Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
We've had half a day to absorb the news, but it's still kind of crazy that Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided to drop his 6-years-old Republican coat for an unaffiliated one. Here's his official statement:
“I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City.You can see the paper he filed right here (PDF from WNBC).“A nonpartisan approach has worked wonders in New York: we’ve balanced budgets, grown our economy, improved public health, reformed the school system and made the nation’s safest city even safer.
“We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face.
“Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.”
The Daily News, Post, and NY Times put Bloomberg news on the front covers (although Hillary Clinton's Sopranos spoof got top billing on the tabs). The Post reports Bloomberg allegedly spoke to Oklahoma governor David Boren about a third-party run, as Mayor Mike's aides have been discussing third party ballot access with other election officials. Democrat strategist Donna Brazile told the News, "I think it's a wakeup call to our two-party system that there is another player in town." Of course, it's not clear whether he's running, as he keeps saying he wants to be Mayor until his term ends in 2009, but it's pretty safe to say this is the big signal that says, "It's on." And who can blame him - he doesn't want to have to host GOP fundraising parties anymore!
What's unclear how successful candidate Bloomberg would play outside of urban areas and the coasts. The NY Times notes he "has never proved to be a particularly personable campaigner, known for giving a stiff speech and given to impatience at the often numbing demands of retail campaigning." Still, the fuss is good: Barnard professor Esther Fuchs, who advised Bloomberg during his first term, told the Observer, “I think it’s important for him to be on the national stage regardless of whether he runs. I think whether he runs or not, he needs to do everything to make himself a relevant figure in the national political debate. It makes sense for him to do this because he will be taken most seriously this way on issues that are important to New York City—and that’s really his goal.”
We're betting he'll put his money into conducting polls to figure out how to win with his millions and billions. Bloomberg railed against Republicans and Democrats alike during two speeches in California on Monday, but he did say that Senators Schumer and Clinton had been helpful to him. Aw, that's a silver lining in the Bloomberg-cloud for Clinton.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Why are you so shocked about Bloomberg? Everyone with a brain knew he jumped to the GOP to avoid the Democratic Primaries aka the Race to the Bottom. The real question is why haven't the Democrats (locally and nationally) learned that people don't want a far left candidate? If registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 10 to 1 then why haven't the Democrats won a mayoral election since 1989? You can try to write off Bush's victory on "stupid" voters in other parts of the country but what's the excuse here in New York for the failures of the Mayoral candidates?
I'm a little confused about why people keep accusing Democratic candidates of being 'far left'. I haven't seen one yet that fits that description.
Of the tabloids, the News had the better looking cover and they gave a bit more thought to the Sopranos like text for "The Clintons".
As for Bloomberg, he was just being pragmatic when he became a Republican and the same can be said for saying he is an independent. He seems to have negotiated the mess of NYC politics with its political fusions and other bits of fun and I think that the declaration of independence is just his way of negotiating through a path to a possible higher office.
As for the race president, basically the two parties are clustered around the center, since there is not the political pluralism found in countries with a healthy political system.
Two of the major problems with the American political system, other than having the worst form of national representational government, is the Republicans and the Democrats. Countries with healthier political systems and better forms of representational government have more political parties representing a broad spectrum of interests. Instead we have two parties that have to play to the centre to get elected.
YAY!!!!! Bloomberg is great! Our rent is much cheaper, our jobs are more secure, and our neighborhoods have stayed more intact! Obviously this means Bloomberg is doing a SUPER JOB!!!!! GO BLOOMBERG!!!!!!!
I wouldn't attribute Bush's victory to stupid voters. I would attribute it to scared shitless voters.
That said, this is a two-day story. Bloomberg will continue to make noises on national issues and in the end endorse the Democrat.
#2 John Edwards is trying to stake out the far left. His populist rhetoric is worse than Al Gore's rants of 2000. Gore took what should have been a slam dunk election and pissed it away. And don't even come back with it was stolen from him. Florida should not have matttered. Gore lost states that Clinton easily won. And the protectionist trade threats coming out of Congress should worry everyone. So maybe the problem goes beyond positions and into rhetoric. You can tell people they should pay higher taxes without calling for the scalps of the rich.
And #4 needs to grow up. Really? You think your rent should be lower than it was six years ago? Rents go up when demand goes up. Perhaps you would like to go back to 1975 when you could have a free building to live in because it had been abandoned. Or maybe you should just try living in Detroit for a month. It's time most of you woke up to the reality that it's a globalized world. Most of the Gothamist regulars go on and on about New York is the capital of the world. Well, when you're the capital of the world it shouldn't surprise you that people move in.
The history of independent presidential candidates in this country is miserable. There isn't a chance he would win and he might steal enough votes to swing the election to the Republicans.
Right now, the Democrats have to realize they need an effective candidate to be the anti-Bush. Hillary as Tony Soprano? Obama? Come on, there's enough time left before the election to produce a charismatic, intelligent, anti-war, pro-human rights candidate. Or do the Democrats just want to self-destruct?
test
There is one way that Bloomie could be good for the Democratic party. A huge factor in the republican-ness of the middle states is resentment towards "elites" (in other words, rich, privileged, and smug assholes.) This is a matter of superficial perception rather than substance - GWB is, of course, a rich & privileged asshole, but he managed to cultivate the "just folks" persona and that played well.
Unfortunately, lots of Dems have this image problem. (Kerry did, Gore kind of did, Hillary has it big time.)
Ironically, though Bloomie is super-rich I really don't think he projects any smugness. He seems like a genuinely nice guy.
But, what the hell is he going to do at a national level? I can't see him as president, and hopefully he'd be smart enough not to become a lame third-party spoiler candidate. So, what? Secretary of the Treasury?
Far Left and Far Right are relative terms.
When someone refers to democrats as Far Left, they are evidently speaking from the Radical Right.
Speaking from the outland, Bloomberg will likely have an adverse effect on Democratic chances.
I'm betting the Democrats will consider him the Ralph Nader of the next election, that is that he "steals" votes from the Democratic party.
Far left and far right are what emerges from the primaries since only party members are allowed to participate. Once The Faithful have put forth their scary ideologues, the candidates spend the general election campaign drifting towards the middle (Compassionate Conservatives, anyone?) Bloomberg will run if Rudy gets cannabalized by the primary process and the Repubs put forth a Romney or someone of that nature. He won't run against Obama either. It has to be a Clinton-Scary Republican contest in order for him to jump in. Hillary is a polarizing figure and everyone has already made up their mind about her - pro or con - and its the best shot at him winning.
And he'll only run if he can win. He doesn't jump into a Clinton-Guiliani or Obama-Guiliani contest. He just doesn't.
Can we get that typo in the bolded headline fixed, maybe? Jesus.
Bloomberg may have gotten people to stop smoking, but he can't help Gothamist's spelling or copy editing.
guest #1: did the Little Tots Republican Club get out early today?
Just wait until Bloomie hits the national election wall also known as the NRA. They will swift-boat him until he is an Osama-loving, tree-hugging, anti-business (yes, they will) space alien.
Hmm, other than being less crazy, how is Bloomie any different from Ross Perot? Both are short billionaires who think that the secret to good government lies with lessons learned from the business world. It didn't work then, it won't work now.
Unlike Ross Perot, Bloomie has held elected office. And been reelected. And been competent and effective.
And the whole "not insane" part is a huge selling point.
As much as I like Bloomberg and dislike the current candidates, I have a sinking feeling that similar-minded left-leaning people will vote for Bloomie out of spite and take votes away from the Democratic candidate. We all remember what happened in 2000.
Of course, if Al Gore runs all will be forgotten.
hilarious comments - most of you people are clueless.
bloomberg's move to independence, along with today's news about nader, all but assures a republican victory (regardless of the candidate). bloomy and nader will draw votes away from hilary, and even al bore.
i'm a democrat that hasn't voted democratic in about 10 years - my party has deserted me and continues to embarass itself.
our system doesn't necessarily suck, but we do. we don't demand enough from our candidates, we make a little bit of noise and then move on, and they all know it. we're a lazy self involved society only looking to place blame and rarely willing to expect or accept accountibility. we get what we deserve.
Obama, Bloomberg, and Gore are all fantastic candidates.
2008 is going to be *very* interesting.
"Ironically, though Bloomie is super-rich I really don't think he projects any smugness. He seems like a genuinely nice guy. "
You're kidding right-even if I agreed with his politics I'd hate him. He's the most arrogant person alive.
arrogant, insulated, and opportunistic; almost a male version of hillary.
obama is an interesting candidate, but no executive experience, and little history to judge him on. next round for him.
bloomberg - see above...
gore - you're joking right? what an ass. he was the bagman for one of the most corrupt democratic regimes in history, his ego is second only to bill's and that's the only reason he didn't walk away with 2000.
the dems are gonna fuck up this wet dream and we will get rudy.
Rudy Giuliani or Vampire?
brklynd: A huge factor in the republican-ness of the middle states is resentment towards "elites" (in other words, rich, privileged, and smug assholes.)... This is a matter of superficial perception rather than substance - GWB is, of course, a rich & privileged asshole, but he managed to cultivate the "just folks" persona and that played well.
Unfortunately, lots of Dems have this image problem. (Kerry did, Gore kind of did, Hillary has it big time.)
Um, Hilary Clinton is from a decidedly middle-class background.