Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Mayor Bloomberg has been an independent all of a couple days, but there is tons of ink being devoted to his chances. The most interesting story is from the NY Sun, which offers various scenarios where Bloomberg could win the 2008 presidential election (not that he wants to run for president). For instance, he'd need the Northeast, West Coast, Florida, and Heartland states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, etc. And if "extreme" candidates run in the parties, like Romney or Thompson on the Republican ticket and Obama or Edwards for the Democrats, Bloomberg could be a player.
Former President Bill Clinton added his two cents, saying, "I suppose he just couldn't bear to be in the Republican Party anymore, which I thought showed good judgment on his part." Reuters, though, has a good article about possible anti-New York bias from other citizens; we found this quote interesting:
"Certainly historically it has been a problem. Americans are at best ambivalent about New York," said Thomas Bender, a history professor at New York University.And as exciting as the idea of Bloomberg running for mayor may be to some New Yorkers, did you know that if he won, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum would be mayor? Chew on that!"Religion may be very important in Bloomberg's case because New York represents Jewishness to a lot of people and we're still awaiting our first Jewish president," Bender said.
Oh, and the mayor will continue to push for congestion pricing. You can listen to him discuss his pet projects as well as his independence on his radio show.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I think the relevant question vis a vis "who will Bloomberg's entrance into the race benefit" or "whether he should run" is whether it will help create a new vision for America (read: build the independent movement). Independents are beginning to make the statement to all the presidential candidates (including the not yet- or perhaps one day to be-announced Bloomberg) that they're going to have to convince us that they're more interested in changing America for the better and getting us on the right track than getting themselves elected. Independents are happy to see Bloomberg become “unaffiliated,” many want him go further – namely to positively “affiliate” himself with independent voters and the independent movement. The American people – and independents in particular – have already been through an experience where a wealthy businessman stepped forward and ran for president as an independent, but turned out to be an unreliable ally in building a lasting movement to fight the negative impact of partisan gridlock. We don’t want to end up in a Ross Perot-type situation again. Mike Bloomberg has been a good mayor and has helped to popularize the idea of non-partisan governance. At the same time, we want to know that Bloomberg will do his part to empower the “on-the-ground” independent movement if he moves ahead.
For more on the history of Bloomberg and independents, read The Bloomberg Story (by Jacqueline Salit who ran Bloomberg's independent campaign for mayor in NYC) at http://www.independentvoting.org/Bloomberg.html
I can't chew on it, mostly because it makes no goddamn sense.