Bloomberg Blogs About The 2008 Campaign

I caught Mike Bloomberg on C-SPAN last weekend during which a Q&A session inevitably turned to the topic of his presidential ambitions, and once again he repeated his now familiar denial, something to the effect of:

I'm not running for president.

It's the same sentiment, and the same wording, that Bloomberg uses in what looks to be his first blog post on his I'm-not-a-candidate-really website:

Last week when I was in Washington to discuss poverty in America, I was asked (again) whether I am running for President. As I've said before and I'll say again - I am not running.

Great, glad we cleared that up. But wait, there's more...

But, "Are you running?" is the wrong question. The question should not be about politics, but about leadership. Not who is the best candidate, but who will be the best President.

Which begs the question how one can be president without first being a candidate. But the larger question is why someone who acts fed up with the question of whether he's going to run for president fuels the speculation with this strange post on his website. Does he just want to be a part of the whole blogging thing? Or maybe he just wants to try to have an impact on the dialogue, be relevant to the process? Except that the rest of his statement shows just how irrelevant and out of touch he is.

We need solutions that are innovative and bold, not superficial half-steps that are driven by politics, partisanship, or special interest campaign contributions. We need real solutions that honestly address the big challenges we face as a nation.

Has he been paying attention to the presidential race at all? While he's spouting advice that might have actually been helpful to defeat what at the time was HIS party's president three years ago, reinforcing this idea that politics and partisanship are the real problem and that both parties are equally complicit is a pathetic use of the platform he has. You listen to Bloomberg speak, it's clear he's a liberal. And it's also clear, when he lists what he feels should be our nation's priorities...

creating growth in a global economy, fighting terrorism, meeting our energy needs, tackling global warming, and reforming public education.

...that the only ones actually presenting viable solutions to these issues are the Democrats. If Bloomberg were being honest about his desire for bold leadership and real solutions, he would be writing about the virtues of John Edwards and Chris Dodd who, regardless of one's candidate preference, it's hard to deny have best represented these qualities in the presidential campaign. And if it's truly non-partisanship he wants, he should be thrilled with Barack Obama's candidacy. His call for an end to partisan in-fighting in Washington seems right up Bloomberg's alley, but apparently the fact that he has a D next to his name renders him automatically unqualified to communicate a unity message. Yes, much better for it to come from a guy who switched parties just to get elected. Where exactly is the virtue and integrity in that? The irony in the anti-partisan messaging of the Bloomberg/Broder set is that the refusal to acknowledge the fact that Democrats actually do substantively fulfill their criteria for real leadership betrays a sort of partisanship in and of itself -- it puts partisan affiliation above substance, the very thing they claim to be against. Of course, admitting as much would lower the cache someone like Bloomberg has as an "independent" voice considerably, so, intellectual honesty be damned.

Unless he's going to be helpful and come out not only as the liberal he is, but also as a supporter of the Democratic candidates, Bloomberg should just go away, because in the meantime, he's merely reinforcing the idea that voting Republican is still an acceptable option for those that DO want bold leadership and real solutions to the problems we face.

There's more...

Gallup poll: Hillary leads Giuliani by 6%, helped by Bloomberg

Gallup has just released a poll in which Michael Bloomberg is included for the first time. Hillary Clinton received 45% of votes, against 39% for Giuliani and 12% for Bloomberg.

There's more...

The Neo-Cons plan to Nuke Iran

The Neo-Con ideologues who have held absolute power have now sees their delusional dreams shattered by reality. The Neo-Con faith collided with facts in a war on terror and the occupation of Iraq. They have discovered too late that they hitched their dream to the broken axle of George W. Bush's busted truck of a presidency. Time is running out. Except for the power of the president's executive order to commit the military in a war with Iran within 24 hours of issue, the Neo-Con political capital in the world and in Washington D.C. is bankrupt currency. The surviving apostles in the Bush administration, such as Vice President Cheney, are in a hurry to get the US entrenched in the Middle East one way or another before a possible impeachment process can be enacted or until the 2008 general elections of an irate and disillusioned US populace, weary of war and blunders, purge the GOP from the White House and also in much of the Congress.

 title=

There's more...

Eliot Spitzer Takes On New York's Nomenklatura

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.


Is New York's Eliot Spitzer for real? Is it possible my home state elected a governor who knows what he means and means what he says? Politicians promising reform and boasting about their prowess as culture breakers is nothing new. Spitzer's predecessor, George Pataki also promised to reform Albany's corrupt culture and he proceeded to embrace it. Mario Cuomo didn't embrace Albany's inside game like Pataki but he didn't confront it either.

There's more...

NY-State Senate: Bloomberg To Take On State GOP

According to today's Times, Mayor Bloomberg (R-NY) is considering trying to actively help break the State GOP's hold on the State Senate by backing the Democratic challenger to a Republican State Senator from Queens:

...aides said the mayor was considering backing a bid by Mr. Addabbo only because he was fed up with what he saw as the refusal by Republicans in Albany to send the city its fair share of tax revenues. They said he is becoming increasingly willing to use his newfound political capital to tip the balance of power in Albany to state officeholders more sympathetic to the city's needs -- even if they happen to be Democrats.

As the article notes, this is in many ways reminiscent of then-Mayor Giuliani's backing of Cuomo vs. Pataki in the 1994 gubernatorial race. That move backfired after Pataki won a surprising victory. This move - while in a race for a lower office - is more likely to be successful, as well as potentially much more significant.

Why?

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads