Bloomberg for President

July 27, 2007   

6

It occurred to me a year ago that Bloomberg would make a great president. He has been a very effective mayor of New York. He restored fiscal balance and cooperated with the democrats after the factious Giuliani years. He has been in both parties. He is a pragmatist. He’s independently wealthy and not beholden to any special interest groups. He is a true social liberal and fiscal conservative where I believe the silent majority of Americans lie.

I did not mention it before, because I did not see how it could happen. But now that he quit the Republican Party to become an Independent and a few publications mentioned he was considering a run, the path seems clearer.

In the end, whether or not he runs will depend on the Democratic and Republican candidates. For better or worse, Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican candidates are divisive. Should they be nominated as party candidates, it creates a clear opening for Bloomberg to enter the race on a centrist, pragmatic, bipartisan platform “healing” the nation after a partisan and divisive Bush presidency. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, that opportunity would probably not exist, given the similarity in his positioning.

Given that he does not need to fund raise, Bloomberg does not have to enter the race until 2008. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens!

In the meantime, the rumors of a bid for a presidency do Bloomberg no harm in New York, where he remains relevant despite being in his last term as mayor.

  • There is buzz in political circles on a Hagel/Bloomberg ticket, which I believe, would gather quick traction among voters. Bottom line: Hagel knows how DC works, has pleasant demeanor that resonates with most Americans – and he isn’t afraid to speak out against Bush, especially on Iraq. Bloomberg is a commanding pragmatist, who would bode well among moderate voters from both parties. Aside: I predict that if the Iraq congressional stalemate continues throught the ’08 (which it’s expected to) – Barack and Clinton will be seen by voters as part of the “Iraq problem” because they couldn’t accomplish anything as Senators. By that point, Bill Richardson will be looking pretty good…

    Reply

  • My hope would be Ron Paul – He doesn’t want to legislate morality, he doesn’t want to spy on people, he doesnt, and he is serious about small government in wanting to abolish the IRS (which would require taking spending down to the levels of the.. Clinton presidency).

    He is really the only current candidate that follows his principles and has a voting record to prove it over two decades.

    I know he is a longshot at best, but he would really be the guy to take America back to its roots of freedom and liberty.
    If nothing else, he is making an important contribution by spreading his message and showing there is a third way that isn’t socialism, nor repressive social conservatism.

    Reply

  • To quote George Pack in The New Yorker:

    “If a five-foot-seven divorced Jew with a nasal whine is taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, it would at the very least diminish the power of faux symbols in our political life; and a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg race would so thoroughly explode the Sun Belt’s lock on the White House that an entirely new kind of politics might be possible, in which evolution is not at issue, no one has to pretend to like pork rinds, and the past tense of “drag” is “dragged.” It would also mark the end of New York’s longtime estrangement from the rest of the country and complete its post-September 11th return to being the great American city. After which Americans could start to resent New York again.”

    Reply