Gothamist: Mayor Bloomberg's Coy About the White House

nuts

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:29:51 -0500

To "how do you know": In the vast depths of the internet, find me data showing me that Bloomberg had a coherent opinion on the Iraq war and how it affects New Yorkers. If you find it, I will gladly put my foot in my mouth. But I'm not worried, as you will never find it, since it does not exist. I personally don't believe in things that don't exist. Why do you?

stop talking

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:27:02 -0500

lee of course is one of those really brilliant and highly educated liberals that has absolutely no understanding of the world outside of New York.

lee

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:40:53 -0500

hah! look at you people focusing on real issues. Bloomie would never get nominated simply for the fact that he is a divorced jewish male. wouldn't stand a chance in the flyover states.

T.

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:55:22 -0500

what is so liberal about bloomberg? hes still a billionaire ... I hope you are joking...the guy is a lifelong democrat tree hugger. He only switched parties so that he could run, since he couldn't score the Democratic nomination. And there are plenty of rich libs, just look at Hollywood for proof.

who knows

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:06:31 -0500

Could Bloomberg get the nomination? Probably not. He'd probably do ok in the Western states where the Republicans are more about small government and there is an influx of Califonian refugees. I think he'd get clocked in the South where the family values, religion card plays well. Some opportunistic candidate could do to Bloomberg what Bush did to McCain. As for what he would do as President, I could see him taking a cue from Clinton and trying the triangulation strategy. That the current Republican leadership inthe White House and Congress is broken doesn't necessarily mean a future Presidential candidate is made from the same mold. In fact it would be easier to fix the party with a new Republican President than trying to oust several hundred Congressmen. Besides, Republicans will likely not hold the House this fall anyway. The fact the New Yorkers have voted for "Republican" mayoral candidates four straight times should be a wake up call to Democrats that the far left candidates have less appeal, even here. I put Republican in quotes because we all know Bloomberg is well to the left of the current national party but still to the right of the past Democratic candidates for mayor.

mortonstreeter

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:06:04 -0500

what is so liberal about bloomberg? hes still a billionaire ...

mrf

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:46:33 -0500

As I said, I'm a big Bloomberg fan, so obviously I don't think he's anything like Bush. But the Republican party is busted right now in ways that go beyond Bush (so are the Democrats, but that's another issue). Could Bloomberg clean up the Republican party as he fixes the country? Maybe... I guess a more interesting question is...could Bloomberg possibly get the Republican nomination?

how do you know

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:43:35 -0500

I think you are making quite a leap in that conclusion. That sounds more like PR spin than anything else. Why go on the record years before the election cycle even begins and you still have a reelection campaign to think about? Do you really believe he doesn't have opinions on global policy?

nuts

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:26:05 -0500

edEx, I think you've been living in a cave, because Bloomberg has never gone on record with any comprehensive opinion or solutions to any foreign policy issues (and yes, he was asked by the press about it on many occasions). He basically implied "Hey, it's not a local issue, so I'm not going to bother thinking about it." Others were quick to point out that foreign policy is a local issue, as it affects New Yorkers' lives in a gruesomely literal way. Yes, he can hire experts on foreign policy to make decisions, but that means that Bloomberg himself does not have an inkling of how those guys came up with their decisions. If I did my job that way, I'd get fired. But yes, he's definitely better than Bush. But we still deserve a new president who at least KNOWS HIS STUFF. That's all I'm asking for. But wait, wanting a president who actually knows how to do his job is considered nuts!

I don't think so

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:06:52 -0500

mrf, I think you are oversimplifying that all Republicans think alike. Perhaps that is the Democrats greatest problem when it comes to elections. There is simply no evidence that Bloomberg would run the executive branch in the same manner as Bush. I doubt he would come to the same conclusions regarding wire tapping. Based on your logic, Bill Clinton should have been expected to behave just like Jimmy Carter.

edEx

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:00:46 -0500

Sadly, because we're in (literally) WWIII, the next few presidents will be republicans.

mrf

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:51:00 -0500

I am a big Bloomberg fan, but I would only vote for him as an independent (or a Democrat, but that seems unlikely). Like LaGuardia said, there's no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage. But there is a Republican way to run the country, and entrenching that party in the White House for another eight years would be bad news, no matter who the President is.

The Invisible Hand

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:44:41 -0500

New York's been unaffordable long before MB came to town.

edEx

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:42:17 -0500

*zero foreign policy skills* nuts: have you been living in a cave the last few years? he has more foreign policy skills than bush did have before the first election and ever will have durring and after his current presidency. bloomberg would surround himself with a great advisors and cabinet members. he is a little lib, but that wouldn't matter to me. also, his presidential campaign would be 100% his own money and no outside investors... meaning? he would owe nothing to the big corporations and bullshit... needless to say, he would be 100% corrupt free.

huh?

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:27:20 -0500

"If he could do for America what he did for New York, I think the world would honestly be better off." So this would mean all Americans would have to leave the country because it's unaffordable?

MT

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:24:11 -0500

Hell yeah! I'd vote for him for in a New York minute. The man may not have all the skills, but he is is a quick learner and is smart enough to surround himself with a staff that is genuinely competent - not just a gaggle of cronies. If he could do for America what he did for New York, I think the world would honestly be better off.

one can hope

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:17:45 -0500

"Not Bush" is exactly what the Democrats tried in 2002, 2004, and are doing again this year. Even that openly gay candidate for Manhattan Borough President last year tried the "not Bush" approach for a local election. Lot of good it did him. The only prayer the Democrats have in the 2008 election is that enough Californians flee to Idaho, Nevada, Arizona etc. to tip those states. Then Florida and Ohio won't even matter.

T.

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:16:36 -0500

He's way too liberal in some areas for my tastes, so no.

notn

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:11:17 -0500

>Posted by: nuts Yes, you are in fact nuts! :)

nuts

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:39:29 -0500

Bloomberg has zero foreign policy skills. Ask him what he thinks about the Iraq situation. The man can't even come up with an opinion, let alone any strategy on what to do about it. Still, he'll likely be better than Bush, but is this what we're gonna settle for, someone who's simply "not Bush"? How about someone who actually knows about civics and government? Am I nuts or what?