The Bloomberg Bubble
For about twenty-four hours, political junkies were entertained by the possibility that New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg was indeed getting serious about launching a third-party presidential bid. This bubble was inflated by the news that Mayor Mike had officially abandoned his Republican voting registration, accompanied by a statement that sounded a lot like music to the ears of David Broder and other plague-on-both-your-houses antipartisans.
Then today Bloomberg threw some cold water on the storyline, making a horde of political reporters sit through a boring press conference before saying he wasn't a candidate and intended to serve out his mayoral term. But at least some reporters heard a candidacy aborning anyway.
Whatever he's up to, the initial buzz about the likely impact of a Bloomberg candidacy has been interesting, if sometimes misleading.
In a nice bit of lucky timing, SurveyUSA released a batch of state polls yesterday testing various Democratic and Republican candidates in three-way trial heats with Bloomberg on the ballot. As Eric Kleefield of Election Central reports, the numbers show some blue states "flipping" from red to blue with certain three-way matchups. This sounds exciting until you realize all these flips (with one exception, Ohio) involve Mitt Romney, whose low name ID makes him presently the weakest major candidate in general-election polls.
More obviously, these three-ways are really just a Rorschach test for current dissatisfaction with the two parties. SUSA shows Mike as registering double-digit support in states like Alabama, Kansas and Kentucky. Does anyone really think Alabamans know Mike Bloomberg from Molly Bloom?
An equally odd comment in the Bloomberg Bubble came from the estimable Paul Starr of The American Prospect, who said at TAPPED today that Mike would be a fine Veep choice for any Democratic nominee other than Hillary Clinton.
While Bloomberg's dough might well be a nice tonic for the ticket, his actual record in New York, politically and substantively, would make him a rather counter-intuitive running-mate for the likes of Barack Obama or John Edwards. It's reasonably clear that his robust approval ratings in the Big Apple are in no small part attributable to his lavish public and personal spending on anything that moves if it can deliver him votes; a revenue bonanza created by an economic boom he can scarcely take much credit for; the folly of his Democratic opponents; and the natural relief New Yorkers have felt at a Mayor who doesn't have Rudy Giuliani's pit bull demeanor.
It's not like there's a shortage of actual Democrats for the ticket, who might do it some good in an actual battleground state. As for money, it doesn't look like Obama or Clinton, at least, is going to have much of a problem there.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about a Bloomberg candidacy on his own or somebody else's ticket is the oft-expressed deep and abiding love for Mike felt by Rupert Murdoch. Now that could produce some interesting dynamics in the newsrooms and studios of Rupert's media empire, eh?
(Note to my TPMCafe friends: I've suspended my NewDonkey.com blog, and am now blogging daily at www.thedemocraticstrategist.org.)
Bloomberg has the ability, based on how he runs his notional campaign, to tip the election to the Republicans if he chooses. I've seen a few people, here and elsewhere, dismiss his candidacy as an impossibility, or even as good for Democrats (which is patently absurd; a three way race involving Bloomberg leads to the Republicans winning with the Solid South and the red states that would never vote for a social liberal, plus any scraps they get from the purple states) but he isn't stupid, and has to know the power he has right now, and to know that that power is ephemeral. Rather than running, he could easily use the threat of his running to extort some things out of the Dems. I'm not familiar enough with the man to know what that might be, but the possibility ought to be examined rather than dismissed.
BTW, this post has the second Ulysses reference I've seen on the political internets in the past couple of weeks. And I thought Bloomsday was only celebrated in Dublin.
Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.
June 20, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a New Yorker, there's a lot I don't much like about Bloomberg. But, I think you're a little unfair to him, Ed, when you say that the city's economy is the result of a boom that Bloomberg had nothing to do with.
Giuliani's economy was a result of the Wall Street fueled tech boom. But Bloomberg took over post crash and post 9-11. The city's finances were actually a mess when he found them, though probably less a mess than usual.
Yes, New York's economy has recovered, particularly in the financial sector and in real estate and the real estate boom allowed Bloomberg to cut property taxes without harming revenue. But you're not giving him too much credit to say he did a decent job given what he inherited.
Still, I've got a lot of complaints about Bloomberg which I'll air if anyone cares to hear them or if he becomes a more serious candidate or Veep nominee for either party.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 20, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard for me to see where Bloomberg gets votes. Who outside of New York even knows who he is and what appeal does he have anywhere else?
I could see a Hagel running with a conservative populist end the war message getting votes in the Midwest. I can see Gore getting votes from people like me on the left.
June 20, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor23:
I will happily defer to your judgment about Bloomberg's economic and fiscal record in New York. The impression I've gotten from reading about it is that Giuliani lost control of spending during his last term; Bloomberg spent even more, but was rescued by a revenue boom. Maybe I'm just in the habit of denying state and local politicians much credit for macroeconomic trends; I've seen some pretty bad ones get re-elected for being in the right place at the right time (e.g., a whole batch of GOP governors elected in 1994 who were able to cut taxes and boost spending thanks to a Clinton-era Boom to which they contributed nothing other than carping).
In any event, hang onto your Bloomberg complaints in case he decides to make himself presidential--as in spending lots of pictures of dead presidents on a campaign.
Ed Kilgore
www.thedemocraticstrategist.org
June 20, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As many as 38% of independent voters and 36% of Republican voters who have heard of Bloomberg say there is at least some chance they'd vote for him, compared to just 26% of Democratic voters."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/518/bloomberg-independent
Please explain to me how Bloomberg isn't Ross Perot 2. He's socially liberal, big on government accountability... Why does he take Democratic votes, unlike Perot? And what evidence is there that he doesn't, as the Pew poll shows, actually take votes from Republicans?
June 20, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We already know that when it comes to Iraq the Republicans and Democrats are liars. I think any third-party candidate has a good chance in 2,008.
June 20, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed,
I'm no Bloomberg fan, but even I think you're being a little unfair. I take your central point that there's remarkably little any New York City mayor can do to affect the national economic trends that tend to determine the city's relative prosperity. And to be sure, Bloomberg's public and private largesse has pleased a large number of New Yorkers.
But the real hallmark of his tenure in office has been his technocratic approach. I don't think it was coincidental that he made this announcement the day before a press conference scheduled to highlight 311, the emblem of his administration. He has succeeded in pursuing, over the howls of entrenched interests, a series of initiatives that have led to more effective governance in a notoriously unmanageable city. That, I think, is what New Yorkers respect - his fierce independence, and his willingness to do what he feels is right with little regard for the consequences.
At its best, that impulse has yielded spectacular dividends. The smoking ban saved thousands of lives and, confounding its critics, actually led to an increase in business for bars and restaurants. Everyone knew it was right, but no one else had the guts to do it. At its worst, that impulse can lead Bloomberg to override the reasonable concerns and objections of experts and interest groups. The 2012 Olympics bid is the poster child for this extreme - a plan that might have succeeded had he built coalitions and moved venues to the outer buroughs. Its defeat was fortuitous for the city; despite Bloomberg's claims at the time, the far West Side is now being developed even without the games, the infrastructure is getting built, and all without giving away vital assets or saddlign the city with enormous debts.
I'll leave you to sort out the implications of his candidacy for the electoral field. But I'd urge you to take the man seriously - there's more to him than his wallet, for better and for worse.
June 20, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most voters, Republican and otherwise, have no idea who he is. You could put up the name of Buck Mulligan, call him a Republican, and get similar poll numbers, given the dubious Republican field. These polls don't mean anything until people actually know the candidate.
But the real question isn't the number of votes he would siphon off, but where they come from. He wouldn't siphon off votes in, say, the South. They will vote R no matter what, and they sure won't be voting for a billionaire, New York, pro-choice, pro gun control, ex-Democrat, Jew. So the Republicans take the South and the red midwest states, which alone is about 2/3 of the electoral votes they need, and then they just need a few more states and it's over.
The only states Bloomberg would be competitive in are states Democrats are already either winning or are competitive. Let's take Pennsylvania as an example, a must-win state for Dems. Do you think rural Pennsylvanians, a state Dems have won by narrow margins in the past two cycles, are going to vote for Bloomberg over Fred Thompson? But urban Pennsylvanians will certainly take a look at him over Hillary, and all it takes is enough of them to vote for Bloomberg, and the Reps win a plurality of votes in Pennsylvania, and the state with it. Other close, important states, like Ohio and Iowa, have similar potential.
The simplest way of approaching this is to look at the electoral map of the past two cycles, and ask the question: which states could the entrance of Bloomberg flip, and in which direction would they flip? The answer isn't good for Dems.
Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.
June 20, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed, There's a lot more to Bloomberg's record than you give him credit for. He's made the city better in ways that have healed Giuliani-inflicted wounds, and really has improved the way people feel about city government here (the 311 number for helping people get their problems addressed more efficiently really works pretty well, for example). He's basically a pragmatist's pragmatist, which to me anyway is a pretty useful way for progressives to talk about governing after years of ideological rule that has failed. Obviously, his record is somewhat of a mixed bag -- the school reforms haven't paid off much, for example, but that's a pretty hopeless situation. In any case, I don't think the "big spender" label is either fair to him or terribly constructive for our side if we want to actually do stuff like universal health care. All of this is to say that I really hope he doesn't run for president and complicate campaign themes for Democrats. --Greg
June 20, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOnTheWall- Just so you know, I posted my comment above before reading yours here. No plagiarism intended! --Greg
June 20, 2007 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
Again, I'll defer to New Yorkers about the precise nature of Bloomberg's record. But I think I got things off-track by trashing his record in my first comment. Even if it's a lot better than I thought it was, the more relevant question (at least in reference to Paul Starr's suggestion) is this: Is his record really good enough to put aside partisan concerns and treat him as an honorary Democrat, or even a Democratic vice-presidential candidate?
At this point, I'll let everyone enjoy the irony of me, of all people, demanding Democratic fidelity against the dictates of pragmatism and bipartisanship.
Ed Kilgore
www.thedemocraticstrategist.org
June 20, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOnTheWall:
See my response to Greg above. All I'll add here is that it seems a bit odd to praise Bloomberg for his courage and vision (and perhaps you're right about the smoking ban, though such bans are rapidly becoming universal, and political no-brainers) and then express gratitude that one of his signature initiatives, the Olympics bid, got shot down. I am beginning to think the man's political skills may well be extraordinary.
Ed Kilgore
www.thedemocraticstrategist.org
June 20, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to the exchange between mureasan and Luigi Vampa, I'd observe that there is a third-party model other than Perot's that might be relevant to a Bloomberg run: John Anderson in 1980.
For those who don't remember him, Anderson was a long-time Republican Congressman who ran unsuccessfully in the GOP primaries, and began an independent candidacy hoping to batten on moderate Republican and independent fear of Reagan, and general unhappiness with Carter. By the end of the campaign, hunting where the ducks seemed to be, Anderson was running to the left of Carter, and Reagan won by a landslide despite taking only 51% of the vote.
I'm not saying that's where Bloomberg would wind up, or that 2008 will be anything like 1980 (the differences are obvious), but let's not assume all "centrist" third party candidates will be Perot II, and just hurt the GOP.
Ed Kilgore
www.thedemocraticstrategist.org
June 20, 2007 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, as a bit of a bar-loving punk rocker, the smoking ban initially made me hate him. Then it happened and even as a smoker, I didn't mind. Neither did my friends, either.
They might be becoming universal now but when Bloomberg did it in NYC, they weren't common outside of California. It was considered an oddball Cali thing.
And as much as I hate being told what to do, I not only adjusted to it but started to appreciate it after about a year.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 20, 2007 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor23:
As an on-again, off-again smoker, I know what you mean. Aside from the basic civility of not messing up other people's lungs, there's the Camaraderie of the Damned you get around all those nifty vertical ashtrays these days.
Ed Kilgore
www.thedemocraticstrategist.org
June 20, 2007 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not he runs, it is clear he won't be the only one to jump the GOP ship!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/06/new-york-city-mayor-bolts-republican.html#links
June 20, 2007 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think Bloomberg is a threat at all. Between Perot and Nader, both sides are scared shitless of Independent candidates.
Some say that he could spend millions upon millions of his own money, but that could be seen as an attempt to buy the office, something the current populist sentiment in the country would be turned off by.
That said, while the current polls show the top Democrats beating the top Republicans by just a few points in most scenarios, a third wheel could only be seen as a plus for the GOP.
A Bloomberg/Rudy ticket, however, would be quite interesting..
June 20, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say DerekG that a 3rd party candidate can't and won't win this or any presidential election.
The best chance ever for a 3rd party win was in 1912 when a wildly popular former president ran on the Progressive ticket. He lost.
You may be disenchanted with both parties but it's necessary to put personal feelings aside and look very hard at all factors.
Given Bloomberg's politics he'd siphon off very few Republican votes but would attract enough Democratic leaning independents and Democrats to turn several narrow blue states over to the Republican candidate.
Remember, the presidential race is about 51 separate elections not one.
A Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy would be another national tragedy. The only thing his candidacy will do is guarantee a Republican win.
June 20, 2007 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That same Pew poll found 65 percent of people knew who Bloomberg was. And even at the abstract, hypothetical Buck Mulligan level, the numbers would indicate that more Republicans than Democrats are interested in an independent candidate.
What makes Bloomberg different? Why will he attract Democrats, when Perot attracted Republicans? What is the change, specifically?
You seem to take it as a given that he will attract more Democratic voters, but why? What is the evidence that this will be the case?
"Do you think rural Pennsylvanians, a state Dems have won by narrow margins in the past two cycles, are going to vote for Bloomberg over Fred Thompson?"
I think more Pennsylvania Republicans will vote for Bloomberg than Democrats will. Who are these hypothetical Bloomberg Democrats?
June 20, 2007 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bloomberg won't run a left of center campaign, however. He won't do it to be a spoiler, or on principle. His best bet is to be Perot without the craziness. That's the model that can win.
June 20, 2007 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's aiming for Senator, in the void of Hillary's run for office.
Thus he changed affiliation, the GOP is nukular.
June 21, 2007 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a technocrat, the issue that most exercises Bloomberg may be the federal budget deficit (and the trade deficit, for that matter). Just as Perot (and Tsongas in the 92 Dem primaries) did, he could force candidates to talk about the structural deficits left by Bush.
Bloomberg supporters could be the same kind of people who supported Tsongas 15 years ago.
I would be interested to know what his views are on universal healthcare. He has accused the Dems and Repubs as being too timid.
On the ME and Iraq, unfortunately, he may be a hawk. That may be his Achilles heel.
June 21, 2007 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I meant (and clearly failed to express) was that Bloomberg's wealth and arrogance buffer him from the normal checks and balances of the democratic process. When he's right about something, that can be a terrific asset - he can afford to buck committed opposition in pursuit of his ideas. When he's wrong, it can be one hell of a liability. And on occasion, his approach succeeds in sinking what might otherwise have been a viable proposal, because he aliienates potential allies.
The point is that this accounts both for his popularity - voters love a politician who doesn't govern by the polls or defer to interest groups - and for some of his greatest blunders. Frankly, it frightens me. I happen to think elected officials ought to be responsive to the publics that elect them. But either way, it suggests that Bloomberg's brand of 'straight talk' may strike a chord with that sizable slice of the electorate that cottoned to Ross Perot (who had no more charisma that Bloomberg) and to John McCain. It's not just that he's rich; it's that his wealth makes him a maverick.
June 21, 2007 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. I know a couple of guys who have taken up smoking since the ban, because it makes meting women easier.
June 21, 2007 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd reckon Bloomberg already has a reasonable start on name recognition - surely no worse at this point than Romney, for example. And it's not like he doesn't have the ability to boost his profile in double-quick time.
Also, given Bloomberg's track record, I'd be astonished if he would settle for anything less than the first name on an Independent ticket. And my best guess is that he'll more or less style himself along the lines of McCain 2000, get a ton of favorable media coverage, and he'll start drawing voters away from both major parties.
June 21, 2007 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy would be another national tragedy. The only thing his candidacy will do is guarantee a Republican win."
I have no idea how you know this but at this point it doesn't matter if a Democrat or Republican wins.
They will both defy the will of the nation and we already have clear evidence of that. Your argument, with all due respect, is not based on any facts. It is a scare tactic designed to insure the Democrats continue to get my vote, without doing anything to actually earn it. Personally, I do not feel they are entitled to my vote. We left monarchy behind several hundred years ago. If they want my vote they should use something other than fear to get it. For example they could try doing what 70% of the nation want them to do.
June 21, 2007 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush presidency is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.
June 21, 2007 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little puzzled by Bloomberg's motives in considering a run, other than "because I can." Third parties are often motivated by a feeling that the major parties exclude something critical, often a more extreme point of view but not always. When it's not a strong point of view, which surely Bloomberg doesn't have, than it's a contrary dream of independence as an ideal of nonpartisan problem solving. But Obama's already staked out that position. What's left to Bloomberg other than ego? I admire him, so I am honest in expressing puzzlement.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 21, 2007 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for assuming that people from Alabama don't know who Michael Bloomberg is. You know, we do have newspapers, internet, tv, and power polls down here. Continue on with your geographic snobbery if you must. But it doesn't help your credibility.
June 21, 2007 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Ed,
Out of curiousity - have you ever met a pit bull? The ones not raised by jerks to be mean are some of the sweetest dogs you will ever come across. Seeing Rudy compared to them made me a little sad inside.
June 21, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
JimboF:
Since I'm from Georgia, I guess you must have heard that folks there tell Alabama jokes, like Alabamans tell Mississippi jokes.
Seriously, Jimbo, Alabamans have no particular reason to know about Mike Bloomberg. I guarantee you not 1 in 500 New Yorkers could tell you the name of the governor of Alabama, and they have newspapers, internet and TV out the wazoo. So no geographical snobbery was intended, believe me. Fact is, I really like Alabama, having spent some very good times in Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and even Montevallo.
Ed Kilgore
www.thedemocraticstrategist.org
June 21, 2007 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
First I offend Alabamans, and now dog lovers. I'm having a bad day.
Tell you what: maybe next time there's a much-publicized dog attack on a human, we should refer to the attack as a "Rudy," as in: "Area Man Rudied By Stray Dog."
Ed Kilgore
www.thedemocraticstrategist.org
June 21, 2007 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I share Daniel's doubts about this.
I think Bloomberg will take a chunk of the traditional GOP base - i.e. big business - with him. And I think he'll peel off some of the more conservative Democratic voters.
No suggestion that this will be enough to win the election, but of late heavy-hitting 3rd party candidates have tended to hurt the GOP, and I do see Bloomberg as a heavy-weight.
June 21, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Bloomberg runs it is not as a representative of a "third party". Bloomberg's candidacy would be based on his own ideals and policies (whatever those may be).
Bloomberg's fortune means he can pay canvassers to get enough signatures to get him on the ballot in all 50 states. He doesn't need the party machines, he has enough money to run a national media campaign - and remember who votes in the national elections - people who are greatly influenced by image and media impressions.
June 21, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Bloomberg will attract more people from whichever party is the more damaged brand. (Right now that's the Republican party, but that could change.) Third-party candidates are typically a jumping-off point for people who are dissatisfied with their party but aren't willing to vote for the Other party. See, e.g., Wallace in '68 (a stopping point for Southern Democrats on their way to the Republican party) or Anderson in '80 (who pulled a whole lot of Democrats who were disgusted with Carter).
June 21, 2007 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if he only takes chunks from urban areas where he would have better name recognition? That would hurt the dems on the ballot, wouldn't it?
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
June 21, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offense taken, actually. It's just that I was sitting on the back patio of a wine bar in Brooklyn yesterday, watching a 75 pound pit bull playing with a 10 month old child & licking her face, and I didn't think that was indicative of Giuliani's persona...
June 21, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, New York's economy has recovered, particularly in the financial sector and in real estate and the real estate boom allowed Bloomberg to cut property taxes without harming revenue.
My wine expenditures have helped, as well.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 21, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let everyone enjoy the irony of me, of all people, demanding Democratic fidelity
Oh we are, Ed...we are...
:-)
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 21, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to revisit the topic of the smoking ban, if I may. I'll confess to being somewhat irked at the backhanded concession that "perhaps" I'm right about the smoking ban.
The NYC Health Department (DOHMH) published a new study of smoking in the city this morning. According to the CDC, smoking nationwide has dropped from 22.5% in 2002 to 20.9% in 2006. That’s a 7% drop. Since 2002, New York City has seen a 19% drop, representing some 200,000 smokers. Epidemiology is an imprecise science, but using the CDC’s figures, that works out to some 50,500 fewer smoking-related deaths among residents of New York City than might otherwise have been expected. That reduction appears to be the result of several interlocking initiatives, including an advertising blitz and a workplace-smoking ban - and these numbers don't even count the exposure to second-hand smoke, which was the whole point of the ban.
At the time it was proposed, only California and Delaware had similar statewide bans, along with just 72 municipalities nationwide. Voters in the city supported the ban by a margin of roughly 2-1; but it was mostly smokers who felt that the issue might determine their votes, and they opposed it by a similar margin. That translated into a bitter pill for any politician to swallow. After the ban was passed, Bloomberg's approval ratings fell sharply, bottoming out at 31%. The New York Post ran a famous cover with a bar graph made of cigarette butts to illustrate the percipitous drop. (I should also note that an early property tax increase contributed to his early unpopularity; Bloomberg was determined to close the deficits that Giuliani had opened.)
He took risks to do what he felt was right, and some of them paid off. Tens of thousands of people will live longer because of that. I sure as hell think that's a substantive accomplishment. If it's not, I would challenge you to suggest something any politician has done that is more substantive.
As I wrote before, I'm profoundly disturbed by the prospect of a candidate self-funding a run at the presidency, and worried that his headstrong self-righteousness will tend to insulate him from public concerns. He's not a man I intend to vote for. But he's not a hack, and he's not just a creature of his circumstances. Writing him off as such is a dangerous mistake.
June 22, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, but you also have to remember that sometimes in a two party race that the injection of a third party presents the most risk to whoever was winning beforehand. If Giuliani got the GOP nomination, no doubt it would affect him for geographic reasons. But if the GOP base is unhappy with the who has been put forth because they are not "conservative" enough, I can't see those unhappy folks voting for Bloomberg instead of McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, or Gingrich unless they are looking for an antiwar candidate to the right of the Democrats. He may be a centrist, but is still a left leaning centrist even though he "left" the GOP. Many would say he was never truly there in the first place.
June 25, 2007 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink