Guess who’s excited about a Michael Bloomberg candidacy? Why, the Most Principled Man In America With the Possible Exception of Nino Scalia, Mr. Ralph Nader:
This is the third presidential cycle in which he has contemplated such a run. So bold, given the two-party tyranny that heavily controls the ballot choices of voters.
Will he be BOLD! enough to ensure that a billionaire representing what are generally already massively overrepresented constituencies increases the chances that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz becomes president in exchange for no benefits whatsoever? (To be Scruplously Fair, gun control is an underrepresnted view on Capitol Hill, which would be relevant if a Bloomberg candidacy or presidency would do anything material to advance the cause of gun control.)
Rather, the problem is a deeply researched hesitation. Bloomberg wants to run only if he thinks he can win. He is not interested in making collateral points or pursuing causes that are not directly on the path to electoral victory.
“To give him his due, he is not as obscenely self-centered as I am.”
He governed a fractious Democratic city in a hands-on, largely bipartisan manner—showcasing a New York value—that is sought by people tired of gridlock and rancor.
If we could just get rid of these “parties” and the “disagreements” and the “bicameralism” and “seperation of powers” in the so-called “United States Constitution” and just allow a benevolent billionaire to rule over us like a God everything would be just fine.
He can talk about the needs of the tens of millions of urban dwellers more graphically than any of the present candidates.
1)”Graphically?” 2)”Okay, let’s talk. We clearly need a fourth Duane Reade by Walgreen’s on this block so people using the dedicated servant’s entrance next to the $400,000 wine cellars have less distance to walk when running errands.”
Although he has received criticism for his positions on civil liberties and poverty policies
His discussion of the needs of these citizens figures to be very graphic indeed!
he panders less than almost any national politician.
Well, that’s the most important thing. We certainly don’t want politicians “pandering” to, say, poor people or people who believe the Fourth Amendment remains in force.
With a large number of independent voters looking for winners, and party loyalties fraying on everything from privacy protections to criminal-justice -reform and health care
Party loyalties are, of course, pretty much less “frayed” than they’ve ever been. But I’m particularly amused by the idea that party loyalties are fraying over…health care. Yes, nothing says cross-cutting cleavages like an issue where partisan identity predicts Senate votes with 100% reliability.
The biggest variable Bloomberg faces is whether the two parties will nominate candidates he considers to be polarizing figures representing the extremes of each party: Donald Trump—or worse, Ted Cruz—and Senator Bernie Sanders
We’ll come back to the EXTREMIST Bernie Sanders in a second.
And viewing independent candidates as “spoilers” is to use a politically bigoted word, as if such challengers are second-class citizens. Everybody has a First Amendment right to run for office.
Ah, glad to see that Ralph hasn’t stopped humping his favorite non-sequitur. The zero people who have ever claimed that independent candidates do not have the right to run for office remain wrong, and you can’t preemptively prevent people from pointing out the foreseeable consequences of your actions.
Anyway, Nader’s Bloomberg-curiosity is no surprise. Of all the many terrible arguments advanced by Nader apologists, as I’ve said before surely the most pathetic is “See, there are LIBERALS and then there are LEFTISTS and Nader and his supporters are LEFTISTS who are just not part of the same political family as LIBERALS.” This unintended insult is actually unfair to most Nader supporters, who are left-liberals who voted for Kerry and Obama. But, to state the obvious, if you’re making distinctions between LIBERALS and LEFTISTS Nader is plainly the former, and nor is he a particularly left-wing liberal. The group of people who think that by voting for Nader they were sending a message for revolutionary change would make more attractive leads for marketers than Newsmax subscribers. Nader’s message was that Ralph Nader is awesome and American politics would be better if everyone would come together and agree that Ralph Nader is right about everything. It’s entirely appropriate that he finds the prospect of a Bloomberg campaign appealing.
And the comparison with Nader should remind one of the virtues of the EXTREMIST Bernie Sanders. Sanders is running within the Democratic Party; Ralph Nader is happy to do what he can to elect George W. Bush to feed his ego. When proposed legislation fails to meet his every expectation Nader wants it blown up; Sanders works to make it as good as he can and then votes for the compromise. Sanders, whatever the outcome of the primaries, is the real deal; late-period Nader is a complete fraud.