Wow – this guy makes a GREAT argument on why Mike should run!

Reading the comments on my post on a potential Bloomberg/Obama ticket, one of the friends of U4M, Jon Reagan, wrote something that really engaged me:

This is very much like the situation our country faced in 1976. A decent, inspirational “feel-good” Democrat ran against the corruption of the previous 8 years (even though Ford was prez; Carter campaigned against Nixon), and people didn’t want to ask tough questions. They just wanted hope. They just wanted an end to corruption, as well as the hangover from Vietnam.

Today–as then– we are facing an ugly point in the world economic cycle, that will make this inspirational leader a one-termer, with no honeymoon. Scarcity in basic commodities leading to hyper-inflation, the unwinding of sub-prime, and a nasty consumer-led recession. Mr. Obama doesn’t even understand that tax increases in the midst of a recession are a recipe for disaster (Econ 101-102). In one of the debates, it was evident that he doesn’t even understand the difference between the Fed Funds Rate and the Discount Rate.

So, no, I don’t see Mayor Bloomberg as a VP or in a Cabinet Position, where he has to deal with eggheads from academia who don’t understand how the REAL financial sector works. We need Michael Bloomberg as the next President of the United States. I’m not saying he’ll have all the answers, but at least this country will have a fighting chance.

So, I ask you – what do you think? Should it be Bloomberg or Obama for President (and I am not bringing up McCain at this time)?

What are you waiting for?

Sign the petition by clicking here:

This entry was posted in Bloomberg for President News, Other Candidates, Personal Opinions and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Wow – this guy makes a GREAT argument on why Mike should run!

  1. The ’76 is a good analogy. Watch the arc from ’46 to present, it is a structural Republican line – Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan [and Clinton was only part II of Reagan or III counting Bush the First] – rising potentially to Bloomberg/Arnold, interspered with spirit moments – Kennedy, Carter, Obama. Watergate was a great service to the Republicans: the party broke down completely and washed out the old and irrelevant. After Carter, it was reborn like a Phoenix with Reagan. An Obama Presidency would be a well-needed break from structuralism and orthodoxy assimilated since WW II. Right now there are three parties: Democrats, Clinton, and Republicans. Clintonism (the “Laverne and Shirley” Democrats) is finished and for now Republicanism is finished (McCain is pure and dangerous nostalgico, like Spain’s Franco). We will look internally the next four years and need to to restore our spirit and restore our regions (rebuild Detroit – move the UN there maybe). The New Democrats will rise from Obama (Obama/Sebelius, my first guess). The New Republicans will rise from Bloomberg/Arnold but not in ’08. Culture alternates in Particle and Wave (yin, yang if you prefer) but public order is primarily Particle.

  2. PhilWray says:

    It’s not about “feeling good”, it’s about uniting so that policy objectives become congruent with the way government handles business. The first item to come out of the Bipartisan Forum was that candidates need a plan to unite. Don’t mistake a “feel good” sentiment with the inception of an “uniting process.”

    One can pick any aspect of political history and find certain patterns or parallels, but the bottom line is that we are at threshold point where, if we don’t unite, one more new politician at the helm can not turn this around. We can claim that we will manage it back to “normalcy”, but that does nothing to aright the inadequacies of the status quo.

    The true “feel good” era occured in the 1980 election where we ended up spending ourselves into a false sense of hope. We are reaping the downside of that fiscal irresponsibility today. We took a fundamental misstep so we could get our “feel good” fix. As we are beginning to see, the stock market is not the one and only indicator of our nation’s well being.

    IMO, MB spouting ideas is good. The problem is not that there are not good ideas out there. The problem is that they get lost in Washington. It will take a unification of the people to root it out.

  3. Kim says:

    Its not about the candidates, its about the citizen-voters.

    Obama’s primary coalition of Prarie whites and southern blacks is the right base for a change in political direction.

    I dont think Obama himself can deliver, but he can start a process that his cabinet and congress can work on.

    Mike’s great quality is that he seems to be a superb consensus builder.

    NYC will do fine no matter who is Prez, I’m more concerned about Iowa, Minn, & Indiana.

    Its not about the candidates its about the citizens.

  4. Carter was way ahead of Ford at Convention time and barely barely won. He ran on competency and transparency and “I’ll Never Lie To You” stuff and zero-based budgeting chimera. Remember it well – was here in DC when he walked down Pennsylvania Ave on inagural and everyone was starry eyed full of ourselves with policy wonkism run amok.

    Unfortunately Carter had neither the oratorical ability to go over Congress and Washington special interests heads to appeal to the American people post inaguration, nor did he have any semblance of an intuitive sense (or cared to) on how Washington REALLY works. Thus his essentially good policies (on the engineer’s drawing board that is) were render moot by nonsensical seat-of-the pants implementation devoid of political strategy and reality. Thus we had Reagan 4 years later and a perceived and actual Failed Carter Prsidency (except for his excellent appointment of Paul Volker that is – that really saved our nation’s ass in the 80′s not Reagan).

    So Carter does give us some valid lessons for Obama and/or Bloomie for sure but maybe not the way many of us might think at first glance.

  5. Peter says:

    JFK/Reagan or Truman:

    Politics is seldom the linear left/right paradigm…there are other factors as well.

    I fear that Senator Obama is the easy way out for Americans. Inspiration is nice, but devoid of hard work it can lead to bad things. There are many types of presidents and we can use our former presidents as archetypes.

    The independent movement has largely centered itself not around the JFK/Reagan archetype, but the Truman archetype. The give them hell Harry archetype.

    John Anderson used it…so did Ross Perot. They did not lose becuase of this but because Anderson did not have the resources to fight off being locked out of debates and sadly Ross Perot quite the race (when he was ahead in the polls !!!). If Bill Clinton or George Bush took a vacation from the election for three weeks they would have been destroyed (pundits forget this).

    It seems to me that Mayor Bloomberg is a whole lot more Harry Truman than Kennedy/Reagan…and good for him. Truth hurts and people need to be told about it. America needs this now more than ever and I hope the Mayor knows this.

    I don’t know how much more “vision” without hard work this country can take (left or right). Time to hit the books with the Mayor at the helm.

  6. But Truman knew how politics REALLY worked in this burg Washington – he had an intuitive sense on that that should not be dismissed as afactor in his success. Truman knew his way around the DC block better than most and when and where to twist arms and how to do that all important timely followup and when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Carter did not want to learn and thought he had all the answers – thus the outcome of his Admin that Demos to this day run away from. Lessons for 2008 for sure!!

  7. An Obama nomination would improve Bloomberg’s chances of winning as a third party candidate. Obama has a strong cult following for his populist message, but I doubt it will appeal to the broader population who may recognize that he is just a lot of hot air. The Democratic mass media are moving to take out McCain by looking for anything they can misrepresent.

    Bloomberg can use the “change” idea to his advantage by informing people that he has demonstrated he can produce change as Mayor of New York City rather than just talking about it like Obama. I suggest the message of those who support a Bloomberg candidacy should be “want real change draft Bloomberg.”

  8. Sean says:


  9. Citizen Ben says:

    Sean – like that one.

  10. Rather than nice slogans on “Change” which are all good and fine, how about Bloomie starting to differentiate by holding the other candidates to full account on their “change” and HOW they are going to implement their “Change” and at what costs? The below article “Costly Campaign Vows Face Reality Check” would be an excellent one for a prospective or actual Bloomie candidacy to hammer home on with the others so as to connect the current political “Never-Never Land” vast ends-means disconnects where the others will not.

    More than ever in 2008, Bloomie as well as all the other Candidates need to level with the American people on the true parameters of the change they profess to implement. As Greenstein and Reishauer say in the article:

    “They face a collision with reality,” said Bob Greenstein, who heads the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. “None of the three candidates is coming to grips with budget realities.”

    “Urban Institute President Robert Reischauer, who directed the Congressional Budget Office during landmark budget debates of 1990 and 1993, says there’s only so much any incoming president can hope to accomplish. Already, Reischauer says, the agenda includes bruising battles over renewing the Bush tax cuts, as well as reforming the AMT and preventing Medicare payments to doctors from being cut.”

    “There’s a certain amount of political capital and energy that new administrations have and because the plate is already full, it’s going to be very hard for them to push forward on new initiatives,” Reischauer said.”

    THAT discussion would be the REAL change we desperately need – not more spiffed-up sloganeering!!

  11. Kim says:

    The kind of change we need is a common sense domestic agenda.

    I would like to see a “conservative” energy and education policy, meaning more competition, not a big govt role.

    Add a liberal health care policy, more regulation; in fact a big enough program to address the Medicare problem that JM points out.

    A new president could work on each of these, if he wanted to. The temptaion will be to get distracted by our military and foreign policy issues.

    The Nader candidacy is an example of why I would prefer a real third party in the U.S. Running independents for president isn’t working IMO.

    I like the Jesse Ventura model better than the Ross Perot model.

  12. Sean says:

    Perhaps we should be thanking Nader? I was wondering what the effect might be on Bloomberg when I came upon this article today:

    Living in NJ, I have my reservations about Gov Corzine, but he’s paying attention to what Bloomberg is doing… as am I… still…

  13. “Liberal”/”Conservative” are just labels and mean nada when it comes to effective policy. What is paramount though are the costs and means of implementation of certain policies and how you you cover/account for those in an organized meaningful and sustainable way.

    No matter what though, I agree the next Prez will have to focus on 2 or 3 of the biggie issues and not get side-tracked on the smaller niggling issues and pandering to the lobbyist/activists and be all things to all people (ala Bill Clinton). The key to me is HOW these candidates now prioritize their agendas to focus on the 2 or 3 biggies. I don’t know how you get around not including Foreign Policy in that prioritization in the top 1 or 2 – world is just too dangerous ignore and we need to bolster Statecraft if the last 15 years teaches us anything.

    That leaves one or two biggie issues left to focus on. To me Entitlements wins hands down (We are essentially cooked if we don’t in the next 10 years) as well as Comprehensive Political/Governmental Reform as at least Numero 2 or 3!! Addressing any more and you risk losing focus and get sidetracked IMHO.

  14. Kim says:

    Conservative is more than a label, it means that a policy can be implemented with government having a minor role rather than a big role.

    A fairly good example is this check most people will be getting in May/June. Its a “conservative” stimulus plan, get cash to people who will be likely to spend most of it.

    I think a new president can move quickly in his first 100 days to propose a small govt policy on both energy and education that would make a difference.

    A more liberal plan, with higher levels of government involvement, may be needed for health care because the current system had powerful entrenched players; I dont think it can be tweaked successfully.

    A new health care policy may required a number of months to form.

    The way to get around being obsessed with foreign policy is that the solution is for the U.S. to have better alliances for military and diplomatic purposes. We need to do less, as our allies do more. The Sec. Of State should be working on that 24/7 with the President coming in when there are breakthrough moments.

    Entitlements is a Red Herring John, Medicare is a big problem, SS not so much. If we fix health care, there is no “Entitlement” issue.

    I’m expecting Obama to win Texas next week, whats the plan for March?

  15. The $150 billion “checks” you refer to will probably not be cut/sent until July August and will have minimal if any effect on the $15 Trillion economy and would not be felt (think misquito bite) if at all until the inaugural. It’s just more feel good though that will put us further in the hole and boost the inflationary trend as well as the deficit/debt – actually very similar to what that “conservative” McGovern proposed back in 1972. My how times change!

    What we need is solid fiscal responsibility in fact and policy. And the Soc Security Entitlements $9 trillion and growing actuarial unfunded mandate is no red herring with. I agree it is dwarfed by Medicare but if you cannot get the Kahoonas to do a long term sustainable fix on Social Security, forget the REAL gordian knot of Medicare spending and then the Health Care can of worms. With the AARP folks armed and ready to whip that Third rail an easy quick fix is easy to talk about but politically it is going to be a tough nut to crack if it can. And that exercise would be just a bare bare warm up for the Medicare then the Healthcare fight to come.

    By 2009, the oldest Boomers will be only two years away from Medicare eligibility. We cannot once again allow entitlement (both Social security and Medicare) reform to be hijacked by national health reform like it was in 1993 (Groundhog Day redux there??). The problem is not just the demise of entitlement reform. The problem is that without entitlement reform we will never find the fiscal resources to pursue other worthwhile public objectives, including national health reform. Time is running out folks. We had better get our priorities straight before it’s too late. And hopefully somebody like Bloomie can if McCain and Obama are found wanting!!

    But Bloomie better get it in gear as Time waits for no one – my read is that he only has a week or two to decide on the Prez bid. But on talking to the real issues confronting this nation, well Bloomies bucks there is no time limit on that I guess.

  16. Kim says:


    My point on stimilus checks is not that they will be effective but that some government policies that a new president can address, dont require a lot of time -if they are small govt approaches.

    I believe that approach can be used for energy and education reform, which would benefit from changing the “rules” for those industries.

    I would rather link health care and Medicare reform because, hmmmmm, Medicare is a health care program.

    Packaging Medicare with SS under “entitlements” is the kind of politics that I dont like.

    Social security reform is a big political problem, but not directly a finanical problem for the U.S. We can afford any of the policy alternatives. Its Medicare that we “cant” afford.

    If Obama wins Texas 6 days from now, the general will likely be McCain vs. Obama. It will be too late for an outsider to run a campaign except as a spoiler. While Bloomberg is popular on the East coast, his starting point would be 5% nationally.

    As bad as Unity was, I was at least looking forward to the convention, that may have been interesting, and maybe democratic.

  17. I agree – start small and scale as you can whenever possible and as long as it is effective and does not defray from the long-term goal. And on Medicare no matter how you slice it, it is considered an entitlement for those over 65.

    And if you are going to expand that Medicare entitlement mandate to cover all of Health Care for the whole population, then you better get the Medicare part of it under some semblance of fiscal control or forget Comprehensive Health Care and cost controls. Otherwise you will really blow out the budget and you will never ever get the now runaway costs under control and make Health Care implementable – Must walk (crawl even) before you can run.

    And Unity waited to long IMHO – should have moved up their convention/platform builing 6 months to reflect the accelerated front-loaded Primary season. Thus they had neither Issues, Candidates, or Branding – the 3 keys to success!! Oh well!!

  18. Kim says:

    Nader is quoted that in Texas a voter cannot sign a ballot access petition if they vote in the primary.

    How might Paul or Bloomberg work that angle, just spend enough?

    He also referred to a state where outsiders cannot come in and canvas after the primary.

    HRC will have a hard time fund-rasing after March 4. Are 3rd party candidates facing a fairly few numbers of days for getting in also?

Leave a Reply

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


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>