Focus on Bloomberg at bipartisan summit

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

NORMAN, Okla. - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg turned up the volume on a possible independent bid for president on Monday, arguing that partisanship is limiting the nation's progress at a summit of Republicans and Democrats that stole a bit of the spotlight from the candidates in New Hampshire.

Amid talk about Washington riven by partisanship, Bloomberg gathered with some current elected officials, others out of office for years to discuss bridging the divide between the two parties. The summit came on the eve of the first-in-the-nation primary.

"People have stopped working together, government is dysfunctional, there's no collaborating and congeniality," Bloomberg said to applause from the crowd. "America is being held back," he said.

The panel also included Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who is often mentioned as an ideal running mate for Bloomberg.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_po/bloomberg2008

[SteppingRazor]

1. One other mark for an Obama candidacy.

It'll put the kibosh on a "can't-we-get-along" indie run by Bloomberg.

[TwilightGardener]

2. My hope is that Bloomberg and some of these other guys (Hagel, Nunn, etc) endorse Obama

rather than run against him. I can't see where Bloomberg would have any space for a candidacy if Obama is the nominee.

[billbuckhead]

4. The first Jewish president is plenty of space

[TwilightGardener]

5. No, they're both hammering on the same "unity" theme, and Obama had it first--

It would be kind of cool, though, if the election came down to a black, a Jew and a Mormon. The rednecks would just cry in their beer.

[billbuckhead]

6. Hell George W Bush had a unity theme

Every American politician since the founding fathers said this crap in public about unity. In private they say stuff like grover whorequist about bipartisanship being like date rape.

[redqueen]

3. Uh, people stopped working together in the 90's, brainiac.

:eyes:

[Bandit]

8. You must be fairly young

Partisanship has been brutal throughout our history.

[redqueen]

9. Well yeah we could go back to the civil war...

I was kinda trying to stay with "current" events. Remember the gov't shutdown when those awful 'obstructionist' repukes dominated in congress, so intent ruining the country? :)

[Bandit]

13. You think FDR had it easy?

They hated him and did everything in their power to stop him and bring him down..It was every bit as bad or worse than what went on in the ninties.

[redqueen]

14. Did I say that?

:wtf:

Like I said before... "current". Within the past generation. Jesus.

[Bandit]

15. That is why I suggested you might be young

FDR is of my generation. Granted I was only a child but I was here.

[redqueen]

16. Age is relative. (nt)

[ToeBot]

7. Do Bloomberg and the rest of these thugs think they can Extort unity among the partisans?

It wont work. If he doesn't like it he can run for the office and let the voters decide. Its beyond galling. The Democrats are set to benefit from the largest shift in public sentiment in 50 years and the centrists are falling all over them selves to try and prevent it. Congratulations on finally finding something to believe in. Do the Democrats in this gang even mind being played? Graham, Robb, Nunn, I'm guessing no; but I always thought better of Hart. Well Hart can go fuck himself too.

[Didereaux]

12. ...a unity of the center and moderates, no loonies need apply! read msg#10

[Inuca]

21. Thugs?!?!

Do you have any idea what they want, what was said, what their goals are? This is EXACTLY the blind "us vs. them" mentality that brought us to the mess we are in.

And I agree with the other reply, please read post 10, very educational.

[Didereaux]

10. Most misunderstand the word 'Unity' as Bloomberg & Co are using it.

Bloomberg and the core of people around him all use the term bi-partisan unity: If you have been following this at all (and you should it is far more viable than Ron Paual etc and could split both parties down their middles) they are referring to a unity of the moderates, a coalition of moderate centrists from ALL parties that would somp down the fringe lunatics in both parties(omigawd the DEMS have lunatics too!). If the Dems and Repugs nominate more divisive candidates, and or the Dems put out one that is two weak or to vulnerable, these characters are willing to jump and try and salvage a thin win. It's doable, but I don't think it is there first choioce, I think the little Oklahoma clambake was a not so subtle threat to the Dems & the Repugs that these guys are serious, and they have some real serious cash and big caliber guns.

I have very mixed feeling on this, on the one hand I think that the only long term solution is the complete dismantling of the Republican Party, it simply is too riddled with fringe crazies, on the other I see some of the same elements(insane zealotry is a brain disease and not a political one) in the Democratic Party. When the radical twirly-eyed youth(and immatured old brains) took over the Democratic Party in 1969, after Nixons win, the DEMS were very similar in nature to todays Repugs, albeit they waged war on common sense as opposed to the Repugs waging real war on real nations and real people at home.


What I am trying to say is that Bloomberg poses a threat to zealots, crazy fringe elements and the overly greedy criminals of the defense industry and energy industries(as opposed to the milder don't kill the goose thievery practiced by Blue Chippers heh).

I suspect that since loonies attention spans are limited to reading just one or two lines and then constructing tomes based on false pre-conceived premises, this post will be wildly attacked, or ignored as having too many poly-syllabic words. Don't care, it had to be said.

If the Dems are to win it is imperitive to chose an electable(neaning they must be acceptable to the independent voters(who constitute one third of this nations electorate) AND most importantly they must WORK on good viable plans to solve this countries problems. Secondly they must work the entire campaign all the way to election day in November. that is what has killed the Dems before, many, many times before. Wild entusiasm early on with great effort, followed by a steady decline mid way and quitting altogether near the end. That hasn't worked in the past, it won't work again. If you truly want to see a Dem in the Whitehouse you will do absolutely everything in your power(big or small) to see that this party does not repeat its history.

[Inuca]

20. Great post! n/t

[YvonneCa]

11. Did you watch this...

...panel discussion? The focus was NOT on Bloomberg, contrary to the title.

[Inuca]

18. I did watch

The focus was most definitely not on Bloomberg, and some very interesting things were said. The main points I think were an appeal for an effective way to eliminate the paralyzig Washington gridlock + an appeal to the candidates to spell out as clearly as possible the concrete ways they intend to use to tackle the various major problems mentioned in the statement (the list is quite long and good, sorry, no link). Concrete as opposed to a laundry list of wishes to get the respective votes. Concrete also as a recognition of two important (and unpleasant) facts: 1.resources are limited, therefore prorities need to be established, and the candidates (and politicians in general) must behonest with the voters in wha they claim can be achieved; and 2. almost everything is interrelated to everything else, hence the need for a clear strategy and vision (again, as opposed to just sweet promises). A unity government was also mentioned repeatedly, and the not so subtle threat of "or else, Bloomberg is in" was hanging over the whole proceedings. But I find it telling that Bloomberg (to whom, of course, most of the questions were addressed) and Hagel (most often mentioned as B's possible running mate) were probably the most silent of the lot.

[flaminbats]

17. I thought Cohen made the best point..

instead of focusing on what each of us want from our elected leaders, we should express what we are willing to give up or sacrifice to improve our country.

the only reason Republicans like Bush and Democrats like Zell Miller are able to be successful in our political arena is too many independents, Republicans, and even Democrats are afraid to be labeled tax and spend, government loving, welfare state liberals. but that didn't hurt FDR during the New Deal and WWII, when our tax rates were the highest ever!

The problem is that voters aren't asking "what can I give up?"

when a Bush supporter talks about how unpatriotic it is to end this war in Iraq, they should talk about how much more they wish to pay in taxes just to fund it. when someone talks about entitlement reform, they should talk about what they must do to save Social Security and Medicare..not how to end those programs. when a retired person speaks out in favor of higher payroll taxes to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent, they should also talk about what taxpayers who are too young to receive those benefits shall get in return for their taxed income.

The debate has become a battle of competing egos, today's good Samaritan can't just help that poor, sick person on the roadside. today's good Samaritan better be ready to be called a terrorist, a foolish bleeding-heart liberal, and be told his remedies are far too harsh to cure such a sick patient.

bright leaders like Gary Hart and Susan Eisenhower will only run when voters in both parties let them know that politicians aren't America's scapegoats.

[Inuca]

19. I was impressed by Cohen as well

very good.