Heck, let’s be accurate. The GOP has spent the last three decades running moderate Republicans out of office and out of the party. The neocons in charge neither like nor trust moderates, even moderate Republicans.

Anyone who thinks wealth makes for a great president need only review the presidencies of Bush 41 (lackluster) and Bush 43 (worst in U.S. history).

Anyone who thinks being an OK mayor of New York City is a terrific qualification for the White House should take a close, critical look at Rudy Giuliani.

Anyone who thinks someone who changes party affiliation to suit his latest political ambition is grounded in a superior political philosophy had better think again — carefully.

Last but not least, consider that since the great majority of Americans likely to contribute to a campaign and actually vote in an election are either Democrat or Republican, the notion of a groundswell of support for someone whose major calling card is that he’s the non-Democrat and non-Republican — after having been a Democrat and a Republican — seems fanciful, to put it mildly.

If you’ll go back and study the polls, you’ll find that since George W. Bush started running for president in 2000, a clear majority of Americans disagreed with his positions and preferences on a bunch of policy matters. Many voted for Bush anyway, some because they really didn’t get what a hardnosed conservative Republican president would be like, many because they found him likable and no doubt others because they didn’t like Gore. Plus, of course, Bush had solid backers where it mattered most: the Supreme Court.

So, there’s been no staggering shift in public opinion. The public is much less conservative than it has been made out to be in recent years.

That’s pure neocon propaganda. It’s lame stereotyping and complete nonsense.

A big feature of the political divide is a basic philosophical difference about whether the federal government should ever help individual Americans, should ever invest in individual Americans, at least the nonwealthy ones. Republicans say no. Democrats say yes.

Helping people can mean helping the poor, many of them elderly, with the high and rising cost of winter heating. Investing in individuals can mean providing a worker who’s lost a decent-paying job to outsourcing get retraining, so he can continue being a self-supporting participant in the economy and a taxpayer instead of a benefits collector. Neither form of assistance breeds loafers who are forever dependent on government handouts, obviously.

The Dems are usually too conservative for me… However, I see Bloomberg as a straight-shooter. I don’t feel that about any Dem or GOP candidate.

In response to Alan’s comments above, he get’s Krugman’s column a bit wrong. Krugman was saying that public opinion is to the left of the middle of the Democratic Party. He might still be wrong, but that is quite different from being to the left of the Democratic Party.

What many such as Krugman really feel is that the Democrats now represent the center. Maybe that is true with regards to Obama (and I’m sure many would disagree even with this). However this is certainly not true of someone like Edwards. If there is a choice between Edwards and Huckabee in the general election there is definately room for other views.

Another problem with the entire concept of defining the middle is that there are not only two sets of views represented by the Democratic and Republican mainstreams. Many are liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic issues (especially compared to Edwards/Krugman style poplulism). Actually even dividing it between only econmic and social issues also over simplifies this.

Many of the blogs attacking the idea are mischaracterizing an independent view as taking the views of the Democrats and Republicans and finding the dead center. I doubt that this is what many are actually interested in. It is more a case of seeking a party with views which are not adequately represented by either of the major parties.

As for Bloomberg, he is not the most qualified to run but he is the richest. And, thanks to our silly system of campaign finance, he can spend all the money he wants on his own bid but could give just a tiny bit to someone else.