Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
How many people can be fooled at this time by a so called "Grass Roots--Bipartisan" campaign that ties itself to the likes of the ever so grass roots--bipartisan Lieberman-McCain?
"If McCain drops out at some point, McCain-Lieberman can join together in a significant and meaningful bi-partisan show of support for a potential Bloomberg candidacy."
For those who need it I apologize in advance for my language, but if the following statement doesn't deserve a reply like, "You've got to be fucking kidding me" than nothing does.
"We can no longer tolerate the failure of professional campaigners to effectively run this country based on self serving party platforms and legend-in-their-own-minds politicians of any persuasion."
http://tinyurl.com/2wakbz
I'd vote for Bloomberg
The combination of a practical businessman with the ability to deal with flaming liberals is hard to beat. What most don't know about Bloomberg is his ability to frame issues in very practical ways that lead to a consensus. It's impressive.
-- shooter242
It's impressive when "flaming liberals" go up in a "poof" of smoke.
The cynicism and contempt for democracy of this "unity" crowd is quite stunning when you think about it. Unable to field a suitably corporatist crowd, yet unwilling to do the hard work to actually earn the nomination in the normal way, they seek to bypass the whole tedious process by choosing a rich figurehead halfway through the game.
They've already convinced Shooter, which gives me hope that their little exercise will be laughed off the stage. They'd do well to remember some of Bloomberg's rather insensitive and sexist comments toward a pregnant employee, "Get rid of it," as I recall.
That'll go over as big in the Bible belt as his enormous wealth.
And is he manly and Aqua-Velva-y for Chris Matthews' admittedly uh, eclectic tastes? I think not.
Go ahead and run, Bloomberg. Make my day.
i'm sure you've seen this already, but this essay [http://www.nyclu.org/files/criminalizing_the_classroom_report.pdf] (.pdf) posted at the nyclu website describes the police-state atmosphere of nyc's public schools, started by rudy and re-upped by bloomberg without the slightest hint of irony.
america sure loves her affable rich-guy overlords.
What most don't know about Bloomberg is his ability to frame issues in very practical ways that lead to a consensus. It's impressive.-- shooter242
Aside from the fact that Shooter is the author of that sentence, doesn't the sentence itself cancel itself out of any reason? If most don't know, then how does it lead to consensus?
Consensus:
b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
1. Continued rumor of partnership with Hagel, who has the distinction of being flagged by the NY Sun as weak on terror and anti-Israel.
2. Nancy Soderberg apparently advising Bloomberg.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/21/bloomberg-crams-on-foreig_n_73776.html
3. This speech, although mainly on greenhouse gases, included this paragraph:
"That means ending the “go-it-alone” approach to foreign affairs that has never served America well. It didn’t work in the 1920s, when we tried to isolate ourself from the world, and it hasn’t work in recent years, when we’ve tried to stand above it, pretending that vital international treaties can simply be ignored."
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/bloomberg-calls-for-tax-on-carbon-emissions/index.html?hp
To your final point - "When it comes to Middle East policy, what differences do you think you see?" - are you really serious in asking this question?
There is literally no-one in Rudy's league when it comes to ME foreign policy. Okay, maybe Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo. But of the leading candidates, none of them come close to Hizzoner.
Let me be clear - I think Ron Paul speaks with more clarity and sense on foreign policy than any of the leading candidates. If I had to create a foreign policy craziness scale of 0-10, with 0 = sane and 10 = crazy, Paul would be 0 and Rudy 10. You are saying Bloomberg would be 10 as well. I'm disagreeing; I don't know exactly where I would put Bloomberg, but he ain't Rudy.
The Krug-Man had this to say in his "Conscience of a Liberal" blog:
"AWWMNUUBM", Paul Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal
December 30, 2007, 8:13 pm
That’s Aging Wealthy White Men for National Unity Under Billionaire Media Moguls. I like it.
Seriously, why does anyone think this makes sense? I read a lot of polls, and they suggest that the center of public opinion on the issues is, if anything, left of the center of the Democratic Party. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/awwmnuubm/
And there I think he missed it. The AWWMNUUBM coalition sees that public sentiment as a problem to be solved by fake "bipartisanship" in the guise of conservative establishmentarians.
What seems to us a solution will appear simultaneously to the AWWMNUUBM as a problem.
It looks to me like the Tories have decided that the right-wing populist horse has faltered, and has to be sent off to the glue factory forthwith. I wonder what James Dobson will say. Or Newt Gingrich. (Does it matter what he says any more?) I'm pretty sure I know what Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will say, and George Will. Shooter we've already heard from. (He never liked the snake-handlers anyway, and they never liked his alligator shoes.)
Shades of the Democratic Party in 1968 -- except, of course, that this time there's no Nixon waiting in the wings, licking the wounds he received in saner times. Bloomberg, the last time I looked, was Jewish, from New York, an ex-Democrat, ex-Republican Tory with a reputation even among Democrats, of being a competent administrator -- Herbert Hoover redux, as it were, despite his Jewishness.
The question in my mind is how all this will play in a Republican heartland suffering, except in the ethanol states, from most of the same diseases that they suffered from in 1931. Can the Tories cobble together a stable plurality from the center of this mess? I don't know, but at this point, it looks like a put-up job, and it leaves the right-wing vote divided along the lines which have always divided it underneath the Rovian flim-flam of the last 30 years or so.
Well. The only thing certain at this point, it seems to me, is that David Broder, as usual, hasn't got a fucking clue.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
