"Pondering a Bloomberg run"

[madison]

I have nothing against NYC Mayor Bloomberg ... I don't know much about him.

But I do know a few things:

(1) Bloomberg WAS a lifelong Democrat but changed to the Republican Party in order to run for NYC mayor ... the field of Democrats, in the NYC primary, was too big an obstacle to overcome, so Bloomberg became a Republican ... and won the election.

(2) Bloomberg spent $75 million of his own money running for NYC mayor ... With his huge fortune (said to be about $5 Billion), he was able to buy up all the radio air time and all the TV commercial slots, so that when his Democratic opponent was finally able to raise enough money to buy TV or air time, there was NO air time or TV time available ... many voters did not even know that there was a Democrat running for mayor ... the ONLY commercials that were seen were for Bloomberg. Now that sort of advantage makes me very uneasy. Yes, it is true, with that sort of wealth, Bloomberg is beholden to no one, but it also means he is ANSWERABLE to no one. I have heard that Bloomberg is prepared to spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS of his own money to win the presidency. No other candidate can match that. Do we really want a president who can buy the presidency with his own money, needing no help from any of the rest of us?

(3) If Bloomberg runs a third-party candidacy, he will take votes AWAY from the Democrat, NOT the Republican, because his views on social policy are very liberal ... they are certainly NOT the views that would attract Republican voters. He is FOR gun control and I believe he is pro-choice. He will NOT take votes away from the Republican nominee ... he WOULD take votes away from the Democratic nominee (I don't care which Democrat it is) ... and that would ENSURE that the Republican would win the presidency.

(4) Bloomberg served the desires of the G.O.P. during the Republican National Convention in 2004 and locked up an awful lot of anti-war and other protestors. I think he has a tendency, as a very successful businessman who is accustomed to having his unquestioned way, to see anyone who thwarts him as a menace to be dealt with.

(5) I would certainly prefer Bloomberg to Giuliani any day. I think Bloomberg is a rational person ... I think Rudy is a dictator in sheep's clothing.

(6) Although I would be horrified to see Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee and Bloomberg as a third-party candidate, I have to say that I think it is amazingly wonderful -- and very American -- that no one seems to be talking about the fact that if Rudy were to win the presidency, he would be the first Italian-American president. And if Bloomberg were to win the presidency, he would be the first Jewish president. And all of this is happening in the same year that we have the first serious woman candidate, the first really serious African-American candidate for president, and the first serious Mormon candidate for president. I think all of that is glorious. It's just that I despise Rudy and I fear ANY third-party candidacy that would reduce the Democratic candidate's chances of winning. We cannot afford to have another Republican president ... it is too dangerous to our freedoms and rights.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now, on the general topic of third party candidates: It is a BAD idea ... a Very Bad Idea ... We do NOT have a parliamentary form of government where each winning party gets to have a certain number of seats and the various parties form coalitions to win. We have a winner take all form of government. Therefore, any third-party candidate will take votes AWAY FROM the candidate who is closest to him in political philosophy -- and would hand the election to the candidate the vast majority of voters do NOT want.

Ralph Nader most resembled Democrats and Progressives in the 2000 election and STOLE votes away from Al Gore -- handing the election to George W. Bush. Nader garnered 95,000 votes in Florida ... if Nader had not challenged Gore in Florida (as he had promised NOT to), Bush would NEVER have gotten close enough to Gore to take the challenge into the courts and then "win" in the U.S. Supreme Court. Ralph Nader gave us G.W. Bush. Do we really want to have a repeat of that disaster?

Bloomberg, as a third-party candidate, would give us four more years of a Republican president that could very well turn out to be -- drum roll, please -- JEB BUSH, who would ride in on his white horse at the last minute to "save" the Republican Party from an electoral disaster.

So, please, do NOT cheer for a third-party candidacy ... do not vote for a third-party candidate. Unless, of course, you think this country would be hunky dorey having another Republican president elected in 2008.

[Virginia Dare]

1. A 3rd Party President would be very weak...

which could be good for the Democrats if they pick up the seats that they are projected to. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing to weaken the Executive Branch at this point.

[Exultant Democracy]

4. I am all for a weakend Executive

I have had about all I can take of the unitary theory of executive powers.

[dmallind]

5. Interesting thought.

I confess that had not occurred to me. Probably not going to make me a Bloomberg voter (although in NE I might as well be since anything but Rep is a throw away protest vote) but definitely has merit. A weakened executive who is not a raging loon may not be a bad long term idea.

[Captain Hilts]

2. The Rockefeller Republicans will all vote for him and Wall St. will support him. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

3. I have to disagree

In our current political climate it is clear that Bloomberg would fill the pro-business/anti-war niche, right now 28% of registered republicans are anti-war and he would be their logical choice in a general election. The Republicans are also very unsatisfied by their field unlike the Democrats, and the immigration debate is crumbling their organizational infrastructure. Republicans have far more to fear from a Bloomberg run then we do.

The one exception to this is if we select Hillary, both her and Bloomberg drink from the same pond when it come to voters.