Third Party & Independents Archives

How Bloomberg Can Become President

Running as an independent, third party candidate and relying solely on his own money, Michael Bloomberg definitely can win the presidency in 2008. If he follows my advice.

The numbers are on his side. Take all the people who generally vote but are lesser-evil voters without any loyalty to either of the two major parties and who see themselves as independents or centrists. Now take the even greater number of eligible voters who are so fed up with the political system that they don’t vote. These are more than enough to dump the Democratic and Republican candidates.

The trick for Bloomberg is to passionately appeal to all these Americans by boldly doing the following:

Explicitly condemn the two-party controlled political system for being subservient to special interests. Make the case for true political competition and that only an independent president can reverse the many negative trends that the vast majority of Americans see as ruining our nation. Focus on all the dishonesty and corruption in BOTH major parties. Apologize for previously being associated with the Democratic and Republican parties.

Forcefully condemn the free-trade globalization movement because it is killing the middle class and feeding massive trade deficits. Make “Put America First” one of your campaign slogans. Condemn the current efforts to form a North American Union.

Focus on reversing the terrible increases in economic inequality and insecurity by cutting corporate welfare, providing more money for worker training and education programs, and making the wealthy class pay more taxes.

Pledge to cut federal budget deficits by vigorously cutting wasteful federal spending. Place emphasis on cleaning up the entire contractor system.

Be the first presidential candidate to support the use of the option in Article V of the Constitution for a convention requested by two-thirds of the states to consider constitutional amendments. Make it clear that Congress has proven its inability to enact many necessary political and government reforms. Note the need to remove obstacles to third-parties.

Totally support an immediate effort to create universal health care. Explicitly condemn the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries for taking advantage of Americans and creating the world’s most expensive health care system that performs poorly.

Take on the illegal immigration issue by pledging to vigorously enforce laws against illegal employers and sanctuary cities, and promising to more strongly use federal resources to protect our borders.

Actively support a number of electoral reforms to increase voter turnout, such as making Election Day a national holiday, permitting same day registration everywhere, making voting mandatory, creating a none of the above option on all ballots, and reducing the voting age to sixteen.

Bloomberg should proudly boast of his enormous earned wealth and tell Americans that his wealth allows him true honesty, independence and total commitment to what’s good for the nation. Be a proud populist and centrist.

A Bloomberg presidential run is exactly what the third-party movement in the United States desperately needs. He is a far more qualified presidential candidate than recent rich candidates, namely Perot and Forbes.

Every American that recognizes the pervasive corruption and dishonesty in our political system should welcome Bloomberg’s candidacy for president in 2008. With his own vast wealth and honesty he can single handily revitalize America’s political system. We need a breath of fresh air after the bipartisan stink that has fouled our nation for far too long.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at March 30, 2007 10:28 AM
Comments
Comment #214415

Uummm… I’m sorry… I thought I just read, “Be a proud populist and centrist.” Interesting for a few reasons, not least of which is that “populist” and “centrist” do not usually go hand in hand. Also… centrist? Afetr reading the post there are certainly a lot of populist ideas… but centrist? I would hardly call condemning free trade, increasing taxes to provide worker training, and immediate universal healthcare as “centrist”… populist certainly… centrist? Nope.

Also, the point of this post is to chow how Mr. Bloomberg can run a successful presidential bid. This is certainly not the way to go about that:

“Be the first presidential candidate to support the use of the option in Article V of the Constitution for a convention requested by two-thirds of the states to consider constitutional amendments. Make it clear that Congress has proven its inability to enact many necessary political and government reforms. Note the need to remove obstacles to third-parties.”

The average, mindless, two-party-voting slave does not want to hear about how we need to completely overhaul the basis of our democracy. Don’t get me wrong, I am not disagreeing that this needs to happen… I’m just saying that Joe Voter doesn’t want to hear it.

The problem with electing third party candidates into office is that they too often spout about what’s wrong with the system so much that they come off as a bunch of fringe conspiracy theorists with no basis in reality. Basing a campaign on the reform of the Constitution is not going to win too many votes. In order to win, third party candidates need to work within the system. That is the only way voters will listen.

Everyone SAYS they don’t like the system, but when it comes down to voting time they invariably vote to uphold it.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at March 30, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #214430

That doesn’t sound substantially different than say - John Edwards. But according to your logic, since he is a democrat he is by definition corrupt whereas Bloomberg is by definition honest.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 30, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #214455

I wonder if Bloomberg will hire you as a consultant.
Somehow, I doubt it.

Posted by: gergle at March 30, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #214462

You lost me on National health care. I wouldn’t vote for any candidate that endorses the government ripping the taxpayers off for more tax money to pay for more liberal social programs. And that’s all national heath care is. A scheme created by liberals to get more of your money out of your pocket and into theirs.
And why fan the flames of class envy by talking about making the rich pay more in taxes? Again a loser. Do you really think that Ted Kennedy even with all his talk is actually vote himself a tax increase?
Now if Bloomberg was going to work towards getting a flat rate no deductions income tax he’d have more of a chance.
Same day voter registration?
NOT ON YOUR LIFE!!!!
The liberals are wanting that now so they can get folks to sign up at different places and stuff the ballot boxes.
While it’s the right and duty of everyone that’s eligible to vote. The right to vote is also the right not to vote. Making it mandatory is just flat wrong. Once ya start making floks vote the next step is what? Telling folks how to vote? And I sure don’t put that past any our politicians.
Just what we need, another holiday. Making election day a holiday aint gonna get anymore folks to vote. The folks that want to vote manage to get to the polls as it is. And the ones that don’t vote won’t even try even with the day off. They’ll just go to the lake and employers will be stuck paying for another unproductive day. And the country will fall behind other countries in productivity even faster.
Illegal immigration. Now there’s something we agree on 100%. Cracking down on employers that hire illegals will result in fewer and fewer employing them. That will result in fewer coming if cracking down on their employers is combined with doing away with all the silly benefits that the politicians giving them and want to give them. Better border security and not jailing Border Patrol Agents for doing their jobs will also cut down on the number of illegals coming here.
For the most part what your wanting Bloomberg to do is run on the platforms of the major parties, both of which are liberal to the core, while passing himself off as an independent. Sorry independents will see right through it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 30, 2007 4:24 PM
Comment #214487

joel


“making the wealthy class pay more taxes.”
the top 25% of wage earners already pay over 80% of all income taxes. how much more should they pay?

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Posted by: dbs at March 30, 2007 9:00 PM
Comment #214489

dbs,

Don’t you know that making the wealthy pay more taxes is the hallmark of the fiscally liberal? It would solve ALL of our nations problems! Rich people don’t earn the money they make… everyone knows that! ;-)

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at March 30, 2007 9:11 PM
Comment #214490

Joel, Why Bloomberg?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2007 9:32 PM
Comment #214491

j2t2

“Joel, Why Bloomberg?”

DAMN! you read my mind.

Posted by: dbs at March 30, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #214498

Yeah, why Bloomberg?

IF he supported all these things you mention and IF he ran and IF these ideas as populular are as you think, then what?

You have no idea if Bloomberg supports these ideas or not, so I’m not clear on why you call this imaginary candidate of yours “Bloomberg”

There is also a real guy named Bloomberg out there. And he’s a Democrat who became a Republican to avoid NYC’s messy Democratic primaries. Now he’s a Republican with no support among Republicans outside of New York City. Doesn’t sound to me like the makings of a viable national candidate.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 30, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #214602

Bloomberg would be a great Republican candidate, because he’s really centrist. Also, he’s very straightfoward. When New York can’t afford something, he says so. He’s also open to changing his mind. Ask any New Yorker, Bloomberg would make a better president than Guiliani.

Posted by: Max at April 1, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #214608

Max

he’d be a great candidate if your a democrat. but he’d never get the rep. vote. he’s a rino.

Posted by: dbs at April 1, 2007 5:29 PM
Comment #214672

Joel,

The majority of us younger voters are libertarians. As libertarians, we would never vote in favor of national health care, mandatory ANYTHING, condeming free-trade, or anymore unequal taxation.

About the only thing I can agree with on all of this would be condemning the two-party system and budget reform.

…, but even those are flawed in this proposal as that idea would be contradicted by the proposals of universal health and more tax inequalities.

I would vote for any one supporting flat tax, restriction reform, removal of mandatory national anything, and the removal of unneccessary government programs such as welfare and social security.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at April 2, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #214685

Bryan AJ Kennedy

well said. i think it was alexander stewart who said ” democracy as a form of gov’t is doomed when the general electorate discovers they can vote themselves generous gifts out of the public treasury”. i think we’re at that point now. there are to many voters out there saying gimme gimme.

Posted by: dbs at April 2, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #214694

amen brother

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at April 2, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #214757
That doesn’t sound substantially different than say - John Edwards.

I was thinking the same thing. Joel’s answer, I’m sure, will be that a Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) would never actually do it.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2007 1:31 AM
Comment #214759
Making election day a holiday aint gonna get anymore folks to vote.

Wow. You think a holiday created solely for the purpose of voting won’t encourage anyone else to vote?

I won’t bother with the rest of your comment…

Posted by: Matty at April 3, 2007 1:48 AM
Comment #214763

dbs, exactly where are all these voters you talk about that are saying gimme gimme? Welfare changed to workfare years ago. It seems its mostly corporate and special interest groups that are getting the money now.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 3, 2007 2:22 AM
Comment #214803

I don’t think the South or Heartland are progressive enough to elect a Jewish presdient, let alone a woman or an African American.

Posted by: Steve at April 3, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #214818

j2t2

what about those demanding health care, child care,and so on. i realize improvements have been on reforming welfare, but we need more. people need to take responsability for thier own bad decisions in life, and not expect the tax payers to foot the bill. tax dollars are there to keep the gov’t running, not for people to vote themselves new benefits every time they think they are entitled something.

Posted by: dbs at April 3, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #214823

Wow. You think a holiday created solely for the purpose of voting won’t encourage anyone else to vote?

I won’t bother with the rest of your comment…

Posted by: Matty at April 3, 2007 01:48 AM

No I don’t. Like I said, those that want to vote already manage to get to the polls as it is. And those that don’t want to aint even gonna try even if it was a holiday.


I don’t think the South or Heartland are progressive enough to elect a Jewish presdient, let alone a woman or an African American.

Posted by: Steve at April 3, 2007 11:32 AM

I don’t think they are either. Particularly if it’s just for the sake of electing one.
But then you just might be surprised. There’s a whole heap of folks in those places that don’t seem to care who’s running just as long as they’re on their party’s ticket. Then there are a whole heap that will vote for who they feel are best qualified regardless of religion, sex, race, party affiliation, etc.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 3, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #214962

dbs, what new benefits have we just voted on for our selves? I would not disagree that people need to be self reliant, in fact I beleive most people are, I just dont know of any new benefits that we the people have voted for lately. Again, its the corporations and their special interest groups that are feeding at the public trough not the American people.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 4, 2007 8:18 AM
Comment #214985

j2t2

“what new benefits have we just voted on for our selves?”

when you vote for a candidate who promises to give you something, something that will be paid for out of the public treasury. are you not in essence voting yourself something? i know on the national level this is actually the only way to do this, however many states have a ballot initiative process were if you get enuogh signatures you can put anything you want on the ballot, and decide who gets thier taxes raised to pay for it. living in CA. i know this all to well. BTW i don’t believe in corperate welfare either. businesses should sink or swim on thier own. i also believe though that gov’t should not tie wieghts around thier necks.

Posted by: dbs at April 4, 2007 11:51 AM
Comment #215063

dbs wrote:

the top 25% of wage earners already pay over 80% of all income taxes.

The top 25% of wage earners take home well over 80% of money earned in this country, so of course they contribute more than 80% of income taxes.

how much more should they pay?
As much as they can pay without dampening economic growth in this country. How much is that? Less than your average liberal says they should pay and more than your average CEO says he can afford. Posted by: switters at April 4, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #215064

Bloomberg is a liberal in disguise. He is a Upper East Side Liberal. Let me put it bluntly he supports Illegal Immigration, he’s against the 2nd Amendment, he voice his angst about Bush appointing Roberts and Alito too the Supreme Court, he is pro-choice, pro same-sex marriage, has restricted our liberties with trans-fats, smoking, and now wants to pay people not to work. If that’s your choice for someone third party, god help us all, I did vote for him for Mayor twice I mean what else in this liberal city could you pick? He is ok on the War, and taxes, supports Bush, gives money to conservative candidates I.E. Peter King, Vito Fossella, Rick Santourm. He’s Ross Perot without the yelling.

Posted by: Tom Brice at April 4, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #215082

switters

“The top 25% of wage earners take home well over 80% of money earned in this country, so of course they contribute more than 80% of income taxes.”

show me the proof if you have it. so people making 60k a year are rich. i see. maybe you should actualy take a look at the link i posted before comenting on it.


“As much as they can pay without dampening economic growth in this country.”

sure why not, after all they didn’t earn it anyway. it belongs to you, right.


Posted by: dbs at April 4, 2007 8:38 PM
Comment #215097

dbs,

First off, who said anything about people making $60K a year being rich? How did you extrapolate that from my comments?

Second, before my first post I clicked on your link and I read the charts. I understand what it says. Do you?

Let me put it this way - if you’re going to complain that the top 25% of earners holds more than 80% of the tax burden it begs the question of how much of the tax burden you think they should hold. What do you think is the appropriate number?

I will admit that I was wrong about my the share of income - I was going by the basic 80/20 rule, and my recollections (always a bad idea I suppose.) In actuality, the top 20% of households hold 80% of the country’s net worth, but account for roughly a 50% share of income (note that because I couldn’t find income data for the top 25%, I’m using the top 20%, which accounts for 66% of tax liabilities).

So does this prove the wealthiest are over-taxed? Hardly.

The simple truth is that people who have the ability to contribute more to the general welfare have an obligation to do so. Perhaps this sounds like income redistribution - and judging by your snide comment:

sure why not, after all they didn’t earn it anyway. it belongs to you, right.
that’s what you seem to think I’m saying, but I’m not.

The solution is not, as the ’70s band “Ten Years After” put it: “tax the rich, feed the poor, ‘till there are rich no more,” but to recognize that the profit incentive is a good thing and that there is a point at which incremental investment is dampened by higher taxes. If taxes are higher for wealthier Americans but not so high as to curb the incentive for greater accumulation of wealth, then they are not too high.

Posted by: switters at April 4, 2007 10:33 PM
Comment #215198

“The simple truth is that people who have the ability to contribute more to the general welfare have an obligation to do so”

Not in a free country which is supposed to respect the individual rights and freedoms of all its citizens.

The simple truth is that people who “say” they care about the poor, have an obligation to actually do all they can to help them, even if it means altering their own lifestyle. They should not expect govt to force others to do it for them.

Thats probably more of an “incovient truth” though isn’t it.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #215262

switters

“how much of the tax burden you think they should hold.”

i don’t know that i could put it in those terms. lets try it this way. peoples incomes should be taxed at a flat rate. now if we were to eliminate all gov’t programs that were not essential to say, running the gov’t, we could then lower everyones tax burden down to say the 5% to 10% range end of story. people making more money will always carry more of the burden the by the fact, well they make more money. after all 10% of a 1,000,000 dollars is always going to be more than say 10% of 20,000 dollars. this is fair.

Posted by: dbs at April 5, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #215268

switters

cmmon, NPR this is hardly an objective source. the other link seems to be the opinion of the writer, more of an opinion, and analysis piece. my numbers were based on IRS records, and the numbers were right there in front of you in the tables. to say tax breaks are scewed towards the rich is dishonest. if you cut every bracket by 2 or 3% those who pay more are going to save more for the same reason i pointed out in my previous post. how is this unfair?

Posted by: dbs at April 5, 2007 6:25 PM
Comment #215284

dbs wrote:

NPR this is hardly an objective source. the other link seems to be the opinion of the writer,

The figures I referenced were contained in charts whose sources were listed as “The Bureau of Census” and “The Congressional Budget Office.” Not slanted coverage, not opinion, but officially accepted data.

(for some reason the first link in my post seems not to work anymore, so here’s a snapshot.

But enough on this argument, trying to defend my position on this is causing me to look like a “soak the rich” liberal, which I’m not.

I just believe that somewhere between Karl Marx and Adam Smith lies the key to economic growth for a just and sustainable society (closer to Smith of course).

Posted by: switters at April 5, 2007 9:18 PM
Comment #215294

switters


“But enough on this argument, trying to defend my position on this is causing me to look like a “soak the rich” liberal, which I’m not. “

ya had me fooled. HA HA HA.

Posted by: dbs at April 5, 2007 10:38 PM
Comment #215350

Flat tax, 15%, less than the Catholic church requests, all stuff covered and a nest egg in the next six years or so.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at April 6, 2007 1:26 PM
Post a comment