Letters to the Editor
-
Listening, Ralph?
It's too bad Ralph Nader doesn't have this much class and confidence.
-
VP?
Doesn't that op-ed read like a cover letter for an application for the job of VP? If McCain wants to tack to the right, he will pick a hardline evangelical. If he thinks he has that electorate in the bag, he could tack to what is considered 'moderate' in Republican circles and ask Bloomberg.
I hope Obama (if, he is the nominee) doesn't think this is a good idea.
-
To Buffalonian
I thought that too -- the VP idea -- but I can't see Bloomberg "settling" for VP. I bet he really wants to be Treasury Secretary.
-
Declaration of Independents?
I don't know what Bloomberg's angling for, precisely, or even where he stands. I mean, he's a former Democrat-turned-Republican who's flirting with Independence, but has a pretty strong bricks-and-mortar pragmatic, technocratic liberalism buttressing his views, and still, I'm just not sure...
I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense... If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach
1) The first phrase would seem to be a commitment to opposing the GOP, given that they are responsible for the rampant partisanship in DC, even though the gliberal media don't really call them out on it; would the GOP accept "unity" with their "my way or the highway" slash-and-burn approach to politics? There are almost too many examples to bring up.
2) As for the second phrase, to the GOP, their ideology is common sense; sure, it's a line they're feeding people, but they wrap it in "common sense" -- even though it's uncommonly nonsensical, unvarnished ideology they're spouting. To me, liberalism is both pragmatic and common sense -- for example, if the infrastructure is crumbling, you put money into it to fix it. That's the liberal approach. To the reactionaries, the way you fix infrastructure is you try to privatize the roads, cut taxes for the rich, launch a crusade against illegal immigration and try to get a flag-burning amendment passed. Who's pursuing common sense, here, exactly?? It's like trying to have a debate with your drunken uncle.
3) What is an independent, nonpartisan approach to somebody like Bloomberg? The GOP will bang their shoes on the table the moment they don't get their way. Maybe as a minority party after 2008, they'll pretend to play nice, but their ideological aims remain crystal-clear and unchanged, and they live or die not by being independent and nonpartisan, but by being ideologically disciplined and ruthlessly partisan. Abandoning hardball partisanship kills the current reactionary movement, so will they go along with it?
So, what's Bloomberg saying, basically? Is he trying to represent the lost liberal wing of the Republicans? Is he sort of bolting the GOP, trying to join in the new Independent consensus? His statements confuse me more than they inform me. And I say that as somebody who respects Bloomberg's technocratic commitment to analyzing problems with intent to fix them.
-
Pompus Ass
Translation:
"I'd be beaten like an ugly stepchild if I was dumb enough to run against the likes of McCain, Clinton, or Obama. I was dumb enough to want to try, but nobody was dumb enough to write the checks.
Oh and that stuff about bi-partisanship? It's what the ad-guys told us to call 'neo-conservative' after the rebranding.
God bless Israel.
Goodnight."
-
Obama?
It does sound oddly like he is setting things up to support Obama in some way. I don't think Bloomberg is foolish enough to support Nader and I doubt he'd support the Green party, so it's really only the Democrats and Republicans. If he was going to support McCain you'd think he'd have done that now that the nomination is largely sewn-up, and I don't know that there is much chance of McCain meeting Bloomberg's criteria. It seems doubtful that Hillary with her vow to fight tooth and nail would meet his criteria either, so maybe he is just waiting to see if Obama can secure the nomination. That'd certainly be an interesting partnership.
-
Salon's anti-boogeyman
You won't believe whatever he says or writes so have it. Yes (English Rog) He's part of a secret world wide conspiracy to control the world. Gotchya.
-
Tell me why Obama shouldn't choose Blommberg as a VP?
He was once a democrat. He ran for mayor of New York City as a republican and won. Why he switched, I don't know.
From what I know, he has been good for the city. What can people tell me.
He is obviously a good business man, he made good money. Does anyone know his business reputation? Is he good to labor, is he good to the environment? Is he a good guy to work with?
I read the op-ed piece and liked some of what he has to say. He was a little hard on crime and a little weak on battling climate change, but good on building urban areas - urban development could spur economic growth in America (and potentially be pro-environment).
He has a very pro-business slant, but business is the current power holder in the American economy and abroad. If you want good things to happen in America, they happen through business.
It would be a good balance because Obama is not beholden to business and can therefore represent the people's interests. He has not taken any special interests, corporate or lobbyist dollars in his campaign. He is beholden to the 1,000,000 people who have donated to his campaign. Power-to-the-people Obama leading a business insider Bloomberg who can help use business to make all Americans more prosperous.
Look around, the economy is not doing great right now. A lot of big businesses are still making money but are beginning to suffer because American workers are suffering. American workers are suffering not because of trade, but because of bad trade deals. Obama, working with Bloomberg, could negotiate good trade deals that benefit workers and companies.
Obama represents what should be the number one priority of the American government - the people's interests. Partnering with Bloomberg will give Obama significant leverage when working with business. Lets have businesses working for the best interest of American people.
The economy is one of, it not the most important issue to Americans right now, as it will likely be in the November election. An Obama-Bloomberg, people-business candidacy would clean house in the presidential election because you have the best of both worlds!
So, assuming he is a sound, pro-labor, pro-environment businessman, imagine what it would be like if Bloomberg was VP with a liberal president like Obama guiding his economic policy. I bet good things would happen for the workers and the economy.
And let's not fool ourselves, we are all workers and workers are the economy. When the two are equal partners, what helps one, helps the other.
Anyway, the more I think about it, I like it. Obama/Bloomberg 2008. Barack and Michael 08. I doubt it will ever happen, but its fun to think about. What do you think?