Gothamist: Bloomberg in 2008 Would Be a Sane Perot

Blike Moomberg

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:13:39 -0500

Using a hundred million dollars of excessive advertising to lull the masses into believing that a mayor is "getting stuff done" is a pretty big perversion of democracy, if you ask me. Remember when he skipped the debate? There was an empty podium with his name on it. That's a perversion of democracy. Do some research on the mayor's record on checks and balances, and how he dismisses the Fourth Amendment. I'm surprised this guy calls himself an American and can still look himself in the mirror.

anonymass

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:26:08 -0500

That's why Bloomberg doesn't have a chance. He doesn't suit the right-wing agenda. He only panders to the pro big-business contingent which, while obviously powerful in an economic sense, pales in comparison to the rest of the Republican base in a voting sense.

solidago

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:22:04 -0500

"Bloomberg has even less of a chance than Giuliani of winning the primary." Screw the primaries where the only thing that happens is that the demagogues pick the nutcase that suits them - Bloomberg can buy his own. The beauty of guys like Bloomberg is that they can just say f-you to our perverted political system and focus on actually getting stuff done.

anonymass

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:32:23 -0500

Bloomberg has even less of a chance than Giuliani of winning the primary.

Blike Moomberg

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:23:59 -0500

#5, I see your point, however Bloomberg is so inexperienced he would likely choose Dan Doctoroff as his running mate. Bloomberg's political experience stretches way back to 2001 (when he was first elected mayor). He learned on the job. We can't afford to have a commander-in-chief whose style of political power is to learn on the job. Electing Bloomberg as President would arguably cause indirect casualties due to the high chance of erroneous decisions he'd make. Repairing a country isn't the same as running a business.

Blike Moomberg

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:20:14 -0500

#4, that's exactly why our standards need to be raised. If Clinton and Bush knew better, it's possible 9/11 might not have happened. If Bush knew better, Iraq wouldn't be in shambles. Haven't we learned our lesson by now? Zero foreign policy expertise=disaster. Let's not elect another newbie, all right?

brian

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:13:05 -0500

most Presidents did not have a background in world affairs, if anything they choose a running mate/vice president with experience in it e.g. Clinton (lawyer) -> Gore (served in senate intelligence commitee) e.g. Bush (business) -> Cheney (was sec. of defense) e.g. Reagan (actor) -> Bush (head of CIA)

b

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:11:27 -0500

Blike, none of the current candidates nor our current president and even the one before were trained/educated in foreign affairs/national defense

commie relations

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:58:52 -0500

guiliani has excellent community relations, With STATEN ISLAND and it's off shoots. Any Real NY'er would know which ones. Anyway it's all moot, NO WAY in hell would the US elect a northerner to Pres. And, we don't vote for bald freaks with lisps. You have to have hair to win. How else are you gonna fly them jets, boy?

nola

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:39:42 -0500

Rudy engaged in "poor community relations"? I guess you mean that he failed to kiss up to Al Sharpton. What you consider poor community relations is what most people consider backbone. Rudy has it, Bloomberg doesn't - and that will make Rudy a serious contender and Bloomie an amusing sideshow.

Blike Moomberg

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:20:57 -0500

Bloomberg hasn't been trained in civics. Would you trust a brain surgeon who's never been to medical school? The Iraq situation needs someone who at least studied world affairs. Remember when Bloomberg was asked about Iraq last year? The man doesn't even have an opinion about it. How can we expect him to make a solution? Seriously.