Read other letters about this article

• Monday, December 31, 2007 06:37 PM

  A Bloomberg run ends the war

  I didn't see this argument in a quick review of the comments, but feel compelled to put it out there since it contradicts GG on one point. Here are my assumptions:

  • Pro-war candidates: Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton, Thompson, Obama, Edwards
  • Anti-war candidates: Kucinich, Paul, Richardson, Dodd, Biden
  • The largest two issues voters will consider are the war followed closely by the economy
  • Social issues are subordinate to the right this year, as evidenced by Pat Robertson's premature endorsement of Giuliani
  • Only a Democrat can shift their position on the war and retain legitimacy

  I strongly agree with GG's neoconservative characterization of Bloomberg, from the view on executive power to the foreign agenda, including policy points from support for the Iraq war as a valid front on the war on terror through to aggressive support for Israel.

  GG: ...it's hard to see how the candidacy of a divorced, unmarried, stridently pro-gun-control, pro-choice, socially liberal New York City billionaire would accomplish anything other than offering the Republicans their best hope of winning in 2008.... and (my inference) thereby continue the war. I disagree with this assessment. Here's why:

  To cover the economy first, the Republicans will be on the defensive by summer 2008 with a significant recession, unprecedented US dollar weakness, continued housing weakness, foreign entities in China and the Middle East buying up domestic corporations like never before, and an almost unfathomable national debt (and simple debt maintenance taking a massive proportion of federal spending). Republicans will have bleak prospects if only a part of this economic outlook is true.

  Even assuming that the economy makes it only slightly more difficult for an election to be won by the Republicans, the war remains the primary issue for voters today. I have seen figures that approximately 70 percent of voters are in favor of a short-term end to the war, a huge group. Despite this, we see only a slight chance that a strong anti-war candidate will be the nominee of either major party.

  A Bloomberg independent run doesn't advance Republican chances, it actually splits the pro-war vote further, forcing any Democratic nominee to shift to an anti-war stance to capture the massive anti-war block. It's only rational that any Democratic nominee modify their position to gain election based on this popular war position, since Bloomberg winds up splitting the "vote in fear" vote with the Republican party. Based on the size of the anti-war base, this easily clinches a victory for an anti-war Democrat.

  Also discussed on the third party landscape is Ron Paul. A strong anti-war independent run (such as Ron Paul could now do) could accomplish the same thing if he chooses to make war opposition his legacy. How? If Paul believes that the war and its multi-faceted costs is the largest issue immediately facing the nation, he may feel morally compelled to run if no other anti-war candidate gets the nomination. By running, Paul keeps the issue in play for a huge voting block, and compels the Democratic candidate to run the the left. If a pro-war candidate like Dodd or Biden did happen to get the nomination, Paul should choose to stay out of the race, allowing a declared anti-war Democrat to win easily.

  It's my view that a third party run by Bloomberg or a run by Paul against an initially pro-war Democrat both result in an anti-war Democratic victory in 2008.

  —bostonMA Read bostonMA's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel