Run Mike Run

This week's announcement by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that he is now an independent--upending his former status of Republican in Name Only (RINO), and longtime status of Democrat before that--has angered the two major parties. 

Like all good RINOs, Bloomberg's political views skew to the left.  As Bob Herbert relates in his tribute to the political status quo today (log-in required),  Democrats are especially worried that Bloomberg, if he chooses to run for President next year, will siphon votes from their side and retain the Presidency for the Republicans. Bloomberg just may be (gasp!!) the Ralph Nader of 2008.

Herbert is clearly alarmed at the prospect of a Bloomberg candidacy.  But his anxiety stems from a very tired premise: that a nation of almost 300 million people can only sustain two political parties.  It's not a democracy that Herbert wants, but merely an oligopoly that only allows party insiders to become President.

I'm not sure that I would vote for Bloomberg, but I'd appreciate having the option to do so.  I resented Bloomberg's Mayoral candidacy of 2005, when he turned New York's airwaves into a cult of personality focused on his Mayoral glory.  With that said, he has just as much right to run for President as Hilary Clinton, John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani.  This is America, right?

Then again, that kind of crazy thinking is what gets Ralph Nader into trouble.

Comments

[Phillip_Bach]

Though I wasn't a NYC resident in 2001, I volunteered for Mike re-election in 2005. I'd be lying if I didn't admit to some feeling of betrayal from his switcheroo, but as you noted, he was a "RINO," and we were all on notice from the beginning that we were being used for his personal amibition.

Beyond party politics, though, I have developed a grudging admiration for Bloomberg, ironically for the same reason I admire President Bush. He seems to do what he thinks is right, and doesn't much care what anyone thinks. I admire strong, principled leaders, and Bloomberg has been a fighter for what he believes is in the city's best interests. Although I happen to be very skeptical about most of his nanny-state agenda, I do admire his character.

Of course, sometimes the line between principled determination and arrogance or stubbornness is not clear. President Bush has often been accused of the latter, and I sometimes wonder if Bloomberg's strong leadership is just a by-product of the independence that comes from personal wealth. He can afford to do pretty much whatever he wants, free from the need to raise campaign funds or build networks of political support.

As for the political calculations, I tend to agree that, if Bloomberg has any impact on the race whatsoever, he will pull a handful of votes away from Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee. If Bloomberg runs, it will little more than an exercise in vanity for him, and perhaps a prelude to some future race.

But he doesn't have any clear base of support. Unlike Ralph Nadar, who appeals to far-left voters who are disillusioned with the Democratic party, Bloomberg would most likely appeal to moderate-liberals who would be content to vote for the Democratic nominee, and Bloomberg's ability to pour millions of dollars into a futile campaign will probably not change that very much.

[Michael Bloomberg for President]

Marcus,

Here is my take— 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 underestimate the value of competence and 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 because they either have party connects or "owe" someone because of a campaign contribution?

This makes Bloomberg the right man at the right time. His money buys him independence of a sort no other candidate can claim.

Bloomberg knows how to manage money, and how to run a multi-billion dollar enterprise. He is competent, and has world class executive management experience. More so than any joker running for either of the major parties.

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.

The fact is, presidents rarely get to implement even a fraction of the so-called promises and policy positions they campaign on. A president's term in office is most largely shaped by events of the day. And after the fact a president is most judged by their successes and failures in dealing with crisis that emerge. These are the things that define most president's term in office.

What we need now is competence.

In order to balance the ticket, Bloomberg needs a veep with solid conservative credentials. Hagel is a very good choice for a running mate. He is the name most bandied about. He is level headed with integrity. I'm betting on it that the key to a 3rd party win is going to be endorsements involving some very high profile defections from both parties.

Best regards,
Chris

http://www.RunMikeRun.com
Run Mike Run - Michael Bloomberg for President

[MarkD]

Chris, while I would agree with you that Bloomberg certainly has a great deal of executive experience and has been successful in business, I am not sure I agree with your thesis.

There is a fundamental difference between running a republican government and a corporation (even if it is a multi-billion dollar corporation). George Bush was our first MBA president. His VP ran Haliburton successfully for many years. I think the current administration disproves, conclusively, that business executive competence necessarily translates into political executive competence in a republican form of government.

A corporate CEO, in effect, is an appointed dictator. A president in a republican government, even if elected by a large majority is subject to checks and balances of co-equal branches of government. I think this was the fundamental flaw in the Bush administration. Bush and Cheney saw themselves as corporate executives appointed to run the government. Bush's famous line, "I am the decider," speaks volumes about his government as business philosophy. In fact our constitution clearly states that the President is not the decider in all things. The congress decides what is funded and what is not, the congress decides whether or not we go to war, and the courts decide whether or not actions of the government are permissible under the law. The President is indeed one of the deciders - but he/she is not THE DECIDER. And therein lies the flaw in electing business people to executive positions in government. That is not to say that businessmen cannot be effective and competent and effective political executives. Mitt Romney proved that you can be effective in both arenas. But business executive competence is not necessarily an indicator of political executive competence.

If you want to convince me that Bloomberg is the right man for the presidential mansion then tell me what he has done while in Gracie Mansion. I am less interested in what he did on Wall St.

[ChrisG]

I understand where you are coming from, MarkD, but your comparison is very thin, and easily falls apart.

George W. Bush has an MBA, sure. He once held the position of general manager of the Texas Rangers baseball team, only an honorary title, he performed no management responsibilities other than bringing in investors. His management roles in the oil industry involved three business failures that all went bankrupt (losing other people's money, not his own) before he had to move on to another career. His private sector experience was an abject failure.

Dick Cheney is a government man, through and through. He is a career politician. As a hold-over during a Democratic administration (Bill Clinton), Cheney sough out work in the private sector, and was hired as CEO of Haliburton, a military sub-contractor solely on the basis of his political connections and ability to schmooze for government pork contracts.

Neither Bush Jr. or Cheney have any relevant executive management experience in the private sector. To try to compare them to Michael Bloomberg's success as a self-made Billionaire, entrepreneur is laughable.

Additionally, Bloomberg has already excelled in a government executive role— as a two-term Mayor of America's largest city. Some would say that being a Mayor of a city does not equate to being Governor of a state, for public sector management experience. For most other cities this may be true, but New York City's population, budget, complicated economy and mix of diverse interests and interest groups is a notable exception. The Mayor of New York City represents a constituency larger than any of the Democratic candidates, save for Hillary, who it might be pointed out is an attorney, and a one and a half term Senator with zero executive management experience of any kind in either the public or private sector. Bloomberg has both, and has proven to be fabulously deft and successful in both roles.

Best regards,
Chris

Run Mike Run -
Michael Bloomberg for President
http://www.RunMikeRun.com

[ChrisG]

MarkD stated:
> If you want to convince me that Bloomberg is the right man
> for the presidential mansion then tell me what he has done
> while in Gracie Mansion. I am less interested in what he did
> on Wall St...

Fair enough.

For the record, Bloomberg never moved into Gracie Mansion as Mayor of New York, preferring to stay in his Upper East Side brownstone... but I digress.

As mayor or New York, Bloomberg has had one accomplishment after another.

He did what everyone said could not be done: He brought all five boroughs of the New York public school system under the direct management of the mayor's office, renegotiated the Teachers Union contracts to accept a base pay cut in exchange for merit based pay raises, acceptance of standardized testing of students to rate teachers' performance and the ability to terminate teachers who did not perform. Part of the school budget is allocated based upon the each schools' performance as well, the best performing schools receiving more funds. As a consequence, bad teachers have been weeded out of the system, competition has been introduced as teachers compete for raises and schools compete for funds, and high school academic scores in the city are up 30% since he took office.

Bloomberg took office about four months after September 11th. Giuliani had spent heavily in his last year in office, not anticipating the impact of the dot-com bubble burst or the financial impact of 9-11 which nobody could have prepared for. Tax revenues dropped, and Giuliani passed on a budget crisis of staggering proportions. As a consequence, Bloomberg took office inheriting a budget gap for the city larger than the entire state budget of some other presidential candidate's states (yes, you read that correctly). New York law mandates a balanced budget. Albany was talking about stepping in and taking over the city's finances. Due to these same events, New York City's unemployment rate also shot to record highs. Not to mention the devastation caused by September 11th itself. Bloomberg had very unpopular decisions he had to make. Most of the city's budget is made up of fixed costs. He chose to get the pain over with. He slashed budgets on everything he could slash. He even closed many redundant fire stations. I cannot express to you how unpopular it was to close fire stations after 9-11. When there was nothing left he could cut he did what had to be done and raised property taxes. Today, the city has a balanced budget. He set up a rainy day fund in the event of a future budget gap crisis, then lowered property taxes back down. Today the city's bond rating is AA-, the highest in the city's history. Unemployment is also currently the lowest the city has ever recorded.

In the wake of 9-11, many prominent companies from lower Manhattan relocated their headquarters out of New York. Some went across the river to Jersey City. Other moved to Connecticut, or as far away as Boston. Bloomberg treated New York like a business, and these companies like client accounts that had been lost. He personally went out and pitched to them the benefits of relocating back to New York, offered tax breaks, and whatever incentives he could put on the table to get them back to New York. This was no small task. Many of these companies had made large investments, building new headquarters, relocating their management. One by one he brought them back until every single major company that had moved away eventually returned to New York, and several new financial firms came along too. Like winning new accounts. This is one way his business background paid off.

Traditionally, to get an area of New York rezoned is the sort of endeavor that takes years. A large rezoning can be in the work for a decade or more. Every special interest group fights these things tooth and nail— lawsuits slowly wind their way through the courts. Bloomberg took a look at the whole city, made decisions about more efficient land use, and put a comprehensive rezoning program into place. He then went to the major developers that would profit most from the rezoning, and he set up a privately financed affordable-housing fund. To kick start the fund he threw in a few million of his own money (not city budget money, but HIS money) to shame the developers into donating generously. He then initiated the largest low cost housing development program in New York for half a century. This got the special interest groups to back his rezoning program, and everything was pushed through without resistance. This sparked the largest construction boom in New York City history, dwarfing even the 1920s. So, the developers got to move forward with lucrative developments, the city got tons of construction jobs, the poor got affordable housing, and the tax payers didn't have to foot the bill for one single cent. Much of this has not been in Manhattan, but in the often neglected outer boroughs. Today Queens and Brooklyn sport river-front skylines of their own that would be impressive for many cities, and in the Bronx... yes, that Bronx, they are constructing luxury condominiums in what were formerly blighted neighborhoods.

Bloomberg also embraced a green strategy for the city that some thought would stifle growth by increasing construction costs. But instead, it has spawned a whole new growth-industry for the city. Because so many new green-construction-technologies have been developed and tried and tested throughout this huge New York construction boom, the New York architecture and engineering industry have now become world leaders in green technology. When other cities all over the globe want engineers with green construction expertise, they hire New York firms, bringing more business and money to the New York economy.

Since Bloomberg has taken office, crime is down another 30% from Giuliani's term in office. The big difference is, crime is down without the backlash from the black community that Giuliani suffered. Rudy fought ruthlessly with the city's black leadership throughout his two terms as mayor. When Bloomberg took office, one of the first things he did was invite all the prominent figures in the black community to meet with him, and let them know that they would always have access. When Rudy had several high profile incidents involving police shooting and killing black men that turned out to be the wrong person, each time Rudy would give a press conference staunchly defending the police department's tactics, and would immediately suffer the wrath of the city's black leadership, causing counter press conferences, small riots in minority neighbors and tons of negative press coverage. When Bloomberg experience a similar accidental shooting of a black man by the NYPD on his watch, he held a press conference to speak about the tragic loss of life. Assured the city that there would be a full investigation into the incident, and he gave the press conference with Al Sharpton standing at his side, and many other black leaders standing with him. As a consequence, the entire situation was diffused without incident, and Bloomberg still enjoys very high approval ratings in the black community.

I could go on and on.

Run Mike Run -
Michael Bloomberg for President
http://www.RunMikeRun.com