Don’t count out a significant independent candidacy in 2008 just yet.
Buoyed by the still unsettled field, [New York City] Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.
On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.
Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.” …
Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.
A final decision by Mr. Bloomberg about whether to run is unlikely before February. Still, he and his closest advisers are positioning themselves so that if the mayor declares his candidacy, a turnkey campaign infrastructure will virtually be in place.
And keep in mind the numbers we’re talking here:
Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.
Personally, I’m enchanted by the idea of a Jewish kid from Medford running a serious presidential campaign.
Yay New York!
<
p>Oy vey.
$1 Billion
+
Name Recognition Not a Problem (Mayor of NYC)
+
Picking a VP that Complements Name Recognition and Cross-Party Appeal
=
One Mystery Ingredient Away From a Strong Presidential Campaign
<
p>…where the Mystery Ingredient is, of course, actually running a strong campaign, a la Hillary. If he pulls a Fred Thompson, nothing to worry about.
Rumors have been circulating for some time that Chuck Hagel and Bloomberg are somewhat sympatico. Hmmmm…..
<
p>Because of the feral cleverness of the Democrats, there will BE no major party nominees until September, making it impossible for said nominee to ‘formally embrace bi-partisanship’ within their timeline.
<
p>By timing their convention for the end of August, forcing the GOP convention to Labor Day weekend, there will be no official nominee, and no Vice Presidential candidate, chosen until the late summer/fall in either major party.
<
p>Bloomberg – if you’re gonna run, get some guts and do it. Stop with these dainty deliniations of spurious scanarios, and DO IT – or Don’t. You’re making Fred Thompson look decisive!
Not that it matters; the nominees will be known in less than 2 months, and maybe even sooner. The conventions are a waste. Hopefully the writer’s strike will be over so we can catch the whole thing in one episode of the Daily Show.
<
p>Don’t the Republicans go first, since they hold the executive banch (not to mention the part of the executive banch that is really part of the Congress), or is it the Democrat’s turn to go first, by alternation?
…precisely BECAUSE they are the non-incumbent party (in terms of the White House).
<
p>Just a matter of taste of course, but I always watch as much of both conventions as I have time for on C-SPAN. I’m a political junkie like that. I would love to see a convention that actually mattered in my life time, but even without that I believe they are useful. It’s easy to dismiss them as weeklong propaganda shows, but I think they are the most comprehensive way to learn about the platforms and nominees.
I think there’s a decent chance at a brokered convention for at least one of the parties.
…and that is why I am so exasperated with the Democrats for setting up this grotesque election calendar.
<
p>The chose the LATEST POSSIBLE DATE which would still allow both parties to appear on the ballots in the states (must be posted, etc.). Perhaps their thought was that the Democrats would have a cohesive ticket early on, as She Who Must Be Obeyed was a shoo-in, and the GOP was disunioized by strategery.
<
p>Be that as it may, the excessively late conventions means that we will be treated to a long, hot summer of ‘alleged’, ‘putatiuve’, ‘probable’ nominees running about – and we have some, like Paul and Kucinich, who may not go gentle into that good night, but will wander about insisting that they MIGHT be nominated….and indeed, a brokered convention isn’t as far fetched as it may sound.
<
p>Bottom line – with the primaries moved so early and the conventions so late, by the time there really ARE official nominees the electorate will be so sick of the two year long electoral process that the actual debates between the nominees will probably lose out to a re-run of Murder, She Wrote, and turn out will fall dramatically – causing tsuris in whoever loses this time.
<
p>Thank you, Howard Dean – architect of this MESS.
… A.J. Rossmiller on this one.
<
p>
If he and Obama team up.
<
p>I know it sounds crazy and I have nothing to back it up, but they had a very public breakfast meeting earlier in December where they sat by the window for all to see…
<
p>Remember, all, Bloomberg is a Democrat. He just switched party ID to run in 2001. His latest switch to IND is not significant, because party doesn’t really matter to him.
<
p>IMHO, after an initial dustup with party faithful, Dems would fall in line with a Obama/Bloomberg ticket. Bloomberg could get some real power, and Obama could be the figurehead inspirational leader.
<
p>I’d vote for them.
<
p>But then again, Bloomberg probably wouldn’t want to play second fiddle. Nor should he, given that he’s generally been regarded as an excellent mayor who has not been living in his predecessor’s shadow.
<
p>If he doesn’t jump in, then he will likely become a hugely influential player in the foundation/charity world given his already large and active foundation.
Why would Bloomberg want to play second fiddle to Obama or any other candidate? He’s an executive for so many years. I find it difficult to believe he’d be interested in that.
I’m not suggesting that Bloomberg is making that calculation, nor that it’s a particularly pleasant or relevant topic.
<
p>But the question remains — are there more capable kooks incited by racism against blacks than capable kooks in general?
but I suppose a reasonable question to ask. I guess I’d wonder would someone really want to kill the black guy to get the Jew in office?
…it’d go to a woman (Pelosi).
<
p>Still, I suppose one could do a movie based on the idea that assassins wanted to get to #4…president pro tem of the Senate….one Robert Byrd.
What is this anyway, King Ralph?
<
p>The stress of losing our number 1,2, and 3 in government would cause Byrd’s heart to give out. At this rate, we’d better hope that we have a good postmaster general.
but otherwise right on.
offer bloomberg a cabinet post.
<
p>but much as i like the idea of an obama/bloomberg ticket, would a nominated obama need a wes clark type?
we need another elitist establishment snot like we need more born again Christians.
<
p>2. If party doesn’t matter to him, then he has a very strange way of showing it. He raised millions for Bush.
<
p>However, I’m concerned over none of the above. He can’t possibly win as an Independent, the only thing he can do is play spoiler. To which party he’s more likely to spoil, I don’t know, but given the fact that he’s raised millions for Bush, I wouldn’t count on him trying to help any Democrats.
As used in the above comment.
How does “people who want to continue to fuck up the Middle East” work for you?
<
p>Here’s a nice Bloomberg quote and snippet…
<
p>
Pretty hard to find something in that statement with which to disagree. If it had–or does– stabilize the region, then it would have been–or will be– the right decision.
<
p>Again, I guess our point of depature is on the “what went wrong” question. Your position is that Saddam should never have been removed by force, mine and others is that the aftermath of such removal should have been, well, planned for.
<
p>The real problem with the neo-con worldview is that it discounts traditional diplomacy so thoroughly, see Bush’s policy toward Iran and N. Korea. That it disdains international legitimacy so thoroughly, and relies so heavily on unilateral military force, and in so doing, dramatically reduces the toolbox.
<
p>As regards Iraq, diplomacy had been going on for 10 years to little avail for actual Iraqi people; see the fate of the Marsh Arabs after the first Gulf War. They could have done a better job not offending the world by attitude alone in the lead up, but international legitimacy, if defined only in terms of a resolution of the UN security council, would never come, because Russia and France were profiting by evading the then status quo of economic sanctions. The big failure was in failing to plan for the aftermath.
<
p>It is a shame that Bloomberg had to run as a Republican to become mayor of New York–though a real blessing for NY. I wish he would run as a Democrat, as I would likely vote for him. Depending on which Democrat gets the nomination, I still might.
… of the Laffer curve? That’d be enough for me to reject him.
“bipartisanship” I check to make sure the front door is locked and barred.
Jerks like Broder need a third party challenge much the way a heroine addict needs greater and greater dosages to get off…a 3rd party bid by Bloomberg will just make the spectacle messier for the delectation of David and his corrupt and decadent crowd.
Anyway all these hymns to bipartisanship are sheer rubbish, the GOP is an unfaithful negotiating partner at best…the only way to fix up DC is run them and their president out of town on a rail this November.
I’m having some trouble landing as I jump off the Richardson boat. It’s between Clinton, Biden, and Dodd and quite frankly I’m not enthusiastic about any of them. I could see myself supporting Bloomberg.
…why are you looking to leave the Richardson boat? Heaven knows I struggled for months with him, and his prediliction to say strange things. At the end of the day though, he’s right about education and right about foreign policy, and those are my top two issues.
A couple of things…
<
p>1. I liked him in spite of his insistence that we withdraw all of our troops just about immediately. That is starting to wear on me.
<
p>2. His answer on gays bothered me – when he said it was a choice. The foundation of my support of gay marriage is that being gay is not a choice.
<
p>3. He doesn’t have the “it” factor. I knew this going in but I hoped he would develop it.
<
p>and a couple of other intangibles.
<
p>
I don’t think any of the people who would vote for Huckabee in a two person race are going to switch their vote to Bloomberg if he enters. But lots of Dems might have a hard time deciding between Bloomberg or the Dem candidate. Bloomberg might steal votes from Giuliani or McCain, but I think those New Republic types that are so appalled at Huckabee are a tiny portion of voters, and they’d probably be voting for Hillary before they vote for Huckabee anyhow.
is a bunch of hooey. As Glenn Greenwald points out, what can be more bipartisan than what we currently have for a Democratic leadership. At every opportunity these people have rolled over to the Republican agenda. With Congressional approval lower than that of Bush himself, where’s the appeal?
Besides Bloomberg was a full-throated supporter of the war and very heartily endorsed Bush in ’04, anyone who thinks he’s any less Republican than Zell Miller is a fool.
He told Ryan Seacrest (yup Seacrest) that last night on the New Years Eve Telecast.
<
p>
But Bloomberg is a savvy enough guy not to lay a whole bunch of groundwork (including running ads in NH and IA) and then blurt out his final answer to Ryan Seacrest, for God’s sake.
I heard that myself, and couldn’t believe my ears!
Glenn Greenwald’s got him pegged.NYT, May 11, 2004:
<
p>Bloomberg has bad judgment. Make him President? To hell with that notion.