Posted on 12/31/2007 8:22:52 AM PST by jimbo123
Mayor Bloomberg will join a group of fed-up bipartisan bigwigs in Oklahoma next week to urge that our next President rise above partisan gridlock - giving Bloomberg a potential launching pad for a presidential bid.
The two former senators who started the group told the Daily News that America needs a President to bring the country together - and if the Republicans or Democrats can't do it, they're prepared to back Bloomberg.
"He's shown the ability to bring people together," said one of the hosts, former Sen. David Boren (D-Okla.), now president of the University of Oklahoma. "He brings to the table a tremendous wealth of personal experience, and his commitment to bipartisanship is very strong."
Boren and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) told The News that the meeting is a serious gathering of moderates, not a Bloomberg-for-President meeting in disguise - but he wouldn't rule out backing Bloomberg if he runs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
"We respect and admire him," Nunn said. "We're glad he's coming, and we believe he has a lot to add."
Boren and Nunn two weeks ago invited prominent Republican moderates like former Defense Secretary William Cohen and former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman to the meeting, as well as six other former senators.
"Today, we are a house divided," they wrote to other politicians invited to the powwow. "We believe that the next President must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available - without regard to political party - to help lead our nation."
“Today, we are a house divided,”
Yes, and a third party run by Bloomberg would further divide it. Duh. Unless by “house” he means the country. In that case his run would just be ruinous for the country because it would result in a democrat being elected.
A RINO former Dem is upset and wanting to run a third term candidate? Why doesn’t he stand up to the Socialists that infest the DNC and take back his party?
These idiots just don’t realize that outside of NYC, Bloomers has zero support, especially down South and out West. And don’t bother to ask what Virginians think about this loser after Kaine and the Commonwealth’s AG sent his goons packing after trying to stir up trouble over gun sales.
Remind me again when the last time a third party was elected.
This has more potential to hurt the Beast than anyone else. People who might otherwise vote Beast just because Beast is not Republican, now have another place to cast their ballots.
I can’t imagine too many Republicans, no matter how dissatisfied with their nominee they happen to be, voting for this socialist loser instead.
Headline:
“Bloomberg says he’ll lead the new WishyWashy Party to victory in November.”
I don’t know. Jon Anderson didn’t hurt Reagan any.
It seems that the definition of “moderate” must be a socialist, moral relatavist, who is isn’t quite ready to quote Chomsky...yet.
I guess a big glass ball isn’t the only thing being dropped today in NYC...
After that, he will write a book: “Great Moderates in American History!”
“Why doesn’t he stand up to the Socialists that infest the DNC and take back his party?”
It may just be that he is also a Socialist, and wants to assist his real party to get back into power, Democrats.
It’s not about winning. It’s about Bloomberg siphoning off enough independent/Reagan Democrat votes to get Hillary elected.
If you can't beat 'em I guess you might as well join 'em.
They have apparently been running the country for sometime now. Doesn't seem to matter if you vote R or D, the M ods run everything with their Centrist Coalition and the Republican Mainstreet Partnership.
It’s about turning the “Purple States” blue and getting Hillary elected by splitting the “Anyone But Hillary Vote”.
If the anti-Hillary vote is split by Bloomberg/Hagel, Hillary wins and America loses.
I don’t remember Anderson that well. I didn’t see him as much of a threat anyway. He got millions of votes, but he didn’t carry any states. I could be mistaken, though.
I don’t think anyone who knows Bloomberg or his positions really believes that. I know it said R next to his name, but he’s a life long liberal Democrat who would hurt the Democrats FAR more than Republicans.
Just what we need, Another Ross Perot.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering about that too. However, since some Rs are still supporting candidates like McCain—well, Bloomberg might just siphon off some votes.
Bloomberg/Nunn will be another Perot/Stockdale for the GOP. This is very bad.
"Brings to the table tremendous wealth" would be more like it.
And frankly, I'd like to see more gridlock, rather than more "bipartisan" abominations like McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, "No Child Left Behind," etc.
This shows that their are those who believe that none of the Democrat candidates are worthy to be president.
Many have wanted a new political party and I say let it happen.
The Republicans have been blindsided by third party runs and now it is the Democrats turn in the Third Party Barrel.
“He brings to the table a tremendous wealth ...”
No shiite !
Heavy Hitters? I think they left off an ‘S’ on that title somewhere. Most of those guys have dumped on Republicans in the past making the term RINO look go.
Run! Bloomie! Run!
The Ross Perot of the Democrat Party.
“And frankly, I’d like to see more gridlock, rather than more “bipartisan” abominations like McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, “No Child Left Behind,” etc.”
Thanks for saying this. The best congress is a gridlock Congress. I would prefer that they show up for work at least 5 days a week, argue like hell, get nothing passed (except budgets) and go home. Well, there might be exceptions, but not many.
Bloomberg-Nunn will NOT take votes from the Democrats. It will take them from us.
- pro-choice ("Reproductive choice is a fundamental human right and we can never take it for granted, on this issue, you're either with us or against us.")
- pro-gay-marriage (“I think anybody should be allowed to marry anybody")
- avid supporter of gun control ("I don't know why people carry guns. Guns kill people.")
- is fully engaged in the global warming scam
- supporter of McCain-Kennedy shamnesty
- extended the city's smoking ban to all commercial establishments and implemented a trans fat ban in restaurants
- launched a program called Opportunity NYC which is the nation's first-ever cash transfer pilot program (oooh, "cash transfer", wonder what that is, LOL) designed to help New Yorkers "break the cycle of poverty"
- instituted a $7.5 billion municipal affordable housing plan
- Bloomberg is concerned about poverty and growing 'class divisions' stating, "This society cannot go forward, the way we have been going forward, where the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing."
- talks about "hating taxes" while raising them, making him a clear fiscal conservative (LOL)
Apparently, the following are "right-wing", and are sufficient to balance him out:
- supports the WOD
- supports "targeted" tax breaks for corporations (gotta dance to the government tune to get them)
- supports an ID database that uses RFID, DNA and fingerprint technology to keep track of everyone
- STAUNCH supporter of the USA PATRIOT Act
- supports the war in Iraq
NO THANKS.
These are people that are upset that the Democratic party has moved too far left and looking for a place to go. I cannot see how this hurts the Republicans.
This is the greatest group of wishy washy has beens assembled in history. The Dems will never win with a majority. Bill won with 42% because of Perot.
No one is seriously going to vote for this guy in any numbers, but Hillary can’t afford to lose NY to Giuliani. It would not only lose her this election, but poison her as a candidate forever. She can escape the stigma of losing the red state of Arkansas because it’s really not her home, but she would never shake the stigma of not winning her “home” state NY.
Bloomberg would not touch Hillary’s socialist supporters, but would siphon off some of the “moderate” Democrats that would vote for Rudy.
If Rudy looks like he won’t get the nomination, then these guys will melt away. Bloomy didn’t get rich by pouring money down the drain. For this reason, I propose we call them Democrat/ Republicans Alligned in Name Only (DRAINO’s)
"Great Moderates in World History"
This is all about keeping independents/Reagan democrats from voting GOP when faced with Hillary as the other candidate.
It’s all about splitting the anti-Hillary independent/democrat vote.
If the anti-Hillary independent/democrat vote goes 70% GOP/30% Bloomberg/Nunn, we lose.
Possibly, but he might also pull votes of those who can't stand Hill but refuse to vote GOP.
It’s about turning the “Purple States” blue and getting Hillary elected by splitting the “Anyone But Hillary Vote”. If the anti-Hillary vote is split by Bloomberg/Hagel, Hillary wins and America loses.I disagree that this helps Hillary.
First of all, forget the part about Bloomberg doing this in order to "turn purple states blue". He's not doing anything for anybody but himself.
Second, picture this voter in your mind:
"I really don't like Hillary, but there's no way I'm EVER going to vote Republican, so it looks like I have to vote for Hillary."
But with Bloomberg in the race --->>>> "I really don't like don't like Hillary, but there's no way I'm EVER going to vote Republican... maybe I'll vote Bloomberg!"
I think there are a LOT of voters who will fit that mold.
Right. I’ve long said that this ugly little statist would have a hard time getting more than 1% of the vote in any state west of the Delaware River (except maybe California).
No, that would not be the shortest book. The shortest would be “Britney Spears Underwear Collection—A pictorial”. ;-)
What, Perot isn’t available to queer it again for the Clintons?
Not necessarily - It may mean that the dems do not take NY state, as the vote there would be split in a Rudy, clinton and bloomberg race. w/o NY, ahrd to see the dems winning.
I’ve watched a Global business video by business leaders and Bloomberg made a good case for a meritocracy. His offices have no walls or barriers and he seems to think no one is smart enough to be the absolute decider. I like his approach in business, but I don’t know if it would work in Washington.
The anti-Hillary democrats have 4 choices if they can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary.
1. stay home (bad for GOP, bad for Democrats)
2. vote democrat for congress, boycott president (bad for GOP)
3. vote democrat for congress, hold nose and vote GOP for president (good for GOP)
4. vote democrat for congress and vote Bloomberg/Nunn for president (bad for GOP)
We need #3 in order to win in the swing states. #4 dooms us to a Hillary presidency.
I can't think of a single "red" state that will suddenly turn blue just because some nanny-state billionaire from New York City is in the race.
Anti-Hillary democrats.
Do you realize what you’re saying?
You’re talking about people who would NEVER EVER EVER EVER vote Republican.
So them staying home doesn’t hurt Republicans, only Democrats.
And them voting Democrat in any race doesn’t change anything, since that’s the only thing they ever were going to do.
The only variable becomes Bloomberg.
If Dems vote for Bloomberg that votes the Dems will never get (and votes the Repubs were never GOING to get, ever, ever, ever).
I am mystified you how don’t understand that.
I can't think of a single "red" state that will suddenly turn blue just because some nanny-state billionaire from New York City is in the race.Thank you!
Anderson got 5,719,850 votes (6.61%)
(1980 Presidential Election Results)
And this map is BLUE for Republicans as it was in the MSM until the recent 2 elections. The operator of the site didn’t want to regenerate all of his maps to suit the whims of the MSM house organ of the DNC.
They know Hillary will be lucky to get 45% of the vote, so the plan is to get a 2008 PEROT team together to siphon just enough votes.
Let's not kid ourselves people, Conservatives are a minority in this country -- My guess is 35% Liberal, 30% Conservative, 35% Moderate. We have to have a portion of thos moderates to win, They won;t vote for Hillary so the Clinton's will give them someone to vote for.
Hillary will get 40-45%, Republican will get 38-42%, Blooomers will get the rest and it will be just enough to give Hillary the WH.
It worked in 1992, and it will work in 2008.
What a bland melange of former nothings who are currently nowhere and are barely remembered and not missed in the slightest
It’s all about New York City. Bloomberg needs a democrat congress and a democrat president. It’s not surprising that Bloomberg is crying about gridlock...
Gungrabbers don't qualify. ....and Bloomy out-does even Rudy in this regard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.