http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKpSqIw7eCY

go you see why this guy is so dangerous.

Bloomberg might make a good king or a dick-tator but not president.

Go see why this worm is more than dangerous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKpSqIw7eCY

Turnabout is fair play! For years, Republicans have searched through past statements and speeches made by Democrats to find embarassing or contradictory statements. If Democrats don't fight back, they'll end up like Mondale!

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

If you ask CC, the election's a formality, and we should prepare to be led by a shemale.

If the nominee's are Romney and Edwards, Bloomberg should enter. He could also enter if it's Romney and Obama. McCain, Clinton and Guiliani wins a nomination, there wouldn't be room.

Some early polling done on Bloomberg can be found here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/bloomberg_reaches_23_as_third_party_hopeful_in_new_jersey

Perot was a disaster waiting to happen. If it wasn't aliens or RNC henchmen, or Admiral Stockdale as a running mate, it would have been somethingelse.

For it to take a graduate of the Naval Academy four years of Active Duty to realize that sailors liked to drink, chase women and swear is almost incomprehensible; but it was four years out of Annapolis when little Rossie got in touch with his Daddy to try to pull strings to get him out of the Navy because he had just realized those things.

The man's a kook, and it manifested itself under the pressure of the campaign. Would a credible candidate have taken the "anger" vote to the 35% level? We'll never know, because Perot was never a credible candidate; he was simply a magnet for the "anger."

Perot was leading the polls before dropping out. If Republican dirty tricks men refrain from interfering in Bloomberg's daughter's wedding, that 19% ceiling becomes 35%

Maybe we should restrict the Presidential election to voters from New York City only. Under that scenario a Clinton, Bloomberg, Gulliani list would be just fine. Not sure the rest of the country should be trusted with voting for the Presidency anymore.

Chris: "Because over the past century the two party system has grown increasingly entrenched in American politics -- both organizationally and financially."

Conventional wisdom only holds until it stops holding; Immigration, Iraq, Trade, Budget, Social Issues, corruption and gross mismanagement of government are all splitting the Republican party.

A 3rd party run by the right candidate, with the right message, could just finish the job, just as a light tap in the right place can split the hardest diamond. I think Hillary would be a great president, but I will work hard to support you Mayor Bloomberg if you run!

anaon - You write that Bill Gates brought the computer operating system to the world. No he didn't. Operating systems existed long before Mr. Gates. As for "DOS" he actually bought using some pecular and as yet unexplained subtrafuge from a small company named Seattle Computer. Ditto for "Office" and for "SQL". I'm a Microsoft developer and ave long known that everything in Office is merely a badly hashed rewrite of StarOffice. Windows, including the GUI, existed long before Microsoft just simply it. Bill Gates is nothing more than a very wealthy used car salesman...and with about the same level of business ethics. If you are looking for an inventive guy who made it rich becasue of hard work, you're not going to find them amoungst the corporate leaders. Most of us were cut out of the money by the Bill Gates of the world (I'm the inventor of the scanner scale, wrote most of the algorithms used in grocery store scanners, wrote the original patent disclose for RF wafer i.d., developed the optical time domain reflectometer algorithms, invented the self service checkout, invented the instore coupon printer, and quoite few other things you use and see around you every day and I am dirt poor; when you work for a company and come up with a patentable idea, they receive *all* right to it - you get kised as the inventor).

JimD in FL writes
"Bush I and Clinton were each much closer to the center than the candidates we are likely to see in 2008. The rallying issue for Perot in 1992 was the deficit - neither Bush I nor Clinton was seriously addressing it."

Meh. Frontrunners Clinton II and Giuliani I are not only pretty centrist, but they're damn near the same person. Coincidentally (with '92), neither appears to be focusing too much on the deficit. Perhaps history DOES repeat itself.

MikeB writes
"our corporations... are bringing in millions fo guest workers to displace American workers, those companies use that cheap labor to bargain wage and health care and other benefits from American workers."

The solution to that problem is enforcement of existing labor laws. The guest worker program is clearly a hand-out to corporate interests. This is an issue on which xenophobic right wingers need to work with leftists to just get the gov't to enforce existing law. Take away the jobs & the undocumented (fraudulently documented) workforce will be forced to return home. When the undocumented labor is gone, wages will either rise or companies will go under; likely some combination of both. Of course, prices will then also rise, resulting in inflation, job loss and more imports. Eventually the value of the US dollar will fall far enough that shipping costs of foreign goods will make domestic manufacture more appealing. Likewise existing products will be cheaper for export. In short, all sorts of exciting things will happen. But it starts with enforcing existing laws.

MikeB - globalization is inevitable, the end of the U.S. or any other country is not. Not everything is Win-Lose. There are Win-Win situations, even in economics.

What we have to do is learn what works to our advantage and what does not. The despicable Mr. Gates did that, brought personal computer operating systems to the world and is doing nicely "maintaining" and periodically upgrading those systems. 25 years ago that multi-billion dollar idea was unheardof.

Don't miss opportunity because you are so wrapped-up in decrying the current condition.

You don't even have to be a visionary, few of us are. All you have to do is be flexible, and not hidebound in your view of the world.

frankies - not only did Perot withdraw temporarily when he was leading in the polls, he made some bizarre claims about Bush I operatives trying to sabotage his daughter's wedding.

Bush I and Clinton were each much closer to the center than the candidates we are likely to see in 2008. The rallying issue for Perot in 1992 was the deficit - neither Bush I nor Clinton was seriously addressing it. The late Paul Tsongas challenged Clinton in the primaries on the deficit issue.

anonymous coward writes
"We set off down the road to globalization a long time ago. You're just shoveling sand against the tide.

What do you have against the people in other countries working hard to attain the same Standard of Living which we have?"

Agreed. Protectionism is not the path to future success. Rather than postponing change & suffering more shock when the inevitable happens, why not embrace a global free market now & use our inherent assets to continue to succeed?

If they were working to obtain that, I have no problem with it. But, our corporations are shipping jobs and technology to those countries, they are bringing in millions fo guest workers to displace American workers, those companies use that cheap labor to bargain wage and health care and other benefits from American workers. In the present version of the "global economy" Amercian companies use the workforce of entire world to compete with the American workforce in a rigged game that leaves American workers impoverished and without a job or a future. A skilled carpenter that made $25 an hou in 2000,, now is an illegal Mexican immigrant making $8 an hour. An American engineer, making $60,000 a year has been replaced by an Indian immigrant making $30 to $40,000 a year. And it goes on and on. We either end this globalization nonsense or it will end us. If globalization is inevitable, then so is the end of the United States.

MikeB - We set off down the road to globalization a long time ago. You're just shoveling sand against the tide.

What do you have against the people in other countries working hard to attain the same Standard of Living which we have?

Right now, more than any time in the history of this country, we need a complete slate of third party candidates. The Democratic Party, *my* party, has caved to corporate interests in denying ciizens the right to purchase and import discount drugs, an outrageous form of protectionism for the pharmaceutical companies. They have given in the President Bush with regards to Iraq and funding that awful war. They are stepping all over each other in their haste to legalize the 12 or 20 million illegal immigrant's in this country, all of whom will suddenly appear in the above ground economy and compete with already pressed Amercian workers for jobs. Business will use this to wring even more wage and benefit concessions from American's at a time when nearly half of those workers do npot have medical insurance, no retirement benefits, and are crushed under local taxes used to educate, provide health care and other social services for those illegals. The Deomocrats will do nothing about outsourcing or guest worker programs like the H1B, even though bpth threaten the very existence of this country and have decimated our technological superiority.Instead of publically whipping him, they hobnob with swine like Bill Gates and similar hi tech executives who come to Washington looking for more guest worker visas that they use to replace Amercian workers.

We all know that the Republican Party are a collection of corrupt hacks in the pocket of corporate interests. We need to ask ourselves if we are better off with Democrats equally in the pocket of the same corporations and with public employees and their unions to boot. Right now it appears that the Democras will mindlessly nominate either Clinton or Obama, either one a complete and total disaster. As for the Republican's, who cares. Other than Hagel, they are all a collection of thieves and scounderals that are worshipping at the twin slop troughs provided by the Fundimentalist and big business. If a viable, centrist third party candidate ran, they could be elected this time. Either that, or they would so shake up the two main parties that they would be forced to take stances that are in line with how ordinary American's think and will do what we want.

I have no idea if Bloombery is a Free Traitor or not. We need to find someone who is completely opposed to this globalization nonsense. Couple this with common sense platforms for a national HMO empowered to get the lowest costs from vendors and providers, someone who opposed our insane involvement in the Middle East, someone with actual vision to impliment the best ideas for eneergy conservation without regard to corporate interests (like ADM and corn-alcohol...what a joke that is), someone who opposes torture of prisoners and locking people up without trial and insane gun control laws, someone who actually believes in thew whole Bill Of Rights. That candidate WOULD win the Presidency....

Bloomberg could indeed be the new Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt, 1912, when his Bull Moose Party run for the White House threw the election to Woodrow Wilson.

If Bloomberg is a spoiler at best; who would he be a spoiler for? If it's mostly just NY, CT and NJ in play for him (and I believe it would be), I think he draws more votes from Rudy than HRC....barely, and only because they were both mayors.

Still, Blooberg p*sssed off a bunch of conservatives with his tax raising, tobacco banning ways. Whenever I drive through NJ (which is a lot), the local conservative radio generally hammers the guy.

For all the talk the last couple of days about a 3rd-party candidacy, especially when Perot is mentioned, we first need to ask ourselves a basic question:

Is the voting population as angry and fed-up as they were in 1992?

If the answer is Yes; then a 3rd-party candiate has a chance (to at least be a king-maker).

If the answer is No, then their chances are problematical, at best.

Plus there's always the qualifier that even if there isn't a groundswell of discontent, the right circumstance could allow an election wrecker like Nader to cause havoc again.

anonymous coward writes
"here's the difference -- hillary doesn't wrap herself in the flag and contantly and calulatingly, apitalized on it, use the deaths of 3000 americans as a cheap self promotion. well, maybe not cheap --after all, he's made billions off it."

So, you agree, when it comes to policy, they're two sides of the same coin. In order to win election, Giuliani is wrapping himself in the flag, while Hillary chooses other methods. I don't disagree with that.

I am surprised at you Chris. That unnamed post with the Barack slam violates all the rules of the posts site.

It was mean. It is completely inaccurate. Mr. Obama is an Illinois resident and must be US by birth.

The RNC Smear Machine has gone into high gear slamming the recent Democratic congressional seat gains from 2006 in traditionally Republican districts.

There is this reinforcement of Rush Racism Rants about Mr. Obama here.

Chris you should pull that comment.

'The snark is in suggesting that Giuliani & Clinton are so similar. While its somewhat true, I expect Clinton & Giuliani supporters to deny any such similarities as being superficial, at best. They live in denial.'

here's the difference -- hillary doesn't wrap herself in the flag and contantly and calulatingly, apitalized on it, use the deaths of 3000 americans as a cheap self promotion. well, maybe not cheap --after all, he's made billions off it.

To the Rev. Dr Gould -

sorry, my sarcasm was not appropriately flagged

mea culpa

it is just as dumb to say that bloomberg is the new roosevelt as that obama is evil b/c of his name. (which roosevelt anyway?)

mark in austin asks
"bsimon - How can it be snarky to suggest that "perhaps" Bloomberg fits the criterion of "better than" Clinton and Giuliani?"

The snark is in suggesting that Giuliani & Clinton are so similar. While its somewhat true, I expect Clinton & Giuliani supporters to deny any such similarities as being superficial, at best. They live in denial.

hey Chris your case against Bloomberg really doesn't hurt him all that much, he gets around everything by making 1 simple switch. Bloomberg for VP, Hagel for President. Hagel is conservative and gets that base, plus he's anti-war and gets admiriers among that crowd as well. with Bloomberg's money and Hagel's positons and experience, thats a ticket that should worry the parties. Even Unity08 could ride that one on the argument that Bloomberg is a Republican in name only, he's actually a Democrat that ran as a republican to avoid a primary.

zach, in re: "Blue dog Dems are socially conservative, they would never vote for Bloomberg" - oh really? he's an intelligent man who has been a good mayor of new york, but because he is opposed to legislating morality, he's unacceptable?

is it really more important for you to have a president who feels free to tell folks what they can and cannot do in private, and with whom, than someone who has had consistent success with business and personnel even before beginning what most agree has been a successful tenure as mayor of nyc?

because that was what you were shooting for with the current president. can you tell me with a straight face that he has managed even one aspect of his presidency with minimal competence?

Andy R, as a matter of fact, I AM from Massachusetts. Don't get me wrong, it's home and I have no plans to leave, but it ain't New York. And Virginia had Jamestown, and has Williamsburg, but it is nowhere near being the cultural and financial center that New York is today.

Anonymous (Zouk? or another dimwitted hater?), Obama is quite possibly the most intelligent candidate, with the most relevant life experience, that we have had in my lifetime. Certainly the class of the current group. If he is not elected, it will be - unfortunately - primarily because of racism. Three cheers for the inclusive US of A.

The best Bloomberg could do would be a spoiler. The centerpiece of Bloomberg's campaign would be competence. No one votes for the best bureaucrat.

Btw, Blue dog Dems are socially conservative, they would never vote for Bloomberg.

Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance outside of the verrry small niche of Northeast GOP moderates. 'Nuff said.
http://www.political-buzz.com/

bsimon - How can it be snarky to suggest that "perhaps" Bloomberg fits the criterion of "better than" Clinton and Giuliani? The "perhaps" is operative: we really do not know him, outside of NYC.

But if you are suggesting that a third centrist would run well against two candidates who might be considered closer to the center than the wings, I do not agree with you. I think, in that case, Perot's early '92 polling of 30% is the ceiling - most voters viewed Clinton and Bush as closer to the center than the wings.

I am not saying a centrist 3rd candidate needs Kucinich v. Tancredo, but that WOULD help. Seriously, I think Romney v. Edwards, or even Romney v. Obama, would help Bloomberg compared to Richardson or Biden, or Clinton or Dodd against McCain or Giuliani [or F. Thompson].

"Bloomberg" means flower mountain
"Roosevelt" means rose field
"Barack Hussein Obama" means evil Arab

Obama is an evil Arab and Bloomberg is the new Roosevelt.

Mark in Austin notes
"But we will not know how attractive a social moderate and fiscal conservative could be to blue dog Dems, Main Street Reps, and centrists of all stripes until we know just how abandoned we will have been by the two parties after the primaries."

How much diversity of candidate is there - really - if there's an all New York race? If its Clinton v. Giuiliani, where do the differences lie? Pro abortion, pro war in Iraq, pro gun control, pro 'fiscal responsibility'. Throw Bloomberg in there & what's the new variable? Maybe he'll be the candidate that's less pro war in Iraq.

Yes, I'm being snarky. But, at the same time, I find the Clinton-Giuliani parallels to be interesting; as I've posted before, they aren't all that different, to my way of thinking. We can do better than both of them. Perhaps Bloomberg fits that criteria.

Third party ticker who could win.

Bill Bradley and Colin Powell in any combination.

I don't understand the comment about Bloomberg buying the presidency simply because he's a billionaire. Considering that each major party candidate is likely to spend over half a billion dollars trying to win the candicacy, and that all the credible candidates for the major parties are already millionaires, anyone who wins the presidency will have "bought" it.

Enjoying lunch over my laptop, I must add to frankies' protest and say that I am still really unhappy with the state of party politics - to the point that I tend to assume the worst about any R or D in the Senate who votes her/his party line according to the WaPo Senate vote tracking.

During, say, a Richardson v. McCain race, independents might well not be interested a third, centrist candidate. In fact, the third candidate attack might come from
the social conservative right and/or the populist left in that case. But we will not know how attractive a social moderate and fiscal conservative could be to blue dog Dems, Main Street Reps, and centrists of all stripes until we know just how abandoned we will have been by the two parties after the primaries.

And we will have to get to know Mr. Bloomberg between now and then, if he is to step in only after viewing the landscape in the Spring of '08. Making himself known while NOT running is a heavy task, I think.

What's he big fuss... Bloomberg is doing exactly what the framers intended.

Any noble sole with a Billion or so to burn and an ego to match can buy the presidency.

King George (not the one in the White House)has to somewhere in eternity smiling over this turn of events.

You're not taking into account the fact that Perot screwed himself by withdrawing in 1992 only to rejoin the race later. Voters never took him quite as seriously after that... Without a MAJOR catastrophe like that, who knows how well he could have done.

Rev, you obviously are not from Massachussetts or Virginia.
Don't you know that American History starts and ends in Boston and Williamsburg. And you call yourself a Doctor.

Yes, 3 New Yorkers would turn me off a little, as is true of much of the country, especially the Deep South and possibly the Midwest - although Hillary isn't really a New Yorker, having moved there to run for Senate. However, I think it should be said that the reason for the preponderance of Gothamites in the race has as much if not more to do with the fact that New York has traditionally been a national center of culture, business, and politics for almost the entire span of American history than with elitism or manipulation of the media or any other factor.

I agree with your points here. Plan and simple he can't win. New Yorkers think that Manhattan is the center of the universe, but sorry folks the rest of the country disagrees. Bloomberg as the secretary of the treasury, sure. Or even as a VP nominee but not as the president.

Also I wanted to point out that this line "Would that candidate be a successful businessman whose only experience in elected office is as the mayor of New York City? It seems unlikely."
Can be applied to another candidate in the race as well. If it is a knock on Bloomberg why not Rudy too.