, with 42 percent, compared with 55 percent for McCain.

Read the rest of this entry »

Get ready. Ready or not here he (likely) comes.

Get ready to hear him talk about how there really isn’t any difference between the two parties — a claim that perhaps was slightly off base in 2000, when some voters were convinced by it but later discovered after they cast their votes that there were some teenie-weenie changes in policy when the Bush administration came to power.

On the other hand, what do such things as major shifts in the Supreme Court, environmental policy and enforcement and the debut of pre-emeptive war matter? Both parties take money from corporations — so they’re therefore the same.

It’s that time again: just as wintertime means it’s gonna be flu season, it’s a Presidential election year — which means Ralph Nader is gonna be talking about running for President again.

And given his past statements about Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, the statements should not be taken as Nader just thinking out loud:CBS News said he’s taken the first step to once again siphon off votes get ready to run.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, whose very name can rile up Democrats still stinging from Al Gore’s narrow loss in the 2000 election, is flirting with what would be his third major run for the presidency. News reports indicate he’s filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission and he’s also launched a new Web site, NaderExplore08.org.

The site’s launch comes on the same day as Democrat John Edwards’ exit from the presidential race. Nader had kind words for Edwards previously, praising his progressive stance on a number of issues and his willingness to challenge corporate interests.

Nader’s committee is asking for initial contributions of $300, for which the donor will receive DVDs of Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko,” a documentary about Nader, “An Unreasonable Man,” along with three books. A posting on the site says the exploratory committee hopes to enlist the support of 1,000 people in each congressional district.

Read the rest of this entry »

What’s the ground look like in California right now for the primary candidates? For one thing, it’s a pretty blue state, even if we’re talking about Michael Bloomberg. From the California Progress Report:

In a dizzying week of polls on all subjects near and dear to our state’s voters, today’s offering from the California Field Poll showing that only one in four California registered voters would even consider voting for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg if he were to run for President sends a clear message.

62% of the voters in the largest state in the nation, according to Field, say they “would definitely not support him.” [Emphasis added] This includes 68% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans and even a slight plurality of “non-partisan/others) would not countenance the thought.

…

When asked if a Bloomberg independent candidacy would be a good thing or bad thing, California’s registered voters are perhaps a bit more charitable, but Read the rest of this entry »

Ralph Nader is thinking of running for president again. Here’s an open letter from me to him, reflecting my own views, not TMV’s.

*****

Dear Ralph,

Don’t do it. Please.

It’s not that I don’t respect and admire you — and appreciate all you’ve done on behalf of consumers and against the plutocracy that runs the U.S., which is to say, for the people, and to raise important issues, such as human rights and the environment, that the powers-that-be, political and corporate alike, preferred either to ignore or to have ignored, the ignorant masses wallowing in medicated consumerist fantasies, living in a manufactured culture of fear, all for the benefit of the profiteers, for example, while they, the powers-that-be, were raping the environment and enabling human rights abuses at home and around the world.

You exposed so much, fought for so much, and for that I — and so many others, countless millions — thank you.

And I’m sorry, truly I am, that the two-party system in the U.S. has excluded you from political contention. Here in Canada, there are many more parties that represent us, as you know, and there are at least two significant parties that would welcome you with open arms. But the U.S. is what it is, for better and for worse, and that means, for voters, choosing between two parties, two candidates, perhaps, as you might see it, two evils, but two evils that are not alike, one much worse than the other. You would not do this year what you did back in 2000, taking enough votes away from the Democrat to allow the Republican to win. So perhaps it wouldn’t matter. Surely, though, you have learned something from these past seven years. It is time for change, for new direction, for a Democrat to take over the White House.
Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s a special original Guest Voice commentary by TMV’s favorite poet, Michael Silverstein, aka Wall Street Poet. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.

Wanted: Viable Third Party Presidential Candidate

By Michael Silverstein

Wanted: Viable third party candidate for the 2008 presidential race. Excellent opportunity to improve the condition of the country and the world generally, and to salvage an electoral system that no longer seems able to generate worthwhile leaders in the traditional two party manner.

Qualifications: Optimal applicants will be articulate, animated by common sense rather than ideology, untainted by professional or personal scandal, have a skin as thick as a rhino’s, and be exceptionally wealthy. Good press contacts (or actual media ownership) a definite plus. Should be well acquainted with byzantine doings inside the Beltway without having feed off same. Good looks not a consideration, but should not come across like an angry ferret or a frightened rabbit when hassled by reporters.

Affiliations: Applicants need not have actual membership in a third party, but would likely have to accept nomination by one or two already on state ballots. A personal fortune, honestly acquired, will be needed to get on other state ballots. Candidate’s spouse (if any) ought not have ties to criminal organizations or far-right/far-left think tanks.
Read the rest of this entry »

Hold your political calculations. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is going to meet with the bipartisan group Unity and there’s a possibility that they could join forces in a third party bid.

There have been stories plus speculation in informed political circles that Bloomberg could still jump into the race — and now the Washington Post’s David Broder reports this:

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.

Of course, miracles do sometimes happen in politics. And it is not entirely unlikely that one of the two major political party candidates will would want to try and short-circuit a potentially vote-siphoning third party bid involving (a) a group of highly dedicated, high-profile bipartisan politicians, officials and young activists (b) a billionaire businessman-mayor who has made it clear that he could wind up spending a record-breaking amount of his own considerable bankroll on winning the White House if he does decide to jump in.

But both political parties and many of their partisans now are deeply-locked into polarization patterns (which motivate activists to gather and work for candidates and get the party faithful to vote). So it’s likely that if Unity wants to put up a slate and Bloomberg feels its winnable and wants to jump in, 2008 could see a well-funded, high-profile third party bid.

Those attending the upcoming meeting are impressive, indeed:

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 (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.”

Fair enough. But if Bloomberg decides to jump in and if they survey the other possibilities, it’s hard to see how he won’t be at the top of the list. Additionally, Bloomberg’s big bucks can buy him boatloads of advertising and TV time but if he decided to run and worked with Unity he’d ALSO have an already-in-place core of dedicated, experienced politicians and volunteers enthusiastically out there working the campaign.

All of this does mean that in this bronco ride of an election year, the wild cards we’ve seen (the rise of Huckabee, the Clinton campaign problems, the murder in Pakistan) are most assuredly going to be joined by a few more. And all analyses that state what’s “likely” to happen in a race involving two candidates could be seriously flawed.

Because if Unity launches, there will be an electoral impact — and if it joins forces with a Mayor who has proven to be a skilled politico and has deep pockets it will be an election with a huge deck of wild cards.

Actor and former Senator Fred Thompson’s candidacy has always been one of the most interesting in the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination sweepstakes. You can’t quite say he was drafted but there was a virtual clamor by some to get him in the race.

After all, he was the perfect anti-Giuliani, the anti-Romney, the anti-McCain and reminded many in his plainspoken manner, with his ability to communicate and his acting background of a former actor and California Governor who made a mockery of the conventional wisdom (even on the fate of the Cold War) all through his career. He was to have been the real conservative amid a field of perceived conservative pretenders.

So Thompson had his moment in history where he was literally called into the political realm.

Now the question is: did he wait too long? And did he miss his moment in history? Time Magazine says the answer is most likely YES.

Fred Thompson is finally getting the hang of running for president. In the last few weeks, the former actor and senator from Tennessee has sharpened his message, picked up the pace of his campaign, leveled some clean shots at his opponents, cut two effective television ads, received one very big endorsement and issued some of the most substantial policy proposals of any of the Republican contenders.

But it may be too late.

The rationale behind Thompson’s candidacy was simple, and sound: in a G.O.P. primary that glaringly lacked a conservative who was both true and viable, Thompson would enter late and immediately be embraced by all those Republicans who had been unhappy with their options. Then he would roll to the nomination.

Yet, as Time notes, it hasn’t quite worked out that way and it’s due to timing — someone missing, perhaps by just a beat, their elusive moment in history:

It hasn’t turned out as planned, primarily, say Republicans both inside and outside the Thompson operation, because he waited too long to get in the race — and then, once he did get in, ambled through his first month as an official candidate as if his heart wasn’t in it. The result: in national polls that once had Thompson running even or better with front-runner Rudy Giuliani, Thompson now trails by double-digits. More troubling for Thompson is the emergence of Mike Huckabee, the former Baptist minister and Arkansas governor who is now statistically tied for first with Mitt Romney in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely Iowa GOP caucus voters. Huckabee’s sudden surge of support among conservatives threatens to shred the rationale behind Thompson’s candidacy.

Read the rest of this entry »

It sounds as if the Bloomberg for President bandwagon boomlet, which was all the rage among the political talking heads, writing-with-authority newspaper columnists and ever excited bloggers has now fizzled — even though New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his aides continue to give signs that he could jump in at the last minute.

The reasons for the apparent fizzle: an apparent conclusion by Bloomberg — ever the cooly-assessing businessman — that a run would not be cost-effective in terms of the probability of his election plus some other factors such as a messy sex discrimination lawsuit against his company. The New York Times:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s defection from the Republican Party in June seemed to confirm what many people had long suspected: that despite his protestations to the contrary, the mayor was serious about running for president and was taking steps to mount an independent bid.

But now, despite an elaborate effort to transform Mr. Bloomberg into a global political brand, that excitement seems to have fizzled, as he has publicly retreated from the idea and an opening in the field of candidates has not materialized. Associates say that although Mr. Bloomberg has not completely closed the door on making a run, he seems unlikely to join the race, and is not interested in ensuring someone else’s victory or simply making a point.

“The orchestration of the rumor of the prospect of his running for president and the platform that has given him would overwhelm P. T. Barnum,” said Robert Zimmerman, a public relations executive who is one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raisers. “At the end of the day I don’t think Mike Bloomberg wants his legacy to be that he was a spoiler.”

After all, why have two “spoilers”? There are already rumblings that third party perennial candidate Ralph Nader — whose campaign in 2004 took money from Republicans who hoped to siphon votes away from Democrats — is thinking about running once again. (In case you forgot, Nader ran- in 2000 telling voters that it would really make no difference if Democrat Al Gore or Republican George Bush was elected since both parties were basically the same).

The Times correctly notes that Bloomberg’s candidacy would be a long-shot due to his unique political style and the way the American political system is set up with the electoral college:

Part of his appeal to New Yorkers — that he is unfettered by the usual political allegiances and is willing to speak his mind — could also create trouble for him in a national campaign. An opponent could seize upon the kind of remark Mr. Bloomberg made recently at Cooper Union in Manhattan in an interview with Tom Brokaw, comparing the United States in Iraq to the British during the Revolutionary War to paint him as far left, or unpatriotic.

There are other challenges, including a federal sexual discrimination lawsuit filed recently against his company, Bloomberg L.P.

“This latest legal brouhaha wouldn’t enhance his prospects,” said Douglas A. Muzzio, a professor at the Baruch College School of Public Affairs.

Still, according to the Times, Bloomberg and his aides are acting as if they are getting ready to get the pieces in place to enter the race, if he should decide to do so. At recent appearances he sounds as if he is a candidate. But he may simply be morphing into another version of the 2007 Al Gore or 2007 Newt Gingrich: someone who makes a big media splash “flirting” with running but who really won’t in the end.

One notable quote in the Times piece:

And Mr. Bloomberg has told associates that he studied the 1992 presidential campaign of Ross Perot to see how much a bid in 2008 would cost.

Mr. Perot drew 19 percent of the vote as an independent, and no electoral votes.

“Polls are showing that people are dissatisfied with the two parties,” Professor Muzzio said, “but are they willing to overthrow their party affiliation for an independent candidate?”

If Bloomberg is looking at the history of Perot and that moment in political time, he won’t jump in. Perot ran at a time when it was clear an overwhelming number of Americans were highly-dissatisfied over their choices in the election. Perot started running and polls showed he might actually have a chance to squeak in, but when he pulled out, his campaign deflated and never regained its previous footing when he decided to re-enter the fray. Perot is literally someone who was handed a moment in history — and lost it.

So far in the 2008 race rumblings about the need for a third party are coming from the religious right, which threatens to run a third-party candidate if former Mayor Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination. Democrats don’t seem to hate any of their candidates, although each faction of the Democratic Party has its favorites.

If Bloomberg wanted to run, he’d probably have to do so early in the race — and so far there are no indications that will happen. So, if you had to place money on it, it appears as if a) he won’t run and b) if he does, his chances of winning will be as likely as Ross Perot’s…after Perot pulled out of the race and got back in when it was too late and the damage to his image was done.