Skip to comments.Bloomberg poised for third-party campaign
Posted on 05/15/2007 7:29:21 AM PDT by Jake The Goose
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times. "He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it." Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Anything for hillary.
And hurting Rudy is what it will all be about.... If he runs, I don’t care what he says about his own money.. I see DNC/Clinton operatives all over this one.
A fiscal conservative?! Hasn’t he raised the local NYC tax? He’s a typical Nanny-state liberal, no smoking in bars and restaurants, no trans fat can be used in NYC restaurants.
I don’t know how anyone could say he’s pro-business.
Republican conservatives seem to have no choice but to register as a Democrat so we can elect the least oppressive Democrat.
Bloomberg is far more liberal than Rudy Giuliani. He was a successful businessman and moneymaker (Bloomberg financial network, a pioneer in putting financial information on-line for brokers and financial institutions) but lacks Giuliani’s political skills.
His chief accomplishment as mayor was to ban smoking in restaurants and bars.
He was originally a Democrat, but ran as a liberal Republican when, I presume, the Democrats wouldn’t take him as their candidate. Basically, he bought the election with his money, and he may hope to do the same thing again on the national level.
As I recall, John Anderson’s independent campaign hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, his intended target. If Bloomberg runs, it will be because he has a massive ego and thinks money can buy anything. If nothing else, it would buy him a lot of national exposure and fame in the news media.
I agree, but what if the Rat nominee is Edwards or Obama? I can see him drawing votes from Edwards, possibly, but not from Obama. However, if Obama is the Rat nominee, even McPain could win the election, with or without Bloomie in the race.
I "third party" vote is a wasted vote and will only help elect a dim!
> Just say NO to New Yorkers! Enough of all of them! New York already controls far to much of the USA with its Federal Reserve Bank, investment banking houses like Goldman Sachs, the leading stock exchanges, activist Attorney General, major media nexus and the rest.
> Just say NO! to more New Yorkers running the rest of us like a colony. NO RUDY! NO HILLARY! NO BLOOMBERG! NO SHARPTON! NO NEW YORKERS FOR PRESIDENT!
The only thing you left out is the Jooos. Bigot.
Run, Bloomie, run....
It is possible if Bloomy runs he could split New York State and give it to the Republican.
Well, some people are worried that Hagel might hook up with him.
It’d be more fun if Giuliani hooked up with him, but he can’t because they are both New York residents.
Run, Bloomie, run....
Idiot. What do Jews have to do with the things I mentioned. NOTHING! It is a FACT that the Federal Reserve Bank controls the money supply in the USA. It is also a FACT that the NY Fed, not one of the other regional FRBs is FIRST among them and does the rate setting, which is the mechanism by which our currency is being debased continuously. It is obvious, and has been remarked upon for 80 years that Fed policies are based on and favor East Coast business needs. The Federal Reserve has many more WASPS on it than Jews.
Goldman-Sachs and the other main investment banks are making big money on the latest wave of takeovers, buyouts, mergers and 'taking companies private'. I do not think that having fewer mega-corporations dominating entire sectors of the economy is a good idea. I don't think that screwing long time employees of pensions and equity while paying off the managers and bankers who do these deals is a good thing. The mega-merger acquisition is almost completley run out of New York. Again, while there are no doubt some high profile individuals in this profession who are Jewish, therea are many, many more who are not. In fact if you read "Predators Ball" the excellent book about the last round of ridiculous takeover you find that one reason Milkin went into Junk Bonds initially was the deep seated anti-semitism within these firms. I don't know how much that may have changed in the last 20 years.
It is a FACT that FOX News, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News and The New York Times are all located in New York. We are fed New York oriented view of the world. This means everything from coverage of guns (illegal in NY, most long time New Yorkers have held or owned a gun, so they have a visceral problem with the Western attitude of everyday normalcy we associate with them) to massive socialization of all sorts of things(rent control)(which NY has led in for 50 years).
It is a FACT that the major stock and commodity exchanges are in NY. (Although Chicago has the Commodities Exchange). Again I suspect Jews are under-represented in the NY Stock exchange to old-money east coast families.
In summary, your attempt to conflate my dislike of NY's overwhelming influence in our polity with anti-Semitism is WAY OFF BASE. None of the people I mentioned by name (Hillary, Sharpton or Rudy are Jews. But they all are proud New Yorkers.
I would like my part of the country to remain as much UNLIKE NY as possible. No union thugs in league with Donkey politicians, no huge block of Welfare voters, etc.
Can’t see an ego like Bloomberg’s taking the #2 spot.
Well, he's not a quirky guy with a flatlander's accent like Perot. I just don't see a NY limo-lib having the same heartland appeal as the Texan Perot. I suspect he'd grab a lot of anybody-but-Hillary votes from the Dims.
The dissatisfaction in the Republican Party over Bush 41 in 1992 was over the tax increase and Perot promised fiscal conservatism. The dissatisfaction over the Republican candidates this year is the lack of a strong national conservative among the front runners - Bloomberg doesn't fit that bill.
That’s very well said.
Don't let the thread hit you in the butt on your way out.