What Mike Bloomberg stands for

[DainBramaged]

Gay Marriage

Women's Rights

Universal health Care

Gun Control

A Green World

Energy Independence

Lots of people here who claim to be Democrats/Progressives who are beating him down. He is beholden to none, he hands NO ONE the election, and he hasn't announced ANYTHING yet.

Chill out haters. Get you facts straight.

he wanted to be MAyor of NYC to make changes, not sit on a throne. He snuck into the election because, as a life-long Democrat (read that again, LIFE-LONG Democrat) the party chose Mark Green, who Bloomberg defeated using his OWN MONEY and jumping in as a Republican because the Pukes ran no candidate in the Mayoral election.

He's been a better Mayor than Fudy could have ever hoped to be.

(I KNEW the lurkers would attack him here)

[Captain Hilts]

1. Yes. Bloomberg is a progressive by any standard. nt

[Virginia Dare]

2. Links would help...n/t

[DainBramaged]

5. Read the NY papers on line

you have a computer don't you?

[Renew Deal]

59. Links to what?

The OP is correct on those positions.

[Virginia Dare]

65. The OP said for us to get our facts straight...

but didn't point us anyplace to get our facts, it would have helped, that's all.

[Deep13]

3. Who are the lurkers?

He campaigned for Bush. The Rs are desperate to hang onto power. This will split the liberal vote.

[msongs]

4. lurkers = anybody who disagrees with the op nt

[DainBramaged]

7. nope, anyone against woman's rights, gay marriage, gun control, energy independence

Are you a Democrat like me? My only political party.

[Deep13]

48. I'm against gun control...

...and luke-warm on gay marriage. People who espouse liberal views on social issues do not have a monopoly of the Democratic Party. In fact if you look at voters instead of activists, such people are in the minority.

I don't think there is any real evidence that private firearm ownership poses a significant danger to the public. With tens of thousands of deaths on the road each year and half a million from smoking, the few thousand gun related deaths are not statistically significant. Isolated crimes are tragic to those involved and make for emotional television, but do not significantly affect the violent crime rate. Every argument I have heard for gun prohibition has been make from a rhetorical or philosophical perspective and not from the evidence. On the other hand, no one has a duty to be a victim and gun prohibition effectively creates such a duty. Besides, this issue creates Republican voters out of people who should otherwise be on our side. All the D candidates except for Richardson support some measure of gun control. Unfortunately for liberal voters, HRC and Bloomberg are rabid on the subject. In a 3-way elections, the NRA will make sure that gun owners who may vote Dem. locally will feel like they have to vote R. nationally.

As far as gay marriage, I'm all for it in principal. There is simply no real policy reason to oppose it and in a free country the default position has to be in favor of freedom. The reason I am not clamoring for it is because of the devisiveness of the issue. People in much of the country have a real viceral reaction to the idea even if they support gay rights in other areas. If we believe in democracy, then we have to accept that the people are right in their judgments. If nearly 3/4 of Ohio voters approved of a state constitutional amendment banning not only gay marriage but civil unions too, then it is really not our job to tell them that they are wrong stupid yokels and that we as intellectuals are right.

What I DO support is conservation, tax equity, economic justice, rule of law, international peace, secular government, science, free puplic education, making elections accurate and a lot less dependent on money and national single-payer health care. I am not willing to give that up for hot-button social issues we can't win anyway.

[DainBramaged]

74. First, I didn't ask for a lecture on gun control OR gay marriage, I also ONLY

posted what Bloomberg believes in. If you don't like what he believes in, write Mike, I am NOT his campaign Manager nor am I voting for him under any circumstance.

I notice you jumped right in to defend your gun rights because Mayor Mike is going to affect YOUR gun ownership.

The NRA does itself proud embedding it's talking points. :sarcasm:

Bye

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[DainBramaged]

87. Again, lecture Mike Bloomberg, I'm not interested in your rationalization

enough I don't care about guns, and I don't make fucking laws.

[Deep13]

81. You stated that "lurkers" were...

..."anyone against woman's rights, gay marriage, gun control, energy independence." I took offense at the suggestion that there is only one true acceptable view on these matters.

I did not need the NRA to program talking points into my head. I have supported individual rights over governmental control my whole adult life. And yeah, it's personal. There are people in prison right now who know I am keeping them there who won't be there forever. I did not buy a gun until 2004 when this very religious county went 60-40 for Bush. I never had a reason to be afraid of my neighbors (who are very well armed) until then.

I'm sure you will forgive me for not waiting until I am spoken to to speak myself since this is a message forum open to the public and we still have a fucking First Amendment.

[DainBramaged]

85. What ever, I don't care, lecture someone else about gun love, LIKE I SAID BEFORE

[Deep13]

91. Thanks for the note.

Only an open-minded sends a pm full of personal accusations with a promise not to read a response simply because his opinion was refuted. Bravo.

I did not in any way disparage gays. The only intolerance in this discussion has come from you. Oh, and :hi: .

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jsamuel]

6. He felt the need to be a R until two days ago and suddenly he is a progressive?

:eyes:

[soleft]

12. He's to the left of a lot of Democrats

Always has been

[alarimer]

103. I could easily vote for him

But I think the Democrats should make him VP for their eventual nominee or offer him a cabinet post not to run as an independent (Is that legal- I have no idea).

[DainBramaged]

13. He always was, look it up, read the NYT or NY Daily news on line

Do the research, and check his record. Assumption makes an ass of you and me.

Since when the fuck does DU hang a guy because he got tired of being a Republican???

We all LOVED Bernie Sanders, didn't we???????

[Exiled in America]

16. Wow, you don't know much do you?

Have you ever looked at his record?

He's more democratic than most democrats.

[jsamuel]

19. Is it "more democratic than most democrats" to campaign for Bush?

[mondo joe]

21. I don't know that it's less Democratic than voting for Bush's war.

Just saying.

[jsamuel]

25. The only Democrat campaigning for Bush in 2004 was Zell Miller.

Half of the Democrats voted for the AUMF in the senate.

[mondo joe]

28. And my point is that I don't know that campaigning for Bush is all that less democratic than voting

for his war.

[Renew Deal]

61. Or cheerleading for it like Edwards

And Hillary

[Virginia Dare]

64. I'd have to hear an explanation as to why he campaigned

for Bush before I could make that determination.

[geardaddy]

63. Don't forget Randy Kelly campaigned for Shrub

He was the mayor of St. Paul (D), and after that, people here called for his removal big time.

[Renew Deal]

60. Right

:thumbsup:

[HamdenRice]

8. Also for turning over Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn to the ultra-super-rich

While smiling his way through his two terms, "Mayor Mike" has waged relentless class warfare on behalf of the uber rich. Bloomberg has almost no comprehension of how the middle and working class live, and basically seems to believe that selling off New York to a few ultra rich families, and closing off Manhattan to all but the rich, will solve most social problems.

[DainBramaged]

14. Really, proof, links? Support for you allegations

I've lived across the river all of my life, and Rudy did that his entire terms. Maybe you are confused?

[HamdenRice]

29. Rudy, loathsome as he was, was an amateur

compared to Bloomberg when it comes to privatizing the city for a few ultra rich friends:

http://www.developdontdestroy.org/php/latestnews_ArchiveDate.php

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/are-you-ready-to-pay-to-park-on-your-street/

[GreenPartyVoter]

100. So at best, we're looking at another libertarian?

[HamdenRice]

102. More like a looter -- Bushism with a smile and with class

I would not call Bloomberg a libertarian. Like Bush, he is a big government capitalist. The idea is to use the government to engage in a form of looting, turning over billions of public money to your closest friends. The main difference is that Bloomberg is looting the city of its public real estate while Bush is looting tax dollars.

Also, I will admit that Bloomberg is a classier friendlier person most of the time while he is stealing the public blind. After all, he is a billionaire and that has given him a certain amount of manners.

Another similarity to Bush is his contempt for the First Amendment. Remember it was Bloomberg who arrested thousands of people during the RNC convention in 2004 like a loyal foot soldier to the new fascism. Anyone who protested, or who looked like they might protest, was rounded up and dumped on the west side piers, and held in makeshift detention centers.

How anyone can believe Bloomberg is a liberal is beyond me.

[Virginia Dare]

47. Read the NY papers online...

you have a computer, don't you?

[DainBramaged]

75. We're done here

Goodbye, I won't be sein you any longer. If you have nothing to offer but one line flame traps, bother someone else VD.

[LBJDemocrat]

79. Yeah

Completely agree with you. Bloomberg is the candidate for the socially liberal kind of yuppies.

[Deep13]

82. That's why "liberal" Republicans are Rs and not Ds. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

84. For someone who is so interested in waging class warfare for the rich

I read that he did quite well in Harlem in the last election.

[durrrty libby]

9. The only thing I know about him is that he is stinkin rich

1) How did he become so stinkin rich?

2) From what you say, he has many Dem values
Is he a flip-flopper like Romney?

That is a fair question since he keeps changing his party

3) Another poster says he endorsed boosh. How did he make that jive with
his deep-seated values?

[DainBramaged]

15. So you hate him for that?

[durrrty libby]

17. I didn't say I hate him. I'm asking a couple of questions

[DainBramaged]

22. You asked nothing, you stated he was "Stinkin rich", what was the point?

We all know he was rich. Is that a crime?? He made it we didn't so what.

[durrrty libby]

24. "You asked nothing, "

I asked 3 very simple questions

[DainBramaged]

27. Google=search=link below

http://mikebloomberg.com/en/home

[durrrty libby]

30. What..You can't put a few simple sentences together about

someone you admire?

[DainBramaged]

31. My last post for the day till I get home

I can't "see" who you are and that's because your profile is disabled. Therefore You're ignored.

No more replies from me.

[durrrty libby]

39. profiles don''t let you "see" anything but what the person

wants you to see. One can make up anything

What a a silly cop-out

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. Answers:

1) He founded Bloomberg L.P., among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.

2) He only ran as a Republican so he'd win the primary in NYC -- the Dem field was too crowded.

3) Probably had to because he was (nominally) a Republican at the time -- also, the GOP Convention was held in his hometown.

[durrrty libby]

44. Well thank you

[RB TexLa]

96. delete. already answered, sorry

[Matsubara]

10. I don't hate him, but why do I have to support him?

He's not even a democrat, much less a lefty. I see NOTHING about economic justice in the list you cited, and without that, I have little interest in ANY candidate.

He may not be a far-righty like Bush, but he did not have to join the GOP to run for mayor. And he did not have to campaign for the miserable POS Bush.

I wish him the best of luck in his political life as an independent. Hopefully he will stay OUT of national politics.

Like there aren't already enough billionaires in politics!

[DainBramaged]

18. You and everyone else don't have to support no one

All you need to know is he is one of us, and he played the Thugs brilliantly.


Oh, and he already stated Al Gore would make a FINE President.

[Matsubara]

32. None of the things you mentioned puts him in the Robert & Bobby Kennedy leagues...

...or even the Bill Clinton leagues.



How is it that we have come to expect so little as "he had kind words for Al Gore" and "he's pro-choice".


We used to want visionary people who would push for real, meaningful change, real PROGRESS.

Now we'll settle for anyone who will get us out of Iraq and not take away any MORE of our rights....


It's sad.

[question everything]

11. and an unapologetic (former) pot user

He is on the cover of TIME this week (with Arnold) including this quote:

"You bet I did, and I enjoyed it"

When asked if he ever smoked pot in the New York Magazine


We have come a long way since "not inhaling."


:rofl:

[DainBramaged]

20. Off to work, can't defend my posts til ltonight

Later

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. Okay...then couldn't he just as easily have changed back to Democrat

if that's where he's most closely aligned? :shrug:

[Inuca]

26. Not if indeed he wants to run as an independent n/t

[Virginia Dare]

66. Or run as an Independent for mayor, rather than Repuke?...n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

67. I just have a problem with a candidate switching parties to get a

second bite at an election. If he'd changed it Con or Indy at the beginning (for whatever reason) and ran, that's one thing. But changing it after losing a primary in order to take a second bite and win (or lose) in the GE is scamming the system and the voters. JMHO.

[Virginia Dare]

68. Agreed totally...

I don't know what game he's playing, but I don't choose to play with him.

[bunkerbuster1]

34. You left out "Fucking up our excellent chances to win"

And "Being all about Number One."

Maybe he can get Joe Loserman as a running mate!

[blueworld]

35. Oh Puhleeze - all he stands for is more rich, self-centered, corporate bs

I can't believe there are still people who believe that politicians who switch party affiliations like underwear have "beliefs" other than in themselves.

Bloomers talks a great PR story & does terrific photo-shoots and travels endlessly to tell other people what to do. But oddly enough, his actions are frequently in a dither.

Gay Rights? http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid21749.asp He's always "for" them, but one year he boycotts the parade, the next year he doesn't, then he marches in the protest parade, then he backs a lawsuit against gay marriage bill. While GOP, dither - abandon GOP - he's for it again!

Environmental record? Backs every real estate & development group that exists in NYC, flies them around, appoints them to office. Abandons recycling, resumes limited recycling. While GOP, save money - abandon GOP - green NYC cabs!

It's a miracle how what he stands for is so flexible.

[OneBlueSky]

36. I don't know . . . I'm always leery of someone who can pretty much finance his own campaign . . .

that comes mighty close to buying the office, imo . . . I'll try to keep an open mind, but I'm still waiting for Al Gore to declare and put a quick end to this whole nomination process . . .

[mondo joe]

38. Financing your own campaign at least means you're not beholden to your biggest

donors.

The cost of running a successful campaign is criminal -- but someone's buying it, no matter what. I don't know of any reason that it's worse for the candidate to buy it than it is for their sponsors to do so.

[Selatius]

49. Do you know his stand on corporations and the wealthy?

For instance, does he favor privatization? Does he favor a progressive income tax? What about NAFTA and free trade vs. fair trade?

[mondo joe]

50. Not relevant to my statement. I didn't say he was a good candidate or

one I'd support.

[DainBramaged]

93. Do you know if he's running for President?

None of this discussion matters until he "declares" then all bets are off. He'll drain fence-sitters and disgusted North Eastern Dem's from our candidates, and he'll certainly kick Rudy's ass in the same area because he made Rudy look like a schnook regarding running a "giant corporation" like NYC


But he also has a "mommy complex". No smoking in the city (a good thing) banned trans-fats( I don't eat fast foods, but it appears to be a good thing) wants to reduce pollution and congestion in the city, plant millions of trees.

Those were never Republican traits, but many of his detractor bitch about him (as do so many on DU). He'll be remembered as a Mayor who was tough with the cops and firefighters, took care of the city, tried to make life a bit easier for everyone, and didn't throw his wealth around to the detriment of the poor. Should he have returned to being a Democrat, you bet. If he runs with Lugar, he'll hurt all candidates.

If he runs with Les Clark, he's going to make the race VERY interesting.


If he runs.

Goodnight

[DainBramaged]

88. more power to him, no one owns him, a little acknowledged fact here.

[NeedleCast]

42. I'd much rather politicians

be spending their own money anyway. Not that anyone else running for Democratic nomination (or the Republican nomination for that matter) is Bloomburg rich...but none of them are eating ramen noodles and government cheese.

[SeattleGirl]

76. Exactly, NC. And besides, with the way things are right now, you

don't have a chance in hell of getting very far in the electoral process if you DON'T have money. Some, like Bloomberg, have enough to totally finance their own campaigns; others have to get contributions from corporations and individuals.

It always boggles my mind when I see people hear doing the "rich, corporatist, asshole" song and dance. Yes, some candidates ARE totally in the pockets of the corporations, but as long as the campaign finance laws are the way they are, people in the middle and lower classes don't have a chance in hell of getting elected to much of anything.

Instead of spending energy blasting rich candidates, we should be using the energy to press for true campaign reform. It's sad that only the rich and/or well-contributed-to can aspire to office, especially high office, but that's the way it is right now.

[Beelzebud]

37. Joe Lieberman was a lifelong Democrat too. How's that working out?

[helderheid]

40. I know very little about him so this is music to my ears. Thanks!

[MiniMe]

41. Money n/t

[alkaline9]

45. What I find remarkable is to denounce someone for switching parties...

...how many on this board have said things like "This is no longer America" or "This is no longer my Democratic party"? And how many times have we complained that the 2 party system doesn't give us enough choice? How many here have said "if Hillary is our nominee, I am no longer a Democrat"?

For the record, I'm not jumping on the Bloomberg bandwagon (yet?). I do however recognize his progressive values. Who cares what party he calls himself? After all, if you don't agree to OBEY all party rules/values/etc why even be a part of such a thing? Certainly he has some issues with both political parties. Is there not room for people outside the 2 big parties to join the national debate? Personally I wish there were at least 3 big parties in this country. I don't think that values fit neatly into "this one" or "that one".

I say let the man be heard (he hasn't even declared to be in the running yet). Let the nation hear his view of the issues. Let his agenda be known before we jump up and down and say how unfair it is that someone could not find a niche in either of the corrupt parties.

[JoDog]

46. As a registered independent

I am of course curious as to why Bloomberg has decided to make this move. However, I refuse to embrace or reject him until he actually declares himself a candidate for office and issues a platform. At the very least, I consider his conversion to "none of the above" slightly more genuine than that of Lieberman.

[EVDebs]

51. You left off CORPORATE POWER in your litany. DUers must see

The movie The Corporation. In healthcare, insurance and pharma companies are behind most of the abuse and financial problems in the system; on the environment, some companies (mostly small ones) are doing great things while large ones are preventing the new technologies from emerging--exactly the opposite of what you'd expect 'free market' capitalism to do; and big corporations pay off our pols as we see in campaign finance system we have now.

Bloomberg isn't revolutionary, he's just the latest 'savior' of a doomed party.

[DainBramaged]

77. WTF?

[Peace Patriot]

52. Sounds like he'd make as good (or as bad) a monarch as any Democrat.

They're all running for king, you know, not for president. That job has become "quaint."

Bill Clinton, though he wasn't super-rich when he became prez, certainly did the bidding of the super-rich, not only in welfare "reform," maintenance of an unfair taxation system (legacy of Reagan-Bush, not corrected), but also in super-duper enriching the already super-rich by global corporate pirate policy ("free trade") that vastly enriched first world financial institutios and global corporate predators at the expense (abject poverty, starvation, loss of human/labor rights, loss of sovereignty) of billions of people in third world countries; he instigated the job/manufacturing/services outsourcing that is turning THIS country into a 'banana republic"; he contributed to the war profiteering corporate news monopolies with the Telecom Act; and, finally, he did significant "softening up" of Iraq for the final assault (by Bush) which has meant mind-boggling riches for U.S. and other war profiteers, and further erosion of our sovereignty as to regulating the corporate rulers.

I see little reason to believe that any of the current Democratic candidates (except Kucinich, and possibly Gore, if he steps in) will stray far from the above policies of favoring the super-rich. They pretty much align with Bloomberg. And it could be worth it, in electing Bloomberg as an Indy, to break the power of the DLC over our party leadership.

Just a thought. Haven't looked into it much. Wouldn't it be interesting--if Gore does step into the race, and runs as an Indy--to have the two major candidates as Indies, and our corrupt political parties fading into the background (at least as to presidential politics). The Democratic Party (aside from Dean and his work) has been so-o-o-o bad as to despising and disempowering the vast grass roots base of the Party, and denying us any real choice of candidates for prez (and often for other offices as well), their final comeuppance--the exclusion of Dem power brokers from the prez race--would be lovely to see.

Bear in mind, though, that insurgent candidacies for prez have a rough road in many ways, not the least of which is Repub/Dem control of the rigged voting systems that the Repub/Dem party leaderships put in place to thwart the will of the people on the Iraq War (among other things).

Final thought: Approval - Bush, 28%; Congress, 23%. Do the math. The Democratic Party leadership had its chance. We outvoted the machines in '06 and gave them the majority. I'm beginning to suspect they DIDN'T WANT a majority in Congress, but I also know that, with an estimated 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" (Diebold/ES&S "trade secret" vote counting) in favor of Bushites, warmongers and corporatists, that majority is tainted with "Blue Dogs" (cut everything but the war budget), and is not a true reflection of the Democratic Party membership or the American people. But the party leaders may well pay for their duplicity, doublespeak, cowardice and collusiveness with Bush nevertheless, if a strong Indy candidate for prez (or two of them!!!??) start to take off. People are fed up. And that's a fact.

[madmunchie]

53. Gore and Bloomberg - one more step towards them running

together. Gore is running his own new type of campaign by being the "Uncandidate" and in the fall we will see him join up with Bloomberg (or Bloomberg join up with him).

With Bloomberg's "money" and "NEW" status a an Independent, and Gore's name and wanting to run his own type of campaign w/o being beholding to the DNC or DLC for NOTHING, here these two will come and revolutionize the way that this country does politics!!!!!!! FOREVER!!!!!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!!

[NeedleCast]

54. I'd love to see that ticket

and franky wouldn't care who Prez and who was Veep. However I don't think either of these guys wants to be second fiddle.

[madmunchie]

58. We'll see, but why would Gore even consider going in as VP

AND Bloomberg could always plan on a Presidency after Gore....why not? These two are the right ones to fix our broken political system Gore has the smarts, experience and beginning to be a cult following, along with many heavy duty money backers if beckoned, Bloomberg has stature, and some experience and tons of money. This would be a match made in heaven. Bloomberg denounced the Republican Party.....great first step.

[NeedleCast]

62. Bloomberg was never really a Republican

He switched parties to get out of a mob of democratic candidates and because no one was running on the Repub ticket. I have no problem with that.

And I have no problem with a Gore/Bloomberg ticket. I'd vote for that. Yeah. I would definatly vote for that.

[Virginia Dare]

69. I'm not so sure about that...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/171652/36

[NeedleCast]

72. Those contributions

are something I'd consider and I can't say I'm thrilled with them, however according to the Bloomberg camp they were made to support NYC, which is who elected him. If that's true, I'm cool with that...a politician actually supporting the people they are elected to represent...what a crazy concept!

[Virginia Dare]

73. They gave him a big f.u. anyway..

remember when they cut the homeland security funding and how pissed he was about that? Maybe that's partly why he's abandoning their ship now. Sorry, I can't respect anybody who blows the way of the fortunate winds, but that's my opinion.

[otohara]

55. And What About Iraq & His BFF Paul Wolfowitz?

When Laura Bush came to New York in May 2004 to dedicate a public park to those who died on 9-11, Bloomberg followed her defense of the Iraq war with his own. "Let me add something to that," he said. "Don't forget that the war started not very many blocks from here." The Times reported that the mayor was "promoting one of the notions that is central" to the war's rationale, namely that it's "justified by what happened on Sept. 11."

In September 2004, he said to applause from a small Staten Island organization: "I'm voting for George W. Bush and it's mainly because I think we have to strike back at terrorists. To argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist is ridiculous. He used mustard gas or some kind of gas against his own people."

When Bloomberg appeared before the annual Lincoln Day dinner of the Staten Island GOP in April 2003, he declared: "We are going to get George W. Bush re-elected as president of the United States. We are going to carry New York city and state. Everybody thinks I'm crazy, but I think we can do it." Newsday reported that he "was as boosterish of the Iraqi war effort as he had been so far," quoting him as saying: "It's not only to protect Americans. It's America's responsibility to protect people around the world who want to be free." In this midwar salute, Bloomberg concluded that Bush was "standing up, doing the tough things, and that's what we need for the city."

Similarly, on March 24, 2003, Bloomberg told a Brooklyn church: "If you take out a tyrant who clearly gassed tens of thousands of his own people, if you stabilize a part of the world where, tragically, terrorism goes on every day, then it will have been the right de cision." Even though the City Council passed a resolution opposing the war, Bloomberg called an old friend, Paul Wolfowitz, to express his desire to host a ticker tape parade "to say thank you," apparently as unaware as the "Mission Accomplished" president that the troops would not be coming home for years. Bloomberg actually contributed $5 million to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Affairs in the late '90s, when war architect Wolfowitz was dean.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0542,barrett1,68949,5.html

[blondeatlast]

56. Supporting *'s re-election? I didn't need convincing NOT to consider him,

but now I'll give the okay to close the casket.

[roody]

89. Thanks for the quotes.

Fuck Bloomberg.

[Strawman]

57. Who would help Mike Bloomberg get anything through Congress

Flexibility has been an asset for modern Presidents for sure and he seems flexible, but who would be his freinds on Capitol Hill now that he has alienated both parties who would both have an interest in thwarting him? FDR was an extremely flexible president, but at the end of the day he was a Democrat with friends/partisan cohorts in Congress.

Setting that aside for a minute, I don't see how someone who is a genuine progressive could ever switch to the Republican party. There must be some part of their agenda he is comfortable with. I suspect he is too fiscally conservative, pro-corporate for my liking despite his social liberalism.

I would have to take a look at his positions, but regardless of what they might be, I think he would, in practical terms, deliver the WH to the Republicans by hurting Dems among swing voters in swing states, and even if he did get in, I would be highly skeptical about his ability to accomplish much as an independent.

[Virginia Dare]

70. An independent President would be weak by any measure...

but a weakened Executive Branch might not be such a bad thing after the Bushco years. I'd love to see a good healthy majority Democratic Congress take the reigns.

[Strawman]

71. What we need is a Democratic president and the second coming of LBJ in the Senate

Someone who can master that graveyard of progressive reform and truly lead a Democratic majority. I don't forsee 60 reliable liberal votes in the Senate any time in the near future. Too many conservative Democrats in the Senate. Who the conservative Democrats are may shift from issue to issue, but they're always there, lining up with Republicans and thwarting progress.

And we need to maintain our House majority.

But people get upset because the Democratic Congressional majority hasn't been able to deliver results. How could a politically isolated independent President like Bloomberg possibly be able to deliver results?

[IDemo]

78. msnbc: Bloomberg says he's no White House candidate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19334467/

[RiverStone]

83. Then would he really want Hagel as VP?

Granted, on the surface, Bloomberg seems more progressive than not.

I wonder then why is Chuck Hagel considered a possible VP choice? Chuck has voted right wing wacko 95% of the time in lock step with/for Shrub's agenda (minus his position on Iraq).

Seerms like Bloomberg would pick another moderate/centrist???

[TwilightGardener]

94. Hagel would make up for where Bloomberg is weak: foreign policy and military affairs.

And Hagel will "moderate" himself to be VP--you can take that to the bank. He votes the way he does because he represents Red Nebraska and its Psycho Bushbot base. Cut him loose from that obligation, you'll see a different Chuckie (it's already happening with some recent votes).

[Norquist Nemesis]

97. Or why would Hagel want to be his VP???

Aside from the Iraq Occupation, Hagel's about as far Right as it gets. He's shown loyalty to the Con Party in voting (particularly on close ones) even on issues that he's spoken out about. He's repeatedly said he is a Conservative Republican and has no intention of changing parties.

Hagel would have to do some soul searching...is he willing to give up his principles and party for the spot? Can he get in front of a microphone giving speeches that advance policies he doesn't believe in 100% to support and administration where he's #2? Doing so isn't going to help him earn a #1 spot with voters if in four (or eight) years he's suddenly done a 180 and espousing his "true principles and beliefs". :shrug:

While the 'rumor' is Hagel, he doesn't really match up with Bloomberg on things except for the Iraq adventure.

[BlooInBloo]

86. That's not settled until he gets in the race, and has a chance to flipflop...

... like the other republicans.

[natrat]

90. i'd take him over obama or thompson or clinton any day

[TwilightGardener]

95. Bloomberg over Obama? I don't get that. I don't see any advantage

he has over Obama, other than megabucks.

[Bucky]

99. Bloomberg may be a perfectly fine mayor, be he Republican or independent. But...

The fact remains that if he jumps into the race the only thing it'll do is hurt the Democrats.

[BoneDaddy]

101. One of the few republicans

oops, Independents, I really like.