From the Post article:
TEAM SPIRIT: Mayor Bloomberg will join Gary Hart and Christie Todd Whitman in Oklahoma to call for more bipartisanship in the '08 race.
Posted on 12/31/2007 8:16:28 AM PST by jimbo123
Uh, yeah. I thought I covered those under “cross-over dems.”
Same reason as they want socialism/communism. Not because it makes things better, but because it makes everyone equally poor/dependent/weak.
"They" want a Bill Clinton and not a Reagan because they can feel superior to Bill. Like they feel superior to Anna Nicole or Jessica Simpsone.
They want bi-partisanship to muddle down the expectations....makes them feel better about what they have not accomplished themselves.
Nonsense. No one remembers who Nunn is and Bloomberg is a rich, non entity.
I hope he runs. He’ll be sliced and diced. He’s a complete nothing.
If THIS is the reason Lou Dobbs urged folks to register as independents,
I AM UNDERWHELMED
Bloomberg is 1000 percent pro-illegal!!
Nunn, Boren and Robb are hardly flaming liberals. They held office as conservative Southern Democrats, back when those weren't fossils found in layers of scheist.
If the rumors play out, and it's a big if, this election could get interesting. Ron Paul could pull votes from the libertarian wing of both the Democrats and Republicans, while Bloomberg could pull votes from the pragmatic and moderate "go along to get along" wing of both parties. If both enter the race, it would be like having Perot '92 and Nader '00 in the same race.
Let's not kid ourselves. Neither will take a state and neither will get a single electoral vote. The last candidate outside the major parties to have any electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968, and he didn't have many. But they could swing the close states, the way Perot did in 1992 and Nader did in 2000.
A bit of a digression: Freepers love to say that Perot gave us Clinton, but loath to say that Nader gave us W. Even if you assume that Nader brought people into the system who wouldn't otherwise have voted at all, even if you assume that he drew some votes from Bush as well as from Gore, Florida was decided by 541 votes.
If there were 542 more Nader voters who would have gone for Gore than Nader voters who would have gone for Bush, it would have been Al Gore on the steps of the capitol taking the oath in January 2001. 542. Smaller than one team's cheering section of a high school football stadium.
The wild card in this scenario is that Paul and Bloomberg would really draw from both parties. How many? That's a crapshoot. But I'd bet both of them would pull more than 542 votes in Florida. And Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, all the swing states.
The third wild-card (who's stacking this deck?) is that single-issue candidates could enter the fray. If the Republican nominee isn't sufficiently hard-line on abortion, or illegal immigration, another candidate could emerge. Imagine Giuliani vs. Clinton vs. Paul vs. Bloomberg vs. Tancredo.
There are precedents for single issue parties. The "Know-Nothings" were opposed to immigration; on any other issue, they were told to answer, "I know nothing," hence the appellation. The Free Soil party supported the abolition of slavery, and that was the only plank in its platform. There were temperance parties, suffragist parties, you name it. None elected a candidate. But they swung elections.
At first.
In the 1880s, most of the country would have asked, "what is Coca-Cola" Then they advertised, and now it's the most famous brand in the world. If Bloomberg decides to run, he could air ads in all 50 states, in every media market, the next day.
The major candidates are looking at $200 million, at most, should they get the nomination and go on to the general election. Bloomberg could spend that before finishing his breakfast. And the FEC tracks donations and loans -- it has nothing to say about how a candidate spends his own money.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a billionaire can buy the presidency. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes tried and failed. But his money makes him a factor. He has weight to throw around, and he will not be a non-entity. He will not win the race, but he could swing it.
Personally, I think these "bipartisan summits" are a sham. Bloomberg is asking for measures that would help NYC, and he's using his threat to run to squeeze promises out of the candidates who actually have chance to win.
Bloomberg is a nominal Republican holding office in a solidly blue state where neither party's candidate will spend much time. NY has no pull on candidates in the general election. Bloomberg's threat to run as an independent is all the pull he has.
I'd say you don't hang out in the Big Apple much, do you?
Bloomy has done a good job with New York - with the glaring exception of his need to control the way we live our lives (can you say “smoking ban?”). But you gotta admit - he started it and now it has mushroomed to global proportions.
He is a consummate businessman who has done a good job of keeping the city fiscally on track. He is running the city as a non-partisan, and for this town I think that is what is needed.
But for the life of me I don’t know who would ever vote for him in a Presidential election. If I had to venture a guess, I would say moderate Democrats - but never enough to matter. I highly doubt he could take his home city, and any votes he does take from uber-left Manhattan he’d be taking form the Dem candidate. He’s respected - but far from loved here, the way Rudy was, or Koch was.
I just don’t see him impacting a Presidential race in any negative way for Republicans - or Dems, for that matter.
If you want to fear a non-partisan ticket, fear McCain/Lieberman: they would get a lot of votes, imho.
Only if foaming-mouthed, lunatic gun-grabbers can be classified as “independents.”
Those repulsive "moderate" Republican women, who participate in "Vagina Monologues" act-ins, and who raise millions for abortionists. People like Whitman and Mrs. Pataki and many others.
Republicans? There ain't no stinkin' Republicans...in that group!
Bloomberg was born on 3rd base thinking he hit a triple. To his credit, he did not make things worse.
America has a dearth of northeastern elitist condescending liberals. Especially from the Upper East Side of Manhattan where the need is greatest.
Bloomberg will be Shrillary’s worst nightmare. And the Clinton complaints about money, albeit ironic already announces their fear.
So bring it Bloomie.
Bloomberg is 1000 percent pro-illegal!!
That’s an absolute lie. Bloomberg is only 100% for illegal aliens.
Politics are too polarized! There ought to be ONE party everyone can vote for!
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.