PDA

View Full Version : Bloomberg not running for president




tangent4ronpaul
02-27-2008, 09:49 PM
Maybe I should have titled this "about that billionaire" - but no one would have read it if I had.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg

"Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared in a newspaper editorial Wednesday that he will not run for president as an independent and said he might support the candidate who "takes an independent, nonpartisan approach."

ummm Ron...

-n

ps: note he says THE candidate, not A candidate...

other than Ron, who could that be?

pinkmandy
02-27-2008, 09:56 PM
McCrazy is "independent", remember? The "Maverick", the left loves him.

Any sign of that stroke yet? Anybody?

nate895
02-27-2008, 09:59 PM
Bloomberg is the opposite of Ron Paul, Pro-war, anti-civil liberties, and pro-tax and spending.

ChickenHawk
02-27-2008, 10:00 PM
He'll endorse Obama if he makes it to the nomination.

gerryb
02-27-2008, 10:09 PM
He probably would offer RP the presidency on a platter if RP would run independent.

Doesn't mean he would deliver on his word.

The Establishment would like nothing more than for RP to run 3rd party. It would give a scapegoat and guarantee a win by Clinton or Obama, without diebold.

tangent4ronpaul
02-27-2008, 10:27 PM
OK - Bloomberg is bad news - got it...

still, it seems like he's thinking of supporting someone - WHO???

-n

Lovecraftian4Paul
02-27-2008, 10:34 PM
He probably would offer RP the presidency on a platter if RP would run independent.

Doesn't mean he would deliver on his word.

The Establishment would like nothing more than for RP to run 3rd party. It would give a scapegoat and guarantee a win by Clinton or Obama, without diebold.

So what? If Ron Paul can't win, then Clinton/Obama need to win it. I don't understand the spoiler argument from the people who advocate the working in the GOP position. If McCain wins, you guys are toast, since it would do nothing to validate the neo-con position.

But beyond that, comparing Ron Paul as a third party candidate with McCain is like apples and oranges. He wouldn't "spoil" anything. If McCain can't succeed against Ron Paul, and the Democrats for that matter, he deserves to lose (and he does!).

pacelli
02-27-2008, 10:44 PM
Nader?

obsolescence
02-27-2008, 10:51 PM
He's definitely not referring to Dr. Paul..

I don't think he's referring to anyone is particular.

FreedomRings
02-27-2008, 10:54 PM
Bloomberg will endorse and help whoever promises him the most attractive position in the next administration. It's as simple as that.

colecrowe
02-27-2008, 10:57 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/op...28mike.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?hp)


I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.

In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country.

slacker921
02-27-2008, 10:59 PM
it's a veiled threat to the Dems.. it has nothing at all to do with Ron Paul.

revolutionary8
02-27-2008, 11:02 PM
He will go for Veep. ;)