June 21, 2007

Mayor Bloomberg for President?

Over on the VDARE.com blog, I try to help him out by suggesting a TV commercial he could run:

“This Message Paid For By Billionaire Golfers For Open Borders”


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg, as a normal candidate, would be about as popular with the national electorate as Woody Allen. But with the all that money, it's hard to gauge the impact. If he got Arnold to go along as VP, it would really be something.

But Mikail's candidacy would bleed the Left, so bring it on. RINO Bloomberg would siphon votes from the Dem candidate at least 3-to-1. Maybe 5-to-1. 10-to-1? Pundits claim he can stake middle ground but they have it backwards. American moderates are not gun control freaks. And Bloomberg will go directly against the trend of anti-open borders House Democrats, such as that guy with the crewcut from Montana.

Bloomberg is a nanny-state billionaire liberal with no sense of style, humor, or traditional American culture. The only military vet with a chance was McBrain. And he is finished. What a bizarre wartime election we have coming up. It's new territory with Barack Hussein, Hill & Bill, and the Mormon Romney. It will be a carnival.

Maybe the wealthy Romney will run as an independent with Arnold as VP. I think the only chance in hell Tennessee Stud Thompson has is if Bloomberg and Nader divide the Dems into three slices, which just might happen. Thompson is weak.

I used to think W was crazy for not anointing an electable successor VP in the second term, but perhaps W knew all along that that was going to be a losing proposition.

Here's the ticket: President Bloomberg & VP Judge Judy. It's a sure thing, Steve, American as apple pie.

Taylor said...

I can't develop any feelings about Bloomberg. While I wouldn't vote for him, I don't see him as a threat. I think Giuliani is overrated as well, being successful in New York politics doesn't necessarily translate to mass appeal in nationwide politics.

I'm currently looking for a viable third party combination because I don't think the Republicans are capable of nominating anyone I could support.

I had thought Pat Buchanan running with Laura Ingram for VP might work, assuming Laura gave up her staunch pro-war position. Unfortunately, her radio program degenerated to jokes about flatulence the other day and I can't think of anyone else who would be a good foil for Buchanan.

Now if Tom Tancredo ran as a 3rd party candidate, there might be hope. Ron Paul is just too nebulous for me.

But Bloomberg, does he really think he exists once he steps outside the boundaries of New York?

Fred said...

If Bloomberg gave up his open-borders position (big if, of course), a good balancing running mate for him would be Duncan Hunter -- particularly if Bloomberg said Hunter wouldn't just be his VP, but also his SecDef.

They would have to each moderate some positions to agree on a platform, but those two would be an interesting ticket.

Anonymous said...

Always amazed that national journalists never reign in their NY city bias.

Bloomberg is a liberal democrat who jointed the Repubs to Run for mayor. If he runs, which he won't, he'll get a couple of percent in the blue states and have no effect on the election.

RKU said...

I agree with "Fred" that a ticket with Michael Bloomberg and Duncan Hunter would be a great idea, especially from a "balance" point of view.

After all, Bloomberg is a (very) socially-liberal wealthy New York Jew, who fanatically supports gun control, abortion-rights, gay marriage and "open borders."

On the other hand, Hunter is a (very) strong social-conservative from California, who fanatically *opposes* gun control, abortion-rights, gay marriage and "open borders."

Can't get much more "balanced" than that, except maybe with a ticket of David Duke and the late Meir Kahane...

Fred said...

"RKU":

A Bloomberg-Hunter ticket does sound pretty implausible, I agree -- but the prospect of either man getting into the White House separately is even more implausible. Certainly there are a lot of policy differences between them, as I noted previously; my point was that if they were both ambitious and pragmatic enough, they would be able to settle on a narrow platform -- perhaps one focussed on good governance and fiscal conservatism.

Social issues aren't going to be a major factor in this election, judging by the high poll numbers for the socially liberal Giuliani.

IMO, Romney and Clinton are going to get the nominations, and that's not the sort of race that would leave an opening for a third party run.

SFG said...

Can't get much more "balanced" than that, except maybe with a ticket of David Duke and the late Meir Kahane...
Actually, those guys have a lot in common, they're just associated with different groups. You could say the same about a Duke/Farrakhan matchup.

SFG said...

Can't get much more "balanced" than that, except maybe with a ticket of David Duke and the late Meir Kahane...
Actually, those guys have a lot in common, they're just associated with different groups. You could say the same about a Duke/Farrakhan matchup.