High Broderists Prepared To Spend Bloomberg's Money

Broder reports on his Establishment Nader-like movement:

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington. Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.

So if thery do not get a High Broderite candidate to back (McCain and/or Obama, based on a number of reports), they will spend Bloomberg's billions on a quixotic campaign with no chance of success.

What is stunning about this list is that it includes Gary Hart and Bob Graham. Excuse me? What the heck is Gary Hart doing? What is Bob Graham doing? You expect this kind of nonsense from the Borens and Nunns in this group. They were always basically moderate Republicans anyway. And this revolt is a revolt of moderate Republicans anyway.

But Bob Graham ran for President as a Democrat just 3 years ago. And Gary Hart pontificates from a High Progressive perch. Now he joins hands with the likes of Broder and Bloomberg? What a phony he is.

But I must go back to Obama on this, because these High Broderists will NOT mount a challenge to his candidacy, if reports are true. Now what does this tell us about how he will change the system? Obama's Kumbaya schtick now needs to deal with this. I think a response from him is in order. Will he support a Bloomberg candidacy if he does not capture the nomination?

< Fungal Infection Hits 900 California Inmates, Will Continue to Spread | Guantanamo Down to 275 Detainees >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And Obama has given what indications exactly (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kovie on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:35:10 PM EST
    that he would support Bloomberg or not support the Dem nominee if it's not him? How is this unlike the story of the politician who was forced to declare that he did not beat his wife, not because there was any indication that he had done so, but because his opponent wanted to put him in a position of having to deny it.

    This circular firing squad stuff is going to do wonders for us next November. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a repeat of '68?

    Two things (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:37:37 PM EST
    One, Obama MET with Bloomberg.

    Two, Bloomberg has said he will NOT run if Obama is a nominee.

    That seems pretty compelling to me.

    Is is THAT much to ask of him? Heck, ask it of all of them if you like.

    YOU know only Obama needs to answer this question.

    But play coy if you like.


    Bloomberg met with Obama AND with Hagel (none / 0) (#5)
    by bronte17 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:49:36 PM EST
    Edwards' star is rising [according to some polls] and that may not sit well with some.

    Kovie's lucky I am not for Edwards (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:04:01 AM EST
    or I would have used this title

    "High Broderists: Give Us Obama and McCain Or Else We Sick Bloomie On You"


    Hillary had a Murdoch-backed fundraiser (none / 0) (#31)
    by kovie on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:21:28 AM EST
    Are we now to demand of her that she states publically if she loses the nomination, she will not support the Fox candidate?

    Edwards voted for the war. Should he wear a hairshirt before we can all support him? My god, the silliness one comes across during the primaries (which you yourself noted not long ago).

    While the timing might be a bit odd, I'm not sure why a Dem candidate's meeting with the CURRENT NYC mayor who is not only no longer a registered Pub but a former Dem and who thus might possibly be of some use in helping him or her pick up some primary votes--not just in NY but nationwide, given how popular Bloomberg is--is such a sacriligious act. If Obama has been having any thoughts whatsoever of pulling a Lieberman, then I will be the first to condemn his as a traitor to the party. But this is not how I read this meeting.

    He is trying to woo the center and soft right--his surrogate in Iowa said as much in a recent town hall type meeting with all the other Iowa surrogates on CSPAN--who are either leaning Dem, or liable to do so, either in the primaries (where some are allowed to vote even if they're not registered Dems) or in the general, should he win the nomination. And he's doing it not by hanging out with neocons like Lieberman or Kristol, but with centrists like Bloomberg. This is bad?

    Since when did we become the party (cough, tent) of only the true left? We have an historic chance to not only bring back those Reagan Democrats and win over a wide part of the independant center, but also woo more than a few moderate and quite unhappy Pubs. Again, this is bad? So long as he tries to appeal to them from the left (or center-left) and doesn't adopt outright GOP policies (and yes, I know about his stupid anti-Krugman statements and nonsense about a social security crisis and being against mandates, all of which I've criticized him for), I don't see what's wrong with this.

    His whole campaign has been about ending the 50+1% era of partisanship, not by triangulating, not by moving to the right, not by trying to do to the right what the right has been doing to the left, but by building as broad a coalition of supporters as possible in a way that does not call for selling out a progressive agenda. It might be to the right of Edwards, but it's still left of center and I'd argue in many ways left of Clinton (although not on health insurance I would agree--he really needs to come around on mandates). If he can win by doing this, he will have the political capital to pretty much ignore the hard right, i.e. people to the right of Bloomberg on domestic policy and to the right of Hagel on foreign policy. And the way to do this is by winning over folks like Bloomberg.

    Again, I see this meeting as Obama trying to win over Bloomberg, or at least neutralize him as a potential problem in the general (not just if he wins, but for any Dem), and NOT with any thoughts of endorsing him Lieberman-style should he lose the nomination. Obama will support the Dem nominee. I am convinced of that. He will be politically dead if he doesn't. This is not 1852 and the Dems are not the Whigs. If anything, the GOP is (but even they're currently far from that state), which is why Hagel isn't running (either for reelection or the presidency) and why Bloomberg left it. But we're seeing enough concern troll nonsense coming from the Hillary camp about Obama (and will no doubt see vastly more from the right if he wins), that we don't need to see yet more of it from the left.

    There are no perfect Dems in this race, and Obama, like the rest, is far from it. But all of his imperfections combined do not make him out to be the possible DINO that some are making him out to be. Instead, what I'm seeing is disappointment upon closer examination of someone who for a brief moment appeared to be the second coming of Lincoln, FDR and JFK combined. How DARE he not be that man?


    You wish to speak only of recent history? (none / 0) (#45)
    by CMike on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:34:04 PM EST
    Kovie asks:
    Are we now to demand of her that she states publically if she loses the nomination, she will not support the Fox candidate?

    Will this do?

    Clinton Joins Boycott of Fox Debate

    Kovie asks:

    Edwards voted for the war. Should he wear a hairshirt before we can all support him?

    Will this do?
    John Edwards said today that he apologized for his 2002 vote approving the invasion of Iraq because he realized about two years ago he should not have given George W. Bush the authority to wage war.

    "I thought it was important, if I believed that, to take responsibility for it and take that responsibility publicly," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a telephone interview.

    And simply meeting with Bloomberg (none / 0) (#46)
    by kovie on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:19:36 AM EST
    who is the CURRENT mayor of one of the US's biggest and most important cities, and no longer a Republican, even begins to compare with these other two acts? Are Dem members of congress and/or candidates for president (or any other office) no longer to meet with currently serving important US politicians who are not Republicans? Was there some loyalty oath that I never heard about?

    I applaud Edwards for his apology and it went a long way towards making me feel good about him as president. But as for Hillary, well, boycotting the Fox debate along with every other Dem was certainly commendable (although really, what choice did she have?), but has she given back the money that yellow journalists and warmongers Rupert and Roger helped raise for her? I view that as immeasurably worse than what Obama did (which I don't necessarily even view as bad) in terms of being anti-progressive. And, unlike Edwards, she has yet to meaningfully apologize for her war vote, or be honest about it.

    They have all "sinned". Yet for some reason only Obama is receiving many progressives' wrath right now, and I'm still trying to figure out why.


    Gridlock (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by koshembos on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:11:28 AM EST
    It turns out that the problems of the US, including Iraq, Pakistan, Europe, tax cuts for the rich, the mortgage default and others are all due to gridlock. Now if could only remove the gridlock all these problems will disappear. Ha Ha Ha

    As for Obama, for quite a while I see him as a moderate Republican, so I have no questions for him.

    Now there is a title to piss people off (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:13:01 AM EST
    "Is Obama A Rockefeller Republican?"

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:14:40 AM EST
    I don't know about Obama, but I've seriously started to think that Jay Rockefeller is a Rockefeller Republican.

    I think I've written as much (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:18:59 AM EST
    But it says something about how the Republican Party has shattered into a million pieces. This was some seriously funny s#^t:

    "I see Huckabee as more of a Prairie populist than what I would consider a traditional conservative," said former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a stalwart of the conservative movement once considered a 2008 presidential contender himself. "I don't see how he takes that show across the East Coast or even the Midwest."

    Dog on man (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:23:13 AM EST
    said that?

    There's something funny about the media (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:26:45 AM EST
    Rick Santorum is an authoritarian, not a conservative, and the idea that he's an expert at winning on the east coast after his unprecedented 18 point defeat in 2006 is just laughable.

    Zactly (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:29:32 AM EST
    That is a good question to ask him now (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:16:50 PM EST
    Seriously, though. Until now, I was in the "If only Gore had chosen Bob Grahm" camp.

    It doesn't even seem like there's an ideological basis for this movement. At least when Strom Thurmond and George Wallace ran 3rd party campaigns, they knew why they were doing it.

    I agree with you: this is going nowhere; not one electoral vote.

    2 billion of Bloomie's dollars (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:30:51 PM EST
    down the drain.

    But a comeuppance for the High Broderists.

    Edwards vs. Romney vs. bloomberg would be fun as all get out.


    I've got to admit (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:59:06 PM EST
    that I know some people who could easily be persuaded to vote for Bloomberg over Edwards.

    Perhaps we would start hearing about Edwards's Senate record again.


    They say that now (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:04:36 AM EST
    You know who would change their mind? (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:06:12 AM EST
    Bill Clinton.

    Of course (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:11:42 AM EST
    Too bad we can't run him.

    I thought that in 2000 (none / 0) (#18)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:13:50 AM EST
    He would've totally wiped the floor with W.

    Doesn't have to (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:20:20 AM EST
    Remember who got John Kerry over the Pennsylvania finish line?

    Bloomberg is intriguing but (none / 0) (#12)
    by bronte17 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:08:59 AM EST
    I'm not thrilled to see him consulting with Hagel.

    But, you know, a Bloomberg/Hagel combo would knock some serious holes in the landscape.


    It would b a shame for Bloomberg (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:10:36 AM EST
    to break one of his Manets.

    The entire issue of "extremes" (none / 0) (#8)
    by bronte17 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:04:35 AM EST
    on the "two" sides is BS.

    The Republicans have the fringe candidates... every single one of them.

    The leading Democratic candidates...Hilary, Obama and Edwards... not one is extreme nor promising the rose garden to us. Well, except for Edwards.

    Those attendees seek "consensus" after seven years?  Where have they been all this time? They could have spoken up at any time.

    Give Us McCain and Obama Or Else (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:05:31 AM EST
    We Sick Bloomie and His Billions On You.

    Is it wrong (none / 0) (#16)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:12:11 AM EST
    that I don't know which would be more fun, nominating Clinton or Edwards in response to such a threat?  Edwards has threatened to destroy their system.  But Clinton is a girl and Satan's consort at that (at least in Broder world).   Hmmm, is there any way to run both of them, maybe on alternating days?

    The only thing that could make it more fun is Huckabee.  Sure, he'd be a disaster as president, but watching the moneyed Repubs fighting the Christianists they've spent the last 30 years pandering to?  Good times.


    Even better (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:13:54 AM EST
    have Ron Paul run an Independent campaign.

    Man that would be a fun election.


    OMG, OMG (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:15:26 AM EST
    That would almost - almost - make up for the fact that I'm probably not going to get to see Biden debate Guiliani.  

    Maybe that would put an end (none / 0) (#34)
    by Coral on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:40:37 AM EST
    to the two-party system. What an election, indeed!

    Well, McCain won't make it (none / 0) (#24)
    by bronte17 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:20:26 AM EST
    His stock isn't rising that fast.

    And you're having fun at Obama's expense tonight. :^)


    His supporters' expense (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:24:14 AM EST
    But seriously, if I was an Edwards person, that is exactly the title I would have written.

    lions and tigers and (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:08:05 AM EST
    david broder, oh my! too f*ing funny, really. bloomberg's candidacy, and a buck, will get you a nice coffee refill at 7/11.

    if you live in the right area, you can get it refilled 24hrs a day. and damn fine coffee too. more than can be said for any possible waste of time, energy and money that would be a bloomberg candidacy.

    yeah, i bet all the candidates are just shaking in their nikes at the prospect! not!

    No offense (none / 0) (#30)
    by taylormattd on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:07:02 AM EST
    but that's a stupid question. Why would he support a third party candidate? It's a totally baseless smear to suggest he would.

    Puhleeeaze (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 08:29:23 AM EST
    He MET with Bloomberg and Bloomberg will NOt run against him.

    THIS is the price of KUMBAYA politics.

    He'll brig us Republicans he said yesterday. HOW is a critical question,. This is part of that question.

    You do not like it of course because you are a die hard Obama man. But it is a very fair question.

    And the fact is you know it is.


    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by taylormattd on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:28:47 PM EST
    I don't like it because it makes no sense whatsoever, it's not supported by anything other than speculation, and frankly, it flies in the face of the very links you provide in this story.

    As a preliminary matter, you group together events that have happened a month apart as if they are part of some linked series of events. Obama met with Bloomberg a month ago. It had nothing to do with these stupid new reports about the Broder Axis of Stupidity Unity 08 BS.

    In fact, if you read the very link you provide, you will see a far more plausible explanation for the meeting than that Obama is considering endorsing some third party candidacy:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- New York may be Sen. Hillary Clinton's home turf - but the man in charge, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, met this morning with Barack Obama, one of her chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    . . .

    While Bloomberg has always spoken well of Clinton, he feels no special hometown loyalty to the senator, who failed to endorse him during his two mayoral runs, when he ran as a Republican.

    Bloomberg reached out to the Obama campaign, according to campaign spokesman Bill Burton, who told CNN's Mary Snow the pair discussed issues from the economy and education to homeland security and global warming - but wouldn't say whether the two talked about a possible presidential endorsement.

    Anybody who would read this article objectively would say that Obama was hoping to secure an endorsement from Bloomberg, not that Obama was planning to abandon the Democratic party to endorse some third party.

    First of all, it was Bloomberg who arranged the meeting, not Obama. Second, this was a month ago. Are we really supposed to believe that a month ago, Obama was plotting abandoning the Democratic party to endorse some stupid third party? This is far more than a stretch; it makes no sense at all.

    You can claim I am saying this because I support Obama, but you would be wrong. The strength of my support isn't near what you believe, and although I don't plan on caucusing for her, I am very fond of Hillary.

    I just happen to think you are flat wrong, that's all.


    Well then the reason is (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:28:06 AM EST
    you are flat wrong.

    actually, (none / 0) (#32)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:24:40 AM EST
    i just happened to notice where this thread falls, between fungal infections and guantanimo detainees.

    how very appropriate, really.

    good question: why on earth would sen. obama support a third party candidate, if he's not nominated himself? what has he said or done that even makes it a valid question?

    Gulf One (none / 0) (#33)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:05:29 AM EST
    Boren and Nunn voted against GW I.  On the other side, only a single republican, Hatfield, voted against it.  

    Nunn torpedoed Tower.

    Though I remember how Boren and Nunn voted for Thomas.  I always got a kick out of the fact that Packwood voted against Thomas.

    Obama supports a third candidate ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:33:24 PM EST
    ... only in the world in which Obama is sincere in his supposed "bipartisan" convictions. Which is not this world.

    In this world Obama talks that way because he thinks it is what people want to hear, and it did get him this far, and apparently has made him a favorite of the Broderists.

    There is the makings of a tragedy in all this, like that kid whose name I can't remember, who flew too high with the wings his dad made for him. But I sure hope we get Edwards instead.

    Icarus (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    These guys need a name -- The Bloomers? (none / 0) (#37)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 02:34:36 PM EST
    High Broderists is just a little esoteric.

    May I suggest The Bloomers?

    Oh, and besides the mysterious Bloomberg breakfast, there's the tacking toward the Villageous Social Security "crisis," the fact that Obama wants Republicans in his cabinet, and the oddly neat correspodence between Obama's soaring but shallow rhetoric of "unity" and the meme of a "government of national unity."

    Of course, Obama could put this controversy to rest with a simple statement, and I suggest that he do so immediately.

    The voters of Iowa deserve to know whether they're voting for a Democrat, or a future member of The Bloomers. Eh?

    How about (none / 0) (#39)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:31:57 PM EST

    How about the over the hill, too full of themselves gang?

    Cabinet (none / 0) (#40)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    Edwards has said he would put a Republican in his cabinet, too.  I presume that was a moment of delusion on his part while trying to appeal to Obama voters.  Honestly, I cannot think of a campaign promise that fits less well with the campaign than Edwards trying to pull off some sort of bipartisan kumbaya crap.  The beauty of his entire campaign is his anger at the system, IMO.

    Obama's Fault (none / 0) (#41)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:38:08 PM EST
    So, yes, I am blaming Obama for the fact that we've gotten to the point where even John Frickin Edwards is promising Republicans in the cabinet.

    Note to Democrats, I don't think there's a popular uprising demanding Republicans continue to oversee FEMA.  Ridiculous.


    NYTimes storu (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:41:11 PM EST
    today says that Bloomberg may run, if the candidates are poles apart such as Huckabee versus either Obama or Edwards.

    Looks like BTD may be incorrect about him not challenging Saint Barack.

    Bloomsberg, Soros (none / 0) (#44)
    by diogenes on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:29:15 PM EST
    I feel a lot better about a candidate supported by Bloomsberg's billions than about a candadate supported by George Soros' billions.