The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg, “New York’s billionaire mayor” as the New York Times puts it, is campaigning for the election of moderates in November. As we all know, nothing will check the most tendentiously leftist executive and legislature in American history like a good dose of preemptive compromise.
[Bloomberg] is supporting Republicans, Democrats and independents who he says are not bound by rigid ideology and are capable of compromise, qualities he says he fears have become alarmingly rare in American politics.
No “rigid ideology” is binding this politician, “who started out as a Democrat, then became a Republican and later an independent”. Bloomberg’s fetters are billions of dollars of bubble wrap cushioning any collision with reality. Consider, in apparent obeisance to some sort of Law of Conservation of Sanity, Bloomberg will be campaigning for Meg Whitman—supporting her gubernatorial run to restore fiscal rectitude to California—while also hosting a fundraiser for Harry Reid, who as Senate majority leader has done more to wreck the finances of the United States than any other senator in living memory.
After discussing other candidates he is backing, the White House’s recent efforts to solicit his advice and court his approval, and his own restless quest for something to do after City Hall, Bloomberg sums up his political philosophy thusly: “It was a good time to be a Democrat at one point, and it was a good time to be a Republican at one point. Today, it’s a good time to be an independent.”
Profiles in Courage this isn’t.
Explain to me again why Republicans need Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, Jim Jeffords—oh, and Mike Bloomberg—in order to beat back the Left?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
That can of worms has no bottom, does it?
Jun '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
In practice, in politics, you can usually replace the term "moderate" with the word "doormat."
May '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
It was a good time to be a Republican when it didn't require him the run the zany gauntlet of Democrat pressure groups to secure the nomination for Mayor.
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
With Bloomberg, as with all liberals, it is always "follow the money." As for him being a Republican, I believe he officially abandoned that moniker 3 years ago.
Edited on Sep 19, 2010 at 9:52amJun '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
It is one thing to be capable and willing to compromise on matters of import, it is another to be lacking in core values and principles. What does the good Mayor actually stand for, other than an apparent desire to be someone of influence? The Times article seems to imply that he is a pragmatic problem-solver. All I see is someone trying to be a player, changing loyalties as needed. But perhaps I'm missing something.
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
We're missing a worrisome point here:
Why on Earth is Meg Whitman seeking Bloomberg's support?
She's an elitist squish, I tell ye....
May '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Any second spent trying to understand Michael Bloomberg is a second wasted. Moderate, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat - don't kill any brain cells wondering where Bloomberg fits. His politics are nothing but a vanity exercise. It's all about him. Let's hope his influence doesn't extend one inch beyond his own ego.
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
The Times article quotes Ricochet's own Mike Murphy, who must have something to do with the endorsement:
I'm not a campaign professional, but I suspect that in a deep blue state like California Mayor Bloomberg's backing will help peel independents and Democrats away from Jerry Brown. Meanwhile, nobody already on Meg's team is going to walk out in disgust because Bloomberg is backing the right candidate for a change. So this seems like brilliant positioning on Mr. Murphy's part: Meg Whitman is the consensus commonsense moderate running against an out-of-touch extremist.
I'm just mystified by Bloomberg's endorsement of the other candidates.
Edited on Sep 19, 2010 at 1:16pmJul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
George Savage
The Times article quotes Ricochet's own Mike Murphy, who must have something to do with the endorsement:
I'm not a campaign professional, but I suspect that in a deep blue state like California Mayor Bloomberg's backing will help peel independents and Democrats away from Jerry Brown. Meanwhile, nobody already on Meg's team is going to walk out in disgust because Bloomberg is backing the right candidate for a change. So this seems like brilliant positioning on Mr. Murphy's part:
Sorry, but nobody outside New York City has anything but contempt for Bloomberg.
And by the way, are you just setting Mike Murphy up for another bash-fest?
Because, on this issue, based upon his absurd statement, he really does deserve it.
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Kenneth And by the way, are you just setting Mike Murphy up for another bash-fest?
Because, on this issue, based upon his absurd statement, he really does deserve it. · Sep 19 at 1:41pm
Kenneth, I think Mike deserves kudos for smart positioning here. As a campaign professional, Murphy's job is to convince as many people as possible to vote for Meg Whitman. I respect that and wish him luck. How is dividing Jerry Brown's base by securing the endorsement of a famously liberal New York mayor not a smart move?
May '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Emily's piece on Dylan references the amazing essay from Angelo Codevilla in American Spectator. One observation from Codevilla seems especially apt in this thread.
"Our ruling class's agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof."
Don't go looking for a consistent principle in Bloomberg's politics except for the one that Codevilla names, the pursuit of power and influence.
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Thanks George. We have to win a general election. You do that with a coalition, especially in a blue state like California. Meg is attracting double digit numbers of Democrats and has a good lead with independents. I think George misunderstands the obvious political math of California.
George Savage
Kenneth And by the way, are you just setting Mike Murphy up for another bash-fest?
Because, on this issue, based upon his absurd statement, he really does deserve it. · Sep 19 at 1:41pm
Kenneth, I think Mike deserves kudos for smart positioning here. As a campaign professional, Murphy's job is to convince as many people as possible to vote for Meg Whitman. I respect that and wish him luck. How is dividing Jerry Brown's base by securing the endorsement of a famously liberal New York mayor not a smart move? · Sep 19 at 2:12pm
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Mike Murphy: Thanks George. We have to win a general election. You do that with a coalition, especially in a blue state like California. Meg is attracting double digit numbers of Democrats and has a good lead with independents. I think Kenneth misunderstands the obvious political math of California.
George Savage
Kenneth And by the way, are you just setting Mike Murphy up for another bash-fest?
Because, on this issue, based upon his absurd statement, he really does deserve it. · Sep 19 at 1:41pm
Kenneth, I think Mike deserves kudos for smart positioning here. As a campaign professional, Murphy's job is to convince as many people as possible to vote for Meg Whitman. I respect that and wish him luck. How is dividing Jerry Brown's base by securing the endorsement of a famously liberal New York mayor not a smart move? · Sep 19 at 2:12pm
Sep 19 at 5:41pm
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Mike Murphy
Mike Murphy: Thanks George. We have to win a general election. You do that with a coalition, especially in a blue state like California. Meg is attracting double digit numbers of Democrats and has a good lead with independents. I think Kenneth misunderstands the obvious political math of California.
Sep 19 at 5:41pm
Sep 19 at 5:43pm
Well, Mike, as a California resident, I have a fair grip.
But bringing in Mike Bloomberg, a supercilious nanny-state prig, who is on the wrong side of two raging 70/30 issues - the Ground Zero Mosque and AZ 1070 - just underscores my deep reservations about Meg Whitman.
And it's a wonderful opportunity for Brown to pitch class envy:
"Meg Whitman and her billionaire New York pal Mike Bloomberg, who made his money on Wall Street, want to keep George Bush's tax cuts for the rich."
I understand, from a business perspective, it makes sense for you, personally, to curry favor with Bloomberg. Fair enough.
But don't expect the rest of us to miss the "obvious" point that you've now compromised whatever dubious conservative credentials your candidate ever had.
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Kenneth, as you can see from my post I'm not exactly a Bloomberg supporter. However, I welcome his endorsement of Whitman and fail to see how it makes her less conservative. If George McGovern had endorsed Ronald Reagan back in 1980 that wouldn't have diminished my ardor for Reagan, just given me something to like about McGovern in addition to his wartime service.
One thing positive I can say about Mike Bloomberg is that he knows how to run a business and make money, as does Meg Whitman. Meg is focused first and foremost on returning fiscal sanity and economic growth to California. And if Bloomberg supports that I say, good for him.
It's Bloomberg's public support for Harry Reid that has me scratching my head.
Edited on Sep 19, 2010 at 7:24pmJul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Explain to me again why Republicans need Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, Jim Jeffords—oh, and Mike Bloomberg—in order to beat back the Left?
Kenneth, as you can see from my post I'm not exactly a Bloomberg supporter. However, I welcome his endorsement of Whitman and fail to see how it makes her less conservative.
George, you're sounding like Walt Whitman here:
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself..."
George, thou art large, and contain multitudes.
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Kenneth, go ahead and disagree, but don't call me corrupt. It has nothing to do with any relationship with Bloomberg. I don't know the guy. It is an endorsement that is helpful in Democratic California. Period.
Kenneth
Well, Mike, as a California resident, I have a fair grip.
But bringing in Mike Bloomberg, a supercilious nanny-state prig, who is on the wrong side of two raging 70/30 issues - the Ground Zero Mosque and AZ 1070 - just underscores my deep reservations about Meg Whitman.
And it's a wonderful opportunity for Brown to pitch class envy:
"Meg Whitman and her billionaire New York pal Mike Bloomberg, who made his money on Wall Street, want to keep George Bush's tax cuts for the rich."
I understand, from a business perspective, it makes sense for you, personally, to curry favor with Bloomberg. Fair enough.
But don't expect the rest of us to miss the "obvious" point that you've now compromised whatever dubious conservative credentials your candidate ever had. · Sep 19 at 6:05pm
Jul '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Mike Murphy: Kenneth, go ahead and disagree, but don't call me corrupt. It has nothing to do with any relationship with Bloomberg. I don't know the guy. It is an endorsement that is helpful in Democratic California. Period.
Sep 19 at 7:41pm
Mike, I'm distressed that you read me as implying you're corrupt. I meant no such thing, I assure you, and apologize for giving you that impression.
I don't know your business and simply assumed that deploying Bloomberg in this way is a normal part of cementing an ongoing business and political relationship, thus the "Fair enough."
That would just be smart business, I presumed - certainly not corruption.
Give me the benefit of the doubt here - I was the only Member defending you the other day while you were being showered with brickbats.
I suppose I was a bit too blunt, but I loathe Bloomberg and, speaking only for this one conservative - his association with Whitman makes me think less of her.
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
Kenneth: Explain to me again why Republicans need Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, Jim Jeffords—oh, and Mike Bloomberg—in order to beat back the Left?
Kenneth, as you can see from my post I'm not exactly a Bloomberg supporter. However, I welcome his endorsement of Whitman and fail to see how it makes her less conservative.
George, you're sounding like Walt Whitman here:
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself..."
George, thou art large, and contain multitudes. · Sep 19 at 7:33pm
No contradiction. I'd vote for Mike Castle ahead of Michael Bloomberg. And I'd be concerned if I saw Whitman trimming her sails to curry his favor. But if Bloomberg wants to endorse Whitman as the best choice for California, well that's great. A lot of liberals like Mike Bloomberg, and my neighborhood is chock-a-block with liberal voters.
My hope is that the California Right and Center-Left hold hands to elect Meg Whitman, help her restore fiscal sanity and robust economic growth, and then go back to fighting-as-usual.
I think we'll just need to disagree on this one.
May '10
Re: The Incoherence of Michael Bloomberg
I think that's the point. I think there are a large number of ostensible Democrats in the state who are actually center-right but too cool to label themselves Republican. But they will vote for a Republican governor -- especially the first female who also ran a cool dot-com company. I think Bloomberg helps win Meg some Democrats and could help line up a blow-out which could be very helpful when it comes time to govern this ridiculous state.
Yes we could be well served by some real conservative policies here, but there is the sticky matter of the legislature. So let Meg flirt with the middle-left and bring them over and maybe she'll have some coattails in the state legislature as well.
As I've said before, Mike is doing a bang-up job for Meg and spending $100M+ a lot more effectively than those Stimulis administrators in LA that Pat was telling us about.