[Qualarrizab]

.



I support an independent run for the Presidency by New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg. If you're interested to learn some reasons why, please have a look here:

Mike Bloomberg for President, 2008
http://www.RunMikeRun.com

And if you feel the same, please sign this petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/r...run/index.html

Being a New York centric board, I figure this is a good place to find Bloomberg supporters. I hope this will spur some conversation and bring the prospect to the attention of people who may not have been following these developments.

Very truly,
Chris




.

[Retapleapse]

Don't pursue this ^ unless you want to see a Republican take the White House in '08.

Bloomberg, although an attractive candidate to many, would mostly capture votes from disgruntled Democrats who can't bring themselves to vote for Hillary. A Bloomberg candidacy would lead mainly to a split of the Democratic Parties' voting base, with far fewer Republican voters moving over to his side. Unless, perhaps, the Presidential campaign devolves into a full fledged "Who's the better friend of Jesus" situation. That < could lead to a big number of dissatisfied Republicans who find Bloomberg's economic platform to be of more importance than Huckabee's piety -- and more palatable than taking a chance on a candidate as old as McCain.

[MasdMnPa]

You're assuming I'm a disgruntled Democrat, and I'm not.

Depends on who the Republican candidate is. I could deal with a President Romney. He might be as slippery as Kerry, and I voted him (damn Kerry and Romney remind me of each other). At least Romney made his own money, and he has substantial executive management experience. The only positive thing about Hillary is that she brings Bill along with her, and he could be very useful as a diplomat. Obama is a nice young wide-eyed guy with a positive message, all the wrong ideas, and no qualifications at all. McCain, I like him ok. His shameful sucking up to Bush has been pathetic, but he wanted to be the "establishment candidate" this time around. A Huckabee Republican ticket would be ideal, because Bloomberg would then have a real chance.

If Bloomberg gets in the race, I will vote for him, no matter who runs what candidate.

This whole two party duopoly needs to be torn down. Whatever it takes.

[w3QHxwNb]

Don't pursue this ^ unless you want to see a Republican take the White House in '08.

Oh, incidentally, on boards I goto where there are conservative (omg, shock, there are conservatives on the internets!), they all say the mirror of your statement.

They say, "A vote for Bloomberg is a vote for Hillary." and Bloomberg will only be stealing votes away from the pro-business wing of the Republican party, "Don't vote for Bloomberg unless you want Hillary in the Whitehouse."

[23tommy]

This whole two party duopoly needs to be torn down. Whatever it takes.

And you do that by voting for Bloomberg?

Just don't see it.

[thierabess]

^ Why not?

Certainly a worthy goal.

[exeftWabreava]

on boards I goto where there are conservative (omg, shock, there are conservatives on the internets!), they all say the mirror of your statement.

More indication that a 3rd party candidate will do nothing but split votes -- no matter what position(s) that candidate might take.

The only strategic use of a 3rd party candidacy: Find one who will whittle down support for your most challenging opponent. Then get behind that new 3rd Party guy in order to weaken the real opposition. Use the 3rd Party candidate as a means to an end. But don't fool yourself that the 3rd Party guy will ever get elected -- not in this generation anyways.

[chipkluchi]

But don't fool yourself that the 3rd Party guy will ever get elected

Lincoln?

[homerdienru]

^ Why not?

Certainly a worthy goal.

The goal is worthy, but I don't see it being pursued by a vote for Bloomberg.

He's would not be a true third party candidate. The way he's moved effortlessly between Republican and Democrat (how would you even define him now - a REP with DEM tendencies, or vice versa?), it seems you would be replacing a duopoly with a monopoly.

If the intent is to send a message protesting the two party system, a vote for Ron Paul is the most effective.

[retrahdggd]

.




If Bloomberg enters the race, I will be voting for him.

You, on the otherhand, can vote for whomever you choose.
That's the way it works.




.

[RayFairhurst]

^
Don't assume that, unlike you, I was trying to tell anyone who to vote for. You can do whatever you want.

I was commenting on your idea of breaking up a duopoly. It doesn't make sense.

A "third party" run is just a variation of the mechanism that elected the Democrat/Republican as mayor.

[fedelwfget]

An independent candidate wouldn't have the stripes of Republicans or the spots of Democrats. Bloomberg has both and any person that holds a dual citizenship - in this case USA / Israel - should be unqualified to hold ANY public office. I want to hear a clear renouncement of any "citizenship" other than American, whether it is birthright, a pursued dual citizenship, or a bestowed citizenship.

I also don't think Bloomberg will find much traction with his self-supposed notion that he is an independent or that he bridges the gaps between ideologies. He has given hundreds of thousands to elect Republicans in the past eight years. He arrested and illegally held peaceful protesters during the RNC in NYC. He is hostile to freedom of speech and particularly progressive and liberal freedom of speech. You wouldn't know if you haven't actively protested anthinbg in New York. His illegal use of video taping peaceful protesters (a legal challenge brought by his own City'S PBA) is a good indication of his acceptance of domestic surveillance.

The guy has done NOTHING for the middle class in NYC and has no record to run on in regard to bolstering it nationwide. He is YET ANOTHER pro-corporate candidate. Pro-business. Pro-wealth. Pro-elitist. He throw's a bone to lower income constituencies once in a while to shut up the poor black and hispanic communities when they become agitated.

What has he given us? Stadiums. Whoopdee doo. That's his legacy.

[Zysyewgg]

^what he said!
I agree totally.


any person that holds a dual citizenship - in this case USA / Israel - should be unqualified to hold ANY public office. Especially this. A US president having Israeli citizenship is outrageously inappropriate and he would do more damage to relations in the Middle East than just about any other candidate I could think of.

[Allorneadesee]

So you would support Cheney for President over Bloomie?

[VemyhemiHef]

I'm thinking a Bloomie run is looking more and more likely, since none of the Major party candidates seem particularly popular. Whomever the majors nominate will likely get damages enough in the primary battles that an indie, especially one with the bottomless pockets of Mikie, could blast a hole between the two of them large enough to drive a winning campaign through.

[iodillalm]

Bloomberg could never, ever win the general election. It's just an expensive fantasy.

[pharmacologist30]

I'm thinking a Bloomie run is looking more and more likely, since none of the Major party candidates seem particularly popular. Whomever the majors nominate will likely get damages enough in the primary battles that an indie, especially one with the bottomless pockets of Mikie, could blast a hole between the two of them large enough to drive a winning campaign through.

I think that the facts bear out that none of the Republicans are wildly popular and Mike Huckabee and John McCains "surge" is media fabrication.

The Democrats fielded a decent slate of candidates this year.

Overall, I sense a national attitude that assumes the pendulum swings the other way this election. However, if every office-holding Democrat and every office-holding Republican disappeared in the devil's version of the rapture, you'd probably see a lot of people relieved and cheering.

Mike Bloomberg is an opportunist, not an independent third party candidate. If one wants a fair illustration of a Bloomberg foreigh policy, look no further than Joe Lieberman. Pro-war. Pro-preemptive action. Blindly pro-Israel. An AIPAC lobbyist on the hill. Anti-constitution. Pro-domestic spying. Pro-torture. Pro-war funding. Believe Iraqi is GOOD, GOOD, GOOD. Ran as an independent, causcuses with Democrats and votes with Republicans. He's a snake.

Bloomberg is like Giuliani. Accomplished on a local level and totally inappropriate for national office.

As for blasting a hole between Dems & Reps, I would expect him to run a rather divisive campaign further exasperating Dem / Rep animosity for his own gain. In that case, he would have a Congress that would foil him at every turn. Third-party president that can do nothing.

[DaleJrGirl]

^
None of what your saying makes any difference as to who is going to move in to the White House on Jan 20, 2009.

Both of the major parties have the same problem. In order to win the nomination, the candidates have to kowtow to the extremes of the party, who usually control the party apparatus, especially at the local level. This forces them to espouse positions that run counter to the view of the mainstream majority that decides the general election. But since its usually a choice between the candidate who pitched to the extreme right to get the Republican nomination, vs the one who did the same on the extreme left, the one who wins is usually the one who does a better job convincing the center they really didn't mean what they said to get the nomination.

But Bloomberg, who doesn't have to distance himself from a nomination run, who is not beholden to any party apparatus, and who has $5,000,000,000 to get out whatever message he wants, can exploit this weakness like no one ever has before.

[newpiknicker]

But Bloomberg...who has $5,000,000,000 to get out whatever message he wants...

You're exactly right on that point. ANY MESSAGE he wants - regardless of truth - regardless of his record. Seems the argument you pose is that billionaires are impervious to all obstacles. Certainly, they can buy an election. I never doubted that. However, I think you originally stated that people should support him if they are tired as politics as usual. I don't think he's more appealing because he seeks to avoid the scrutiny of the campaign trail and wants to substitute glossy marketing for hard questioning.

[infollafago]

He won't win the Presidency with 10 billion. This country still has greater than its fair share of bigots (especially widespread in red states). He'll get enough votes from both sides to mess things up, but never to win the general election. Face it.

Obama probably couldn't win either, no matter what. It is just so sad but true. One more generation and they might have a chance...some dinosaurs have to die off first.