Nice article by ex-colleague Nick Confessore, noting that if you judge by issue positions Michael Bloomberg just seems like a standard-issue Democrat. Quite so. He could, of course, adopt some new, more right-wing views to make himself more centrist, but doing that strategically would only further demonstrate the vacuity of the enterprise.
« Light Rail | Main | Ways of Winning »
The Mirage of Bloombergism
06 Jan 2008 03:15 pm
Comments (19)
He'll be the liberal democrat who loves the war on terror, and the media will go wild. That's what Broder wants.
But hey, the real issue isn't the policy positions. What's important is that Bloomberg is rich:
Privately, Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters and advisers say that the mayor’s stances on a few hot-button issues are beside the point. His large personal fortune and ability to self-finance a campaign, they argue, would insulate him from the demands of special-interest groups, allowing him to serve as an honest broker in the White House, much as he has in City Hall.
I just put down my own thoughts on my own thread on Bloomberg on TPMCafe, especially as related to Obama.
If you didn't see it, I recommend the Clyde Haberman Jan. 4 piece that I give a link to in the comment directly above that, and while you're up on the comment note the quote I selected out of the Jan. 3 NYT piece where it points out he'd been criticizing everyone but Obama.
I just put down my own thoughts on my own thread on Bloomberg on TPMCafe, especially as related to Obama.
If you didn't see it, I recommend the Clyde Haberman Jan. 4 piece that I give a link to in the comment directly above that, and while you're up on the comment note the quote I selected out of the Jan. 3 NYT piece where it points out he'd been criticizing everyone but Obama.
sorry for the double post caused by me trying to fix the link at the last minute. The link works in the second one, not in the first.
I think Artappraiser nails it, Bloomberg is setting himself up to be Obama's VP. But I think he is deluding himself, the last thing Obama needs in a VP is another big city, northern, liberal.
I'm thinking a swing state Governor.
I think Artappraiser nails it, Bloomberg is setting himself up to be Obama's VP. But I think he is deluding himself, the last thing Obama needs in a VP is another big city, northern, liberal. I'm thinking a swing state Governor.
Richardson actually seems the perfect VP candidate for Obama and meets your criteria as a swings state Governor. Richardson would make Obama competitive in the rapidly "Hispanicizing" southwest and would most certainly tip Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado into the blue against anyone but McCain. As a Texan I think Obama/Richardson would actually bring Texas into play. The white evangelical Republican stranglehold on Texas is rapidly slipping away.
In any event, Bloomberg doesn't strike me as a VP type to begin with. He's a top-dog. What would he gain out of a VP position?
At this point I can't see Bloomberg running.
The rise of Obama and the excitement around him coming from independent voters doesn't make for the kind of mean-spirited environment Bloomberg had hoped would allow him to buy his way into the White House. I think his would-be supporters will start drying up.
Oh I don't think Bloomberg himself would at all be interested in the VP job. He likes micromanaging a big system and proving he can fix it. He's probably quite interested in making sure there are lots of like minded folks with like minded talents in the actual cabinet posts. His rhetoric so far is that the president needs to be an inspirational leader as to making a new consensus different from the old red v. blue one. He's smart enough to know he's not that kind of inspirational leader. Before Iowa, we can already see that he was seeing that possible potential in Obama.
All I can see that would pique his possible interest is a Treasury offer, or maybe something like HUD.
At this point I can't see Bloomberg running.
Agreed. It seems that Obama's campaign has ended up co-opting the Bloombergian/Broderian "base."
p.s. as I said on another thread here, I think he wants to be Machiavelli, not president. And I don't mean the Cheney definition of Machiavellism, I mean the more authentic version. He's sure he knows how to get the U.S. healthy again. It's arrogance about his own abilities and theories, to be sure, but the impulse is also altruistic, he wants to do something good with his fortune. The egoism comes in that he thinks he knows all the answers, it's not at all about power. He doesn't crave power.
p.p.s. How can I put it more simply. Bloggers and media kept talking about his efforts like he was going to run, and some of you are still talking like it, as in "he's been coopted by Obama." He kept saying "I'm not running." You weren't listening right. No, he's not been "co-opted". Rather, things are going right now in the direction he wanted them to go. He was saying: I would only run if a spoiler was needed to set things in what he thought was the right direction. He was not under the folly that he could ever win, he's smarter than that about his own personality and appeal, he would, though, offer himself as a Perot type spoiler if he thought it could adjust things in the direction he wanted to see them go.
You might as well save this post and replace "Bloomberg" with "Broder" and repost it.
He could, of course, adopt some new, more right-wing views to make himself more centrist
Bloomberg could become a big proponent of massive surveillance programs.
Funny, I was posting something to that effect about a week ago, under a different name of course.
I went through the Bloomberg agenda and noted, at each turn, why they should just vote Dem.
My conclusion: "Sounds like what Nunn and Bloomberg really support is a more effective Democratic Party. They'd find a comfortable home in the lefty netroots."
Mayor Mike Bloomberg is the first successful underpants gnome to run for office. H. Ross Perot played Shirley Chisolm to Bloomberg's Barack Obama. What is the UPG plan?
1) collect underpants
2) ????????????????
3) govern!
My Dream Team (partial):
Obama / ??
Edwards - Attorney General
Biden - State
McCain - Defense
Bloomberg - Energy (a huge bureaucracy to modernize with technology and rewards for entrepreneurs)
Clinton - Senate Majority Leader or Supreme Court Justice
I don't get the press' fascination with the idea of a Bloomberg run. he's a 'worst of all worlds' candidate. was a Dem but sold out to become mayor. retains many Dem policy positions, which are completely hated by the Repugs he'd need to vote for him. Dems won't touch him with a 10 foot pole because he kissed Bush's ass, supported the Iraq war, allowed the Repug convention in NYC post Iraq, post Abu Ghraib, went along with the swiftboating, the purple heart bandages, and arrested and locked up thousands of people trying to protest legally.
he will get NO love should he decide to run. none, nobody has any use for him except wankers who think that being a quixotic mixture of Dem and Repug is the ultimate state of existence. if he wants to blow a ton of his money, let him. he's too egotistical to let himself get wiped all over the floor by, well probably Obama, so my guess is that he will be coy and then not enter the race, telling anyone who thought he was going to that they were stupid on his way out as well.
Comments closed January 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Sure, he's got fairly Democratic policy positions, but that isn't the most bizarre aspect to Bloomberg's alleged post-partisan line.
During the Republican National Convention in NYC he had police round up protesters and detain them without giving them access to a judge or lawyer until the end of the convention. As a mayor he suspended habeas corpus in order to detain people he disagreed with for exercising their first amendment rights.
I'm looking forward to months of fear and loathing as the media overlooks this while hailing him as a non-partisan savior. Who is he non-partisan in comparison to? Sheriff Bull Connor?
Posted by justaguy | January 6, 2008 3:36 PM