Skip to comments.Bloomberg Leaves Republican Party (Breaking)
Posted on 06/19/2007 3:13:48 PM PDT by StatenIsland
Mayor Michael Bloonberg has announced that he is leaving the Republican Party, and will continue his Mayoralty as an Independent.
Good graphic Phil
Bloomie is one of the worst ever elected
$8 fee to drive into Manhattan
$24 fee for trucks
Bloomie made sure his businesses never paid their share
He is also a big buddy of Marc Rich
When was he ever a republican??
This run as an independent will hurt the dems more
I would say good riddance, but Bloomer wasn’t really a republican anyway. Hell, I’m not a republican, so I really have no right to comment on this to start with. lol
Bloomberg is a socialist .. he'll hurt the Dem party a heck of a lot more then he'll hurt our side
That is rich indeed.
Quite a wheeler-dealer.
Now he's selling a bagel with two holes.
I need a little sound file of LAUGHING! Maybe devolve can find one, lol!!
He wasn’t really a Republican anyway (someone probably already posted this).
Tired of slick politicians!
That’s OK devolve, I may find one. It’s not important.
As a young news junkie, I for years wondered what it was that Archer Daniels Midland did that made it important enough to sponsor Meet the Press and Face the Nation alongside legendary corporations like General Electric and financial mammoths like Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch. ADM's commercials didn't promote a product that could be purchased by the general public, but the ads were vague as to reasons why it should be invested in as well -- it was like ADM was more of a charity than a business ("Supermarket to the World").
Only later did I understand that the targets of ADM's campaigns were not individual consumers, but politicians who watched the shows every Sunday. ADM was insisting it was the be-all and end-all to all sorts of "problems" that government claimed to be able to solve, gave gobs of cash to politicians, and every Sunday showed sixty second promotionals showing the pols how they could sell soybeans and corn as panacea to the electorate. Finally, it all paid off with ethanol getting its toehold in the market as "cleaner" and "greener" although the green is mostly in the form of greenbacks.
Now, after many years of mentioning it in speeches, President Bush is still holding on to the heretofore fruitless notion that sawgrass could help break the nationwide addiction to oil. In retrospect, I am not surprised he would buy it.
I don’t think so Steve_Seattle. I wish nothing more but the polling I’ve seen so far has him hurting GOP candidates in purple and blue states. Also, right now, a large amount of the GOP feel like Bush and the Republican Party has left them. You and I of course know that the “Republicanism” represented by Bloomberg has nothing to do with genuine conservative values, but middle of the road Republicans we count on might get pulled in by him.
Given that Ghouliani is currently behind a candidate that hasn't even announced yet in the Rasmussen poll, I assume your comments aren't serious?
so the buffoon thinks he can get the Dems nomination?
It's really easy to "buy" a solution that involves no cost and no tradeoffs and is far enough away that noone can prove it's a stupid idea. The green movement has thrived on that kind of magical thinking for decades.
This is hugh! And series! A mayor with a history of changing parties has changed parties again!
If anyone should be concerned about him running it ought to be Hillary since Rudy hasn’t any genuine chance of getting the nomination.
Thanks. On thinking about this further, the best example of the rich in their buy-the-pols mode today is our country's China policy. One cannot explain the truly insane behavior both Clinton and W have engaged in with respect to the Chinese without resorting to the massive support for appeasement of China by the chamber-of-commerce guys--and, of course, China itself buying the Clintons.
I think you give him far too much credit. The media connection is his asset. Everyone knows he's a spineless pipesmoker.
Bllomberg is now an independent.
That’s not as bad as leaving the GOP to join al Qaeda like Ron Paul.
Right on. His progression is from opportunistic Liberal Democrat to opportunistic Liberal Republican to opportunistic Liberal Independent and he will draw away liberal Progressives making it good for the GOP if they get their s..t together in time.
No way. He’ll steal liberal votes, not conservatives. I think this is a good thing for Republicans. Let the RINOs leave now.
However, Giuliani is staying steady in the polls despite the fact that his liberal social positions are becoming widely known.
The only reason Thompson is ahead by one point in the Rasmussen poll is because they stopped including Newt in the list of candidates, so Newt's supporters had to choose someone else. But the trend is clear...Thompson gaining and Rudy steady.
The media have not yet started to rip Thompson apart and neither has any of the candidates. When they get through ripping him to shreds, what will be left? This we don't know. Fred has hinted he may very well get out his red plaid shirt. Will that work today, the way it did in 1994?
Anyway, I like Fred, but I also think Rudy may have the best chance to beat the Beast. As Reagan said, "If you can't get the whole thing, some is better than nothing."
Bloomberg peeling away a bunch of Hillary's support would be a sweet thing to behold, wouldn't it? :-)
I will bet you Rudy will not be the republican nominee. Democrat, maybe. But not republican.
He may spend $1 billion on the race. If so, he will have impact. The billion dollars is his words.
He could spend 10 billion. He could not get more than 2%. Don’t get me wrong. I hope he does better than I think, because he takes votes right out of the Democrats’ hide. But, he is simply a bad candidate. He has a voice that makes Hillary’s sound mellifluous. He will not win or even come close. You can take that to the bank.
Except that Hagel is pro-gun, pro-life, and anti-taxing and spending. I don’t see how he could run on a ticket with Bloomberg.
With the majority of conservative voters still very upset with both the Democrats at every political level and with the Republicans at every political level, is there any possibility that both the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party will start seeing much more support and much more votes for their candidates at every political level from now on?
==With the majority of conservative voters still very upset with both the Democrats at every political level and with the Republicans at every political level, is there any possibility that both the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party will start seeing much more support and much more votes for their candidates at every political level from now on?==
I’m a big fan of the Constitution Party on principle, but I wouldn’t risk voting for them unless a GOP landslide was predicted.
I don’t think the Constitution Party is going to get anywhere, though. People who are socially conservative, fiscally conservative, anti-globalist and pro-American on trade aren’t exactly the ones with the most money to contribute.
As for the Libertarian Party, I don’t know much about them.
==Are you insane??? A “libertarian” gun-grabber???==
I didn’t know that. On the other hand, most of the pro-abortion folks are anti-RKBA; so Bloomberg will easily attract them.
A non-Republican is now declaring he is not a Republican. Hmmmmm..... is there a story here?
Anyone know/have the poll data on whether or not he’ll take from the pubs or dems....?
He was a Republican?
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Dislike of big-business country club Republicans is one thing. Supporting a command and control economy is another. Just because you don't like big-business country club Republicans doesn't mean that you want to redistribute the wealth of all the kulaks.
No. Without a runoff system your vote can be used against you. If you vote for a third party candidate you help the Democrats. Both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party use this technique to blackmail their voters. They don't have to be good, only better in the eyes of the voter than the opposition. If we had something like IRV I think we would find the Republican Party would suddenly become much more responsive to voters.
How could anyone notice?
“Thats not as bad as leaving the GOP to join al Qaeda like Ron Paul.”
And that’s not even a LITTLE BIT over the top, huh?
R.N.C. = the Really Not Conservative party
Agree. Big business and private clubs are part of the great American fabric.
well said ... it’s people like you who run small businesses who get squeezed by the corporate guru’s and their K Street lobbyists. Unfortunately, few recognize that.
The current immigration bill would not be out there were it not for big business and the multitude of related trade associations in DC lobbying full time. We can complain about LaRaza all we want, but on its own it wouldn’t have been able to pull in enough Congressmen and Senators to bring this bill to the Floor, much less have a chance of passing.
The IRV should be encouraged at every political level! I would definitely like to know how each of the GOP Presidential candidates, including Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, feel about possibly implementing the IRV at every political level.
I wish I had the time to read the thread.
I’m getting ready for a rather long trip.
But, I have to say that I am MOST impressed with your posts.
Thank you all!
It doesn't affect my business too much. But the blame needs to be squarely apportioned between the chamber guys, who drool over the prospect of an underclass to exploit for cheap labor and the leftists, who drool over the prospect of another underclass to exploit for cheap votes. Also, companies like First Data (Western Union) who make huge amounts of money remitting money to Mexico.
A guest worker class is perfect for both groups. Underclass members work for cheap, are second class residents and their kids (citizens all) grow up with the typical resentments and entitlement sense of the underclass and grow up to be perfect little exploitable democrats.
On balance, the left is more to blame--you can look at the senate votes and see where the balance lies. But without the chamber guys, the left would be unable to realize its takeover vision for America. It's an unholy alliance of venal motives all around.
But there it is. Either we beat it as citizens without huge money resources and no support from the major media outlets or we're the Senate's clay pigeon with Trent Lott, John McCain and Teddy Kennedy taking shots at us while they laugh in Senatorial bonhomie and congratulate each other on the good shots.
Bloomberg will take more votes from the Dems than the Republicans...
...by a margin of about 250-50...nationwide.
Mike Bloomberg will be the John Anderson of 2008.
With the Republicans going along with the dems on some issues ie: MCCAIN/Kennedy immigration disaster, enters a third party, an independent with a different message than the two parties who knows what will happen.
An Independent may just win.
Memo to GOP stop the talk of amnesty, stop going Globalism, go back to our roots and we can and will have a chance.
The right independent could possibly win in the right scenario.
Never in a million years do I think Mike Bloomberg will be “the right” anything on a national level.