The Candidates
On the heels of Hagel’s displeasure with the Republican party earlier today and his declaration that he could see himself on an independent ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg comes this gem from the Washington Times:
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.8 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Tuesday in The Washington Times.
“He has set aside $1 billion to go for it,” a long-time business adviser to Mr. Bloomberg tells The Times. “The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it.”
“Mike has been meeting with Ross Perot’s most senior people about how they did an independent run in 1992,” the Bloomberg business adviser said.
Republicans tell The Times that they are taking the Bloomberg threat seriously, while the mayor’s associates say they are fielding calls from staffers for Republican Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, which the Bloomberg adviser compared to “a biplane on fire and spiraling down.”
Three things: first, any mention of a Republican using a Perot-like strategy to make an independent run is bound to give Republicans flashbacks of 1992. Bad flashbacks. Really bad.
Second, the fact that they’ve already set aside the money, are ready to spend it, and have been meeting with Perot’s guys shows they’re pretty dang serious about this thing. I’d put the odds at more than even money that Mikey and Chuck end up doing this thing…
Third, what’s the deal with that quote about McCain’s campaign? I don’t buy it for a second…
May 14th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I’ve come across a few sources indicating that in order to get his first claim to fame, Giuliani knowingly prosecuted an innocent Wall Street investor named Michael Milken, arresting and charging him and another man in a high profile media blitz. The story is told in former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Robert’s article “The Criminal Career of Rudy Giuliani” and in the books
“The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice”
by Paul Craig Roberts and
“Payback: Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and His Financial Revolution, The” by Daniel Fischel
Opinions?
May 14th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Well, there goes 2008, if Hagel and Bloomberg jump in. Perot got 19%. Imagine what a sane person could do!
May 14th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I’m not going to worry about them until they make it official….
May 14th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
The remark about the McCain campaign up in flames is, I think, corroborated by the disgraceful way McCain behaved in this situation before having all the facts:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/05/rudy_goes_for_the_save.html
May 14th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I’m guessing that given “he that pays the piper calls the tune”, Bloomberg is on top of the ticket. Plus, a Mayor has better executive experience than a Senator. Senators make better #2’s than #1’s.
The geographical appeal of this ticket is pretty well balanced as well. I think this could be really bad news for Republicans. If Giuliani is nominated, all those social conservatives who hate the Iraq war may well go for this ticket - Hagel’s social views are well known, as is his & Bloomberg’s opposition to the war.
Is this a secret plan by Bloomberg to gift the election to the Dems? A re-run of 1992 would make the other Clinton President.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Well…Bloomberg’s just as to the left on guns, gays and abortion as Giuliani is, maybe more.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Bloomberg has said that no one needs to own a handgun. Ever. He’s absurdly farther to the left on guns then Giuliani. Anyone one who thinks he’s capable of winning over ANY person with the slightest iota of respect for the second amendment is dreaming. Bring it on Mikey.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I don’t see this as that big of a deal. What are the biggest three issues for the GOP base?
1 - Iraq/GWOT (both want to pullout)
2 - Judges (Bloomberg is at least as socially liberal as Giuliani and even “America’s Mayor decided he couldn’t walk that tightrope)
3 - Immigration (I am sure Bloomberg is an open borders guy since NYC is a sanctuary city)
They will be against the base on the three biggest issues which will override the fact that they both want to cut taxes and limit the size of government. They will cut much more into the Dems because of those three issues. Also they aren’t outsiders like Perot/Stockdale were. If they get in we are in great shape because they split the anit-war vote and whomever we nominate will be able to rally the base to victory.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Notwithstanding that the anti-war vote is around 70%…
May 14th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Dskinner,
I can’t imagine why you think Bloomberg wants to cut taxes. He increased taxes in New York by 3 billion dollars. He failed to cut spending at all. He’s a liberal through and through. He makes every single person in the race, including John Edwards, look moderate or conservative.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Umm… here is a question I have for ya’ll. Would the Bloomberg running as “Perot”-like party AND Al Gore as Green party, be the straw that broke the camel’s back? Would these two parties with the backing of these mega-stars shatter the present 2-party system into multi-parties as we so desperately needed? Are we at the point in history when a party could replace other, similar to when Abe Lincoln’s Republican Party, which once was a third party, replaced Whig Party?
May 14th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I don’t think the anti-war vote is anywhere close to 70%. 70% represents the number of people that think we should pull out. People may feel like we should pull out but still vote for the GOP based on other issues (judges for example) or based on the belief that Clinton/Obama/Edwards/ would be even worse for our national security than if we stay in Iraq.
Look at the last election, the GOP had corruption/scandal/macaca issues that cost them 2 Senate seats directly and many more House seats. The war hurt, but we would have at least 51 Senators and the House would probably be more like 223-212 with the Dems having control. People will vote much more responsibly and conservatively than they will answer questions on the phone.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Matt,
Thank you for pointing that out, I assumed that someone with an (R) by there name would at least have one issue that they agreed with the party on. This proves my point even more that Bloomberg/Hagel is the Dems worst nightmare, not ours. I think this gives us a 350+ electoral college landslide.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Dskinner (#14),
I just want to check your number. Are you sure 70% WANTS to pull out? I thought I read that 70% were not satisfied with how war was going. This polls did not break down into wanting to get out or wanting a major direction change. Am I mistaken?
May 14th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Dskinner (#14) says “70% represents the number of people that think we should pull out. People may feel like we should pull out but still vote for the GOP based on other issues (judges for example)”
–> these people would be very interested in this ticket, as Hagel is more conservative than most on issues like abortion, but the ticket is still anti-war. This is my point.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Matt (#12) he doesn’t just raise taxes. According to the NY Post, he cut them earlier this year. Certainly not a conservative tax cutter, but does have both raises & cuts to point to on his resume. So I’d put him to the right of a number of Dems…
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01172007/postopinion/editorials/mike_does_right_editorials_.htm
May 14th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
SGS,
I just used JayPe’s number. I believe you are correct though. These survey’s don’t usually give people many options.
JayPe,
People vote the top of the ticket and Bloomberg would be even less credible than Rudy if he tried to convince people he would nominate conservative judges. Bloomberg would have to say that he is willing to spend 1 billion dollars, and only enact one thing he believes in (pullout of Iraq). To appeal to the GOP base the rest of his positions would be scrapped for Hagel’s. I don’t think Bloomberg would be willing flip ideologically. It would be be like Fred Thompson trying to appeal to the Democratic base, it just isn’t credible.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Rasmussen initial poll on Bloomberg /Hagel shows, as of now, a repeat of 1992:they siphon enough votes from the GOP ticket for a 6 or 7% Clinton victory.
Only hope is that Bloomberg is much more Liberal than Perot and if GOP can get the message out, that should cut into the Dems totals more.
Could end up with three New Yorkers as the top candidates. Interesting.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Bloomberg has major ups and downs. His most phenomenal accomplishment was busting up the NYC Board of Education, which Giuliani failed miserably at. On the other hand, Bloomie lost the battle over the West Side Stadium to a bunch of clubhouse Dem hacks in the state legislature.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
TennJoe,
We better start doing it now. Bloomberg is too absurdly liberal to be a credible alternative for Republican voters. But if we don’t define him as the Liberal he is, he’ll attempt to define himself as something else. If we can’t easily turn an effeminate, cosmopolitan, New York City Liberal, who doesn’t think anyone needs a handgun ever, into a far left figure, then we don’t deserve to be a majority party. End of story.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Sorry about the multiple posts up there, I reposted when the long version didnt come up right away.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
One things for sure. If we have 3 pro-choice candidates in the general election in November 08′, the world will have collapsed. And any chance of us gaining from the extreme leftness of Bloomberg/Hillary/Obama/Edwards, will be finished.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
3 NY candidates would be fascinating. I think the more time the major candidates are on the TV, the more the insults are hurled in the toxic partisan atmosphere - the more likely it is that a 3rd party ticket can gain traction at a late stage with lots of money.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
JayPe, the sad part is that a third party is more likely to be the result of a split in the GOP than the Democratic Party. It will probably be a fiscal consevative/social conservative split that does the job. I wonder which camp will inherit the Republican name.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
JF,
The GOP could be split by a 3rd party, but not by Bloomberg he is the most liberal Republican I have ever heard of. He and Hagel will split the anti-war vote.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:31 am
we can’t do 3 pro choice NYers w/o stating that there will be a prolife candidate
May 15th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Bloomberg makes Rudy look like Tom Delay. Don’t get me wrong, I love Rudy, but he is moderate socially. Bloomberg on the other hand is so far out in left field I really fail to see where he would come down differently than Hillary. He is openly in favor of open borders, is openly hostile to gun ownership, raised taxes, banned smoking almost everywhere. Now that I think about it, many Dems running for the nomination are less liberal than Bloomy (Richardson looks like Tom Tancredo next to this guy). The problem is, the media will cast him as a “moderate” and harp on the (R) next to his name to get Hillary in.
I do know that Hillary is scared to death of him running because he is basically a clone of her, policy-wise.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:53 am
And now that I think about it, how could a Bloomy/Hagel ticket be “moderate” on the war in Iraq. Hagel certainly is not going to back down on his out-of-Iraq-now approach, and you’d think a ticket would have to at least agree on the war. A Bloomy/Hagel ticket would probably have to be farther left than Hillary on the war in Iraq.