Possible Bloomberg/GOP split?

[Ninjahedge]

I heard a guy passing out DN rags in front of GCS and he was shouting something about Bloomberg calling it quits with the GOP, anyone else hear of this?

[ryan]

Yeah, I "heard (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/us/politics/20mayor.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin)" about it too. On the front page.

[Bob]

Republican. Democrat. These are mere labels. Is Bloomberg a competent administrator? The answer is yes.

[BrooklynRider]

They are indeed labels and he chose Republican. He is trying to shed political labels and it is all very disingenuous. I'd like to note the tremendous support and cheerleading Bloomburg got from Right-wing, war hawk, Israel lobbyist, Senator Joe Lieberman. If he supports Bloomburg, you can bet I'm turning as far from him as possible. In this case, I am definitely judging Bloomburg on this case of association.

[Ninjahedge]

Yeah, I "heard (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/us/politics/20mayor.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin)" about it too. On the front page.

>snip<

Bloomberg Severs G.O.P. Ties, Fueling Further Talk of ’08 Bid
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/20/nyregion/mayor600.jpg Reed Saxon/Associated Press
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles.

By DIANE CARDWELL (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/diane_cardwell/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/jennifer_steinhauer/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: June 20, 2007
LOS ANGELES, June 19 — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) announced Tuesday that he was dropping his Republican affiliation, a step that could clear the way for him to make an independent bid for the presidency.

The announcement was released during a campaign-style swing through California, during which Mr. Bloomberg, 65, a billionaire businessman, used increasingly sharp language to criticize both parties in Washington as too timid to take on big problems and too locked into petty squabbling to work together.

“I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead my city,” Mr. Bloomberg’s statement read. “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.”

Even as Mr. Bloomberg continues to say that he has no plans to run for president, his announcement has set off a storm of interest in political circles across the country, where it is being viewed as a signal of his serious contemplation of a campaign. His ability to self-finance a campaign presents him with obvious advantages, including the option of delaying even until next year a decision on whether to run.

Mr. Bloomberg’s aides are working intensely behind the scenes promoting the idea of the mayor’s candidacy and exploring the mechanics of starting an independent campaign.

The aides have said he would travel the country to see whether the message of centrist problem-solving he delivered in California resonates. They would seek to identify states where his positions on major issues — global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), a crackdown on illegal guns — could resonate. If he is well received, the travels could begin to lay a foundation for his candidacy.
Still, American voters have been reluctant to embrace independent candidacies. After spending $65 million in 1992, Ross Perot (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/ross_perot/index.html?inline=nyt-per) failed to get a single electoral vote. And third-party candidates often struggle to get on the ballot, as they confront often byzantine election laws and frequent court challenges.

Some skepticism remains in political circles about whether Mr. Bloomberg will ultimately join the race. His very public flirtation has helped him, in his final term as mayor, avoid lame duck status and enhance his influence among city, state and federal lawmakers. It has also elevated his profile as an important voice in policy issues, and that stature could give him added heft if he pursues philanthropy full time after leaving City Hall, a path he has frequently mentioned as a possibility.

The intense reaction in other campaigns to Mr. Bloomberg’s announcement, however, reflected the ferment that has characterized the race for president this year, with no obvious heir apparent on either side, an unpopular incumbent president, and a country facing serious problems at home and abroad.

Several analysts argued that a three-way race with Mr. Bloomberg running as a third-party candidate could ultimately prove more of a threat to Democrats than to Republicans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org). Until he ran for mayor in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat, and his success in New York reflected his ability to draw Democratic votes: he is for abortion (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/abortion/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) rights, gay rights and gun control.
Mr. Bloomberg’s aides said he has plans to travel to Missouri and to Florida, crucial swing states, in the near future.

On Friday, he filed papers with the city Board of Elections to change his affiliation, as the public focus on his future intensified. In the space of a few days, he appeared on the cover of Time and in a BusinessWeek special report, and he told an audience of Google employees that the country is “really in trouble.” He stood with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arnold_schwarzenegger/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of California as the governor told a crowd of reporters on Tuesday that Mr. Bloomberg “would be a great candidate,” in an appearance at Ceasefire, a conference on bridging the partisan divide, organized by the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_southern_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org). “It’s all about fixing problems and creating a great vision for the future,” he said.

While Mr. Schwarzenegger has not been as critical as Mr. Bloomberg about the Republican party, he has differed with many in the G.O.P., and the two men have become increasingly linked. The governor supports stem-cell research and wants to extend health care to illegal immigrants in California. He supports a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq and has frequently derided Washington for failures on border control and other issues.
Adam Mendelsohn, the governor’s communications director, described their relationship as “ symbiotic."

At their joint appearance, the mayor was the big draw, as a throng of reporters and cameramen crowded around, peppering him with questions about whether he would seek the presidency.

Mr. Bloomberg, who has called it flattering to be viewed as presidential material, clearly enjoyed the attention. He joked and parried with the press, and when asked whether he and the governor might team up on a campaign ticket, suggested that the governor would challenge him to an arm wrestling contest to see which of them should run at the top, while he would consult the Constitution. (Only those born in the United States can serve as president, under the Constitution.)

Despite what appears to be a genuinely warm relationship, Mr. Bloomberg does not appear to have shared his strategic musings with the governor. Mr. Bloomberg on Tuesday did not inform Mr. Schwarzenegger that he would announce he was leaving the party later that day. The governor learned of the development when Mr. Bloomberg issued his statement.


(Page 2 of 2)

Even before the announcement, Mr. Bloomberg’s newly sharpened critique of both the federal government and the unfolding presidential campaign, as well as his presentation of his mayoral record as the solution, sent clear signals that he is making a case for himself as a candidate. Traveling from San Francisco to Silicon Valley and here, he used pointed language to attack the ways of Washington, while promoting his own centrist approach.
Skip to next paragraph (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/us/politics/20mayor.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=nyregion#secondParagraph) Multimedia

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/20/us/politics/0620-nat-webTHIRDPARTY190b.gifGraphic (http://javascript<b></b>:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/06/20/us/politics/20070620_MAYOR_GRAPHIC.html', '444_544', 'width=444,height=544,location=no,scrollbars=yes,t oolbars=no,resizable=yes'))




“We continue to struggle from big problem to big problem with Band-Aids and the bleeding continues and nobody is really ready to stand up and make the tough decisions,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

“And I can tell you from personal experience it’s not fun when somebody boos you, it’s not fun when people vilify you, it’s not fun when you read in the paper that nobody likes you. But if you do what you think is right, in the end I’m a believer that the public is a lot smarter than people give them credit for and they come around.”

While Mr. Bloomberg is drawing headlines now, he clearly has limitations as a candidate. Whatever his successes as mayor, 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.
Should he enter the race, that would mean that there would be three major New York figures seeking the presidency this year.

And Mr. Bloomberg has arguably at least as strong a claim on the prosperity that New York City has enjoyed as a former New York mayor already in the race, Rudolph W. Giuliani (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/rudolph_w_giuliani/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who endorsed Mr. Bloomberg as his successor. If Mr. Bloomberg decides to run as an independent or third-party candidate, he may find that he enjoys the benefits of New York City successes without the ideological burdens Mr. Giuliani has faced in trying to win the Republican presidential nomination while being identified with support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.

Mr. Giuliani’s office did not respond to a request for reaction to the decision. Still, Mr. Giuliani is likely to view even this level of flirtation as a serious betrayal: His support for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001, after the attacks of Sept. 11, was critical to Mr. Bloomberg’s success and accounts for why he is where he is today.



Pardon if the paragraph breaks are a little off......

[kliq6]

He really should have done this the day after he was elected in 2001, he is a life long liberal democrat ( see his plan to pay people to act like good parents) and just registered as a Rep to pave a easy way to the mayoralty as he didnt have to go up against 5 other canidates in the dem primary.

[eddhead]

Few observations:

If Bloomberg were to run for the presidency I do not think he would do it a la Nadar, or Perot, i.e. to act as a spoiler. I think he will make a genuine assessment on his odds, and if he thinks he can win, he will go for it. If not, he'll take a pass
Although the odds remain against a successful independent run, the timing of this season's Dem and GOP primaries could work to his advantage. By Feb of next year both parties will have completed their primaries and chosen their candidates, and the candidates will have spent all their cash on the nomination. So, they will be broke until after the Sep. conventions when they become eligible for additional Federal funding. That leaves a solid 7 month void allowing someone like Bloomberg who can spend upwards of $1bn over that period to monopolize the airwaves. That is a lot of time and a lot of money
Personally, I am less concerned about his party affiliation than perhaps others are. Where is he on the issues, what is his vision for the future,what plans does he have to address the growing economic and geopolitical influence of China and India, what about the middle east? Does he have a plan to address global warming, energy dependence, education, healthcare? How competant an administrator is he? What is his intellectual capacity for managing multiple complex domestic annd foreign policy issues? These are all matters that are far more important to me.
An added benefit: I would love to see someone break the 2 party system to pieces as I believe it is the root cause of Governmental corruption and divisiness. That Bloomberg would not be beholden to major party politics or K street.. that would be awesome. The timing is just right too... This could very well be the point in our history where we most need an unencumbered President. Frankly, if he were to run, I would take a hard look.

[kliq6]

This point is what I think as a business man he will do

"If Bloomberg were to run for the presidency I do not think he would do it a la Nadar, or Perot, i.e. to act as a spoiler. I think he will make a genuine assessment on his odds, and if he thinks he can win, he will go for it. If not, he'll take a pass"

[Jasonik]

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg never quite fit in with either major party

The Associated Press
Thursday, June 21, 2007

NEW YORK: Mayor Michael Bloomberg lived most of his life as a Democrat before switching to the Republican Party when he ran for mayor, yet he never really fit in with either party.

Now, Bloomberg has apparently shaken off those labels and found the one that suits him, announcing this week that he has become an independent because it is more in line with his beliefs and gives him freedom to promote his agenda for the city.

To understand his motivation for leaving the Republican Party, and what it could mean if the billionaire former CEO were to mount a self-financed bid for president — something he denies he wants to do — one must look at how Bloomberg has governed and what he believes.

As mayor, he has both raised taxes and cut them, he has fought with unions and won their support, he has supported the Iraq war along with gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research. There are Republicans and Democrats in the highest levels of his administration, and he has given money to candidates of all stripes.

Throughout his time in office, he has cast himself as the adult in a room full of squabbling children, taking great pride in promoting a pragmatic, no-nonsense style of leadership. More recently the mayor's aides and cheerleaders have been trumpeting this trait as the basis for a possible presidential campaign.

"He's a manager who sees himself as a problem solver, that there are technical and managerial solutions to problems and that politics shouldn't intrude on this," said Doug Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College.

Bloomberg has won praise, for instance, for his cool, businesslike approach in the often fractious area of race relations, no easy feat for a New York mayor. Some say he's the opposite of his predecessor, and potential presidential rival, Rudy Giuliani, who refused to meet with the Rev. Al Sharpton and had contentious relationships with other black leaders.

"When you think of how much race had dominated New York politics for a generation before Bloomberg became mayor, it's quite amazing that he had such a calming and unifying affect," said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College. "He was hardly a typical Republican."

Some observers try to box him in as a social moderate and fiscal conservative, but even that does not neatly contain all of his positions.

Despite the straight-talking image, Bloomberg has been hard to pin down on one of the most important issues of the presidential campaign: the Iraq war. During his first term, which began in 2002, he mostly avoided speaking out on international issues, but more than once he indicated he supported the decision to go to war.

In 2004, during a news conference with first lady Laura Bush in lower Manhattan, he came to her support on the topic of Iraq, suggesting that the invasion was justified by the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Don't forget that the war started not very many blocks from here," he said.

A year later, while Bloomberg was running for re-election in this overwhelmingly Democratic city and doing everything he could to distance himself from President George W. Bush, he insisted the issue was about supporting the troops.

When asked at that time if he felt the president had lied to Americans about the reasons for going to war, Bloomberg said he didn't have any idea. At the time, he said, there appeared "a distinct possibility of weapons of mass destruction."

More recently, he has harshly criticized those who advocate pulling out of Iraq, siding with many Republicans who say it would hurt troop morale. He has also slammed the proposal put forth by Sen. Joe Biden, a Democratic candidate for president, to divide Iraq into three semiautonomous regions of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, saying it would result in "genocide."

Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Bloomberg did not offer an Iraq plan but noted that the public "clearly wants to know how we're going to move forward and what's the resolution."

He has made a point to befriend both Democrats and Republicans, and he has crisscrossed party lines to lend his monetary support and endorsements for campaigns. Last year he helped Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill win her Senate seat and donated $44,600 (€33,291) to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign. He also contributed money to Bush.

Bloomberg has said the country's immigration policy is a disgrace and should be fixed, but he ridicules those who want to deport illegal immigrants, saying they are the backbone of the economy.

In the face of the city's highest budget surplus in its history, thanks to soaring tax revenues from Wall Street and real estate transactions, he has sternly warned there will be no wild splurging.

He has just proposed a package of tax cuts, but years ago he raised property taxes to help repair the city's tattered post-9/11 economy. Those rough days also saw city services pared down, with higher fines and fees for everything from marriage licenses to cigarettes.

He has railed against the National Rifle Association, raising the hackles of gun owners and conservatives with his second-term crusade about illegal guns.

During an interview last year on Fox News, Bloomberg was asked whether he was at odds with his own party. Back then, that meant the Republican Party.

"With which party?" Bloomberg shot back. "I'm not a partisan guy."

[pianoman11686]

They are indeed labels and he chose Republican. He is trying to shed political labels and it is all very disingenuous. I'd like to note the tremendous support and cheerleading Bloomburg got from Right-wing, war hawk, Israel lobbyist, Senator Joe Lieberman. If he supports Bloomburg, you can bet I'm turning as far from him as possible. In this case, I am definitely judging Bloomburg on this case of association.

Disingenuous? Please. Take one look at where the two-party system has come in the past 10 years or so (starting with Clinton's impeachment trials) and tell me you'd prefer competent administrators to hold steadfast allegiance to whichever party comes closest to representing their beliefs.

The Republicans are meddling too much in moral affairs, and war-mongering like it's their favorite post-Sunday service topic of discussion. The Democrats, on the other hand, are being reactionary to the point of making themselves sound as if they're from another planet. The problem is, most Americans are somewhere in the middle, and there's no one out there to represent them! Why? Because no pragmatic politician would consider going middle-of-the-road into an election, inviting both parties to label him "soft on the issues." That's why people like Bloomberg are so rare and thus so precious: their allegiances, however questionable, are not held hostage to parties and campaign finance.

The support from Lieberman was probably a Jewish thing.

Any reason why you keep misspelling Bloomburg's [sic] name?