Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke out against the McCain/Clinton Holiday Gas-Tax Cut...

REPORTER: Mr. Mayor, earlier this year, Speaker Quinn had proposed a sales tax free week and also a $300 renters rebate.  I was wondering if either of those things are in the budget?

MAYOR: Neither is in the budget.  I think as- its going to be hard enough to make sure we don't hurt anybody with cutbacks that denigrate- that degrade the quality of living in this City.  At the same time, don't make the taxpayer's situation any worse. I thought it was fascinating- Shelly Silver, I thought very responsibly, came out against this idea of a summer break on gasoline taxes which would help Chavez and Kudafi and people like- other people like that.  I don't know why anybody would want to do it.  It's fascinating because his presidential- favorite presidential candidate's on the other side of it.  So you know, they just split in terms of what they think. I thought Shelly Silver was- was right and Obama was right. McCain and Clinton were wrong. The last thing we need to do is to encourage people to drive more and to take away the monies we need for infrastructure in this country.  And that's what reducing taxes does.

REPORTER: Could you elaborate on your opposition to giving drivers a break from the gas tax and how-

MAYOR: It's about the dumbest thing I've heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view. I don't understand why you think there's any merit to it whatsoever. We're trying to discourage people from driving and we're trying to end our energy dependence. You don't do that- and incidentally, and we're trying to have more money to build infrastructure. All three of those things go- fly in the face of giving everybody 30 bucks a year. The 30 bucks is not going to change anybody's lifestyle. The billions of dollars that we would otherwise have in tax revenues can make a big difference as to what kind of a world we leave our children.

REPORTER: And what would you say to Joe Bruno, who's advocating for it?

Mayor: I have no idea. I haven't talked to Joe Bruno about it. You'd have to say something to Joe Bruno. I- that's- I just do not think that it is intelligent tax policy and it's not a good energy policy. It is something that, you know, sounds good but I thought in this case Obama had it right.

I've been working on a piece concerning the bizarre Washington wish for every to "just get along."  In it I note that it is not the Democrats, but the Republicans who fail to compromise.  The failure of the media to call out this minority party for their continued obstruction of popular legislation is simply unforgiveable.  That piece can be viewed here:

http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/01/bip artisanship.html

The David Broder's of the world fail to realize the benefits of partisanship.  There are debates to be had here, there are issues to be addressed.  And if anything, the most troubling aspect of the current Republican party is their continued failure to agree on any empirical reality.  Without an objective set of facts with which to debate the issues, the issues become non-negotiable.  They won't admit to any objective reality, and therefore, there is little we can do to convince them of our positions, or to even reach a compromise.  I have a piece concerning that factor here:

http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/01/jud icial-activi.html

And if anyone wonders what a brokered Republican convention might look like, I've taken my best stab at it here.  I'd like to think it's both funny and accurate, but what do I know?

http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/01/giu liani-now-fo.html

Go Blue in 2008,
Big Blue

Just as Michael Bloomberg seems to be getting more serious about a potential third-party presidential bid, Unity 08 -- which looked to be the natural vehicle for a bid by the NYC Mayor -- is scaling down it's operations.

"At the current moment, we don't have enough members or enough money to take the next step toward achieving ballot access in 50 states, reaching the goal of establishing our online convention, and nominating a Unity ticket for president and vice president this coming fall."

The full letter from Unity 08's board of directors follows below.

So it seems like there's still a great deal of question in everyone's mind as to who is and who isn't running for the President of the United States of America.  Post after post mention polls taken that do or don't consider Al Gore.  Earlier today on this site we had a couple of posts regarding Bloomberg and Hagel and their emphatic "I am not running."

With specific regard to Al Gore, and I'd love comments about all the others, why the hell is he still on the radar?  Seriously.  I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck here.  I genuinely want to know if there is any substantial evidence that Al Gore still might run.  Anyone?

I feel silly even posting this diary, because it's more wasted breath on a guy who isn't actually running.  Please, enlighten me.  Otherwise, lets focus on the people who are actually running for office.

Check out this article that appeared in the Hartford Courant:

Independents Roil Vote
PAUL FIDALGO AND ROB RICHIE

There's one certain outcome from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's announcement that he has left the Republican Party to become an independent: The concept of "spoiler" presidential candidates will be inescapable for the coming year.

Given many voters' frustration with the poisonous partisan atmosphere inside the Beltway, a well-funded independent with a track record of accomplishment should be taken seriously. A recent Rasmussen poll found as many as 39 percent would consider voting for Bloomberg. He already polls 23 percent in New Jersey.

Clearly Bloomberg could win enough support to have a major impact, sparking electoral consternation once he begins to "siphon" support from major party candidates or - gasp - looks ready to win states and their electoral votes.

The fun doesn't end there. Ralph Nader is talking about another run at the presidency, surely thrilling those Democrats who despair at his impact in 2000. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran in favor of pulling the troops from Iraq, hints that his independence in Congress may extend to a White House run.

Looming also are the bipartisan efforts of Unity `08, along with new candidacies from the Greens and Libertarians. Might all these potential spoilers-in-chief combine into one giant gestalt uber-candidate and destroy the country with its horrific Electoral Disruptor Ray? Should we all just hide under the covers?

Take what the Electoral College could produce. If an independent won a couple of states in a politically even year, it would send the election into the House of Representatives, that bastion of calm, collected reasoning, where each state's delegation - that's right, delegation - would cast one vote for president. Texas would have as many votes as Wyoming: one each. States with an even split of Republicans and Democrats might have to resort to rock-paper-scissors. Weirder still, if no candidate won 26 delegations, then whomever the Senate picked for vice president would become president until the House made up its mind.

We may also have a popular-vote loser in the White House again. That likely would have happened in 1992 if Ross Perot's vote had risen nationally from 19 percent to 34 percent, with Perot cruising to an Electoral College majority, despite trailing Bill Clinton in popular votes. Or we might have the winner of the popular vote finish second in the Electoral College, but win in the House. Or the popular vote's third-place finisher could win in electoral votes, but the House elects the candidate who came in second.

But rather than hide under covers, let's take action. Our fears of Electoral College deadlocks, losers-as-winners and spoiled elections are grounded in laws that fail to accommodate voters having more than two choices - yet can be changed by mere statute in state legislatures.

If enough states were to join Maryland in signing on to the National Popular Vote compact, for example, we could be sure that the person who takes office actually won the most votes. Under the popular-vote compact, states that join agree to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the vote in their state. The plan could still be enacted for next year if states representing a majority of electoral votes took action. Even if not, 2008 promises to be the last national election that uses the Electoral College as anything more than a formality.

Increasingly popular in cities, instant runoff voting represents another idea whose time has come. If implemented, we would have a far better chance of electing someone backed by a true majority of voters. The mere presence of third parties and independents need not "spoil" anything, as voters could indicate backup choices in case there is no initial majority winner and their first choice fails to make the cut. Naderites, Bloombergophiles, and Leave-Us-Alone Libertarians could vote with a free heart.

So as would-be insurgent candidates become you-best-start-taking-me-seriously candidates, and as we all quake in terror at the prospect of Congress picking our president or another spoiler-in-chief, keep in mind that we have the power to instill sanity and equality into a potential electoral circus.

Rob Richie is executive director of FairVote in Takoma Park, Md. Paul Fidalgo is its communications director. This piece was distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Maybe we SHOULD be encouraging Bloomberg to run as an independent.

According to a Quinnipiac, a Bloomberg run has a positive effect on Democrats in 2008 in the key state of Ohio.

For example, Hillary enjoys a very slim lead in Ohio over Guiliani... 44-42%, which is within the margin of error.  However, add Bloomberg into the mix and suddenly Hillary develops a 40-35% lead.  

In a head to head matchup with Fred Thompson, Obama leads 44-34.  With Bloomberg in the mix, Obama leads Thompson 38-27, gaining another point.  

Other Head to Head matchups after the break...

Bloomberg will be Ross Perot - but this time hurting a Clinton instead of helping one.

If Bloomberg is pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage and pro-choice where do you think his votes will come from?

Hillary will run a major smearfest against him realizing she already starts with 47% never ever voting for her.

Check out today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301348_ 2.html

According to several gay rights activists, Hillary Clinton and Obama give largely similar statements in private meetings on their opposition to same-sex marriage, citing religious concerns and the fact that older generations of Americans view the term "marriage" as a commitment between a man and a woman.

The activists say they trust the candidates' opposition as heartfelt, while at the same time acknowledging that the candidates' staffers have told them that taking a stand in favor of same-sex marriage is too risky politically. Few national political figures support same-sex marriage, although that could change if New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has long said he supports it, decides to run for president as an independent.

WILL BLOOMBERG RUN?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has done a very good job running NYC. His switch of party affiliation from Republican to Independent has fueled speculation that he may well run as a third party candidate for president in 2008.

Let's look back to the effect of the campaign of a major third party candidate, Ralph Nadar, in 2000. Mr. Nadar garnered some 90,000 votes in Florida; Al Gore lost the state, in "official" count, by a little more than 500 votes. Certainly, Mr. Gore could have won by doing lots of thinks differently in his campaign, but clearly Nadar cost him the election.

Think of some of the probable difference in the last six years, had Gore won:

No invasion of Iraq with its disastrous consequences.
No massive deficit
No illegal eavesdropping, renditions, and the like.
No extensive and questionable politicizing of the Federal government
Continued respect by foreign nations and peoples.
Environmental improvement instead of deterioration.
Action on global warming
Appointment of Justices who respect women's rights.

A Bloomberg candidacy would draw from Democratic voters, which could result in continued Republican misrule. Mr. Bloomberg, if you are pro-choice and believe in honest and competent, make the right choice and do not run!

Homer   www.altara.blogspot.com