Bloomberg to attend '08 campaign "unity" talks

[ckramer]

Source: Reuters

...speculation New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3053902320071231

---

hmmm....the race's getting more interesting...

[MADem]

1. That bastard could end up giving us President McCain.....

He could Ross Perot our 'sure thing'--I've been concerned about him for some time, and here he is again, after he tamped down speculation, he pops up like a bad penny....

I really don't think America will vote for him. I think they'll be amused, and listen, and say, gosh, he has some good ideas...and he'll take votes from the Democrat. But they aren't gonna vote for a short little secular Jew who lives sorta, off and on, with his girlfriend and goes to the Bahamas on the weekend. He isn't "Unity" from the perspective of the fundy, the hunter, the guy who totes a lunchbox to work. To those types, he comes off as an effete elitist with billions who can't possibly understand what they are going through in this economy.

[Truth2Tell]

2. Bad penny indeed!

Ya know, MADem, if nothing else, this candidacy could help unite some of us leftie DUers with some of you more, um, other DUers, in a hand-holding love fest of Bloomberg bashing. That would be nice. :pals:

[MADem]

5. You can call me a pragmatic moderate if you'd like! I don't mind!

I do intend to vote for the Dem in the general, whosoever it may be. I have to pick a candidate for the primary, and haven't done that yet. The way things are going, I'll probably make up my mind in the voting booth.

I'm not terribly worried, though--any of them will do and are better than the best of the GOP field.

I actually don't think Bloomberg is a HORRIBLE person, I just think he doesn't need to be fucking with the process "because he can." Yeah, he is stinking rich--he can buy ads left, right and center, he can hire publicists that make him look like Abraham Lincoln, and he can spend, spend, spend...but he'll have a tough time overcoming his built-in negatives, not the least of which is that he's a damned MAYOR. Yeah, big city, diverse population, many challenges, blah, blah, blah, but he's JUST a MAYOR. Just like Screwdy-Rudy. Not everyone is as impressed with the leadership challenges of being a Mayor--even a NYC Mayor-- as either one of those guys is--it's not like they have a state national guard they're in charge of, and hell, every mayor has police, fire, and a budget. So what if it's a bigger pie--ya hire more help, is all--the mechanics are the same.

If he does run, I hope that the Dems stay "united" and refuse to entertain a Bloomberg candidacy. The guy does, as I said, have potential to hand us President McCain, and that ain't good....

[customerserviceguy]

17. It's his ability to buy ads

that fascinates the news media with him. Here's a guy who might be persuaded to dump a billion dollars of his own money (I'm sure it was swindled out of someone else, but I digress) into that gaping maw of print, radio, and television. No wonder they're willing to run puff-piece 'editorials' telling him how dissatisfied Americans are with the candidates.

If we have Edwards or Obama, we can break the cycle of corporate bought-and-paid-for candidates, and give the American people hope that they don't need some New York politician to be their "savior".

[MADem]

23. He can crush Edwards and Obama with a billion or two, though.

By the time he's done, you'll believe they're axe murderers and you'll believe that it wasn't Bloomie telling you so, either.

He doesn't have to comply with all those rules if he doesn't take money from anyone. It's an unfair fight, and he'll have the upper hand.

[msongs]

4. guess you don't care much "short little secular Jew" kinds of people nt

[MADem]

8. Do you perpetually take offense even when plainly none is intended?

You're always fucking AGGRIEVED, combative and take life from the perspective of the worst case scenario---and that sure says something about you. Get a life, why don't you?

Stop fucking ASS-uming what I think, and who I care for. For all you know, I might be a Jew. You don't know, though, do you, yet you ASS-ume that I made that comment in a prejudiced way, perhaps because...what? That's YOUR sick little mindset?

I point out a few facts. The man is short, he's Jewish, and he's secular. I got NEWS for you, toots--those aren't NEGATIVES, unless YOU perceive them to be. But like it or not, there ARE some folks in America who aren't all Kumbayah and We Are The World about life, and take issue with people who are different. Further, if they have money, they find it all the better to dislike them. They're, many of them, the very same people who would have a problem with a black candidate or a female one, too, most likely.

Just because I point out something that is quite self-evident to everyone, save you perhaps, and could--no, WILL--become a campaign issue if the guy runs, does not mean that I "don't care much for" those characteristics in a person. Only you could make that sick leap, I suppose.

Gee, how come you aren't crawling up my ass whining about how I "don't care for" people who have sorta live-in girlfriends? Or is it only the short/secular/Jew thing that rang your prejudiced little bell there, bright eyes?

Why don't you grow the fuck up and stop gratuitously accusing people of prejudiced attitudes when you're the one with the apparent problem? Eh??? And, like I said, stop ASS-uming. You'll be happier. Make it a New Year's Resolution.

[iconoclastic cat]

15. Now, *that* was funny! nt

[Didereaux]

16. I disagree I believe he will split off the 40% or so of moderate Republicans, maybe 15% of Dems...

That leaves the election in the House(Dems win), or an outright DEM win, or if Bloomberg actually pulled it off it would STILL mean the REPUGS LOSE! No, in my mind their are far worse things for us to worry about than a centrist party effort.

[CK_John]

18. If elections goes into the House, we are in big trouble. Each state gets 1 vote and the GOP controls

more states. The Senate elects the VP.

[grytpype]

24. He's not going to win any states.

He's going to peel off the moderate Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat. So I think it would guarantee a Dem in in 08.

[MADem]

22. Naaah. He was a Democrat ALL his life. He only switched to GOP to get the Mayor job without

having to fight it out in the heavily congested Dem primary.

Everyone knows his politics, and they ain't, even with all that dough, "Republican."

The guy couldn't even stay a Republican for his full time in the Mayor's office--what does THAT tell ya?

He's a Massachusetts Dem, a Medford boy. He's gone Indy because he's figuring he'll pull the same stunt he did to get the NYC Mayoral job.

And don't forget--no campaign finance rules for him. If he doesn't take any dough, and spends his own (a billion here, a billion there, what's the diff?) he quite literally can BUY the thing.

I maintain that a Bloomberg candidacy will hurt the Dem more. Only time will tell.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Bloomberg is a Republican third party splitter. Doesnt matter if they dress him up as a "uniter".

Democrats are by and large happy with their candidates. Plus, they are so angry with Bush and the GOP that they want nothing to do with a Republican former mayor of New York who now claims to be an independent--just like Joe the Liar.

On the other hand, many Republicans see their line up as crap. That means that the Republican base can easily be lured into voting for a third party splitter, especially one with the backing of corporate America.

Bloomberg will be just like Ross Perot. He will draw extra voters who might have stayed home to the polls. These will be ones who either would have sat out the election or who might have voted Republican. He will not peel off Democratic voters--no matter how many "Pelosi Knew" stories the WaPo runs on its front page. As long as the Dems run someone who can energize their base---say John Edwards or Hillary Clinton with Bill Clinton taking a very active roll---we will see 1992 all over again.

I hope Bloomberg does not plan to waste any of his own money on this effort to assure the Democrats a victory in 2008. He should be able to talk corporate America into bankrolling his run.

However, as I write in my journal, I think that Broder is just blowing smoke signals designed to warn GOP voters against nominating Huckabee. If Huckabee is the nominee, then Operation Bloomberg will proceed. If the Republicans nominate someone acceptable to corporate America like Romney or McCain or Guiliani, then Bloomberg will lose much of his GOP support.

[AndyTiedye]

10. In a 3-Way Race, Huckster Could Win

Bloomberg would siphon off Democratic votes. Repiglickins are taken in by the Huckster because he looks good on TV.

[rocktivity]

19. DING DING DING! McCamy Taylor, you're our grand prize winner!

Bloomberg is a Republican third party splitter. Doesnt matter if they dress him up as a "uniter"...(He) will be just like Ross Perot...draw(ing) extra voters who...would have sat out the election or who might have voted Republican...

Yep. And "unity" is just another word for "nothing left to lose."

:headbang:
rocknation

[McCamy Taylor]

6. PS Corporate America is soooooo scared of John Edwards, 'cause he is gonna win!

This is how scared they are. :scared:

That is why they are trying to get Bloomberg to be their back up, since the Republican Party has self destructed. :nuke:

This is what corporate America will do when Edwards wins. :cry:

This is how happy we will be when Edwards is sworn in as the next president. :woohoo: :applause: :hug:






:dem:

[Didereaux]

26. 'corporate america' as you call them OWN Congress, Edwards will be little more than an annoying flea

..sad, disgusting...but fact. Want worse? Where is Edwards going to find competent cabinet members that cannot or are not already bought? Never thought of that have you...well you better and Edwards had better. Because if he doesn't have the strongest team since FDR the corporations, the Neo-CONs and their corps, and the twirly-eyed religios are going to have John Edwards breakfast sausage for a long time.

This isn't a fucking touchy-feely work seminar, this is the toughest political arena on the planet and the highest stakes...time outs and screaming 'big meanie' at these folks ain't gonna yield the results you wish.

[countmyvote4real]

7. I don’t think so.

No. Not going to happen. No longer bi-partisan here.

Now that the GOP rubber stamp congress has driven our country, our Constitution and almost everything else into the ditch in the first six years of their super majority… AND since the GOP lost their 2006 majority in both houses of congress their current term has the most obstructive record in the history of the Senate.

Now that’s it’s clear that the vast majority of the country is waking up to the GOP corruption and disinterest in public service unless it can be privatized for personal crony profit, they want to reach across the aisle with yet another threat. “Play with me or I will destroy you.”

I don’t think so.

If this were a serious effort, the papers would already have been filed by now. And it would have been announced without the threat to derail much needed partisan justice to correct the abuses of the * administration.

These rumors are pure bullshit. I can’t imagine what “centrist” campaign continues to plant them as a threat to their own victory. (If only the first Woman, Black and Jewish POTUS could be a white male. I don’t see it happening. Maybe they’re going for the “or.”)

Bloomberg is not that stupid. He did not make his money throwing it away as a spoiler even though that’s how he managed to get himself elected as mayor of NYC. Frankly, he’s not that passionate or should I say compassionate. And if it does come to it, I’m not buying it.

Ultimately, I don't think Bloomberg is that stupid.

And neither am I.

[K8-EEE]

9. Oh please does anybody really want "unity" NOW?

After the horrid BushCo years? Hell no -- the majority want their country back from the effin neocons, and that's exactly what's going to happen!

[nachoproblem]

11. This guy is as likely to capture the Log Cabin Republican vote

as he is to get the PBS Democrat (or whatever you call the corporate liberals for cheap immigrant labor) vote anyway. The real question is, who the hell cares?

The current party system is going to fracture again because both sides have been trying to marginalize populism since at least the Nixon administration, and it's not going to stand up under the stress of recent events. At some point it will no longer matter what sort of bastardized, ideologically nonexistent, generic big-government and pro-corporate elitist milquetoast excuses for candidates the media and the powers that be try to slap together and pretend that somebody chose in the polls, before declaring them a "sure thing" to all the primary voters who think they can maximize their party's chances by listening to a bunch of talking heads. If Bloomberg thinks he can capture any segment of the population in this mess, he might as well get Steve Forbes to be his running mate so they can all sit around and talk about unicorns and flat taxes and whatever ivory tower bullshit they believe in until they disappear up their own buttholes, because nobody who makes under 500k can possibly give a damn if they have even the first clue what's going on. And by some peculiar, arcane quirk of the Constitution, such people STILL GET ONE VOTE EACH. What are they going to say when they get in that booth? "Michael Bloomberg? Oh, I say! He wore the most smashing ensemble to the gala luncheon last Wednesday... I *must* vote for him!" What the fuck ever.

If god forbid Hillary or the DLC get control of yet another campaign this election, I don't even care what happens. A win for them is no win for me. I'll go dig up fucking Ross Perot and vote for HIM before I worry about any Democrat that would have votes taken away by Michael Bloomberg.

:banghead:

(Edited several times for coherence. It was a rant, after all.)

[aquart]

12. Thank for your concern.

[nachoproblem]

13. Sure, but what should I do with this "concern"?

Vote for Hillary? So that "we" can win? This is exactly the kind of bullshit the supporters of the status quo are counting on. Might as well make a deal with Giuliani, say we'll vote for him if he'd paint himself blue and stop saying "9/11." (He'd never go for it anyway.)

[Vinca]

14. The "unity" talk is foolish. As long as the Rush Limbaughs,

Michelle Malkins, Ann Coulters and other hate mongers are able to make a buck from keeping the country divided and unwilling to come together, it will never happen. Look at the current Democratic congress. They've all but polished the shoes of the Republicans and still nothing gets done because the 60 votes can never be overcome. One day I heard Mitch McConnell give a five minute speech that started with the need for bipartisanship. He then went into a 4 1/2 minute diatribe about how terrible the Democrats were and wound up with another plea for bipartisanship. They're like kindergartners in a sand box throwing a tantrum. We won't make progress until we have a Democratic super majority and a Democratic president.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. but he is bringing the wrong people to the talks

The Senate obstructionists, who refuse ANY compromise should be coming to the meeting.

[AlCzervik]

21. they can take their unity ticket and roll it up real tight and cram it into the orifice

of their choice.

[David__77]

25. Reminds me more of John B. Anderson than Ross Perot.

This is the "liberal Republican" establishment - Rockefeller types. I think that he'd harm the Democrats more than the Republicans, by far.

[mitchum]

27. David, you are on the money with the Anderson comparison...

and Bloomberg (and blue dog Dem Sam Nunn) would hurt us more than the republicans

[Infinite Hope]

28. He'll end up pulling a "Thompson" and out-wait his support. n/t