It's been a while since I poked my nose in here, but I just wanted to give my thought's about Bloomberg:
As a Long Island Ny'ker working in NYC, I (as many NY'ker's ) felt Bloomberg was a pompous, arrogant and condescending individual. However, that changed over time and once I (and many others) saw the changes he implemented, our feelings turned. When I look back at why I didn't like him, it was my ignorance which didn't allow meto see the forest through the trees...after all he had banned smoking in the city and that was just wrong because I was a smoker. And let's face it, ifya can't trust The Doctors and Santa, who can ya trust? In my opinion ya can trust Michael Bloomberg, that's who. While sitting back and letting my thought's flow through my slightly toasted brain cells, it dawned on me "the guy is doing a pretty good job in the city, and he's got a cool few billion, maybe he knows a little more than I do?". Well I have to make a Dr's appt. and start my Christmas list, so until next time kids I bid you farewell.
First Bill Richardson, now former Republican and current Mayor of New York . Some have been speculating that the Obama campaign would unveil a wave of high-profile endorsements leading up to the Pennsylvania primary in an effort to push the electability factor and generate added momentum:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg will stand side by side with Democraticpresidential hopeful Sen Barack Obama for the second time in fourmonths Thursday. Bloomberg will introduce the Illinois senator at aspeech on the economy at Cooper Union College.
There may be more to come as well. Al Gore? John Edwards?
Also, this might make certain that Bloomberg isn't running for president himself. Could Obama be considering him as a running mate?
I saw a segment on MSNBC's Countdown about Jimmy Justice, a "regularJoe" Brooklyn resident that was fed up with the double standards of the NYCtraffic agents. I am sure this is not isolated to NYC, and I am sure we have allexperienced this type of behavior and hypocrisy in our towns and citiesUSA.
J.J. (Jimmy Justice) keeps an eye out for the traffic agents breaking lawsand video tapes the crime in progress i.e. parking their official vehicle infrot of a fire hydrant to run in and grab a cup of coffee or lunch. Trafficagents play an important role in society, and ticket individuals that break thelaw. Naturally no one wants a ticket and we tend to get angry when we do getone, but that's life and the law. Actual Police Officers get away withtheir minor crimes, and that's been the way it's been since the beginning oftime and will continue to be that way, but traffic agents are not even close torealizing that status.
Anyone who has experienced dealing with the NYC 'personality-less, I have aticket pad cockiness' of one of these agents know exactly the frustration we experience.
On August 17, 2007 'Live From Studio 1A' Dick Gregory interviewed JimmyJustice in a piece called '' with video
J.J. currently has 11 videos posted on his YouTube account ''.and you wouldn't believe some of the responses he receives. You would think thelaw breakers would be humble and friendly in order to squelch the controversyand not act like 'holier than thou' on a video camera.
Here are a couple of examples:
NYC Board of Ed "teaches" its employees to break the law
Traffic Enforcement Agent Blocks Fire Hydrant During A Fire (She responds with "don't you think there's something wrong with filming somebody?" LOL...that's funny)
traffic cop Anderson breaks the law & has a message for NYC (This one is classic, the agent gets "back-up")
**** CAUTION: Adult Content Vulgarity Used. ****
Local NYC Contacts:
Quick Story: One of our company delivery trucks were double parked early one morning (delivering office supplies and very light traffic) when a traffic agent approached. I was outside smoking a cigarette and before the agent stated writing, I told him the driver is going to get fired if he receives another ticket, I also mentioned the driver had a family and was going through some hard times. The agent wrote him the ticket. The good news is I was lying about the driver getting fired.
In what could be a future attack line if he runs for president as an independent, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told a friend that Barack Obama is to be president:
A reader who ran into Mike Bloomberg at Primaveraon the Upper East Side last night is the second source to reporthearing Bloomberg describe the Illinois senator as too inexperienced tobe president.
Bloomberg, according to my spy, said he had met Obama for the firsttime about a year and a half ago, in the Senate subway, and was struckby Obama's eloquence.
But "he simply is not experienced enough to become president,"Bloomberg, I'm told, said. That's in part, at least, because "senatorshave absolutely no idea what executive decision making is all about" —a familiar Bloomberg theme and one that would disqualify a number ofcandidates.
Another source also recalls Bloomberg saying, several weeks earlier, that Obama doesn't have the experience for the job.
Under that same logic, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Edwards, Ron Paul, Chris Dodd, Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Tancredo, and Joe Biden are also unqualified to be president. Oh, and don't forget John F. Kennedy too. He was in the Senate before being elected.
On the other side of the coin, George W. Bush was Governor in Texas. That qualifies as an executive. Yeah, that experience sure paid off, didn't it?
Immediately after New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg officially announced his defection from the GOP ranks, political analysts quickly began a possible general election match-up between three New Yorkers: Giuliani, Clinton and Bloomberg. Already, the media is in love with the idea of a three-candidate New York showdown in '08.
Prematurely though, these pundits are assuming that Clinton and Giuliani will win their party's nominations. We are six long months away from the first vote. Anything can happen on both the Democratic and GOP ends. Giuliani's pro-choice stances could be his undoing. Hillary's Washington establishment label could cause a massive voter revolt in January. We cannot presume anything at this point.
So while other blogs, news sites and so-called 'pundits' salivate over a possible showdown, Newsweek's thought outside the box about Bloomberg's possible impact on all the other candidates:
Other candidates could also feel the Bloomberg effect in a generalelection fight. John Edwards has made a strong pitch for his party'spopulist wing. Should he win the Democratic nomination, pro-businessvoters in the middle might view a Bloomberg vote as a protest againstboth Bush-backing Republicans and Labor-pandering Dems. Barack Obama'scampaign is centered around the idea he would introduce a new,different kind of politics. Whatever you may think of it, Bloomberg'scandidacy would certainly be new and different. On the right, MittRomney has taken conservative positions on every major social issue inthe hopes he will emerge as the choice of Christian conservatives inthe primary. Should he win the nomination, he's counting on moderatevoters remembering he was the governor of liberal Massachusetts forfour years. But that pivot could prove harder with a viable, sociallymoderate Independent candidate in the race. John McCain and FredThompson's aides talk up their candidates' appeal to a broad swath ofvoters as evidence they can lead the GOP out of troubled times. Butthat appeal may well be limited as long as McCain and Thompson refuseto break with Bush on the unpopular war in Iraq.
This is a pretty decent analysis. Mitt Romney is expected to perform yet another political makeover if he becomes the GOP nominee -- transforming himself back into the moderate candidate he was as Massachusetts Governor. Many of Romney's moderate positions on social issues will be canceled out by Michael Bloomberg. There would be too much overlap. For that reason, if Romney and Bloomberg were two of the three candidates in the general election, almost any Democrat would win.
But I don't think it will come to that. The Karl Rove's strategy of pandering to the far-right works well. That is why someone like Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee, two conservative southerners that are good at reaching out to Evangelical conservatives, would be affected the least if Bloomberg got into the race.
Obviously, these hypotheticals are nothing more than late-night thought unless Bloomberg actually does run. But if he chooses to, Bloomberg would be much more electable than Ross Perot. It would be unlike any other election in American history.
One of America's best mayors is disillusioned by what is happening in Washington, and is saying good-bye to a party that once stood for efficient and effective government and non-interventionalism. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as of today, is :
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his partystatus from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to beseen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upendthe 2008 race.
The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelongDemocrat before he switched to the GOP for his first mayoral run, saidthe change in voter registration does not mean he is running forpresident.
"Although my plans for the future haven't changed, Ibelieve this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have ledand will continue to lead our city," he said.
"The politics of partisanshipand the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making,primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are notbeing addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy," he said in a speechMonday at the start of a University of Southern California conferenceabout the advantages of nonpartisan governing.
People are tired of nothing getting done in this country. They want leaders that consider solutions before political calculation.
Bloomberg's decision today might be the single most profound step ever taken since 1992 in helping lay a foundation for a multi-party system of governance.
During last week's at JFK Airport, only a handful of news agencies reported that the plot never even made it past the and did not pose a threat to anyone. For that reason, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is with the media obsession about this non-story:
"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of aheart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry abouteverything. Get a life," he said.
"You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he added.
The threat of terrorism has increased since 9/11. But still, the odds of being involved in an international terrorist incident is . The odds of being killed in a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, is . Nearly two years after hurricane Katrina, the levees are still not ready. Yet, we are more than willing to in order to feel safer from terrorism. Something is wrong here.
The same friends who leaked to the yesterday that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was considering a 2008 independent run also that it would destroy the Democrats' chances in 2008:
They say a Bloomberg candidacy would make it difficult for theDemocratic nominee to win the electoral votes of New York, as well asof Connecticut and New Jersey. All are blue-state must-wins for theDemocratic nominee, but not for the Republican standard-bearer, whoeverhe turns out to be.
"If Bloomberg and his people can pull together a serious run,it will allow some blue states to become very competitive for the GOP,such as New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire, maybe Colorado, 0hio --and the Northeast in general," said New Hampshire-based Republicancampaign strategist David Carney.
The Northeast is precisely where the Democrats have been trying to make gains ever since 2004.
Without New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire, the Democratic candidate would need to make up exactly 50 somewhere else in the country just to break even with what they finished with in 2004. Even sweeping Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, Arizona, and Nevada would not be enough! Plus, that does not include the fact that they must win either Ohio or Florida.
The thought of a Bloomberg candidacy might sound like a breath of fresh air. On the other hand, the end result would be yet another GOP presidency.
A few sources tell the conservative newspaper that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is game-planning a scenario in which he would use his wealth to finance a 2008 presidential run as an independent:
"He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-timebusiness adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where itwill come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we cando it."
Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days thatMr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has"lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making arun.
The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-partyrun if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said hewill spend up to $1 billion. Earlier, he told friends he would make arun only if he thought he could win a plurality in a three-way race andwould spend $500 million -- or less than 10 percent of his personalfortune.
A $1 billion campaign budget would wipe out many of the commonobstacles faced by third-party candidates seeking the White House.
The Democrats' worst fears have been realized. After having all the momentum in the world, thanks to President Bush obviously, this news could take the wind out of the balloon. Michael Bloomberg is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative -- the kind of candidate that few registered Republicans in the south would vote for anyway. If anything, a Bloomberg candidacy would take away Democratic votes, as confirmed by every single political strategist I have spoken with personally about this topic since last November.
Bloomberg is a great guy. He has excellent leadership skills. He is ethical. He might make a great president (yes, and I really do mean "great"). But unless there is an entirely new demographic that heads to the polls for the first time, I see a scenario in which the Republican candidate would win in a landslide.
Recent Comments