A respectful request for some knowledgeable/verifiable insight into Bloomberg

[Stinky The Clown]

I'm interested in learning more than the current thinking and popular (mis?)conceptions about Bloomberg. It would seems there is an increasingly high likelihood he will run as an independent.

I've seem him described as a 'liberal Republican' (well, duh .... he's a lifelong Democrat who changed parties so he could win an election .... not honorable to some, perhaps .... but no indication of a fundamental change in the man).

I've seen him described as a 'libertarian' ..... but have seen no evidence of that beyond the normal amount of 'libertarian' that exists in most of us.

I've seen him described as both a RINO and DINO. I suspect the former is more true than the latter.

Now ..... I'm not shilling for the guy. I'm seriously asking for serious comments and insight. After all, he may well be part of the mix next Fall. Also, if all you have is "I heard he's ...... " or "He sure seems like ..... " or "Some say ...... " maybe you'd be better off reading this thread with me than participating in it.

[DinahMoeHum]

1. He's no ally of working people, that's for sure.

Back in December 2005, there was a strike by NYC's Transport Workers Union.

The late great blogger Steve Gilliard had a lot to say about this strike, which resulted in victory for the TWU and egg on the faces of Bloomberg and Pataki:

Open Letter To Mike Bloomberg
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/12/open-letter-to-mike-bloomberg.html

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/12/live-blogging-strike-deadline.html

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/12/series-of-miscalculations.html

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/12/twu-wins-major-victory.html

For more, go to www.stevegilliard.blogspot.com and click on "December 2005". Lots of stuff there about the strike and how Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki got punked by the unions.

:evilfrown:

[welshTerrier2]

2. Bloomberg on Iraq ...

"We ask our young men and women to go over and to fight, and if you have a deadline knowing they're pulling out, how can you expect them to defend this country? How can you expect them to go out and put their lives at risk?" he said during a news conference on Staten Island yesterday morning.

"I just think that's untenable and that this is not a responsible piece of legislation," he said. "It is totally separate of how we're conducting the war. It's totally separate of whether we should have been there. The issue that you asked about is plain and simple: Should the Congress pass a law forcing the president to withdraw troops at a given point in time? I think that is not something that is in the country's interest or in the military's interest."

[welshTerrier2]

3. on campaign finance reform

source: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20070611/202/2204

The sweeping campaign finance law introduced by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and leaders of the City Council last week is being championed as the most progressive campaign finance reform proposal in the country. Good government organizations applauded Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn and congratulated them on taking on "pay to play" campaign contributions. <skip>

Introduced at its stated meeting on June 5, the proposal (Intro 586) attempts to sharply limit the influence of corporate and special interests in city government. Having already been recognized for its public financing of campaigns and other aspects of its campaign finance law, the New York City government now proposes to reduce contributions from those with government contracts and from lobbyists by 90 percent.

The bill would:

- Reduce the cap on campaign contributions from government contractors or others who "do business" with the city, such as lobbyists or land use applicants from $2,750 to $250 for council races, $3,850 to $320 for borough-wide races and $4,950 to $400 for citywide races.

- Provide $6 of public financing for every dollar acquired in the first $175 in a contribution, instead of the $4 for every dollar up to $250.

- Prohibit matching public funds for contributions from those who "do business" with the city.

- Include limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships in a ban against corporate campaign contributions.

- Expand the definition of fundraising intermediaries, who are subject to disclosure, from those who deliver campaign contributions to those who solicit funding as well.

- Require that a race be competitive before a candidate can receive public financing.

The bill, according to those who worked on drafting it over a six-month period, is meant to empower New York City citizens by emphasizing smaller donations and limiting the contributions accumulated by those with government contracts.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Unless I'm misreading your two posts ......

..... he's a complicated guy and hard to like or dislike .....

Your first post says he opposes an out of Iraq deadline.

Your second post implies some good stuff with respect to money in campaigns.

That's my problem and the reason I made this thread. He doesn't fit a mold. I find myself not disliking the guy like I might most any 'ordinary' Republican. And since I consider myself pretty well-informed, how might he appeal to the population in general? I'm worried he'll hurt our side more than their side.

[welshTerrier2]

12. the big picture

i wrote some of my thoughts about a Bloomberg candidacy yesterday in this post.

the main point, or at least for me a more interesting point to consider, goes beyond who will win the presidential election in 2008.

much of my focus has been on political activism in the political center. i think it's a phenomenon that's gotten way too little attention. we're all so polarized screaming about the extreme left or the extreme right that we've overlooked the "extreme center".

the grist for this mill was the little revolt staged by the "gang of fourteen". sheesh, their movement even has its own nickname. that spells trouble everytime.

Bloomberg has already said he doesn't want to be a "spoiler". I'll take him at his word for no particular reason. I think he may well be signaling he has a much broader, and much longer-termed agenda. I'm speculating that, if he runs, and maybe even if he doesn't, that the long-term goal might very well be a "gang of fourteen" centrist party. Wild speculation? Who knows?

so, for me, the question is not "what will happen next year"; the question is "what will happen if a centrist third party is formed?" It's not a one-shot candidacy that's drawing my focus; it's a multi-billionaire's efforts to radically alter the American political landscape. Would a new centrist party draw from both sides of the aisle? I'm sure it would. Would it be "exactly equal"? Who knows?

and building even more sandcastles in the air on top of my sandcastles in the air, what effect would a third party in the center have on the major parties? would they lean more to the center, remain unchanged, or move toward their poles (i.e. away from the center)?

taking the Democratic Party as an example, if the Party lost centrist Senators and Congressmen to a third party in the center, maybe those left behind would be less inclined to compromise with their centrist colleagues ... or perhaps the opposite would be true. I really have no idea. The centrist party could wield the balance of power and side only with those who support their agenda. Or, real gridlock could result where the major parties become more polarized and no one compromises.

and for Democrats, if the party pushed hard to please the center, the progressive wing could ultimately form their own party too. and the same in the republican party.

all interesting ideas to ponder. wish i had some answers. clearly, i don't ...

the bottom line here is that I think a Bloomberg run would signal far more than a one-time campaign. 2008 is obviously important but i think the longer-term bigger picture should be a very real part of any analysis.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Well ... as usual ... in the middle of one thread, here we go, off on a tangent.

Your basic notion is a head slapping "well ... of COURSE!"

I agree with the broad notion that most people in the big, mushy center are sick and tired of vitriolic, polarized, hate-filled politics. Sure, no one is dead center. Everyone leans a bit left or a bit right. Or even a bit more than a bit. But waaaaaay out there at the radical edges ...... not too many. However, in an effort to one up each other, the parties often use that radical edge vocabulary, redefine it to sound good to the big, mushy center, and hope for the best. The result is what we have today. A complete lack of collegiality and a too often deadlocked congress, no matter who has a technical majority.

In fact, that gang of fourteen may well have been (at least perceived as being) more representative of the country than we like to think. The fact they tended to act only to Republican/conservative advantage was the outcome of that particular gang, but a generic gang would likely be acceptable to many people.

Previous third party runs have tended to be (or at least seem to be) all one way or another. Anderson was lefty-left. Perot was nutty fringe libertarian. Nader was (seen to be) lefty-lefty-left.

But as you point out, Bloomberg is (seems to be) reasonable, rational, (mostly) accomplished, socially liberal (where most of the country **really** is, the religio-nutters notwithstanding), twice elected, and well (enough) liked by his current constituents.

Throwing off the mantle of party identification is probably going to be seen as a plus. It should damned well be worrying to the party powers-that-be. He could be just the kind of person (rich or not) who sparks the sort of support that accrues to underdogs. Even with his wealth, he's not really thought of in the same way as Bill Gates or Paris Hilton. He'd be seen, I suspect, as the (albeit rich) David going against the Goliath that is the two party system.

In the fallout from that could well be the seed of the centrist party you describe. I can see such a party rapidly become **the** 600 lb alpha male, silverback, gorilla. I also think the Republicans would be more deeply harmed by this than the Democrats.

Interesting food for thought you raised ...... :hi:

[OneBlueSky]

4. I'm leery of anyone who can buy his way into office with his own funds . . .

kind of defeats the whole notion of democracy, no? . . .

[Totally Committed]

5. Democracy is also defeated when a candidates buys the office with Corporate funds....

or Lobbyist funds, or funds from special interests of any kind. A $ is a $ is a $, and when you use it to buy the office instead of jelp those who elect you, it defeats democracy.

When it comes to running for office, the playing field should be LEVEL for EVERYBODY, or it really isn't "d"emocracy at all.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

6. exactly - would it be any better if ...

instead of "buying himself an office" he bought one for someone else?

money in the electoral and legislative process is the problem; not "personal wealth".

[Stinky The Clown]

10. The flip side of your question is ......

.... what personal gain does he get by serving as NYC mayor?

His history has been far less than 'awful'. No doubt there are reasons to not agree (or even like) the guy for one issue or action or another, but overall, what did he gain by self financing his mayoral runs to the tune of ..... what ...... $200 million? If he got back a payoff on that investment, someone might just have noticed.

I'm not aware of anything that indicates he gained personally or helped out pals to the tune of $200 million. Now .... just cuz I'm unaware of it doesn't mean it couldn't or didn't happen ..... again, that's why I made this thread.

[welshTerrier2]

15. money should not equate to power

the point I was making, or at least trying to make, was that whether financing himself or someone else, every citizen should have equal access to run for office and to offer their ideas to the marketplace. my point was NOT that Bloomberg is implicitly corrupt or that he or his friends received kickbacks.

why should a billionaire be able to finance a campaign and gain access to power when a poor person cannot? I think by definition, regardless of what they offer as candidates, every citizen should have equal access. to allow mega-money into the political process, as we do, allows, for the most part, only a single economic class to gain power. I don't argue here for a perfect system; i argue for rigorous electoral and lobby reform. in my view, even using one's own money, does not create a level playing field between the wealthy and the poor.

what kind of government can we expect when only a wealthy few have real access to power? money should not equate to power.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. That's another discussion and one I know you and i agree about

Publically financed campaigns.

Give a nickel/go to jail

Take a nickel/go to jail

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Whenever I hear something like you just said, my mind goes immediately to the Kennedys.

They may be the example of how your notion is bogus, or they might be the one exception to an otherwise pretty reliable rule. I guess, on a knee-jerk level, I kinda agree with your position. On an intellectual level .... not so easy.

While the Kennedys could have bought their way into office, they pretty much only used their wealth as seed money for conventional campaigns. The Bushes, too, for that matter.

But Bloomberg's been different. He started life at the low end of the economic scale. He did, indeed, create his own fortune. (I have NO idea whether there are skeletons in his corporate closet, but I have to think there probably are.) He also has a history of giving away boatloads of money to worthy causes and to have self-financed two mayoral campaigns that resulted in largely popular terms in that office.

As I said in another response, above, this is the kind of thing that comes up that causes me to honestly wonder about the guy.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Very difficult to...

understand someone complicated enough to build a multibillion dollar business, run for office, and flies his Mooney or his helicopter on weekends for a little relaxation. Most things I've seen written about him are puff or attack pieces that should be generally ignored.

Personally, I suspect there's a lot of the patented New York "limousine liberal" about him and I haven't seen anything too terrible. A few things I might not agree with, but he seems like a reasonably decent and capable guy who runs a very effective organization. His public statements and record as Mayor are out there, and not much to complain about.

The only thing I know for sure is that I have met a few people who work for one of his companies and while they rarely actually run into him, they are very happy in the job-- and were even before he became a politican.

About the party-jumping? Well, that's an old NYC tradition going back at least to John Lindsay. Giuliani, btw, was another one who ran as a Republican because it was easier than dealing with the Democratic primaries and boss system. The Republican Party in NYC is a fragile thing that will pretty much accept any candidate it can find, and one who just might win is all the better.

Ambition vs party loyalty? Willingness to serve vs. party loyalty? Either way, it's almost refreshing to have someone able to give the finger to a corrupt establishment. Rudy's problem was that he gave the finger to all of us after he won. Bloomberg probably doesn't understand the lives of the many people struggling day-by-day in New York, but he doesn't appear to hate or fear them, either. And that's a start.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Not much to argue in what you said ..... except the last thing ......

... it is my understanding that Bloomberg grew up lower middle class (at best) in Boston. His fortune is pretty much the result of his own efforts ( be they good, bad, indifferent, honorable, shameful, or even criminal).

[jumptheshadow]

13. Bloomberg -- plus and minus

I was no fan of Mike Bloomberg when he was running for office. I thought he was a spoiled rich guy who was also tilting at windmills.

Trying to be as objective as possible, here's how I would rate his positive and negative points:

Positive

1) He has run the city well for the most part. When he entered office he immediately sought the counsel of minority leaders who had been ignored by Giuliani.

2) He assumed office when NYC was reeling from 9/11 and brought it back to prosperity.

3) He introduced the 311 call-in system in NY, which genuinely works most of the time, putting New Yorkers with issues or questions about the city in touch with the people with direct answers within a minute or two.

4) He wasn't afraid to tax New York property owners when it was needed and to cut taxes when New York was in the black again.

5) When New York registered a surplus, he set a lot of the money aside for the pension funds of city workers.

6) He has introduced initiatives aimed at reducing poverty.

7) He takes risks in order to promote what he sees as the public good, unveiling controversial public health and environmental initiatives.

8) He exudes a sense of objectivity and competence about running government.

9) He is pragmatically liberal on social issues.

Negatives

1) He contributed to Bush and Pataki. This, alone, makes it hard to support him, even though his intention was probably to create good relationships for the city.

2) His cops strongarmed demonstrators during the Republican convention.

3) He has supported the war. Another reason he's hard to back.

4) He used strongarm tactics with the MTA (although the strike deeply hurt individuals and businesses in the city).

5) He obsessively supported the Westside Stadium project, which would have destroyed neighborhoods and have created a traffic nightmare in the city.

He's correct about Republicans and Democrats being too timid and he does have a successful record as mayor in one of the most difficult situations imaginable.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. For me, there's only one black and white issue on that list .....

..... the war.

I'm curious. You say he 'supported the war'. Since his support has no impact one way or another, how did he support it?

That may well be an unintended rhetorical question. He was Republican. I suspect that begat his support of Bush and Pataki and his use of the NYPD during the 04 convention. Not to justify any of that, but it sorta comes with the territory.