Bloomberg / Hagel in 2008?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel were seen having dinner together in Washington. Certainly smells like a potentially viable Unity ‘08 ticket to me.

The Politico.com reports…

As the 10 GOP candidates gear up for their first debate tomorrow night here, two other Republicans with potential White House ambitions had dinner 2,300 miles away.

In an eyebrow-raising move, Nebraksa Sen. Chuck Hagel and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg—both independent-leaning Republicans—supped together at the see-and-be-seen Palm Restaurant in downtown Washington, D.C, according to another diner.

That the two would share a meal together would alone be noteworthy, but that it would come on the night before their party’s first debate and at such a conspicuous venue is downright mischevious.

Said our spy: “Seems like the Independent ticket to me.”

Emails to spokesmen for the two were not immediately returned.

58 Responses to “Bloomberg / Hagel in 2008?”

  1. matt Says:

    Hagel/Bloomberg is an interesting ticket. Bloomberg/Hagel is more of the same old crap. If that moneybags diet cola Guliani thinks that he can buy the presidency, he is mistaken just like Ross Perot before him.

  2. Anthony Distler Says:

    I don’t know if they could win, but it would completely change the electorial map then what we saw in 2004. That, and you could kiss the other third party candidates good-bye.

  3. matt Says:

    And get nothing in return.

  4. Chris Says:

    The other 3rd parties would get what they always get:

  5. rj Says:

    ^ True.

    I’m a delegate for Unity08. Let me first state that I am completely realistic on the goals and what will likely be accomplished. The stated aims are to elect a president in 2008. As these are professional political guys, that tells you a couple things on the type of candidate that will likely be nominated. Whoever is the candidate will not be an unknown hack, but will be someone that will either have money or is proven to draw money. Outside of Nader, I can’t think of a no-money candidate in the recent past that has made any splash. Perot was a rich oil guy, Anderson was a liberal Republican representative upset with his party’s conservative slant, George Wallace was an Alabama “white populist” of sorts. That’s it. Even Clark’s 1980 candidacy that got 1% for the Libertarians was due to a mega-rich VP candidate.

    That said, I think this effort is going to be for Bloomberg. And before we state why, let me say why I’d still vote for him if he got the nod although I disagree with him on lots of things. I am absolutely sick of the two big parties. Has either party done anything “good for the country” in the last 10 years? Politics has become less of an election of competing ideas and more just an alternate-reality game. The Republicans and Democrats don’t have any ideas, they just want to get the most votes. All the principled candidates in either party are cast away early cause “they’re not electable”. There needs to be a third choice if our country is going to continue being great. It is rotting from the inside out and that needs to be stopped. If there’s a third choice, at the very least both parties will be forced to come up with solutions to problems instead of just yelling “ABORTION!” or “IMMIGRATION!”

  6. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Nader actually raised quite a lot of money in 2000 and 2004.

  7. John Taylor Bowles Says:

    Oh great. Just what America needs. A Jew running for President again.

  8. globalist_elitist Says:

    matt - Wow, you were quick to get on the class warfare rhetoric.

    I’m not a major fan of either Bloomberg (as a politician) or Hagel, but I would be strongly inclined to support that ticket.

  9. globalist_elitist Says:

    “Has either party did anything good for the country in the past 10 years?”

    Yes.

    Let’s expand it to the last to administrations, though.

    1. NAFTA, WTO, and expansion of global trade under Clinton
    2. Balanced budget under Clinton and the Republican Congress that, along with the above, led to the 90’s boom
    3. Telecom and banking deregulation under Clinton
    4. Welfare reform under Clinton and the GOP Congress
    5. Capital gains and dividend tax cuts under Bush
    6. Bush tax cuts, in general, which have produced more revenue

    Those are six things off the top of my dome. I could list maybe 30 bad things just as easily. But I can’t stand these rhetorical jihadists who think that the country has been in a nose dive for the past 94 years. It hasn’t. Not to minimize this bullshit war, but take it and everything surrounding it away and I’m very, very happy with America right now. The market hits new highs every day. We’re experiencing a soft landing before another big boom. I don’t know why third-party activists always have to act like it sucks to be alive. Where is the optimism?

  10. matt Says:

    GE,
    I’d like to think that I don’t posess class prejuidice of any kind, but I don’t care for millionaire political novices waltzing in and running for the highest office in the land. Especially when said novices package themselves as centrists. Give me Steve Forbes if neccessary. He had a plan. Perot and Bloomberg just have pretension.

  11. matt Says:

    It doesn’t suck to be alive. We live in the most prosperous, freest country in the world. But things should be a lot better, and if we don’t put our foot down against state intrusion into our personal and economic lives, things will get a lot worse.

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    “1. NAFTA, WTO, and expansion of global trade under Clinton”

    Ew.

    Also, GE, I wasn’t calling John Bowles a nazi to be slanderous. He is, in point of fact, ACTUALLY the Nazi candidate.

  13. globalist_elitist Says:

    I know, Trent. I was joking.

  14. SovereignMN Says:

    “I don’t know why third-party activists always have to act like it sucks to be alive. Where is the optimism?”

    It’s called politics. If you think 3rd parties are ineffective now, how would it look if our collective message was “Things aren’t really that bad, but give us a shot anyway” Thus we are very vocal about issues with which we disagree but silent on issues in which we do agree.

  15. SovereignMN Says:

    I will add that I do agree about the optimism. 3rd parties need to be optimistic.

  16. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    May 3rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
    “1. NAFTA, WTO, and expansion of global trade under Clinton”

    Ew.”

    Anyone who believes that NAFTA and the WTO are really about free trade is a FOOL. They are in fact not free trade.

  17. rj Says:

    “I don’t know why third-party activists always have to act like it sucks to be alive. Where is the optimism?”

    Let me explain how I voted in 2004. I thought Bush did a terrible job as President and had led us into a bunch of problems. But I knew Kerry would not do any better and we would still have the same problems. His entire candidacy and the Democrats’ strategy was “I’m for the anti-Bush voters”. And Bush responded by swiftboating him. So both parties’ entire message boiled down to “Vote for me cause the other guy sucks.” The only other person on my ballot was Badnarik, so I voted for him due to process of elimination. Are you optimistic to be in a country that has that kind of politics? I’ll speak for myself and say I am not.

    If you don’t buy that, I would like to bring attention to the 2006 elections. The Democrats did not stand for anything. I pointed it out to someone elsewhere that I did not think the election was the Democrats winning, it was the Republicans losing, and cause there’s no one else to vote for, the Democrats got the votes of the mad electorate by default. Are you optimistic to be in a country that has that kind of politics?

  18. globalist_elitist Says:

    What is “free trade?” I’m dealing in reality. We’re all better for NAFTA and WTO. Unless, of course, we are farmers or factory workers who are too lazy or dumb to invest in their own skills. I said “EXPANSION OF GLOBAL TRADE,” not “free trade” (whatever that is). Has global trade not been expanded?

  19. Sean Scallon Says:

    Getting back to the subject, a Bloomberg/Hagel, Unity 08 ticket makes the most sense for both men if they are interested in running for the White House and provide the “centrist” alternative and probably get both men into the debates.

    It will be interesting to see if “centrism” is any way to build a third party.

  20. Austin Cassidy Says:

    “I don’t care for millionaire political novices waltzing in and running for the highest office in the land.”

    I would hardly call Bloomberg a political novice. Two terms as mayor of New York City would make him a very experienced third party candidate. Add Chuck Hagel to the ticket and it’s probably the most experienced third party ticket since Roosevelt and Johnson in 1912. Or at least Anderson and Lucey in 1980.

  21. rj Says:

    “It will be interesting to see if “centrism” is any way to build a third party.”

    I think it’s the best on offer to be honest. It draws evenly from both parties, so Republicans and Democrats can’t say it’s only drawing from one of them and causing them to lose like Democrats do to the Greens.

  22. globalist_elitist Says:

    Ross Perot was essentially a centrist. He appealed to conservatives, but most of his policy ideas were actually rather leftist.

  23. Winston Smith Says:

    “Free health care for all White citizens”

    Geesh, nothing like a socialist-nothing like driving economy into ground!

    As for topic of this article, scary stuff, more globalist neocons

  24. SovereignMN Says:

    “It will be interesting to see if “centrism” is any way to build a third party.”

    A centrist 3rd party will have the best chance of success in the short run but is ultimately doomed to fail in the long run. All the two big parties need to do is tweak their positions a couple degrees to make the centrist party irrelevant.

  25. globalist_elitist Says:

    Hey, JT Bowles has the same view on economics and trade as David Duke, Ron Paul, Andy,Trent Hill, the CP, etc.

    http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl69.asp?SiteID=1332&PageID=23877&Trial=false

  26. SovereignMN Says:

    and you have the same view towards religion as the communist manifesto. What’s your point?

  27. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
    Hey, JT Bowles has the same view on economics and trade as David Duke, Ron Paul, Andy,Trent Hill, the CP, etc.

    http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl69.asp?SiteID=1332&PageID=23877&Trial=false”

    This is an absurd statement. I’m for REAL free trade. That means that I want to cut off all tax supported subsidies to corporations and government foreign aid programs. I’m opposed to governmant managed trade deals. I am also against protectionist tarriffs. If anything, I would like to see tarriffs lowered or abolished. Ron Paul’s position is the same as mine.

    For you to state otherwise indicates that you are a LIAR. Seriously, you are a truly disgusting individual. How do you live with yourself?

  28. globalist_elitist Says:

    No I don’t. Marx called for a dictatorship that would presumably ban religion. I have no interest in banning anything. I don’t want to ban the act of two consenting adults shitting in each other’s mouths, and I don’t want to ban religion. I find both equally contemptable, but so long as you don’t initiate force on others, I don’t care what you do.

    You people, on the other hand, want to violate my rights to market my wears and to purchase goods and services at an unsubidized price. You want to limit the labor market so that you don’t have to compete with people who are willing to work harder for less. You’re unwilling to invest in yourselves, which would be fine, except you want me to pay for your laziness.

    ALSO, LET ME CORRECT MYSELF: Upon further review, I’m not so sure I would support Bloomberg/Hagel. I thought Bloomberg would be a smarter guy; more pro-market, but he seems more like Rudy Jr.

  29. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 3rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
    What is “free trade?” I’m dealing in reality. We’re all better for NAFTA and WTO. ”

    Free trade means the abscence of government in trade. Clearly we do not have that. NAFTA, the WTO, etc… are all a BIG SCAM.

  30. globalist_elitist Says:

    Okay, okay, Andy. I take it back. Jeez. Settle down.

    But you’re not for free trade when you’re not for free immigration.

  31. globalist_elitist Says:

    Expansion of global trade = good.

  32. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
    Okay, okay, Andy. I take it back. Jeez. Settle down.

    But you’re not for free trade when you’re not for free immigration.”

    I’m not against immigration, I’m against invasions. Free immigration does not exsist when there is a welfare state and when most (or all) property is controlled by the state.

  33. rj Says:

    “A centrist 3rd party will have the best chance of success in the short run but is ultimately doomed to fail in the long run. All the two big parties need to do is tweak their positions a couple degrees to make the centrist party irrelevant.”

    And then the Green and Constitution parties will rise once the liberal and conservative bases feel taken for granted while their respective parties pander to the center vote.

  34. SovereignMN Says:

    “No I don’t. Marx called for a dictatorship that would presumably ban religion.”

    If there were a theological debate you would be right there on the podium next to Karl Marx, arguing that religion is useless and the sign of a society that seeks to erect barriers. Thus if I use the same logic as you. GE = Karl Marx. See how dumb ‘guilt by association’ is?

  35. Andy Says:

    “You want to limit the labor market so that you don’t have to compete with people who are willing to work harder for less.”

    A big part of the reason that they can work for less is because they can ride the government welfare system. They can put their kids in government schools, get the tax payers to pay for their healthcare, get subsidized housing, food stamps, etc… Cut all of this stuff off and they wouldn’t be able to work so cheap.

  36. SovereignMN Says:

    “And then the Green and Constitution parties will rise once the liberal and conservative bases feel taken for granted while their respective parties pander to the center vote.”

    In an ideal world yes. IMHO the fact that this hasn’t happened yet is because of abortion. More than anything, that is the issue that keeps the conservatives in the GOP and the socialists in the Democratic camp.

    Many people I know within the CP believe the immigration/national sovereignty issue COULD become enough of a hot-button issue to begin to crack the big party foundations (probably the GOP) but it remains to be seen. I personally don’t share that view. I think the biggest thing that will allow a right wing 3rd party to emerge is:
    1) GOP going explicitly pro-abortion.
    2) Our national debt causes the dollar to plummet and America heads into a depression.

  37. Joe Says:

    I don’t understand how someone who is absolutely sick of the two big parties could get excited about a “Unity 08” ticket featuring two Republicans. It sounds like more of the same ol’, same ol’ to me.

  38. rj Says:

    Cause 3 is better than 2.

  39. Andy Says:

    “Joe Says:

    May 3rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
    I don’t understand how someone who is absolutely sick of the two big parties could get excited about a “Unity 08” ticket featuring two Republicans. It sounds like more of the same ol’, same ol’ to me.”

    My sentiments exactly. Why should anyone get excited over these two establishment hacks?

  40. rj Says:

    I want another choice, period. I don’t have one.

    The Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Constitution Party are not doing their job in making themselves to be a serious choice that can elect members. I think the Democrats and Republicans need to have less say in our government, but I want them to actually have less say, not just vote for the Libertarian every year in their quest to get 0.5% and the Democrats and Republicans still win.

  41. rj Says:

    And let me also say that I have more say in a Unity08 presidential ticket cause I have one vote that is equal to everyone else’s vote over the internet. I am not travelling to a convention on the other side of the country, so that rules me out of voting for the presidential ticket for the Libertarians, Greens, or Constitutionals. I don’t live in Iowa or New Hampshire, so that rules me out of voting for the presidential ticket for the Republicans or Democrats.

    So Unity08 in that respect is less establishment than any of the third parties who only allow people that travel 2000 miles to their convention to vote, something I will never do despite my quixotic hopes that Libertarian views will come to the fore and that all of the three major third parties will get more support so our country can have a better democracy. Those delegates weren’t popularly elected in a primary or anything. Badnarik I saw became the Libertarian nominee with the support of 423 people. How much of a percentage of the Libertarian Party membership is that 423?

  42. Jackcjackson Says:

    This is about as exciting as a Guiliani/McCain ticket

  43. Joseph O Says:

    This is the ticket - or at least Bloomberg. Our Draft Committee is gathering volunteers to prepare the petition drive. See www.DraftMichael.com.

  44. Joe Says:

    I still don’t see how Bloomberg add a choice. Granted you can vote for whomever you want, but it makes no sense to claim that voting for Republican Michael Bloomberg is somehow going to blow apart the two-party duopoly. Even if you are successful and he wins, we’ll have a Republican president. Let’s say, for example, that the two current poll leaders, Giuliani and Clinton, end up being the nominees. Unity ‘08 would end up giving us a choice between two liberal Republicans mayors from New York City and a liberal Democrat from New York: three candidates who basically agree on gun control, and interventionist foreign policy, etc. etc. What kind of choice is that? Bloomberg for president sounds like a lot of work for no good purpose.

  45. SovereignMN Says:

    I’ve always felt that the more choices on the ballot, the better. A Unity08 ticket is going to force the 2 parties to to fight for the centrists and neglect their traditional left/right bases. This gives the Greens, Libertarians and CP a chance to capitalize.

  46. Roger Grant Says:

    I’m voting for Bowles for President. He is the only one that speaks up for White people.

  47. Trent Hill Says:

    Ohk Roger, go drink beer in the lawn chair in the front yard now.

    GE,

    We’ve been over this “Guilty by association” crap. You’re on the internet, so are alot of pedophiles, thus you=pedophile. Its stupid.

  48. John Hawk Says:

    This is a gift to Hillary Clinton same as Perot was for Bill in ‘92.

    A pure Hegelian dialectic at play.

  49. Robert Milnes Says:

    SMN, right. I’m hoping a centrist (Unity08) and/or conservative (CP) party or similar independent gets some traction. That will take votes from the dems & reps lowering the victory threshold for a green/lib (progressive)alliance. Go, Bloomberg & Hegel! Delegates, think! & vote for me in Denver!

  50. Trent Hill Says:

    ....there IS NO GREEN/LIBERTARIAN (PROGRESSIVE) ALLIANCE!

  51. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent - You’re can’t try to reason with delusional egomaniacs. Add Robert Milnes to the Randy Crowe/ Gene Chapman/ Jonathan Starkey/ Archangel Jesus/ “President’ Adams/ Imperato/ etc. contingent of presidential “hopefuls” who need to be institutionalized.

  52. Trent Hill Says:

    Don’t get me wrong…im all for more choices. But, you have to at least have enough support for ballot access in a few states…

  53. Derek Says:

    What about a Bloomberg/Gore ticket? How would that possibly work out? I’m so glad Ron Paul came in 1st yesterday, it’s a small victory for the anti-duopoly parties. I’m a Unity 08 delegate and I’m trying to think of the ideal ticket. However, I plan to vote Libertarian next year and I think LP will see some advance. Giuliani did poorly yesterday (I tolerate him) and this will have him drop in the polls (although I think he’ll barely be ahead of McCain and Romney). I don’t know which debate was worse, the Republican or Democrat. The media has this fixation with the “Super 6” (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani and Romney) that they don’t care. Anyways, a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket wouldn’t be accepted by Unity 08 (unless one of them decide to officially become an independent this year).

  54. globalist_elitist Says:

    Bloomberg is a lifelong Democrat. He switched parties only because he couldn’t out-leftist an NYC Dem in the primary.

  55. The Crossed Pond » Hagel/Bloomberg? Says:

    [...] This is a bit gossipy to pass on, even for me, but still (originally from the Politico, on May 3rd (I missed it the first go around)): As the 10 GOP candidates gear up for their first debate tomorrow night here, two other Republicans with potential White House ambitions had dinner 2,300 miles away. [...]

  56. Reformer Says:

    Perot is a Computer Services billionaire not an OIL billionaire. I don’t think he has any oil holdings. Bloomberg-Hagel look plausible to me as independents, not under Unity 08 which is which is a headless horseman galloping in circles. Unity 08 has no standing with the FEC except as a pac.

    Independents owe nothing to hangers-on. They can speak their minds.

    Bloomberg-Hagel can score in the large urban centers and the heartland. I love it!

  57. PolitiChris Says:

    Unity ‘08 requires a bi-partisan ticket. Not too difficult to imagine Bloomberg switching to the Democrats and then running as an Independent with Hagel.

    If Mike, Hillary and Rudy are all running for the WH, it’ll be funny to watch Hill tout her Illinois roots ad nauseum.

    You probably have already checked out this newly-launched site: www.mikebloomberg.com

  58. starobserver Says:

    Just recently Bloomberg endorsed a candidacy of Al Gore:

    “People talk about Al Gore being a presidential candidate a lot more seriously than joking about me. This guy could be a presidential candidate,” Bloomberg said. “He certainly has experience … and I hope Al Gore enters the race. I think that would be good for the country.”

    I still believe Gore is going to announce his candidacy sometime in September, when people start to get tired of Clinton/Obama. And Bloomberg could be his running mate.

    To me it seems Hagel is still considering to run as a Republican candidate. He always emphasizes he has been Republican his entire life. And the reason why he is not yet announcing is pretty much the same one Gore has: let people get tired of Giuliani & Co. And he is waiting for a move of Fred Thompson. For me another possible ticket: Thompson/Hagel. Everyone who has watched the GOP debate two weeks ago will agree that we havent seen the next president or vice president or even (vice-)presidential candidate on that stage?

    Imagine this: Clinton/Obama for the Dems, Thompson/Hagel for the Reps and Gore/Bloomberg for Unity´08… THAT would be interesting…:-)

Leave a Reply