Bloomberg Leaves Republican Party

[Dalton]

MSNBC.com

NEW YORK - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg left the Republican Party on Tuesday and switched to unaffiliated, a move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the Republican Party in 2001 for his first mayoral run, said the change in his voter registration does not mean he is running for president.

"Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city," Bloomberg said.

With an estimated worth of more than $5 billion, he easily could finance an independent presidential bid.

The 65-year-old mayor has increasingly been the subject of speculation that he will run as an independent in 2008, despite his repeated promises to leave politics after the end of his term in 2009. He has fueled the buzz with increasing out-of-state travel, a greater focus on national issues and repeated criticism of the partisan politics that dominate Washington.

"The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy," he said in a speech Monday at the start of a University of Southern California conference about the advantages of nonpartisan governing.

Throughout his 5 1/2 years as mayor, Bloomberg has often been at odds with his party and President Bush. He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But he never seemed willing to part with the GOP completely, raising money for the 2004 presidential convention and contributing to Bush and other Republican candidates.

Just last year, he told a group of Manhattan Republicans about his run for mayor: "I couldn't be prouder to run on the Republican ticket and be a Republican."

Wow, this was kinda unexpected.

[Crossroads Inc.]

THe little F***er

If he runs for prez it will take votes awa yONLY from Democrats.. It would be Nader all over again, jerk

[Solauren]

Which, you know, could be the entire plan....

[Dalton]

THe little F***er

If he runs for prez it will take votes awa yONLY from Democrats.. It would be Nader all over again, jerk

Given how well New York City has done under his tenure, I would not mind seeing him run for President.

[Stravo]

Wow, the empty suit is on the road for presidential aspirations. This is starting to shape up to be a Ross Perot type election where everyone is pissed at the major parties and vote for the third party candidate to "teach those scoundrels in Washington a lesson."

I just don't see who is telling Bloomberg he even stands a chance. He has the charisma of balsa wood and all the personality of shrubbery and his policies are a mish mash of conservative and liberal ideas.

Still this is quite a shocker. We may have an exciting election on our hands.

[Jadeite]

Given how well New York City has done under his tenure, I would not mind seeing him run for President.

I'd vote for him. None of the Democratic or Republican candidates appeal to me so far.

[Coyote]

Unless he's in on a deal with other potential "Independent" runners-- ie, partnering with Lieberman, or God forbid if Gore goes Indie on us and makes a grab for it (I don't actually see that happening--Gore's too loyal).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Unless he's in on a deal with other potential "Independent" runners-- ie, partnering with Lieberman, or God forbid if Gore goes Indie on us and makes a grab for it (I don't actually see that happening--Gore's too loyal).

Bloomberg could spend as much money during this campaign as everyone else in the Primaries and the General Elections combined.

Don't count him out.

[Patrick Degan]

THe little F***er

If he runs for prez it will take votes awa yONLY from Democrats.. It would be Nader all over again, jerk

Except the Republican coalition is in the process of coming apart like a cheap suit, and many disaffected moderate and fiscal conservative/social liberal GOPers as well as civil libertarians could also swing toward a Bloomburg candidacy.

[Glocksman]

THe little F***er

If he runs for prez it will take votes awa yONLY from Democrats.. It would be Nader all over again, jerk

He'd play the role Perot did in 92 and 96, though unlike Perot, he actually has a track record in a previous office to look at.
And frankly, given Bloomberg's nutbar antigun views (he makes HRC look like Charleton Heston), I'd sooner cut off my right arm than vote for him.

[Howedar]

It must be nice to be able to be a single-issue voter and still be able to sleep at night.

I'd personally care more about getting a hundred thousand men and women the fuck out of Iraq, or regaining some semblance of sane fiscal policy to keep our entire economy from eating itself, but I guess if having a gun is more important to you than all of that, that's your prerogative.

[Molyneux]

He's done all right in New York, on the whole (though by no means perfectly); I'll wait and see.

[Axis Kast]

In his article “Third Party Voting in Presidential Elections: A Study of Perot, Anderson, and Wallace,” political scientist Howard J. Gold examined American National Election Studies data gathered on presidential elections between 1968 and 1992 to determine whether billionaire H. Ross Perot – who spent lavishly out of pocket and amassed the largest percentage of popular votes by any third party candidate since 1912 – conformed to an understanding of the historical makings of third party success in his 1992 campaign.

Gold’s conclusions were numerous. First, he ascertained that Perot’s showing could be tied to a large pool of “neutral” voters expressing no preference for either of the major parties, a demographic that had been growing continually since 1968. Unlike that of Wallace and Anderson, however, “Perot’s success did not reflect either unusually high levels of disenchantment with his two major party rivals or public affection for the candidate himself.” He had not been the beneficiary of acute issue alienation – which can spark flight to a third party considered more amenable than the Democrats or Republicans on issues attended by the voter – or economic unrest (which encourages voters to see the major parties as incompetent on this count, to the benefit of third parties). Nor had large numbers deemed the victory of one major party candidate inevitable, which could have resulted in greater third party support. It was also unclear whether Perot had gained from pre-existing disaffection from government.

Seeking an alternative explanation for Perot’s 1992 surge, Gold turned to his media barrage, funded by a war chest of $69 million. Ultimately, it was decided, “The evidence . . . suggests that systematic explanations for third party success are of limited use in explaining Perot’s breakthrough . . .” Instead, money was deemed the causal factor. Perot later achieved marginal success (by comparison with previous third party candidates) in 1996, largely on the "fumes" of his 1992 run.

Today, the field doesn't look particularly inviting. It's been said before on this board: the Democrats have plenty of choice and are largely happy with their candidates. The Republicans are less so, but aren't looking for anybody who stands for compromise. Rather, the Republican base wants somebody further to the Right. This leaves right-of-center voters only as the potential constituancy for a third party candidate. Sure, Bloomberg can snap them up, but it's hardly a legion.

The real tell in a Bloomberg bid will be money, not voter disatisfaction this time around.

[Glocksman]

It must be nice to be able to be a single-issue voter and still be able to sleep at night.

I'd personally care more about getting a hundred thousand men and women the fuck out of Iraq, or regaining some semblance of sane fiscal policy to keep our entire economy from eating itself, but I guess if having a gun is more important to you than all of that, that's your prerogative.

If Bloomberg was the only candidate wanting to get out of Iraq, balance the budget, etc., your attack would be relevant.
As it is, he's not.
There are several Democrats I'd vote for over almost any Republican candidate and my reservations WRT Fred Thompson are mainly over the Iraq war.
Just like my problems with Bill Richardson have to do with his support of amnesty for illegals than anything else.
As it is, I'd sooner vote for Hillary Clinton than Michael Bloomberg or a 'stay the course' asshole like McVain, so you can take your holier than thou bullshit and shove it up your ass.

[A-Wing_Slash]

We may have an exciting election on our hands.

I think it would be hilarious if we ended up with a Giulliani - Clinton - Bloomberg race.

[Glocksman]

We may have an exciting election on our hands.

I think it would be hilarious if we ended up with a Giulliani - Clinton - Bloomberg race.

Clinton for teh win!
Though talk about voting for the lesser evil.

[Howedar]

It must be nice to be able to be a single-issue voter and still be able to sleep at night.

I'd personally care more about getting a hundred thousand men and women the fuck out of Iraq, or regaining some semblance of sane fiscal policy to keep our entire economy from eating itself, but I guess if having a gun is more important to you than all of that, that's your prerogative.

If Bloomberg was the only candidate wanting to get out of Iraq, balance the budget, etc., your attack would be relevant.
As it is, he's not.
There are several Democrats I'd vote for over almost any Republican candidate and my reservations WRT Fred Thompson are mainly over the Iraq war.
Just like my problems with Bill Richardson have to do with his support of amnesty for illegals than anything else.
As it is, I'd sooner vote for Hillary Clinton than Michael Bloomberg or a 'stay the course' asshole like McVain, so you can take your holier than thou bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Actually, it's still an entirely relevant criticism. You would not vote for Bloomberg, no matter what other good he could do for the country. Whether or not my particular examples are relevant, you literally still care more about your gun than anything and everything else.

Either your post is hyperbole or you're a shining example for those who say that voting should not be a universal right.

[Stravo]

Isn't the point of voting to freely choose whom you want and if you do happen to choose someone based on a single issue what does that matter? If you believe in one man one vote it shouldn't matter why a man votes or for what reason. Some people vote based upon their belief that life begins at conception and if you truly believe that then it trumps quite a few issues when it comes time to vote because you are literally (in your mind) voting to save unborn lives.

How is that any different than voting based on your belief that your right to bear arms is sacrosanct and the government should not try to undermine that right. After all imagine if the government were trying to abolish the 1st amendment I bet many of us would feel that is a primary issue on our minds when it came time to vote.

I happen to agree with many of Bloomberg's "nutbar" ideas about gun control. Fucking Virginia gun shops and their look the other way bullshit. Fuck them. But I won't belittle Glocksman's right to vote based on that issue.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't the point of voting to freely choose whom you want and if you do happen to choose someone based on a single issue what does that matter?

Absolutely not. The point of voting is to make a well-informed and prudent choice for the best candidate, not to freely choose based on personal preference with no regard for the consequences of your actions. The fact that you have the right to do so does not mean it is the right thing to do so.

You've had 8 years of the Bush Administration, which was in large part a result of people choosing based on short-sighted single-issue criteria. You should know better.

[MKSheppard]

Fucking Virginia gun shops and their look the other way bullshit.

What bullshit? They obey Virginia laws concerning guns, why the fuck should they have to bow down for stupid as shit NYC gun laws?

[Glocksman]

Either your post is hyperbole or you're a shining example for those who say that voting should not be a universal right.

It is, and I figured the bit about voting for the Prince of Darkness would have been the dead giveaway.
As it is, the Dem candidate would have to be someone along the lines of Kucinich (a total whackjob on almost everything but the Iraq war) and the Rep candidate someone like Weathervane McCain before I'd seriously consider voting for Bloomberg.

I happen to agree with many of Bloomberg's "nutbar" ideas about gun control. Fucking Virginia gun shops and their look the other way bullshit. Fuck them. But I won't belittle Glocksman's right to vote based on that issue.

Even if I agreed with Bloomberg about guns, the idea of a Mayor of NYC sending private detectives across state lines in a misguided attempt to enforce Federal laws on guns via 'sting' operations in another state worries me.

If he's willing to break Federal laws to do so as mayor, I shudder to think what he'd do WRT 'the war on terror', guns, or anything else, if he became President.

[MKSheppard]

Even if I agreed with Bloomberg about guns, the idea of a Mayor of NYC sending private detectives across state lines in a misguided attempt to enforce Federal laws on guns via 'sting' operations in another state worries me.

What's really hilariously funny is that Virginia gun stores obey federal gun laws too, along with Virginia gun laws!

What they don't do is enforce stupid NYC laws; which is what Bloomy is so upset about.

I always love the "Eeeevil Virginia is providing guns guns to NYC!" line floated by tossers like Bloomberg; it makes me feel sad that Pennsylvania is overlooked; they have probably the most gunshows in the northeast region.

As a side note; when I was in jail, one of the people in my block actually was a gun runner; he would run guns up to NYC with like 100 pistols in his car trunk.

[Glocksman]

Whoops, I made the comment about voting for Satan somewhere else.
Though it is hyperbole when I say I would sooner cut off my right arm.

[Glocksman]

As a side note; when I was in jail, one of the people in my block actually was a gun runner; he would run guns up to NYC with like 100 pistols in his car trunk.

And you're in Maryland, right?
Back in 2003 when I was there for a month on a union organizing drive for UNITE at the Jos. A. Bank distribution cener, the people I bullshitted around with after we were done for the day were amazed at the fact that I could legally carry concealed in my home state.

[MKSheppard]

And you're in Maryland, right?

Back in 2003 when I was there for a month on a union organizing drive for UNITE at the Jos. A. Bank distribution cener, the people I bullshitted around with after we were done for the day were amazed at the fact that I could legally carry concealed in my home state.

Actually, Maryland has CCW. It's just...."May Issue", meaning the State Police Control it. Which means that of course, none of them get handed out unless you are an Important Person (TM).