• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Will Bloomberg Be the Spoiler?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Bloomberg Prepares to Run

Monday, December 31, 2007 12:39 PM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size



New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously moving toward a decision to run for president as an independent in 2008 — and his aides are already laying the groundwork for a Bloomberg campaign.


Next weekend Bloomberg will join Democratic and Republican statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in an effort to push major party candidates into renouncing partisan gridlock.


Former Sen. David Boren of Oklahoma, one of the organizers of the gathering, told the New York Times that if major party candidates did not formally embrace bipartisanship within two months, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”

Another scheduled attendee at the Oklahoma meeting, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, has said he would consider being Bloomberg’s running mate on an independent ticket.

As Newsmax has reported, several Bloomberg advisers have been quietly feeling out potential campaign consultants regarding their availability should the mayor decide to run.


Patrick Brennan, political director of Bloomberg’s 2005 re-election campaign, has resigned his position as commissioner of the city’s Community Assistance Unit to spend more time exploring Bloomberg’s possible national campaign, according to the Times.


Bloomberg has consistently insisted that he has no plans to run for the White House. But in private talks with friends and associates, he has suggested he would give serious thought to a run if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart — for example, if Mike Huckabee is the GOP candidate and is opposed by Barack Obama or John Edwards.


In that case, Bloomberg might decide “those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself,” the Times observes.


The process for launching an independent campaign formally begins on March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating nominating petitions in Texas. Both major parties may have settled on their candidates by then. The deadline for filing the petitions is May 12.


Aides have said that Bloomberg, a multi-billionaire, could invest as much as $1 billion of his own money in a White House campaign, which would mean he would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money,” Boren said.


Political insiders say two things are certain regarding Bloomberg and the presidency — he will not resign his post as mayor to run, and he will not enter the campaign unless he believes he can win.


“Normally I don’t think an independent candidacy would have a chance,” said Boren, who is now president of the University of Oklahoma.


“I don’t think these are normal times.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Remarkable, isn't it? When Republicans controlled the White House and Congress, it was perfectly ok to have a divided country, spend money like drunken sailors, invade other countries, ignore or buy off the rest of the world, corrupt our legal system. Now that the Dems are in charge of Congress and have a good chance to get the White House, too, suddenly "we've got to come together" and find a "middle of the road candidate" is the mantra. :shock: I don't think a third party candidate has a chance. I know that I'm happy with my choice of presidential candidates in the Democratic column. It's Republicans who aren't happy and are taking a few Dems along for a ride. Apparently Rev. Huckabee's glow is even starting to dim.
 

jigs

Well-known member
if Ronald Reagan came back to run again and took the fool Hagel as a running mate I would not vote for that ticket.
Hagel is a dork. bought his seat in the Senate. and is a whinney windbag.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
jigs said:
if Ronald Reagan came back to run again and took the fool Hagel as a running mate I would not vote for that ticket.
Hagel is a dork. bought his seat in the Senate. and is a whinney windbag.

Watch out, Jiggsy. You are beginning to sound like a Husker! :shock: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
With the low quality of the current bunch that are the top 3 or 4 for each party- I could easily support an Independent candidate again....

But Bloomberg is not that candidate...He's as bad or worse than Hitlery, Oslama, Rummy, and Gagliano all together :roll: :( :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike Bloomberg calls himself a pragmatic, progressive centrist (whatever the hay that is...) :???:

This site calls him a Moderate Libertarian Liberal. :???:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm

I just call him Bad News all the way around :wink: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
Mike Bloomberg calls himself a pragmatic, progressive centrist (whatever the hay that is...) :???:

This site calls him a Moderate Libertarian Liberal. :???:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm

I just call him Bad News all the way around :wink: :lol:

"A child is starving. The Democrat would feed him, the Republican would give him a Bible so he would go to Heaven when he died and the Libertarian would build a fence around him so he didn't have to watch him starve to death."

Is that a definition of Libertarian you can live with, OT?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ff said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike Bloomberg calls himself a pragmatic, progressive centrist (whatever the hay that is...) :???:

This site calls him a Moderate Libertarian Liberal. :???:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm

I just call him Bad News all the way around :wink: :lol:

"A child is starving. The Democrat would feed him, the Republican would give him a Bible so he would go to Heaven when he died and the Libertarian would build a fence around him so he didn't have to watch him starve to death."

Is that a definition of Libertarian you can live with, OT?

Actually the Libertarian thinking on a starving child leans more towards the Democrat/liberal side-- that they need to be cared for-and helped to get self providing--but that the job is for the locals and states to handle- not the federal government under the current massive bureaucratic welfare boondoggle...And then once the person is on their feet and has a way to provide for themself- if they decide they don't want to do that-and would prefer to starve to death- that they have that right too....
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
ff said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike Bloomberg calls himself a pragmatic, progressive centrist (whatever the hay that is...) :???:

This site calls him a Moderate Libertarian Liberal. :???:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm

I just call him Bad News all the way around :wink: :lol:

"A child is starving. The Democrat would feed him, the Republican would give him a Bible so he would go to Heaven when he died and the Libertarian would build a fence around him so he didn't have to watch him starve to death."

Is that a definition of Libertarian you can live with, OT?

The Democrat wouldn't want to use their own food to feed the starving child. They would figure out a way to steal the food from a Republican before giving it to the hungry kid. :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Soapweed
The Democrat wouldn't want to use their own food to feed the starving child. They would figure out a way to steal the food from a Republican before giving it to the hungry kid. Rolling Eyes

Liberal don't want to support their causes, they want to force conservatives to support them...


but to test ff's theory... and how wrong she was... and how badly the real liberals faired...


And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
 
Top