Bloomberg poised for third-party campaign By Ralph Z. Hallow THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published May 15, 2007 New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times. "He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it." Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run. The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-party run if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said he will spend up to $1 billion. Earlier, he told friends he would make a run only if he thought he could win a plurality in a three-way race and would spend $500 million -- or less than 10 percent of his personal fortune. A $1 billion campaign budget would wipe out many of the common obstacles faced by third-party candidates seeking the White House. "Bloomberg is H. Ross Perot on steroids," said former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner. "He could turn the political landscape of this election upside down, spend as much money as he wanted and proceed directly to the general election. He would have resources to hire an army of petition-gatherers in those states where thousands of petitions are required to qualify a third-party presidential candidate to be on the ballot." Senior Republican officials -- including those supporting declared Republican presidential nomination contenders -- and several top Democrats told The Times they take the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy as a serious threat in November 2008. The Bloomberg team is studying the strategies of Mr. Perot, the Texas billionaire whose 1992 presidential campaign helped President Clinton to win the White House with 43 percent of the popular vote. "Mike has been meeting with Ross Perot's most senior people about how they did an independent run in 1992," the Bloomberg business adviser said on condition of anonymity so as to avoid appearing to speak for Mr. Bloomberg. Talk of Mr. Bloomberg as a third-party candidate comes as Republican voters are deeply divided over their top-three declared candidates -- Arizona Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- and are casting longing glances at former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Some of the people on McCain's [presidential campaign] staff have been calling me to see if Mike is running because they are ready to leave the McCain campaign, which is a biplane on fire and spiraling down," the Bloomberg adviser said. Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, another independent-minded Republican, dined recently with Mr. Bloomberg and suggested on CBS' "Face the Nation" over the weekend that he and Mr. Bloomberg might make an independent run for the presidency. But in Albany, N.Y., yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg downplayed that suggestion. "I think he was probably joking," the mayor told reporters. Mr. Hagel "speaks his mind. ... He's not happy with the same things that I'm not happy about." Republicans who say they are girding for a Bloomberg entry note Mr. Bloomberg has a 68 percent share of his privately owned company, Bloomberg LP. The company is worth $20 billion (and about $30 billion if put on the block for public bidding) and earns $1.5 billion annually in after-tax profits. "If Bloomberg runs, he could have more money on hand than either of the two major party nominees," said Mr. Toner, the former FEC chairman. "It would be the first time that happened in the modern era." A New York Daily News poll of the city's voters finds that Mr. Bloomberg, twice elected mayor as a moderate Republican, is far more popular than Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor who leads in most polls for the Republican presidential nomination. Mr. Bloomberg said yesterday he was flattered by that result but downplayed it at his Albany press conference, saying, "The current mayor always has a real advantage." Social conservative leaders have told The Times they are determined to block Mr. Giuliani from becoming the Republican presidential candidate but that they can't stop Mr. Bloomberg from making a third-party run. "This much I know, if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, that is the ticket for the Democrats to get the White House in 2008," said Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council. "Many pro-life voters who have been voting Republican will not vote for the top of the ticket if it's Giuliani." Other top social and religious conservative leaders, in separate interviews and discussions last week, told The Times their movement has decided to support Mr. Thompson for the Republican nomination. They said he has satisfied them that he is reliably supportive of religious-conservative positions on key issues. "A third-party candidacy is almost inevitable" in 2008, said former Virginia Democratic Party Chairman Paul Goldman, who pointed out that third-party candidacies have affected the outcome of five of the past 10 presidential elections -- including George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, Mr. Perot in 1992 and '96, and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000. "If the Republicans nominate someone the press can tag as a pro-war social conservative and the Democrats pick an anti-war liberal, Bloomberg will run up the center," Mr. Goldman said. "If conservatives don't rally to stop Giuliani they will get a third party socially conservative candidate who will only help elect the Democrat." http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070515-123142-3314r ---------------------------- Would Bloomy really have a shot at the White House? Would a Bloomy run help the Democrats or Republicans more?
It would help the party he if further from ideologically more. That is the irony of third party candidates, they get the person they wouldn't vote for elected.
The most interesting things from this are: 1. What happens to NY? NYC loves him, so could the GOP accidentally win NY if Dems split between the Dem candidate and Bloomberg? 2. If Guiliani, Hillary, and Bloomberg all end up running, who wins NY? 3. Every single battleground state & "leaning GOP" or "leaning DEM" state goes completely in the tossup column. It would change the entire nature of the election - would be fun, if nothing else.
I'd vote for him over any Democrat left and any of the three Republican frontrunners. He seems like a common-sense politician, and God knows we haven't had much of that in a while.
I'd have to become familiar with his platform before anything, but the fact that he is neither a democrat nor a republican already has me considering voting for him.
Nope, just a sh!tty typist. The "if" in my post, should be an "is". The sentence construction is just me being lazy.
"social liberal and fiscal conservative" i'm not really sure how he fits in as a republican... maybe it's his fiscal stances? (which based on his tax increase makes this seem to be an incorrect assessment) based on these positions he would seem to take away from the democrat's vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Policies_as_mayor Social policy - support the legalization of same-sex marriage Public health - extended New York City's smoking ban Immigration - supporter of immigration reform to secure the rights of illegal immigrants Gun control - strong advocate of gun control Budgeting - introduced a $3 billion tax increase
An independent Bloomberg campaign would be very interesting but I would really have to see more about his platform, particularly on things like international trade, foriegn and defense policy before I even considered voting for him. NYC is a huge city but it is still a city and as a mayor the range of issues he deals with are narrower than what a governor or a senator would face.
I'm not sure how much voting matters anymore - most of our single votes are trumped by the access that the wealthy buy to have the ear of our alleged 'representatives' - so voting a independent candidate into office may be more of a matter of attempting to change the political culture in D.C. than it is of any candidate's platform. Our government needs an enema. But, then again, I don't necessarily see billionare Bloomberg offering much of a change from the status quo. He's still from the same social class, and will likely still represent their interests disproportionately in comparison to the interests of the average voter.
"Social liberal and fiscal conservative" sounds very promising. I hope he runs. Would like to know how he stands on specific issues. I've always wanted the GOP to shed the bible-belt dominance in the party. But a social liberal just doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination. An independent may be the way to go. A lot of North Eastern and Pacific coast republicans probably feel the same way. I think you can go quite a long ways as a social liberal and fiscal conservative without fully contradicting yourself. In general terms - I can see a social lib/fiscal con getting a lot of Republican votes (like mine). Can this theoretical candidate attract enough Democrats with that sort of ideology? Heck GW is kind of a social conservative and fiscal liberal.
Oh boy! Nader Weighs a Run By Katharine Q. Seelye He’s baaaack. Ralph Nader, who parlayed Democratic fury at him in 2000 into utter disdain in 2004, says he may get into the 2008 presidential race. He is waiting until the fall to decide. He says his decision will hinge on whether he can round up enough volunteers and pro bono lawyers to get him on the ballot in the 50 states over what he expects will be widespread opposition from Democrats. Mr. Nader got only 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000. But Democrats widely blame him for siphoning enough votes from Al Gore, the Democrat, particularly in Florida and New Hampshire, to cost Mr. Gore the presidency. He was viewed as such a spoiler in 2000 that when he ran again in 2004, even former allies turned against him and he garnered just one-third of 1 percent of the popular vote. Mr. Nader, 73, whose interest in 2008 was first reported in The Politico, said in an interview that running for president “isn’t pleasant.” And he would not do it, he said, if, say, Jim Hightower, the former Texas agriculture commissioner and radio personality, or others on a list of relatively obscure people would run. (The list did not include anyone who is already running or who may be thinking about running. And that means Michael R. Bloomberg, the newly minted independent mayor of New York, who is among the latter.) But Mr. Nader said he felt compelled to run because he wanted to establish ballot access for “all kinds of third-party candidates.” And he wants to train “the next generation” of progressive activists. His platform would essentially be the same as it has always been: to try to check the corporate power that he says controls the country. He also said that he expected the Democrats would win in a landslide in 2008, “if they don’t mess it up.” Did that mean he thought he could avoid being branded a spoiler this time? No, he said, it meant that voters would feel free to vote for “someone they believe in.” And he still rejects the label of spoiler. “George Bush was the spoiler,” he said. Democrats mounted a coordinated network across the country in 2004 to deny him access to ballots. In the end, he was on the ballot in about three-dozen states. He said that 21 lawsuits were filed against him and he was still dealing with the residue of one, in which he is challenging a court order that he pay $81,000 in transcription fees. “This doesn’t diminish my interest,” Mr. Nader said. “It means that if you are going down a certain road, you need gasoline in the tank. You need volunteers to get way and above the minimum number of signatures and a network of pro bono lawyers. But that in itself is not a reason to give up.” He said he would start “testing the waters” in the fall to see if he can find enough people willing to do that work, acknowledging: “You cannot go forward without a demonstration of volunteer support.” http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/nader-weighs-a-run/
Anyone who can actually claim this with a straight face and evidence to back it up has my vote. And while I'm dreaming - I'd like a pony.
i was skeptical of bloomberg at first but i'm impressed. he has done a great job here and if he runs for the oval office, he will be doing so for all the right reasons. crap, what am i saying, for THE right reason. we need a massive change in the white house, no more lawyers please, no more talk. i want some cold-hearted action. let's get the ship back on track. p.s. just noticed your sig
