gearing up....

[mpbrockman]

i don't know much about bloomberg, but he strikes me as opportunistic (with all the party changing over the course of his career).

Yes, his affiliations have changed with the wind. But his positions have largely remained the same. I can't say that this is a bad thing. Overall though, I think any putative candidacy on his part has to be seen as a vanity run. Maybe he can raise consciousness of some centrist philosophy, but I can't see this guy as having broad appeal.

Asaf, I too miss Howard Dean. Good campaigner, had the unfortunate tendency to lose his temper in public for which I loved him like a brother. As far as I know he's still DNC chairman where the Dems can tap his promo skills while keeping him away from pesky cameras.

[arthursimone]

As far as I know he's still DNC chairman where the Dems can tap his promo skills while keeping him away from pesky cameras.

Dean done good heading up 2006 elections, and Dems can continue to learn a lot from his substance and style. Unfortunately, party moneyman Rep. Rahm Emanuel took as much, if not more, credit for winning back the House, so not all the lessons I'd like to see take root have taken root.

[ducksrfr]

What to people think about Bloomberg?

He's been a very popular mayor in New York, and he has a great environmental record. He's mandated that all taxis become hybrids by 2012 (?) and he's put forth a lot of city-wide energy efficiency plans which (although costly at first) have saved a shit-ton of money in the long term.

I think he would appeal to centrist voters, but he doesn't have any foreign policy experience, which is a real negative considering our current situation.

Also, he's a billionaire so he wouldn't have to raise a cent in campaign contributions (read: no special interests).

[York99]

What to people think about Bloomberg? Did he officially throw his hat into the ring as an independent?

(i think he'd pull equally from dem and rep).

Why do you think he'd pull from Republicans?

Third party guys seem to always pull very heavily from Dems (oh how different the world would be without Ralph Nader).

[York99]

What to people think about Bloomberg?

Also, he's a billionaire so he wouldn't have to raise a cent in campaign contributions (read: no special interests).

Interesting point. It absolutely works in theory, but in practice maybe not so much. If you don't owe anyone anything, then they're not going to help you get what you want. It's the same idea that debt is good.

[mpbrockman]

Also, he's a billionaire so he wouldn't have to raise a cent in campaign contributions (read: no special interests).

Interesting point. It absolutely works in theory, but in practice maybe not so much.

There's also the perception that billionaires have little in common with the rest of us. Remember Bush Sr.'s being flabbergasted by a scanner at a grocery store and the buzz that generated?

[York99]

Also, he's a billionaire so he wouldn't have to raise a cent in campaign contributions (read: no special interests).

Interesting point. It absolutely works in theory, but in practice maybe not so much.

There's also the perception that billionaires have little in common with the rest of us. Remember Bush Sr.'s being flabbergasted by a scanner at a grocery store and the buzz that generated?

Was that a result of his wealth or with just being an old guy?
I would think a lot of older guys who are in a "traditional" marriage where the woman does the shopping might not know about things like that.

I see your point, but Bloomberg has made an effort to be a man who understands the people. Plus, all of the candidates now and probably in the future will be wealthy and disconnected from "normal" Americans simply as a result of their elevated position.

[acrouch]

Third party guys seem to always pull very heavily from Dems (oh how different the world would be without Ralph Nader).

um, ross perot?

[mpbrockman]

Whoa! Big mea culpa from me. I just fact-checked myself and have discovered the Bush/scanner thing is an over-hyped urban legend with it's genesis at the Washington Post and New York Times.

That was big news in '92! I'm rather upset with myself for swallowing that hook, line and sinker and regurgitating it 15 years later without question.
(Alright - nobody use "I'm rather upset with myself for swallowing that" in "Context Wars"...)

[York99]

Third party guys seem to always pull very heavily from Dems (oh how different the world would be without Ralph Nader).

um, ross perot?

Did he pull more from Repubs? If so, then I would support Bloomberg.

[mpbrockman]

Third party guys seem to always pull very heavily from Dems (oh how different the world would be without Ralph Nader).

um, ross perot?

Did he pull more from Repubs? If so, then I would support Bloomberg.

Perot pulled more from Repubs and helped Clinton into the White House in '92. I'm afraid Bberg would have the opposite effect, though - his social positions are pretty leftist and would alienate most anybody who would vote R in the first place. Once upon a time there were what were called "liberal Republicans" (like Goldwater), but in modern day terms Goldwater would probably be a Dem - and people in this socially libertarian/fiscally conservative group would probably be the ones voting for a Bloomberg-style candidate.

Just my guess...

[York99]

Nixon would be a Dem in this day in age. Seriously.

[Wesley]

So does this mean that we're all too pussy for an armed rebellion?

[apiaryist]

So does this mean that we're all too pussy for an armed rebellion?

Maybe just too apathetic and full of cheetos.

[shando]

So does this mean that we're all too pussy for an armed rebellion?

I understand what this armed rebellion would be against, but what would it be for and what would it establish? Personally, I think Americans talk big and romatically about revolution because we have almost no history of it. There are tons of countries where things aren't ironed out politically but violently. Once you let that genie out of the bottle, it's hard to put back. How nice and mild and wonderful a place do you think Austin would be if an armed rebellion broke out in Texas? We're talking Texas here people. Do you really think we wouldn't have secret death squads rounding up all the pinko-faggot-artsy-atheists-mprov comedians here? You think you're going to live through the great aremed rebellion of Texas? Ha, it is to laugh. The People disagree about shit. Our fucked up politics is a result of that, but it beats bullets. There is no People to do things in the name of, just people.

Me, I'm fine leaving revolution and armed rebellion on the shelf for the teenagers and stompy-footed children. Now politics, that's something else...