Who was the single biggest $$$ supporter of Bush in '04?

[Smarmie Doofus]

No, not Richard Scaife Mellon. No, not the ENRON guy. No, not Falwell, Robertson, et al.

Apparently it's NYC's Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, whose supporters insist is a "moderate" if not a "liberal".

According to Howard Dean ( in a fund raising email for NYC DEM mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer), " Republican Mike Bloomberg gave more money to Bush's reelection effort -- more than 7 million dollars -- than anyone else in the country."

That's, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY.

Anyone know how Howard is calculating this? I thought individuals were limited to $2,000 per candidate, per election cycle. I can't find much online to clarify this figure.

Is this soft $$$? To PACS? To RNC? Through Bloomberg's corporation?


Needless to say, 7 mill can buy a lot of "moderation".

[BIG Sean]

1. And yet he is publically against Roberts!

I have to admit, I don't hate Bloomberg. Sure, I don't like some of the things he has said and done, but I have yet to hear (and yes I am listening) what Ferrer is going to do that is better.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Bloomberg is talking out of both sides.

He does this a lot. One HAS to be pro-choice to have a chance to be elected in NYC. This is a given.

It was also a given that Bush would appoint an anti-choice jurist to the Supreme court if reelected. Nonetheless, Bloomberg pursued this goal ... reelecting Bush...with what appears to be UNEQUALED enthusiasm ( if Dean is correct and Bloomberg contributed more $$$ than any other person in the country). Thus one has to question the sincerity of Bloomberg's public, and at this point largely inconsequential ( its a done deal --- wouldn't you say?) opposition to the Roberts nomination.

Re. Ferrer: He's far from my first choice but his limitations are greatly exaggerated. Unbeknownst to most , he hails from the reform wing of the Bronx Democratic party and early on carved a niche for himself as a responsible progressive. I remember as far back as '85 he defied the Bronx DEM organization and cast a crucial vote in the City Council that helped pass the landmark NYC law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation. This was unpopular in his district and thus, a rather principled act. One might say even "visionary".

Meanwhile, Mr. Bloomberg, if I've got the biographical sequence right, was figuring out ways to turn his billion into billions. Things like legalized abortion and gay rights seemed not to have mattered to him much at that time. We all develop socially and politically at our own pace. Still, like Dick Cheney, Bloomberg seems to have had "other priorities" at this time. Doesn't make him a bad person, necessarily. But its a fair and a telling comparison from this voter's POV, and Ferrer would be foolish in the extreme not to make it.

As for policy specifics: there are more than a few. Visit the Ferrer website. Example: He's in favor of giving teachers a raise with job security to keep and attract the best teachers. Bloomberg's in favor of giving teachers a cost of living raise in return for effectively giving up their right to unionize. It's a hop, skip and a jump from there to realizing the conservative movement's ( hey! I thought Bloomberg was a moderate) long cherished dream of privatizing public education.

Bloomberg wants this election to be based on an IMAGE. His lifeblood is the 15 second TV spot. Ferrer's task is to somehow get people to look at the DETAILS and the FINE PRINT.