Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.That might not turn out as badly as it sounds.
He'd peel "moderate" votes away from the leading Republican and Democrat pretenders, and make an independent run by Ron Paul much more winnable. Plus, his cowardice in taking a stand on the Iraq war means the anti-war crowd would have nowhere else to turn.
12 comments:
President? What--he can't find a way onto the ballot for Master of the Universe?
Sadly, Mayor Mike does have a chance. His anti-Gun, anti-gun dealer, anti-gun manufacturer agenda makes him quite likeable to the well off limo-liberals who don't believe what the 2nd amendment's sole purpose was. With the money he has, and his ability to rewrite his own history through Clinton-like methodology, pulling the wool over middle America should not impede his march to the White House.
God help us!
As a follow-up, it was reported he told Ryan Seacrest of all people he was not going to run.
Oh, Punisher, I hope and pray you are wrong, and that I'm not deluding myself.
I hope Ron Paul does get on the ballot in all 50 states. It's hard canvassing for him in my community, most residents here thinking Huckabee would make a good saint as well as great President.
I consider myself pragmatically libertarian (sometimes I say I'm a small "L" libertarian).
I've followed Bloomberg through his whole gun control thing, and while I try to keep a healthy degree of skepticism, I understand his point.
See, I may live in New York today, but I grew up in Tennessee. I see both sides of this. Unfortunately, the gun control issue pits cities against rural areas (imagine that?). What I mean is, to people who live in cities, hand guns mean violent gang crime. To people outside of cities, gun ownership is the ombodiment of independence, guaranteed by the Constitution.
When New York had a problem with certain neighborhoods being overrun with hand guns and automatic weapons, they were able to trace the majority of them to a small number of out-of-state gun dealers. Selling these kind of guns, with no background check to someone with an out of state ID- This is already breaking the law. What Bloomberg has tried to stress is that he only wants to enforce the laws that are already on the books. He's not out to create new laws. He has said that the number of gun dealers that are responsible for the majority of guns that make their way into crime gangs in large cities are coming from less than 1% of out of state gun dealers.
Now, the way I see it, if the laws on the books are not enforced, this will tempt legislators to write yet more laws limiting guns. So cooperating in enforcing laws that exist will actually limit the creation of new laws that affect gun rights.
I also realize I'm speaking to an audience that is probably not entirely receptive to this message, and I respect that.
I'm a pragmatic person. Most people would agree that selling cases of machine guns to out of state street-gang members is a bad idea, and your local gun dealer should not be involved in such practices. It happens to already be illegal. If advocates of gun ownership stepped up and said, "We don't want our rights to be infringed upon because of the behavior of these bad actors. Let's see to it that these few laws that are on the books are enforced so that some politician doesn't get the bad idea that the solution is to just write some more gun laws." But instead, gun advocates tend to band together and view the enforcement any gun related law as a threat to their right to bear arms.
Here is my take on Bloomberg— It is rare that you find a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue. But at the end of the day, the President is the executive manager of the world's most powerful enterprise, the US government. I believe most voter's far underestimate the value of competence and executive management experience. What is most important to me is, do they have the competence, and the experience to manage such an enterprise? Will they keep the economy strong? Will they make sound judgement in a crisis? Will they hire competent people, or just give valuable positions to unqualified individuals either because that person has party connections or they "owe" somebody because of a campaign contribution?
What I most abhor are career politicians. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats. I was an independent when I lived in Tennessee, and I'm an independent living up here in New York.
The reality is, in our competitive society, the most talented among us do not often pursue positions in government, they pursue fortune in the private sector. To get the best of what is available to us, I wish to see a seasoned executive manager from the private sector in the White House.
This is what I see in Michael Bloomberg.
When the economy is strong. When everyone has a job. People tend to be less concerned about the differences among us. When the economy is bad, and people are unemployed, everyone looks for someone to point the finger at, and politicians look for divisive wedge issues to distract their constituents from the real problems at hand.
Rather than look for these hot-button issues, I hope more people can be compelled to vote for intelligent competence in governance, over partisanship.
If you're inclined to know more about him, have a look at:
Run Mike Run - Mike Bloomberg for President
chrisgraysoncom said:
"selling cases of machine guns to out of state street-gang members is a bad idea," Eand quote
I would like you to show me where anyone can buy a case of machine guns. You obviously do not have a clue on what it takes to purchase, own, or possess a machine gun.
Now if when you spoke of a machine gun, you really meant a semi-automatic cosmetically similar replica (also known incorrectly as an "assault weapon" then you are dumber than a bag full of hammers. Supporting Bloomberg just underscores the bag o' hammers comment.
...To people outside of cities, gun ownership is the ombodiment of independence, guaranteed by the Constitution.
He's right you know, freedom was never guaranteed for city-dwellers. Hell, what do you think the whole purpose of The Declaration of Rural Independence was?
Chris, you are either stupid, insane or naive. If you think for one minute Bloomingidiot would be a good president, I have some bridges for sale.Get a grip on yourself man!
Sorry for this long post, and I don't normally post, but this one, this one got to me.
Bloomberg for president. I can not think of one thing that concerns me more for the future of this country than a tin plate would be dictator like Mike Bloomberg having enough confidence to run for president. In the name of effectiveness we would trade liberty for one strong minded individuals idea of political perfection. People, with the personality traits Mike Bloomberg has shown during his tenure as Mayor of New York City should only be comfortable speaking freely from within their lair.
Thank God Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and the other founders of this country did not have a small 'l' Liberty in mind when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being considered. This is a republic, and as a republic we don't trade the greater good for the injury of the individual. Even if Mike Bloomberg was the greatest administrator this world has ever seen, he has shown he will injure the republic over and over again. This so called difference between gun rights in cities as opposed to rural towns is not clear to me, but even if it was, it is illegal to hire a private party to pose as a gun buyer, lie on form 4473, and traffic guns accross state lines for an illicit purpose. In my mind Mayor Bloomberg committed several felonies on the way to make his big press release, in Mike's mind he's above the law, and his will is all that was needed to fix a problem he has seen, never mind that there is great debate about the problem he is trying to fix. History is full of politicians with Steamroller approaches, no law get's in the way of the problems they see, they are called Dictators. In addition, how about the way he recruits Mayors for his felonious group, by promising money and influence with big Mike and other donors, not on the merits of his premise. Mike Bloomberg is not fit to be a politician anywhere much less president of the United States of America.
Mr. Grayson, I don't know you, and I will not guess your motivations for posting such a message. Maybe flame bait, maybe because you really believe what you say, maybe you are just trolling to see what the Gun Rights people will use as arguments against the campaign of your man. If you are honestly attempting to look for discussion on this topic. I invite you to do some research on your own, and tell us why his gun stings were not felonies, how it's stopped the sale of crates of machine guns to gangs, how it wasn't political grand standing that only some one in the Mayor's position could get away with? Continue, investigating so that you can consider most gun crimes in NYC are private citizens having 'illegal' guns confiscated from them because they lack the influence to procure a permit, consider how the Sullivan act was a racist creation of the early 20th century, and is still racist by keeping firearms from minorities, and other's without the political influence needed to matter to NYC's government. Tell me and others how, this stand he's taken is not a complete disqulification from public office, because in my mind no problem with guns exists in New York City other than the enforcement of the Sullivan Act, you see I don't believe that the city would be less safe if the average, honest man or women had the means to protect themselves. This city vs. county does not fly with me, and I suspect if you believed in capital 'L' Liberty you could not support Mike Bloomberg despite his millions, and success as businessman.
Wow--superbly stated, Tony.
I kind of hope you make a habit of posting every now and then.
"When New York had a problem with certain neighborhoods being overrun with hand guns and automatic weapons [...]"
What was the problem? Were they obnixiously rusting away in the corner, quietly staining the wall's paint orange?
"What Bloomberg has tried to stress is that he only wants to enforce the laws that are already on the books."
Such as murder, assault, and the like? We already have far too many laws on the books! What is the number of gun laws on the books today? Twenty thousand? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"!?
It's well past time to REPEAL those unconstitutional laws!
"What Bloomberg has tried to stress is that he only wants to enforce the laws that are already on the books."
You have got to be kidding. Enforce the laws doesn't include conspiracy to commit a felony. Which is essentially what Bloomberg did when he paid private investigators to perform straw purchases for him in a state that he has no jurisdiction.
With this kind of "enforcement" I'm sure he'd be a stellar example for mayors throughout the country
Post a Comment