What's so great about Bloomberg?

[JSojourner]

I don't dislike Bloomberg at all.  I am just asking the question, because I know so little about him.  What I do know is...

*He's been a fairly good mayor of the nation's largest city.
*He's worth billions.
*He was a Democrat, who became a Republican, who became an Indy.
*Like Rudy, he's moderate to liberal on social issues.

That's it.  Can any of you fill me in?  I understand that people want a third party candidate or a unity ticket...especially given the lackluster field of candidates in both parties.  Not an FDR or a Ronald Reagan in sight!  But really -- is Bloomberg any more qualified than Obama, Edwards, Giuliani or Romney?

Honest question -- not bashing at all.

[Sam Spade]

He's a nanny-stater, like most of the people on this forum.

[Keystone Phil]

You certainly won't hear me singing his praises...

[Torie]

... nanny-stater, like most of the people on this forum.

Is that true, Sam, as to the forum?  I would have thought it was more secular city central , than nanny stater nirvana, but then I just put in cameo appearances.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You certainly won't hear me singing his praises...

Oh how I've missed that blue avatar!

Here's why people like him: He was mayor of New York.  He lowered crime in New York City.  He saved New York on September 11th.  Did I mention he lowered crime in New York City?  Oh wait - wrong mayor.

Seriously though - I don't like Bloomberg at all - I see o reason that he's fit to be President - he's a rich mayor - so what?

[Sam Spade]

... nanny-stater, like most of the people on this forum.

Is that true, Sam, as to the forum?  I would have thought it was more secular city central , than nanny stater nirvana, but then I just put in cameo appearances.

Nah, your assessment is much more correct than mine.  That comment was a bit of flame-throwing to see what response I can get, considering Bloomberg is fairly popular here.  Plus, my own personal experience with the man makes me quite negative towards him. (hence the flamethrowing)

Of course, secular city central and nanny state nirvana are not diverse opposites - in many areas they share the same views.  But this forum has always been a secular city central, of sorts.  The difference is that before the middle of 2006, it was really more economically libertarian - now it's just economically liberal, for the most part.

[MarkWarner08]

Plus, my own personal experience with the man makes me quite negative towards him. (hence the flamethrowing)

What happened?  I know he was accused of sexual harassment several years ago. Was this a personal matter?

[Sam Spade]

Plus, my own personal experience with the man makes me quite negative towards him. (hence the flamethrowing)

What happened?  I know he was accused of sexual harassment several years ago. Was this a personal matter?

The sexual harassment thingy (which seems to be a problem at Bloomberg LP, because they settled another case quite recently and there were others before that) will be for the general election - I personally don't care about that.

The personal experience has to do with work in city government, we'll just leave it at that.

And I really don't like the nanny-state crap or congestion pricing or telling NYers to be friendly to tourists or the other crap he does.

Whatever, I don't think we'll agree here, so there. 

[Torie]

Well hopefully the object of Bloomberg's affections had reached "his"  age of majority.

[MarkWarner08]

Well hopefully the object of Bloomberg's affections had reached "his"  age of majority.

We're not talking about Mark Foley or Larry Craig. And Bloomberg's wannabe paramour didn't make him wear a diaper, either. Ever since Grove Norquist dubbed the Democrats "the weird sex  party," the GOP has been hit by a spate of sex scandals.

[MarkWarner08]

Plus, my own personal experience with the man makes me quite negative towards him. (hence the flamethrowing)

What happened?  I know he was accused of sexual harassment several years ago. Was this a personal matter?

The sexual harassment thingy (which seems to be a problem at Bloomberg LP, because they settled another case quite recently and there were others before that) will be for the general election - I personally don't care about that.

The personal experience has to do with work in city government, we'll just leave it at that.

And I really don't like the nanny-state crap or congestion pricing or telling NYers to be friendly to tourists or the other crap he does.

Whatever, I don't think we'll agree here, so there. 

Thanks for allaying my fears; I was worried it was another sex scandal.

[Torie]

Well hopefully the object of Bloomberg's affections had reached "his"  age of majority.

We're not talking about Mark Foley or Larry Craig. And Bloomberg's wannabe paramour didn't make him wear a diaper, either. Ever since Grove Norquist dubbed the Democrats "the weird sex  party," the GOP has been hit by a spate of sex scandals.

Ya, despite what one may believe, Pubbie politicians  live lives ever bit as colorful as Dems do, they just try to be more private about it - sometimes - and at least until they get caught. LOL.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

um. He's about the same as Giuliani except he doesn't have a wife, and he's jewish.

[12th Doctor]

I can answer that question by telling you what Bloomberg is not.  He is not Hillary, Obama, Romney or Huckabee... and I am sad to say that that is probably the best I can hope for in 08.

[Padfoot]

I think the biggest appeal of Bloomberg is the fact that he's an indy and he is fairly centrist which are two of the biggest things voters are looking for.  They want someone from the mainstream who isn't beholden to party bosses or special interests.  If Bloomberg's agenda was well received by the public I think Congress would have a hard time opposing him.  Whichever party was perceived as more obstructionist would quickly lose support.  The parties would probably be falling over each other to prove which one was more supportive of Bloomberg resulting in both parties moving towards the center (especially Republicans).

[JSojourner]

I think the biggest appeal of Bloomberg is the fact that he's an indy and he is fairly centrist which are two of the biggest things voters are looking for.  They want someone from the mainstream who isn't beholden to party bosses or special interests.  If Bloomberg's agenda was well received by the public I think Congress would have a hard time opposing him.  Whichever party was perceived as more obstructionist would quickly lose support.  The parties would probably be falling over each other to prove which one was more supportive of Bloomberg resulting in both parties moving towards the center (especially Republicans).

I definitely see that appeal.  I would just prefer he had some experience beyond being Mayor of NYC.  Same goes for Rudy.  This is one reason I have to wonder if he might be running for Vice-President.  He could be thinking President down the road.  But as a VP on a ticket with Sam Nunn, Bill Cohen or John Breaux, he would have a top of the ticket partner with serious military/foreign policy chops.  And even with four years as VP, Bloomberg would gain enough experience to mount a legitimate claim on the top slot -- assuming his boss only wanted one term.  Or, he could wait eight.

[ilikeverin]

Pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-gun-control, anti-strict-timetable-for-withdrawal, anti-deficit, pro-strong-environmental-regulations... and it just keeps going

[agcatter]

Yep, big lib on just about any issue you can name.  Nanny stater as has been pointed out.  I wish he'd run.  I'd love to see him get around 15% of the national vote - 80% of those voting for him would be lefties.  Hillary and Bill wouldn't like him cutting into their vote total and that could be hazzardous to his physical health.  He's better off not running and living.

[Jeff from NC]

To the extent that Bloomberg's positions are unknown to the nation, he is a blank slate onto which people project their own beliefs.