Eight For 08

Bloomberg’s a candidate in search of a constituency. Stories like the below make him all the more improbable. In the hyper-partisan environment that has further stiffened since the election of President I’m-A-Uniter-Not-A-Divider Bush, Democrats are too angry to fall for the line of a lack of difference between the Reps and Dems - and being in the wilderness for the last 8 years has made them hungry for victory.

While money is obviously not a problem for Mr. Bloomberg (he could blow a billion on the race out of his own pocket and not even notice) he doesn’t have an organization, name recognition, or a base of supporters beyond the Hudson River.

I don’t see the room for a Perot or even shudder Nader* this time round. While Bloomberg’s doubtless got the ego to imagine he can be president, that doesn’t mean he can do much of anything.

As ODB suggests, people always wring their hands about the sad lack of political comity and are plain fed up with the two parties today. Whatever year that “today” might have been. It’s the same way that their neighbors used to be so much nicer, SNL was always better 10 years ago, and kids these days aren’t as smart as they used to be.

Footnote: Did you see that Nader is considering another run? (or, more aptly, here.) What an embarrassment.

Under the right circumstances, I can imagine Michael Bloomberg making it official in ‘08 and actually doing quite well compared to recent Independent bids. Then I read the following in regards to his failed bid to get the New York legislature to approve the Manhattan Congestion Tax:

In a tense meeting on Monday, testy exchanges erupted between the mayor and the Democratic state senators he was trying to win over. At one point, according to several people present, Mr. Bloomberg told the senators that his administration had sent plenty of information about his plan in the mail, and that it was not his fault if they had not read it.

“If the mayor came in with one vote, he left with none,” said Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat.

“His posture was not ingratiating,” he said. “He says he doesn’t know politics, and he certainly bore that out by the way he behaved.”

So angered were Democrats that they decided to vote as a bloc to defeat the measure, and there were not nearly enough votes among the Republican senators for it to pass.

The mayor moved from meeting to meeting in the Capitol, his expression grim, and he declined to take questions from reporters. He did take a shot at his critics on WROW-AM radio in Albany on Monday morning, saying, “Anybody that says we didn’t have enough time to look at this is ridiculous.

“They don’t read the mail or they don’t read the newspapers,” he said, adding that it would be difficult “to not know about congestion pricing if you can read.”

Not exactly the great negotiator huh? Or maybe it’s just a tactic and he’s playing hard-ball. And then there’s this:

Senate Democrats were particularly upset when the mayor, who recently left the Republican Party, told them he was “not political.” Several tartly asked him why he had then supported their Republican opponents. The New York Times reported this month that Mr. Bloomberg would continue to back Republican legislative candidates.

“I think several members during the meeting with the mayor referenced their disappointment that he left the Republican Party but still swore his allegiance, basically, to keeping Joe Bruno as the majority leader,” said Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat. “The mayor tried to explain that he wasn’t political. But most of us in politics don’t believe that any mayor is not political.”

So, Mayor Bloomberg: Bankrupt of political savvy or apolitical savant? Either way, could he toe this line on the national stage? My insticts lol this, but I also wonder if the electorate has actually had it with Washington party politics. For now I’ll return to my instincts because we hear that America has had it with Washington party politics at least every four years.

The New York Times is reporting that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is quitting the Republican party and changing his affiliation to Independent. This will certainly amplify the rumors that have been circulating the past couple of weeks over whether he is planning on running for president.

Assuming he does enter the race as an independent,  it’s pretty clear that his campaign would be more of a concern to the democratic contenders than republicans. He supports the pro-choice movement, is for gun control , and has a progressive approach to health care - and on, and on. Maybe someone else can help me figure out what makes him “independent” and not a democrat-previously-in republicans-clothing. Not to mention tht he was a lifelong democrat before switching parties when he ran for mayor.

Here’s what I don’t get, though. Normally when there’s a third party candidate running, it’s because a sizeable number of voters are unhappy with the mainstream party candidates. But so far, this cycle’s crop of candidates seems to have the political spectrum covered. From “conservative’s conservatives” like Romney and Thompson, to the more middle-of-the-road Giuliani on the right, and from Edwards’ populist pitch to Obama and Clinton’s battle for the just-left-of-center, there’s a reasonably strong candidate for everyone. So until the field gets narrowed down, it’s hard to imagine just where — and why — Bloomberg would fit in.

Stay tuned…