Tuesday’s political round-up

May 15, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The far-right Washington Times quotes inside sources today to report that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is “prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign.” A long-time business adviser to Bloomberg said, “He has set aside $1 billion to go for it. The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it.” Bloomberg has also reportedly been meeting with Ross Perot’s senior advisors from the 1992 campaign.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has not only endorsed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) against her Democratic challenger, but he will also co-host a DC fundraiser for her in June with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

* Remember the family farmers snubbed by the Giuliani campaign because they weren’t wealthy enough? The candidate seems to have ironed things out — Giuliani personally flew out to Iowa to make amends. It paid off: “His campaign sent out a release announcing that Deborah VonSprecken will chair his effort in the county where the VonSprecken’s have their family farm. Or, as the release went: ‘After spending nearly two hours visiting with Mr. and Mrs. VonSprecken, Deborah expressed her interest in supporting Mayor Giuliani and leading his efforts in Jones County.'”

* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) became only the second Democratic presidential candidate hit the New Hampshire airwaves this week with a new ad emphasizing his opposition to the war in Iraq. “Half measures won’t stop this President from continuing our involvement in Iraq’s civil war. That’s why I’m fighting for the only responsible measure in Congress that would take away the President’s blank check and set a timetable to bring our troops home,” he tells voters, asking why his Dem rivals haven’t endorsed his plan.

* And tonight is the second Republican presidential debate, this time in South Carolina. The event begins at 9 pm (eastern), will be aired on Fox News, and Brit Hume is the moderator. The debate, despite some rumors to the contrary last week, will feature all 10 candidates who appeared at the first debate.

LIEberman, LIEberman, LIEberman, you spineless backstabber. What can the dems do about this? Can they vote him out of the democratic caucus? Strip him of his committee chairs?

  • Lieberman is an independant, and it makes sense for him to back the current status quo. He’s the one (since he does still caucus with the Dems) that gives the Dems the majority status in the Senate. Without him, it’s 51-50 (with the Big-Time Dick as the 51st vote).
    But if the Dems pick up 1 or 2 seats, his influence is nil. So, of course he wants Collins to retain her seat.
    Grit your teeth, hold your nose, but accept that he’s still mosty (and where it counts) with the Dems.
    And work for those other seats in ’08.

  • For the Republican debate, gentlemen, for the love of Pete…PLEASE remind us of how great Ronald Reagan was.

    That just can’t be emphasized enough and I’m just not getting it from you guys.

    Didn’t you LIKE the gipper? Say it loud, proud, and often. The base is listening.

  • Ahh, Darth Pole-Cat—formerly known as the Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman—your transformation to the Bu$hylvanian side of the aisle is all but complete; all that’s left is to cross over to the ReThugs while you still possess the awesome powers of the Gavel-Force. Once Collins is defeated, however, you will find out for yourself just how much they value your pitiful hide. You’ll make a nice throw-rug for “Emperor Dick….”

  • Bloomberg is a sensible, sane and effective politician who just happens to be somewhat to the right of me. He is not a devisive looney-tune like Perot. I believe that he truly wants to serve (rather than enrich his buddies) and that he cares about America and the people ahead of his own ego. I would be hard pressed to choose between him and Hillary.

    Do Republicans or Independents really have a better opinion of Lieberman than we do? I have to believe that even GWB & Karl see him as a slimeball.

  • Wahoo–in what sense do you think Bloomberg is “to the right of you”? Mostly just curious.

    If anyone’s interested, I wrote up some thoughts about a Bloomberg-vs.-Hillary race at my blog, linked through my name. Suffice it to say I know who I’d be supporting. Bloomberg offers some of the same hidden advantages Wesley Clark could have provided: both are “stealth progressives” who’d be well insulated against Republican attacks (and Big Dumb Media echoes of same) because of their biographies. It’s tough to accuse a four-star general or a billionaire businessman of bleeding-heartery, even though both guys are great managers and committed social liberals.

    In a Bloomberg/Hillary race–assuming the Republicans nominate any of their current group of losers who’d only hold onto Bush’s 30 percent of fascist-leaning idiots–Bloomberg could run to her left on social issues while presenting himself as an Obama-like reprieve from the zero-sum partisan crap-throwing of the past 20 years.

    He’s also one hell of a manager who believes in the power of government to advance the public good. And I bet he’d be much less inclined to throw our military balls around the world to prove this or that point, or service this or that economic interest, than any Democrat who’s viable–let alone any of the whores and war fetishists on the other side.

    So, what’s not to like?

  • Does anyone else remember the Bloomberg who threw protesters near the Republican convention into jail? A friend of mine watched the police take everyone on the block in front of her apartment into custody, even folks coming out of the shops. They were held incommunicado for three days. The city is being sued successfully for this exercise of the “power of governement to advance the public good.”

    Bloomberg could not pay me enough to vote for him.

  • Wow, I can’t help but think of a Presidential election that would include Romney/Bloomberg/Obama.

    A Mormon/a Jew/an African-American Christian w/an Islamic sounding name.

    What would the RW evangelicals do??? Quite an interesting thought exercise.

  • Jessica #9, that’s a troubling issue for me too–but I’d be as inclined to blame the cops as the mayor. Still, it’s a black mark on his record; he could have done more to ensure that wouldn’t have happened, or to get those people out of jail more quickly.

    But does that one bad act, plus a few calls in favor of big developers for questionable projects here in the city, balance against Hillary’s war cheerleading? Her scuttling of a welfare reauthorization a few years ago–by taking a position to the right of many Republicans–that would have been far better than the disgrace DeLay rammed through last February? Her triangulating and general complicity in (not to say enthusiasm for–you don’t hire Terry McAuliffe to run your campaign by accident) the polarized, money-driven politics of these last 20 years?

  • Actually I’m trying hard to think of a Presidential election that would include 3 NYers. Take that, you “real Americans” in “the Heartland”.

  • Grit your teeth, hold your nose, but accept that he’s still mostly (and where it counts) with the Dems. And work for those other seats in ‘08″.

    …Or you can all stew and look to shoot yourselves in the foot like you did last year by running the Great Ned Lamont against him!

    You folks have to realize that a good majority of voters (moderates and independents) would like to see more friendships, allegiances and work across the aisles these days — hence such miserable polling data re: Congress. That is why the idea of Bloomberg running a successful campaign is so intoxicating.

    And, CB, You were off the Lieberman thing for a while… Now 3 references in just one day! Wow.

  • ah, another breath of stale air from jrs jr……….how does he keep coming up with this stuff?

  • Lieberman delivers what the Dems want most (Senate leadership and committee chairs) while delivering what the Bushies want most (freedom from scrutiny by Sen Gov Affairs) and still has time to make Likud happy by supporting GWBs effort to kill as many Arabs as possible without carpet bombings or nukes.

    The man’s a freaking genius!

  • JRS Jr, I understand your continual Lamont bit, but I just don’t think it holds up to analysis.

    Most of us here cheered for Lamont. And when he won in the primary, the progressives made a point. You seem to be saying that was short-sighted, that running Lamont did long-term harm to our interests. That really doesn’t withstand scrutiny. (We can even set aside for a moment having principles and taking moral stands, which may progressives would say are worth it even if it means some losses. I’m more pragmatic than that.)

    First, Lieberman does caucus with the Dems, so we got to organize the chamber. We lost nothing there.

    So your point must be that somehow he is acting different as committee chair, or as a Senator in general, than he would have if we hadn’t backed Lamont. But I think you have the cart and horse in the wrong order: we backed Lamont precisely because Lieberman was already acting like this. He was already providing cover for Bush on numerous issues (most particularly Iraq, obviously), before Lamont ever ran.

    So again, he isn’t doing anything different because we backed Lamont.

    So how exactly did we shoot ourselves in the foot? I know its a nice sound bite for you, and at a glance it even sounds sensible, but on closer inspection I really am not seeing it.

  • “So your point must be that somehow he is acting different as committee chair, or as a Senator in general, than he would have if we hadn’t backed Lamont.”

    Yes, I believe he is acting more independently than he would have and is marching further out of step with the Dem caucus line.

    • Comments are closed.