Couple points.

First, your voting decision tree creates the chance that your motivation will always lead to the wrong outcome.

If there is a hawk Democrat, a hawk Republican, and Bloomberg, you are suggesting you might vote for Bloomberg in order to keep a Dem from getting us deeper into the Mid East. But on these circumstances, it is possible that voting for Bloomberg will hand the election to the Republican, who will . . . get us deeper in to the Mid East. This creates a situation where your vote will do nothing to determine the future policies of the country.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Second, it cannot be the case that it is easier to run NYC than it is to run the US. It's thoughts like that that support Giuliani's campaign. Giuliani does not have the experience necessary to be president. Being mayor of New York does not qualify one to be president. Being mayor of Chicago does not qualify one to be president. Being mayor of Los Angeles does not qualify one to be president. Being mayor of Houston . . .

Let's not let Giuliani skate by on the thought that he has some relevant experience.

Good point on Rudy, the worst of all the GOP candidates. I meant "good mayors" not racist polarizers.

As to your other point, sometimes you can't just swallow your principles and vote lesser-evilism. The Democrats won Congress in '06 because of the war. If our candidate cannot flatout promise to end it, who needs him or her.

Besides, with the exception of Obama, our candidates have piss poor records on the war. Neither Clinton, Dodd, Edwards or Biden voted for the Levin amendment which called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. As Sen. Chafee said, "it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened."

Obama, not yet a Senator, endorsed the Levin amendment at the time. Kucinich voted against the war in the House. Richardson, a governor, supported the war.

The mindset that produced those indefensible NO votes makes it harder to simply trust our nominee.

On June 21, 2007 - 10:44am koshembos said:

Going towards the middle is not a negative;..."

Where is the starting point when we "go toward the middle"? The country's political position certainly isn't 'left', so that can't be the starting point. We're being governed by the Right and the DLC, wouldn't these two entities have to move "left" to get to the middle?

As of now, the center wants the war to end, it's therefore reasonable to assume that a decent Democrat will end the war in January 2009.

Along with the center wanting to end the war desn't the 'left' want to end it too?

I'm ambivalent about Bloomberg but I'd definitely choose him over a Republican; shi*, I'd choose Elmer Fudd over a Republican.

Bloomberg supported Bush in 04, maybe that's because the Repug Convention was in NY and Bush added some Homeland Security money to the original appropriation for NY.
For that Bloomberg gets a D minus.

I think Bloomberg's been a great mayor, but MJR's enthusiasm has me totally baffled. What's he done to earn it? What principles or vision has he expressed, much less policies? I know he's for abortion rights and gun control, but is that enough to deserve this kind of gushing? 

And yes, this election is our chance to make up some lost ground, both in gaining the presidency and, with a sufficiently broad and deep support for the Democratic candidate, that many more Congressional seats as well. So the idea isn't just silly but damaging. But still, it's the silliness that has me in awe.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

=== Your post reminds me of a thought I've had about national politics and the race for the Presidency. Maybe every four years they should just put the office up for sale on Ebay. ===

sPh

A NY mayor has as many constituents or more than a lot of governors, so from that aspect Bloomberg would be as qualified as any other candidate and certainly more than others. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have never run any organization of any size. Bloomberg is a successful executive.

The Iraq war will be a non-issue by Nov 08, because even Republicans will turn against Bush, if this thing doesn't show signs of resolution. The GOP is not going into another national election with Iraq hanging around their neck. They know the consequences of that.

Bloomberg might be a good candidate, but he seems like the flavor of the month, right now -- a new face we know nothing about. One also has to consider how effective an independent would be as President. Like it or not, party affiliation gives the White House a lot of leverage of their party members re: votes. How effective can an independent be without that leverage?

Besides, with the exception of Obama, our candidates have piss poor records on the war. Neither Clinton, Dodd, Edwards or Biden voted for the Levin amendment which called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. As Sen. Chafee said, "it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened."

I heard someone mention a Gore-Bloomberg ticket yesterday. At first I scoffed...but then... 

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group

I see a flaw here. Bloomberg helped Bush get re-elected in 2004, which I'd say indicates that his judgment is seriously flawed.

Not sure I follow your logic, Reece.

Which is harder to govern? New York City? Or Arkansas? I would bet New York. But I didn't complain that Clinton lacked the experience to be President. Hell, as Mayor of New York, Bloomberg probably has a better seat for foreign affairs than many State Governors do.

I'm not considering Bloomberg (who I don't think will run), but I am just saying.

Once a Democrat...and always a democrat.  That is what Bloomberg is and that is who he will pull votes from.  Northeastern Republicans tend to be more liberal than Southern Democrats.  But outside the Northeast I doubt there would be a groundswell of support for him.  Pro choice, pro gun control and pro gay rights isn't gonna win him any votes in The Red States of America.  With those positions he could never win the GOP nomination so the only way for him to run is as an Indy.  Nor will Rudy Guiliani win the GOP nomination with his pro choice positions.  The GOP primaries are dominated by uber conservative voters.  Their nominee will be someone with the "proper credentials" who will they will vote for en masse.  The only place Bloomberg can get significant votes is from the left.  I hope he remains Mayor of New York City and continues with the decent job he is doing there.

I like Mayor Bloomberg, but I think he is a flavor of the month.  I blogged about him yesterday.  I think he may be the fortunate recipient of the good will engendered for not being part of the current crop of candidates.  I also believe that he is flattered by all the hype, but would sour if he were to jump in and get the full media disection.  So I expect him to tease until it is clear he cannot win, and then on to his philanthropic projects post city hall. 

/c

In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.

If nothing else, I would not vote for Bloomberg because of the way the Republican convention was handled here in NYC. I know several people who were arrested and mistreated, a couple of them not protesters. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hector

"I will not vote for anyone who I think will lead to more American dead in the Middle East."

So -- definitely not Biden, Clinton, Edwards or Obama.

If Obama is nominated, Bloomberg would make a perfect running mate. They have similar messages, and they would sweep the Dems and independents.

Also they are from different states. Hillary and Bloomberg are from the same state so they could not both get New York's electoral votes.

This post is absolutely ridiculous. Bloomberg has run the middle class (myself included) out of NYC, accelerating the mega-rich's purchase of the city as a second or third home. At the same time he has given away tax dollars to "industries" like pro sports--see: new stadiums for Mets, Yankees, the awful Brooklyn Nets project, and the Olympics--that produce nothing for anyone save their already loaded owners. Yet the schools for non-elites still stink, the transit improvements of the 90s have stagnated, and the cops have become a private spy agency for the rich--fitting, since Bloomberg reduced NYPD starting salaries to retail-store rent-a-cop levels.
Better than Rudy doesn't mean good.

MJ,

TomT asked a great question down thread and you've just gotta respond.

Given Bloomberg's support of Lieberman, isn't it unlikely that he's the guy to count on to get us out of Iraq?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

J. McCutchen

The GOP doesn't have a choice. Iraq's around their necks no matter what they say, how they spin or what they do. The situation in Iraq itself, as against the spun, filtered, fantasy version which underpins most US political debate - that situation will be even worse today than it is now.

Bet the farm

MJ Rosenberg,

I am sorry to hear your views on this. I have a lot of respect for your anti-war position, and generally excellent sense. However I think Bloomberg is a giant mistake. With some one this wealthy you have to judge their actions, not what comes out of their mouth.

Bloomberg could wield enormous clout within the lobbying groups that have pushed most for the war, but his history says he will do otherwise. His donations at the time it mattered 2001-2006 were all toward ultrahawks and the State Republican Party machine which was at the time in the business of putting more hawks on the state benches. A sane voice in the 2002-2003 era would have done a lot to prevent the disaster we all currently have now. Bloomberg was hands down on the wrong side.

Some say as a counter argument that Bloomberg backed Gore, but Gore picked Lieberman who Bloomberg later backed in the most recent election. Infact Bloomberg's support can be seen as a big factor in Lieberman's survival of that election. And Lieberman while moderating his voice during the campaign shifted back to the far right as soon as the votes were counted.

I can not countenance a man, with the vast resources that Bloomberg possesses, to have made such terrible decisions. I have to believe that these actions were not accidents, and rather speak to the true core of the man. So I am sorry to see your endorsement of him.

For my money I think Hillary will be a much smarter choice. She has a long history weilding responsibility at the international level, and knows what realistically can be achieved. Further she knows how to turn short term defeats into long term victory, a very necessary lesson, that Bloomberg has yet to experience, fortunaetly for him. Hillary is tried and true.

Let Bloomberg work with Saban and others under Hillary to make sure things actually get accomplished this time around. Let's learn what the limits of reality are, rather than fervantly wishing they were other than they are, as seems to be the main philosophy of our current executive crew.

I deeply respect your vision, wisdom, and commentary Mr. Rosenberg, but I cannot more profoundly disagree with your current endorsement. I would humbly request that you perhaps re-evaluate your initial perspective on this.

The middle is the median of the population's opinions that you are governing. Yes, it has moved to the right. Yes, this is lamentable. But Democrats shouldn't govern from the left anymore than Bush should have governed from the right, which he did, and it has been his undoing.

I'm sorry. Did I miss something? Is Bloomberg opposed to the Iraq War? I don't think so. Then WTF is up with all this "I will vote for him over Clinton, and I'm a loyal Democrat" BS?

Hey, I didn't know Bloomberg supported Lieberman.

As Rosanna-Rosanna Danna used to say, "Never mind."

Look, I love Obama so if he's the nominee I'll be more excited about a candidate than ever before.

So forget Bloomberg. I just won't vote for any Dem who I suspect will (1) not commit to Iraq pullout and (2) suggests war as a means of dealing with Iran.

And I sure as hell am not the only one. There are plenty of us Dems who put this damn war over any party or candidate.

Bloomberg is a real threat to Democrats. He is a liberal from NY with views to the left of many Dem candidates.

I think I'm in love.

--Andrew Hiller

I don't value mindless consistency. So I'll probably change my mind a few times between now and 11/08.

However, cheap positions on the war taken now by candidates who supported the war when it mattered will not impress me.

3500 are dead because only 23 Senators had the balls to say "no" to this war. And every single Dem who voted for it voted AGAINST the national interest in favor of their PERSONAL INTEREST.

And that is unforgivable and will remain so forever regardless of who I vote for in '08. Lucky for all of them, there is no accountability in American political life.

Bloomberg was for the war in Iraq. If someone asks him his views now, and how he'd get us out, then I'd be willing to listen to him. Otherwise, he's just another RWM (rich white male).

"Haber, ya see, if he's a great mayor -- as you concede he is -- that means he could be a great President. But the Democrats, with the exception of Obama, are decidely not great senators because they supported a war that has resulted in the worst foreign policy disaster in our history." 

Seems like by the logic of your second sentence, Bloomberg's support of Bush in 2004 would then disprove the logic of your first sentence. But mostly you're going on something too mysterious for me. He's a good mayor because he set reasonable priorities for a city, such as keeping the post-Bratton policing while reversing the Giuliani racial confrontation and Giuliani's and Koch's abondoment of new housing.

That should make him an okay cabinent member in certain areas, but it seems no more logical grounds to call him a president than my gushing over the left side of the Yankee infield makes them the ideal team for president and vice-president. 

Hero worship is lovely, but shouldn't it be backed by some some actual ideals, beliefs, goals, policies, parties, accomplishments -- I don't know but something -- that one is worshiping?  

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Hillary is as ?disingenuous as Romney and will never get this Democrat's vote in either the primary or the General election.

A vote for Bloomberg is a vote for war with Iran. It's that simple.

I'm probably thinking way too far ahead at the moment, but say Bloomberg would get elected President, wouldn't Washington like, completely disintegrate and such? I mean, Presidents can get things done in their first few years becuase they have the rabid support of approximately half the House and Senate; Bloomberg would have no such 'automatic' support. As a result the Presidency might become marginalized while the leaders of both parties in Congress duke it out to become the first de facto Prime Minister of America.

I'm not at all against the thought of a non Dem/GOP influence in Washinton politics, but you can't build anything starting from the top and working your way down.

Bloomberg is not a liberal.  Bloomberg is billionaire who believes in the rights of billionaires.  He is every bit as egotistical and dogmatic as Rudy, he is just better behaved.

M.J. please...
No, NY is not harder to govern than the country, because regardless of how large and how diverse NYC is, it is not unlike other major cities in the country. The countervailing forces and interests are NOT as complicated and vicious in cities. He has no landmine filled corridors of opposition to duck and dodge through that is in any comparable to the beltway alleys. City council and community pressure groups can't hold a candle to what he'd face in DC (I know, because I worked in the Chicago mayor's office under Harold Washington. The opposition was organized, mean as snakes and very powerful, but we really didn't have that hard a time outmanouvering them.)

Yes, Bloomberg is a capable big city mayor that governs as a center to center left (for America) dem, but that's all he is.

I get rated "0" for asking if a comment was directed at me?  Alllllrighty then smacfarl...whatever.

How do non partisan elections favor the wealthy? This is an argument that I have not heard.

Non partisan elections that allow a candidate to win with a plurality favor the guy with the best name recognition heavily. We have this system for mayoral elections in Memphis and it is horible. But a system that was either a non-partisan election that required a majority or even better non-partisan porimary where the top two votegetters regardless of party stood in the general seems to be a great system to me.

I think it depends strongly on who the actual candidates are. Trying to predict which side he will pull votes from when we do not even now who is running is futile.

The only thing I can know for sure is that if Hillary is the nominee he would get my vote otherwise I am voting for the democrat.

MJ,

I just read here that Bloomberg supported the Iraq war, that he supported Lieberman, and earlier I posted that he supported Bush in '04.

Strike three!!!

Bye, bye Bloomie!.

As a result the Presidency might become marginalized while the leaders of both parties in Congress duke it out to become the first de facto Prime Minister of America.

Actually, considering the power that the Bushies have managed to consolidate in the presidency at the expense of both the Congress and the Courts over the last 6+ years, it might not be such a bad thing to have the presidency taken down a few pegs. Might make it a little less easy to steamroll the country into a disastrous war next time around. Might make it a little less easy to do end-runs around the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Might make it a little less easy to gut the non-partisan civil service and substitute barely competent political lackies.

Wicked smart is my criteria too. Quick on his feet and hardwired for justice. That's John Edwards.
He wants to change the whole conversation about how we look at the world. He wants us to "be patriotic about something other than war." Don't tell anybody, but he's no longer a hawk.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation intemper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine

That's okay. I'm too self-loathing to make a move.

--Andrew Hiller

You don't agree with the idea that Congress should have sent the bill with timelines back again and again and let the enfant terrible veto it again and again? That's not a cheap position.
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation intemper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine

Agreed. I can't vote for HRC. Luckily, I'm in Utah, so it isn't like it would matter if I cast an independent vote. After all, it's the only state where Bill lost to Perot twice.

While I've given money and time to Obama, and probably would do the same for Edwards, Richardson, or Gore, I cannot cast a vote for HRC. If Bloomberg isn't on the ticket, I'll write someone in before I vote for her.

I agree with you. I probably think Bloomberg was a better mayor than you seem to, but I still don't get the fascination.

How is he -- a soulless technocrat who has changed parties twice -- better than Hillary Clinton -- a soulless technocrat who's at least stayed in the Democratic party? I just don't get it.

Can someone name me one issue where they prefer Mayor Turtle to the Democratic field? Just one?

And don't say Iraq: the guy supported Lieberman. End of story.

So aggregately in California/NY/TX, Bloomy helps the Neanderthals.

"Minnesota: Stays blue by a very strong margin, no matter what."

So I'm still trying to figure out why our newly elected Dem senator with 6 safe years ahead of her and her state true blue for 08 still couldn't muster up the guts to vote against the Iraq bill.

How about finding me an even bluer candidate? Who needs a Bloomberg? I want a Wellstone.

Hear, hear! Well said.

The people of New York City tend to be myopic and provincial in their views. They confuse biggest with best. They think everyone would live there if they could. As far as they're concerned, New York is not just the center of the world, but the center of the galaxy.

We do not need Democratic, Republican, and independent candidates all hailing from one city. There IS a whole country out there. In a representative democracy, the ENTIRE country needs representation, not just one city.

MJ Rosenberg,

Thank you so much for your reply!

My heart like yours grieves over the problems in the Middle East and I have been opposed to the war since fall of 2002, when the back pages of the Washington Post started to give us an inkling of what was going on in the sausage factory.

So I have to agree with you and say that extedning our disasterous current course to Iran and others is obviously a terrible thing. However I am not sure what stopping the war actually looks like.

I am for sure against accelerating things. On the other hand we pair down the troops to base level support, say 50,000, Iraq doesn't instantly become an olive garden. But at least we change our posture. And a new and qualified foreign service corps and a new administration with sane and qualified people running it could; coupled with this new international posture, calm things down over time.

What does your solution to this look like? What does the best possible world look like? The worst one? The likely one?

I don't see the US ever giving up it's bases anywhere, any time soon, without dramatic economic changes within the domestic US, which are not even on a fantasist's horizon. So given that, what does the end of activity in Iraq look like?

I know things are geting better when Rosenberg and Jexter both say they can vote for a candidate that I too can vote for easily. Israel has no greater friend than Mike Bloomberg, and Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran have no mightier enemy. He'll pulverize all three of them in his first month in office. Hallaluyah!

I just asked a question...you assumed what the tone of my response was gonna be if he said he was talkin' to me.

debcoop

You forget that Mike was a Republican mayor in 2003 when the Iraq war began. Like all loyal Repubs he was silently approving.

He has been silent for a long time on this issue. And the fact that he's made statements taking issue with the running of the war is no more than any other Dem candidate has done.

So, he on this issue, is no better, if not worse than any of the Dem candidates. It is the typical fantasy projection of people like you that he would do what you wanted him to do. There is no evidence to support this, indeed there is evidence to the contrary.

He didn't do it before. So why would you trust him now.

PS How in God's name does a presidient with no party deal with congress???

And in what way is this an AMERICAN public policy issue?

Whoever turns out to be the Dem candidate, the possibility of an independent grows daily with the hopeless job the Democratic congress seems to be doing. Loads of committees making lots of noise and the only legislation to date is watered down easy stuff of no great significance and even that has to struggle to get anywhere. Nothing has changed re Iraq, Stem cell research is still where it was, The oil companies are not being pressured to help slow global warming, etc, etc. Yes, I know: vetos. but that is no excuse. Basically, the Dems have churned up a lot of smoke - or rather dust - but there is no fire and the dust will evantually choke us. Meanwhile, all anyone can think of is raising money for an election well over a year away and the candidates are off hustling more of it, so the only ones to benefit will be the television networks. So someone like Bloomberg might well be the antidote if the congress doesn't do something radical, and soon.

MJ, I think your support for Bloomberg was silly, but I'm going to cut you some slack. Your support came not from the usual hobgoblins of political minds -- Broderism (faux centrist nonpartisanship) or Kinsleyism (the need to be contrarian about anything and everything) -- but from good old-fashioned liberal open-mindedness and wishful thinking. There are worse sins.

SeeDee

Well...Gee!..this one is even civil enough to read through without grimacing at the 'expletives deleted'.

I'm a bit put off by MJR's 'endorsement, too, but I guess he can post whatever he feels on his page(s).

Maybe the reason he likes Bloomberg is he appraises Bloomberg's term as mayor as far better than Rudy's (and others)...he just does not realize that the predecessors set the bar very, very low.

Her negatives with me are purely visceral. After watching her for years, she seems to me to be a triangulating, unctuous political animal who values the accrual of power above all else. Her vote for the Iraq war illustrates this perfectly. I believe she voted the way she did out of political expediency against her own judgement. I believe she is way to smart to have been bamboozled by GWB's line of bull. She did the calculations and thought that we would win easily making those who opposed going to war look bad even though the war was unjustified. She also shares Bush’s flaw of not being able to admit a mistake and I have had enough of that to last me the rest of my life. I will not vote for any candidate who refuses to admit error.

Another beaut by MJ "The United States is probably easier to govern than NYC". Wow.
Now I understand how he comes up with so many unrealistic ideas about how to make peace in the Middle East.

The Mayor of NYC has a lot of poor people. He wants them to be well fed, so he wants food to be as cheap as possible.
The President also has to worry about those poor people, BUT on the other hand he wants his farmers to be happy, and they want HIGH food prices. NYC doesn't have any farms so the mayor doesn't have to worry about that.

The US has very large armed forces spread around the world with treaty commitments to numerous allies. The Mayor of NYC doesn't have to worry about that.

The Mayor of NYC wants his citizens to have plenty of cheap gasoline and electricity available. The President has this constuency as well, but on the other hand there are states with large oil reserves and the oil companies and they want high prices for those same commodities.

When New Orleans was inundated, the Mayor of NYC probably sent his condolences to the Mayor of NO and that was that. The President was obliged to provide emergency services and huge amounts of financial aid.

All these considerations make it questionable whether Bloomberg or Giuliani really have the background to be President. Traditionally it was believed that it was necessary to be either a Senator or Governor of a large state. Jimmy Carter was neither and was a failure as President. Clinton was neither and I leave it to you to decide whether he was a good President.
Senators have to confront all the major decisions the US government has to face. A governor of a large state has much more varied constituencies, both rural and urban plus large economic interests that are a smaller, but representative version of what the President has to face.

As a further note.....MJ and other here are always expressing the hope that the next President, if a Democrat will be committed to pulling out of Iraq. Do any of those who advocate have any contingency plans if the Middle East shouls spin totally out of control should the US carry out that policy (mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing in Iraq, Iranian or Turkish intervention there, spread of Islamic extremism to threaten other states in the area, etc)?

I think HRC has already been picked by the Party to be the establishment candidate, and the only choice we were suppose to have was HRC or some winger Republican. They were counting on, "where else can they go?" With Bloomberg, the answer to that is him. I for one am sick of Democrats taking their base (unions, environmentalists, women voters, etc.) for granted. I'm done with voting for Democrats as the lesser of evils. They need to be held accountable for their actions and dumped on their asses. Enough votes for Bloomberg would do it. If the Dems lose, too bad. As long as they maintain a majority in House and Senate, we have stalemate, which is a hell of a lot better than: Rangel with his secret trade deals; Kennedy pushing a guest worker program and increases in H-1B visas, Obey yelling at war moms and increasing funding to "abstinence only" programs; and all the Dems caving on funding for the war. They are just like the Republicans only without the god thing.