Third-party follies -- Paul and/or Bloomberg in 2008

4) Among Repubs. Dems didn't seem to care that Clinton used the Oval Office for BJ's.They are remarkably tolerant of love and lust

Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.

Somebody should from what I've seen of the choices on offer so far. Who could carry off a State visit to H.M. The Queen with dignity is a fair enough question.

Monday December 31, 2007 06:27 EST
Michael Bloomberg: Trans-partisan savior
Following along in David Broder's excited footsteps, Sam Roberts in The New York Times reports that Michael Bloomberg "is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run." And a handful of retired, mediocre politicians with no following are issuing self-absorbed, thug-like demands, complete with deadlines:

Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, "I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent."
Is it even theoretically possible for Democrats to "cooperate" more with Republicans than they've been doing since taking over control of Congress?

The NYT article quotes actor Sam Waterston of the painfully silly, substance-free Unity '08 group describing the promise of Bloomberg's candidacy as promoting "Unity08's principal goals of a bipartisan, nonpartisan, postpartisan ticket." The website Unite for Mike -- a grass-roots movement that now has 500 supporters! -- says that Bloomberg "has the vision, experience and passion of a true and demonstrated leader" and that Bloomberg can solve this problem: "Our international leadership has become confused and directionless. We are no longer the shining beacon of freedom and justice to our fellow nations."

Here's Bloomberg's record of Independence, Judgment, Competence, and Trans-partisan Wisdom. Consider how sterling his judgment is and how able he would be to make the world respect us again:

NYT, May 11, 2004:

Laura Bush and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg stood shoulder to shoulder yesterday in an appearance that may well dispel any lingering doubt as to the mayor's feelings about the president, or of the mayor's own political identity. . . .

[T]here he was yesterday, throwing in his words of support for the president's decision to invade Iraq -- promoting one of the notions that is central to the rationale for the attack, that the conflict was justified by what happened on Sept. 11.

"Let me add something to that," Mr. Bloomberg said after Mrs. Bush gave her defense of her husband and his decision to go to war. "Don't forget that the war started not very many blocks from here."

Joe Conason, Salon, June 22, 2007:
Dating back to his infatuation with Bush, the mayor has always been an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq. He marched lockstep in the Bush drive toward invasion when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly in September 2002: "Freedom comes at a price, and tragically, sometimes that price is the commitment to defend freedom by arms. America has been, is, and always will be willing to do its duty -- to sacrifice even its own blood, so that people everywhere can live as individuals responsible for their own destinies." (As Wayne Barrett once pointed out in the Village Voice, the man spouting this brave talk got out of the Vietnam draft because his feet are flat.)

Bloomberg's pro-war rhetoric dutifully echoed the White House line connecting Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida and 9/11, almost as if Karl Rove had programmed his brain. "I'm voting for George W. Bush and it's mainly because I think we have to strike back at terrorists," he said in September 2004. "To argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist is ridiculous. He used mustard gas, or some kind of gas, against his own people."

Bloomberg's speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention:
I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.

(APPLAUSE)

The president deserves our support.

(APPLAUSE)

We are here to support him.

(APPLAUSE)

And I am here to support him.

(APPLAUSE)

NYT, January 29, 2004:
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 New York State. Everybody thinks I'm crazy, but I think we can do it.
Wayne Barrett, Village Voice, October 18, 2005:
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. . . .

Even before the war, Bloomberg brought his mother and daughter to the United Nations, where he addressed the General Assembly a day after Bush did in September 2002. Echoing Bush's warnings that the U.S. would go it alone if the U.N. didn't act, Bloomberg "praised" Bush's war on terror "and offered support for an attack on Iraq," according to the Daily News.

Michael Bloomberg Press Release, July 17, 2006, as the Israeli bombing of Lebanon proceeded:
Israel rightly continues to defend itself from unprovoked attacks on innocent civilians, and the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Let there be no doubt: Hamas and Hezbollah must return the Israeli soldiers they abducted and cease their attacks against Israel.

I have said time and again that you cannot negotiate when there is a gun to your head. The international community needs to send a clear message to these terrorist organizations -- and the countries that fund and support their reign of terror -- that these kinds of attacks on peaceful, democratic nations will not be tolerated. . . . .

I commend President Bush and his cabinet for their continued support of Israel and its right to defend itself. I deeply hope that the fighting will end soon, and that all the innocent people affected by this conflict will again be safe. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those soldiers who have fallen in combat, the brave sons and daughters of Israel who are defending Israel's freedom at this very moment, and with the people of Israel who are an inspiration to all of us as they continue to go about their lives in the face of such uncertainty.

I have always believed that the fate of Israel and the future of New York City are deeply connected. If Israel's democracy is compromised, so too are our freedoms here at home. A strong Israel means a strong America and a strong New York. And as Americans and New Yorkers, we must continue to stand with Israel as we have done for the past 58 years, and we must never lose our hope for peace.

Rolling Stone, August 22, 2006:
Bloomberg, in fact, identifies strongly with the defeated Democrat from Connecticut. "I think what they're doing to Joe Lieberman is a disgrace," the mayor volunteered when I met with him in his offices in July, shortly before anti-war bloggers helped Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary. . . . A few days later, Bloomberg was offering to campaign for Lieberman.
He also is as enamored of government control, police powers and surveillance as anyone in the Bush administration. He is an unrestrained advocate and enforcer of the War on Drugs (despite his own acknowledged use of marijuana, of course) and advocates the creation of "a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers," about which the NY Civil Liberties Union said, with extreme understatement: "It doesn't sound like the free society we think we're living in. It will inevitably be used not just by employers but by law enforcement, government agencies, schools and all over the private sector."

Clearly, this is just exactly what our country desperately needs, what it is missing most -- a neoconservative, combat-avoiding, Bush-supporting, Middle-East-warmonger who sees U.S. and Israeli interests as indistinguishable and inextricably linked, with a fetish for ever-increasing government control and surveillance, and a background as a Wall St. billionaire. We just haven't had enough of those in our political culture. Our political system, more than anything, is missing the influence of people like that. That's why it's broken: not enough of those.

Bloomberg is basically just Rudy Giuliani with a billion or two dollars to spend to alter the election

Spoiling For A Victory

by digby

Glenn Greenwald has a nice rundown today on the policies of our lastest post partisan saviour, Michael Bloomberg, of the Wet Bloomer party. Let's just say it all sounds familiar --- a thrice married, pro-choice, New York mayor with distinct authoritarian tendencies and a bunch of jackass supporters and advisors. The only thing truly distinct about him is that he is a big money boy instead of a full-on fascist, a distinction that doesn't matter much when it comes to what he would do as president.

In reading Glenn's rundown I realized, however, just what a problem this could be for the Democrats. It's becoming clear now (and to my surprise, actually) that once Republicans got a look at their own mayor of Sodom, they just couldn't stomach him, even though he explicitly promised to mow down as many dark people as he possibly could. He's just too ethnic, too urban, too culturally removed.

Unfortunately, Bloomberg's the man an awful lot of Dem leaning independents have been yearning to vote for (particularly if the rhymes-with-witch wins the nomination.) There aren't enough of them to win an election, of course. Just enough to screw the Dems.

Here's a man who has been in both parties and has now rejected both of them. What could be more wonderful that that! He is richer than God, and there is nothing that makes some American hearts go pitty-pat more than a fabulously wealthy billionaire who might pay a little lip service to poor people, but clearly isn't going to do anything radical about it. Means he's a winner. He doesn't care about religion, and is pro-choice, so there's little danger that he'll make them uncomfortable around their friends. He doesn't have any of the cultural signifiers of Perot, and while he's not a complete neophyte (which really thrills swing voters) he hasn't sullied his hands with too much politics, which means he isn't tainted by that horrible epithet "politician." Praise be.

Let's everyone be clear about what's really happening and go from there. Bloomberg's candidacy, if it happens, is designed to deny the Democrats a victory in a year when the Republicans are so wounded and tired they probably can't win it for themselves, even if they cheat. The big money boys aren't taking any chances.

Somebody should from what I've seen of the choices on offer so far. Who could carry off a State visit to H.M. The Queen with dignity is a fair enough question.

The jockeying is not interesting. The coverage of it is. And then there's the matter of the outcome and for that, "interesting" is quite insufficient.

blatham wrote:

The jockeying is not interesting. The coverage of it is. And then there's the matter of the outcome and for that, "interesting" is quite insufficient.

Sorry; the outcome is just interesting for me even when the winner is not who I voted for. I was born an American; I'll die an American. In between the country has different people at the helm and I believe they are doing the best job they can for this country and its people.

Obviously, not everyone subscribes to my attitude. I find my attitude much healthier than being upset because a particular person is at the helm of this country. This attitude/perspective might come from an awareness of the history my family put up with in Europe over the millennia; this country is a virtual Godsend. I wouldn't want to think of myself as an ingrate!

But you, not being a native born American, seem to be quite interested in the election's outcome. That I find interesting.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Foofie wrote:

blatham wrote:

The jockeying is not interesting. The coverage of it is. And then there's the matter of the outcome and for that, "interesting" is quite insufficient.

Sorry; the outcome is just interesting for me even when the winner is not who I voted for. I was born an American; I'll die an American. In between the country has different people at the helm and I believe they are doing the best job they can for this country and its people.

Obviously, not everyone subscribes to my attitude. I find my attitude much healthier than being upset because a particular person is at the helm of this country. This attitude/perspective might come from an awareness of the history my family put up with in Europe over the millennia; this country is a virtual Godsend. I wouldn't want to think of myself as an ingrate!

But you, not being a native born American, seem to be quite interested in the election's outcome. That I find interesting.

I suppose that, to a certain sort of american such as you apparently represent, it would be a startling curiosity to discover that a citizen of some country might have and display interest in the affairs of nations other than his/her own. But heck, even George Bush took a swing at it when he spoke about the contemporary Grecians.

I see that you were "born an american and will die an american". I'd like to note and validate your exceptional accomplishment here. And, it's an accompishment made all the more worthy of applause given your stance of disdain for any criticism of what previous or future american government might get up to. I think Jefferson put your notion of involved and proper citizenship most succinctly...

Quote:

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Would you be so kind as to accept my allegiance to this country.

And, if I ever visit Canada, I will not question native born Canadians on their political positions.

The jockeying is not interesting. The coverage of it is. And then there's the matter of the outcome and for that, "interesting" is quite insufficient.

blatham wrote:

The jockeying is not interesting. The coverage of it is. And then there's the matter of the outcome and for that, "interesting" is quite insufficient.

did you read the New York mag article on the possible New York triad?

it was interesting.

Hope they flush it before he sits on it.

ehBeth wrote:

blatham wrote:

The jockeying is not interesting. The coverage of it is. And then there's the matter of the outcome and for that, "interesting" is quite insufficient.

did you read the New York mag article on the possible New York triad?

it was interesting.

I didn't. What's the title?