Bloomberg

[Cancel7]

This is an interesting turn of events. I've got no problems with Bloomberg. He is an innovative and smart man. And he knows this country is in trouble. My only concern would be that he throws the election to the republicans. But I don't think he's going to enter if he believes that will be the outcome. This guy knows we can't afford another 4 years of facism and warmongering. He's not going to make someone like Rudy President. It should shake things up at any rate.

June 19, 2007, 6:21 pm
Mayor Bloomberg Quits the G.O.P.
By Adam Nagourney

Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced tonight that he is quitting the Republican party and changing his affiliation to independent.
The announcement came after Mr. Bloomberg gave a speech denouncing partisan gridlock in Washington, stirring renewed speculation that he is preparing to run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2008.
“I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party,” he said in a statement issued while he was in California delivering political speeches. “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.” The full text of his announcement is on the new City Room blog.
Mr. Bloomberg is a former Democrat who won the New York City mayoralty in 2001 running as Republican. The mayor, who cannot seek a third term, has said he had no plans to run for president, but has declined to shut the door completely on a White House bid.

“We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face,” he said.
“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. Working together, there s no limit to what we can do.'’
Mr. Bloomberg announced his decision after a campaign-style swing through California in which he gave a series of speeches that clearly previewed what aides have long said would be the thematic underpinnings of a Bloomberg presidential campaign, should he decide to run.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/mayor-bloomberg-quits-the-gop/

 

[cawacko]

This is an interesting turn of events. I've got no problems with Bloomberg. He is an innovative and smart man. And he knows this country is in trouble. My only concern would be that he throws the election to the republicans. But I don't think he's going to enter if he believes that will be the outcome. This guy knows we can't afford another 4 years of facism and warmongering. He's not going to make someone like Rudy President. It should shake things up at any rate.

June 19, 2007, 6:21 pm
Mayor Bloomberg Quits the G.O.P.
By Adam Nagourney

Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced tonight that he is quitting the Republican party and changing his affiliation to independent.
The announcement came after Mr. Bloomberg gave a speech denouncing partisan gridlock in Washington, stirring renewed speculation that he is preparing to run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2008.
“I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party,” he said in a statement issued while he was in California delivering political speeches. “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.” The full text of his announcement is on the new City Room blog.
Mr. Bloomberg is a former Democrat who won the New York City mayoralty in 2001 running as Republican. The mayor, who cannot seek a third term, has said he had no plans to run for president, but has declined to shut the door completely on a White House bid.

“We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face,” he said.
“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. Working together, there s no limit to what we can do.'’
Mr. Bloomberg announced his decision after a campaign-style swing through California in which he gave a series of speeches that clearly previewed what aides have long said would be the thematic underpinnings of a Bloomberg presidential campaign, should he decide to run.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/mayor-bloomberg-quits-the-gop/

Hypothetically, let's say an Independent or third party member won the Presidency. Realistically, how much support could they expect from Congress to pass their agenda? We all know political parties exist to win elections, not better the country so both Dems and Reps would do what they could to position themselves best for the following election.

Do you really think Democrats would vote for Bloomberg instead of Hillary or Obama? I don't see it. Not to mention Obama is trying to position himself as an above the fray politician who is not like your typical Rep or Dem and that's what Bloomberg would be doing. Who knows maybe after the primary Obama will be viewed as just another partisan politician and lose some of his luster and make Bloomberg more appealing.

 

[Cancel7]

Hypothetically, let's say an Independent or third party member won the Presidency. Realistically, how much support could they expect from Congress to pass their agenda? We all know political parties exist to win elections, not better the country so both Dems and Reps would do what they could to position themselves best for the following election.

Do you really think Democrats would vote for Bloomberg instead of Hillary or Obama? I don't see it. Not to mention Obama is trying to position himself as an above the fray politician who is not like your typical Rep or Dem and that's what Bloomberg would be doing. Who knows maybe after the primary Obama will be viewed as just another partisan politician and lose some of his luster and make Bloomberg more appealing.

I don't know. I think we might be at a crossroads in this country where almost anything can happen, but I'm not sure.

 

[doniston]

Hypothetically, let's say an Independent or third party member won the Presidency. Realistically, how much support could they expect from Congress to pass their agenda? We all know political parties exist to win elections, not better the country so both Dems and Reps would do what they could to position themselves best for the following election.

Do you really think Democrats would vote for Bloomberg instead of Hillary or Obama? I don't see it. Not to mention Obama is trying to position himself as an above the fray politician who is not like your typical Rep or Dem and that's what Bloomberg would be doing. Who knows maybe after the primary Obama will be viewed as just another partisan politician and lose some of his luster and make Bloomberg more appealing.

I don't know enough about him to say, so what I do say is generic. I do think that given a suitable candidate, that there would be enough disgruntled Republicans and democrats to swing an election to an independent. and once in office, I beleive the Congresspersons would be more apt to vote their real feelings rather than sinply a party line.
Maybe that is niave, but it is possible.

 

[Cancel5]

This is an interesting turn of events. I've got no problems with Bloomberg. He is an innovative and smart man. And he knows this country is in trouble. My only concern would be that he throws the election to the republicans. But I don't think he's going to enter if he believes that will be the outcome. This guy knows we can't afford another 4 years of facism and warmongering. He's not going to make someone like Rudy President. It should shake things up at any rate.

June 19, 2007, 6:21 pm
Mayor Bloomberg Quits the G.O.P.
By Adam Nagourney

Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced tonight that he is quitting the Republican party and changing his affiliation to independent.
The announcement came after Mr. Bloomberg gave a speech denouncing partisan gridlock in Washington, stirring renewed speculation that he is preparing to run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2008.
“I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party,” he said in a statement issued while he was in California delivering political speeches. “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.” The full text of his announcement is on the new City Room blog.
Mr. Bloomberg is a former Democrat who won the New York City mayoralty in 2001 running as Republican. The mayor, who cannot seek a third term, has said he had no plans to run for president, but has declined to shut the door completely on a White House bid.

“We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face,” he said.
“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. Working together, there s no limit to what we can do.'’
Mr. Bloomberg announced his decision after a campaign-style swing through California in which he gave a series of speeches that clearly previewed what aides have long said would be the thematic underpinnings of a Bloomberg presidential campaign, should he decide to run.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/mayor-bloomberg-quits-the-gop/

I think this might become more of a trend!

 

[uscitizen]

Darla, I think the ones he would attract the most are the other embaressed Republicans that are claiming to be independent. We have seen how Liebermans independent tendancies worked out.
I expect bloombergs move to mainly suck support away from the Republicans not the demoncrats.
View this guy as a Nader to the dems.

 

[LadyT]

Darla, I think the ones he would attract the most are the other embaressed Republicans that are claiming to be independent. We have seen how Liebermans independent tendancies worked out.
I expect bloombergs move to mainly suck support away from the Republicans not the demoncrats.
View this guy as a Nader to the dems.

I never really considered him "in the fray" as a political candidate, however I'd honestly consider him a viable candidate. I find him a lot more refreshing and honest than Hillary. Although, I'd be interested to hear about other New Yorkers' impressions of him. He'd take votes away from Democrats and Republicans. And personally I like the idea of a independent in the WH.

 

[LadyT]

Do you really think Democrats would vote for Bloomberg instead of Hillary or Obama? I don't see it. Not to mention Obama is trying to position himself as an above the fray politician who is not like your typical Rep or Dem and that's what Bloomberg would be doing. Who knows maybe after the primary Obama will be viewed as just another partisan politician and lose some of his luster and make Bloomberg more appealing.

Totally. I'm convinced that Hillary's broad support among liberals is a collective figment of the media's imagination. And that the polling questions are often skewed. I was polled once by Quinniapac about 6 months back and I'm no Hillary supporter, but they skewed the questions in such a way that I basically had to pick her over getting needles in the eye. I definitely like Obama, but unlike the rest of my liberal bretheren, I do not support universal health care which the two of them do support. That's the only thing that gives me pause with Obama (not that the sun revolves around me - but I am sure there are others out there that think like me). I think Obama and Bloomberg could get things done in the WH definitely.

Now if Dean or Gore run, my perspective would change considerably.

 

[Cancel7]

Totally. I'm convinced that Hillary's broad support among liberals is a collective figment of the media's imagination. And that the polling questions are often skewed. I was polled once by Quinniapac about 6 months back and I'm no Hillary supporter, but they skewed the questions in such a way that I basically had to pick her over getting needles in the eye. I definitely like Obama, but unlike the rest of my liberal bretheren, I do not support universal health care which the two of them do support. That's the only thing that gives me pause with Obama (not that the sun revolves around me - but I am sure there are others out there that think like me). I think Obama and Bloomberg could get things done in the WH definitely.

Now if Dean or Gore run, my perspective would change considerably.

Are you going to go see "Sicko"?

 

[LadyT]

Probably. Then I'll come on the boards and profess my undying love and admiration to Michael Moore and brag about what a genius he is much to the dismay of the other team for $hits and giggles.

 

[Cancel7]

Probably. Then I'll come on the boards and profess my undying love and admiration to Michael Moore and brag about what a genius he is much to the dismay of the other team for $hits and giggles.

LOL. Cool.

I'm interested to see if it gives you any second thoughts on your feelings about health care.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, here's what I said about it on the other site:



It would be ironic, though, in the first election in which we are likely to see a Mormon running against a woman or a black man, for an old white businessman to win instead for the first time out of the two-party structure.

He's not crazy like Perot. He also has more money. But he doesn't have a very strong, emotional issue like being against free trade, either, or taking crazy positions on party funding. He has a bit more legitimacy, since he came from a major party, wheras Perot wasn't in a major party because he was too crazy for one. But I don't think people tend to give out their vote to non-offensive candidates like Bloomberg. I doubt he'll split the Republican vote unless Guliani's running. He's different from the rest of the GOP, socially liberal and economically conservative. He also hasn't said anything supporting torture like Guliani, which will help and hurt with some.




The reason I say he won't split the vote is because he's simply very different from either of the other candidates, and almost equally distant politically from any of them. But if it's a close election and he doesn't win, I could see his presence changing the outcome...

 

[doniston]

I never really considered him "in the fray" as a political candidate, however I'd honestly consider him a viable candidate. I find him a lot more refreshing and honest than Hillary. Although, I'd be interested to hear about other New Yorkers' impressions of him. He'd take votes away from Democrats and Republicans. And personally I like the idea of a independent in the WH.

I agree, and he sounds more and more like Ross Periot (He might have a chance in the present clime.)

 

[LadyT]

LOL. Cool.

I'm interested to see if it gives you any second thoughts on your feelings about health care.

My issues with it stem from my experience with breaking my nose in England combined with dealing with federal bureaucracy in the US. Our system is far from perfect, but I'm pretty convinced if you add the slow get-to-it-iveness (made up word yes I know) of our current government in health care, it would be all but defunct & useless. I do fully support a federal umbrella though. I'd only trust the gov't to administer funds and negotiate pricing, not run the actual hospital. Not to mention, I'm tired of paying more taxes. Unless it came out of our defense budget and my current federal tax rate was kept constant or reduced.

 

[uscitizen]

LadyT, one thing is certain in the near future you will be paying more taxes.
The country cannot run on "plastic" forever.

 

[Cancel7]

LadyT, one thing is certain in the near future you will be paying more taxes.
The country cannot run on "plastic" forever.

Well, somebody has to pay for bush's war, eventually. And Damo and IHG would probably start screaming "That's Unconstituional" and require smelling salts, if we just taxed repukes, though, I am all for it.

The first thing that will have to go is his tax cuts for the richest, and once those are rolled back, we can increase their taxes for good measure. And when they whine, as they are wont to do, we can remind them that they benefitted from bush's war greatly. Who do you think is actually cleaning up in the great war bidness? The rich. So they can damn well start paying for it. So we roll back their tax cuts, then raise them a few points, and squeeze them until they start squeaking, and then, just because the squeaking is annoying, we can squeeze them just a little bit more.

Then we can cut the damned military budget, and then we can see where we have to go from there.

But we must have a single-payer (the term universal health care is meaningless and a red herring) system in this country.

 

[LadyT]

Personally, I'd start by slashing the defense the budget and focus more on actual defense like, border and port security. I'm no military budget expert, but its got to be a lot less costly than rebuilding Iraq or Afghanistan......I could be mistaken though.
Next, any kind of pet projects/pork would have to be made public and listed out individually a week before voting along with the congressperson that proposed it. And they should also be voted on individually.
Next, federal taxes should have a factor applied based on your geographical location and the local CPI. A person making a $100K in but fvck, Alabama should pay more than the person living in San Fran making the same amount.
Also, I think a reward system should be implemented for government workers that expose government waste and action is taken to eliminate it. For instance if Sally sees that her department purchases $10K more in paper than her department needs she should get 10% of the following fiscal years savings.
Next, First/Business class travel for congress people would be eliminated on our dime unless its international flights.
Next, there should be a reward system set up for whistleblowers that expose government fraud, i.e. Medicare Fraud, Social Security Fraud, Welfare etc, if the case is proven to be true. 20% of the annualized fraud.
I've got a few more gems, but I'm convinced if you incentivise workers into being aware of government waste with $ it will be on everyones mind to cut it.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah we will need to do all those things Darla, but it won't be enough. In a very few short years SS will be paying out more than is drawn in so the difference will have to be paid from taxes, since we spent the surplus.
This will mean big spending cuts in many areas AND more taxes.

 

[Cancel7]

Personally, I'd start by slashing the defense the budget and focus more on actual defense like, border and port security. I'm no military budget expert, but its got to be a lot less costly than rebuilding Iraq or Afghanistan......I could be mistaken though.
Next, any kind of pet projects/pork would have to be made public and listed out individually a week before voting along with the congressperson that proposed it. And they should also be voted on individually.
Next, federal taxes should have a factor applied based on your geographical location and the local CPI. A person making a $100K in but fvck, Alabama should pay more than the person living in San Fran making the same amount.
Also, I think a reward system should be implemented for government workers that expose government waste and action is taken to eliminate it. For instance if Sally sees that her department purchases $10K more in paper than her department needs she should get 10% of the following fiscal years savings.
Next, First/Business class travel for congress people would be eliminated on our dime unless its international flights.
Next, there should be a reward system set up for whistleblowers that expose government fraud, i.e. Medicare Fraud, Social Security Fraud, Welfare etc, if the case is proven to be true. 20% of the annualized fraud.
I've got a few more gems, but I'm convinced if you incentivise workers into being aware of government waste with $ it will be on everyones mind to cut it.

Well, I'm sure it is, because not only do we pay to rebuild these countries, but we pay to destroy them first so that we can rebuild them. It's quite a boondoogle. Unless you know, you live there.

I think that the incentives are great ideas.

 

[LadyT]

Well, I'm sure it is, because not only do we pay to rebuild these countries, but we pay to destroy them first so that we can rebuild them. It's quite a boondoogle. Unless you know, you live there.

I think that the incentives are great ideas.

I do too. I think you'd see a lot less social security fraud as well. Or at least a lot less bragging about it.