Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mike Bloomberg: Registered Independent

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is changing his party affiliation from "Republican" to "unaffiliated", a move certain to fuel talk that he is preparing for an independent run for president in 2008.

Michael Bloomberg
Is today's announcement the first step toward an independent Bloomberg bid for the White House? (AP photo)

"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," Bloomberg said in a statement released by his office late this afternoon.

Bloomberg went on to detail some of his accomplishments as mayor, from balancing the budget to reforming schools to making "the nation's safest city even safer."

This decision operates on several political levels.

On its face, it makes perfect sense. Bloomberg was never a Republican in any true sense of the word. When he first ran for office in 2001, he decided to do so as a Republican because the Democratic primary was already crowded with well-known candidates. The Republican nomination was his for the taking, and he took it. Then, in the general election he used his vast personal wealth and his pitch to bring a businessman's sensibility to the job to overcome the city's strong Democratic leanings. Now that he has been elected to two terms, Bloomberg has no need to remain in a party that he disagrees with on any number of issues.

Below the surface, however, it's hard to see Bloomberg's move as anything other than a gambit aimed at 2008. Read in that context, Bloomberg's statement explaining his decision to leave the Republican Party could well double as the announcement of an independent presidential bid. Doubt us? How about this line: "As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face."

Poll after poll shows that the American voting public believes politics in Washington is broken and needs an outside hand to fix it. What better candidate than a successful businessman with a history of bipartisan accomplishments in the biggest city in the United States? And did we mention he is a billionaire?

If you're looking for more on Bloomberg and his potential White House aspirations, make sure to read The Fix's case for and against a Bloomberg candidacy.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 19, 2007; 6:41 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Romney's New Ad: The Third Leg of the Stool
Next: Parsing the Polls: Do National Surveys Matter?

Comments

dhmzbvi tarqgjmf srdzcvq andxbeug tzyp xsvkzycd letcar [URL]http://www.eacs.vnsixcyq.com[/URL] xghat jhevd

Posted by: miwyz wsgeoqc | June 27, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

dhmzbvi tarqgjmf srdzcvq andxbeug tzyp xsvkzycd letcar [URL]http://www.eacs.vnsixcyq.com[/URL] xghat jhevd

Posted by: miwyz wsgeoqc | June 27, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse

xjgtil ncpb wiljhtyas jvbnetq zvgyo tinpkme fegx [URL=http://www.rkqfecvl.tiuvdw.com]wsozbqvra wutgo[/URL]

Posted by: dgxm dbkwsoy | June 27, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

xjzc kijrse xvdzfg tunialhq xsmp qxumhg xhtyvdi daryxhif mwujx

Posted by: nsaqec lfsocpi | June 27, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

rlfpw syev vkefsiouj kmenvsul tgiyw xctbjhqsg hcqkfzr

Posted by: qlsxjwye uspvwy | June 27, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

bloomberg is a naive jerk this conservative sees as making hillary a virgin nun and far more presidential. he can't think outside the nyc city limits...or sticks his nose into business that crosses state lines....

Posted by: aron humes | June 23, 2007 5:41 AM | Report abuse

bloomberg is a naive jerk this conservative sees as making hillary a virgin nun and far more presidential. he can't think outside the nyc city limits...or sticks his nose into business that crosses state lines....

Posted by: aron humes | June 23, 2007 5:41 AM | Report abuse

bloomberg is a naive jerk this conservative sees as making hillary a virgin nun and far more presidential. he can't think outside the nyc city limits...or sticks his nose into business that crosses state lines....

Posted by: aron humes | June 23, 2007 5:40 AM | Report abuse

bloomberg is a naive jerk this conservative sees as making hillary a virgin nun and far more presidential. he can't think outside the nyc city limits...or sticks his nose into business that crosses state lines....

Posted by: aron humes | June 23, 2007 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Bloomberg is money. Money goes to money. The GOP is imploading and Bloomberg is bailing out. Money doesn't stay with the riff raff even if it turns out to be the GOP. He needs to jump out and the safe bet is to be an independent. Splitting the vote may be residual, but this is about money and ego.

Posted by: joe clark | June 21, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Colin.

If I may chip in on Sen. Obama [although you did not ask me] I believe he shows the listening and personal negotiating skills of a good labor lawyer [either side]. That is very attractive to me, even if pundits have criticized him for this very tendency to be conciliatory in making a point.

I do not rule him out, but would greatly prefer a candidate like Biden who is steeped in foreign policy experience. I do suspect Obama would be a fast learner and, at this time, I would prefer him to Sen. Clinton. Enough, for now.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 20, 2007 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Colin,

I find Obama intriguing. I do feel that he does not have the experience to be president in these trying times. I also feel that way about Edwards.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 20, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- missed your question earlier - sorry about that. You do in fact remember your conlaw accurately. Under the 12th amendment, if I remember correctly, a simply majority in the Senate decides the VP even though the House vote for President is based upon state delegations.

Ironically, Democrats currently hold a bare majority of state delegations right now. It would certainly be an interesting 2008 if the outgoing Congress, which may very well have more Democrats than the incoming one, ends up deciding the presidential race by one vote. Although that would make great theater, I actually hope it's a blow out. The country could really use some consensus -- of any kind.

Posted by: Colin | June 20, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully he's the next Ross Perot as opposed to Ralph Nader 2.0. As long as the republicans aren't elected I don't care. Although former republicans are far less favorable. I'm not for anybody. I ma an independant. I AM AGAINST, with every fiber of my body, THE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE (FASCIST) MOVEMENT.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 20, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I asked this of you earlier:

"Blarg, if you assume a stunningly well financed moderate candidacy would win some states, the likelihood is that an Electoral College majority would not be achieved - forcing the elction into the House of Representatives, voting state-by-state. And, I think the Senate would elect the Veep [Colin, do you remember this from Con Law?]"

Do you remember? That is what happened in 1824, I think, but I do not know if that would still be the case.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 20, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

JimD -- Agreed about Teddy Roosvelt. If republicans still looked like him I'd probably be one. What I wouldn't give to have someone like him, Truman, or Eisenhower in the white house again. Not sure Bloomberg is that kind of a guy, but I do like him quite a bit. Of course, I'd rather see him as VP on a ticket with Obama. And actually, they would actually work pretty well together. Post-partisan, pragmatic approach to issues.

Remind me, do you like Obama at all? I seem to remember you have misgivings about his experience.

Posted by: Colin | June 20, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to you too, drindl - I ran out of gas before getting to global warming and the environment in general. There is a long history of bi-partisan support for conservation - going back to Theodore Roosevelt. This was before the extreme right wing made doubting global warming a matter of faith and dogma.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 20, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"speaking of which, i haven't seen any of the resident trolls lately. "

I was gone for a few weeks. This site was a waste of time, in regards to these trolls. I checked in one day to see RAzor/zouk posting none stop all day long. Tol dhim I have to come back to balance out his lies and propoganda. He talking his mess. Havn't seen the troll since. YYEEEAAHHH. One down 30 million to go :)

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer added that conservative blogs are "more analytical and restrained" while "the more liberal blogs are a lot more pungent and profane."

Look at your source the washington post? Teh trumpeters of the war. Now we no you are full of it, brave blank poster. Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter/Sean Hannity/Malkin/O'REilly are more analytical than the left? Right. That's a joke. Maybe the left just has a lot to be angry about. It's ok. Trent Lott, eve, is after tehm. That's why they mention "free speech" and the first amendmennt so much. I know you've noticed their fear, listening to them everyday, brave anonymous poster. Rejurgitating talking points is not reasonalbe conversation. A parrot/puppet can do that.

Say what you want about me. The fascist propogandist are done. live with it

Posted by: rufus | June 20, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

agree with you, rufus. soulless. speaking of which, i haven't seen any of the resident trolls lately. Wonder if they stopped getting paid for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

No accoountability for 6 years. 6 years. That is going to get anybody (who watches real news as opposed to FAUX news) angry. The new law is, "It's not criminal if you don't get caught."

It's not the democrats responsiblity to solve these problems. THEIR JOB IS POLITICS. It is the job of certain FEDERAL agencies to maintain law and order. What departments. I don't know The FCC (headed by colin powells son. More interseted in politics than doing his job)? The justice department? The same justice department that is headed by a man who tries to get legislation passed by harrassing sick men in the hosiptal. The same justice department that has "it's own" officals pleding the fifth like common mafiosos?

I wish I didn't have to worry about this. If the FCC did it's job their would be no Fox "News"/Hannity/Rush. If the justice department did their job I would have to worry about it. Why are they not doing their jobs? Republican partisan politcs. I guess they are making to much money of NOT doing their jobs. this used to be called sabotage. This used to be called treason. I didn't care 10 years ago. I had my job went about my business, watched sports.

The last ten years have been a disaster. Domestically, militarily, legally. It's been a mess. I hold Rush/Fox NEws responsible. You can hold me responsible brave anonymous poster. I can take that blame. I am a christian. I guess this is all us liberals faults, right? That's what Fox would have you beleive. My live was gret ten years ago, and before 9/11. Since has been the decline of western civilization. Sell-out's traitors. Congress approval is down? Charge bush and his cronies with TREASON. Watch what happens. That rating will shoot up to 75% garanteed. The only ones left will be the dittheads. And they are a lost cause regards. Slaves. Souless

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Aussie, it's kind of a vicious cycle. Our electoral system only supports two major parties. Changing the electoral system requires significant support from elected officials. But the elected officials are almost all members of one of the two parties, so they have little motivation to change the system and weaken their parties.

Posted by: Blarg | June 20, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

you;ll love this, rufus... mort kondracke, of all people, says righwing talk radio is 'preventing american problems from being solved! LOL --they eat their own young.. i love it.

'Last night on Special Edition, the "Fox News All-Stars," used this week's Take Back America conference as an oppurtunity to bash progressive bloggers.

Describing bloggers as "a pox," Roll Call editor Mort Kondracke compared them to right-wing talk radio, charging that they are preventing "American problems" from being solved:

KONDRAKE: They are the leftward pressure on the Democratic Party that the right-wing talk show hosts are on the Republican party. And between the two of them they manage to polarize even further an already polarized politics, making it increasingly difficult to get any American problems solved, like health care, or the war in Iraq, or sensible terrorism policy.

NPR's Mara Liasson also compared bloggers to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth because "that was on the internet too."

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer added that conservative blogs are "more analytical and restrained" while "the more liberal blogs are a lot more pungent and profane."

and note the 'liberal' Liasson what a laff, and krautie sez cons are restrained. you know, like when they call for murdering judges and doctors..

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

So for the next eight and a half months the Democratic candidates have to run left to secure the nomination and the Republicans have to run right to do the same thing. Then along comes a guy who can outspend them reminding everyone exactly what his two opponents said they were going to do as he charts a consistent position down the middle. What a pity they compressed the primary calendar or they'd be running away from the middle for the next year.

It may not be as nourishing as bread or as bloody as the circus, but a well financed independent campaign is the next best thing.

Posted by: muD | June 20, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

there is no war on terror -- only on the citizens of the US...


'For nearly seven years, the chemical, oil and gas industries have successfully fought proposals to require stringent anti-terror security measures at facilities storing poisonous materials such as chlorine and methyl mercaptan.

These industries have been especially opposed to legislation requiring "inherently safer technology," a policy industry officials and the Bush administration view as both setting an excessively high standard and as leaving companies more vulnerable to lawsuits for failing to comply.

The chemical, oil and gas lobbies have successfully fended off regulation even under a Democratic Congress. A provision adamantly resisted by the industry was included in the first Iraq supplemental appropriation, which was vetoed by President Bush. The House added it again to the second Iraq supplemental appropriation, but it was quietly removed during final negotiations between top officials of the House and Senate at the request of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, whose staff said he was acting at the behest of the White House.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/18/bush-administr...

Posted by: there is no war on terror | June 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

MarkinAustin- an interesting tidbit about your question to blarg/colin:

The Constitution prohibits electors from voting for both a presidential and vice presidential candidate from the same state as themselves. In theory, this might deny a vice presidential candidate with the most electoral votes the absolute majority required to secure election, even if the presidential candidate is elected, and place the vice presidential election in the hands of the Senate.

In practice, this requirement is easily circumvented by having the candidate for vice president change the state of residency as was done by Dick Cheney, who changed his legal residency from Texas to Wyoming, his original home state, in order to run for election as vice president alongside George W. Bush, who was then the governor of Texas.

How clever. Must have been Rove's idea.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

The extremely close U.S. partnership with Pakistan's General Musharraf has come under increasing scrutiny, as Musharraf continues to crack down on the country's civil society and a new generation of al Qaeda leaders under Osama bin Laden have led a resurgence in Pakistan.

The Bush administration "has put itself in the embarrassing position of propping up the Muslim world's most powerful military dictator as an essential ally in its half-baked campaign to promote democracy throughout the Muslim world," the New York Times editorialized last week. "Washington needs to disentangle America, quickly, from the general's damaging embrace."

In yesterday's Washington Post, respected Pakistan analyst Ahmed Rashid explained a key problem with current U.S. policy:

Current and past U.S. officials tell me that Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. criticism of him. This all fits; in recent months, I'm told, Pakistani opposition politicians visiting Washington have been ushered in to meet Cheney's aides, rather than taken to the State Department.

Cheney's office has been linked to some of the most damaging and reckless policies carried out under President Bush, including the origins of the war in the Iraq, warrantless domestic spying, the historic expansion of executive authority and the sanctioning of torture. It's no surprise to find Cheney's fingerprints on the failing U.S.-Pakistan policy as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Gingrich 'rewrites 9/11 history.'
A new advertisement by Newt Gingrich linking the threat of terrorism to the immigration debate "rewrites 9/11 history."

"Mohamed Atta, and several other 9/11 hijackers were in the United States illegally," Gingrich begins the ad. Photos of Atta and other 9/11 hijackers appear and the word "Illegally" -- printed in bold, red letters -- flashes over the screen.

"Today, more than five years since that tragic day, our borders remain open to gangs, drug dealers and terrorists," says Gingrich in the ad.

However, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, Gingrich's statement is incorrect.

"Atta was in the country legally on 9/11," said Janice Kephart, a former counsel to the 9/11 Commission and co-author of the commission's report on 9/11 and Terrorist Travel.

All of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September 11th, including Atta, entered the United States on a tourist or student visa, issued by the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, according to the 9/11 Commission.

Posted by: is there a bigger liar than Newtie? | June 20, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Mark - we do seem to agree on most issues (with, perhaps, the notable exception of tort reform). I wish a major party candidate would adopt that platform.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 20, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Rebuplicans only like polls when they are favorable cassandra. CC, and the rest of them love polls when there good for republicans. When they don't its, "polls don't matter and I follow my heart not the polls."

The right in this country are so easily minipulated by their "leaders". Forget teh polls. Certain Democrats WILL shoot themselves in the foot. It will make the race close. The reason I say that is greed. There are snakes in the democratic party (leiberman, ford, Kerry,) who are Republcians. They say things at the right time, for republicans. Let's just hope the people are smarter than these politicans. We need to look at "what is" rather than what they tell us

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 20, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - i still don't get why America doesn't have instant runoff voting. Pretty much eliminates the problem of strategic voting....and the 'Nader factor' would never have existed, there'd never be the question mark over Clinton's elections (due to the presence of Perot), and we wouldn't be worrying now either about which party gets hit harder by the presence of Bloomberg. Instant runoff voting isn't perfect, but I think it'd be a very good think in presidential races.

Posted by: Aussie view | June 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Great post, JimD. I agree with pretty much everything you said, although you didn't mention global warming and energy, which I think is one of the top 5 priorites. Our dependence on foreign oil, on oil period, is one of our greatest weaknesses. We need to invest in alternative sources and slowly phase in increased mileage standards.

US automakers produce cars with much better mileage for the European market... so they are quite capable of doing that. All this talk about fuel economy raising the prices of cars is nonsense. They already KNOW how to do it, it's simply that the big behemoths are more profitable for them.

Temperature records are being shattered all over the country, record droughts and freezes are endangering the agricultural sector, and storms are battering the insurance industry. We need to do something.

Lastly, Bloomberg is an extremely unpleasant person. I have seen him in action, and he has the personality of Martha Stewart -- in a word, obnoxious. Makes Hill look charming and wam in comparison. If likable counts, count him out.

Posted by: drindl | June 20, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Why is CC asking now if 'national surveys matter'? Because the latest one indicates that Dems would be Repubs in every possible matchup -- which he conveniently doesn't mention here? Funny how polls 'don't matter' when they don't favor R's...

'Check out the numbers in the new Gallup poll released this morning. It finds that the top three Democratic candidates for president are all beating each of the top three Republicans in all nine possible matchups:

Clinton (D) 50%, Giuliani (R) 46%
Clinton (D) 49%, McCain (R) 46%
Clinton (D) 53%, Romney (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 50%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Edwards (D) 50%, McCain (R) 44%
Edwards (D) 61%, Romney (R) 32%
Obama (D) 50%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Obama (D) 48%, McCain (R) 46%
Obama (D) 57%, Romney (R) 36%

We keep hearing -- in the LA Times and elsewhere -- that voters are reluctant to support the actual Democratic candidates we have, especially Hillary. Numbers like these would seem to be telling a different story.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/20/gallup_top_dems_lead_top_republicans

Posted by: Cassandra | June 20, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Everyone read JimD's 11:15A post - the best long post in at least a month - because it lays out in some depth the thoughtful moderate's view.

Loudon and bsimon, together you make the point - we here would choose boring but coherent, but will the electorate?

Blarg, if you assume a stunningly well financed moderate candidacy would win some states, the likelihood is that an Electoral College majority would not be achieved - forcing the elction into the House of Representatives, voting state-by-state. And, I think the Senate would elect the Veep [Colin, do you remember this from Con Law?]

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 20, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Here's how our GOP strategist -- who requested anonymity to speak candidly -- sees the race shaping up with a Bloomberg entrance:

"I think that in general he probably damages the Republicans more. Not because he's a real Republican, but because here's a guy who's gonna run with business street cred, and who's also willing to be reasonable on immigration, and is against the war.

"There's a growing segment of the GOP that buys into that -- there are lots of Republicans out there who are fed up with Iraq and who aren't restrictive on immigration and who frankly like the appeal of a business guy. Look at his numbers in New York. People rate him higher than Rudy, the 9/11 guy."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Until our electoral system changes, no independent candidate has a chance. The electoral college and winner-take-all voting only work when there's two candidates.

Look at 2004. Kerry lost by very small margins in critical states. Now imagine if Bloomberg had run in 2004 also. The pro-Bush vote would still have gone for Bush. The anti-Bush vote would have been split between Bloomberg and Kerry, so that Bush would have won easily. Yes, some Bush supporters would have voted for Bloomberg, but not nearly as many as Kerry supporters. So the presence of Bloomberg in the race would have just helped Bush.

Obviously, the specifics of who would be helped by the presence of an independent candidate would vary. Nader helped the Republicans in 2000, and a religious independent candidate would help the Democrats in 2008. It's harder to say with Bloomberg. But the issue of strategic voting would still exist with a Bloomberg candidacy. Without some kind of candidate ranking or instant-runoff voting, a vote for an independent candidate is usually a very bad idea.

Posted by: Blarg | June 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, Elvis is dead???

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Loudon asks
"Is boring but coherent better or worse than what we have now?"

What is better is unfortunately irrelevant. Can it win elections?

On the other hand, what do the 2008 voters want? In 2000 & 2004, marketing a 'common man' against the liberal intelligentsia made the sale. Do voters still want the 'common man' or are they willing to accept alternate credentials? I heard a Bloomberg quote, I think on NPR, who said, about himself, something like "The American people aren't ready for a short, Jewish billionare as President." I paraphrase, but he was claiming 1) not to be running for Pres and 2) to be a short, Jewish billionaire.

Posted by: bsimon | June 20, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Mark: Is boring but coherent better or worse than what we have now?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | June 20, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

A lawyer friend of mine in NYC says Bloomberg is a great Mayor but an incredibly boring public speaker.

Is this a common perception among those who have heard him speak?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 20, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

America is ready for a guy like Bloomie. He was a poor boy who worked his way through Johns Hopkins, one of the toughest schools in the country, and then made $$billions the old fashioned way -- he earned it.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | June 20, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I know saying John Wayne (OR Elivis) are dead is sacralige to you cow folk. Sorry to interject a small piece of reality into your lives.

It's your first step in the journey towards truth. Realizing what is. John Wayne is dead. Now move on from that point. You don't need a new John Wayne. Live your own life. Be your own man/woman. Ask what would Jesus/Budda/Krishna/and whoever else, rather than what would John Wayne do. He was a charcater. The made MOVIES. They were bad movies. A cowboy is no longer relevant in the 2007 world. We have supermarkets now. Get out of the 50/60's.

Posted by: Rufus1133 | June 20, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Robert, Buchanan's votes in 2000 in Florida wouldn't have gone to Bush--they would have gone to Gore. Buchanan got votes because of the awkward butterfly ballot and his good placement on it. The vast majority of those voters intended to vote for Gore, but accidently punched Buchanan's hole due to the confusing ballot. As such, if not for that particular ballot in southern Fl, Gore would have won Fl by probably 10,000+ votes

Posted by: Greg-G | June 20, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,"

Yep. And they asked. Scalia asked, "Are you going to prosecute Jack Bauer? I don't think so?

Wow. Reality calling. Reality. Calling for the republican party. OO. John Wayne is dead. So is Elvis. Have been for over two DECADES. The year is 2007. We cannot live in 1965 for eternity. Nor would we want to

Posted by: rufus | June 20, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Without knowing much about Bloomberg specifically, I am enthusiastic about the idea of a compelling national figure making an Independant run for the Presidency. The traditional parties pick their nominees through a process that does not produce the best candidate. Candidates are selected on their ability to raise money & market themselves, then we give them the job of managing the most powerful country in the world.

Posted by: bsimon | June 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

How many time have you heard a republican use an example of a fictional tough guy [Clint Eastwood, Ronald Reagan, John wayne] from a TV show or movie as if it were real life? I honestly think they don't know the difference -- and it's really scary. That's why there's Fred Thompson:

'Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing joke - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in [Justice Antonin Scalia] barking.

The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. '

This guy is a freaking lunatic.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Dominic manages to be both mindnumbingly banal and spectacularly stupid at the same time. guess you're a republican, eh boy?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"Chris Matthews caused some eyes to roll (and some heads to explode) last week when, musing on the 'sex appeal' of Fred Thompson, he asked:

Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke?

"And now, courtesy of 'Hotline,' comes this comment by CNN anchor Alina Cho after the network aired an interview with Mitt Romney this morning:

He looks great, sounds great, smells great.'

What is it with the pundits and their crush on Mitt Romney -- both male and female? How much does it make your skin crawl to hear Chris Matthews has been sniffing him like a dog?

What in god's name is wrong with the press corp in this country? A pack of poodles and lap dogs.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse


A bit of hilarity for political junkies:

'In the captivating new campaign video, "Ann Romney, Christmas 2006," she comes across as funny, honest, and refreshingly normal. So normal, in fact, you almost forget that she's narrating one of the strangest bits of campaign theater ever produced--a 13-minute behind-the-scenes look at Mitt Romney consulting his family about whether to run for president.

With its ridiculous premise, creepy intimacy, and hollow candidate, the Romney video ought to be unbearable to watch. But the opposite is true. When the camera's not on Romney, the video is irresistible. It's like watching a reality show set in the 1950s--in color. It's as if Jerry Mathers discovered a lost episode of Leave It to Beaver in which Ward Cleaver asks June, Wally, and the Beave whether he should challenge Vice President Nixon for the Republican nomination.

Individually, the Romney boys are as dull and wrinkle-free as their father. But put all five of them in one living room with their five wives and 10 children, and the Five Brothers' very sameness is hypnotic. The odds against having five boys in a row are 31 to 1. Five boys even more frighteningly wholesome--and shallow--than their father must be the result of extraterrestrial intervention or human cloning.

The Romney campaign released the video to coincide with Father's Day. (Over to you, Rudy and Andrew Giuliani!'

http://www.mittromney.com/Learn-About-Mitt/Photo-Album/The-Romney-Family/Ann_Romney_Christmas_2006

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Here would be an excellent ticket: Bloomberg and that Kate Michelman lady from NARAL. They could run together on The Abortion Party ticket. Their slogan could be "All About Abortion, All the Time, At Taxpayer Expense, Of Course!" Their platform could be doubling the number of abortions in America during the next four years.

Posted by: Dominic | June 20, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I have long believed it is past time to have a major shake-up of our two party system. The Republicans and the Democrats both have unstable coalitions with conflicting agendas. They are both in thrall to interest groups whose influence in their party is grossly disproportionate to their support among the general population. As we endure these perpetual primary campaigns, we see the candidates catering to their bases adopting positions that are out of line with majority opinion in the country.

Bloomberg could become a formidable candidate. The notion of a successful businessman bringing business discipline to government has an inherent appeal to many Americans (although, obviously, not to the left wing of the Democratic party). Bloomberg has a very successful record as mayor of New York, so he has proven that he can succeed in government. A number of business people turned politicians have not been able to translate their business acumen to government.

There is tremendous dissatisfaction with both parties. The Republican coalition is fracturing with religious conservatives, neo-cons, pro-business-small government types, and Reagan Democrats at odds on a number of issues - immigration, spending, stem cell research, etc. The hard core liberal Democratic base is only about 20% of the country according to national polls. There is definitely room for a centrist party to emerge. I do not underestimate the difficulty involved and there are huge entry barriers for third parties. However, a candidate able and willing to spend a billion dollars has the wherewithal to overcome a lot of barriers.

Bloomberg would definitely need a running mate with foreign policy credentials. Colin Powell is an intriguing choice but he is 70 and has shown an extreme reluctance to run for elected office. I do not believe Hagel is a good fit - he and Bloomberg agree on far too little to be a good team. If Bloomberg could convince Wesley Clark or another retired 3 or 4 star officer who has been critical of the Bush administration to run with him, that would make a formidable team.

I believe that a winning campaign platform could be built around a few key points:

1. An appeal to bi-partisan cooperation - most Americans are sick of the games politicians play for partisan advantage. We need to attack some serious problems with Social Security, Medicare and health care. Someone who can bring both sides together to deal with these issues will be very popular.

2. Iraq - I agree with MBW that both parties are espousing ridiculous positions on Iraq (except for Joe Biden). A re-deployment of US troops within Iraq so that they are not trying to police a civil war but that retains troops to conduct strikes against Al-Qaeda and to train Iraqis would be reasonable. This has to be coupled with a determined effort to force a political deal with the Iraqi factions. Personally, I think Biden's proposal for a loose federal system with highly autonomous Shiite, Sunni and Kurd provinces is the least bad option available.

3. Restore credibility to US foreign policy. The US is the strongest single power in the world but we are not able to dictate to the rest of the world. We need to build coalitions to achieve our objectives on most pressing issues - North Korea, Iran, global warming, trade, and the battle against terrorists.

4. Advocate a vigilant and multi-faceted approach to combatting terrorism. It entails an understanding that a significant part of the battle is the battle for "hearts and minds". We need to work for reform in the Muslim world that will help ameliorate the conditions that spawn terrorists - poverty, corruption, and unrepresentative authoritarian governments. I would also close Guantanamo and curb extra-legal pracitices. The United States of America should be that "shining city on the hill" and the United States of America does not torture. These practices tend to spawn more terrorists than they eliminate. This in no way reduces the need to aggressively hunt down and capture or kill terrorists. I believe robust special forces and intelligence capabilities are the most important elements in this struggle. Incidentally, having a military man on the ticket will insulate them against the predictible right wing attacks against anyone who does not agree with invading any country, any time.

5. Rebuild and protect our infrastructure. Bridges and highways, utility grids, railroad tracks and other key infrastructure elements are not well protected and many are in states of advanced disrepair. Our air traffic control system needs upgrading. Addressing these needs will enhance our security and stimulate the economy.

6. Fiscal discipline must be restored. The national debt has mushroomed under Bush. Addressing our infrastructure, defense, social security and medicare funding needs will be difficult. Structural reforms will be needed along with fiscal discipline. I am not an advocate of higher taxes but some of the Bush tax cuts must be reversed. The long term threat to our economy of high debt and our dependence on foreign investors to finance that debt is serious.

7. Moderation on social issues - the absolutists have too much influence over the major parties.

8. Immigration - the virulent anti-immigrant faction is mostly Republican with the exception of some anti-globalization leftists. Most Americans recognize that we cannot expel the 11 or 12 million undocumented aliens. Some reasonable path to citizenship for most of them is needed. I agree with MBW that the border fence is impractical, but we do need better border control. I am wary of a guest worker program since similar programs have created serious social problems in European countries that have them.

I have addressed these issues in thumbnail sketches and, to some extent, have over-simplified. However, in broad outlines, I believe such a platform would have great appeal to, at least, a plurality of voters.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 20, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"Just imagine an entire nation of Independents! We might have a chance to restore our democracy. If only..... I hope Bloomberg runs. This once upon a time Democrat would vote for him in a minute!"

That's the goal. If we all looked at things as INDIVIDUALS we wouldn't be in the deep water we're in today. The current problem is the dittoheads. Mindless followers who refuse to watch any news but rush/O'Reilly/Hannity/Fox News. Then they come out with self-loving hatred toward the other side.

And it continues. Liberals and democrats are still "the devil" to republicans. Why? Is the last ten years the liberals fault? How did we become public enemy number 1? It should be those responsible for the current decline. Not the dems/liberals. If the 20 millions dittoheads, who STILL support this movement even still, would jump ship we could do something. I call that saboatge. I call it treason on America. I call that choosing a political party OVER YOUR COUNTRY. That USED to eb treason

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 20, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I don't know exactly where/who his votes would come from, but I could definitely see Bloomberg taking a larger percentage of the popular vote than Perot got in '92. Ultimately, however, I question whether he'll actually end up running. Despite McCain's current troubles, I still think he'll win the GOP nomination by default. If the Dems nominate anyone other than Hillary, that would mean both parties nominees are pretty mainstream and capable of appealing to indies. Under those circumstances, I can't imagine he runs.

Another intersting idea though -- Obama/Bloomberg. That would be a pretty good ticket, IMO.

Posted by: Colin | June 20, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

On the comment that Ralph Nader makes $12k per year. What planet are you living on? The guy has a net worth of $10m plus off of what he has done to and for America over his career. And HE did cause Gore to lose. You are drinking the cool-aid, Dude.

As for Mikey not have a resume. This guy has the perfect resume. Running NYC is much harder and more complex then Sen. Hagel's ability to go down to the floor and vote with this caucus 99% of the the time. This along with the other Senators of both parties that may be running.

Mikey is an ultimate American story. He took on Wall Street, the Dow Jones and became the newsguy for the world financial industry. How hard is that??? He takes over NYC post 9/11 for Rudy and for those of you who really know, Rudy left the City in a mess both financially and in shambles after 9/11. All Rudy did, and he did it great, was to go to funerals, Yankee games in the World Series, be tough and caring at the same time, and to let Bernie Kerik get the future lined up for both of them so they could have all the whack they would need in the future. They did great as Rudy can run for President with $25m in the bank and Bernie goes to jail for all his hard work.

Mikey is the real deal and I applaude him for taking the first step towards the White House. As someone who has been involved in 6 Presidential campaigns and a leader of Clinton/Gore 92 I think this will be one great ride. What makes him different then Perot is that he is not crazy and now has enough political experience to know the score. The Nader thing is not close as Ralphie was on the fringe with little dough.

Ok Mikey it is up to you.

As for you Chrisie. Toupee looking a bit better...still looks like you are using too much shoe polish though.

Posted by: L. Frogg | June 20, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

I actually live in the UK - time would've been 9.53am here.

Posted by: Aussie view | June 20, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

I could care less what party affiliation any of the 2008 candidates choose. After the blatant failure of our current administration, we need candidates who display substantial skill, leadership, and intelligence, as well as a strategy to unite our country and our parties after years of division.

Posted by: arlington | June 20, 2007 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Aussie, what was your local time when you posted?

Posted by: Just Curious | June 20, 2007 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Except for his name I hardly know Bloomberg from a bar of soap. However if he's basically a democrat in terms of his positions, how's it going to work with Hagel? Apart from Iraq, they are going to be miles apart given how conservative Hagel is on non-Iraq issues. Not sure how that will play. Agree that Bloomberg-Powell would be a better ticket.

Can you imagine the tussle for New York if it's Bloomberg/Clinton/Guiliani? I'd favour Clinton in that scenario if I was a betting man.

Justin Perez - nothing wrong with banning smoking or trans fats if you ask me.

Posted by: Aussie view | June 20, 2007 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Bloomberg/Powell would be very interesting, as Powell doesn't have the socially conservative "baggage" Hagel has (which would put independents off). Powell definitely has the foreign policy nous that is needed to balance the ticket.

I think Bloomberg has the necessary executive skills to be President. He's an experienced business executive (like Romney) and Mayor of NY (like Rudy).

Certainly anything that helps Washington actually resume discussion across the aisle will be helpful. The Bloomberg threat might just do that...

Posted by: JayPe | June 20, 2007 3:48 AM | Report abuse

"...referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the 'unelectable' Democrat."

DID YOU HEAR THAT, LYLEPINK??? He said "UNELECTABLE."

I mean, she picked Celine @#&%$@ Dion! NOT a hopeful sign.

UN-E-F***ING-LECTABLE!!!!

Posted by: Hey hey, ho ho, Celine Dion has got to go! | June 20, 2007 3:12 AM | Report abuse

Bloomberg has zero personality. His positions on issues won't sell in most of the country. His personal behavior prior to becoming Mayor was shady, at best, and would never stand up to the scrutiny to which presidential candidates are subjected. A lot of things that are considered acceptable behavior in New York will not be appreciated by people in other states.

Forget about it.

Posted by: Fran | June 20, 2007 1:46 AM | Report abuse

I guess most of the people commenting here are not fimiliar with Bloomberg's stand on the Iraqi war.He was an early supporter of the war. In a speech to Republicans on Staten Island he outlined his reason for invading Iraqi. Anyone interested to find out just have to do a google search.

Posted by: Joe | June 20, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

From the Des Moines Register:

"If John McCain gets beaten to the right - which is possible in a conservative Republican primary - and if Democrats elect someone through a primary who Democrats generally view as unelectable, there's
a large segment of the American electorate that is looking for something different," Bloomberg's adviser, Sheekey, said in an interview with this reporter last year, apparently referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the "unelectable" Democrat.

That disaffected segment could translate into "36 percent of the vote in enough states to give you an electoral win," he said.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 19, 2007 11:57 PM | Report abuse

JJS3's suggestion [Bloomberg-Powell] is most intriguing.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 19, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Rudy is the Devil. Mike Bloomberg, as of today, is God. Anybody but Rudy.

Posted by: green heron | June 19, 2007 11:33 PM | Report abuse

What will be Bloomberg effect in electoral college? having 30% votes may mean nothing for him in the end, but for a D or R candidate some additional states or loss of some.

Posted by: Michigan Central | June 19, 2007 11:18 PM | Report abuse

This election gets more interesting by the day. On to another story related to a NYC mayor: Chris, a new story I am sure you will be tracking is what's going on with our state treasurer down here in S.C. Thomas Ravenel, state director for Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid, was charged with one count of conspiracy to possess and intent to distribute cocaine. The Giuliani campaign said Ravenel has left the campaign.

What effect will this have on Rudy, as I am sure stories of the shady dealings of past confidants (Bernie K. for one) will be highlighted again.

Posted by: TE1441 | June 19, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Edwards Plans Southern States Wins

Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, a contender for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, intends to win strongly in southern states that are typically more favorable to Republicans.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/edwards-plans-southern-states-wins.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2007 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Just imagine an entire nation of Independents! We might have a chance to restore our democracy. If only..... I hope Bloomberg runs. This once upon a time Democrat would vote for him in a minute!

Posted by: Ann Norton | June 19, 2007 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Just imagine an entire nation of Independents! We might have a chance to restore our democracy. If only..... I hope Bloomberg runs. This once upon a time Democrat would vote for him in a minute!

Posted by: Ann Norton | June 19, 2007 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I think with Mayor Bloomberg's announcement this will be the most interesting and significant Presidential election of my lifetime (38 yrs. old)

This script has been in the works for many months, perhaps longer and this is merely his first move. He'll let both Parties rip one another to shreds in the primaries and see whose left standing. Most likely Hillary and either Fred T or Mit R. Rudy's out, he seems about as comfortable running this campaign as Georgie Boy does thinking about books for his eventual Presidential Library.

There won't be a Dem/Repub running who won't have big negatives, especially HRC. I'm one of those lifelong Dems who will never vote for her and neither Freddy or Mit will make the Mayor think twice about officially throwing in his hat.

Then he will make his big move and because he knows he'll need a major star on the ticket, and Hagel won't do. I think a certain ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs/Secretary of State with a burning ax to grind would be just the right person to turn a long shot 3rd Party bid to a very real, down to the wire race.

Keep watching kids, this is just the beginning.

Posted by: JJS3 | June 19, 2007 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see Mr. Bloomberg mention and support more international affairs. Problems like global poverty are affecting each and every one of us on a daily basis. The U.S should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to end world hunger by the year 2025. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

Posted by: aileench | June 19, 2007 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg won't run for VP, he's an executive (CEO, Mayor).

The best tickets have an executive President & Senate/foreign policy VP. Examples? Reagan/Bush, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney.

That would mean Bloomberg would run as POTUS, while Hagel would use his experience as a Senator & foreign policy expert to balance the ticket, in the VP slot.

Posted by: JayPe | June 19, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Suppose Bloomberg runs as VP to Hagel running for Pres:

Can Bloomberg legally spend the $500m+ on his campaign for VP and feature Hagel as his Presidential running mate?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 19, 2007 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Someone signing as "Lucien Bonnet" hijacked this blog. Could be "Che", but could be yet another self absorbed and selfish poster. Chris, can you clear these Bonnet posts for us? Do your rules mean anything?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 19, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg's biggest problem, is that he doesn't have the resume to be President, just like Perot and Nader didn't.

Bloomberg has cash and some time as a successful businessman and Mayor of NYC, being very bi-partisan, he could easily work with both sides of the asile. However, he is not Presidential material (yet). However, Bloomberg's supposed running mate, Senator Chuck Hagel, IS presidential material. the good Senator is on the foreign relations committee and has foreign policy experience. Hagel is as conservative as they come and will pull votes for the Republicans. If Bloomberg and Hagle get in, the Republicans are finished.

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 19, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

YES YES YES!!!!!!

Just shut up for a moment about the Presidential speculation and SAVOR the fact that somebody prominent is denouncing partisan politics!

It's been a while since Jim Jeffords, folks. America needs real governance.

Posted by: jojo | June 19, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cizilla (Wapo)
"Bloomberg was never a Republican in any true sense of the word."

Karen Tumulty (TIME)
"Bloomberg is leaving the GOP not because he's suddenly realized he doesn't have a home there (fact is, he never did)"

CBS News
"Throughout his 5 1/2 years as mayor, Bloomberg has often been at odds with his party and Bush. "

Sounds like you guys have your script already.
Even though the facts say that Bloomberg was a Republican throughout the Bush fiasco, raised money for Bush in 2004, he was never REALLY a Republican. In his heart he never supported Bush even as he raised money for him and avowed his devotion to the Republican cause

Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg, another presidential contender kabuki actor.... joining the strutting, teasing, twirling Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel (Bloomberg's likely VP choice) and maybe even Al Gore if Obama fades.

Personally, I like the way Joe Biden joined the race.... straight out announced.

If Bloomberg finally jumps in, guess we'll find out if the presidency can be bought. If so, the country is going, going, gone....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 19, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

The support of Democratic candidates and leaders should deter Republicans from their party! Anyone running for the Rep ticket is going to fail bc they can't turn away from Bush. From health care to education and poverty, these issues take precedence over an ever-inflating military budget, and only the Dems are taking notice.

The Borgen Project states that just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $23 billon annually can reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. With these issues being so easily addressed, it is no wonder that a war-touting Republican side isn't doing well in the polls or with the American people.

Posted by: ellec | June 19, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

The quote doesn't support the claim. At all.

Posted by: JLE | June 19, 2007 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least his ears aren't too big, so he may fare better than the last independent billionaire to run for president.

Posted by: K | June 19, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Mike Bloomberg is not Nader 2.0. Bloomberg is a billionaire who made his fortune building a financial and information empire. Ralph Nader is a public interest lawyer who spent most of his professional life making $12,000 a year.

As for as Nader being a "Republican sabotage," anyone who would suggest such a thing is as paranoid as, say, Ralph Nader. Ralph ran for office out of unreasoning self-righteousness. If he were susceptable to corporate dollars and compromise, he would have ran as a Democrat in '72 or '76.

Nader didn't cost Gore the election. If you want a Republican conspiracy, look at the voting machines. Or better yet, look at Pat Buchanan. Had he not been in the race and all of his votes had gone to Bush, no recount would have been necessary. Bush would have won handily.

But those votes may not have all gone to Bush--just as Nader's may not have gone to Gore. The idea that Nader "took votes away from liberal Democrats," is the kind of hubris that makes people hate Hillary and John Kerry. They owe us, we don't owe them.

Posted by: Robert | June 19, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

There are only two possibilities:

1) Bloomberg intends to run as a third party candidate, using his massive fortune, as the 21st Century H. Ross Perot.

2) This is an attempt to put the Sword of Damocles over the entire GOP field.

Bloomberg is the last person the GOP wants to throw his hat into the ring. The only candidate on the right that stands a chance of counteracting a Bloomberg run is Fred Thompson, and it's very unlikely he can muster up the cash and build an infrastructure that will secure him the nomination.

If Bloomberg declares his candidacy, he pulls votes from the center of both parties. The problem for the GOP here is that their nominee is likely to be a moderate (Romney, Guliani, McCain) that can't bring out the base.

A Bloomberg run just about guarantees that the Republican Party will not retain the White House in 2008.

Posted by: JamesCH | June 19, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

MBW: You must not know who he is, but Bloomberg is a wacko!!!!!! Real moderates like Jim Webb, Mark Warner, John Warner, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Charlie Crist, Chuck Robb, etc. should run as an independent. A crazy wacko liberal with an "I" after his name is still a crazy wacko liberal. This guy's just going to please the far-left liberals. His independent candidacy will just attract the liberal base, liberal 3rd party voters, and independents who know nothing about politics but just like the "I" after his name, and think he's going to shake things up. His independent run for POTUS is just like his GOP run for NYC Myr., just a convenient way for a crazy leftist to sneak into office in a stress-free manner.

I JUST COMMENTED ON HOW ROMNEY WILL BE A BAD PRESIDENT, BUT BLOOMBERG WILL BE JUST AS BAD.

He banned smoking, trans fat, and taxed the hell out of everything. This guy wants to be America's Hugo Chavez.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 19, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

He's got $500 million to spend. Anymore questions? I think he draws from Democrats and Republicans equally. He could possibly win. Hillary would get about 30% of total vote. The Republican would get about 30% of total and Bloomberg would take the rest. Yes, he could win.

Posted by: ken | June 19, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

The current political parties are too wed to their special interests to pay attention to the middle majority. Bloomberg knows this and understands that bringing together moderates of all stripes may be the successful strategy. Leave the delusional liberals and the righteous zealots to the Republicans and Democrats. I'll take an execution oriented president every single day.

Posted by: Thomas | June 19, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party has become a criminal mafia. This move shows a higher standard of ethics.

Posted by: The Legend of the Freedom Tower | June 19, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

It's long past due for an indie presidential bid....Both parties take ridiculous ideological positions on issues like immigration and Iraq. Here's an example of the crap I'm talking about:

IMMIGRATION: The Republicans know full well that the border-fence-only option is nonsense. They have no plan to deal with those who are already here....which, in effect gives illegal immigrants amnesty. Democrats, on the other hand, support a guest worker plan that is completely unenforceable and unrealistic given current resources. None of them talk about actually enforcing the laws on employers....sad.

IRAQ:
The Republicans know that Iraq is screwed up, but they don't want to admit it and risk losing their manhood and looking like "wimps," so they mindlessly call for staying the course. They also fail to recognize that American presence in the Middle East is the CAUSE of our problems, not the solution. The DEMOCRATS, on the other hand, all advocate a pullout, which would lead to chaos and would stand no chance of passing in Congress. It is shameful for these candidates to promise to support policies that they know would have no chance of succeeding.

It's time for Michael Bloomberg!

Posted by: MBW | June 19, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

This Unity '08 thing may not work as well as it was supposed to. A moderate independent candidate would appeal to the majority of the country, and really shake things up by not following an ideology (or at least not an orthodox one). The 2 first mentioned potential candidates: Myr. Mike Bloomberg and Sen Chuck Hagel, (who are more likely to run as a ticket)are both radicals, and a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket's victory would just cause the status quo to never change, and Bloomberg would just become the Democratic nominee in 2012. It just defeats the purpose.
Hagel has maybe one or two issues on which he disagrees with his party, but is still the most conservative Senator in America; Bloomberg's more liberal than many of the Dems running. What's the point?

This is the effect of the Bloomberg candidacy: split the vote with the Democrat, perhaps taking the liberal base from Hillary. Then the GOP wins again. Then he stays in Iraq, and we're obsessing over this issue for the next 5 years, until he's defeated. Bloomberg should just wait for Rep. Anthony Weiner to run for Mayor and run for his seat in 2010. Or, help Hillary get elected, and find a way into her seat. Bloomberg's just going to kill the cause he believes in, just like Ralph Nader did twice.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 19, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

GO MIKE GO!

I'm so sick of the candidates in both parties. They all take ideological positions that stand no chance of being enacted....just to please the wackos on either side.

Posted by: MBW | June 19, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

With anti-war liberal Bloomberg as an Independent, (and Al Gore accepting the offer the Green Party has made to head their ticket,) Hillary would be lucky to get 35 percent of the vote.

What Ross Perot did for her husband, only in reverse...

Posted by: gitarre | June 19, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Go Bloomberg. He's not Nader 2.0, for goodness sake - Bloomberg would take votes away from moderate Republicans, not liberal Democrats, like Nader did. In any case, the presidential race could use some "upending."

Posted by: mark | June 19, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"Now that he has been elected to two terms, Bloomberg has no need to remain in a party that he disagrees with on any number of issues."

Right! The only reason to be a Republican is to use the name and the affiliation to get what I want! Then dump those dupes, because, after all, " ... Bloomberg has no need to remain in a party that he disagrees with on any number of issues."

Lovely. What a fine man, in every way.

Posted by: Oh, please | June 19, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Well, Presidential politics aside, Bloomberg does SMELL better.

Posted by: kase | June 19, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Ralph nader 2.0. Another republican sabotage tactic of divide and conquer. Divede the democrat vote. Cheating is their only hope. If they are honest they would have no seat at the table of american politics. Fascists liars propogandist sellouts tratiors

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 19, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"Below the surface, however, it's hard to see Bloomberg's move as anything other than a gambit aimed at 2008. Read in that context, Bloomberg's statement explaining his decision to leave the Republican Party could well double as the announcement of an independent presidential bid. Doubt us? How about this line: "As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face." "

How on earth does that line signify an independent presidential bid? Bloomberg is far too cagey to give us that information in this statement. With his fortune fully at his disposal at the proper moment, time is on his side.

I'm not saying he won't but I'm saying you're making a political mountain out of a verbal molehill.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 19, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company