Bloomberg issues definite "no" on the presidential thing

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/nyregion/20cnd-bloomberg.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

These are the most important, last few lines:

He at first said he didn’t like hypothetical questions, but then couldn’t help answering: “If everyone in the world was dead and I was the only one alive? Sure.”

He insisted he had other plans.

“I’ve got the best job in government,” he said, “and I’m looking forward to doing that and afterward, as you know, I’ve bought a building to set up a foundation in, I’ve started making some grants.”

Even this news conference, with his answers, probably won’t quell the chatter about him possibly running for president. Several polling companies trotted out numbers from polls conducted overnight of polls conducted over night on his support if he were to run.

“I think they’re wasting their time,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “I’m not a candidate.”
 
Watermark said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/nyregion/20cnd-bloomberg.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

These are the most important, last few lines:

He at first said he didn’t like hypothetical questions, but then couldn’t help answering: “If everyone in the world was dead and I was the only one alive? Sure.”

He insisted he had other plans.

“I’ve got the best job in government,” he said, “and I’m looking forward to doing that and afterward, as you know, I’ve bought a building to set up a foundation in, I’ve started making some grants.”

Even this news conference, with his answers, probably won’t quell the chatter about him possibly running for president. Several polling companies trotted out numbers from polls conducted overnight of polls conducted over night on his support if he were to run.

“I think they’re wasting their time,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “I’m not a candidate.”
Click to expand...
I have a one word response to this:-----"YET"
 
The left seems to get all excited every time they think the right has a deserter that might run. This guy changes parties like he changes pants. First a D, then changed to R to run for mayor, then changed to I to make a point.... then?

Who knows what is next, but one thing is for sure. I don't think he would be a viable candidate. But then I never thought a Mayor would have the top billing for this long in a Presidential Primary. I could be wrong.
 
Bloomberg is not stupid, he's calculating. He's knows that he'd only be another Perot, at best. Only 9% of people who know him said they'd vote for him.

His politics are all over the place, which is why he can be a democrat and republican at the same time.

My guess is that facing term limits, he's just trying to keep his name in the limelight and get some role in the Cabinet of whoever wins.
 
Damoclesl said:
Seriously the guy changes parties more often than Robdawg.
Click to expand...

I think this post is a clear cut example of how we are going to be married to the two party system for a long time unless people stop caring about parties. So what if he changes parties. If his ideals remain strong and he practices what he preaches, should we really care if he's switched parties?

Blackascoal said:
Bloomberg is not stupid, he's calculating. He's knows that he'd only be another Perot, at best. Only 9% of people who know him said they'd vote for him.

His politics are all over the place, which is why he can be a democrat and republican at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yes. Bloomberg is calculating. He's also successful. That would be a huge improvement to the idiot we currently have in office who can't run a business, Texas or the nation.

Can you give me some examples of his politics being all over the place, party notwithstanding?
 
LadyT said:
I think this post is a clear cut example of how we are going to be married to the two party system for a long time unless people stop caring about parties. So what if he changes parties. If his ideals remain strong and he practices what he preaches, should we really care if he's switched parties?



Yes. Bloomberg is calculating. He's also successful. That would be a huge improvement to the idiot we currently have in office who can't run a business, Texas or the nation.

Can you give me some examples of his politics being all over the place, party notwithstanding?
Click to expand...
How sexist! If somebody said this about HillBilly there'd be a whole slew of Ds all over them talking them up as a Peee Eye Geee....
 
Damocles said:
The left seems to get all excited every time they think the right has a deserter that might run. This guy changes parties like he changes pants. First a D, then changed to R to run for mayor, then changed to I to make a point.... then?

Who knows what is next, but one thing is for sure. I don't think he would be a viable candidate. But then I never thought a Mayor would have the top billing for this long in a Presidential Primary. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I kinda think his changability is a good thing, expecially since there is so little difference between the parties.
 
He's probably a stronger candidate, overall, than Perot. And Perot could've gotten second place if he hadn't have made so many blunders. He also has more money to spend than Perot. Everyone I know that's heard him speak has likes him. No one really dislikes or hates him. That's, ironically enough, probably his biggest flaw. He's not divisive enough. Our political system encourages dividers, not uniters.
 
518-2.gif


No matter how much money he has, he'd be Perot.
 
blackascoal said:
Bloomberg is not stupid, he's calculating. He's knows that he'd only be another Perot, at best. Only 9% of people who know him said they'd vote for him.

His politics are all over the place, which is why he can be a democrat and republican at the same time.

My guess is that facing term limits, he's just trying to keep his name in the limelight and get some role in the Cabinet of whoever wins.
Click to expand...


I hate to say this: but image is everything. Or, at least it counts for a lot.

Perot might have looked like an elf, but he gave off that hard-assed, kind-a-sorta rednecky, southern Businessman feel.

That, plus he tapped into a sincere undercurrent of economic populism that exists in this country.


Let's be honest: Bloomberg is a short, effete, jewish guy from New York. A business man from the entertainment industry, no less. How well does that sell to the midwestern and western, white, working-class base that formed Perot's base?


Just being honest here. I judge people on more than image, but do american's at large? I think not.
 
LadyT said:
Can you give me some examples of his politics being all over the place, party notwithstanding?
Click to expand...

I agree that Bloomberg would be a huge improvement to the idiot presently in office, but the bar is so low in that regard that I believe just about anyone could rise above it .. with the exception of Ron Paul who would actually be worse.

On the most important issue of our time, Bloomberg has tip-toed the line between his GOP backing and being the mayor of a city that is strongly against the war. He has backed Bush and the invasion but also tried to distance himself from both.

When asked what he would tell the president to do on Iraq before the invasion, Bloomberg said, "The president's made his decision. He said clearly the other night, Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave or we were going to take military action. And I think at this point, the debate's over. He has made that decision. He is a forceful, strong leader."

After the invasion, when asked if it was the right thing to do, he replied, "If you take out a tyrant who clearly gassed tens of thousands of his own people, if you can stabilize a whole part of the world where, tragically, terrorism goes on every day, then it will have been the right decision."

He also backed Lieberman over Lamont.

He has both raised and cut taxes

While he supported the Iraq war, he also supported same-sex marriage, stem cell research, gun control, and abortion rights

He has been for and against unions

He has both republicans and democrats in his administration and has given money to both.

It's hard to tell where he is on immigration. He's said that illegal immigrants are the "backbone of our economy", but also called immigration policy a "disgrace."

He may be a bit too calculating for my tastes. I'd prefer someone who recognizes the crisis America is in and leads straightfowardly, not having to guess where he stands.

But he'd be an improvement over many of the cowards now running.
 
Cypress said:
I hate to say this: but image is everything. Or, at least it counts for a lot.

Perot might have looked like an elf, but he gave off that hard-assed, kind-a-sorta rednecky, southern Businessman feel.

That, plus he tapped into a sincere undercurrent of economic populism that exists in this country.


Let's be honest: Bloomberg is a short, effete, jewish guy from New York. A business man from the entertainment industry, no less. How well does that sell to the midwestern and western, white, working-class base that formed Perot's base?


Just being honest here. I judge people on more than image, but do american's at large? I think not.
Click to expand...

You do indeed have a good point here my brother. It's the same problem that Kucinich has.

Americans are quite American-Idolish our choices.

Personally, I don't believe that Bloomberg is the answer, not because of the way he looks, but because he doesn't appear to have a solid foundation to his politics.
 
I think Kucinich's main problem is that he's absolutely crazy and as charismatic as a roll of toilet paper.

Bloomberg is far more charismatic. Is he short? I dunno. Guliani's pretty short. But none of the candidates facing him are really tall anyway, except for Romney and Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top