Wednesday, June 20, 2007
# Posted 11:56 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
My question is what ideas would actually make Bloomberg different than either major party candidate. According to my girlfriend, who lived in the city for eight years until this past April, Bloomberg simply "exudes competence". I grew up in the city but haven't spent much time there since 1999. No question the city has done extraordinarily well under Bloomberg. But Mayor Mike is sort of the HW Bush to Giuliani's Reagan. He's the kinder, gentler successor to the Real Thing. If Giuliani won the GOP nomination, would it seem non-sensical for his successor to make an independent bid for President? Or is kinder, gentler and competent just what voters are looking for?
UPDATE: I just surfed over to Dan Drezner's blog and it seems that Bloomberg has piqued his interest as well. (10) opinions -- Add your opinion
I don't know if I would call it political "strip tease." But I would suggest it is New York's political version of the Indy 500; there is along way to go, and a goofy political year just got goofier.
Bloomberg is in and he hurts Republicans more than Democrats.
Danny L. McDaniel
No, he is NOT in!
I mean, what is it about "I am not a candidate" and "If everybody in the world was dead and I was the only one alive, yes, sure" that no one seems to understand?
David, it's obvious you've not lived in NYC, or else the relative attaction of Mayor Bloomberg vs. Rudy Giuliani wouldn't need explication. Mayor Mike has basically focused his administration on the nuts-and-bolts of governance, rarely forayed into the pure "politics" of the job; kept his personality (every bit as obnoxious as Rudy's, by all accounts) well out of the limelight; and (most importantly) had the great good fortune NOT to run into any significant economic downturns. With luck like that t's easy.
As a long term NYC'er, my observation was that Rudi was window dressing at best, hypocrisy at worst. We needed a Catholic with one Vatican annulment and two other marriages under his belt--and living with the third woman prior to the second divorce--to teach us morality? He was neither an administrator nor a diplomat.
Mike is both and in a tough time NY has done well.
I assume that like any Republican with sense, he wants to put distance between himself and the party which is not only bankrupting the US, but has made torture a modern debate. Rats seldom swim towards the sinking ship.
As for his Presidential plans, I have no idea. The US would benefit from a third party, and he is competent, but I think we would require the avian flu first to move the population. Europe had WWI & WWII; the status quo here (with corporations/ethnic/religious blocks calling the real shots) will chug along until it simply can't.
And TIME magazine had a big spread on both Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger.
I think a "Unity Party" could win a sizable portion of the popular vote. However, I don't think they would win a SINGLE ELECTROAL VOTE.
There is no state-by-state infrastructure for such a third party, and they will only draw moderate and centrist voters. The hardcore Repartycrats will stay set.
Anon, or JHS NYC, I'm afraid you are correct, it is unlikely that disease will kill enough of the right people, and spare enough of the right people, to put power into your hands.
Maybe you should start your own democide rather than blaming Mother Nature's caprices. Since you probably can't truly say what anyone else believes, better to kill everyone, no doubt.
If you had power I would think of the only good thing Bertholt Brecht ever wrote:
After the uprising on June 17th,
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Upon which was to be read that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could only reclaim it
Through redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
Still for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
—Bertolt Brecht, “The Solution,” Buckow Elegies No. 9 (S.H. transl).
But, happily, you don't.
I agree Rudy Giuliani could never teach you morality. I only wonder who could.
Bloomberg was never a Republican. He changed from Democrat to Republican because he would never win the Democratic primary.
Bloomberg rules like a Democrat. Daddy knows best.
I am surprised our NYC bloggers did not know this.
I disagree with Daniel McDaniel--Bloomberg, if he runs, will be the Ralph Nader of 2008--he never was a Republican in any real sense and he will take more votes from the Democrats than the Republicans.
As for his mayoralty--he is competant (but DEFINATELY no diplomat) at administration--an ability not that important to a president.
He has little to offer at the federal level (foreign policy experience?) and has no chance of winning--the nanny state sensibilites and his tin ear in public speaking will bring him down as sure as paranoia brought down Perot.
The Hermes handbags name persists to be synonymous owning just one of the selected in leather-based products for greater than 170 years. What started out out getting a institution that made saddles has grown right into a institution earth well-known for shoes, bags, and perfumes? The options that hold the Hermes name are merely outstanding.Post a Comment