More Buzzing About Bloomberg
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, General Politics, Money
Is he running? Is he not running? How much would he spend if he runs? Would he really take a 3rd party track?
Inquiring minds want to know mainly because he’s the real deal, he’s not a nut (cough*Perot*cough), he’s actually been running one of the biggest cities on the planet since 2001 and he’s much more popular and effective than Giuliani ever was.
Oh the questions…
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.
Oh, and about that potential campaign war chest…
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.”
What this means, in the end, is he’s not beholden to any special interest but his own and the ideas around him that make the most sense. And that seems like a welcome change in politics.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 15th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, General Politics, Money. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:40 am
There is a negative for Bloomberg, in that like a lot of Democrats and Republicans that consider themselves mavericks and independents, he’s pretty much a mainstream product of politics, and it will be hard to argue that he’s much different from the candidates from the two parties except his party ticket, or lack thereof. Bloomberg has been mayor of New York and while you could say he’s accomplished somethings, nothing revolutionary. Say what you will about the personality quirks of Ross Perot, but he understood a lot of the fundamental issues and problems in national politics, and would have been ready to do whatever it took to push through a strong agenda of government reform that people desired. Perot was a populist, and he would have probably no doubt had constant communication and broadcasts to the public to explain legislative fights. What happened in 1996 is that whenever people actually heard Perot speak, his poll numbers went up, because he sounded a lot less like his paranoid image and more like someone speaking common sense. Wasn’t that the other side of Perot, that was hard for people to reconcile, that as much as some comments seemed crazy, he also seemed like a very pragmatic, common sense guy? In any rate, this is just to point out saying Bloomberg is a “sane Perot” has its own issues, because apparently a sane Perot also means a politically neutered Perot. What makes Bloomberg different from the other candidates? His source of money is one thing. And hopefully he will use that to rise to the occasion. His run as an Independent could also pave the way for future Independents, which can be important. But I’m just waiting for all of this to develop. One hope, though not likely, that if Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, he believes in open Presidential debates that include third party candidates (http://www.opendebates.org/), which could help Bloomberg, but Newt is ready to take a strong Reformist stance if he does run, and can draw people from the reform-minded ‘radical middle’ that Perot appealed to. The election can be a lot more interesting than it currently is, thats for sure.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:32 am
My question is would his candidacy be for president only or would he have the inclination to start an entire third party? Looks like unity 08 might have a candidate. This could be a very interesting election indeed.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“he’s not beholden to any special interest but his own and the ideas around him that make the most sense” . in regards to this statement, this may be true; nevertheless, Congress is beholden to other interesta and it takes Congress to pass bills. To be effective, a third party needs seats in Congress as well as the Presidency.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
grognard,
I’m critical of anyone who wants to run as an Independent instead of starting a third party. Perot made this mistake the first time he ran, he realized it was a mistake, which is why he tried to start the Reform Party later, because his issues died when his campaign died, but it was too late. In the case that Bloomberg does start a third party, I think he really needs to caucus with existing third parties, without pandering to them, because the platform can’t be a willy nilly unmotivated thing, but something that can form a strong foundation and unite people.