Where the Bloomberg-Hagel Scenario Might Fit In

-

bloomberg eagle.jpg
I have just had an interesting discussion with someone close to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
This person says that Bloomberg isn’t giving away anything regarding whether he might run for the presidency — or whether he’ll pour into concrete his non-denial denials.
But speculating, my friend thinks Bloomberg is definitely intrigued by a third party run and knows he can get on the ballot in nearly all of the states. The structural aspects of America’s two party system still make it a Herculean task to win a plurality — but the possibility exists, though most serious analysts still think his chances of winning are very low.
This source told me though — just knowing how he thinks — that Bloomberg may be making a calculation that runs something like this. . .
If either Giuliani or Huckabee win the Republican nomination, Bloomberg’s interest in entering rises. If Romney or Thompson win, Bloomberg’s interest declines.
And on the Dem side, if Obama wins the Democratic nod, Bloomberg is less likely to enter — but he may be more inclined to run if Clinton pulls off the nomination.
According to this source, he may think that in a Clinton vs. Huckabee race or a Clinton vs. Giuliani race leaves room for a third party candidate to come in mid-year, like a storm with a lot of drama and attraction, just as both parties may be feeling some potential buyer’s remorse for the candidates they picked.
I don’t endorse this scenario. I’m just reporting what someone close to Bloomberg thinks.
And I’m intrigued that Bloomberg is being tutored in foreign policy and keeps meeting Chuck Hagel.
I’ve been recommending to Dems and Republicans alike to absorb Hagel’s template for national security decision making — and it would be well worth their time for either Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton to do what Michael Bloomberg has been doing — and have Chuck Hagel over for dinner.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

13 comments on “Where the Bloomberg-Hagel Scenario Might Fit In

  1. Michael Bloomberg says:

    To add to Andrews comment, they are leaving out the possibility of Al Gore and Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger throwing support to Mike Bloomberg.
    To read what other politicians, business leaders and other prominent individuals are saying about a possible presidential run by Mike Bloomberg, goto this website and read sourced quotes:
    http://www.RunMikeRun.com
    We need more options. Even those who do not agree with Bloomberg’s positions, but do not see good options available for them should support the effort to break the two party duopoly in the country.

    Reply

  2. Andrew MacRae says:

    People keep leaving out the highly probable scenario of McCain, Lieberman and Nunn throwing their support behind Bloomberg.
    On the Democratic side, I would add Edwards to the list of people Bloomberg would run against. On the Republican side, I would say that he will run against any of them (gallup polls this summer showed Clinton, Bloomberg, Romney all running dead-heat in a national three way race.
    http://www.uniteformike.com Help us Draft Mike Bloomberg for President!

    Reply

  3. DonS says:

    Recent conversation with friends in New York. He is a pretty good student of of NY politics. The take on Bloomberg is that, yes, he is better than Guiliani. But the take on his focus is that he is a true believer in development which he has promoted unfettered in NYC. Apparently everything is for sale. In the pocket of the financiers, investment bankers, etc. This may not seem too surprising but, indeed, NYC is made up of a real patchwork of neighborhoods; not respecting that is a big deal.

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Dang it, Lurker, do you have a permit to post reality? Lets see your papers.

    Reply

  5. Lurker says:

    Want proof of Der Bloomberg’s absolute disregard for the Bill of Rights during the 2004 GOP convention? You got it (see below and please note that all the articles on Bloomberg that I’ve posted below come from the “mainstream” media.
    BTW: what exactly is “progressive” about Bloomberg violating the first, fourth and sixth amendments to the U.S. Constitution?
    What is “progressive” of the NYPD, with Bloomberg’s full support, spying on POSSIBLE protesters around the country BEFORE the GOP convention?
    What is *progressive* of Bloomberg then imprisoning peaceful protesters and bystanders (as detailed below) and denying them due process while imprisoning them in toxic warehouses?
    What is “progressive” about going along with Chuck Hagel’s massive voter fraud in his home state of Nebraska, via ES&S, (http://www.geocities.com/dearbenedict/atLarge/article3/030130bev.html)
    I’m starting to fear that if Stalin (“It’s not who votes, it’s who counts the votes”) reincarnated arrived on the scene Steve would think him “progressive.”
    Bloomberg is a thug with no use for the rule of law and the money to buy anyone and anything. While I like Hagel sometimes on his foreign policy stances, he cheated.
    If these are the people that Steve, who is a decent and intelligent person, and his buddies in D.C. find great American hopes, than we’re even more screwed as a country than we can imagine.
    PLEASE NOTE AGAIN THAT THESE ARTICLES ARE FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA:
    (ENTIRE ARTICLES AT ALL LINKS )
    New York Police Spied Broadly Before GOP Convention
    By Jim Dwyer
    The New York Times
    Sunday 25 March 2007
    For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.
    From Albuquerque to Montreal, San Francisco to Miami, undercover New York police officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists, the records show.
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032507Z.shtml
    Arrests at GOP Convention Are Criticized
    Many in N.Y. Released Without Facing Charges
    By Michael Powell and Michelle Garcia
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Monday, September 20, 2004; Page A01
    NEW YORK — One late August evening, Alexander Pincus pedaled his bicycle to the Second Avenue Deli to buy matzo ball soup, a pastrami-on-rye and potato latkes for his sweetheart, who was sick with a cold.
    He would not return for 28 hours. As Pincus and a friend left the deli, they inadvertently walked into a police blockade and sweep of bicycle-riding protesters two days before the Republican National Convention began. “I asked an officer how I could get home,” Pincus recalled. “He said, ‘Follow me,’ and we went a few feet and cops grabbed us. They handcuffed us and made us kneel for an hour.”
    Police carted Pincus to a holding cell topped with razor wire and held him for 25 hours without access to a lawyer. The floor was a soup of oil and soot, he said, and the cell had so few portable toilets that some people relieved themselves in the corner. Pincus said a shoulder was dislocated as police pulled back his arms to handcuff him. “Cops kept saying to us, ‘This is what you get for protesting,’ ” said Pincus, whose account of his arrest is supported in part by deli workers and a time-stamped food receipt.
    Pincus was one of 1,821 people arrested in police sweeps before and during the Republican convention, the largest number of arrests associated with any American major-party convention.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34245-2004Sep19?language=printer
    Published on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 by the New York Times
    City Fights Efforts to Release 2004 Convention Arrest Records
    by Jim Dwyer
    Faced with lawsuits from hundreds of people arrested during the 2004 Republican National Convention, the Bloomberg administration is fighting to keep secret a vast array of records, testimony and videotapes collected that week.
    The city contends the materials could be embarrassing to people who were arrested, disclose police intelligence, or reveal environmental conditions that may hurt commercial development on the West Side waterfront or be useful to terrorists.
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1213-11.htm

    Reply

  6. Steve Clemons says:

    Lurker — probably, although now I’m in Carson City, Nevada. I like Bloomberg’s pragmatism. I think we need more pragmatism focused on progressive ends on this planet.
    best, steve

    Reply

  7. Lurker says:

    Bloomberg was a thug during the 2004 GOP convention held in NYC. He jailed peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders in warehouses full of toxic waste, without access to medical care OR legal aid.
    Sometimes I wonder what planet Steve lives on, and what they smoke there.
    Planet D.C.?

    Reply

  8. DreadPirate says:

    Alternatively, Bloomberg would need to state clearly his support for hESC research and make it a key platform issue for his campaign,.. should he run. Hagel would need to do the same.

    Reply

  9. DreadPirate says:

    As a Democrat-leaning Independent, I respect Bloomberg a great deal and would support him, but this is conditional.
    Bloomberg is a strong and great advocate for “real science” research and public health policies, largely uncorrupted by right-wing idealogy. Although Hagel would certainly add leverage Bloomberg’s weakness in foreign policy, Hagel has also been ‘anti-science’, especially against public support for embryonic stem cell research. As President of the Senate, I would NOT feel AT ALL comfortable with Hagel casting a deciding vote against public funding towards this research. Here Hagel has shown his irrational bent in defending his position on this issue and the facts for that matter.
    ‘Candidate’ Bloomberg would need someone who is ALSO pro-science and who has consistently supported his values, while in Congress. (i.e. yes, Bloomberg would need a “DC Insider”, imo.)
    Therefore, should Bloomberg run for the Presidency as an “Independent”, my enthusiasm and support would SOLELY be tempered by whom he chooses as his VP, hopefully not Hagel. Otherwise, I’m definitely going Democrat for 2008.

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “And if you are going to push Chuck Hagel for Vice President, you need to discuss his positions beyond foreign policy as well.”
    When pigs fly. I’ve been trying for months to get him to comment on Hagel’s questionable (criminal?) actions in regards to ES&S.

    Reply

  11. Forest Ranger says:

    I am also a huge fan of Hagel’s. I wish he would stay in the Senate because the country needs him, but he may have other ways to serve.
    While Bloomberg has met several times with Hagel, I recall his meeting Senator Obama a few months ago for dinner or breakfast. Does anyone have the same recollection or insight into what Obama and Bloomberg could have discussed?

    Reply

  12. Carroll says:

    I don’t think Bloomberg has a chance out side of maybe NY…even with Hagel at his side.
    Maybe he is angling toward some position in the next adm….or maybe he is thinking of setting up some kind of Foreign Relations Council type policy think tank of his own with Hagel.

    Reply

  13. Caitlyn says:

    If Bloomberg wants to run, he should get in now so that he goes through the same national vetting process that the other candidates are going through. You may find his good points sufficient to risk a three-way race in which the winner might win less than 40% of the popular vote, but there is a lot that is learned when a regional candidate has to campaign in a long and grueling race in which speech writers and polltakers can’t keep the candidates views totally under wraps.
    Foreign policy is your focus, Steve, but we also need to know how a candidate will balance personal rights and domestic issues against foreign policy and national security – where does he stand on privacy, on reproductive freedom, education policy, climate change, etc. What domestic interests would he sacrifice first in order to build congressional support for a foreign policy initiative?
    Standing outside the ring in hopes that the contestants will bloody one another enough to ease the remaining road for a third party candidate may seem like a good election strategy, but it is also the strategy of someone who isn’t committed to do everything the presidency requires, not just to attain it but to carry it out – just look at Fred Thompson as an example.
    And if you are going to push Chuck Hagel for Vice President, you need to discuss his positions beyond foreign policy as well. After all, he could end up being president someday if initially elected to the VP slot and I certainly want to know if he would support or oppose my own positions not just in foreign affairs but on critical domestic issues as well.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *