February 28, 2008 Op-Ed Contributor I’m Not Running for President, but ... By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them. The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them. Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is. In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades? More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime. I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate. In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House. The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country. These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future. Michael R. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York. times
Absolutely - his apolitical, center-based coalition doesn't really have a major audience with both Obama and McCain in the mix. Hillary and anyone-but-McCain would have led to him being in. One or the other, I'm not sure.
He's not running for president because rumor has it that he might be asked to be Obama's running mate. Go back and read his statement closely.
He said that if an independent candidate takes a non-partisan approach, he'd consider helping. Not sure how the most liberal politician in the Senate is an 'independent' or 'non-partisan', other than some canned generalities in his speeches about 'bringing people together'. You are reaching there, mcmark.
If he truly wanted to cement his standing as a post-partisan / bi-partisan type candidate, picking Bloomberg (or Hagel) would be a brilliant move. I'm not sure how it would play with the base, but you'd suck in virtually all the independents.
I'm not surprised given how the current primaries have played out. Both McCain and Obama have been attracting a lot of independent support undercutting the consituencies for Bloomberg. While I like many of Bloomberg's ideas and think he's done an excellent job as mayor I'm not fully sold on him as President but it would've been interesting to see.
Damn, got to give my school major props for scoring Bloomberg as a commencement speaker this year; either way the Democratic nomination goes it's going to be nuts; either Barack cements his victory with wins on the 4th, and Bloomberg's gonna have the buzz about a potential VP nomination. Maybe even more interesting would be if Hilary redefines "comeback kid" and wins Pennsylvania, about a month before Bloomberg's due to speak, and he'll have to think about a run. I'm not even graduating, but I might stick around campus to hear what he's going to say. I really do like many of his ideas.
he was getting my vote if he ran. And if he's a VP, that's just extra karma against the religious right.
Hmm, I wonder where the balance in foreign security would come from. And can an Obama/Bloomberg admin earn the respect of hard liners from both parties?
Who cares about hardliners? Obama would never please them anyway and part of his appeal to independents is the fact he's not in the left or right ditch. It's a good thing in politics when hardliners aren't happy.
Yep, sorry, the guy did belong to a party that is again trying to win the whitehouse. This always happens. Anyway, on topic, I for once agree with Jorge. If I read this carefully (and I really like the piece, if you want to talk about straight talk!) it seems to me he would join either candidate. It would be a little tougher for McCain to sign him on though. (?)
