How Could Bloomberg Run Now? He Wouldn’t Have A Chance
It is no surprise that Michael Bloomberg. talented, creative and wealthy, will not run for President. Bloomberg’s strategy to run as a billion dollar independent had to go away when Mayor Rudy and the Romney campaigns went down fast. That, and Barack Obama’s dramatic rise has pre-empted the Big Apple Mayor.
For Bloomberg to have had a chance, he would have needed to appeal to Independents and party regulars. His best hope would have been a race with Rudy and Hillary. There, he could have staked claim to the millions of voters who might have been fed up with two divisive candidates. But Rudy lost, Hillary faltered (so far) and it would be impossible for Bloomberg to compete against Obama.
The Mayor says he will support a candidate who wants to end the partisan environment. My guess is that he will also support the candidate he can help he most. Let’s be real. He may be a billionaire, but wants to be with a winner he can live with, and who may give him the kind of post-Mayoral role that he desires, although it is hard to imagine anything bigger than Mayor of New York.
So, for now the Bloomberg dream, pushed hard by the national press, will have to wait. Next time around he will be 70. But considering John McCain’s late run, 70 is looking very young these days.
BUT WAIT! The story isn’t over. Bloomberg will be considered as VEEP candidate by McCain, and maybe even Obama. What a move that would be!
None of the above.
Inane idea.
Larry, you need to come up with these blogs when you are cognizant. You’re not Larry King… yet…
Larry, I’m a big fan of Bloomberg too. However, with respect to him being a possible VP candidate he has said “I am not a very good #2 man so I would not consider being McCain’s VP.” When asked if he would take it if McCain promised one term, he said “I can’t get that in writing -so no”. I take him at his word,so it’s not going to happen, let’s stop dreaming. Bloomberg accepting VP for an Obama ticket is fun to speculate about, but Obama’s too far left and too inexperienced for Bloomberg to take that risk. New York will get everything it wants with an Obama presidency, so why would he want to be #2 to him, versus #1 mayor of the Capital of the World.
Larry, do you even read the comments section of your own blog? I asked you three times on your last entry to resolve a DIRECT contradiction of your own report of the McCain/Cunningham incident. I can understand not getting bogged down with details, but your account of John McCain’s reaction to Cuningham is directly contradicted by other news reports, which actually seem more credible, especially in light of your non-reply.
Regarding Bloomberg, I commented before that there is a simple, but profound reason that neither candidate would touch Bloomberg with a ten foot pole. The Senate is too closely divided for either candidate to risk making an Independent the tie breaker.
To the Democrat-Media Complex, ending the “partisan environment” means letting the Democrats have their way. Plain and simple.
Think about it. Rarely, if ever, does the media label any Democrat as “partisan”. Bill Clinton and Algore were two of the most partisan people we’ve had in power - example, Al Gore calling Republicans the “extra chromosome right”. Never were they called “partisan”.
The Democrats consistently call Bush all kinds of names - “dumb”, “war criminal”, on and on. Never are they labeled “partisan”.
Now take George W. Bush - show me where he’s said anything similar about Democrats. Bush frustrates me as a Republican for not hitting back more forcefully against the hypocrite Democrats. Yet they label him as “partisan”.
Why? One reason. He doesn’t agree 100% with Democrats.
So, with the Democrat-Media Complex, the only way to not be “partisan” is to agree 100% of the time with liberal Democrats. Another corruption of the English language they have perpetrated, just like using the word “hate” for those that disagree with Democrats.
Joe, you are largely correct in your analysis.
Larry, I don’t see Bloomberg being a viable VP for either McCain or Obama. Too strong willed. Too much personality to be 2nd fiddle.
Bloomberg may have been a better 2nd term choice for ‘W’ than Cheney, however.
Aside from the fact that he won’t run, I think Bloomberg could have beaten Obama and McCain, assuming they are the nominees. McCain is a divisive figure, and Obama may prove to be one, too, if there is a less liberal alternative who is not John McCain.
And with her oddball whining and swipes at Obama at the recent debate, Hillary has shown that she’s not up to the stress of leadership; she loses judgment under pressure.
Jump!
SteveMG– I’ve been busy. My description of the Cunningham episode was right on all the way.
What’s the point you’re trying to make.
Larry
Referring to my comments earlier about the McCain/Cunningham incident, your account of McCain’s “stand” is directly contradicted by the newspaper account (I think WaPo) of it, which clearly states that McCain did NOT immediately denounce the comments to the audience. He only denounced them later to reporters.
That’s no small discrepency, and it goes straight to the heart of the premise of your post.
Neither is this a minor incident that will be forgotten in a news cycle. If you look at the landscape from the RNC Chairman’s POV, what is the strategy? 1. Elect McCain if you can, or 2. avoid a landslide to keep a filibuster sized minority, and make one house reachable in the midterms. To achieve these ends, I think the Republicans have bailed on the middle (where fear and smear were so effective in 02 and 04). They still have to motivate the base, whether Senator McCain likes it or not. So what does this incident tell you about John McCain? He is either passively complicit in these attacks, or he can’t even control his base of voters. What’s that got to tell you about a McCain administration? To avoid becoming a lame duck on 1/21/2009, he’ll have to take in the leftovers of the Bush Administration, he’ll have to continue stalling the investigations of the Constitutional scandals of this administration, and he’ll have to continue the policies, foreign and domestic, of this administration. In other words, he’ll get dragged to the right just like George H. Bush did in 1988. Change my ass.
Sorry to be long winded, but if I could push your patience a teency bit farther, what do you think of my point that Senator Obama would be crazy to put an independent VP on top of a 1 seat Senate majority?
Thank you.