He always impresses me, even though he is undeniably harsh on, oh, pretty much everyone. Hillary's the Borg Queen, Obama's the Safe Negro, and there are other, harsher descriptions for other politicians. He's clearly a strong liberal voice, but clearly disillusioned by many of the candidates out there. Like most of us, he wants his candidates to be better, I think. He's a helluva writer, to boot.
I'm not voting, as I don't feel comfortable with any option presented.
Impeach Cheney. Send the mother f$*(&(*r to prison for the rest of his god-damn natural life. Hell, try him for treason. Deport him. Make him live out his life in exile in Saudi Arabia or something. He can kick it in Idi Amin's old pad.
Impeach Gonzales, too.
Leave the Chimperor in office, badly wounded. We can survive another 18 months with that. But the Vice President must go.
a Republican State House member from suburban Chicago recently switched parties, in part because of the inflammatory racial rhetoric used in the McSweeney campaign against Melissa Bean and in Roskam's campaign.
He also wrote, early in 2007, an OpEd in the Trib, begging his party to become more racially progressive. It was widely panned by the far right. But, this legislator is actually to the left of a lot of white Democrats in Illinois on racial issues. OK, so he's still largely republican on most other issues, except for environment, but its a sign that the Republicans are cracking in places besides Kansas under the pressure of extremist rhetoric.
So, a week ago he jumped ship. The very immediate effects of what he termed "racial demagoguery" by the national party.
He'd be running as Hillary-lite. And we've seen what happens when Dems run and Republican-lite. They lose. Bloomberg will lose, too.
Sure, he'll be the candidate of the MSM and punditocracy. And he'll prove the people don't listen to the MSM and punditocracy anymore. The only question is which way he tilts the swing states. And there are too many factors that will be going on for that to be predictable in any way.
He's got a lot of work to do if he's going to run. Who's Bloomberg's base? Who's going to walk the precincts and do the phone banking? Who's going to get him on the ballot in places like Utah or Arizona or Louisiana?
He's got a lot of money, but building an entire organization isn't easy.
And he doesn't stand out on any issue. Not only that, but his only experience is as a Mayor. People call Obama inexperienced, but this guy has one plus term under his belt as a mayor who is most notable for riding the subway to work.
He doesn't have a huge issue to work with that can't be co-opted by any Democrat (Iraq, basically). What's his stand on medical care, on social security? Enough people freak out over Edward's wealth. Bloomberg is a thousand times wealthier.
Perot had a perfect storm with NAFTA. He could peal away isolationist republicans and labor Democrats.
Bloomberg is nothing more than a moderate version of Forbes.
I think he dumped his Republican party affiliation mostly because he doesn't need it anymore. He's popular enough in New York to win as an independent. And he's undoubtedly concerned, after 2006, about the effects of being a Republican in a region that is totally rejecting the Republican party.
Are we going to investigate the Caging that the Republicans have been engaging in? Will we press for an indictment against the RNC for violating the Voting Rights Act should the evidence be strong enough?
Actually, we may be able to use Wyoming to help end the war. Are any of the short-list candidates against the war? I know they're all Republicans, but perhaps one of them is anti-war? Can Wyoming people pressure Freudenthal to pick an anti-war appointee?