Unity '08 to shut down and reconstitute itself as a "Draft Bloomberg" movement. Because in the wake of catastrophic conservative governance, America needs two center-left candidates to split the vote and ensure the catastrophe continues!
« Delegate Count Revised | Main | HD Politics »
Bloombergunity '08
10 Jan 2008 11:12 am
Comments (56)
So Unity08 found a way to make itself even more ridiculous. That's quite impressive.
At the end of the linked article, Elizabeth Benjamin refers to all the mixed signals from Bloomberg and say, "Confused yet? Join the club."
There's nothing confusing about it at all. Bloomberg has an ego the size of Brooklyn and he loves all the stroking he's getting from teasing about a run. But he doesn't want to actually be President, and he certainly doesn't want to do the hard work of running for it. Unlike NYC mayor, where he was able to campaign simply by spending his billions on advertising, for President he knows he'd actually have to campaign. Wouldn't leave a lot of time for trips to Bermuda, I'm afraid.
And of course washed-up and irrelevant has-beens like David Boren and Sam Nunn get some of the stroking themselves by touting him, so the giant circle-jerk continues. As anyone who's ever been part of a circle-jerk can tell you, the motivations are really not that complicated.
Just shoot me now.
The people have spoken! In a back room, offline, in Oklahoma.
Now it really will be Vanity 08.
I just need to know one thing: What does David Broder think of this. Y'know, so us hicks in the heartland know how we should be proceeding.
Somebody get Ed Koch and David Dinkins on the phone - we need more NYC mayors in the race!
What MoeLarryAndJesus said.
America needs two center-left candidates
I think you're supposed to refer to the as 'center-center'. Whatever that means exactly.
I just need to know one thing: What does David Broder think of this.
Whoa, hey, yeah! Bloomberg/Broder in '08! Broder will reduce the draw to zero from the left, ensuring that B&B get 2 votes!
max
['UNITY!']
Kind of like Obama/Edwards splitting their votes to ensure a Clinton victory.
Why don't Clinton, Obama, and Edwards jointly offer to appoint Bloomberg Treasury Secretary in the administration of whichever one of them wins? Or better yet, pre-select him as VP candidate and finance chair thereby saving me whatever I might otherwise contribute in the general election.
Kind of like Obama/Edwards splitting their votes to ensure a Clinton victory.
Yup. Edwards needs to put his ego (id, really) aside and get out of the ract.
The people have spoken! In a back room, offline, in Oklahoma.
Don't forget the smoke... in that back room, somewhere...
I'm sure somebody was smoking something.
Kind of like Obama/Edwards splitting their votes to ensure a Clinton victory.
Yup. Edwards needs to put his ego (id, really) aside and get out of the race.
In what universe is Bloomberg center-left?
I like Atrios's suggestion of a Sharpton/Tancredo ticket, myself.
Bloombergs first act as Mayaor of NYC was to declare the City no longer Recycles.
With a stroke of his pen.
What else would he dispose of on a federal level ?
Still it's better than partisan politics...right ?
I feel bad for Sam Waterston. He became the face of Unity08 and seemed to truly want to bring the country together. I wonder if he knew it would be turned into this monstrosity. Why does anyone think "bipartisanship" can come from the left, be it Bloomberg or Obama? We've seen what happens when the left reaches out to the right - it was called the 2007 Congress. It doesn't work. Without 61 votes in the Senate, the Dems won't get diddly done no matter who's in the White House. Especially not someone who's willing to bend over backwards to make sure the Republicans aren't upset that they're not getting everything they want.
Is Unity08's entire platform that they and none of the other guys should be running the country? Like Romney but without the facade?
"Peace, unity, love, and having fun"
—Afrika Bambaataa and James Brown
I "third" what MoeLarryandJesus said.
It's bad enough we have just decided the DemPres Race is over after only TWO STATES weighing in. I would like to vote, thank you.
Now someone has decided that the Democratic side of the two party system--which is already full of terrific options over the Republican parade of wankers-- is ripe for the pickin, and wants in based on NO MANDATE from the people. Has anyone told Unity 08--especially Fuhrer Bloomberg-- they are not needed?
Go away and buy yourself a yacht, dude.
Time to resurrect Unity08 and offer up a Joe Lieberman/Sean Hannity ticket.
It's possible that Edwards sees himself as a real and valuable alternative to Clinton/Obama and is putting his ego aside by staying in the race.
Look, I don't think Edwards is going to win, either, nor do I support him (I'm an Obama man), but the damn thing is not decided yet. All we have so far are two states and a bunch of punditry. At this stage in the game, only the truly hopeless candidates need to exit. Let the rest of the goddamn country vote; there's no reason this thing has to be decided a week after Iowa.
Kind of like Obama/Edwards splitting their votes to ensure a Clinton victory.
Actually, Edwards staying in the race could prevent a Clinton sweep.
& it is possible that Edwards is offering us an alternative to the "Placate Lieberman at all costs" plank.
I've had enough of this Democratic/Republican/Unity partisanship. What we need is a tri-partisan approach that ensures that America changes together.
Bloomberg basically offers us H.Clinton's positions (including on foreign policy), with Romney's managerial competence. I'm an Obama fan, but I would be intrigued if Bloomberg were in the Dem race.
I guess Bloomberg is "center-left" because a real right-winger would've had all those protesters shot instead of just locked up.
Puhleeeeze! Bloomberg is not "center left." He's a Republican who has been a rock hard supporter of the Bush administration, the Bush candidacy in 2004, the Iraq war, and the Bushista national security state in all its fascist glory.
But that is the Yglesias version of center left, to be sure. Big liberal hawk who was a rabid cheerleader for the Iraq war, and only backed off when he realized that just wasn't popular any more. Now we get this crap.
Why people bother to read this man's continual stream of drivel is beyond me.
I really don't see how a Bloomberg candidacy does anything, but strengthen the Democratic position.
Conservatives, who instinctively vote against liberals, Democrats, blacks and Clintons, but who have also noticed that Bush and the Republicans are corrupt and incompetent and must be turned out, have to have somewhere harmless that they can go.
The greatest danger to a Democratic candidacy is that low-information, reactionary "independents" and refugee Republicans will have a gut reaction against whomever the Democrats nominate (and the MSM with Republican help, slime endlessly), and rationalize that the McCain/Romney is not the same as Bush/Cheney, and that's change enough.
There has to be some place for those anti-Democrat voters to go, which is harmless to the country. If Bloomberg is willing to spend a $1 billion of his own money to supply such a place, I say, "thank you, Mike."
Michael Bloomberg is a Republican, regardless of his officially leaving the party.
Bloomberg wants to ban protests on the Great Lawn of Central Park on the grounds that protestors would hurt the grass.
Bloomberg presided over mass arrests of protestors during the 2004 Republican Convention.
This shows he has a Republican mentality.
For the record, Bob Roth has stated that the Daily News story is a "False Report".
http://www.unity08.com/node/11969#comment-6656
Cervantes: I mostly agree with your description of Bloomberg, but all snark aside, there really are a lot of people who see him as a moderate Democrat. Matthew is IMO speaking very carelessly, but he does represent a widely held wrong idea.
I left NY shortly after Bloomberg was elected and I don't know much about what New Yorkers think of him now. I do know how he got elected. Compared to Rudy and the national Republicans, he looked like the sanest and mildest guy in the world. The Democrats in the race were long-time NY pols with baggage; all most people knew about Bloomberg was that he had money and ran a news service. His switch to the Republican party was universally seen as a move of convenience: if he wanted to run, he had to hold his nose and let Rudy shake his hand. He seemed like the furthest thing from an ideologue.
Actually my gut feeling about him - based on not much - is that he isn't one. Unlike Rudy, I don't think he thinks of himself as a crusader or a king or an asshole. He just thinks he's a no-nonsense guy, a practical businessman like everyone really wants to be, with no time for all the silly politics. His opinions on things like Iraq are received opinions - he figures an ordinary guy would just want to kick Saddam's ass, or Osama's, or whoever. An ordinary guy wouldn't waste time arguing with a bunch of hippie protesters; just let the cops figure it out, that's their job. An ordinary guy wouldn't be too upset by banning smoking in bars because, well, maybe he would but smoking is icky. He's not the New York Post mayor like Rudy; he's the New York Times mayor - smug, totally blind to his privilege, and not half as well informed as he thinks he is.
Bloomberg, if he runs, will provide a line on the ballot for people who would normally vote Republican, couldn't bring themselves to vote Dem in a million years, but have come around to the realization that the GOP has really screwed the pooch.
Absent Bloomberg, some of those people will stay home, and others will hold their noses and vote for the GOP nominee.
Run, Mike, run!
Bloomberg is an outstanding NYC mayor. Obama is a mediocre junior senator. If Obama gets the Dem vote, I'm voting Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is an outstanding NYC mayor. Obama is a mediocre junior senator. If Obama gets the Dem nomination, I'm voting Bloomberg.
Kind of like Obama/Edwards splitting their votes to ensure a Clinton victory.
Yup. Edwards needs to put his ego (id, really) aside and get out of the race.
Edwards is primarily competing with Clinton for votes, not Obama. Obama is stomping Clinton and Edwards among Independents and young voters, while they split the larger demographics of party Democrats and older voters. You can also see it in the results from Iowa and New Hampshire:
Obama - 38, 37
Hillary - 30, 39
Edwards - 30, 17
The shift is that Hillary took a bunch of votes and Edwards lost a bunch of votes. The best - maybe only - way for Obama to win is for Edwards to stay in the race and keep slicing into Hillary's constituencies.
Bloomberg may actually be a Democrat, but, after he switched parties to make the run for mayor of NYC without a difficult primary, he sure did a lot of fundraising for BushBoy and his ilk.
It's not like he held back.
And he allowed his police to do some really rightwing whackjobs against people who were in NYC to demonstrate against Dear Leader at the Republican Convention. In fact, people just had to be on the sidewalk or walking down the library steps at the wrong time to be swept up and held for many, many hours in rather unpleasant conditions. A guy with a bicycle mounted chalk message printer was arrested and his bike held for--forever? I don't know if he ever got it back!
The courts were not pleased with Mayor Mike's police actions, and the city had to pay out some hefty settlements to those who sued for illegal arrest.
Democrats like Bloomberg I can do without. And he best watch that this doesn't really sink his reputation, which right now is OK.
We're quickly entering the stage in which the discussion should be about which of the two, Hillary or Barack, will head the ticket, and which will be VP. The role of the grassroots should be to equalize their support, to force the teams to reach an accommodation and put forward a killer, unite fall campaign.
What I want to know is: what's Bloomberg's game?
Does he actually think he has a shot at the White House? Surely he's not so stupid. If he's serious about a run it'll cost him hundreds of millions. I don't get it. He's a smart guy. Why throw your money away? If you don't need it yourself why not give it to charity? Or, does he actually want to help insure a Democratic loss?
During the Republican convention, Bloomberg not only locked up protestors (and Macy's shoppers and others who were simply swept up), he had them held at a bus depot that the Republicans had leased for that purpose and ignored repeated orders from a judge to release them. I still have a button the city issued: "Welcome Peaceful Political Activists."
Bloomberg is a Republican. It's not just the preemptive arrests, it's giving money to Republican candidates in state government, governing from a basically Republican coalition, and continuing Giuliani's polcy direction (minus some of the vanity, thuggishness and lying, which it must be said id a welcome change).
As Mayor of New York City, Bloomberg has had policies to the left of Bush's -- just like northeastern Republican mayor Giuliani and northeastern Republican givernor Romney. But if he ever governs from the White House, he will head a Republcian goevrning coalition just like those two, or McCain, or Huckabee, or Paul for that matter.
Matt may be right that he would take more votes from the Democratic nominee, but if elected, he will not be centerleft, he will be another right-wing Republican.
Do people think he would govern with a colaition based on just Lieberman and Sanders?
Bloomberg is a Republican. It's not just the preemptive arrests, it's giving money to Republican candidates in state government, governing from a basically Republican coalition, and continuing Giuliani's polcy direction (minus some of the vanity, thuggishness and lying, which it must be said is a welcome change).
As Mayor of New York City, Bloomberg has had policies to the left of Bush's -- just like northeastern Republican mayor Giuliani and northeastern Republican givernor Romney. But if he ever governs from the White House, he will head a Republcian governing coalition just like those two, or McCain, or Huckabee, or Paul for that matter.
Matt may be right that he would take more votes from the Democratic nominee, but if elected, he will not be centerleft, he will be another right-wing Republican.
Do people think he would govern based on an alliance with just Lieberman and Sanders?
"[G]overning from a basically Republican coalition"? What on earth does that mean? A New York mayor doesn't really work through political coalitions in the first place (which is why the job is a terrible way to prepare for the Presidency).
Are you simply equating business interests with Republican interests?
Kind of like Obama/Edwards splitting their votes to ensure a Clinton victory.
Edwards is Obama's best friend in this race. If I'm Obama, I want Edwards in the race until the convention.
As for Unity '08, I wonder: since when does turning a two-way fight into a three-way fight make us more unified? There's a reason why being the third man in gets you a game misconduct.
Bloomberg is able to get his policies done because he has the support of several distinct constituencies, including real estate, the newspapers, and white middle-class voters in the outer boroughs. The same constituencies that supported Giuliani and Koch. Even though the Democrat Koch first built this alliance, it is now "basically Republican," as I said. Manhattan liberals, labor, and black, Latino, and Asian voters are the constituencies which could unite to challenge him if someone could pull the group together -- a basically Democratic coalition. Obviously there are other possible configurations.
These are not original ideas with me.
Everyone who is saying that Bloomberg is just like Giuliani need to put the crack pipe down. Rudy was just a grade-a asshole. Remember all the lawsuits against the city on first amendment issues? How about his support for the police in everything they did (that would be including shooting unarmed civilians)? His whole STFU attitude? I don't like all of B's positions, but he is a far cry from Giuliani II.
And NYC is currently recycling again. The stoppage of the program was due to the budget cuts after 9/11. Big budget deficit.
the only thing bloomberg is to the left of is my nuts
Eric Jaffa, I agree with Bloomberg on this question of grass, and I'm pretty well to the left of center. There's no reason the city should destroy its central green space for a protest. Have you ever seen a field after a rock concert? It's a mess.
Ideally, protests should occur in a paved public space.
Not that I really think Bloomberg is a green and ingenuous on this one.
great comment by Hob.
The Times and the Post support Bloomberg.
He got elected becuase Mark Green decided the way to beat Freddy Ferrer was to attack him for not being white. But a white (supposed) liberal can't win against a real opponent without support from the people of color that Green had just finished saying were terrible threats to the sanctity of whiteness.
It is certainly true that New Yorkers were tired of Giuliani's psycho assholery, and that the fact that Bloomberg is sane and not a moron are two points in his favor. But that doesn't make him a Democrat. Just ask Joe Bruno.
Somebody above suggested an Obama/Clinton ticket.
Well, if Camille Paglia is right in her recent Salon article about how Clinton views men, this would be similar to a Bush/Cheney ticket. Clinton would be trying to force Obama to do what she wants for the whole term and publicly criticizing him when he didn't go along with her agenda. And unlike Bush, she probably couldn't push Obama around.
It would be a disaster.
Paglia also points out that she would keep up the same snippy, denigrating attitude toward all her opponents in the Congress, guaranteeing that nothing would get done.
In other words, she wouldn't just be a divisive character in the elections, she would be a hugely divisive character in the government.
Not to mention that her attitude isn't going to go over well with Muslims at all. It will be like Condi Rice magnified tenfold. I see no evidence that Obama would have that problem, despite Daniel Pipe's nonsense about being an "apostate Muslim."
Yikes.
Hillary Clinton is center right.
Just because Bloomberg isn't a raving maniac doesn't make him center left. It makes him a moderate Republican.... Like Hillary Clinton
I feel used and abused. ZERO UNITY 08 is."What crap. The worst part is that I actually liked the idea of a Bloomberg candidacy, but the whole thing smells so manipulative and contrived and betrays such contempt for the Unity08 supporters that I can’t stand the thought of supporting him now.
and we have to explain to all our invitees. The Unity08 bastards shut down the web-site. I never would not have became involved in Unity had I known. He has too many billions for me to be sharing my few dollars with. I'm sick and angry about the
misrepresentation of the Board of Directors of Unity08 Robert Bingham,Angus King,Peter Ackerman,Zach Clayton,Lindsay Ullman were the Board of Directors, Unity08
I wish (and will probably continue to wish...) our media creatures stop uncritically transmitting the Unity '08 bipartisan blather, and would instead ask the Unity '08 ring- and cheerleaders these important questions:
1. What policies do you propose that you believe can achieve bipartisan consensus?
2. How do you propose to fix health care?
3. How do you propose to address the Iraq War?
4. What is your view on executive power?
5. What is your view on climate change?
6. What is your view of the abortion argument?
Once these questions are answered, and it becomes apparent that their answers are to sell out to the GOP, we can then safely confirm their total irrelevance to political reality.
I actually think Bloomberg would probably hurt the GOP more, but that depends on who the nominee turns out to be.
Comments closed January 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
How exactly does a warmongering Bush-lapdog like Bloomberg qualify as "center-left"? Opposition to making abortion illegal can't count for that much. He's Giuliani with hair and more money.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 10, 2008 11:25 AM