|
OK, this is a rant. Maybe I'm going to regret stepping in this one, but I'm doing anyway, cuz I've got somethin' to say. There are some serious misconceptions about Mike Bloomberg going around.
(In the interest of full disclosure, my current favorite is Edwards, although I'm hoping that Gore runs.)
I find it incredibly flaky and hypocritical for people to complain on one hand about the uselessness of Congress, the lack of enthusiasm for the presidential field, and the generally frustrating state of the Democratic Party's "leadership," but to turn savage against Mike Bloomberg on the other. DU seems pretty united in the frustration with Congress, and rightly so: We worked to elect them, we voted, we gave money, we campaigned and passed out materials and phone-banked for them... in order to end the war and put a dent in the corporate stranglehold on our government. Now that we got them in office, they're capitulating to George Bush, "Mr. 26 Percent," on the war funding, unable to muster a veto override for virtually anything on the neocons' extreme right-wing agenda, and unwilling to consider strong punitive measures to hold them accountable for their crimes. I don't think it's reasonable to attack the Dems for taking out deadlines from the Iraq bill, but I agree -- the bill itself was a capitulation. They gave Bush everything he wanted in that bill. The Congress fully deserves its lousy approval rating.
At the risk of offending the candidate supporters on DU, I'd also like to point out that there is a substantial portion of the lean-Democratic electorate that's dissatisfied with the declared field. Many of them are waiting for Gore. Many are just disgruntled in general. Many are sick of big money politics and sick at heart after seeing the (comparatively speaking) truly obscene amounts of money that everyone raised after the first quarter. I mean, be honest with yourselves -- sure, you'll cheer on Hillary for her blowout showing, sure you'll cheer on Obama for outdoing her in the number of donors, but the liberal progressive in you sees totals like $26 million and then looks at the struggling middle class and working class, maybe even your OWN checkbook, and it's a different emotion that passes through your brain. It's shameful that such amounts of money are necessary to be competitive in the presidential election. If I thought it stood a chance of surviving this Supreme Court, I would support an absolute ban on all donations except those from individuals, and I'd lower that limit from $2,300 to something that's more in line with what an average family could afford. The system that we have is broken.
Republicans are also disgruntled with their party, and they have even more reason to be so than we do.
In general, America is just sick of "politics as usual." It's manifesting itself in the Congressional approval rating, and in the lack of widespread enthusiasm for any of the major party candidates.
Bloomberg's possible candidacy would fester, shrivel up, and die in any other environment. He is not "the enemy" who by virtue of his million$ has the power to exert mass mind control over 25% or more of the population. He is a symptom of the current environment, an inevitable result of it. A parasite, perhaps, that is able to thrive on the well-fed beast that is the American disgust with politics. I've been predicting that 2008 would be a three-way race for some time now, because of this growing rumble of disgust and discontent that I'm seeing across political lines.
Bloomberg's ability to self-fund is also not an evil in and of itself. Yes, it reeks of "buying the White House," but there's another key ingredient that would have to fall into place, and that's the fact that he would actually... um... have to convince a plurality of voters in a plurality of states that he was the man for the job. All the money in the world can't actually buy that. If Bloomberg does enter the race, and becomes a legitimate candidate rather than a flash in the pan, it is the fault of that political machine that we have been dealing with. If the Democratic nominee can't excite people, and votes are lost to this "insurgent Independent candidacy," it is the fault of that candidate for not stepping forward and taking the stances that Americans want someone, anyone, to take. Americans want out of Iraq, yes. But Americans also want their own damn election system back. The post-election poll in 2006 was dead on: Americans' number one issue is CORRUPTION. The corruption of our system is at the heart of everything. What we have is run and oiled by a big money machine, where most people -- quite correctly, unfortunately -- feel that they are viewed by their elected officials as mere sources of votes, a group that must be manipulated periodically in order to keep someone in office, but not someone that their elected officials would actually listen to. They know full well who has the real influence in Washington with most politicians. (Bless those few politicians who aren't beholden to corporate interests.) The fact that George Bush does whatever he pleases despite being Mr. 26% Percent, the fact that the new Congress is doing what George Bush wants rather than what America wants, just reinforces this in people's minds. They aren't being paid attention to and they know it damn well.
The likes of Bloomberg just feed upon this spirit of discontent and cynicism. If he thrives, it will be no one's fault but that of our OWN DAMN PARTY for not listening to the people. Congress is at a lower approval rating than Bush now for that very reason, not listening to the people. 2006 was a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party, NOT a vote of confidence in the Democratic Party. The trial period for the Democratic Party is RIGHT NOW, and our party leaders are failing it miserably. Bloomberg isn't to blame for this. The party had a golden opportunity given them in November last year, and if they piss it away, and get a Vote of No Confidence as well in 2008, it sure won't be Mike Bloomberg's fault.
If the declared (and undeclared?) candidates want to stop a Bloomberg type from becoming a threat, they should look no further than the 110th Congress. There's a perfect example of what NOT to do. Americans want leadership, they want someone who actually cares about We the People rather than We the Corporate Interests. The candidate who realizes this, articulates it, and screams it loud and clear, will have nothing to fear from Bloomberg.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
