Bloomberg perpares for Presidential run as an independent

[Gordon B]

The New York Times
June 20, 2007
Bloomberg Severs G.O.P. Ties, Fueling Talk of ’08 Bid
By DIANE CARDWELL and JENNIFER STEINHAUER

LOS ANGELES, June 19 — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced Tuesday that he was dropping his Republican affiliation, a step that could clear the way for him to make an independent bid for the presidency.

The announcement was released during a campaign-style swing through California, during which Mr. Bloomberg, 65, a billionaire businessman, used increasingly sharp language to criticize both parties in Washington as too timid to take on big problems and too locked into petty squabbling to work together.

“I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead my city,” Mr. Bloomberg’s statement read. “Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles, and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology.”

Even as Mr. Bloomberg continues to say that he has no plans to run for president, his announcement has set off a storm of interest in political circles across the country, where it is being viewed as a signal of his serious contemplation of a campaign. His ability to self-finance a campaign presents him with obvious advantages, including the option of delaying even until next year a decision on whether to run.

Mr. Bloomberg’s aides are working intensely behind the scenes promoting the idea of the mayor’s candidacy and exploring the mechanics of starting an independent campaign.

The aides have said he would travel the country to see whether the message of centrist problem-solving he delivered in California resonates. They would seek to identify states where his positions on major issues — global warming, immigration, a crackdown on illegal guns — could resonate. If he is well received, the travels could begin to lay a foundation for his candidacy.

Still, American voters have been reluctant to embrace independent candidacies. After spending $65 million in 1992, Ross Perot failed to get a single electoral vote. And third-party candidates often struggle to get on the ballot, as they confront often byzantine election laws and frequent court challenges.

Some skepticism remains in political circles about whether Mr. Bloomberg will ultimately join the race. His very public flirtation has helped him, in his final term as mayor, avoid lame duck status and enhance his influence among city, state and federal lawmakers. It has also elevated his profile as an important voice in policy issues, and that stature could give him added heft if he pursues philanthropy full time after leaving City Hall, a path he has frequently mentioned as a possibility.

The intense reaction in other campaigns to Mr. Bloomberg’s announcement, however, reflected the ferment that has characterized the race for president this year, with no obvious heir apparent on either side, an unpopular incumbent president, and a country facing serious problems at home and abroad.

Several analysts argued that a three-way race with Mr. Bloomberg running as a third-party candidate could ultimately prove more of a threat to Democrats than to Republicans. Until he ran for mayor in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat, and his success in New York reflected his ability to draw Democratic votes: he is for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.

Mr. Bloomberg’s aides said he has plans to travel to Missouri and to Florida, crucial swing states, in the near future.

On Friday, he filed papers with the city Board of Elections to change his affiliation, as the public focus on his future intensified. In the space of a few days, he appeared on the cover of Time and in a BusinessWeek special report, and he told an audience of Google employees that the country is “really in trouble.” He stood with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California as the governor told a crowd of reporters on Tuesday that Mr. Bloomberg “would be a great candidate,” in an appearance at Ceasefire, a conference on bridging the partisan divide, organized by the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. “It’s all about fixing problems and creating a great vision for the future,” he said.

While Mr. Schwarzenegger has not been as critical as Mr. Bloomberg about the Republican party, he has differed with many in the G.O.P., and the two men have become increasingly linked. The governor supports stem-cell research and wants to extend health care to illegal immigrants in California. He supports a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq and has frequently derided Washington for failures on border control and other issues.

Adam Mendelsohn, the governor’s communications director, described their relationship as “ symbiotic."

At their joint appearance, the mayor was the big draw, as a throng of reporters and cameramen crowded around, peppering him with questions about whether he would seek the presidency.

Mr. Bloomberg, who has called it flattering to be viewed as presidential material, clearly enjoyed the attention. He joked and parried with the press, and when asked whether he and the governor might team up on a campaign ticket, suggested that the governor would challenge him to an arm wrestling contest to see which of them should run at the top, while he would consult the Constitution. (Only those born in the United States can serve as president, under the Constitution.)

Despite what appears to be a genuinely warm relationship, Mr. Bloomberg does not appear to have shared his strategic musings with the governor. Mr. Bloomberg on Tuesday did not inform Mr. Schwarzenegger that he would announce he was leaving the party later that day. The governor learned of the development when Mr. Bloomberg issued his statement.

Even before the announcement, Mr. Bloomberg’s newly sharpened critique of both the federal government and the unfolding presidential campaign, as well as his presentation of his mayoral record as the solution, sent clear signals that he is making a case for himself as a candidate. Traveling from San Francisco to Silicon Valley and here, he used pointed language to attack the ways of Washington, while promoting his own centrist approach.

“We continue to struggle from big problem to big problem with Band-Aids and the bleeding continues and nobody is really ready to stand up and make the tough decisions,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

“And I can tell you from personal experience it’s not fun when somebody boos you, it’s not fun when people vilify you, it’s not fun when you read in the paper that nobody likes you. But if you do what you think is right, in the end I’m a believer that the public is a lot smarter than people give them credit for and they come around.”

While Mr. Bloomberg is drawing headlines now, he clearly has limitations as a candidate. Whatever his successes as mayor, he has never proved to be a particularly personable campaigner, known for giving a stiff speech and given to impatience at the often numbing demands of retail campaigning.

Should he enter the race, that would mean that there would be three major New York figures seeking the presidency this year.

And Mr. Bloomberg has arguably at least as strong a claim on the prosperity that New York City has enjoyed as a former New York mayor already in the race, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who endorsed Mr. Bloomberg as his successor. If Mr. Bloomberg decides to run as an independent or third-party candidate, he may find that he enjoys the benefits of New York City successes without the ideological burdens Mr. Giuliani has faced in trying to win the Republican presidential nomination while being identified with support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.

Mr. Giuliani’s office did not respond to a request for reaction to the decision. Still, Mr. Giuliani is likely to view even this level of flirtation as a serious betrayal: His support for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001, after the attacks of Sept. 11, was critical to Mr. Bloomberg’s success and accounts for why he is where he is today.

Adam Nagourney contributed reporting.

[Gary Sisco]

Another "spoiler."

[Pete C]

In a 3-way race with Clinton, Giuliani and Bloomberg I'd vote for Bloomberg.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Pete C

In a 3-way race with Clinton, Giuliani and Bloomberg I'd vote for Bloomberg.

I'll second that.

[Gary Sisco]

We sure do manage to cough up some "choices" out of 300 million people, don't we?

I've long wondered if there might be a genetic farm somewhere that breeds these "choices" for us.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Pete C

In a 3-way race with Clinton, Giuliani and Bloomberg I'd vote for Bloomberg.

The ultimate subway series.

I'd vote for Bloomberg, too in that matchup.

[Gary Sisco]

I don't know about Bloomberg enough to say but I did just see a note in the LA paper asking if the country's ready to elect an independent, New Yorker, and Jew. It's not my hangup, but I've said for years that the US would elect both a woman and a black American, perhaps even a black woman, president before it would a Jew. Antisemitism is a prejudice more deeply embedded in euro-american culture and for a longer time than many like to admit or even think about.

I think he could be a serious candidate. Certainly he'd have not much to worry about so far as funding goes. I'd have to know his position on a number of things before I'd say whether I'd vote for him or not, but being Jewish would be a plus, to me. I'd like to see that bastion of prejudice assailed as much as others have been.

[Brian Olewnick]

Negatives (as far as the general populace is concerned):

1) Jewish
2) Short
3) Whiny voiced

otoh, he's smart, reasonable, non-incendiary and seems to take very down-to-earth stances on how to handle problems. This may serve him better in a mayoral position, where his effect can be pretty direct, than a presidential one but I'd certainly be willing to take that chance. Unless, miraculously, either the Dems nominate Richardson or the Repubs Paul, I'd vote for Bloomberg, no problem.

Pity the poor evangelical Protestant voter given a choice between Giuliani, Bloomberg and Clinton. Can't vote for a damn papist, certainly not for any Jew and no way for Hillary! What's a poor religious bigot to do?

[Gary Sisco]

Start another war?

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

The ultimate subway series.

I'd vote for Bloomberg, too in that matchup.

I would also. And I suppose Gary might be right; being a Jew could hamper him, though probably less because of anti-semitism than the overriding (and erroneous) notion that America is a Christian country.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Pete C

In a 3-way race with Clinton, Giuliani and Bloomberg I'd vote for Bloomberg.

I might too even though I think it must be his fault that I am leaving New York due to increased rents (particulary the housing law change in June 2003 whereby increase caps were lifted on housing that is "stabilised" to prices above market), but you know supply/demand, baby.

[Hudson Boy]

The "Chosen People" is what the Jews are supposed to consider themselves. What the hell are the rest of us, the rejects? Of course, most groups have similar outrageous beliefs about their tribe or civilization.

Although Bloomberg does not appear to be very devout, I'd have far more respect if he said that he isn't religious, and for all practical purposes not Jewish at all. That religion, along with it's bastard daughters Christianity and Islam, is comprised of ancient superstitutions and mythologies that have no place in politics or government. The Founding Fathers, most all of whom were Deists, knew this - but their wisdom is not widely accepted.

If Bloomberg publicy denounced his religous heritage, or even denied being religous, every Jewish organization in the country would go beserk. Even Christian groups and voters that didn't support him in the first place for being Jewish would consider him worse than if he were religious.

Before anybody accuses me of being anti-Semitic, my wife is an Ashkenazi Jew, non-practicing except for going to funerals of family members when necessary.

I'll take Bloomberg as president over Clinton, Guiliani or Obama.

[Gary Sisco]

Paul -- I hope of course that I'm wrong about it, but I'd need to see some evidence I haven't yet.

Once after having attended a meeting of New Left remnants, Bookchin had me provide him with a detailed report, as he always did. So, the first thing I told him was that we were forced to have a confrontation with a guy at the meeting who had, very openly, revealed himself as an antisemite.

Bookchin shrugged and said, "Who isn't?"

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Pity the poor evangelical Protestant voter given a choice between Giuliani, Bloomberg and Clinton. Can't vote for a damn papist, certainly not for any Jew

I don't think that's true, since the Evangelicals include Jews in their own nefarious long-term plan, hence the staunch support of Israel.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

my wife is an Ashkenazi Jew, non-practicing except for going to funerals of family members when necessary.

Like when they die?

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

Of course, most groups have similar outrageous beliefs about their tribe or civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Like when they die?

Uh yeah, teach, like when they've like bought the pine condo.

Edit: BTW, Pete, I'm going to the Keith Jarrett concert tonight at Carnegie. How about you?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I don't think that's true, since the Evangelicals include Jews in their own nefarious long-term plan, hence the staunch support of Israel.

mmmm....it's one thing rooting for Israel as a necessary stage toward the Rapture, maybe another electing one of those Jesus-killers as President.

[tippy]

If we didn't know what we know now and it was then - How many of us I wonder would have been Jesus' friend and how many would have thought he be a nuisance?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by tippy

If we didn't know what we know now and it was then - How many of us I wonder would have been Jesus' friend and how many would have thought he be a nuisance?

Yeah, it's a great point. The guy was probably a dick. Probably let all those "miracles", and other varieties of hocus pocus, go to his head. You sure as fuck wouldn't be asking him what he did that day when you ran into him. It'd be more like "oh fer christs sake, THIS fucking cat again!!"

Either that, or he would have been a loon that our government would have set on fire like that Koresh guy. That wouldn't have been so bad, I suppose.

[Sandi22]

The most radical of Evangelical Christians are all for Israel as they believe when the final big war breaks out, Israel will be in the middle of it. It's their belief that's when Christ will return to earth; but before that the "true believers" will be taken up and away from any harm in the "rapture". It's not that they are for the Jewish state of Israel, it's that they believe backing Israel and the Jewish cause will hasten the advent of the final days, making possible their own ability to walk through the "Pearly Gates", sooner than later. It's purely selfish, it's a radical, selfish belief.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

You sure as fuck wouldn't be asking him what he did that day when you ran into him. It'd be more like "oh fer christs sake, THIS fucking cat again!!"

Okay, that is SUPER funny.

[gonzo]

like nader before him all he can possibly do is take votes away from the democratic party causing its candidate to lose. as a democrat i don't want this to happen. so i say to bloomberg do not run but instead support the democratic nominee to the best of your abilities.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by gonzo

like nader before him all he can possibly do is take votes away from the democratic party causing its candidate to lose. as a democrat i don't want this to happen. so i say to bloomberg do not run but instead support the democratic nominee to the best of your abilities.

Unlike Nader, Bloomberg plans to run as a moderate. He will take away Republican and Democratic votes. I'm banking on him running as a pro-globalization, pro-trade candidate, which will appeal more to Republicans than Democrats. His positions on social issues and gun control will appeal more to Democrats.

Bloomberg has a small chance of winning.

[Gary Sisco]

It's the independent vote that he'd "take away," which of course can't be done. Both major parties' loyalists account for no more than one-third of the voting population, each. It's the other third that decides elections. Since they aren't of either party, they can't be "taken away" from either.

It'd be just as much the case, anyway, that he'd receive votes that might have otherwise gone to the republothugs. There are a powerful lot of people who normally vote repug who are disgusted with the party and will likely vote for someone who's not a repug next time.

Nader got my vote last time and that one would not have gone otherwise to Kerry. I'm one of the one third that's non-party. It's arrogant to assume that votes cast for other candidates are "taken away" from this or that party. I'd not have voted last time for Bush or Kerry, whether Nader had run or not. I've often not voted for pres candidates because there wasn't one acceptable to me, or voted for a "third party" to help them keep ballot access.

What is his position on firearms? If it appeals to dims, he's lost this vote, already.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by tippy

If we didn't know what we know now and it was then - How many of us I wonder would have been Jesus' friend and how many would have thought he be a nuisance?

He's more of a nuisance knowing what I know now.

[Gary Sisco]

Gordon -- running as a "moderate" what? Moderate isn't a politics. It's an adjective.

Tippy -- If I knew then what I know now I'd have been an atheist wondering why somebody'd flip out so far as to get himself nailed to a cross.

[Gary Sisco]

Gordon -- You asked earlier if I'd consider voting for Bloomberg. After seeing his stance on the Second Amendment, the answer is definitely not. That's the one issue that has the most direct effect on my individual life as a citizen, and the only right that can't be violated or taken away by a show of hands or a second's worth of fountain pen. Any pol who doesn't trust an honest citizen with a firearm doesn't trust an honest citizen. A pol who doesn't trust me, I have no reason to trust. I have no reason to trust any government to begin with, so ... Nope. It also signals, yet again, a lack of respect for the Constitution and a lack of understanding of its history and that of the principles behind it. The history of republican government, and democracy, is the history of armed citizens. People can like it or not, but that is a different question. The history remains, regardless.

Bushist doctrine angers the shit out of me, and it effects me in the abstract in other ways ("faith-based" public trough feeders, for example) and of course in the wallet -- and for the rest of my life, after this mad spending binge -- but they have no real political power of any kind in my everyday life. Municipal politics effects thousands of times more, and state hundreds. But if I stopped reading the news and kept my face in my own personal affairs, the admin and feds would have no effect on my life at all.

I'd as soon keep it that way.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Gordon -- You asked earlier if I'd consider voting for Bloomberg. After seeing his stance on the Second Amendment, the answer is definitely not.

I expected you to say that and I respect your position. I don't like Bloomberg's 2nd Amendment position but I give it much less weight in my personal calculus than you give it in yours.

I couldn't vote for a candidate that would put the US back on the Gold Standard. Period. You and Brian give that issue much less weight than I do but I'd vote for Hillary over Paul.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I expected you to say that and I respect your position. I don't like Bloomberg's 2nd Amendment position but I give it much less weight in my personal calculus than you give it in yours.

I couldn't vote for a candidate that would put the US back on the Gold Standard. Period. You and Brian give that issue much less weight than I do but I'd vote for Hillary over Paul.

Whatever a President's position on either issue, could s/he actually do anything about it? It might cause you to question their sanity/morality but can a President actually effectuate change on either issue? Obviously not on the 2nd Amendment; not sure what would need to be done by whom on the other.