• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

May 15, 2007

Bloomberg Sets Aside $1 Billion for Possible Run

New York City mayor (and RINO) Mike Bloomberg is still making noises about a possible independent run for president in 2008, and he has $1 billion of his personal fortune of $5.5 billion to do it. (Bloomberg is the founder of Bloomberg L.P., a financial data, research and news company.)

Another possible independent candidate is Sen. Chuck Hagel (RINO-NE).

With that kind of money, Mike Bloomberg could wreak quite a bit of havoc, but I doubt he could win for a couple of reasons: Except for New Yorkers and people in the immediate surrounding communities, Mike Bloomberg is hardly a household name. I realize that with that kind of money people will soon know who he is (remember Ross Perot?), but his money couldn't buy him the presidency either.

Independent candidates hardly have a great track record for winning really big elections. Yes, Joe Lieberman won his senate race in Connecticut last year, but he was an official Democrat before that, and had both name recognition and a viable track record. As much as people whine and moan about there only being two real political parties in this country, it's doubtful the prominence of the Republicans and Democrats will face any real challenge soon. Plus, the problem with three or more parties is that a large field could make for a small fraction of the population deciding who becomes president.

Independent candidates tend not to win, but to take votes away from the Republican and Democrat candidates.

The question would be, who would Bloomberg suck votes away from? He's a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal...much like Rudy Giuliani. The difference between them, in my opinion, is that Rudy has been battle-tested. He's the one who cleaned up New York and stood firm in the days after 9/11. Mike Bloomberg has simply had to keep up the policies Rudy installed before him to keep New York running smoothly. Plus, Rudy's position on Iraq and the GWOT is crystal clear. Bloomberg hasn't had much to say on those topics, but that would certainly change if he throws his hat into the ring.

Now, where's Fred?

Previous: Bloomberg in 2008?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | 2008

Bloomberg is fine for NYC, but nationwide, he won't sell well.

Call me insentive, but he comes across effeminate.

Ron Paul would be the perfect running mate for Hagel.

Posted by: John Ruberry at May 15, 2007 05:54 PM

John, you're absolutely right. There may be a lot of support for him in New York, but New York does not represent the rest of the country (as much as they'd like to think they do). And yes, he does come across as a bit poofy. Contrary to the beliefs of some, money doesn't buy everything!

Posted by: Pam at May 16, 2007 07:58 AM

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial