Bloomberg bolts the GOP:
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced Tuesday that he was dropping his Republican affiliation, a step that could clear the way for him to make an independent bid for the presidency.
The announcement was released during a campaign-style swing through California, during which Mr. Bloomberg, 65, a billionaire businessman, used increasingly sharp language to criticize both parties in Washington as too timid to take on big problems and too locked into petty squabbling to work together.
“I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead my city,” Mr. Bloomberg’s statement read. “Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles, and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology.”
Even as Mr. Bloomberg continues to say that he has no plans to run for president, his announcement has set off a storm of interest in political circles across the country, where it is being viewed as a signal of his serious contemplation of a campaign. His ability to self-finance a campaign presents him with obvious advantages, including the option of delaying even until next year a decision on whether to run.
Bloomberg was, for all intents and purposes, the real RINO, and conservatism will not suffer with his departure, but the GOP sure was happy to have him around when he was with the party.
New York, forever talking about itself. Bloomberg wouldnt’ get a vote west of the Catskills
I live in New York State. I said to my friends at the time he won the mayoral race, that the Democratic Party really should claim victory, publicly – based on his policy positions and the fact that he ONLY changed party affiliation in order to run as a Republican.
The best thing he could do for the country right now is…go back to the private sector. Or start up the philanthropy foundation he had said he would create.
A 3rd Party Bloomberg will not hurt the Democrat as much as it will hurt the Republicans. If Giuliani is the GOP nominee a Bloomberg candidacy would be devastating.
Well, it’s not like we need yet another billionaire running for office, but a Hillary-Giuliani-Bloomberg three-way race would be hilarious.
Heh- if Rudy Giuliani is even a possible GOP candidate, a Mike Bloomberg campaign is going to hurt his chances. I think the last thing “America’s Mayor” would want to see in this race is a national spotlight being turned on his sucessor: a mayor who, by all reports, is every bit as obnoxious a putz as Rudy!, but has somehow managed to do every bit as good a job as Mayor, while avoiding virtually all the negative publicity and personal rancor which made Giuliani into a (bad) City joke by the end of his term(s).
And btw, why shouldn’t the national GOP have loved Mayor Mike? He got scads of (mostly positive) publicity for them, and paid his own way while doing so! What’s not to like??
What about when Bill Clinton left the Democratic party to become an independent? The liberal media doesn’t talk to much about that, huh?
Of course Bloomberg had to leave the GOP.
His long record of integrity and competence was an embarrassment to everything the Republicans stand for.
The Other Steve
I’m fascinated by people’s reaction to Bloomberg, notably on the left.
I’m from the midwest, and I don’t get a lot of Bloomberg news day in and day out, so maybe my view is unfair, but this is what I have seen.
What I have seen, time and time again, is a clear attention to detail. Attention to the people. A certain level of compassion, but most notably compassion.
That horrible event not quite a year ago when that groom was accidentally shot by police like 75 times. I didn’t here Bloomberg say “Well he probably deserved it.” like rudy would have done. He seemed shocked, and he wanted to know what happened.
When the power went out, he was on TV trying to explain what was happening.
When the JFK plot came out a few weeks ago he told people to move on, you can’t live your lives in fear of terrorism.
See from our perspective here in the midwest, that’s a refreshing dose of reality. We don’t like politicians who grandstand.
I’ll be honest. If my choice was Guli, Clinton and Bloomberg… I’d probably vote for Bloomberg. So would most of my friends.
But then we all voted for Ventura also, and looking back, he wasn’t that bad.
The Other Steve
POTD. I’m framing it and putting it up on my wall.
As a liburul Californian, Bloomberg also interests me. Granted I don’t know much about him yet, but from what I know I’d vote for him over Hillary.
The Other Steve
Bloomberg would hit both Democrats and Republicans hard if he ran. It would come down to who can control their base the strongest.
Historically that’s been the Republicans. Hard to say this time around, but I think the GOP would lose the entire business wing. The Democrats would lose the entire moderate wing, and most of the independents.
I hope he doesn’t run. I hope instead his goal is to promote a Democrat or something.
The parties know, to take out a moderate third party candidate, you have to attack hard and frame him as a lunatic. and they will. It’ll make the election even more divisive.
They were talking about this on MSNBC this morning WRT Bloomberg. One thing they all agreed on was that it would be hard to give Bloomberg the Perot treatment because he’s not a kook and not seen as one.
As for me, if he ran and the choice was Him, Clinton or X republican I would pull the lever for him. He’s been quite moderate, was a democrat, doesn’t carry the republican baggage etc. and from everything I’ve seen he is damn good at getting results in a fair manner.
Oh, I’m one of those “liberal” californians too.
Oh and speaking of Rudy, Anyone else following TPM’s coverage of “Mr. Security” and his flaking on the Iraq Study Group?
I seriously doubt that. If it’s between New York Clinton and New York Bloomberg, I doubt you’ll see alot of Democratic shift when Hillary already has unions and grassroots grips on the better part of the nation. I can’t help thinking this will look like Conneticut in ’06, with faux Republican Bloomberg and Democrat Clinton running neck and neck while the erstwhile Republican candidate hangs back in the wings. Maybe a fall of ’92 Perot-Bush-Clinton repeat with Bloomberg playing Bush Sr and the ‘Pub candidate playing Perot.
That’s if Clinton wins the nomination. If Obama wins it – and that’s looking more likely every day – we’ll be looking at a totally different dynamic.
“Stop Worrying. Get a Life.”
This made me like him a lot.
However, the thought of two mayors running for the White House makes me think of the Powerpuff Girls episode (shaddup!) where the Mayor’s campaign slogan is “Vote for Mayor for Mayor!”
I don’t like it at all. Bloomberg is coming from the center, and that stands to hurt Dems more than the GOP.
As I said elsewhere, I don’t know a lot about him, I left NYC before he came into office, but I instinctively don’t like billionaires who don’t shoot straight. I’d’ve had a LOT more respect if Bloomberg left the GOP before the ’04 or ’06 elections as he was rumored to. At those times, he might have actually served the country and his city well.
Now he is doing what helps him, and positioning himself to fuck the country and the world for the sake of his own ego.
Fuck you, Mr. Mayor.
Look, that’s not to say I wouldn’t prefer President Blooomberg to President McCain, Romney or Guiliani—of course I would—but that’s not really on the table. What is far more likely is one of those fucking assholes ascending to the White House with 38 percent of the vote.
The Other Steve
Quite possibly. I would say more like the Wilson/Roosevelt/Taft race back in 1912.
BTW, from now on when people refer to America’s Mayor is running… ask if Bloomberg has declared he’s running. It’ll so piss off the Giuliani people.
If Giuliani gets the nomination, there’s also a good chance that there would be a prolifer running to the right of him. Let’s get 4 parties going this time!
We’ve got over 20 different candidates for party nominee. And the Libertarians and Greens still haven’t pitched their candidates yet. I say pack’m all in there. Romney can lead the R’s, Bloomberg can take the I’s, McCain/Lieberman can form Unity ’08, and get the Liebercrat vote. I want to see a President elected by less than 30 percent of the population. If that doesn’t make us take a second look at our electoral system, nothing will.
Obama, Obama, Obama!
All the effects of a significant third party candidate are bad, in view of the existence of a little thing called the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. You might want to bone up on your Twelfth Amendment.
The third candidate will suck away votes in an unpredictable manner from the other two, having the effect of throwing the election one way or the other (can you say Ralph Nader?) and then when the effect is large enough to deny one of the two major candidates a majority of electors, the thing goes to the House, where each state has one vote, eh?
Is this really what you want? And are we really going to listen to the brainfarts of people who voted for JESSE FUCKING VENTURA for crissakes?
If you think you have a fucked up government now, just wait. You ain’t seen nothin yet.
Every third-candidate thing I’ve ever seen is the result of the pissed of wing of voters saying, Oh Yeah? Well if that’s the best you two parties can do, TAKE THIS!
A fine ranting sentiment, but hardly the kind of motivation that produces good government. Good government is not about symbolic bashing of the other parties, it’s about governing well. Did Ventura govern well?
Well, you decide whether this is what you want in national politics. Sure, you have to admire the guy’s guts and his willingness to tackle stuff, but ….. he’s crazy.
Have ya had enough crazy people running the country? Then maybe independent candidates aren’t what you really need?
Sure, let’s split the vote so deeply that it only takes 25.1 percent of voters to choose a man that the electoral college probably won’t pick anyway.
I swear to God I didn’t see your post before I posted my own. ::looking you straight in the eye::
The Other Steve
You mean Rudy McRomney.
Well, actually, yes… Ventura did govern pretty well. Other than education, that is. He brought in some fairly smart people who handled the budget and such.
What he’s most remembered for is giving us the Light Rail.
He was elected in 1998, that year the big issue was a baseball stadium. The Democrat and Republican both said “If it’ll win your vote, I’ll support a stadium”. Ventura said he wouldn’t. That’s why he garnered so much support.
He was replaced with Pawlenty, who has managed to gut social programs, transportation budget, fire, police, pushing a “conservative” agenda through education(i.e. supporting intelligent design as honest debate), everything while at the same time handing out lucrative jobs to his cronies.
And Pawlenty just committed half a billion dollars, at a time when all government agencies are having trouble providing basic services… to a Baseball stadium.
So tell me again how sane Republicans are.
Sure, that’s why the Ventura Institute of Good Government is meeting over margaritas down in Baja in between surfing sessions. It’s why the world has beaten a path to his door to study the fine art of government.
Give me a break, please.
It’s not my fault you guys can’t run your state. But his replacement being a potatohead doesn’t make Ventura a good governor.
Bring back Metropolitan Stadium. Ah, the memories!
Ventura seemed like a loon to me… but this Bloomberg candidacy is also about lowered expectations. I mean, he’s not a fascist like Rudy, so let’s all forget about real progressives and jump on the independent bandwagon, eh?
I sincerely hope there will not be a third party/independent candidate for this next election. Why someone would vote for an independent when there are several excellent choices on the Democratic side is a puzzle to me.
I have a problem with the Clagina, but god-damn it, if she is the candidate, I’m sure not going to vote for any of the pandering imbeciles of the right. Jesus, don’t you guys get it? There is no such thing as a protest vote, there is just throwing your vote away.
To his credit, Bloomberg has said this country is in real trouble. He’s right of course, but he’s not the guy who’s going to apply his special brand of billionaire magic and make it right.
Bloomberg…two months ago:
“Al Gore has gone on to devoting his life to public service,” the mayor said. “He could be a model for all of us.”
“People talk about Al Gore being a presidential candidate a lot more serious than they joke about me. This guy could be a presidential candidate. He certainly has experience. I’ve always been in favor of the public having more choice. I hope Al Gore enters the race; I think it would be good for the country.”
Does it mean anything?
I can tell you that this independent will not be voting for that Independent, no matter how tight the clothespin is on my nose when I vote for the Dem candidate. Bloomberg is NOT my kind of (I) candidate – anyone who called themselves a Republican in the last two-three years is nuts as far as I’m concerned.
Gore could be a presidential candidate? He WAS a presidential candidate, and he had the popular vote. He technically WON the presidency, except that Bush didn’t like that idea and had to get lawyers involved.
I think you’ve answered your own question, there. The (D) label has been very successfully poisoned by the Republican Party, to the point where people may not like Republicans, but they’ll vote for anybody who isn’t one of those evil, horrible, no good, very bad Democrats.
I’ll make it plain and simple, last presidential election we got ram-rodded with Kerry thanks to so-called “electibility”, I voted for him even though I voted for Clark in the primary. If we are once again ram-rodded with the Clagina (I love that one), I will gladly vote for a third party candidate I can agree with, if there aren’t any, I will, barf bag in hand vote for the Clagina.
Not directly related but kind of. The Conn. Gov. Rell vetoed the medical marijuana bill that passed their senate. She said that it would send the wrong message to youth. I guess she thinks the wrong message is that we live in a sane, free and compassionate society.
This is what always happens when otherwise more progressive states elect Republicans. Californians elected Arnold. Conn. elected Rell. New York elected Rudy. Mass. elected Romney. Low and behold once they get into office they govern, to the surprise of many dim voters, like Republicans. What they really do is slow down any progressive change in the state where they are like when big pharma Arnold vetoed the universal health coverage bill that passed the California house and senate. This is also true of Senators like Chafee. They look and sound more moderate but really just help the Republicans get a majority rule and vote with their fellows more often than not. Rove and Norquist know this and thank god for Senators like Chafee.
Back to Rell. She had cancer and a masectomy. One can assume she used pain killers and other drugs. She wants to criminalize use of medical marijuana. She is a hypocrite.
As for Bloomberg, I am surprised and troubled that more people of concience have not left the Republican party after seven years of Bush.
Hey, right up until Nov ’06, I know exactly why more people haven’t left the Republican Party. Because your checkbook talks a hell of alot louder than your conscience. And Republicans were fattening everybody’s checkbooks – at least everybody who contributed to the right people.
It takes a little time for (Joe?)mentum like that to shift. I suspect you’ll see a wellspring of Independent-leaning-conservative politicians spring up around guys like Bloomberg depending on how Republicans do in ’08. Modern conservatism will change its pants and put on a new hat and come back as the Christian Party or the America Party or the Freedom Party or whatever dumbshit slogan they’ll think can fool 51% of the people once every two years.
I am one of the people closely following Ron Paul’s effort to win the Republican nomination, and I assure you that his supporters are well aware of this.
So is Andrew Sullivan, who posted about this earlier this morning. Crooks & Liars also had coverage.
The Other Steve
That’s because in states which predominently lean left, the Democratic party generally nominates supreme fruitcakes. And while left leaning states do lean left, they don’t lean into fruitcakedom.
Which is different from the Republican leaning states which nominate fruitcakes and then happily vote for said fruitcakes.
Man, I wish it was a one-way street. But living this close to Shela-Jackson Lee, I can tell you that is not always the case. I don’t know if you just have to be crazy to run for politics or whether it somehow helps, but there is no shortage of nuts on both sides of the aisle.
Sometimes I envision non-cooperative congresspeople as having been given an inside glimpse into our global-warmed future, and then being told: “play nice and we’ll give you and your family a place in our underground bunker”.
Umm….about the Light Rail in Minnesota? I’m afraid I may have had a large hand in goosing that into actuality….
(Long story…suffice it to say I was in Tokyo working for a certain company when Jesse Ventura plus entourage came through and I got tasked with the guiding+feeding of one very high-up person one Sunday.)
Meanwhile, out here in Red State Central (Nebraska) the state’s major newspaper has hinted that our own maverick Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, might just be willing to jump the Republican ship for a third-party presedential try with-TADA-Michael Bloomberg. My oh my. What a concept.
The Other Steve, Jesse Ventura was a terrible governor. In retrospect he might not seem that bad because Tim Pawlenty is worse. At least he kept Norm Coleman out of the governor’s chair.