You’ll never see what happened last Tuesday looking through a two-party microscope! Nope. You need an independent historyscope to get this one!

I had the pleasure of hearing independent strategist Jackie Salit give her analysis of the November elections on Sunday night on her regular national conference call which is attended by around 150 activists around the country every six weeks.

Jackie is a long-time independent activist based in New York City, the president of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (aka IndependentVoting.org), the executive editor of the Neo-Independent Magazine, and the campaign manager of Mike Bloomberg’s Independence Party campaign. She’s someone I follow very closely — and so should you if you care about independent politics.

A statement released by the campaign via email on Wednesday after the election said: This year, the IP delivered 13% of the total votes cast – the largest percentage ever by a minor party for a cross-endorsed mayoral candidate.

The Hankster (my blog) and Donklephant (where I am a guest blogger), in addition to The Independent View (NYC IP activist Michael Drucker’s blog) and the NY Daily News’ Brawl for the Hall blog seemed to be the only media outlets that even referenced this astounding result from the election. And then today, I caught Maine’s independent mayoral candidate Alex Hammers’ post on The Moderate Voice “Independents are a Sleeping Giant“, and a note by Robert Steele on his Public Intelligence Blog.

In the CUIP conference call, Jackie emphasized that, far from being the “margin of victory” for Bloomberg’s win as an independent in NYC, the vote on the IP line was the foundation of the campaign. At a time when the votes of both major parties Dems and Repubs went down, the 15 year old grassroots Independence Party doubled its vote.

It is indeed wonderous that no other media picked this up.

But if your framework is a bipartisan — indeed partisan — system, you don’t pay a lot of attention to the margins, no pun intended! You don’t see what’s happening on the horizon. You’re not looking to the future — you’re looking to the past and how pollsters have been able to parse the vote based on prior elections. Polls are supposed to be predictive. They’re interesting, and we all follow them. But predictive?

You’d have to have a 6-billion-person polling operation to figure that one out. And still, you’d get it wrong because what the NYC mayoral race points to is the power that independents have as an organized force. It’s something like what the unions used to call “strength in numbers” when we still sang Solidarity Forever and meant solidarity forever for everyone.

Old-fashioned as it may be, independents in NYC have banded together, we have talked with each other, we have made endless phone calls night after night year after year, we have fought back against a stupid and vicious state party chair, we have constituted 5 county committees under state law that are directed by a collective 94-person executive committee, and have inched our way forward into NYC politics as players.

We just led New Yorkers to elect our first independent mayor.

In my book this is something that ordinary people can be proud of. And that ordinary people — nonpartisans — all over the country can learn from and emulate.

And indeed they are. Take Joelle Riddle in Durango CO, a former chairwoman of the La Plata County Democratic Party who won her post in 2006 with party support and decided to go independent in August, would have to run as a write-in candidate after inadvertently missing a deadline to change her registration.

“I seek to remedy this burden that falls unequally on small political parties and independent or unaffiliated candidates, unfairly discriminating against them and not affording them the same privileges as the major political parties,” she wrote in a statement announcing her decision Tuesday.

Partisan politics isn’t the future of our country, but the search for an independent alternative might be.

You/we independents can do it. If we’re organized.

-NH

As we head to Election Day 2009, everyone is talking about the Yankees and the Phillies. And a few people are talking about the Mayoral race in NYC, where independent candidate Mike Bloomberg is poised to become the first independent mayor of New York, running on the Independence Party (Column C) and Republican lines. But not Karl Rove. Kind of a big omission, don’t you think? Check out Jon Noltie’s Examiner article. However, other independent and Independence-backed candidates in New Jersey, New York and Virginia are soaking up the ink. See today’s news for independent voters below:

• Tuesday’s Elections and the Democratic Agenda (By KARL ROVE, Wall Street Journal) A year ago, Democrats crowed that Mr. Obama had reshaped the political landscape to their advantage. Voters have lived under Democratic rule for nine months, and many of them, especially independents, don’t like what they’re seeing.
• Strength of independent candidates indicates GOP missing opportunity (Columbus Republican Examiner, by Jon Noltie) In 2 of the 3 most watched electoral races this year, the GOP stands a good chance of losing due to the strength of independent candidates, in addition to not even fielding a candidate in the New York City mayoral race.
• Dividing And Conquering In State Races (John Zogby, Forbes)
• Quinnipiac Sees a Different New Jersey Race Than Rasmussen, PPP (National Review)
• Corzine Up 5 Points In New Jersey Gov Race, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Governor Tops Christie On ‘Honesty’ Score (Quinnipiac) Corzine leads 79 – 8 percent among Democratic likely voters, with 10 percent for Daggett. Christie leads 79 – 7 percent among Republicans, with 9 percent for Daggett, and 45 – 30 percent among independent voters, with 20 percent for Daggett.
• NJ Gov Poll: Corzine Takes 5-Point Lead (RealClearPolitics)
• Daggett: Republican urged him to quit gov’s race (The Associated Press, Philadelphia Inquirer)

More news for independent voters at The Hankster

Commentary by Jackie Salit

NOTE To Donklephant Readers: This article by independent strategist Jackie Salit came across my desk and I thought it was too good not to share in full with you. -Nancy

When we finally get far enough down the road on health care reform, it will become clear that a driving force in the intensity of the fight was a heart attack. Not the medical kind. The political kind.

Independents swung decisively to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. And it is this shift by independents – who repositioned themselves from center-right to center-left – that gave the Republican right the political equivalent of cardiac arrest.

In 1992, 19 million independents voted for Ross Perot. In 2008, 19 million independents voted for Barack Obama. Over the span of 15 years, the largely white, center-right independent movement re-aligned itself with Black America and progressive-minded voters.

This did not happen out of the blue. It did not happen by magic. It happened because the progressive wing of the independent movement did the painstaking and often controversial work of bringing the Perot movement and the Fulani movement together at the grassroots. The Fulani movement refers to the country’s leading African American independent, Dr. Lenora Fulani, who exposed the black community to independent politics and introduced the independent movement to an alliance with Black America.

No doubt the dramatics that the right wing brought to the Town Hall meetings this summer were intended for the television cameras. But the organizers, strategists and radio personalities who orchestrated the theatrics had a particular audience in mind: Independents. If they could tarnish Obama’s image with indies, they could damage the black and independent alliance and re-establish the Republican Party as an influential force amongst independents. Some of that could be accomplished, they felt, by claiming Obama’s health plan would drive up the national debt – a concern that animated the early Perot movement. Some Republican strategists felt that if they simply branded Obama a socialist, it would scare independents away – not from the health care plan (everyone recognizes a plan of some kind will get passed) but away from the center-left coalition that elected him.

If indies are feeling somewhat disillusioned with President Obama over the health care reform fight, it has more to do with fears that he is being overly influenced by the partisans in Congress. Since independents voted for him to be a more independent president, it’s easy to see how some felt disappointed by his handling of the Republican onslaught. Obama’s independent appeal was based on his challenge to the prevailing culture of Clintonian opportunism in the Democratic Party and partisanship inside the Beltway. Put another way, the independent vote for Obama was an effort to define a new kind of progressivism, one that was not synonymous with Democratic Party control.

After years of hard work and organizing, independents have become a sought-after partner in American politics. They elected President Obama and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, arguably the country’s two most independent and pragmatically progressive elected officials. No wonder the Republican Party right wants a clawback.

Independents are vulnerable to being peeled away by the Republican right. The Pew Research Center reports that were the 2010 midterms to be held today, independents would lean towards Republicans by a 43 to 38 percent margin. But, the evolution of a 21st century independent movement is not that simple. First, the movement is very fluid and very new. Historical movements develop through twists and turns, not in a straight line. The far right has attempted to take over the independent movement before. In 1994, Newt Gingrich crafted the “Contract with America” to woo Perotistas back into the Republican tent. And in 2000, social conservative Pat Buchanan hijacked the Reform Party presidential nomination, though he was roundly repudiated by independents in the general election.

If Republicans are increasing their influence among independents, it’s also because the Democratic Party Left has not been a friend to the independent movement. Sure, Democrats were happy that indies broke for Obama. But they were disappointed that we didn’t become Democrats. They equate progressivism with being in the Democratic Party. But they’re wrong.

Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has been enthusiastic about the development of indies as a third force. For different reasons, surely. But they share a common goal: to maintain the primacy of two-value logic (where there is only one or the other, never neither) and make sure independents are passive companions. That’s one reason that the fight for open primaries – which allow independents to cast ballots in every round of voting – and the campaign to appoint independents to the Federal Election Commission are so important. Those fights are about our right to participate and our right to represent our interests in changing the political culture.

The independent movement went left in 2008, after many years of grassroots organizing to link it to progressive leadership. Now the right wants to peel it back. Obama, presumably, wants to hold on to the partnership, but must also privilege his own party, which turns independents off and makes them more susceptible to Republican attacks. Meanwhile, independents are working hard at the grassroots to hold our own.

Jackie Salit is the president of IndependentVoting.org and the campaign coordinator for New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s mayoral campaign on the Independence Party line.

Independent Voters

• On healthcare and other hot issues: Follow the independents–The number of voters not tied to Democrats or Republicans is expanding fast. Both parties need to adjust. (By the Christian Science Monitor’s Editorial Board) Were the 2010 elections to occur today, 43 percent of independents say they would vote Republican (in a generic congressional ballot), while 38 percent would vote Democratic, the Pew Research Center finds. That’s quite a shift from 2006, when independents favored Democrats over Republicans, 44 to 33 percent.

Open Primaries

• South Dakota Democrats Will Allow Independent Voters to Vote in their Primaries (Ballot Access News)
• Re-enfranchising New Yorkers (by Richard Flanagan, Gotham Gazette) Voters overwhelmingly rejected Macchiarola’s plan for nonpartisan elections, 70 percent to 30 percent. But only 13 percent of registered voters bothered to show up for the off-year election of 2003, and many had ties to the unions, interest groups and political clubs that benefit from the status quo and know how to pull the levers of the current system to their advantage. They were loathe to expand the electorate and risk the surrender of power.

Independent Gov Races

In an unsettled political environment where voters are exercising independent options, independent candidates like NJ gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett pick up support….

• Poll: New Jersey gubernatorial race a virtual tie (From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart)
• Daggett gets little help from ballot position (Press of Atlantic City) New Jersey laws reserving the top two spots on any ballot for the two major-party candidates. Last month, Daggett – along with Libertarian Party candidate Kenneth Kaplan – took the step of filing suit against the practice.
• Daggett for guv? Why not? (By ALEX GECAN, For The Trentonian)

Bloomberg 09

NYC Dem machine targets independent run by Mike Bloomberg with 2 darts: money (the Mayor is very wealthy…) and term limits (which the Dem-controlled City Council extended….) Good luck with that! Meanwhile, it’s the NYC Independence and the Working Families Parties that are supplying the spark in this year’s city-wide elections. In a city of 5-1 Dem registration, that’s not good news for clubhouse politics…

• Bloomberg’s Line Dance (BY ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Daily News/Daily Politics)
• Voters Like Mayor, but Not His Path to 3rd Run (By MICHAEL BARBARO, NY Times)
• New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg received the endorsement of the Hotel and Motel Trades Council (From msnbc’s First Read with Chuck Todd)
• After term limit tiff, Bloomberg still gets hotel endorsement (ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, NY Daily News/Brawl for the Hall) The only union with a major field operation that remains unpledged is 1199, which voted for Thompson during the WFP endorsement process. Neutrality is not out of the question for 1199, a union source said.

For more news headlines for independent voters, see The Hankster

Never one to miss an opportunity, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg may run on the Republican ticket next mayoral election while still remaining a declared independent. Apparently, despite being an apostate to the national party, local borough GOP leaders are willing to let the still-popular mayor put his name on their line.

If you’re keeping score at home that makes Bloomberg a former Democrat turned Republican turned Independent turned quasi-Republican again. In a nation of rigid partisanship, Bloomberg’s ambiguous party affiliations seem almost refreshing. That is if you don’t think they seem downright opportunistic.

I’ve always been rather ambivalent about Bloomberg. He’s smart and a capable manager — party hopping aside, he’s provided stable, middle-of-the-road leadership for New York City. But there’s something uninspiring about the man, a truth even he probably realized when he failed to build grassroots support for an independent run for president. Even those of us in the centrist frame of mind barely gave Bloomberg two looks.

Still, a mayor doesn’t need to play well nationally. New Yorkers like him enough to make his quest for a third term realistic and I doubt many will hold it against him if he shifts (or kinda shifts) party affiliations once again. After all, no matter what letter has sat beside his name, he’s always been the same straight-forward, if not particularly vibrant, guy.

Some tough cuts and tax increases are coming to The Big Apple.

From WCBSTV.com:

“This is a very tough time for our city and nation,” Bloomberg said. “We have a $4 billion budget gap. It is serious, I think it is manageable.” [...]

For now, Bloomberg is proposing $894 million in new sales taxes, including:

-Increasing the sales tax by one quarter of one percent from 8.375 percent to 8.625 percent
-Repealing the sales tax exemption on clothing purchases under $110
-And new taxes on lots of things that are now tax-free, like music downloads. [...]

“I would love to not have any sales tax, it’s not good for business here,” he said.

That’s the mayor’s plan for now, except even he admits it might not be his plan in the end. If the Legislature decides to put a surcharge on the personal income tax for taxpayers who make over $500,000, he told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer he might piggyback on that.

“We’d have to find a billion dollars more revenue,” he said.

This is obviously risky business. Increasing taxes during a deep recession isn’t necessarily a good strategy because it depresses consumption and makes people save.

But then again, we’re talking about Bloomberg, one of the most successful business men in the world. If he thinks this is the way to go, we may want to pay attention.

More as it develops…

It is.

But $2 trillion is.. ridiculous.

This is Danielle Ivory from ANP.

Congress and the new administration have been focusing their attention on strengthening oversight for the Treasury’s TARP program, but meanwhile few are paying any attention to the Federal Reserve.

Since September, the Fed has lent out about $2 trillion (Bloomberg reported 1.2 trillion in November), but it’s keeping the names of its recipients a big secret.

And while the Treasury’s bailout package has a $700 billion cap, there’s no limit to how much money the Fed can lend.

The American News Project sat down with Washington newcomer, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL), who actually used his five minutes of valuable Q & A time in a Financial Services hearing to do some serious Fed fact-finding.

You can see the story or get the embed code here.

Or follow Danielle’s reporting on twitter here.

And visit Acorn Project for more music like this.

All hail the new Tammany Hall!

From NY Times:

After a spirited, emotional and at times raucous debate, the New York City Council voted, 29 to 22, on Thursday afternoon to extend term limits, allowing Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year and undoing the result of two voter referendums that had imposed a limit of two four-year terms. (Please refresh this post for latest updates.)

The vote was a major victory for Mayor Bloomberg — a billionaire and lifelong Democrat who was elected mayor as a Republican in 2001, won re-election in 2005, became an independent last year, and decided just weeks ago that he wished to seek a third term for himself in 2009 — and for the Council’s speaker, Christine C. Quinn. But the intense acrimony surrounding the decision left a sharply divided Council and could ultimately damage the mayor’s popularity.

After Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who presides over the Council, announced the final result at 4:35 p.m., the balcony erupted in shouts of “The city’s for sale!” and “Shame on you!”

I guess Bloomberg isn’t eyeing a 2012 prez run, eh?

And given the current circumstances on Wall Street, my bet is he’ll get.

MarketWatch has the details…

Bloomberg announced Thursday he supports changing the term limits law to run for a third term. Observers have respected Bloomberg for restoring a sense of optimism to a post-9/11 New York City while encouraging tourists to visit, keeping crime low and bolstering the city’s finances.

Bloomberg’s biggest asset in his audacious quest is the fact that nobody else has emerged as his heir apparent. Plus, he can be seen as a soothing influence on a city that is reeling from the financial markets’ meltdown. He offers practical experience from his years of working on Wall Street. It is a great asset to be able to tell voters that you understand their economic problems and can solve them.

Earlier in the year, Bloomberg professed to be studying a run at the White House. When his term expires, he’ll need a job — and a challenge. He’d love to keep the one he has.

What do you think? Smart move? Is he setting himself up for a 2012 run for President?

(UPDATE: Both campaigns rejected the offer because they don’t want to limit it to just one network. Hmmm…)

Now this is a pretty brilliant move…

The guy who has some of the deepest pockets in the world, and could be a VP for either candidate, wants to use that leverage.

From Politico:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and ABC News on Sunday proposed that the presidential nominees hold a joint town hall as a 90-minute network special from Federal Hall, on Wall Street in Lower Manhattan.

Such a joint meeting would be a new twist in the rituals of a national campaign, and would help both candidates promote the message that they want to help put an end to a divisive era in national politics.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has challenged Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to a series of 12 joint town halls, which would be a more casual version of the formal debates that are a traditional part of general-election campaigns. The partners propose ABC’s Diane Sawyer as a moderator.

Obama’s campaign has indicated interest but has committed to nothing.

My guess is that these town halls will happen. Maybe not as many as McCain wants, but quite a few of them and that’s a ultimately a great thing for democracy.

The very fact that the exact same man is possibly being considered by both the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees tells us that both sides’ attempts to paint the opposing candidate as an ideological radical are rather disingenuous. While Obama is strongly liberal on many issues and McCain is strongly conservative on just as many, the two men both actively court an image of pragmatism and moderation that makes it hard to believe either is particularly outside the general mainstream. Mayor Bloomberg would give either of the nominees a boost among the large numbers of independents who care more about results and practical programs than about ideological purity.

But who would benefit more from Bloomberg’s presence? I think McCain would. While it’s true that Bloomberg could help Obama shore up the Jewish vote (which he’s struggling to secure), he doesn’t add any foreign policy credentials to Obama’s flimsy resume. Bloomberg would, however, give McCain much needed economic credibility as well as signaling to the nation that this is not a ticket running for George Bush’s third term. Furthermore, since McCain trails Obama in fundraising, it wouldn’t hurt to have a billionaire on the ticket.

One more thing to consider: Bloomberg has a history of supporting the conflict in Iraq, a position that would make him an easier fit with McCain than with Obama and might help mollify the conservatives who’d choke on their coffee over Bloomberg’s socially liberal views.

Nevertheless, despite Bloomberg’s obvious appeal, the reality of politics may end up keeping the mayor on the sidelines. His Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent history will disturb power brokers of both parties and his rather managerial personality would make him an even less effective attack dog than was John Edwards. Personally, I’d be surprised to see him turn up on either ticket, but I do expect his endorsement to be strongly courted by both campaigns.

Still, NY Mag speculates that he’s being actively courted by Arizona senator:

The morning before John McCain’s sprightly turn on Saturday Night Live on May 17, the de facto GOP presidential nominee had breakfast at Sarabeth’s on Central Park South with Michael Bloomberg and his girlfriend, Diana Taylor. [...] A McCain spokesman quoted by the Post added that “discussing a vice-presidential slot for Bloomberg was not on the agenda.” But a source close to the mayor informs me that the topic of McCain’s V.P. search was very much on the menu. One of the participants, in fact, came away from the conversation under the distinct impression that Bloomberg is on McCain’s short list. [...]

“The GOP is losing on the economy by 10 to 15 points,” says Doug Schoen, who served as Bloomberg’s pollster in his mayoral runs. “With Mike on the ticket, that gap would quickly, dramatically close.”

Schoen argues that Bloomberg would help McCain in numerous other ways, too. He would bolster McCain in critical swing states such as Florida, New Jersey (a state the Republicans have hopes of putting into play), and Pennsylvania—and also in California, where the McCain–Bloomberg–Arnold Schwarzenegger troika might compel Obama to spend time and money in a state that should be a gimme. He would enhance McCain’s image as a moderate, a maverick, and provide him with a riposte to the charge that he’s a clone of George W. Bush. (Is there any human being on Earth less like Dick Cheney than Bloomberg?) And if the mayor were willing to plow some of his fortune into the race—assuming election law allows it—he would let McCain close or, if he were feeling generous, eradicate completely the vast disparity between the two sides when it comes to moola.

I still don’t see it. Because if you thought the hue and cry about McCain from conservative circles was starting to get bad now, just wait until he appoints a statist as his 2nd in command.

He’s arguably THE most business savvy politician ever, and here’s his opinion on the Clinton/McCain proposal…

“It’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view. I don’t understand why you think there’s any merit to it whatsoever. We’re trying to discourage people from driving and we’re trying to end our energy dependence. We don’t do that — oh, and incidentally, we’re trying to have more money to build infrastructure. All three of those things go fly in the face of giving everybody $30 a year. The $30 bucks is not going to change anybody’s lifestyle. The billions of dollars that we would otherwise have in tax revenues can make a big difference as to what kind of a world we leave our children.”

Bloomberg praised officials who opposed the “summer break on gasoline taxes which would help Chavez, Qaddafi and other people like that. I don’t know why anybody would want to do it.” He went on to say critics like Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver were right. “And,” he added, “[Barack] Obama was right on this one, and that [John] McCain and [Hillary] Clinton were wrong. The last thing we need to do is encourage people to drive more and to take away the monies we need for infrastructure in this country.”

But hey, $30!!!

Well, looks like Bloomberg keeps popping up in the conversation…

From NY1:

In an interview on “Inside City Hall” Friday night, Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey promoted the idea of an Obama-Bloomberg presidential ticket – and revealed that Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke Thursday with the Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama.

“Certainly you could joke that Obama’s call was a fundraising call yesterday,” Sheekey told political anchor Dominic Carter. “The man [Bloomberg] has the ability to finance a campaign. I don’t think that’s why you choose a vice president. I do think that people are going to be very concerned about the influence of special-interest money in this campaign going forward,” Sheekey said.

“I think it was a reasonably short call, you know, I was briefed. I was told they had a nice call and I spoke to the mayor after they had breakfast a few months ago. Back to Obama — you were the one asking about an Obama ticket. I think the mayor is the ultimate swing voter. He is someone who the country is looking at to find out where they will go. He is one of the true independents in the country,” said Sheekey, who pointedly did not rule out the mayor as Obama’s running mate.

I think a lot will say this story is nonsense, but why would the Deputy Mayor of NYC be talking so openly about this if it weren’t a possibility?

And I don’t think anybody can deny that if the economy is the #1 issue this election, Bloomberg is one of the best VP choices for either candidate. After all, he is a billionaire, a media mogul and one of the most popular mayors of one of the richest cities in the world.

Also, let’s not forget that a Bloomberg pick would immediately demonstrate that Barack is sincere in delivering a post-partisan style of politics to Washington on day one. It would be action, not talk, and that’s important.

Question is…would the party really allow it? Would they let a former Republican walk into their convention and claim the seat that’s a heartbeat away? I certainly have my doubts, but it would be bold move for Democrats and one that I don’t think the Republicans could match.

More as it develops…

I wonder what Doug Bailey and Gerald Rashfoon are gonna do now?

From MSNBC:

NEW YORK – After two years of playing coy about his presidential ambitions, Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared in a newspaper editorial Wednesday that he will not run for president as an independent and said he might support the candidate who “takes an independent, nonpartisan approach.”

The 66-year-old billionaire businessman, who aides had said was prepared to spend $1 billion on his own independent campaign, wrote in an opinion column posted on the New York Times’ Web site that he will be working 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.”

Honestly, I think we’re going to have a candidate like that on both sides of the debate this year, and that should hearten many.

Alas, it was to no avail. The patient refused all treatment. It is time to face the truth. The GOP is terminal. The cancer of the vocal minority of the rabid right has paralyzed and enfeebled the GOP body and infected the GOP brain. The party is incapable of articulating a coherent reason for its own existence outside of opposing Hillary Clinton. All we can do is watch and understand the process as it unfolds.

In her seminal 1969 book On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross enumerated the five stages of dying. The psychological process that begins when a patient first becomes aware of a terminal illness is also known as the Kübler-Ross model.

The Kübler-Ross five stages of dying as described in Wikipedia

1. Denial: The initial stage: “It can’t be happening.”
2. Anger: “Why me? It’s not fair.”
3. Bargaining: “Just let me live to see my children graduate.”
4. Depression: “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”
5. Acceptance: “It’s going to be OK.”

We can use these as milestones to track the progression of the disease through the Republican body politic. Understand that this is a large bloated patient, and the disease will progress at different rates in different parts of the body. Different stages and symptoms can and will present at the same time.

The first stage is always experienced by patients confronted with a terminal diagnosis. It is a universal human reaction. By now, virtually the entire Republican Party is either in or has passed through this stage. I exhibited some symptoms myself. Karl Rove was one of the earliest, and most prominent Republicans to publicly present the denial stage symptoms. Only days before 2006 mid-term election, Karl Rove was already denying the reality obvious to everyone else by claiming secret knowledge and predicting a Republican mid-term victory in this NPR interview with Robert Siegel :

Interestingly, Karl Rove has remained in the Denial Stage to this day. Most recently displaying the symptoms in a Newsweek Opinion piece - Crackup? Not So Fast:

Sad. To think he was once heralded as a political genius. He has mentally blocked out the news that the Democratic party turnout is crushing Republican party turnout in every primary and every caucus in every state [This from the transcript of last Sunday's Meet the Press: so far in the primaries "Republicans have gotten 12.9 million votes, Democrats have gotten 19.2 million votes"]. He refuses to acknowledge that tens of thousands turn out to see either Clinton or Obama at routine campaign stops while, at best, tens of hundreds can be bothered to show up for John McCain. Nor can he face that money is pouring into the Democratic coffers and trickling into the Republicans. Karl’s extended denial stage is delusional on a scale that is breathtaking to behold.

Anger is the second stage a patient reaches when facing a terminal illness. Anger at God, anger towards doctors, nurses, and families, and in the case of the terminally ill GOP, anger at other Republicans and the presumptive nominee of the party:

Sean Hannity as reported by AJ Strata

Other examples include Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the entire entire floor of the CPAC Convention.

Bargaining is a brief stage that the terminal patient may pass through after the crying, lamentations and rending of garments phase. The patient may attempt to open negotiations with God, with Satan, or even with the presumptive nominee himself to stave off the inevitable.

Ann Coulter provides an example:

Other examples include Richard Viguerie and Alfred Regnery

Depression is the fourth stage, and can include mourning, deep melancholy, pessimism, listlessness, and in the case of the death of a political party, refusal to campaign or even vote. Only a few Republicans have reached this stage, but one notable example:

James Dobson:

We can expect to see many more clinically depressed Republicans in the coming months.

The final stage. Some never reach it, fighting to the end, or simply wallowing in depression and self-pity. Acceptance in this context simply means to give up and accept that the death of the GOP is inevitable.

At the time of this writing, DWSUWF is the only Republican to pass through all five stages to accept the inevitable (with the possible exception of Andrew Sullivan and Peggy Noonan). Having worked diligently from the inside, lo these long six weeks, as a stalwart fighting to save the GOP, I have reconciled myself that there is nothing more to do. I oppose euthanasia on principle, so all we can do is watch the end using the Kübler-Ross Model to track the final stages.

This is, of course, very bad news for the supporters of Divided Government such as me. We are now on board a hell-bound train rocketing down the rails toward single party Democratic Government, with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama controlling the levers of power for the expanded unitary executive designed by Dick Cheney, complemented by increased Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature and a real possibly of a 60 vote filibuster-proof plurality in the Senate. God help us. One can only hope that the Democrats will not have time to do as much damage in two years of single party control as it took the Republicans to do in six.

One last straw to grasp, is the possibility of a Hagel/Bloomberg presidential effort to replace the dying GOP (more in a future post). There is no historical precedent for a successful third party presidential run except in the role of spoiler. However, there is a precedent for a new opposition party successfully displacing an established major party that has disemboweled itself (Lincoln’s Republicans replacing the Whigs).

But for the current incarnation of the Republican Party, it is all over. The only remaining suspense is to see what Alien-like creature of hell will erupt through the GOP chest cavity as it convulses in its final death throes.

^{Excerpted from Divided We Stand United We Fall}

Looks like my previous post applies less to Ron Paul and more to Michael Bloomberg.

From GazetteXtra:

NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Bloomberg may soon begin a massive operation to get on the ballot in up to 15 states even though the billionaire mayor may not decide until May whether to run for president, according to associates.

Despite John McCain’s widening lead in the Republican race, an imminent ballot deadline for third-parties in Texas and a recently expanded denial of interest from Bloomberg himself, these associates say the mayor and his operatives are actively laying necessary groundwork for an independent campaign and are in no hurry to decide whether or not to run.

Bloomberg’s political operatives have spent several months assembling the skeleton of a nationwide ballot-access movement, one confidant of the mayor told The Associated Press.

Well, it’s not like he doesn’t have the money for it. And since it has yet to be decided who will win the Dem nomination, Bloomberg’s move makes sense if Hillary becomes the nominee…

And Bloomberg’s 50-state analysis of voter attitudes and information – first reported last month by The Associated Press – has shown encouraging results, Schoen said.

The examination of voter information indicated that between 30 to 40 percent of the electorate is open to the idea of a third-party candidate, he said.

State ballot rules vary greatly: Some require little more than a small fee while others ask for specific numbers of signatures from registered voters, which can only be collected at certain times.

Bloomberg’s camp has already concluded its study of ballot access in Texas. The deadline to get on the ballot there is May 12, but petitioners cannot begin collecting signatures until after the state’s March 4 major party primary.

But what about McCain? Does Bloomberg really think that independents will abandon him? I guess an argument can be made that McCain is a very “establishment” type of candidate, so that could be Bloomberg’s gambit.

I guess we’ll see.

Rasmussen has the numbers…

Twenty-six percent (26%) of American voters believe New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is at least somewhat likely to make a third-party or independent bid for the White House in 2008. That includes 5% who say he is Very Likely to do so.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) say that Texas Congressman Ron Paul will run as an alternative to the two major parties. Eleven percent (11%) believe he is Very Likely to do so.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that roughly 15% of voters would currently vote for one of these two candidates in general election match-ups.

You hear that Paulties? 15%. That’ll get your guy in the debates. But no, keep chasing a GOP nomination that you have no hopes of winning. Throw good money at a losing cause. Good luck with that.

Ultimately, I don’t think Ron Paul doesn’t have the stomach for a 3rd party run because I don’t think he’ll jeopardize his congressional seat. On the other hand, Michael Bloomberg’s term as mayor is almost up and what’s a billionaire to do with too much time on his hands? Get 15% of the vote, that’s what.

But wait, what if BOTH of them run? Some more numbers…

At this time, the net impact of such third party efforts appears to benefit the Democrats.

In a head-to-head match-up between Romney and Obama, Obama currently leads by nine percentage points. When Bloomberg and Paul are added to the list of possible candidates, Obama’s lead grows to twelve points, 42% to 30%. Paul attracts 8% of the vote, Bloomberg 6%.

Hillary Clinton leads Romney by five in a head-to-head match-up, but her lead grows to fourteen points with Bloomberg and Paul in the mix—Clinton 46% Romney 32% Bloomberg 7% Paul 7%.

In a McCain-Obama poll, the Democrat leads by five. That grows to seven points with the third party options—Obama 40% McCain 33% Paul 11% Bloomberg 5%.

Any way you slice it, Republicans need to make sure that neither of these guys makes a 3rd party run because it’ll make an already up hill battle nearly vertical.

So yeah, call me crazy, but I’m saying that Unity08 was simply a DraftBloomberg movement all along. Maybe it wasn’t stated explicitly within the organization, but if we put some pieces together it makes sense.

1. According to Unity08, they’re having trouble with the FEC and can’t raise anymore money than $5,000 per person. This even though they state that the Supreme Court has sided with them that they could raise $25,000 per person. So how could they fund a 50 state ballot access drive otherwise. Hmmm…
2. Why would two of the most high profile guys behind Unity08 just up and leave the organization? Had control been wrestled away from them? Highly, highly doubtful in a grassroots organization like that. It strikes me as very convenient timing that they would leave at this specific time which such a mature widget technology and mailing list already in place. You see, I got an email announcing the widget. I bet pretty much every centrist blogger did too.
3. Why would the ENTIRE Unity08 site shut down right before the Draft Bloomberg site launches? There isn’t even a link on the front page of Unity08 into any of the older content. This strikes me as curious because it doesn’t take that much to just keep a site up. And as far as their claim that they have to answer hundreds of emails, all they would have to do is put a form letter in place and be done with it. Why would they shut down what has essentially become a social network?
4. In the letter on their site, Unity08 also says that anything could happen in the next couple weeks. I think that’s a hint that something will happen. That or they’re really desperate.

I could be wrong about this, but the note that the remaining Unity08 folks put out a couple weeks ago says they’ll basically accomplish NONE of their stated goals. That’s an out and out failure. Would they really settle for that or would they reshape their site and go forward with under the guise of a new site?

Sure, they can claim they helped inject the “unity” message into the campaign, but that’s nonsense. Barack was pushing this theme far before Unity came along, they simply grabbed hold of it. What’s more, many moderate blogs have been around long before Unity. You don’t see any of us saying that we’re somehow responsible for anything but feeling this political zeitgeist and writing about it from our hearts.

In any event, just a few thoughts on a lazy Thursday. It’s all speculation obviously, but something tells me that we’ll be hearing something along these lines come early March…

UPDATE:
Hmmm, as our own “mw” points out, Bob Roth has joined the Draft Bloomberg movement, so this story keeps getting fishier and fishier…

Donklephant could become part of the story, because it was at Donklephant, in a comment on the linked post, that Bob Roth, a VP at Unity08 indicated he was also joining DraftBloomberg, while denying that there is any connection There is at least one addition senior member of the Unity08 management that moved to DraftBloomberg.

And again, mw has more…

I think you need to correct your title then, to “Unity08 was DraftBloomberg in disguise”. This will probably blow over since the whole thing has not gotten a lot of attention outside of a few blogs (including Donklephant). Still, it really sticks in my craw. Unity08 was a corporation. They raised over a million dollars from small contributors representing that they were “A”. But if they were really “B” all along, that money was raised under false pretenses. That is minimally slimy, and potentially illegal. Fraud and election fraud come to mind.

Sure, but does anybody really care enough to go after them? I barely even posted this because Unity08 is such a non issue anymore, and it’s laughable that they’re claiming even some credit for the unity message.

As if…