WP: Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid

[Pirate Smile]

Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid
First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government

By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; A04

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, where he is president, said: "It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."

The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476_pf.html

[1corona4u]

1. It's really going to piss me off if he gets in the race...

this will fuck up the whole election, and he, and others need to think about this, and no, he can not win.

[David Dunham]

2. You are right. He will get mainly Dem-leaning voters

[1corona4u]

3. He will splinter the entire dem party...

and that could spell a loss. I keep thinking about fucking Nader, and this would have way more serious consequences. As I said last night, I'm an Independent, and I will NOT vote for him. If he was going to get in the race, he should have done it a long fucking time ago.

These rich mother fuckers think they can just come in after all of the work the other candidates have done and shit right in their faces. That is despicable in my mind. And I am including ALL candidates in that defense.

[pscot]

4. Brodering

A form of senile dementia that afflicts superannuated political columnists and used up pols who suffer from delusions of relevance; a heightened state of cluelessness.

[Adelante]

5. Bob Graham's in there nt

[denem]

12. But only as an invitee

Graham would not appear to be on board yet.

[Armstead]

6. How the hell are these peopel going to agree?

Government of national unity?

Like Gary Hart and Chuck Hagel are going to agree on domestic policy.

[1corona4u]

7. I think I'm moving to Costa Rica, for sure....if that ever happens

And their democracy is one of the best in the world. The economy, and cost of housing is great as well. Lots of people are moving there....

[Inuca]

14. I think that the whole point

is that these are people that in spite of their disagreements are willing to compromise and work together.

[TwilightGardener]

8. All the more reason to elect Obama, who made a point of his willingness

to cooperate across the aisle. Hillary would give us four or eight more years of fighting and gridlock, unless we get 60 solid Dem votes in the Senate, because the GOPers have already demonstrated how PROUD they are of preventing the legislation and progress that the Dems want--can you imagine how proud they'll be to thwart a Dem President who's already reviled by half the country?

[1corona4u]

9. One thing everyone needs to think about is....

this would ruin it for ANY current candidate. I would work my ass off to see that he didn't get votes.

Obama's not the only one who works across the aisle by the way.

[Inuca]

11. I disagree

It would not ruin it for ALL the current candidates. To the extent that such things are predictable, I am willing to bet that if Biden gets the nod, Bloomberg and the others will be happy to stay out. And I agree that the same is probably true for Obama. On the other hand, as many have speculated before, if it is Hillary and Giuliani, we are likely to see a 3-way NY race. As a former new yorker, I would enjoy that :-), though I would very much prefer that the choices are such that it will not happen.

[LordJFT]

10. a couple big name DLCers on there, what a surprise!

[BeyondGeography]

13. They obviously see an opportunity if Clinton is the nominee

and they're right.

[denem]

15. Drop the Obama/Clinton stuff

If they run, they'll get 2:1 Independents and Dems over Republicans and it's GOP Prez 2009 - 2013, It won't make a jot of difference who the Democratic nominee will be. Speculating that they won't run if Obama is the nominee is just that, speculation without fact. My guess is that they are more focussed on the Repub race.

[BeyondGeography]

16. Lose the blinders

Independents and Republicans won't vote for her. A third party run like this hurts any of our nominees, especially her.

[1corona4u]

22. Well, I'm an Independent, and she's my 2nd choice...

just saying.....

[maximusveritas]

17. I see it as more of a problem for Edwards

This goes against everything he's been saying.

[denem]

18. Actually Edwards would have a good shot at them

It fits in nicely with 'big money taking over' to protect the status quo and established interests.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Which they could in turn defuse with their unity theme

and pointing to things like fat checks from rich widows and an anti-greed candidate who puts half his wealth in a hedge fund.

[maximusveritas]

20. I don't think that would work

Is there any clear evidence that "big money" is behind this? Other than Bloomberg being a rich guy? It would just come across as hypocritical for Edwards to go after the effort like that.
And the debate would be focused on unity vs. division, with Edwards and possibly his Republican opponent positioned on the side of division. This would be the only scenario in which I could see a Unity candidate winning.

[denem]

21. I think it's the only thing that would work

That the Democratic candidate is promising change and Bloomberg's group is steeping in to keep the status quo under the banner of unity.