|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
jorgelito, you are quite right that it all depends on the Republican front runner.
But I think Bloomberg is going to be a very successful "none of the above" candidate. If Hillary is the Dem candidate and whatever gets put forward for the Republicans, he will win the "ewwww" vote. 
Will, I respect your political "reality". I only suggest that at the national level there are consequences for ideological purity in candidate choice. |
Elphaba, not being from "these parts", (I'm not anymore either, but I lived there in 2001...) you might not be aware that Bloomberg was a life long democrat who switched to republican affiliation so he could buy the mayoralty nomination. He spent $70 million of his own money to win the race.In his re-election campaign, he spent even more, to win a much closer race.
Your choices are the potential "unity" candidate, Wall Street's Bloomberg, who has walked and talked just like any other neocon, from my POV....read it...the people backing this man as a "unifier", are a bit ridiculous in their thinking, or....at the bottom of this post, is a much more practical and realistic choice, in view of our circumstances, dontcha think?
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us...hp&oref=slogin
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: December 31, 2007
.....Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, "I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent."....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid
First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page A04
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.....
|
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason.../22/bloomberg/
Bloomberg's ambitions
The billionaire mayor of New York could easily fund a bid for the presidency. But what are his political convictions?
By Joe Conason
...Dating back to his infatuation with Bush, the mayor has always been an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq. He marched lockstep in the Bush drive toward invasion when <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2002b/address_un_assembly.html">he [Bloomberg] addressed the United Nations</a> General Assembly in September 2002: "Freedom comes at a price, and tragically, sometimes that price is the commitment to defend freedom by arms. America has been, is, and always will be willing to do its duty -- to sacrifice even its own blood, so that people everywhere can live as individuals responsible for their own destinies." (As Wayne Barrett once <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0542,barrett1,68949,5.html">pointed out</a> in the Village Voice, the man spouting this brave talk got out of the Vietnam draft because his feet are flat.)
Bloomberg's pro-war rhetoric dutifully echoed the White House line connecting Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida and 9/11, almost as if Karl Rove had programmed his brain. "I'm voting for George W. Bush and it's mainly because I think we have to strike back at terrorists," he said in September 2004. "To argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist is ridiculous. He used mustard gas, or some kind of gas, against his own people."..
|
Quote:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...he_white_house
The Republican mayor of New York has become the party's fiercest internal critic. But can his "billionaire populism" bridge the nation's blue-red divide?
BEN WALLACE-WELLSPosted Aug 22, 2006 9:52 AM
....Bloomberg, in fact, identifies strongly with the defeated Democrat from Connecticut. "I think what they're doing to Joe Lieberman is a disgrace," the mayor volunteered when I met with him in his offices in July, shortly before anti-war bloggers helped Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary. . . . A few days later, Bloomberg was offering to campaign for Lieberman.....
|
Quote:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/054...1,68949,5.html
Mayor Mute
Bloomberg gives Bush a four-year pass at city's expense
by Wayne Barrett
October 18th, 2005 11:05 AM
...Even though the City Council passed a resolution opposing the war, Bloomberg called an old friend, Paul Wolfowitz, to express his desire to host a ticker tape parade "to say thank you," apparently as unaware as the "Mission Accomplished" president that the troops would not be coming home for years. Bloomberg actually contributed $5 million to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Affairs in the late '90s, when war architect Wolfowitz was dean. . . .
Even before the war, Bloomberg brought his mother and daughter to the United Nations, where he addressed the General Assembly a day after Bush did in September 2002. Echoing Bush's warnings that the U.S. would go it alone if the U.N. didn't act, Bloomberg "praised" Bush's war on terror "and offered support for an attack on Iraq," according to the Daily News....
|
Quote:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
NYC Mayor Advocates U.S. Worker Database
May 24 05:49 PM US/Eastern
By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg thrust himself into the national immigration debate Wednesday, advocating a plan that would establish a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers....
... Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said a DNA or fingerprint database "doesn't sound like the free society we think we're living in."
"It will inevitably be used not just by employers but by law enforcement, government agencies, schools and all over the private sector," she said.
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug30.html
Text of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Speech at the Republican National Convention
FDCH E-Media, Inc.
Monday, August 30, 2004; 12:22 PM
I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
The president deserves our support.
(APPLAUSE)
We are here to support him.
(APPLAUSE)
And I am here to support him.
(APPLAUSE)
|
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A9629C8B63
On Iraq War, Bloomberg Lends Support To First Lady
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: May 11, 2004
...But there he was yesterday, throwing in his words of support for the president's decision to invade Iraq - promoting one of the notions that is central to the rationale for the attack, that the conflict was justified by what happened on Sept. 11.
''Let me add something to that,'' Mr. Bloomberg said after Mrs. Bush gave her defense of her husband and his decision to go to war. ''Don't forget that the war started not very many blocks from here.'' ...
|
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9629C8B63
Bloomberg, Looking to Convention, Restrains Cheer for Bush
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: January 29, 2004
...We are going to get George W. Bush re-elected as president of the United States! We are going to carry New York City and New York State. Everybody thinks I'm crazy, but I think we can do it...
|
Quote:
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Mike_Bloomberg_Drugs.htm
Mike Bloomberg on Drugs
"You bet I smoked pot; and I enjoyed it"
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Foundation, (NORML), launched a new $500,000 ad campaign in New York City this week, urging an end to the massive number of arrests of pot smokers in this city, and features NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's quote on his own use of pot. "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it," said then Mayoral candidate Bloomberg just before the elections last year when a New York magazine reporter asked about his pot use.
"I'm not thrilled they're using my name. I suppose there's that First Amendment that gets in the way of me stopping it," Bloomberg told reporters when informed of the NORML ads graced with His Honor's face and attributing the quote to him. But Bloomberg added that the NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce the laws. The campaign includes a full-page ad in the New York Times, as well as posters for bus stops, buses, and phone booths. There are also two 60-second radio ads that will be played by the top stations in the city.
Source: Preston Peet, www.drugwar.com Apr 10, 2002
NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce drug laws
[When he learned that NORML would use his image and his words on pro-marijuana advertisements, Bloomberg said] that the NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce the laws [against marijuana use]. In 1992, when former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took office, there were just 2,000 arrests of pot smokers. Until that time, cops would usually issue a ticket and fine instead of arresting people, yet by 2000, NYC was arresting approximately 50,000 people for simple use and possession every year, nearly a 1,000 a week. The NYPD now runs most every pot smoker they catch through the criminal court system, which can take anywhere from 24 to 72 hours, or longer, subjecting marijuana users to dangers far above and beyond any resulting from their simple use of pot, and the city will oftentimes attempt to coerce those arrested to plea out to charges they don't deserve under the law.
|
<h2>...Or, This?:</h2>
Quote:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/hor...rtisanship.php
Memo To Bloomberg And Company: The Way To Reduce "Partisan Gridlock" Is To Further Weaken The GOP.
December 31, 2007 -
...Partisan gridlock happens because people -- and by extension, political parties -- disagree about stuff. One party wants to do one thing on a particular issue. Another party says No. The first party offers a few concessions. The second party still says No. That's where "partisan gridlock" comes from -- underlying disagreement on issues -- and in our current case, the fault for our "partisan gridlock" isn't equally distributed between the two parties. Rather, it's almost exclusively the fault of the Republicans.
You aren't allowed to say this, but it's true. If you don't believe me, ask the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. They proposed a bunch of solutions to Iraq. The Democrats largely embraced these solutions. The Republicans, by contrast, didn't. As a result, the ISG's proposals didn't happen -- even though they had been authored by a distinguished bipartisan panel. The Republicans have been the near-exclusive cause of gridlock <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/good_chart.php">on multiple other issues, too</a> -- issues upon which there is already majority agreement on how to proceed. <h3>In reality, the best way to end partisan gridlock is to further weaken the Republican Party, which is tying government in knots and preventing it from carrying out the will of the majority on a host of fronts.</h3>
Holding out the promise of bipartisan unity without saying why it is that your stances on issues will do anything at all to create that unity -- as Bloomberg and friends are doing here -- is just a sucker's game designed to get these folks the sort of fawning attention that they're already getting. One hopes that the press will start asking these worthies some tough questions about where they stand on stuff and why we should be listening to them.
|
Elphaba, could congressional democrats have been any more acomodating to president Bush than they have been during the past year? Hasn't his response been to veto bills that they passed at a rate heretofore unseen during his entire presidency?
Last edited by host; 01-03-2008 at 09:20 PM..
|