November 22, 2009
Email Friend | Print Article | Share Share

January 03, 2008

Bloomberg: Perot With Smaller Ears

By Lee Cary
Do we need another diminutive, entrepreneurial, big-ego billionaire promising us relief from partisan bickering? The last one on the political scene, Ross Perot, left us a minority President and partisan bickering in hyperdrive.

Despite being quoted as saying, “I have no plans to run for President,” the last days of 2007 saw a flurry of speculation that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg might run for President on a third party ticket.   A New York Times, December 31 article written by Sam Roberts, entitled "Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President,"   , referenced a upcoming gathering of bipartisan (they might say "non-partisan") luminaries scheduled for January 7.  

Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, "I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent."  [bold added]
Their threat is clear: if these luminaries are not satisfied by the final pair of opposing candidates, they may enter their own.  They're less clear about what it means to "formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation."   A piece in the Washington Post  by David Broder offers more information:

Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to ‘go beyond tokenism' in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president. [bold added]
Does the Bloomteam propose a bipartisan cabinet?  If so, they need to answer this:  If a relatively evenly divided Legislative branch is dysfunctional, what makes the luminaries think that a more equal split of power in the Executive branch will help? 

Bloomberg's last party affiliation was with the GOP, but he was previously a Democrat.  Now he's an Independent. One of the few parties he hasn't yet joined is the Tupperware Party.  The name most widely associated with the "someone else" mentioned in the WaPo piece is retiring Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, the unofficial chairman of RINO (Republicans In Name Only). 

If it's a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket, they must answer this question: Isn't this just a spin off of mostly liberal (they would say "centrist") Republicans -- sort of a counter neoconservative movement -- accompanied by a few moderate Democrats?  Consider those leading the list of affiliated luminaries:  Sen. Gary Hart (D-CO), Sen. Chuck Robb (D-VA), Sen. and Clinton Secretary of Defense William Cohen (R-ME), Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R-NJ), and Sen. John Danforth (R-MO).

Danforth was the Bush Administration's Ambassador to the U.N. long enough (appointed July 1, 2004, resigned November 22, 2004) to send three suits to the cleaners.  He's quoted in the WaPo piece as saying,

My party is appealing to a real meanness, and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy.    
Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg is, according to the NYT's piece, being regularly briefed on foreign policy by Henry "Of The-Vietnam-Peace-Talks Roundtable" Kissinger and "Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration."  The indefinite article "an" preceding "ambassador" is noteworthy.  According to her resume  promoting her availability to lecture,

From 1997 to 2001, Ms. Soderberg served as Alternate Representative to the United Nations as a Presidential Appointee, with the rank of Ambassador.
If these two reflect the Mayor's bipartisan foreign affairs brain trust, he'll need to boost amperage to power a serious run for the Presidency.

He'll also need a platform with a clear, concise and compelling explanation of why people should vote for him, one beyond the Perot promise to fix a broken system.  The New York Post, December 31 article by David Seifman and Daphne Retter entitled "The Battle for Independents," hints at Bloomberg's issues agenda.

Loeser [Bloomberg's press secretary] said Bloomberg is specifically fed up with the nonaction on the issues of ‘the farm bill, energy, energy policy in general and homeland-security funding.'
To that list, the NYT's article adds that

Mr. Bloomberg...has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues..."
Does this implied issues list represent what the Bloomteam considers the "fundamental challenges facing the nation?"  Farm policy, energy policy, how Homeland Security divvies up their grants (You think NYC wants more federal money?), gun control, and global warming?  

Bloomberg-Hagel might appeal to voters consumed with disgust over partisan bickering.  So disgusted that they'd vote for Mike and Chuck in a blaze of anger, regardless of whether or not the ticket had a chance of winning -- i.e., a protest vote.   

Perot came to rescue us on horseback.  Bloomberg would come in a stretch limo.  But if you blur your eyes, a Bloomberg candidacy would look a lot like Ross Perot, with smaller ears, and less humor.
ATsupport2.jpg