Raimondo on a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com writes:

Make no mistake about it - Bloomberg’s billions in partnership with Hagel’s biography and crustily independent views - especially about the Iraq war - could do a lot more than merely shake the political landscape. If Ron Paul is the peace party’s David up against a GOP Goliath, then the Bloomberg-Hagel team is Samson threatening to level the very foundations of the War Party’s political dominance - the two party system.

I don’t see how a ticket comprised of two Republicans levels the foundations of the two party system. And has Bloomberg ever really taken an antiwar position? Every time I hear him talk he is supportive of Bush’s Iraq policy.

9 Responses to “Raimondo on a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    No,this seems like hogwash. A liberal Republican and a not-as liberal Republican opposing a Guliani/McCain ticket??!? OH NOES!

  2. Anthony Distler Says:

    Bloomberg, much like Hagel, has recently come out against the war and has called for it’s end.

    I know for Constitution/Libetarians, this ticket looks nothing like a world beater. But, in 2008, the Iraq War will be the number 1 issue on voters minds. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, many peace Democrats are already angered by her soft stance on the war. Many Republicans have already vowed that they will vote for someone else is Giuliani is their candidate.

    You may not like it, but Mike Bloomberg’s billion dollars and the “disenfranchised Republican” stance will change the electorial map considerably.

  3. Joe Says:

    I just don’t see Republicans turned off by a liberal mayor of New York flocking to a liberal mayor of New York, nor do I forsee many Democrats angered by Clinton’s soft stance on the war flocking to Bloomberg considering his soft stance on the war.

  4. globalist_elitist Says:

    1. Bloomberg is a lifelong Democrat. He is a moderate/”centrist”, which people like.

    2. People like the idea of a split-ticket, Republican/Democrat pres/VP.

    3. It takes a lot of maturity for someone like Riamondo to look past the obvious differences he has with Bloomberg/Hagel and admit that it could be a wortwhile ticket to support.

    Politics = the art of the possible. $5 billion makes a lot of things possible.

  5. Joe Says:

    I don’t dispute that Bloomberg has some money, but he is not a “lifelong Democrat.” He joined the Republican Party in 2001 and was elected Mayor of a Republican. A Bloomberg/Hagel ticket would not be a split-ticket, it would be a second Republican ticket. Even if it were a Democrat/Republican ticket, that does not “level the foundations of the two-party system,” it reinforces it. A third party victory might level the foundations of the two-party system, but Bloomberg/Hagel is not a third party ticket.

    What evidence do you have that Americans like the idea of a split-party ticket? When has one ever gotten elected? There may be some examples, but I can’t think of any. Every national ticket I can think of that has been elected since passage of the twelfth amendment in 1804 have been members of the same party.

  6. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    Joe: You are deserving of your opinion, but many observers think that [Pro Abortion GOP] Guiliani and [Ultra Dem - Pro Bush War] Hillary Rodham have ‘screwed the pooch’ with their Primary Base[s]!

    Like [GOP] Abraham Lincoln and [Dem] Andrew Johnson [Union Party 1864], [Republicans] Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram W. Johnson [Progressive Bull Moose Party 1912], and [GOP] John Anderson and [Dem] Patrick Lacey [National Unity Party 1980], it is tolerance for ‘flaws’ which is just as importance as cheering for ‘star qualities’!

  7. Joe Says:

    My point is that that Bloomberg is pro-abort GOP AND pro-Bush war - the worst of both worlds.

    The National Unity Party was 27 years ago, and lost, so it really doesn’t demonstrate that Americans love split tickets. If anything, it suggests we don’t like split tickets.

  8. globalist_elitist Says:

    Joe - Americans like the idea of a “generic” third party. A Republican/Democrat split ticket is the kind of third party that they can find palatable. This is just my opinion. You can feel free to disagree. But polls do show that people like the idea of a third party, and yet they don’t like the third parties that do exist. A Republican/Democrat split is the obvious answer. People would be more comfortable with that. Just look at Unity 08. People can’t even imagine non-Republican/non-Democrat. Who would the ticket consist of? Bernie Sanders? Joe Lieberman? These are the only nationally known, prominent “independents” and that term should be used loosely. And even though they’re both identified with the Democratic Party, a Sanders/Lieberman ticket would both be worse than Bloomberg/Hagel, and it would be less practical.

    Bloomberg only switched to the GOP because he was too moderate to win the Democratic primary in ultra-left NYC. Duh.

  9. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    “Americans like the idea of a “generic” third party. A Republican/Democrat split ticket is the kind of third party that they can find palatable. This is just my opinion. You can feel free to disagree. But polls do show that people like the idea of a third party, and yet they don’t like the third parties that do exist.”

    Joe, we by and large agree with you! Our winner take all system, even when Albert A. Gore, Junior, ‘lost’ in 2000, skews the entire picture.

    Plz do not for get that the Union Party [1864] pair that ‘won’ ended up assigninated and nearly [ONE VOTE SHY] Impeached.

    The Bull Moose Party [1912], your example of the [1980] National Unity Party, Perot II [1996] all approached ten percent and the TR Progressives and Anderson - Lacey ticket took down a sitting president!

    Same with Perot I in 1992! And even with his “in yesterday, out today, in tomorrow” and pairing with a disabled veteran [Hanio Hilton POW resident and Medal of Honor awardee Stockdale] he approached TWENTY PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE!

    Did any of our 20th Century examples win? No!

    Did any of our 20th Century examples change history? Oh Yeah!

    Unlike Green David Cobb and other “Party Favorite’ or ‘Natural Son’ types, at least our examples, and a Bloomberg - Hagle possibility, keep the Democans and Republicrats reaching for Pepto Bismal during the night and wide awake during the day.

    Also, like Nader, and unlike Cobb and others, they also end up as Jepardy! Answers!

Leave a Reply