Bloomberg Leaving GOP

[Newsjock]

Source: WCBS-TV

CBS 2 HD has learned New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is leaving the Republican party and has announced he is currently unaffiliated with a political party.

In a statement, Bloomberg said:

"I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City.

... “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. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.”




Read more: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_170181024.html

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Well, I don't give a shit.

Do you?

[Renew Deal]

4. I do.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Holy shit. Here we go. I saw this coming. Unity '08's poster boy.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The guy is either a chameleon or the Bishop of Bray.

He was a registered democrat and switched to the republican party in order to run against Mark Green (present co-owner of AAR). And now he switched again in order to capitalize on a higher office.

[youngdem]

5. Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the Repuke's answer to Ross Perot

They are gonna run this son of a bitch down the middle to take a chunk out of the Dems and try and hand 08 to the Repukes, since none of their candidates could beat any of the leading Dems on their own given the current public attitude toward Republicans.

I would also worry about what his Israel policy would be and his larger middle east policy as well.

I don't trust his motives at all, and I DO NOT want a media tycoon as Pres.

[Renew Deal]

9. "They" aren't doing anything.

The republican party didn't like him much anyway. He was a placeholder with money to them. Bloomberg will steal from both parties. Bloomy would probably hurt Guiliani more than anyone. I think many people will only worry about his "Israel policy."

[DainBramaged]

20. HEAR HEAR

I know where you watch baseball (heheheheeh).:toast:

[DainBramaged]

17. Wrong on all counts

Ask Mayor Mike about the billions promised for NYC after 9/11.

[JoFerret]

22. nah

the guy is no true repuke. relax. the nation could do worse.

[Mike Daniels]

95. Then perhaps the Dems need to run a candidate that won't lose votes to Bloomberg

Sorry, but it's not Bloomsberg fault if his ideas or positions end up appealing to voters.

You sound like the Repubs who wanted to blame Perot for Bush losing to Clinton.

[MADem]

105. And if Hagel runs with him....hello, President Fucking ROMNEY??

God help us all.

NYC may be a big and ethnically diverse city, but taking the subway to work and going to the Bahamas every weekend on one's private plane with one's "girlfriend" (past sixty, it ain't a "girlfriend" unless you are robbing the cradle, IMO) does not constitute "foreign policy experience."

[Cha]

6. My take is the "republicon" party

has been taken down in the sewer system by the bushits and WHY would Bloomberg want to be associated with that scuzz?

[monkeyhq]

8. I agree. Anytime someone in the GOP

decides to fly independent, good on em!

Bloomberg is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. He is more a democrat in Republican clothing than a Republican in Independent clothing.

[Chovexani]

76. Bloomie WAS a Democrat

The weasel only switched parties to avoid having to run against 80 billion people in the NYC Democratic primary.

I don't trust the slimy fuck as far as I could throw him but I agree with whoever said he's gonna steal votes from Giuliani.

[DainBramaged]

87. But But I don't live in Arizona, so local politics don't interest me

But, is there a Bloomie there too?? Or is it Cactus Jack/

BTw, he Likey Al Gore for President

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2DC153EF935A15757C0A9619C8B63

[MADem]

106. So he'll split those voters with the Dems, and we'll end up with President Romney. NT

[tabasco]

11. Thank you for using one of my favorite words.

I always liked scuzzy but haven't heard it in a long time and have never seen the noun form. Thank you for adding to my vocabulary. Another one of my favorite words is skeezer.

[Cha]

12. Congratulations to us..

neither word is in my online M-W's but that didn't stop me.

What's "skeezer" mean?

[tabasco]

13. A skeezer is a person, male or female, who is scuzzy and

will do it with anybody, especially for money.

[Cha]

26. I'll bet they'll sell their

country down the river for freakin' buck, too.

[Drum]

7. Hallelujah.

I know, I know...there've been some rough times here in NYC where I live and Bloomberg mayors. I'm not excusing those things, and will always despise him for the '04 Repub convention happening right here in our faces. But I like 'im more than our previous mayor. Or maybe I'm just numb anymore.

Could this be the birth of a Lieberman/Bloomberg indy ticket? :scared:

[monkeyhq]

10. No. Think Bloomberg/Hagel.

I would almost take a Vegas on that one.

[MADem]

107. I agree with you. I think it's a done deal. Remember Hagel's non-announcement?

That's the time frame where they shook hands on that business...

[rpannier]

15. Possibly...but I think Lieberman would only consider running if Clinton was not the candidate

I do think the Clinton's and LIEberman are friends, but running against Hilary would mean he was opedn season for attack. We all saw how poorly LIEberman faired on stage against Kerry, Edwards, Clark, etal in the primaries in '04 (and those are the nice guys).

Running a presidential campaign against Clinton would sink his already leaking raft.

If he ran and lost (which he would) and the Dems pick up 5 or 6 more seats in the Senate he would be out of the caucus because his vote would become irrelevant.

LIEberman would more likely take votes from the republikkan leaning voters (not the core -- the fame 28%) which would hurt the republikkan candidate, whoever that person is. Liberals already can't stand him and won't vote for him. He's a proven liar, which would hurt him among progressive Independents as well.

If it is Clinton, Bloomberg becomes a non-factor. I doubt Bloomberg could beat Clinton in NY, or any of the surrounding states -- He's especially useless if he's at the bottom of the ticket.

IMO -- I've been wrong before.

[DainBramaged]

18. Lieberman/Bloomberg not a chance.

[MADem]

110. I agree with you for a number of reasons.

First, two Northeast Jews on a ticket? Fuggedaboutit.

Second, they don't have that much in common, politically. Bloomberg is too LIBERAL for Joey.

Third, I don't think they like each other that much,

And finally, Bloomberg had that meeting with Hagel, there have been rumors that Hagel was going to switch to Independent, and Hagel did make that "non-announcement."

[grytpype]

14. Holy shiet!

Another kick in the balls to the Republican Elephant!

Maybe this will start a trend... the beginning of the end of the GOP!!!!!!

[MADem]

108. This could help them, the same way Ross Perot helped Clinton.

I am CONCERNED about this--concerned enough that I may start having nightmares about President Romney....

[Greeby]

16. You can take the man out of the GOP................. nt

[DainBramaged]

19. I guess you didn't know he was a life-long Democrat, did you?

Or why he switched parties, do you?

[Posteritatis]

90. Why did he, anyway? (nt)

[Smarmie Doofus]

98. To avoid the NYC DEM mayoral primary.

Primary voters tend to be better read and more discerning than the general electorate.

In the general, Bloomberg knew he could sell himself like an box-full of empty-calories sugar crisp.

[MadAnne]

67. He's a Democrat. n/t

[tblue37]

74. Not really. He is an authoritarian who calls himself whatever he thinks

will get him whatever elected office he wants.

[Catchawave]

21. MSNBC just said

he's willing to spend $500 million of his own money and is waiting to see who the nominees are and if he can win.

I think he just sent a subliminal message to Hillary and Guiliani :evilgrin:

[DainBramaged]

25. Nanananah, Nanananah, hey hey hey, goodbye

Shot over the bow.

Let the speculation begin.


:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[MindMatter]

71. If the choice is between Hillary and Rudy,

I'd vote for Bloomburg. Or at least I'd give that very serious consideration. This is the curse of having a slate of candidates that do their damndest to not stand for anything. The only Dem candidates that have been very clear are Kicinich and Biden. Hillary and Barack are both following that DLC strategy of taking no positions that might offend anybody.

I hope all the Dem candidates take this as a shot across the bow. They are trying to play it way too safe, figuring that the country is fed up so much with Bush that they don't really need to stand for anything in particular, other than not being Bush.

[MADem]

111. What if it were between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney? Who would you vote for then?

Either scenario, if there are enough people like you, will give us a President Rudy or a President Mitt. You do realize that, don't you? Ask George H. W. Bush, who still can't believe how badly Ross Perot screwed him....

[MindMatter]

115. I refuse to accept the blame

The blame lies with candidates who will not take positions that clearly show our principles and will not propose specific progams that show our priorities.

The current batch of candidates so far is following the DLC playbook.

If we nominate Hillary, we deserve to lose. She is unelectable.

[MADem]

116. You didn't answer my question. The nominees are HRC and Mitt the Shitt.

Bloomberg is a third party candidate running with Hagel.

Who are you voting for?

[JoFerret]

23. He will not want to be/ settle for bottom of ANYONE's ticket

[Singular73]

24. Bloomberg/Hagel

Takes a bigger chunk out of the Rethuglicans than Hillary...

[DainBramaged]

27. Yup

Me thinks a deal has been struck somewhere in the bowels of the DLC. Maybe ambassador to Israel when his term is up? Administration post under Gore/hillary/Obama?

[fujiyama]

28. Mayor Bloomberg leaving Republican Party

Source: New York Times

Michael R. Bloomberg, a longtime Democrat who switched to the Republican Party to run for mayor of New York City in 2001, announced this evening that he is changing his party status and registering as an independent.

Mr. Bloomberg maintained that “my plans for the future haven’t changed,” but his decision — the first change in party affiliation by a sitting New York City mayor since 1971, when John V. Lindsay switched from Republican to Democrat — immediately set off intense speculation that he will enter the 2008 presidential race as an independent.

Mr. Bloomberg, 65, a billionaire businessman, narrowly beat a Democrat, Mark Green, in his first run for elected office, in 2001. He was re-elected by a wide margin in 2005.

Read more: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/bloomberg-leaving-republican-party/

[DainBramaged]

29. All of us in NY/Metro KNEW he wasn't a Rethug

Has been a great "Democrat" in "Republican" clothing since his first primary years ago.

And a better fucking Mayor than Rudy could ever hope to be.


I wish he'd go back to being a Democrat instead.

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19317522/

[davidwparker]

31. "back to being a Democrat instead" - maybe he doesn't recognize the

party anymore. Why did he switch in the first place? I don't know much about him -- other than he could keep Billary out of the WH.

[DainBramaged]

33. He switched to make it easier to become Mayor in 2002

He's a multi-billionaire, who wanted to make a difference for NYC. So he switched to beat Marc Green who had been the Democratic candidate.

[aquart]

42. He switched because the Dems didn't offer him the nomination. He said so.

It was ambition. Vanity. Pique. For the most part, I like him as a mayor but he's autocratic to the max and a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. He doesn't seem spiteful in defeat, however, which is a nice change from George. But you CANNOT turn your back on him.

[DainBramaged]

44. "It was ambition. Vanity. Pique." Isn't that what politics is about??

With the exclusion of Elliot Spitzer (NY Governor), it's all ego ambition and vanity.
And if he takes votes from the Republicans, so be it.

[aquart]

48. He'll take independent and Democratic votes.

Republicans wouldn't touch him.

[DainBramaged]

52. I don't think so I have no intention of voting for him

but, you know Mike so.........:sarcasm:

[JoFerret]

58. Sane republicans would. (to the extent there are any still lurking)

.

[DainBramaged]

59. I am POSITIVE they are

[soleft]

100. You don't think Spitzer has ego and ambition?

Ask Hank Greenberg about that one.

[MADem]

112. He pulled a Lieberman, in essence. Lose the opportunity to run under one party's flag, so shop

around until you find an empty slot (or make one of your own).

I am of the opinion that a Bloomberg run would give us President Romney. And that's a bad, bad thing.....

[ScreamingWhisper]

80. I still don't see what so appealing about Hillary.

She's served two terms as a senator but has yet to make a notable stand against *, except for rhetoric

[JoFerret]

57. FAR better than Rudy could even imagine being

[DURHAM D]

30. Let's call him "Wac-A-Mike"

You never know what hole he is going to pop up in.

[DainBramaged]

34. Do you live in NYC or near it? Speak up.

Of course not, North Carolina is only a light year away from NYC.

[quiet.american]

35. Yep -- we've been discussing lately how Bloomberg seems unleashed now that Spitzer is Gov.

A friend and I have been talking about how Bloomberg is behaving much more like a Democrat now that Pataki (R-Waste of Space) is out of office, e.g., Bloomberg's initiative to make NYC a "green" city in the next few years, and a few other noises he's been making.

I can see right off how 'Pugs will attack him though, if he's thinking of running for national office -- something along the lines of, "Mike Bloomberg has been a Republican, Democrat and now calls himself an Independent....what will he be next? (Ominous music) Vote for Mike Bloomberg and he might just change on you. Slow fade.

If Bloomberg is thinking of running for national office, he'll have to be quick on his feet to avoid being defined like that right from the start.

[DainBramaged]

39. MB is a self-made billionaire, think he's slow?

He'll shut them up.


I think the 'Pugs are attacking him already.

[quiet.american]

60. We'll see how he does. n/t

[DURHAM D]

36. What's wrong with you?

Is this a New Jersey thread only?

[DainBramaged]

38. What's with your comment about Bloomberg?

Do you read the NY Daily News or Newark Star Ledger or Bergen Record every day (on line?)

I do. I have a clue about NYC.

[DURHAM D]

47. I guess you don't get the reference to Wac-A-Mole.

Anyone who has had three political affiliations is subject to such a reference.

Apparently you are not aware that there are people in states other than New Jersey who keep up with NY news. Also, an indication that someone is perhaps planning to run for national office can be discussed by someone other than you.

And further, why are you so interested in an independent candidate. This is the Democratic Underground - not the Independent Underground.

Goodbye.

[DainBramaged]

53. He was a LIFE-LONG DEMOCRAT before he ran for Mayor

Couldn't run as a Democrat for Mayor since Marc Green has been anointed, and ran as a Republican BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN 2002.

[tblue37]

75. But he was sure in bed with the Rethugs during their '04 convention! (eom)

[DainBramaged]

82. Really, were you there, or was it for the income for NYC?

[tblue37]

83. People's rights were widely violated on his orders.

Both legally protesting citizens and citizens who were not even involved in the protests were swept up. Income for NYC is not a good excuse for abuse of police powers.

[DainBramaged]

84. You have proof? I remember well, and I was sure the Police Commissioner gave the orders

Sites? Links? Proof? shot of rum?

[MADem]

113. What??? You're suggesting that the city's MAYOR didn't have positive control over his own police?

Yeah, that kind of leadership is JUST what we need in a President.

To say nothing of a President who weekends in the BAHAMAS and is heavily invested in the Euro. What will be the term for his paramour--First Girlfriend???

Go on, insult me, too, while you're at it--you seem to be doing a great job of ripping everyone who makes comments that are contrary to your opinion, I notice.

Oh, and I am in NYC frequently--in Kew Gardens, to be precise. So I guess that gives me "permission" to voice my opinion, unlike those poor folks who have the nerve to chime in from Carolina and elsewhere...

:eyes:

[Blue-Jay]

32. Is he gearing up for an "independent" presidential run?

That would make things very interesting.

[alfredo]

40. With some renegade Republican from the upper west?

[DainBramaged]

55. Takes the steam out of any Republican press right now

[IndianaGreen]

70. There has been a lot of talk about an indy run by Bloomberg, who has very deep pockets

but Bloomberg has said that he is not interested in a Presidential run, so far.

[Smarmie Doofus]

94. Almost all of said 'talk' has sprung....

... suspiciously, in my opinion.... from the metropolitan section of the NY Times. Complete with the perfunctory "denials".

I've yet to encounter a single New York citizen who has offered the opinion that Bloomberg should run for , or serve as, president.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

41. Right sure, you must have loved that phrase during Kerry's run

Why delete your claim of flip-flopping????????

[dweller]

43. give_me_a_break

i hated it as much as anyone, but now, will it come up again from the repubes?

<crickets> i'm sure.

dp

[DainBramaged]

45. Who gives a shit? Not me, why you?

You and I are done talking. I live 28 minutes from NYC via Route 80 (no traffic) and 90 minutes from Yankee Stadium. since you don't want to tell us where you come from, I don't care.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squatch]

46. A tiger can't change its stripes...

did I get that saying correct?

[aquart]

49. He's not a tiger, he's a billionaire.

And he changes parties like underwear.

[DainBramaged]

50. Then he's still a life-long Democrat

[DainBramaged]

54. Look, for all of you nay-sayers, until Al Gore says he is running

It's tossed salad on both sides, and I don't give a flying fuck through a rolling donut what happens until we get to 2008. This announcement by Bloomberg is great theater, but for all of you "know it alls" who are attacking him, maybe you should bone up on NYC politics.

[Javaman]

56. After his speech on the west coast I got such a strong feeling he was going to bail nt

[LeftishBrit]

61. He seems to spend his life switching parties!

Is he actually any good as a mayor.

[entanglement]

117. He's just another enemy of the working class - n/t

[mcscajun]

62. Next year's bestseller: Buying the Presidency

This article in Salon.com is worth watching a ad for (that's how you get the free Day Pass).

...make no mistake, the Bloomberg high command is serious about calculating all the odds and angles, comfortable in the reality that a Daddy Warbucks candidate can defer a decision until early next year.

-snip-

"Bloomberg has everything he needs to run for president without consequences," said a leading New York City Democrat. "And he's self-centered enough to do it."

-snip-

What gives Bloomberg's third-party presidential speculations more heft than, say, those of antiwar GOP Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, is cold hard cash. (Bloomberg and Hagel, incidentally, dined together recently in Washington, raising the possibility of an alliance.) With a net worth of $5.5 billion (according to Forbes magazine), Bloomberg would be assumed to spend $300 million to $500 million of his own money on building his own tollway to the White House. The mayor, whose reelection in 2005 was never in doubt, still spent $80 million to guarantee a second term.

Winning ballot access in all 50 states, while daunting, is achievable, especially for a candidate who can afford an army of petition gatherers and election lawyers.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/12/bloomberg/

[DainBramaged]

65. Isn't it bought and paid for anyway???

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hug:

[mcscajun]

66. Yeah, but that's in the aggregate. For Bloomberg, it would be

about like me buying a new stereo.

[DainBramaged]

85. An expensive stereo at that!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2DC153EF935A15757C0A9619C8B63

He likey Al Gore too.

:yourock:

[MadAnne]

69. I would just as soon Bloomberg pay for it

instead of corporate America.

[earthside]

63. And the Winner Is ...Mike and Chuck

I'm tellin' ya ... the next President of the United States will be Mike Bloomberg.

Americans want REAL change -- a credible, sane, serious, multi-billionaire with a sitting U.S. Senator as his running mate would offer them a genuine choice.

Unity '08 is already setting up an independent campaign orgainzation

Handicap it this way:

If the Dems nominate Hillary, it's an easy Bloomberg win (Mike wins NY); Obama would make it more interesting; it might be tight with Edwards (because Edwards could indeed pick-up a couple of southern states).

Bloomberg hurts Republicans the most (because of the virtual collapse of their party ... thanks George and Dick), but even some progessive Democrats, Greens and Libertarians will find it appealling to vote against "the establishment" ... even if he is a super capitalist.

As per this week's TIme magazine cover story, look for Republicans like Arnold to endorse Bloomberg; there will be similar independent Dems who will endorse Mike.

The radical Republicans simply will not have a credible candidate for President in 2008 -- the GOP nominee will come in third.

This will be like the election of 1912, but this time the Bull Moose candidate takes the prize.

And, frankly, like TR, Bloomberg might actually be a fairly progressive President.

[tinrobot]

89. 1912 or 1992?

Seems like the last time we had a serious three-way race, the Democrat won.

[BestCenter]

91. 1912, too!

Wilson beat both Taft and Teddy.

But would a Bloomberg/Hagel (or Lieberman or Gore) run be the only Independent run on the plate?

Would there be a separate run by Gore? Would McCain break from the party if he isn't nominated? Just who else might be going indie?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

64. Bloomberg-Wes Clark and Hillary could finish third.

[robinlynne]

68. He had a big meeting yesterday here in LA with our mayor (D). lots of

press. lots of "let's change the nature of politics in America. The federal government is not acting. It is time to act". But more about "anti-partisanship", than about actual programs.
Didn't pay much attention, but it was all over the local LA news.

[FVZA_Colonel]

72. What exactly are his qualifications to serve as president?

I'm not being sarcastic, as I do not know that much about his background, and am genuinely interested in this question. What political offices has he held other then that of the mayor of New York?

[DainBramaged]

88. What were Shrub's???

[Smarmie Doofus]

96. He has none. nt

[mcscajun]

99. He's the founder of Bloomberg L.P. which sells financial information

(via company-developed software) to Wall Street firms. Bloomberg L.P. also owns Bloomberg Radio Network/Bloomberg Television.

He has held no other political offices besides Mayor of New York.

As to his background, he was a general partner in Solomon Bros. He doesn't live in the traditional NY Mayor's residence, Gracie Mansion, but in his own Upper East Side residence. He frequently rides the NYC subways to work at City Hall, even when the alerts are up.

There's an article on Wikipedia which has lots of info on his political opinions/aspirations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

For my part, I can't buy that he's NOT running for President. He changed his political affiliation from Democrat to Republican in an opportunistic move to become NYC's mayor, he paid millions upon millions of dollars in his re-election bid which he was bound to win anyway, and he can fund a Presidential run without asking for a single donation. Now, when he can't run again for Mayor of NY, he's changed his political affiliation again: if he's not running for something, why bother? :shrug:

I've been thinking that if Fred Thompson runs (as seems increasingly likely), he'd get the nomination without a sweat. I figured he'd be the one we'd have to run against: now, I'm not quite so sure of that. We've been all but destroyed by two terms of the "MBA President", now we're threatened with the CEO-Billionaire President? Fuck.

[tblue37]

73. He used authoritarian police methods to protect the Republicans from

legitimate protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention, and in the process had hundreds of innocent people swept up and illegally held for days in intolerable conditions.

And by "innocent," I mean both those who were legally protesting and those who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, not even associated with any protests, and got swept up when they went out to get doghnuts and coffee for breakfast.

I have had it up to HERE with these authoritarian types who think they can do whatever they want to American citizens just because dealing with us legally and respecting our rights is inconvenient for them.

[Smarmie Doofus]

93. Lawsuits related to which have cost NYC taxpayers...

... not Bloomberg... huge chunks of change.

[ryanmuegge]

77. Maybe big business will formally have their own party now.

He probably won't even run as an independent...

Why not? I don't see how corruption can get any more brazen these days.

[Smarmie Doofus]

97. They don't already? nt

[harun]

101. They already have two parties, don't need another(n/t)

[ScreamingWhisper]

78. I've never denied that I'm a former

Republican...who voted for Clinton in '94 and '96.
BUT,
Bloomberg has never shown the party backbone he initially ran and won for his election as NY mayor. I read his comments and other commentaries here at his performance, and I can only shake my head. The premise of the modern Republican party has always fronted: :"Smaller national government; Stronger state rights,;smaller, more effiecient budget; ...and yet, Bloomberg has consistently moved toward an ever-intrusive presence of government in NY. I shiver to think if he ever made his preferences known on a national level. This man especially concerns me on his issues of National security and the import to re-build the city he inherited. A hole still stains our proudest city, but he feels he may provide a better vision? Better to leave the political with his billions, and let others move our country toward a stronger stance than his myopic view can allow.
Personally, none on the Democratic ticket "wow" me yet...same ol rhetoric. It's still many months out and I'm still waiting for the chaff to fall away so far.
Bloomberg is nothing to concern ourselves about...his "Know best for all, even if they don't want it." mentality will never pass on a national test

[ScreamingWhisper]

102. no longer able to edit...'92 not '94

the difference between 2 beers and 5 beers :P

[Up2Late]

79. Well I ain't voting for him or any other Billionaire DemRethuglickIndepenlickcan.

And wouldn't he have a MAJOR conflict of interest because of his Media empire?

[dave29]

81. Whatever you think of Bloomberg, he recently endorsed the idea of a Gore Presidency

which certainly turned my head. He has shown signs that he wants to be green, and like Gore seems to think that green technology could be a cure for the ailing economy.

He may have changed parties, but I don't think he ever truly stopped acting like a progressive. Then again I do not know him that well.

Regardless, he is a shrewd politician-- and businessman, which means he should be taken very seriously.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2DC153EF935A15757C0A9619C8B63

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday that he hoped former Vice President Al Gore would run for president in 2008, saying ''I think it would be good for the country.''

The mayor made the comments to reporters after a news conference kicking off the Tribeca Film Festival, as the two men took the stage and teased each other over speculation about their respective presidential ambitions.

The former vice president was on hand to highlight the roughly 60 films in the festival that focus on environmental issues. Mr. Gore, whose profile has been raised in recent months by his starring role in the Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' praised Mr. Bloomberg for several environmental proposals he released earlier this week, saying they included some ''gutsy moves.''

[tinrobot]

86. Gore / Bloomberg?

I know it's an odd thought, but if that happened, Bloomberg could bankroll the whole campaign.

[Smarmie Doofus]

92. A Gore "presidency", or a Gore *candidacy*?

>>Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday that he hoped former Vice President Al Gore would run for president in 2008, saying ''I think it would be good for the country.''>>

[april]

103. don't believe that ..it just like Joe they change coats like a wolf in sheep's clothing

[JPZenger]

104. NPR - He Can Wait Until Mid-2008 to Decide to Run

NPR had an interesting story this morning on Bloomberg. They said that Bloomberg has the luxury of waiting until mid 2008 to decide whether he will run as an independent. That is because most states do not require nominating petitions for 3rd parties to be filed until then. He doesn't have to worry about raising money, because there are no spending limits on spending your own cash.

NPR's commentator said that each party should have decided upon their nominee in February because there are so many primaries by that time. He said Bloomberg may be hoping that the general public will be disappointed by the two choices that are left in the race at that time and millions may be looking for a third choice - which could be him.

[MADem]

114. They nailed it, NPR did. It's a cogent analysis. NT

[LVZ]

118. Electoral College Considerations

Frankly both of the major dinosaur parties have strayed from their own ideals so far that neither is really credible. I think someone who is competent, pragmatic, and not a knee-jerk partisan is very attractive to me. Unlike Perot (who I could never vote for under any circumstance), Bloomberg is also not a certified nut job (who still got 19% of the vote).

One FUD (fear-uncertainly-doubt) counter-appeal that will be suggested is that if Bloomberg wins a few states (as George Wallace did in 1968), the election would be decided in the US House, where, unfortunately, I have heard, each "STATE" gets one vote.

Theoretically, in the Presidential election of 2004, if a third party had won Ohio and Florida, instead of the Republicans, the GOP still would still have won the presidency because the Dems only won 18 states and the GOP would have won 30.

The flaw in this alarmist appeal is that if Bloomberg did not win in 2008 but won enough states that no candidate had a majority of electoral votes, there is nothing that would preclude Bloomberg before or after the election to instruct his winning electors to switch their electoral votes to one of the other parties, presumably the Democrats.

.

[WindRavenX]

109. wow

NT