Might Bloomberg switch parties (again)?

May 26, 2006

Usually I don’t cover mayoral issues very closely, but because New York Mayor [tag]Michael Bloomberg[/tag] (R) is something of a national figure, I think it’s interesting that he seems to be straying further and further from his [tag]Republican[/tag] Party.

Mayor [tag]Bloomberg[/tag] lashed out against [tag]conservatives[/tag] yesterday for ignoring science and common sense on issues like stem-cell research, global warming and even evolution.

Making his latest foray into national issues, the mayor blamed ideologues for trying to drag the nation back decades by disputing scientifically proven facts.

“Today we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don’t happen to agree with their agendas,” he told medical graduates of his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University.

Bloomberg also denounced intelligent design creationism, the conservatives’ handling of the Terri Schiavo incident, and said those who deny the seriousness of global warming are “driven by ideology and short-term economics.”

This comes the same week Bloomberg announced that he would not attend the GOP’s state convention next week.

Bloomberg was a life-long Dem before he ran for mayor in 2001, but he has recently expressed liberal opinions on immigration, abortion rights, gun control, gay marriage, stem-cell research, and the death penalty. There’s also been some speculation that Bloomberg will endorse Eliot Spitzer and/or Hillary Clinton this year. Might he switch back to the Dems? It seems like a distinct possibility.

During a Fox News interview this week, Bloomberg was asked how his support for legalizing virtually all illegal immigrants conflicts with his party affiliation. He replied, “Which [tag]party[/tag]?”

Bloomberg’s not seeking re-election, so this isn’t necessarily about job security. Maybe he’s just sick of the [tag]GOP[/tag]. If so, he’s certainly not the only one.

“During a Fox News interview this week, Bloomberg was asked how his support for legalizing virtually all illegal immigrants conflicts with his party affiliation. He replied, “Which party?”” – CB

That could just mean Bush’s party or Tancredo’s party. They are definately starting to look different.

Immigration passed the Senate, by the way. I haven’t read up on what’s in the bill, but the conference committee should be interesting, if they can actually get it to meet.

  • Sounds like a case of “you can take the boy out of the Democrats, but you can’t take the Democrat out of the boy.”

    Poor Bloomfield, he has this problem of being able to add 2+2 and get 4 on consecutive attempts. In other words, far too smart for the Republicans.

    But welcome back, Mike! Come home, we miss you. Being good true Christians who understand the real meaning of the bible, we understand the story of the errant son.

  • But welcome back, Mike!

    Yes Mike, welcome back! By the way, you wouldn’t consider giving back the TAX CUT you got during your excellent adventure with the Republicans, would you?

  • Nice Biblical allusion Tom.

    But I prefer not to let the Republicanites drum out the left wing of their party. It might only be Swarznegger, Giuliani, Bloomberg and Chafee; but let the Republicanites defeat them in primaries and show their intolerance.

  • Between his excellent (and highly non-ideological) work here in NYC, the spinelessness the Dems showed today on the Kavanaugh vote–disgusting!–and the ongoing cluelessness and political tone-deafness of Democrats on issues from abortion to national security… I hope Bloomy’s next switch is to Independent, and that he uses that platform, and his megabucks, to rock national politics with a presidential bid.

    He’d damn sure have my vote, and this from someone who actively campaigned against him in 2001.

  • dander writes: “Yes Mike, welcome back! By the way, you wouldn’t consider giving back the TAX CUT you got during your excellent adventure with the Republicans, would you?”

    Actually, dander, I’m pretty sure he would. Bloomberg ran as a Republican for expediency reasons, not because he believes in any of their platform or agenda. He’s an independent, very, very successful guy who has liberal beliefs as noted by others. He’d done a good job inheriting our wounded city a few months after 9-11. He literally gives millions to charity every year. He’s a good man.

  • I thought the only reason why Bloomberg ran as a Republican in 2001 was because the primary was easier. He’s never been a real Republican has he? But having said that, I don’t think the Democrats should take political opportunists like him back. How can a party say it stands for something if their office holders only belong to their party when it’s convenient for them.

  • I don’t think Bloomberg identifies strongly with either party because he’s generally pro-business and socially progressive. That’s why it’s easy for him to feel comfortable with both and attached to neither. As an aside, I wonder how many of us here still feel truly attached to the Democratic party, considering that they have become a party that stands for nothing and just goes along with this administration with a few little outbursts here and there. I no longer identify myself as Democrat–in polls I say I’m independent–but I might go back if Democrats ever stand for progressive ideals again.

    • Comments are closed.