Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid

[CK_John]

Source: Washington Post Staff Writer

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.

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,

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476.html?hpid=topnews

---

A most important meeting

[C_U_L8R]

1. party poopers

literally

[gateley]

2. I honestly think all our candidates have spoken to the importance of bipartisanship -

it's the R's who are the divisive group (natch).

This could potentially throw a wrench in the works -- R's who are unhappy with their choices and might have voted D, may have a new option.

[Didereaux]

3. we'll get chance to see just how the old pros operate...

This may become the 'constitutional convention' that so many have rooted for, or feared for many years. This is NOT a George Wallace & Co or a Ross Perot Roadshow. This is a diverse and fairly large number of pros. Keep an eye on this boys and girls. I would venture a fearless(and probably clueless) prediction: If certain canddidates are nominated this group will be joined by one or more leading Democratic candidates not nominated. A LOT of brainpower and bucks, non beholden to radical groups or corporate pigs.

[Didereaux]

4. oh yeah, and NO Leibermans need apply!

[Didereaux]

7. Wouldn't it shake the hell out some if Al Gore suddenly appeared with this?

Highly interesting scenario really. Particularly if Bloomberg acts on what he has said occasionally in the past that he has no reall desire to be president. Just musing, but it sure as hell sounds more enticing than what the Democratic and Republican Parties are predicted to turn out.

[Truth2Tell]

18. I hope you are right Didereaux...

however, I fear the news is not so good for anti-corporatists and anti-imperialists. This is group of the elite of the U.S. bi-partisan foreign policy consensus. I suspect they are not gearing up to oppose a Hillary Clinton candidacy or even an Obama candidacy. Instead I think they are preparing a contingency plan in the event we have a Democratic nominee who has left the reservation on issues of American world dominance (maybe Edwards).

These development pose a much much more serious threat to real progressive Democratic prospects than any Ron Paul nonsense ever could IMO.

[AtomicKitten]

40. Rumor has it he'll run if Hillary or Giulliani get the nod.

[Inuca]

42. The same may be true about

Edwards and most definitely Huckabee. Difficult to say about Romney...

[AtomicKitten]

92. I think it's a New York "thang"

:)

[iamjoy]

57. More Of A Threat To Hillary Clinton

If Hillary Clinton is our nominee and Bloomberg runs on an independent ticket, our next President will be a Republican, especially if the Republican nominee is NOT Giuliani.

People just don't like Hillary. It's unfair, but they don't. Some of them may be inclined to vote for her on the "lesser of two evils" basis, but if there's another viable choice they will take it.

OTOH, Hillary has been enough of an enabler to the Republicans to have earned the right to claim she is truly bi-partisan. If Hillary is our nominee, I think we have more to fear from a true progressive outflanking her on the left (like another Nader).

[Divine Discontent]

31. I could see Edwards join with them if he's not the nominee

because of his total disinterest in being the corporate candidate that others are. Also, I think this kind of group could also attract Kucinich & Paul. Anyone else think so on those 3? If not, where am I thinking wrong. I do hope however that Edwards keeps surging in Iowa as he's doing, if he goes up 3 or 4 more points in the next week, Iowa is his, that would make the Clinton's heads pop!

[sandyd921]

67. No, that won't happen

These people are the corporate-beholden; they answer to the corporations. This is not good news for those challenging the corporate domination of this country!

[Divine Discontent]

105. I agree now after researching who's in with this group

a bunch of old party liners, moderates to right wing, thanks for the info!

[JDPriestly]

36. Nonsense, Didereaux,

it was the inability of that conservative "middle-of-the-road" crowd to attack and solve the really tough questions that led to the current partisanship and impasse. These are the guys that created the vacuum that Bush filled on the conservative side. The mess we are in is their fault. These are the guys that cozied up to the world trade, military-industrial complex. They have no solutions, they have only excuses to offer to the American people. A bunch of rich, fat guys looking at us and wondering why we think there is something wrong with the bipartisan heaven they recall having created.

Sorry, Nunn, etc. but you failed us. Bipartisanship failed us -- You failed us and bipartisanship failed us when you were silent as the Supreme Court handed the presidency to an incompetent extremist, George W. Bush. Where were you then? That is when we needed people to rise above the partisan politics and either recount the votes and inaugurate Gore or at the very least call on Bush to appoint a cabinet that was truly bipartisan. Why were these you silent then?

Only now when it looks like a Democrat -- a real Democrat might be and probably will be elected in 2008, these guys suddenly rediscover bipartisanship. The only ship they belong on is a sinking ship -- in the middle of the chaotic storm that Bush has created. Looming economic disaster, endless war in Iraq, a precarious nuclear tragedy in the wings of the Pakistan-India-Afghanistan stage and lack of health care for many, many Americans. Their lack of courage, their silence, their inaction when it would have counted created this mess we are in. It is too late for their solutions.

When the good fail to act, evil prevails. Too late. Too late. How sad.

[sandyd921]

68. Exactly.

n/t

[harmonicon]

66. souds a bit like a party OF Liebermans to me

[JerseygirlCT]

82. Lieberman's got one more year

in which he can pretend to mean something.

Once the Dems gain a few more seats in the senate, he disappears into obscurity, where he belongs. I can't wait, personally.

[Hugabear]

8. I don't think that a group like this, no matter how noble, would be allowed on DU

I've always been under the impression that 3rd parties aren't exactly welcome here on DU.

However, I do think this could prove very interesting to watch.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Welcome to DU! Nope, not allowed to express support for third parties here--

discuss, but not advocate.

[Hugabear]

13. Thanks

Actually, I've been around for awhile (under 'BushOut06'), but that was increasingly becoming anachronistic. I remember some people around here expressing support for Cynthia McKinney's Green Party candidacy, and getting shot down rather promptly.

It will be interesting to see if this becomes a bonafide political movement, or if it turns into another Reform Party.

[TwilightGardener]

23. LOL! I read your "goodbye" post today--forgot your new user name!

Yeah, I've seen ya around! I'm interested to see what comes of it too--might just be a one-time election vehicle for Bloomberg, with all of the supporters becoming his built-in cabinet and advisors, should he win.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Just a suggestion--you might want to mention your old user name

and status on your profile, just to keep your "tenure"!

[rosesaylavee]

56. Well as this is Democratic Underground and not

Green or Independent Underground, so that makes sense to me. No reason not to discuss their merits but I highly doubt that those who support this group will get a warm welcome here.

[bigworld]

87. If they can take the heat

I think anyone's welcome here. We're democratic as well as Democratic. Or so I think.

[robbedvoter]

16. No, we can't take that much nobility here on DU. Like Witman getting NYC poisoned

after 9.11 by falsifying the EPA reports...

[OHdem10]

21. Would someone point out to these Unity People---No

President can solve this problem.

The Breakdown is in the Congress.

If Bloomberg is President---the Congress can undermine him
like crazy. GOP and Dems join sides against him.

If he is so concerned for unity. Tell him to jerk a knot in
the obstructionist Republican House and Senate.

The Democratic Candidate had better not sell their soul and
agree to pass all GOP Legislation.

[NJCher]

53. pro? At what?

This is a diverse and fairly large number of pros.

Damn straight. Boren in particular is a pro--a pro at running a university into the ground. He treats the university like a fiefdom.

If Boren's involved, I know this is a "has-been" operation.



Cher

[Tess49]

93. What do you mean when you write that David Boren has run

the University of Oklahoma into the ground? I live in Norman, and have seen first hand the work he has done here. Compared to others, he has been great.

[brentspeak]

100. Correction: A Bloomsberg campaign WOULD be beholden to corporate pigs

That would be the entire point for Bloomsberg to run: so he and his buddies could spoil the campaign of a populist like Edwards.

[Telly Savalas]

104. These "old pros" are making a joke of themselves with this.

If they believe that our country desperately needs a government of national unity, why is it acceptable to wait another 13 months for it? The current administration considers divisiveness to be a fine art. If this group of wealthy and well connected people really cared about our nation, they'd be applying all the pressure they could now.

[grytpype]

5. This is huge news. Seriously.

A Bloomberg third party run would peel off a lot of diaffected Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.

I think if Bloomberg runs the Democrats will win huge in 08.

And maybe that's the idea!

[CK_John]

14. If Bloomberg runs, he has the best chance a IND candidate ever had. The worst case he could

checkmate the electoral college and force this election into the House and Senate. In the House each state gets 1 vote and I believe the GOP controls more states than we do.

I also have posted he will pick Melinda Gates as his VP.

[Hugabear]

76. Do you really think he would do better than Ross Perot in '92?

I'm seeing a lot of similarities between '92 and '08. A lot of disgust and anger towards the two-party system. Along comes a charismatic billionaire, catches tremendous national attention, even works his way into the presidential debates. And unless I'm mistaken, Perot couldn't carry a single state. It's not enough to pick up a sizable portion of the nationwide popular vote, you have to be able to win states.

I think someone like Bloomberg would siphon votes away from both parties, but can he pull enough from both?

[grytpype]

102. I really don't see Bloomberg winning a lot of states. Not even New York.

[Dover]

38. Received this from some of my disaffected Republican friends

http://www.unity08.com:80/

I couldn't believe this was their solution.
But they're desperate too.
Kind of squeezes out the possibility of a real grassroots 3rd party too.

[boricua79]

65. NOW they want Unity

when they've run over us for 8 years...now when we're about to swipe their shit policies off the books and return the country to Constitutional rule...now when it's no longer a GOP-controlled congress...NOW they want unity...now they want a "chance to speak and share in power".

Where was the unity and sharing of power and compromise for the last 8 years?

Screw them!

[iamjoy]

58. It Would Hurt Us More

I think it would hurt Democrats more, especially if Hillary is our nominee. Bloomberg would only play well in what is already Democratic strongholds and Democratic leaning states. That may be enough to take away from Hillary.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. Yup

It would be a disaster for getting a Dem. in the WH. It would also not likely result in Bloomberg in the WH, but in splitting the Dem. vote and putting another Rep. in the WH. Not good news.

[iamjoy]

89. Not Splitting The Dem Vote

splitting the sensible vote.

[JerseygirlCT]

91. Is there a difference, lol? nt

[brentspeak]

98. If Hillary is the nominee, Bloomsberg won't run

Why? Because Hillary is a corporate-friendly politician, who is exactly what the Bloomsberg Crew want to see remain in the White House.

But if John Edwards is the nominee? You'll then see Bloomsberg being trotted out as "the moderate" to protect against an anti-corporate politician like Edwards from getting in the White House and spoiling K-Street's fun.

[mdmc]

60. agreed

unless bloomie wins.

His run will might help us, but it will most certainly hurt the gop.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Oh boy, I don't think so at all

Outside NY, I doubt very much there'd be many Republicans going for Bloomberg. To them, he still would read as NorthEast liberal.

I think if Bloomberg wins, he peels off Dems. And that would suck, big time.

I don't dislike the guy; he's done some good work in NYC. But we cannot risk another 4 years of Republican rule, and his running would help insure that happens.

[Bozita]

6. So, do we join oil and banking and oppose healthcare and pharma or is it the other way around?

That middle ground is really squishy.

[Hugabear]

10. It does look like a Conservative movement, without the religious trappings

Most of the Democrats that I've seen mentioned (Nunn, Graham, etc) seem to be fairly "moderate" conservative types.

[Bozita]

19. Welcome to DU, PIB. You're in a good place.

It gets a bit nutsy at times.

[KT2000]

33. Exactly !

this sounds like a conservative group that realizes the party has been lost to the religious candidates and have developed a plan to get it back.
Guess how they would stack the administration - repubs all.

[annabanana]

46. Bingo!. . . . .n/t

[TwilightGardener]

9. Some big names: Boren, Graham, Hart, Robb, Nunn,

Danforth, Whitman--and the only two currently elected, Bloomberg and Hagel. I'll bet Schwarzenegger joins them too. If the nomination process yields Obama and McCain, they won't have much to do, and I think Bloomberg will stay out--but if it's anybody else, they could help Bloomberg make a bigger impact than he might have made on his own (or just with Hagel's support). In other words, Bloomberg is obviously not looking to be Perot 2.0--he wants to demonstrate to the country that he's a legitimate contender with some impressive political figures backing him. A little mini-party of moderates behind him. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[DLnyc]

15. Bloomberg, like Perot

is, IMHO, fundamentally a businessman who holds nothing but contempt for the BushFamilyCriminalEmpire. I really can't picture him doing anything but acting as a spoiler against the wingnut wing of the repub party. In other words, he would be in it to see a dem or himself win, not to see Ghool, Huckleberry, McPain, Mittens or any others of that sort of terragodterragaysterraimmigrantsterra bunch win.

[robbedvoter]

17. It's all because his contempt that he kissed their ass in 2004 - RNC convention

while arresting protesters and spying on them...Where exactly did you get any inkling of "contempt"? I mean, in reality, not your mind.
I had enough of the "outsider" businessman as the hero :puke: - just look who is in the White House!

[DLnyc]

25. Nothing too concrete, just a sort of political 'body language'.

Since the convention, the bushbots really stabbed Mike in the back, by pulling funds (something like $40 million) because he wouldn't hype the terrorist threat enough. It's been a long time since I've heard him even pay lip-service to them. So, having watched Mr. B. for a long time (used to work at his company), my IMPRESSION is that he's pissed as hell at the neocon cabal behind shrub.

I don't see Mr. Bloomberg as any kind of hero--in fact I quite dislike the guy, mostly because of the arrogant "I'm superior because I made it rich' attitude he seems to have. But my guess is he's not very fond of the shrub regime. Have you heard him say anything remotely kind about these guys in the last 2 or 3 years?

[TwilightGardener]

28. I agree with you--he seems to be more geared to seeing a Dem win--

if he doesn't win, that is. I don't think he's out to crush Dem chances, or to help an R get nominated. His biggest cheerleader is Hagel, who could certainly endorse one of the R candidates if he wanted to (especially his old buddy McCain)--but he hasn't yet. I get the impression Bloomberg would be appalled if someone like Huckabee won.

[Faryn Balyncd]

77. Hagel would, in all liklihood, endorse the DEMOCRATIC nominee if that was Biden, Richardson, or...

possibly Edwards or Obama.

The odds of Hagel endorsing the eventual 2008 Republican nominee is approximately ZERO. (Approximately the same odds as the GOP nominating a non-warmonger/fearmonger)

Hagel Calls Giuliani, Clinton `Cowboys' for Comments on Iran




".......Hagel, who decided not to run for re-election next year and has ruled out a presidential bid, said he wouldn't endorse anyone in the Republican primary.

Yet he said he may back a candidate from either political party or an independent in the general election.

'I will see what the options are,' he said."


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a0h8abc0d1tM&refer=home



Hagel would, in all liklihood, endorse the DEMOCRATIC nominee if that was Biden, Richardson, or...

GOP Senator Hagel: "The Republican Party Has Won Two Elections On Fear And Terrorism... & It's Going To Try Again"

. . . . . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/24/gop-senator-hagel-the-r_n_65593.html





Think Progress:Hagel Suggests Possibility Of Bush Impeachment: ‘He’s Not Accountable Anymore’


. . . . . http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/06/hagel-impeachment



Yes, Hagel was a pal of McCain, back at a time before the Iraq invasion, at a time when McCain was teaming up with Feingold & was running as a reform candidate in the GOP, before McCain & Hagel became diametrically opposed on mideast policy. Hagel's positions for several years have been totally inconsistent with backing a candidate standing for current GOP foreign policy.

Here was Hagel on Biden's birthday:

[TwilightGardener]

79. If Bloomberg didn't run (most likely because Obama gets the nom), I would

not be surprised at all if Hagel endorsed the Dem nominee, especially if it's Obama. Now, if it comes down to Hillary or Edwards and McCain, that might be a tough one for him.

[Beetwasher]

61. He's Defintely NOT Fond Of Them, That's Why He Very Loudly And Publically Left The Repub Party

That's not to say that I necessarily like the guy either, but I do know he is NOT a Bushco. supporter.

[grytpype]

103. Blumberg would appeal to Moderate Republicans.

I could see Blumberg playing the Perot role and guaranteeing a Democratic win.

[robbedvoter]

12. Oh, if "Mike" is involved, it must be good! "make your client think he's getting laid

when in fact he's getting fucked" - one of his homilies.
Not that the idea was any good without him...
And isn't Hagel the ES&S candidate/owner?

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. Did Bloomberg actually say that?

If so, can you find me a link?

It describes his political philosophy to a 't'.

[robbedvoter]

94. It wasn't on line. The Voice had an article in 2000 with a collection of doozies

In a debate he said poor have a predilection for asthma because of poor hygiene

[Jim Sagle]

20. Populism insurance - to be cashed if Edwards gets the nom.

[Joanne98]

51. Bingo

[Truth2Tell]

22. It looks like Bloomberg's advisers

are interested in focusing on mostly Blue States, according to this report in the NY Sun (if you buy it).

A billion bucks thrown at these states by an independent would not bode well for the Democratic nominee methinks:

[CK_John]

26. That is a great graphic to put the big picture in focus. n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

95. We have to find some way to derail this pug

If he runs and threatens even one blue state we run headlong into serious problems.

[bjobotts]

24. Big surprise. Richest man in America wants to be president. They just want

to be able to make bigger and better "deals". What no 'progressive liberals' in the group. That says a lot right there. "Middle America just wants business as usual...you know, where they don't have to take any responsibility for their own government and just go shopping".

[OHdem10]

32. I hope you realize every one of the Democrats are Conservative

Democrats. Do not know about Hart.

[garybeck]

30. The real problem with bipartisanship

is that bipartisanship only works if BOTH sides go along with it. I just don't see it happening in the republican party, do you? I mean maybe some lip service, but you have to realize the track record of these people. they are put there by the corporations and they are only going to look out for their interests, period.

[JDPriestly]

34. A bunch of has-been politicians seeking to relive the good old days.

Their "bipartisan" approach is precisely what led to this mess in the first place. None of these politicians is liberal. They are all conservatives at heart. None of them tackled the tough problems like accessible, affordable health care, energy independence, the environment, reigning in the military-industrial complex, stopping the bleeding of jobs and the threats to our economy that the excessive spending on war poses.

So, what in the world do they have to offer that is relevant NOW. NOTHING.

[TwilightGardener]

35. Bloomberg has. He's very aggressive on environmental action in NYC.

He also started up a program, funded with some of his own money, to reward behavior among the poor such as doctor checkups and school attendance (can't remember the name of it though). He's put through some education reforms, as well--I don't know what the consensus is on it so far. He's probably the most liberal of the group.

[JDPriestly]

37. But he will never attack the root of the problem which is the dominance

of corporate interests in D.C. In fact, the purpose of this coalition is to protect the corporate interests' role in government. The list of the people supporting Bloomberg includes only those who fed at the corporate trough and who want to make sure that corporations are the true leaders of the country. The people on that list are all strong supporters of military spending over spending on people or economic development in the U.S.

Bloomberg means more of the same. And the people who support Bloomberg, if that list is representative, are the very people who caused the impasse we are now in. They stand and stood for nothing. Where do they stand on the Iraq War? If they are so experienced and knowledgeable, why did they allow Bush to destroy our country as he as? Why did they turn a blind eye to the terrible corruption that has become the law in D.C.? This crew has not earned my trust.

[brentspeak]

97. Exactly correct.

If Hillary appears headed for the Democratic nomination, and any Republican other than Ron Paul and perhaps Mike Huckabee headed for the GOP nomination, the Bloomberg campaign will disband: no reason for this Old Boy's Network of "independents" to pursue the office if yet another corporate-friendly President is assured.

But if John Edwards or Ron Paul look to be nominated, you can bet the Bloomsberg Corporate Squad will run Bloomsberg to spoil any chance of an anti-corporatist/anti-K-street politician from getting into the White House.

[Smarmie Doofus]

49. The consensus... among people that follow such things...

>>>He's put through some education reforms, as well--I don't know what the consensus is on it so far. He's probably the most liberal of the group.>>>>

is that his "reforms" are not reforms at all. They are Mussollini-esque reforms; except Bloomberg can't even manage to get the trains to run on time.

The schools have been overhauled with name changes, test-score finagling, union-busting and huge PR gimmickry but whereas they used to function... at least nominally as 'schools'... now they all suck. And school bureaucracy has actually *grown*.

[TomClash]

39. What a stupid idea - Let's elect a President with a minority of the vote - Again

Except for Mike Bloomberg, these are irrelevant people trying to make themselves relevant again. No thanks.

[Inuca]

41. Very interesting stuff

they basically put both the Ds and the Rs on notice: behave and chise carefully, or here comes mayor Mike and his billions, will all the unpredictability that will follow.

[xchrom]

43. corporatist moderates.

and there is nothing moderate about today's ''moderates''.

for my money they are the most dangerous animal in the jungle -- essentially conservative -- and rabid supporters of the status quo

[depakid]

44. Depending on the nominee- I can easily see him taking Oregon

Lots of disaffected Dems AND Republicans in that state.

Indeed, when one thinks about the last year- and what's likely to keep happening in the year to come, there's cowardice and complicity on one side - and corruption and ineptitude on the other.

Quite the political vaccuum there to be exploited.

[annabanana]

45. Oh Goodie.. An OFFICIAL corporatist party!

The Repugs are getting too "churchie" and the Dems are getting too "populist" for the deep pocket boys.

[formercia]

55. The Corporatist Party

Stealing the Independent trade name and preventing any real independent from attempting a third party bid. This is just the corporatist version of Nader.

If they want to be a third force, let them call themselves the Corporatist Party and knock off the Independent bullshit.

The corporations are deathly afraid of losing control and having a progressive administration and Congress pass legislation to rein them in.

[gleeindc]

47. Seeking national consensus

Where the hell were these people 7 years ago? Suddenly, once the country has given a lurch toward a theocratic state with few of our freedoms left, we have concerned politicians who want us to come to some kind of unity? That might have worked before we experienced the recent past, but now the playing field has been redefined and we are suddenly concerned about meeting in the middle. What about the people who were pushed out of the political conversation by ceding the definition of the issues? One of the things I like about Edwards is his willingness to still fight for the middle class and note that the corporations have had a good time of it since Reagan. Isn't it time to include all of us in the discussion, even if it does not smooth the waters?

[sandyd921]

85. Not sure these folks are too fond of democracy.

Too messy, don't cha' know; letting the common folks make their own choice, that is. Why didn't they get into it sooner? Maybe because they were not that unhappy with the direction things were going in, for those 7 years?

[Xipe Totec]

48. Has been, has been, has been,

has been, repug, has been, repug has been, and repug has been.

So, this is a bipartisan group because...? :eyes:






:think:

I'll consider joining them if I become a former Democrat which will happen when....

[FreeStateDemocrat]

59. Damn right, it's when the neo-cons may lose control that they talk compromise. Sellout corp whores.

[Joanne98]

50. They let Bush run amok, now they want bi-partisianship. I don't think so!

[Simeon Salus]

52. DisUnity '08?

I love the part where the lambs want to lay down with lions. That will so work.

More shifting the frame away from progressive causes.

[IndyOp]

54. The conveners are mostly Republicans who are disgusted by their own party...

Quote from Danforth in the WaPo article - My party is appealing to a real meanness," he said in an interview, "and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy.

Whether this exercise is at all useful for the nation depends, IMO, on the particular issues they emphasize and how they define center. If they are demanding the truly bold leadership we need on the climate crisis and demilitarizing this nation and if they define "center" as where the Democratic Party is right now and drag the GOP in that direction then this could be a very useful effort. Imagine: Worst case scenario - Guiliani, Romney, or Huckabee are elected on the extremist positions they have been stating thus far in terms of wanting more Guantanamos, more pre-emptive wars, and... If this effort slaps the D.C. and corporate crowds out of their stupor it might be a good thing.

Yes, I am concerned about what happens if there are 3rd party candidates.

[bluerum]

63. Take a look at the map in response 22 if you believe that.

They are targeting traditionally blue states.

This in effect cripples any chance of electing a democrat.

They may say that they are disgusted with their party. What they mean is that they see how badly their party has fucked things up and that they need some outside help in stealing another election from Democrats.

on edit: added link to post.

[IndyOp]

99. I saw the map and am concerned that this could work against a Dem

nominee. What I was saying is that a 3rd party candidate could change the current the GOP in a positive way. Putting up a 3rd party candidate who takes stances that cause Republicans to become much less Neanderthal-ish than they are now would be positive. If the 3rd party candidate would then step down before the election -- the Dem candidate would do very well and the Republican party could be on its way back to sanity.

[bluerum]

101. Maybe. Maybe it's possible that a third party candidate would siphon

votes from repubs as well. But the effort appears focused on the blue states.

The strategy appears to be an effort at long term weakening or removal of the democratic character of those states. The effort may not strengthen the repubs, but that does not matter because the shift will be to the right and drive a spike into the heart of the democratic party.

[Beetwasher]

62. He Could Be Real Spoiler If He Runs

I'm not sure what to think about this. I don't think he could win, though I think he'd have a better shot than any other 3rd party candidate that's ever run. I'm not sure which party he would hurt worse though.

My dad, a hard core liberal Dem (and NY'er) has indicated he would consider voting for Mike. That scares me.

[boricua79]

64. eh..."government of national unity"?

sounds too Third Wordly for me.

There can be no national unity when one party represents rational, liberal, scientific values, and the other one demands that the liberal one not only CONSIDER, but ADOPT irrational, religious, conservative policies that serve to satisfy only fractions of the nation (the rich, the religious fundamentalists, the gun owners, the anti-abortionists, etc). I'm not willing to compromise with that group and I'd rather see a fight than a settlement.

[TankLV]

69. NO. FUCKING. WAY. We need more PARTISANSHIP - DEMOCRATIC!

After twenty something or more years of REPUKE PARTISANSHIP, now that they've trashed the country and been totally discredited, and we have a chance to get Democrats back in control of things, these nameless "people" NOW have discovered "bipartisanship" all of a sudden.

NO FUCKING WAY!

I will NEVER settle for the FAUX "bi-partisan" crap. I WANT DEMOCRATIC PARTISANSHIP - LOTS OF IT - FOR TWENTY-THIRTY YEARS!

and that's just to put us on PARITY and RESTORE this country to the RIGHT PATH!

These fucking idiots, and the ignorant DU'Rs who would support this nonsense and come out of the woodwork whenever this comes up - had no problem with REPUKE partisanship when the REPUKES were LOCKING DEMOCRATS OUT OF THE ROOM, holding REPUKE ONLY meetings with the REPUKE "pResident", etc.

[sandyd921]

86. Problem is this damn partisanship crap

sells to a lot of ignorant people; and these a--holes know it and will use it to keep selling us down the river! :mad:

[nealmhughes]

70. I propose that the party be named "The Coalition for National Salvation."

Either that or "get crazy out of the Republican Party but not so much emphasis on social justice as the Democratic."

[pleah]

71. He will be the new Ralph Nader.

[OHdem10]

75. Stop being so generous with the word Moderate.

The Democrats mentioned are CONSERVATIVE Democrats and Military
Hawks.

Yes, they are very highly respected, but for God's sake understand
who they are .

Bloomberg is not seen as some rock-ribbed Conservative. He will
take votes from the Democratic Candidate.

This is a stealth way of guaranteeing GOP Rule.

Remember, It was a Republican Congress(House and Senate) who
let Bush do what he has done to the country.

Who is in the Congress is more important than who is President.

The only way a Third Party can make a difference is to be running
on dramatic philosophical change. Bloomberg is offering more of
the same. Just be nice and make Democrats acquiesce more often.

[sandyd921]

72. The Democrats among them

are corporatist sell-outs; the republicans are just trying to resurrect themselves among the ruins of their party. A sad bunch, this group. They're 'skeered' that a candidate like John Edwards will take away their corporate playground.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

73. Bloomberg, McKinney, and Ron Paul. 2008 = Campaign of the Insane?

Do we have to invite these nuts to a debate?
McKinney: Jews!
Paul: Constitution!
Bloomberg: Look at Meeeee!

If the primaries are decided in March, then I have most of a year to listen to these screw ups. Its bad enough hearing a * clone.

OK, Is there a book on how to survive on an isolated island for a year?

[Hugabear]

74. Look for Newt Gingrich to get involved with this group also

He's been "making nice" lately, trying to soften his image and portray himself as a "new conservative" type. He's jumped onboard the global warming bandwagon (although I don't believe for a minute that he actually believes it). He toyed with the idea of running for the GOP nomination, stringing rethugs along who were looking for him to be their Savior. He's been organizing some sort of conservative political workshops, trying to lay the groundwork for who-knows-what.

This seems like just the thing that he could get involved with.

[sandyd921]

78. It's on the front page of my republican newspaper

It's featured very prominently, right at the top. "Independents may confront major parties: Bloomberg, other leaders to discuss bipartisanship". Not much of national significance makes it to the front page of this paper. They tend to stick to local and state stories, unless there's something big going on nationally. Hmm...

[JerseygirlCT]

80. A couple of "moderates" and a whole bunch of Republicans

(even if they called themselves Democrats)

Is this a transparent attempt to undercut the Democrats by dividing the vote or what?

[Solly Mack]

84. Interesting

Interesting doesn't mean good and it doesn't mean bad...it just means - interesting.(arousing or holding the attention)
It doesn't indicate support or even non-support for an idea...it just means - interesting.(arousing or holding the attention)

[annabanana]

90. Looks to me like a Lieberman sort of "independent". . . . .

With a little less war & a little more corporate control....

[Solly Mack]

96. Yeah...my first thought was..interesting...wonder what they're up to

[JustAnotherGen]

88. This is in the NY Times this morning

Bloomberg Seeks New Way to Decide Who Is Poor
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/nyregion/30poverty.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

Good, bad, or indifferent towards him - he's 'getting it'. He's getting that if a family of four in NYC or - in the Tri-State Area is making approximately 21K a year . . . they are poor, poor, poor.

But officials also hope the new measure will set off a nationwide re-examination of the current federal standard, and prompt other cities and states to adopt the city’s method.

The 42-year-old federal poverty standard, which is pegged to the annual cost of buying basic groceries, is widely viewed as outdated and off-target. The city’s formula would take into account the money families must spend annually on necessities including rent, utilities and child care. But it would also factor in the value of financial assistance received, like housing vouchers or food stamps.

The politics of determining a poverty level are intense because the number largely determines eligibility for numerous federal entitlement programs. And, perhaps as important, it is used by people across the political spectrum as they debate how well this nation cares for its less fortunate.

About a year ago, the mayor announced that the city would put $150 million in public and private money toward new antipoverty programs. At a press conference marking the anniversary of that effort last week, Mr. Bloomberg announced that 31 programs were up and running, and that a dozen more would be started in the next months.

In developing the new programs, however, the city discovered a serious obstacle: the federal poverty standard was all but useless in assessing whether the efforts were having an effect. This was especially frustrating for the mayor, whose business background and Harvard M.B.A. have conditioned him to look for measurable results.

And just to remind everyone that it's a MSM Article:

Douglas J. Besharov, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is watching the New York experiment intently and not without some cynicism that the city will come up with a far too generous formula. "It is highly likely they will come up with a higher poverty rate," he said. "It is perfectly safe politically in New York and it certainly is a good P.R. device for the mayor who wants to be a poverty crusader.”

:rofl:

(Side Note: OF COURSE the AEI of Washington is :sarcasm: watching it with cynicism.:rofl:)

A Bloomberg candidacy is not going to cause me to jump the Progressive Ship. But man - I hope this initiative of his gets pushed through. The 'knee jerk' reaction of "It could hurt those in rural areas" will fade quick if we can assess how truly POOR America is and - is quickly becoming (the lower middle class falling closer and closer to the poverty line).

My point? He's not an all around 'bad guy'. If you know or have ever met a Republican from Suffolk or Monroe Counties in NY - they find him 'appealing'. He's not going to appeal to the Right To Lifers Jesus Freaks - but moderate North East Republicans would give the guy a nod.

And most Dems I know that live in Manhattan or Brooklyn - voted for the guy. The problem is? The company he keeps . . . Most of those Manhattanites or Broolyners are not going to vote for him over Their Girl Hill.

I think in the long run? This little 'twinkle in the eye of a third party in the 2008 election' has far more implications for the Right than it does the Progressives/Left/Democrats.

[humbled_opinion]

106. We are so much better at being inclusive then the rethugs. n/t

[Robbins]

107. DLC

You notice out of the Democrats mentioned(with the possible exception of Gary Hart) they are DLC
Democrats.Could It be the DLC Is pissed at Hillary for trying to fool the rest of the party she Is a
Liberal.Remember this Bloomberg was a Democrat till he switched to run for mayor.Hagel's Inclusion
In this meeting suggests If they go ahead he may go for the antiwar postion.If Obama were to win
the nomination this makes the effort less likely.Hillary would give them the opening they need.
Unlike Perot Bloomberg has actully won elections,and this Isn't a Billionare's whim.This has been
a possibilty for awhile.If Hillary wins Bloomberg will use his money to try to convince people he Is
progresive,and antiwar.