What a Bloomberg/Unity agenda might look like

January 10, 2008

According to several news outlets, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has launched a “research effort” to determine whether he’d be a viable third-party presidential candidate in November. The mayor has reportedly been eyeing “early March as a timetable for making a decision.”

All of this, of course, comes just a few days after Bloomberg gathered with a group of bipartisan former officials in Oklahoma, where they apparently talked about how nice it would be if everyone in Washington was nicer to one another.

Bloomberg’s perspective at the event, in particular, seemed unusually foolish: “Government is dysfunctional. There is no collaboration and congeniality. There is no working together and ‘Let’s do what’s right for the country.'” This is pretty tiresome. Democrats have an agenda; Republicans have a different one. Both want to do what’s right for the country — but they disagree about how to do that.

Do Bloomberg and his cohorts have anything specific in mind? Sort of. Former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn read a statement issued by the group — it said the nation is “headed in the wrong direction” — with a lengthy list of areas of concern. I won’t bother with the whole list, but the highlights include:

* The United States is now unpopular around the world and our credibility is low;

* We’re not leading on counter-terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and climate change;

* The deficit is out of control and the middle-class is struggling;

* Our military is “stretched thin”;

* We lack a coherent energy policy;

* Our schools aren’t good enough;

* Nearly 50 million Americans are without health insurance;

* We’ve neglected infrastructure needs.

I think I’m noticing a pattern here.

All of these concerns are identical to those of most Democrats. Listen to any of the Democratic presidential candidates and you’ll hear largely the same things. All of these problems were created (or exacerbated) by Republican incompetence and/or neglect, and all of them have been met with Democratic policy proposals that have faced GOP obstructionism.

It gets to why the Bloomberg initiative is simply inane. Dems and Bloomberg see the same problems. Dems believe the way to address those problems is to implement a progressive policy agenda, while Bloomberg believes we need more “congeniality.”

It’s as if we can just split the difference and fix the problems. That may occasionally be sufficient, but not with any of the challenges Bloomberg’s group identified. What’s the split-the-difference solution to global warming? Or Iraq? Or taxes? Or healthcare?

All we get from this silly endeavor are process arguments. They say we need:

* Clear descriptions of how they would establish a government of national unity

* specific strategies for reducing polarization and reaching bipartisan consensus

* plans to go beyond tokenism to appoint a truly bipartisan cabinet with critical posts held by the most qualified people available regardless of political affiliation

* proposals for bipartisan executive and legislative policy groups in critical areas such as national security.

These guys don’t want to offer policy solutions; they want to offer suggestions on how to talk about policy solutions. They don’t care what people say at the negotiating table; they care what the table looks like.

Yglesias added:

To really tackle climate change, for example, what you need is not “a truly bipartisan cabinet” but rather elected officials who put the national interest over the interests of oil and gas companies. Most of the problem actors here are Republicans, but some are Democrats like Mary Landrieux. Back when he was a right-wing Democratic Senator, David Boren worked slavishly to advance the interests of polluting energy firms. Now he wants us to have more bipartisanship? It’s absurd.

On all of these issues, the problem isn’t that people disagree about how to accomplish these things. The problem is that many politicians don’t want to do this stuff.

If Bloomberg and his friends want to change this, they don’t need a platitudinous campaign from Bloomberg; they need to vote for candidates who have realistic and effective solutions to the issues they’re worried about. These candidates even have a name: they’re called “Democrats.”

Update: When I referred to “Bloomberg/Unity” in the headline, I wasn’t being literal, but it turns out to be right anyway — Unity08 is collapsing into some kind of odd Draft Bloomberg effort. How very silly.

My main argument for Bloomberg has been that he’s a Democrat in substance but not bound by either the negatives Republicans have hung on the Democratic brand, or the policy constraints of having to keep the support of all the interest groups. The independent fortune helps too; imagine a presidential candidate with no need to spend all that time raising money–and no obligation to service his donors.

But Obama pretty much puts those concerns to the side; I’d rather just have him.

  • The problem that the Democrats have is that a huge majority of the country wants the main points of the Democrats agenda.

    The problem is that a significant portion of the people don’t want the looney left agenda that goes with it.

    The way Bloomberg would win, and the way he governs in New York, is by basically acting like a liberal Democrat BUT, and this is the cirtical BUT, he isn’t tied to the left wing so he doesn’t have to toe the line.

    Listening to Air America where they dump all over Hillary Clinton for not being liberal enough and allow so many crazy ideas to be accepted without any debate. Think of Bloomberg as a main stream Democrat without the looney left.

  • I think he should get a little more credit CB. Yes, I agree that the dems have held these positions for decades, but after 30 + years of villification by the conservatives, people just don’t take the dems serious anymore.

    That and the fact that their inability to change the course in Iraq, hold Bu$h and his minions accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors, even though they were swept into Congress last year to do just that, does nothing but re-enforce peoples’ dismissive attitude toward them.

    Maybe it will take someone outside the beltway, with more perceived credibility to start a meaningful discourse on these topics. At least Bloomberg is trying.

  • Where have Senator Sam and his fellow Nunn-entities been for the past seven years? I’m not interested in bipartisanship or inter-party congeniality. I want strong-minded partisans who will vigorously right the wrongs inflicted on us since January 20, 2001. Accomplishing this may take at least a generation or more, but it has to begin now. We don’t need congeniality, we need dedicated determination.

  • Bloomberg’s failure to launch looks a whole lot like Uncle Fred’s botched attempt to become the Republican president. Bloomberg had buzz when the first rumors came around, now everyone’s wishing he’d just shut up and go away.

    What’s needed to fulfill the Unity agenda is not peace and cooperation with Republicans — we just need to get Republicans out of government so it can work once again.

  • Yes, we must work with the people who mucked it all up because they did so well in the past. The little bit of their serious meeting that I could watch made me sick. Are the Dems on that panel really so naive that they don’t see that only the republican party needs to be more bi-partisan. Dems have bent over backwards and the repubs still vote against them.

    Is Bloomberg a closet Neo-con? The best he can hope for is to split the independent vote away from, say, Obama and get McCain elected. I don’t see his participation as doing anything except giving a republican a chance, rather than the no-chance like they have now.

  • Yes, I agree that the dems have held these positions for decades, but after 30 + years of villification by the conservatives, people just don’t take the dems serious anymore. -citizen_pain

    I would counter that, given the recent record breaking primary/caucus turnouts that several years of Republican mismanagement have initiated a re-alignment and people are taking the Democrats very seriously now.

    I certainly don’t understand why people, like neil wilson, think the Democrats are beholden to the ‘looney left.’

    Which of the leading Democratic candidates is beholden to the radical left?

    Think of Bloomberg as a main stream Democrat without the looney left. -neil wilson

    Seems more like a traditional, power hungry rich guy, to me. If he really cared about what his emerging Party espouses, he’d support the Party who already embraced that platform.

    But then it wouldn’t be all about him, would it?

  • Indeed, Bloomberg would do more to accomplish his stated goals by putting his vast wealth into a 527 that does two things: supports progressives and, likely more important, calls the Republicans out publicly in various media on every action they take to obstruct, delay, decry, or demonize progressive initiatives on the issues Bloomberg claims to care about.

    Moreover, I believe there is a strong argument that a Bloomberg (or other third/bi/non/”post” partisan candidate) will actually result in more, not less, gridlock and contentiousness.

    Bloomberg and his cohorts seem to think the solution is simply to have a President with no natural enemies. But it is a little hard to govern with no natural allies. Ask Jimmy Carter, whose own party wouldn’t work with him because he insisted on doing it in an outsider’s way. Ask Jesse Ventura, who often struggled with the fact that both parties had a vested interest in seeing him fail.

    A bi/non/third/post partisan President won’t automatically be supported by both parties controlling Congress — much more likely he (or she) will automatically be opposed by both parties controlling Congress (or, even more likely, just ignored and marginalized as they go on fighting each other.)

    Might a Bloomberg-esque third party be a good idea? Sure. But there are two problems. One is timing: the real underlying problem is that the Republicans, including alleged moderates,with aiding and abetting from Blue Dog Democrats, went way too far to the right. At this point in time, however, there is a ready solution: every Democratic presidential candidate is a better choice than any Republican candidate – as is often noted here after debates, it is like watching pros compared to little league. The solution — electing one of the Democrats – is actually hindered by third party candidacies, since absent Bloomberg odds are very strong that the Dem wins.

    Second is that the egomaniacs like Bloomberg, Perot, Ventura, Boren, Nunn, etc. always want to be visible leaders in this movement at the highest levels and no one wants to do the real work, the invisible party building. You dont create a real, lasting, “good government” solution by simply having a billionaire buy the White House once. You form a credible, third governing alternative by electing quality third/non/post party to the most local, smallest turnout offices and working your way up the ballot so that when the day comes you have a third/non/post party President, you also have a handful (or more) of similarly situated people in the House and Senate to help out.

    Not unlike Marxism or Libertarianism, this Bloomberg-Boren type model has some attraction in theory, on paper, but it falls apart in real-world practice. It is just not practical: modern politics takes massive organizational efforts. This non-partisan approach Bloomberg-Boren offer – who will do the organizing? And if it is an ongoing, structured effort of like minded people over time, isn’t that a *gasp!* political party? Who would end up in the scrum like the others? Contrary to what Bloomberg-Boren’s stated intent is?

    This wears me out. There is an easier, better way: Vote Democratic.

  • Both want to do what’s right for the country — but they disagree about how to do that.

    Trying to summarize simply often leaves you walking on air. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that any candidate “wants to do what’s right for the country.” If that were so, then how to explain adults abandoning positions taken as adults? And always perfectly tacking with the political winds.

    They all have their Romney moments. It is not credible, for instance, that absolutely all candidates for all time forevermore believe in a god, or believe that slavish adherence to the human agents for the almighty is a good idea. A cursory examination of the records of industrialized nations would demonstrate that those most god-laden trail in major areas relating to what is considered “morality,” and the US trails all, and the Southern states lag in the US. If god is good, he sure ain’t a very good leader.

    Rephrase: “All candidates want what’s right for first-person singular.”

  • any dem for president.

    michael bloomberg for miss congeniality.

    how’s that for bipartisanship?

  • “All of these are problems were created (or exacerbated) by Republican incompetence and/or neglect,..”

    CB, you forgot to mention Republican malfeasance.

    John Edwards has the right approach to this issue. He says that you can’t negotiate with these bastards (I’m paraphrasing), you have to fight them every step of the way.

    But all this just foreplay for a Bloomberg candidacy for president as an independent. Bloomberg must believe that there are enough voters sick of both parties to propel him to the White House. But I think he’s wrong.

  • neil summarized the position of many Republicans when he used the term “looney left agenda” in post #2.

    Much to the chagrin of the “conservatives”, they know that the “loony left” has been right about almost everything, and the people who called these smart people “loonies” were wrong about almost everything. Calling smart people “loonies” makes them feel better I guess, but electing stupid “conservatives” hasn’t worked out too good for any of us, except the powerful interests who sponsor the people who spew the crap about the “loony left”.

    They’ve made out like bandits, because “conservative” voters are SO freaking stupid that they think gay marriage is more important than 2 trillion dollar wars.

    You’ve been played, neil. It’s time to admit it. As has been pointed out, no viable Democrat is pushing the “agenda” of the “loony left” and even if they were, nothing the “loony left” advocates is as bad for you as the “conservatives” who oppose the “loony left” year after year. The “conservatives” are killing you, and you’re still parroting their BS.

    Wake the fuck UP.

  • hey Neil Wilson… I’ll take the Democrats with the loony left any day over the Republicans with their loony right.

    At least the loony left might be living in a fantasy world, and have trouble being pragmatic, but they would never destroy the constitution, or go to war because of a grudge,

    I don’t like the loony left tree huggers but I’d prefer them over the ‘clear sky’s initiative’ pushed by the loony right.

    I don’t like the loony left ‘every person deserves a second chance – even repeat offenders like pedophiles and rapists’ or ‘even convicted murderers are entitled to as many appeals as they feel they need’ but I rather have a discussion with them than deal with the loony right who think that ‘building more prisons is the solution to crime’ and ‘incarcerating every drug offender for years’ is going to make them addiction free’

    the list is endless, on topics from abortion, equal rights, gay rights, flag burning, environment, etc…. the loony left may be wrong on a lot of topics, but they I would rather live in their world than the world created by the loony right.

  • A Bloomberg run seems unlikely to me, but, if it comes, it spells certain disaster for the Republican Party and its Presidential candidate.

    Bloomberg is Perot, not Nader, and Bloomberg’s candidacy would be a refuge for Republicans and pro-business conservatives reluctant to vote Democratic.

    I say, go Bloom!

  • Somewhere David Broder is reading over the Unity Ticket “platform” and pleasuring himself …

    More seriously — this whole thing is clinically stupid. It has nothing to do with Bloomberg being free of influence from some sort of interest group (either left or right). The guy’s got plenty of personal and financial friends who would most assuredly have some sort of impact. It also has nothing to do with someone who just disagrees with a few stances of a particular party — I have yet to meet anyone who is 100% happy with everything their party does.

    It’s about someone who wants what the Democrats want, who apparently agrees with them on pretty much everything, but who lacks the testicular fortitude to run as a Democrat.

    It’s sad that the right has so vilified the left — 99% of the time without any merit whatsoever — and the media has been so willing to help them do it, that this guy won’t stand up and fight for what he believes, and do it as what he is: a Democrat.

    We’d all be better served if Bloomberg stopped stroking his ego and just picked one of the Democrats to endorse (or at least support). He’d still get everything he wants done, even if everyone wasn’t singing Kumbaya while doing so.

  • The left is looney and Hillary is the devil incarnate. Repeat it often enough and it seeps into everyone’s thoughts.

  • I don’t like the loony left ‘every person deserves a second chance – even repeat offenders like pedophiles and rapists’

    Neither does the “loony left” … which is why not a single credible Democrat has ever advocated such a thing.

    I see what you’re getting at, but you do realize nearly everything you posted about the left were nothing more than rightwing caricatures of the left, don’t you?

  • CB wrote:

    I think I’m noticing a pattern here. All of these concerns are identical to those of most Democrats . . . It gets to why the Bloomberg initiative is simply inane.

    Ha ha. Bloomberg is like he caddish Playboy who, after the big score, facing a bunch of pillow-talk about the significance of what happened- “I’m looking for someone who’s blah blah blah; I’m looking for someone who’s going to do blah blah blah with me”- puts his arm arounds her, and says, “Sure, sure, baby, I’m going to do all that” saying the nice guy’s lines, saying everything she wants to hear, to keep her without complaints for a little longer.

    Bloomberg isn’t for real, nor is any Republican who tries to get votes by “going left”– on the national level, at least (think “compassionate conservativism,” and Bush of the ’00 campaign trail, which was all more smoke-and-mirrors to the discerning observer, even then). He may be a capable guy but that makes no difference if what he wants is to lie to us about what he’s going to be. Democrats who say they want to vote for him are hurting, not helping us.

  • It’s a country that just can’t get out of its own way. The pundits, like Bloomberg, all recognize the problems, which CB has listed in this post. They all recognize that we need change to solve them, and that the mood of the country is for change, that we can’t continue in the same old rut. So far, so good.

    And then it comes down to the solution, and identification of the cause of these massive, seemingly intractable problems and crises. And here we go again. They simply won’t admit it. The Republicans are the problem, and the Democrats are the solution. No. They say its partisanship, and debate whether McCain or Obama is best suited to bring about the change we need. It’s ridiculous. And the public can’t see it either. And so it looks like it’s just as likely that McCain will be the next president as Obama. It makes you want to scream. How can everybody be so obtuse and stubborn about the obvious? McCain, or any of the Republicans means more of the same. Any of the Democrats will get us out of this rut and on our way. How can they not see this?

    If the pundits, who are all rich and comfortable and enjoying the Bush tax cuts, are really happy with the way things are, why are they suddenly all on the “change” bandwagon? It doesn’t make sense. Why bring it up, then?

  • Bloomberg isn’t for real, nor is any Republican who tries to get votes by “going left”– on the national level, at least (think “compassionate conservativism,” and Bush of the ‘00 campaign trail, which was all more smoke-and-mirrors to the discerning observer, even then). He may be a capable guy but that makes no difference if what he wants is to lie to us about what he’s going to be.

    If you’re comparing Bloomberg to Bush… well, you couldn’t be much further off the mark, and I’m guessing you know nothing about what Bloomberg believes and what he’s done in NYC. On the issues, he is:

    –pro-gay marriage (further to the left than any major Democratic candidate)
    –pro-choice
    –a strong believer in public schools (he took them over–pissing off institutional Democrats in the process, but a Republican would have just pushed them to fail in order to advance vouchers)
    –willing to raise taxes when circumstances call for it (it was the first thing he did, in the face of the $6 billion Giuliani budget shortfall)
    –for a strongly activist public sector: in addition to the campaigns against smoking, trans-fats and noise pollution, the guy launched and has backed to the hilt the most high-profile and best-financed anti-poverty initiative at the city level in American history, the Center for Economic Opportunity

    There’s also the not-inconsiderable difference that, while Bush was given everything in life and managed to botch it, “failing upward” for decades until the Supreme Court put him in the maximum position to do harm, Bloomberg built a business empire on his smarts and energy–and after buying his way into politics (no doubt about that), did a good enough job that he won 60 percent in his re-election bid as a Republican in a city that’s 5-to-1 Democrat… and not exactly Blue Dogs.

    As I said, I support Obama because I think he minimizes those institutional Democratic disadvantages, because inspiration is a quantifiable political commodity (and nobody would compare Bloomberg to RFK or MLK), and because I think he’s less prone to executive power abuses than Bloomberg. But I respect the hell out of this guy, and comparing him to Bush is absurd and offensive.

  • The bottom line here is that all the candidates suck. The only two candidates that have the gumption to at least TRY and do what is right are Edwards and Kucinich. However, due to their anti-corporate message, they have been marginalized by the press (working for the corporations of course), obviously they aren’t getting the corporate donations, and to a lesser extent are being marginalized in the blogosphere as well. Just look at any ‘progressive’ website out there; they are perpetuating the myth that this is between Obama and Hillary.

    Face it people, Hillary is republican Lite – think NAFTA, Telecom deregulation. Two big doozies championed by Bill that have contributed tremendously to the situation our country faces now.

    Obama: talks a progressive, populist game, but still just as beholden to corporate interests as Hillary. I’m sorry, i just can’t take the guy seriously; he lost me when he spoke about health care reform, but has accepted more donations from Big pharma than any other candidate.

    The Republican field? Well, if you live in the 19th century, then I guess they’d be appealing.

    Our system is broken, people no longer have the power, and this ‘election’ is just a bunch of bells and whistles to distract us from being raped in the ass with a flaming cactus.

  • I don’t see how unity will happen until the hard line goopers consider thinking about their constitutes. With the Boo hoo Boners and the others who think Cheney is too far to the left, nothing is going to get done.

    What needs to happen is the both branches need all new people (except for those who are not being blackmailed or whatever is making them do what they are doing – Feingold and Webb, and yes, Obama, seem to be some of the very few that actually have a conscience and vote for their people. Ever since Watergate, I think those in government have drooled over the whole eavesdropping thing and those in power have had ways to get what they wanted. The retroactive telecom thing is going on for a reason and if we think it’s just us they are spying on, I have a nice bridge in AK (doesn’t go anywhere but it’s gonna be damned nice!) to sell ya.

    There is no other reason the dems are acting as they are. Sorry, they fear for their jobs and their reputations. We’ve already seen how Cheney deals with people who get in his way, e.g., Valerie Plame, and she wasn’t ever in the average American’s eyes.

    Until term limits or a large majority of the people who are supposed to represent us are replaced with people who actually have a conscience, no matter if it’s Bloomberg, Obama or anyone else who wants to play nice, playing nice ain’t gonna happen.

    You do have to give kudos to Clinton (even that slimy lizard Gingrich did), she could get stuff done. Not all of what she wanted, but she knows how to play the game of getting things accomplished. Which is more than we can say about most of the people who are supposed to be doing shit for this country.

  • Bruno:

    I’m a yellow dog democrat. At this point, there is zero on the Republican side that makes sense.

    But Mayor Mike was a liberal Democrat and still is a liberal Democrat.

    I hope he doesn’t run because he will pull 90% of his votes from the Democrat.

    So, I am still trying to figure out what I said that was part of the Republican agenda.

    Hillary is being attacked for being not liberal enough. Obama is being attacked for not being liberal enough. I fear that if either of them goes to much further to the left that they might not win the election.

  • neil wilson,

    The problem is that a significant portion of the people don’t want the looney left agenda that goes with it.

    What is this “looney left agenda”? Can you point to any sources that spell it out?

  • Edo, thanks for asking that. I didn’t quite get that either.

    I suppose to some the looney left is trying to get 47 million people healthcare, fixing our roads and other infrastructure, and, of course, a woman’s right to choose.

    If I am missing something I’d sure like to know because I am hard left and don’t think I am looney at all. 🙂 (Of course, I am sure there are those whom might argue that point. 🙂 )

  • I really try not to pay attention to the looney left agenda but

    I don’t think we need to close down Wal-Mart
    I don’t think we should raise the tax rates on the rich to 75% or more
    I don’t think that we should legalize all drugs
    I don’t think people like Al Sharpton should be able to get away with destroying innocent lives without saying he is sorry
    I don’t think we all need to ride a bicycle to work
    I don’t think that all pestisides are bad

    I think that I would be happy to have someone like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter as President. I wouldn’t be happy with Al Sharpton as President

  • Why is Sam Nunn doing this? He should be endorsing Obama for picking up his signature issue of nuclear proliferation…

    Is he jealous that Obama is Dick Lugar’s new buddy on the issue?

  • Neil,

    I don’t think we need to close down Wal-Mart
    Who wants to close down WalMart?? How about they pay their fair share of taxes to the states they do business in? I might not shop there because I don’t appreciate the child labor practices or that they import everything, but that’s my decision. What democrat said that?

    I don’t think we should raise the tax rates on the rich to 75% or more
    Where did you get 75%? That’s a laughable number. Do you HONESTLY believe anyone would say such an absurd thing??

    I don’t think that we should legalize all drugs
    That’s a libertarian platform thing. What dems have you heard say that? And, btw, I think if alcohol can be legal, so should marijuana. But that’s just my take on it.

    I don’t think people like Al Sharpton should be able to get away with destroying innocent lives without saying he is sorry
    And Bush and Cheney should be allowed to out Valerie Plame, arrest and torture at will and all the other wonderful things they have inflicted upon our society and the world? Have you heard anything more than the rare “mistakes have been made” or anything that might rectify those mistakes? Sharpton is a jerk, granted, but I am not a black person and they are treated differently in our society. It’s a matter of fact and I suppose they need SOMEONE speaking out for them. Whether I would want it to be Sharpton, well, I wouldn’t…but I don’t ever have to worry about being arrested for simply being black. I can’t address this further.

    I don’t think we all need to ride a bicycle to work
    Please. Get real here. There’s a great chism between where we are and where we could be. Show me any mainstream person who said we should all be riding bicycles?

    I don’t think that all pestisides are bad
    I don’t think ALL are but I sure wouldn’t mind our regulatory agencies doing their job to actually determine what is horrifically bad for us and what isn’t.

    Who said these things and when? I’d like to see who you are referencing when you say these are typical left principles. I am sorry, but this is highly suspect to me. Links? Names? Something to support what you said?? ANYTHING to support it?

  • “Face it people, Hillary is republican Lite – think NAFTA, Telecom deregulation. Two big doozies championed by Bill that have contributed tremendously to the situation our country faces now. – Citizen

    Huh ?? What situation and how does NAFTA and Telecom deregulation play into that. If you can somehow manage to do that, please explain what that has to do with Hillary.

    Are we to put every piece of Bill Clinton legislation at Hillary Clinton’s feet, and then call her ‘republican Lite’. that doesn’t even make sense. Is she and R-lite or a D in your book ??

    I loved Bill and Hillary is no Bill. If she were, she would have the nomination and presidency wrapped up. Hands Down.

  • Scott, I think if Hillary hadn’t been vilified from day one, she might just have that. She is a strong woman who stood on her own as a top notch attorney, but because she didn’t bake cookies (remember that?) and be like Jackie O, she was beyond vilified from the days when Bill Clinton first ran for president. I am getting tired of how people treat her so differently and it’s because she is a strong, smart woman. The more the media, et al, turns on her because she is a woman, the more I WANT to vote for her JUST BECAUSE OF THAT.

    While she may not have his ability to connect with people, I also think that people don’t give her a fair shake. I do know the people of NY voted for her twice and everyone I know in NY (my ex inlaws, for example) liked her quite alot…not at first but they said she went to NY and learned about what was important to the citizenry and did well for them.

    BTW, I am not a Hillary supporter but I certainly think we could do worse (ANY gooper candidate comes to mind).

  • Everyone picked on me for saying that the looney left agenda is looney.

    So I picked out a bunch of things I think are crazy.

    However, just read the posts on this thread.

    People pick on Clinton and Obama for not being liberal enough.

    I don’t want a far left candidate to lose to a far right candidate.

    I don’t agree with any of the candidates on anything but I feel very comfortable voting for any of them over any Republican.

  • neil wilson said: “Everyone picked on me for saying that the looney left agenda is looney.
    So I picked out a bunch of things I think are crazy.”

    The trick is Neil that the agenda items actually have to be real.
    You know, like Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the Rich, which raised revenue and still allowed economic growth. Unlike BGII’s tax cut for the Rich, which reduced revenue which has not been recovered despite such growth as we have had. What was Bill’s tax rate? 35% or 36%?

    Don’t cry about being picked on if you are going to make up stuff like that.

  • What’s the split-the-difference solution to global warming? Or Iraq? Or taxes? Or healthcare? — CB

    Well, the healthcare one is easy, once you remember the origins of the word “decimate” and proceed accordingly. Line them all up, then shoot one, insure the next, shoot one, etc. At the end of the day, you have 23.5 mil insured and none lacking insurance. On the other problems… Sorry, can’t help you.

  • I have always thought the real hate for Hillary from the R’s was because Bill was forced to cheat on his wife with the likes of Monica at three in the morning in a hallway. If Hillary had been more like Jackie, none of that business would have happened.

    I think nearly all politicians have done some form of cheating and the old boys club will never take full responsibility. I suspect most have contempt for their wives for not getting down on the ground and worshiping their manhood every time they snap their fingers.

    But they can not go out and say stupid things like they can with immigrants or homosexuals or political opponets because that would really mess up their game on the home front and in turn their political careers. So they keep it inside and it spews out over unsuspecting women, be it the stewardess, secretary, coworker (BillO), or the political pundit (Tweety), or any women out their competing. They never ever go after the Bettie Crocker types, why would they, that is where they belong in their minds.

    Anyways my point is that is where this vicious hatred comes from for Hillary. They hate Bill too, but they don’t go after him the same way. They don’t bring him to tears with the viciousness of it all and what I really hate about, it’s truly the only thing bipartisan in Washington.

  • doubtful, at this point… What is the ‘looney left’ that neil @ #2 is talking about?

    What are these ‘insane ideas’ which are taken for granted?

    Things like privacy, equality, prosperity?

    I will admit, fighting through the sludge that is the conservative lines that many have swallowed hook line and sinker is hard… But I don’t see any third-party coming in with enough substance to bother with. Substance and money. Bloomberg just has money.

  • So I picked out a bunch of things I think are crazy.

    Actually, you picked a bunch of rightwing fantasies about what Democrats actually want or propose, rather than actual policy proposals from any actual Democrats.

    The reason some folks think Clinton and Obama aren’t far enough left:

    HRC — Her Iraq vote; her acceptance of ridiculous amounts of corporate campaign cash; a health care proposal that’s way too favorable for insurance co.s and big pharma.

    Obama — The money he’s received from big pharma; his belief that Soc. Sec. is in some kind of crisis; not super-supportive of gay rights.

    That’s just a partial list. And, unlike yours, is based in actual fact and policy proposals.

    Your concern that if either of them tacked to the left on those issues, that they’d have a hard time winning the general election is just flat wrong — while polls were proven not as accurate as some think this past week, all of them show a majority of Americans to the left of HRC and Obama on almost all of those issues.

    Of course, in your eyes, that makes most of America part of the “loony left.”

  • Early March?! Ha! I’ve already announced my intent to continue my presidential exploratory committee until mid-April, and have secret plans to continue it deep into August or possibly September. If this guy thinks he can sweep in and win this as Mr. Johnny Come Lately, he’s got another think coming. I’ve got the best campaign teaser operation that’s ever worked in politics, easily besting even the lazy Fred Thompson, who long since chickened out and had to actually announce his intent to run for president.

    Hell, I might just keep this going indefinitely. After all, nothing keeps people interested better than a little mystery and as long as I keep my campaign in the speculation phase, I never actually have to say what I’m going to do as president; which is good, as I really haven’t given it much thought. So we’ll just see how well Bloomberg does once he finally takes the dive and announces his intent to run. I can guarantee you that my presidential speculation bubble will still be going strong long after the bloom has vanished from Bloomberg’s campaign. I am INVINCIBLE!

    On a separate note: This platform is clear proof that these people really want to be Democrats, but refuse to associate with them due to the severe tarnishing Republicans have done to the Dem label. Perhaps if we changed the name to Remocrats or even Demo-Crats, we can lure them back.

  • I think the problem that Neil Wilson is having is that he’s been led astray due to the same attacks on Democrats that the Beltway pundits have fallen for; the idea that Republicans attacks on Democrats are legitimate. The truth is that Republicans will attack anyone who advocates this stuff and it doesn’t matter what they call themslves.

    As for the “loony left” who he thinks tarnishes Democrats, I don’t at all disagree that there are such people. But you’re going to find kooks everywhere and you can’t necessarily attack Democrats just becuase some kooks associate with them. The question is how much influence the kooks have on Democrats. But are there any mainstream Democrats who are advocating these things? Of course not. Republican presidential candidates are compelled to deny evolution and reverse themselves on issues like immigration, gun control, and abortion because of kooky Republicans, but you just don’t see that on the Democratic side. They don’t even pay lip service to closing Walmart or raising taxes to 75%. While some liberals might advocate that, the Democratic Party is not beholden to them.

    But in any case, I can guarantee that if Bloomberg somehow gets the presidency and tried to fix any of these things in a fashion that didn’t please Republicans, he’ll become a “liberal kook” too. For Republicans, a “kook” is anyone who doesn’t do exactly what they say. Sorry to say, but Republicans are playing you like a sucker.

  • Mark D @ 42 –

    I think you are right about where the public is (concerns about polls aside), but I have some sympathy with the candidates and those concerned with regard to using that assumption for a basis for moving to the left on those issues. Polls have long suggested that the public is to the left of D.C. policies on many issues, yet time after time the candidate further to right wins, whether it is the Presidential election, control of Congress, etc. Maybe the R’s run better campaigns, maybe people tell pollsters one thing and do another in a voting booth, maybe one rightward issue trumps all of the leftward ones for large numbers of folks – who knows? But it is hard to blame the candidates for being leery of a populous that describes itself as progressive on individual issues but then votes for Dubya (twice), follows a Gingrich-led revolution in determining control of Congress, throws out Cleland for Saxby etc etc etc.

  • I have always thought the real hate for Hillary from the R’s was because Bill was forced to cheat on his wife with the likes of Monica at three in the morning in a hallway. If Hillary had been more like Jackie, none of that business would have happened.

    WHAT? You have got to be joking. He was “forced” to do something? It is HER fault because he did that? GET FUCKING REAL.

    FYI, JFK was fucking around on Jackie O so there’s absolutely no sense in your comment other than a complete misogynistic view of women in general. I bet you think rape victims were asking for it.

    Asshole!

  • “Dems believe the way to address those problems is to implement a progressive policy agenda”

    Oh? And which Dems might that be? The ones who voted for Bush’s tax cuts, who rubber stamped the Patriot Act, who authorized the Iraq war and kept funding it, and who now bray about “making America stronger,” i.e., increasing military funding? Or the tiny progressive caucus whose voices are routinely ignored by the machine?

    Please try not to confuse the minority of progressive Dems with the Bush-lite Dem majority who do not represent our values, needs or wishes. Such confusion hardly helps the progressive cause, although it certainly runs cover for DINOs.

    • Comments are closed.