Mike Bloomberg for President: A Winning Strategy for Fiscal Conservatives in 2008
By Andrew MacRae Posted in 2008 — Comments (79) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With a title like "Mike Bloomberg for President: A Winning Conservative Strategy for Fiscal Conservatives in 2008", I know I am going to get hammered. All I ask is that you read the post, think about it, and blast me later.
Fund-Raising. I hate to break it to you, but in terms of donations, the Republican party is getting trounced by the Democratic party. You can argue that it's because: McCain-Feingold, Progressive Netroots efforts or the Republican party is loosing its conservative brand (due to spending like a drunken sailor, adoption of ill-working social programs and/or nation building).
Now consider, the Republican party will be defending 23 Senate seats in 2008. 6 of these without an incumbent. If the Democratic party achieves another landslide like 2006, they will control a super-majority in both houses and you will all be calling Hillary Clinton Madam President.
In business, we consider situations like these and devise a strategy for cutting our losses. It is clear to me that the Republican party cannot defend the Presidency, 23 Senate Seats and 435 House seats at the same time.
When Mike Bloomberg declares his Presidential intentions (as we hope he does at http://www.uniteformike.com), he will do so with substantive amounts of money. In a Presidential race where people are estimating expenditures between 2 and 4 billion, the most intelligent and fiscally conservative strategy would be for Republicans to their pool donations for the Congressional races, and let Mike Bloomberg knock the Democratic candidate for President out of the race.
For my own part, I want to see the economy of America strong, and I don't see anyone else with close to the same resume. With Mike Bloomberg, you get someone who is a self-made billionaire. Someone who understands the budget as well as the global economy, and by that I mean a real fiscal conservative who will not waste money your money.
All right, let now let me have it.
that is helping Chinese investment firms buy US defense contractors, and is running a sanctuary mansion?
that mitt romney?
...why Mike Bloomberg is better than Mitt Romney. I mean this, seriously.
1) Regardless of how socially conservative Mitt Romney is saying he is now, he used to be as socially liberal as they come. Mitt will say just about anything to get elected (look into what he used to say when he was running against Ted Kennedy). My point in saying this, is that Romney is snake in grass. In contrast, what I like about Mike Bloomberg is that while he make take a stand on an issue that most people don't agree with, he sticks too them, so long as they achieve the positive result he was looking for.
2) Regardless of how fiscally conservative Mitt Romney is saying he is now, he did raise fees in Massachusetts (or Taxachusetts) and Massachusetts was already one of the highest taxed states in the nation. Most of America would not be comfortable being taxed at those levels. Also, most Americans did not inherit his kind of wealth.
Mike Bloomberg on the other hand is a self-made billionaire, his parents made very very modest incomes. He understands money, especially how to take the long-view.
3) Waffling American politics are so damned short-sided right now. I think we can trust Romney to waffle with the polls, whereas Bloomberg is just going to go for it.
please do respond
1. Mitt Romney is a reformed social liberal who is now socially conservative, which you think is bad. Mike Bloomberg, however, is a loud and proud social liberal just like Hillary Clinton. In fact, he might even be officially in favor of gay marriage, which would put him to the left of Hillary.
2. Mitt Romney raised user fees that were small potatoes compared to Mike Bloomberg's tax hikes and increase of regulatory burdens in NYC.
3. Michael Bloomberg has never had to take a serious stand on much of anything, so he has the luxury of being able to change his mind without it being a matter of public record.
Michael Bloomberg is a radical left-wing liberal on almost every issue. He's in favor of some privatization of social security and some financial market liberalization (I believe.) That does not a fiscal conservative make.
1) "Mitt is a reformed social conservative"? You've got to be kidding me. If you can't spot a person who'll say anything to get election - than you are past reform!
2) Seeing as how Mike Bloomberg took charge of the NY economy in 2002 with a 4 billion deficit after 9-11, I think he's done a great job. Now that he has a 3 billion dollar surplus, he's made some interesting tax breaks.
3) You're just ill-informed on this one. I'll try to do more to write about his specific policies like: taking on the teachers union to reform education in NYC, achieving a lower violent crime rate that Giuliani, 311, and PlanNYc.
1) Mitt has governed as a social conservative. Bloomberg has governed as a radical left wing liberal.
2) A $3 billion surplus = too many taxes and tax hikes
3) I'm not ill-informed. Michael Bloomberg has previously taken no public policy posisitions important in re: the office of the presidency.
Bloomberg did go on record stating his opposition to a ban on partial-birth infanticide.
He has never had an epiphany or reformation that wasn't in his electoral interest.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
getting props on a conservative site. This guy is the biggest piece of crap next to Arnold in CA.....smaller government...not more government interference in my life...thank you very much!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Maybe Loch Ness can be Veep.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
waiting for the Ron Paul-Dennis Kucinich-flying saucer ticket yourself, eh? "staunch-libertarian" - how do you vote?
He didn't become a billionare by investing in lost causes and an independent bid for the White House is about as foolish as digging to China with your hands.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
You need to call Big Foot by his real name: Sasquatch.
Michael Bloomberg hikes taxes and increases the burden of regulation on private enterprises and individuals. Mike thinks he knows best and is willing to use the power of government to force everyone else to see things his way.
I'm all for Mike Bloomberg running in a race with Hillary and Mitt, mind you, because I think that Mikey has enough money and is far enough to the left of Hillary on foreign policy that Hillary would be decimated by a billionaire Bloomberg run.
It'd be like Al Gore and Ralph Nader in 2000 if Ralph Nader were a competent politician with billions of dollars at his disposal - which would have made that squeaker of an election into a cakewalk for Dubya.
Bloomberg would be a safe harbor for many who don't like Hillary Clinton but would vote for her if given the option of her vs. any Republican.
Run Mike Run!!!
Mike Bloomberg will choose a more capable VP than Nader and Perot did, I'll give you that. If he chose Obama, that'd be particularly tittilating.
Bloomberg/Obama would DECIMATE Clinton/Richardson and allow the band of core Republicans in moderately blue states like Maine, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and perhaps even Illinois to deliver their states that would otherwise have gone to Hillary.
The margins for the Romney ticket in otherwise close states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Missouri would turn into cakewalks for Mitt Romney.
RUN MIKE RUN!!! :-)
when compared to Bloomberg. Bloomy would be a huge disaster. He probably would get in if Huck gets the nod but would stay out against a McCain or Rudy. And I hope this is true for Fred but I doubt it. Bloomberg the gun grabber is a non starter.
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Doc
Except for a few things:
1) Goldwater was not a social conservative, matter of fact in his later years Goldwater positively disliked the Potentates of the Moral Majority.
2) Goldwater was well versed on what was going on in the world.
3) Goldwater did not want to impose morality on people using the power of the government.
4) Goldwater could and did curse like a sailor when an idiot like Pastor HuckaFraud came along.
Other than that, yea sure.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
to spell it out. I was making a comparison unfavorable to Bloomy. I was saying Huck was more libertarian than the ultra statist gun grabber Bloomy. Do you get it now?
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Who, btw, would be a Hell of a lot better than Bloomberg.
No thanks. I'll pass.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
he never has been, and he never will be one. Bloomberg is not a conservative -- he is a taxand spend Liberal, with a capital L. If you support Bloomberg, YOU are not a Republican and you are certainly NOT Conservative.
There is only one thing that would make you less of a republican Voting huckabee
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
I would go for the Huckster over bloomy. One likes guns, they other is a huge hoplophobe.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Huck-leberry is in his "prime." :)
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Sorry. I couldn't resist. One of my all time favorite movies.
__________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
just stand there and bleed?
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
But only marginally.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
At least all the other guys were Republicans in 1994. Give me a break.
in your nine days.
And I use the word "contributed" advisedly. A much better word, of course, would be SHILL.
Just out of curiosity, what did they say at DKos when you posted your "Bloomberg for President" diary?
In all honesty the conservative crowd is much more pleased at the idea of Bloomberg running, than the progressive crowd.
KOSaks scream at each other for uttering one negative word about another democrat. They can't stand the idea of a non-democrat getting elected to anything. To me, that sort of rhetoric and belief in a party is crazy. I'm not a partisan person, so much as an issue person.
Like I said, I care about the economy. I vote on spending issues, and I believe thrift is a virtue. I'm not talking about Ron Paul fiscal conservatism though. I'm saying that if you tax me $1.00, I want to see less than 10% go to administration cost. I do not believe that any other candidate can do this like Mike Bloomberg can.
While many people here disagree with me on the true nature of being conservative (their priority is social issues) - generally, I have found the tone a little more civil.
Regards
You get back what you offer here.
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Tax hikes never helped the economy. Bloomberg is a tax hiker.
... seem to be dangerously close to violating Erick's rules: A Note To Our Readers
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Steve
Then the signature blocks that are links to a campaign fund raising activity, how are you on those?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
...I have no opinion either way. I do think signature blocks linking to campaign fund raising are far less disruptive to the blog as a whole than in-the-pocket-campaign-posts. I also think seniority and credibility of the poster by the community has to taken under advisement as well.
Bottom line RS bandwidth = RS rules!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Steve
That's a mostly fair approach, but I would like to see some policing on the sig blocks only in the sense that they "appear" to be a RS endorsement. We all know that RS editorial board (such as it is) has resisted making an endorsement, well except for banning "He who must not be named" from being pimped.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
... of rocking the the contact form with your suggestion, although I disagree... I beleive the signature blocks are clearly the opinion and affiliation of the particular poster and not of the site as a whole!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Guns don't kill people, abortions kill people.
Run Mike Run...
See Mike Run
See Hillary get elected
See Democrats get a voting majority in both houses
See single issue voters drive the Republican bus right over the cliff
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
he will steal Republican votes, particularly if Huckabee gets the nod.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
...Bloomberg will do nothing but steal voters who would otherwise vote for Hillary.
Between Vietcong Paul and Nurse Bloomberg we could see 5% of the Ds defect.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
No-one has answered my question. How does the Republican Party fund the 2008 election? The base is shattered, and there is not enough money to defend the senate, the house and come close to winning the presidency...
then you're kidding yourself.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
its "Alice -- Through the Looking Glass"
It's not the normal sort. He's not asking about ideology, but instead about political machinery. So maybe it's a Republicans in the Misting in progress.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I wasn't here for the last one, but I've talked to people here in Fort Collins that say it was absolutely nuts here. Gridlock so complete they were turning people around on the highways coming into town.
The 'fiscal conservatives,' as in the real ones and not the fakes who just want to raise taxes and call it conservatism, tend *not* to favor government expansion and mass slaughter of babies, you see.
In the Congress, the coefficient of correlation between NRLC rating and NTU rating is 0.82. A pro-abortion guy claiming to be a conservative fellow-traveller on taxation and spending is thus going to have a hard time finding a base, sorry.
And fiscal conservatism is just as much about balancing the budget and lowering spending as it is lowering taxes. Mike turned a $6 billion deficit into a $3 billion deficit by raising property taxes and forcing city agencies to be more efficient.
He supports free trade and is against protectionism.
Disclosure:Draft Bloomberg member
I maintain conservatives talked balanced budget when we did, because we were trying to use that concept to sell spending cuts. And when it didn't work, and in fact was just used to return fire to fight for tax hikes, we stopped.
But Bloomberg, being in a position where he had to balance the budget because he's not in Washington, failed the test by your own admission. He raised taxes.
In fact, tax hikes are the only responsible thing to do when you ratchet up spending the way Clinton and Bush have done. In my opinion, fiscal conservatism is about limiting spending and then cutting taxes. It is completely irresponsible to raise spending and then cut taxes (in most cases). Of course, in times of war or national emergency or to "prime the pump" during an economic downturn, it is ok to run deficits.
I've made the case in other posts (and I'll eventually get around to writing a blog post) that the GOP is now using tax cuts the way Dems use spending increases. It's all about giving stuff away in return for votes and power. Now, you can argue that letting people keep their money is not a give-away, but when you increase spending at the same time, it has the same effect - something for nothing.
I want to see our party and our candidates focus on drastically reducing Federal spending before calling for any more major tax cuts. I think we can do this without raising taxes in the short and medium term. However, if we continue to increase spending, you cannot keep taxes low in the long term. It's basic ecomomics and simple math.
It's giving away my kid's and grandkid's money so that I can get government largesse and not pay for it.
Nobody, I mean nobody, is getting stuck with the debt. As long as we can make the payments, we can keep it around forever.
In fact, it won't even be bad for the economy as long as we can make the payments comfortably, as we can. US government debt being an ultra-reliable investment invites foreign investment like nothing else can. It sets a baseline for the value of the dollar.
So why would you want to take that stability away from the children?
at a time when the dollar is tanking against all other major currencies. I can't even make fun of my Canadian friends anymore now that the Loony is worth about the same as a US dollar.
The dollar was stratospheric in the 90s. This is more of a correction than anything, bringing things back to Earth.
But does that mean that, economically, you would support someone who increased both taxes and spending, and had a balanced budget, over someone who would decrease taxes and increase spending, causing a deficit?
My support for low taxes is grounded in my support for limited government. We can't, in my opinion, have one without the other.
"When Mike Bloomberg declares his Presidential intentions ... he will do so with substantive amounts of money. In a Presidential race where people are estimating expenditures between 2 and 4 billion, the most intelligent and fiscally conservative strategy would be [to let Mike Bloomberg pay for his own presidential race]... With Mike Bloomberg, you get someone who is a self-made billionaire. Someone who understands the budget as well as the global economy, and by that I mean a real fiscal conservative who will not waste money your money."
When I was 12 I actually had to listen to someone say "Ross Perot has enough money he could pay off our national debt". Now as factually innaccurate as that statement was, the really asinine part is the assumption that someone would give up their personal fortune for the sake of the presidency/country whatever. We aren't talking George Washingtons here.
And say he is a guy who has made billions for every organization he led top doesn't necessarily mean he won't try to make billions for the govt.
Ron Paul spammers were banned from this site for filling it up with (largely) outrageous comments that usually included the words "come on people" in caps. This guy is pretty much doing the same, except that he is promoting a candidate who doesn't even call himself a Republican. The banning of the fly-by Paul spammers was definitely a good thing, but can somebody tell me why the same standard doesn't apply to Mr. MacRae?
And caught a comment of yours over there on this very post!
Andrew MacRae Says
Indeed, part of me gets satisfaction out of telling them that the Republicans are going to get swept away in 2008. I can just imagine the panic when they read the “Madam President” line.
For whatever reason though, RedState is at least willing to engage the argument. Perhaps I’ll try my luck with blogs that focus on fiscal conservatism and blue dog democrats, any suggestions?
I'm glad you find us willing to engage. I'm not so glad you get personal satisfaction out of saying we'll lose.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
Wayne Root is the frontrunner for the Libertarian Party nomination. He's the "Millionaire Republican." Why would any Republican want to vote for Bloomberg with Root in the race? Root is 10 times more fiscally conservative.
But we won't have to vote 3rd party. Cause the GOP will nominate a good Fiscal Con like Rudy, Fred or Mitt.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
...He actually would hurt the Democratic candidate more in the general. Bloomberg will play well in the NY, NJ, CA, MI areas.....and would bleed votes from Dems. Bloomberg would not play well in the south and midwest, and would not take Republican votes there.
So, I am ALL for Mike to get in.....as it will be the Dem's version of Ross Perot me thinks.
I would just like to comment on many of your statements that Mike Bloomberg would "bleed" votes from the Democrat and thus give the Republican a better chance. I think what you are forgetting is that he, you have to admit, would have a good chance to do better than just "bleed" votes.
In '92, Perot got 19% of the vote (taken equally from Bush and Clinton, contrary to conventional wisdom), and before he pulled out polls showed him in the lead. Is it not possible that if this message resonates with the American people, Bloomberg has a chance to do at least as well as Perot? Consider also that he has more money to spend.
From what I see, Bloomberg is a social liberal, fiscal moderate. You can debate this all you want, but the fact is he would be running as much on a message of general principles such as pragmatic, non-partisan, common sense, accountable government as on his specific views on the issues. This fact would be reinforced if he chose someone such as Hagel, who is pro-choice, as his VP.
Something that has not been mentioned is foreign policy, and this is an area where Bloomberg is not a typical liberal. From Wikipedia: "Initially, Bloomberg strongly supported the war in Iraq and the rationale for going in. He stated, "Don't forget that the war started not very many blocks from here" alluding to Ground Zero. In regard to the global War on Terrorism including Iraq he said, "It's not only to protect Americans. It's America's responsibility to protect people around the world who want to be free." His enthusiasm seems to have lessened somewhat over the course of the war. In August of 2005 he said, "I think everybody has very mixed emotions about the war that was started to find weapons of mass destruction and then they were not found." [45] Bloomberg expresses criticism about Democrats in Congress who want to set a timetable for withdraw from Iraq calling them, "irresponsible." [46]"
Are there some among you for whom Iraq is an important issue, the Bush administration's mismanagement bothers you, but not as much as the Democrats defeatism and exploitation of an unpopular war for political purposes when it is clearly not in our best interests to withdraw until some sort of peace is achieved? Bloomberg offers a middle ground, when none of the
Some conservative credentials:
- He is in favor of providing tax breaks to big corporations for the good of the whole community. As mayor, Bloomberg lobbied to the CEO of Goldman Sachs to establish their headquarters across from Ground zero by promising $1.65 billion in tax breaks.
- Bloomberg is a staunch advocate of free trade and is strongly opposed to protectionism, stating, "The things that we have to worry about is this protectionist movement that has reared its head again in this country...." He worries about the growth of China and fears the lessening gap between the United States and other countries: "The rest of the world is catching up, and, there are people that say, surpassing us. I hope they are wrong. I hope those who think we are still in good shape are right. But nevertheless, the time to address these issues is right now." [40]
- He is tough on crime and supports strict drug laws.
- Supports the PATRIOT Act (ugh).
The last thing I would like to bring up is the Electoral College. If Bloomberg does well but doesn't get over high 30s percent of the vote, it is likely that no one would win a majority of the Electoral College. In that case, there is a vote by state in the House (each state gets one vote, that vote being determined by the majority of that state's delegation voting). To prevent this from happening, two things could be done: either Bloomberg could pledge his electoral votes to the other candidate he favors (maybe Obama or McCain, otherwise he'd probably do nothing and hope that after enough ballots in the House the Representatives would gravitate towards him); or, given that it is unlikely that they would be unable to achieve a majority vote in the House, the Republicans could pledge their electoral votes to Bloomberg in order to prevent the Democrat from being elected, so taking the lesser of two evils. Would you support such an action? Also, there is the potential that Bloomberg could give his electoral votes to the Republican (or Democrat) in exchange for cabinet seat(s) or policy promises. How about that?
I hope you at least consider him.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
http://mikebloomberg.com
Full Disclosure: I am a Draft Bloomberg member
Mike Bloombergs only chance is if the Republicans nominate a bad candidate. (not going to say who). Then there is a chance that some republicans will look for an alternative. Right now, I think thats unlikely.
I have seen very little interest around the blogosphere for Bloomberg, who is just another party-switcher for political convenience kind of guy. I'm a New Yorker. There is absolutely nothing about him that I find appealing.
Here is my take— It is rare that you find a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue. But at the end of the day, the President is the executive manager of the world's most powerful enterprise, the US government. I believe most voter's underestimate the value of competence and management experience. What is most important to me is, do they have the competence and the experience to manage such an enterprise? Will they keep the economy strong? Will they make sound judgement in a crisis? Will they hire competent people, or just give valuable positions to unqualified individuals because they either have party connects or "owe" someone because of a campaign contribution?
This makes Bloomberg the right man at the right time. His money buys him independence of a sort no other candidate can claim.
He's very pragmatic. He doesn't look at decisions from an ideological point of view. Sure he raised taxes, with a post 9-11 deficit of $4B, what choice did he have? He cut cost in the city budget everywhere that the law allowed. What most people don't realize is that much of New York City's budget are fixed cost items that a mayor doesn't have the power to cut. He even did things as unpopular as shuting down some redundant fire-houses. See how popular that budget cut was after 9-11. He made tough choices. After all other avenues were exhausted, to close the remaining gap, he raised taxes. It was a move of last resort. He was still very willing to use tax breaks to lure companies to New York, or companies back to New York that left in the aftermath of 9-11. He made touch decisions, and he made the right ones. Do you realize that the budget gap for New York City that he had to close during his first year in office was larger than the entire state budget for Arkansas? Someone needs to point that out to Huckabee supporters.
Bloomberg knows how to manage money, and how to run a multi-billion dollar enterprise. He is competent, and has world class executive management experience. More so than any joker running for either of the major parties.
The reality is, in our competitive society, the most talented among us do not often pursue positions in government, they pursue fortune in the private sector. To get the best of what is available to us, I wish to see a seasoned executive manager from the private sector in the White House.
This is what I see in Michael Bloomberg.
When the economy is strong. When everyone has a job. People tend to be less concerned about the differences among us. When the economy is bad, and people are unemployed, everyone looks for someone to point the finger at, and politicians look for divisive wedge issues to distract their constituents from the real problems at hand.
The fact is, presidents rarely get to implement even a fraction of the so-called promises and policy positions they campaign on. A president's term in office is most largely shaped by events of the day. And a president's successes and failures in dealing with crisis that emerge define most president's term in office more so that any specific piece of legislation that gets passed on their clock.
What we need now is competence.
In order to balance the ticket, Bloomberg needs a veep with solid conservative credentials. Hagel is a very good choice for a running mate. He is the name most bandied about. He is level headed with integrity. I'm betting on it that the key to a 3rd party win is going to be endorsements involving some very high profile defections from both parties.
As a Bloomberg supporter, I have a website called Run Mike Run. The focus of the site is speculation about potential endorsements, and cataloging comments by individuals of note concerning a possible presidential run by Mike Bloomberg. It has remarks from politicians from both parties, business leaders and others. There are also videos of Bloomberg being interviewed and speaking about issues. I hope it may be of interest to some other readers here.
Best regards,
Chris
...when we already have Mitt Romney?