Mayor Bloomberg Ditches GOP

[knuckleboner]

although there's been some speculation that the NYC mayor might do an independent 2008 presidential run for a little while, this is still mildly big...

dude was definitely the premier local government official in the country. and a legit presidential player for the republicans in 2012, if not a VP candidate in 2008.

yet now, no more.

if he does go independent white house bid in 2008 it will be interesting. can he pull the required electoral votes? no. pretty much no chance. can he pull any electoral votes? MAYBE. but he'll definitely have an impact.

cnn.com

[Nickdfresh]

I was surprised to read this today. But it's a nice rejection of mindless partisianship...

[FORD]

Seems more like a case of political "trendyism" Bloomberg was allegedly a Democrat who switched to Republican in the wake of 9-11-01. Now he suddenly goes "independent" when it's clear that the Republicans are toast.

If Lyndon LaRouche suddenly redeemed himself (however unlikely that is) and became the Presidential front runner, I'd bet Bloomberg would be a LaRouchie within a week.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But it's a nice rejection of mindless partisianship...

His partisianship during his entire mayoral career has been with the Democratic party. Him doing this is nothing more than dropping the act he put on to get elected. The local Republican party thought he was worth promoting because he was rich and could pay his own ticket. They thought they would be paid off with the party keeping certain appointed seats. Nope. Bloomy gave all positions to be given away to his friends he had in the Democrat party.

Partisianship is his middle name.

Didn't like the guy to begin with and don't think any higher of him the last few years. Esp with him taxing the crap out of the working and middle class. Yet, everyone here loves him. I don't get it.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
His partisianship during his entire mayoral career has been with the Democratic party. Him doing this is nothing more than dropping the act he put on to get elected. The local Republican party thought he was worth promoting because he was rich and could pay his own ticket. They thought they would be paid off with the party keeping certain appointed seats. Nope. Bloomy gave all positions to be given away to his friends he had in the Democrat party.

Partisianship is his middle name.

Didn't like the guy to begin with and don't think any higher of him the last few years. Esp with him taxing the crap out of the working and middle class. Yet, everyone here loves him. I don't get it.

I think the guy is as good a mayor as NY has had since LaGuardia. Don't know what FORD has agianst him: he supports gay rights, gun control (and came up with a brilliant program to keep illegal guns off NY's streets), and has made a real effort to "green" NY as best as possible.

The one element where he meshed with the GOP was in terms of his belief in taxes. But he also raised taxes when it was necessary, and NY is much more vibrant today than it has anyone anticipated in the wake of 9/11.

He'd be a good candidate, b/c he'd be beholden to NOBODY: not corporate interests, not to unions, anything other than his conscious and vision.

A ticket of Gore/Bloomberg? I think that'd be BRILLIANT.

[FORD]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Don't know what FORD has agianst him: he supports gay rights, gun control (and came up with a brilliant program to keep illegal guns off NY's streets), and has made a real effort to "green" NY as best as possible.

It's not neccessarily Bloomberg himself, but just overall, I'm sick of fucking voting for Democrats who act like Republicans. And when you have one who actually switched teams when it was politically convenient, that's even more troubling.

Those assholes in the Senate who keep extending this illegal fuckup in Iraq all claim to be for gun control, the environment, and gay rights (but not marriage) as well, but it's hard to trust them on that when they can't even vote down a Chimp with a 29% approval rating.

Is it fair to judge Bloomberg by what those DLC/AIPAC/corporatist "Dems" have done?

Maybe, maybe not. But when Bloomberg claims Paul Wolfowitz as his friend, then he is no friend of mine.

[FORD]

The only possible advantage I could see to a Bloomberg candidacy, is that after he bought the election himself with his own money, it would render corporate purchasing of elections null and void, and both parties would suddenly be all about REAL Campaign Finance Reform.

In and of itself, that would be interesting. But not enough to put another corporatist with friends in PNAC in the White House.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by FORD
Bloomberg claims Paul Wolfowitz as his friend, then he is no friend of mine.

Bono claims W as a friend. Sometimes you gotta sit with who you gotta sit with in order to get things done. It's called negotiation, compromise, and bipartisanship.

[FORD]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Bono claims W as a friend. Sometimes you gotta sit with who you gotta sit with in order to get things done. It's called negotiation, compromise, and bipartisanship.

Bono was helping various charitable causes in Africa. The US government has money (in theory anyway). Unfortunately, that means you have to talk to the BCE.

What could a warmongering traitor possibly do to help the Mayor of NYC?

I don't see a comparable situation here at all.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
His partisianship during his entire mayoral career has been with the Democratic party. Him doing this is nothing more than dropping the act he put on to get elected. The local Republican party thought he was worth promoting because he was rich and could pay his own ticket.

And because they would have a NYC mayor with an "(R)" next to his name and a supposed business-friendly successor to Rudy.

They thought they would be paid off with the party keeping certain appointed seats. Nope. Bloomy gave all positions to be given away to his friends he had in the Democrat party.
Partisianship is his middle name.

So what? Firstly, the Democrats are now far closer to the traditional moderate New York State "Rockefeller" Republican ideals than the current mess of a GOP. And why does he have to deal out positions to Republicans?

Didn't like the guy to begin with and don't think any higher of him the last few years. Esp with him taxing the crap out of the working and middle class. Yet, everyone here loves him. I don't get it.

Somehow, I doubt taxes there are much worse than when your hero (of 9/11 ) Rudy was generalissimo of New Yawk...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Somehow, I doubt taxes there are much worse than when your hero (of 9/11 ) Rudy was generalissimo of New Yawk...

Sweetie, Bloomberg spiked property taxes to cover a deficit that has been long gone by now. You don't want to know what we pay just for the ability to live in this small house for 3 months. And before reports where stating he would compromise on a much needed tax cut, there was talk he was going to raise taxes further to pad the surplus.

Bloomberg also raised fines for various tickets and has high quotas that he presses the police to meet. You wouldn't beleive the old laws on teh books he's having enforced now. He's also skewing nubmers on education and crime states to make it appear as if things are getting better.

And Rudy isn't my hero of 9/11. The rest of the nation is making him that. I respect him cuz of the changes his bought after what was left from Dinkins' time.

Honestly, I think NYC can pull through most things because there is a large portion of business here. Well, less business since 9/11, with Bloomberg not making any motion to try to lure them back. Those businesses are happily settled in Jersey. (another reason I'm not keen on Bloomberg because he made the people shoulder this recovery with our hard earned money. Downtown Manhattan is now empty. All the stores and businesses are closing up shop or moving and office space sits closed up. I'd love EMA to explain how that equals LaGuardian feats)

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Sweetie, Bloomberg spiked property taxes to cover a deficit that has been long gone by now.

Which is why the spike on the property tax has been rescinded, thank you kindly. Let's not leave out, you know, the truth while we're at it. He covered a MASSIVE deficit that by all means should have been a great deal worse and longer lasting than it was. Downtown Manhattan is HARDLY empty: if anything it's been revitalized to an extent that EXCEEDS Rudy's time. I should know, I live there. Are smaller shops gone? Yeah, that sort of environemtn hasn't existed in NYC for a long time now, that's evolved to Brooklyn, and that was the trend WAAAAY before Bloomberg's time.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Which is why the spike on the property tax has been rescinded, thank you kindly. Let's not leave out, you know, the truth while we're at it. He covered a MASSIVE deficit that by all means should have been a great deal worse and longer lasting than it was. Downtown Manhattan is HARDLY empty: if anything it's been revitalized to an extent that EXCEEDS Rudy's time. I should know, I live there. Are smaller shops gone? Yeah, that sort of environemtn hasn't existed in NYC for a long time now, that's evolved to Brooklyn, and that was the trend WAAAAY before Bloomberg's time.

I don't know what rescinding you're talking about. Our property taxes have only gotten higher. It's actually getting quite ridiculous.

I know Downtown. My family has a long history dealing with Downtown. I walk down some streets in Downtown and it's nothing but closed gate after closed gate. We're talking two blocks from Wall St. And what about the Seaport and turning everything into condos?

The deficit wouldn't have been long lasting at all if we would have a mayor to stand up to Albany and actually have a bigger portion of the money we generate sent back here and gave initiatives for businesses to return to the city. But no, we have to fund the rest of the state. That's why we had the deficit and that's why no matter how much we raise taxes or put a congestion tax (another great anti-business plan), it'll return. We won't see much of that money, if at all.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I don't know what rescinding you're talking about. Our property taxes have only gotten higher. It's actually getting quite ridiculous.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/06/13/2007-06-13_mike_christine_ok_59b_budget.html

Looks like it wasn't rescinded completely; just cut significantly.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I don't know what rescinding you're talking about. Our property taxes have only gotten higher. It's actually getting quite ridiculous.

I know Downtown. My family has a long history dealing with Downtown. I walk down some streets in Downtown and it's nothing but closed gate after closed gate. We're talking two blocks from Wall St. And what about the Seaport and turning everything into condos?

The deficit wouldn't have been long lasting at all if we would have a mayor to stand up to Albany and actually have a bigger portion of the money we generate sent back here and gave initiatives for businesses to return to the city. But no, we have to fund the rest of the state. That's why we had the deficit and that's why no matter how much we raise taxes or put a congestion tax (another great anti-business plan), it'll return. We won't see much of that money, if at all.

Or if the Federal gov't under Dumbya, would have stepped in and offered a bit more aid instead of cuntinuing tax cuts designed mostly for the rich...