Bloomberg Leaves GOP

It’s official rumor-mongering: Bloomberg has left the GOP in preparation for a Unity ‘08 candidacy for president.

55 Responses to “Bloomberg Leaves GOP”

  1. Fred C. Says:

    Do you hear that? Listen close…

    It’s the sound of a million conservative screaming “good riddance”...

  2. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    No. I think that sound is Atlas shrugging. The Republican Party is now the party of border Nazis, not billionaires. We’ll see how that works out for them.

  3. Situationalism is Dead Says:

    The countdown to Dondero spamming the blogs with news of this war lord begins.

  4. Eric Dondero Says:

    My take? Simply, this is a sure as sign to any in the GOP that they better nominate Giuliani or risk losing a healthy chunk of Centrist voters to the Bloomberg 3rd party “thang”.

    Fred Thompson might suffice. But he’s too much of an unknown.

    With Giuliani as the GOP nominee I can’t see how there’d be any room at all for Bloomberg.

  5. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Wow. This is going to be interesting.

  6. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    For once, Dondero says something entirely accurate.

  7. Ken H Says:

    At least Eric is admitting that Giuliani is a “centrist”(he really a liberal) and not a libertarian.

  8. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    Guys…it doesn’t matter what Bloomberg’s affiliation is.

    He still thinks he has the right to a piece of YOUR income - which he did not help earn.
    He still thinks he has the right to make you do things he wants you to do.
    He still thinks he has the right to keep you from owning certain items HE thinks you don’t have a right to own.

    He is one of the many people proving that “party” doesn’t matter at all.
    Commitment to actual FREEDOM…now that might be more important.
    Just saying.

  9. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
    No. I think that sound is Atlas shrugging. The Republican Party is now the party of border Nazis, not billionaires. We’ll see how that works out for them.”

    You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Bush IS PRO-ILLEGAL ALIEN, as are McCain and Romney and Giuliani as are the controllers of the Republican Party. They are in favor of mass immigration because they want more slaves and they are for global government.

  10. Andy Says:

    “Tom Gellhaus Says:

    June 19th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
    Guys…it doesn’t matter what Bloomberg’s affiliation is.

    He still thinks he has the right to a piece of YOUR income - which he did not help earn.
    He still thinks he has the right to make you do things he wants you to do.
    He still thinks he has the right to keep you from owning certain items HE thinks you don’t have a right to own.

    He is one of the many people proving that ‘party’ doesn’t matter at all.
    Commitment to actual FREEDOM…now that might be more important.
    Just saying.”

    Well said. I just want to add that one of those “items” that Bloomberg doesn’t think that you have a right to own is a gun. That alone is a reason to not vote for him.

  11. Joey Dauben Says:

    I sense a strong Ed and Elaine Brown type of conspiracy sentiment.

    Are you telling me our govt would want to STEAL ordinary Americans’ income?

    And, again, tonight I made a little quip on Eric’s show about, “for once I was dreaming that the Libertarians actually had someone in the legislature.”

    It was pure sarcasm.

    No personal offense intended ;)

    (but if it made anyone laugh, that’s what I was going for)

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy the anticapitalist thinks low-wage workers are “slaves.”

    Andy = socialist.

  13. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 20th, 2007 at 1:09 am
    Andy the anticapitalist thinks low-wage workers are ‘slaves.’

    Andy = socialist.”

    You are such a fucking idiot. The government sees ALL of us as slaves!

  14. Bill Wood Says:

    CP people don’t read this! Just kidding.

    Please visit www.StrawPoll08.com and vote . There is a poll you can vote for the Candidate of your choice and there is another one you can vote for the Party you will be voting for. Libertarian Party is coming in third right now with 8% planning on voting Libertarian. I believe you can vote once a week. Help the Libertarian Candidates, Wayne Allyn Root, George Philies, Steve Kubby/

  15. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    Bill Wood -
    Not trying to pick nits, but how often does StrawPoll08 update their list?
    On both the expanded monthly poll and the Junk Poll, Doug Stanhope is listed while Ron Paul is not. Doug withdrew from running for the Libertarian nomination a couple of months ago.

    And Ron Paul is missing from the main 2 polls as well.

    So to my mind, they are worthless.

  16. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wayne Root has a big opinion piece this morning about the importance of legalized gambling for the 2008 election at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com

    He also mentions his possible running mate on the Libertarian ticket: Poker Champ “Fossilman”.

  17. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    Eric -
    That article mentions Fossilman but doesn’t say a thing about who Root would pick as a running mate - where does Root say that?

    Also, no offense but the only thing WAR has to offer is money. He has no experience working with legislatures or political leaders at any level. He has the beliefs he speaks of, and some of them sound very fine.

    But Kubby and Phillies simply have MORE EXPERIENCE where it counts.
    It isn’t a contest.
    The Libertarian Party always has trouble getting a fair shot.
    Frankly, I would much rather they stick with principled candidates who have proven their dedication to liberty (and not just the issue of legalized gambling) rather than chase the money.

    In New York 13 years ago, the LP-NY chased celebrity with Howard Stern.
    I am a fan of Howard but I opposed his nomination and subsequent events proved my fears correct. It was the only time I joined the LP…my membership has lapsed since.

  18. matt Says:

    “No. I think that sound is Atlas shrugging. The Republican Party is now the party of border Nazis, not billionaires. We’ll see how that works out for them.”

    Bloomberg is more Cuffy Meigs than John Galt if you ask me.

  19. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Yes, yes, Andy. Life is truly horrible and intolerable. Oh wait, not it’s not. LIFE IS AWESOME. Living in the United States is great!

    We not only don’t need pessimists like you in the LP; we don’t need you on the planet Earth.

    Buck up, princess!

  20. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 20th, 2007 at 10:47 am
    Yes, yes, Andy. Life is truly horrible and intolerable. Oh wait, not it’s not. LIFE IS AWESOME. Living in the United States is great!”

    Yeah, there’s no problems. Everything is great! Everyone go back to sleep.

  21. Andy Says:

    “In New York 13 years ago, the LP-NY chased celebrity with Howard Stern.”

    Wayne Root is NOWHERE NEAR the celebrity that Howard Stern is. Wayne Root is a C or D level “celebrity” at best. He’d have a hard time getting booked on VH1’s The Surreal Life.

  22. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    June 20th, 2007 at 8:54 am
    Wayne Root has a big opinion piece this morning about the importance of legalized gambling for the 2008 election at”

    Don’t get me wrong here, anything that gets people to vote Libertarian is a good thing, however, out of all of the issues out there I don’t consider gambling to be one of the most important. On a scale from 1-10 with 10 being the most important and 1 the least, I’d say that gambling is a 1.

  23. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Yes, but the problems are high taxes, unconstitutional spending, war-mongering, protectionism, and creeping theonomy—all of which can be addressed via the political process. The problems are NOT Jewish bankers, lizard men, UFOs, and psychic vampires, etc.

  24. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Matt - His politics aside, Bloomberg is a modern Howard Roark. He has built something grander than the greatest building ever—a thriving capitalist information business worth billions of dollars. Bloomberg is a man of achievement; of REAL capitalist achievement, not just political achievement. If the GOP nominates a China-basher like Fred Thompson, then Atlas will shrug. Bloomberg may not be John Galt, but he’s not John Birch either.

  25. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - You are giving Root way too much credit. Surreal Life? I don’t think he could even get on Big Brother as a non-celebrity.

  26. matt Says:

    I can’t argue with the man’s business accomplishments, but I still smell something of the second-rate in his personality. A real man of achievment would be secure enough with himself to eschew the process of gaining control over others.

  27. matt Says:

    GE,
    I don’t know, he seems creepy enough for wife-swap in any case.

  28. Nancy Hanks Says:

    As a long-time independent, I applaud Mayor Bloomberg’s nonpartisanship, and we’ll see whether it’s more than a political ploy…

    About the Bloomberg story: I recommend reading Jackie Salit’s “The Bloomberg Story” posted on my blog The Hankster for an inside take on the Mayor’s independence: “Actually, the record shows that Mike has become more conservative and less willing to go to bat for independents, the longer he has been in the political game. But, in the early days he took stands on behalf of independents in numerous situations.”
    Nancy

  29. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
    Andy - You are giving Root way too much credit. Surreal Life? I don’t think he could even get on Big Brother as a non-celebrity.”

    I agree with GE here.

  30. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
    Yes, but the problems are high taxes, unconstitutional spending, war-mongering, protectionism, and creeping theonomy—all of which can be addressed via the political process. The problems are NOT Jewish bankers”

    Jewish bankers play a role in creating all of those other problems. Of course they aren’t the only ones, but they are certainly a factor.

  31. Andy Says:

    “Bloomberg is a man of achievement; of REAL capitalist achievement, not just political achievement.”

    The question here should be does Bloomberg really believe in a free market. I’d say that the anwser is no.

    I did a little bit of checking up on Bloomberg last night. In addition to being a gun grabber, he’s not good on free speech (he’s had political protestors arrested in New York City, and during the Republican National Convention he had protestors detained in a run down building on the docks), and he’s also an anti-smoking nazi who banned smoking in all restaurants and bars in NYC. It’s pretty clear that this guy is FAR from being a libertarian.

  32. Chris Moore Says:

    The problems are NOT Jewish bankers, lizard men, UFOs, and psychic vampires, etc.

    You have to watch out for those psychic vampires. They are invading this country disguised as Mexicans with the goal of forming a North American Union by forcing the price of tomatoes to an all time low. Once tomatoes are cheap and plentiful and even poor people are eating five per meal they will begin injecting them with blood. We will acquire a taste for blood and will begin eating one another. The vampires, having no blood, will be left to rule North America.

    That is the REAL reason we should fear brown people. ;)

  33. G.E. Smith Says:

    I think I’ve made it clear that I am not a big fan of Bloomberg and that my problems with him are—shockinigly!—the same as those Andy cites. But here’s a newsflash: The GOP is not going to nominate Ron Paul, the Democrats are 99% not going to nominate Bill Richardson, and if that’s true, Bloomberg will be the best viable candidate. If Giuliani is not the GOP nominee, then he will have a true shot of making a difference. If Hillary is ALSO not the Dem nominee, then he will almost definitely win electoral votes. Is that enough to get past the negatives? Maybe. But ultimately, if Giuliani is not the nominee and especially if Edwards somehow gets the Dem nod, then Bloomberg’s candidacy will signal the end of the Republican Party as the party of business, as business leaders and “Jewish bankers” (oh no!) flee in droves to Bloomberg’s camp. It will be the end of the 5th/6th party system and allow a reformation, or perhaps even the elevation of a new party. I see this as good stuff.

  34. Michael Says:

    When was he ever a Republican?

  35. Andy Says:

    “The GOP is not going to nominate Ron Paul, the Democrats are 99% not going to nominate Bill Richardson, and if that’s true, Bloomberg will be the best viable candidate. If Giuliani is not the GOP nominee, then he will have a true shot of making a difference. If Hillary is ALSO not the Dem nominee, then he will almost definitely win electoral votes. Is that enough to get past the negatives? Maybe.”

    None of this means that Bloomberg is worth voting for.

  36. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    I think that it is extremely unlikely that Ron Paul will get the Republican nomination as well. He certainly isn’t perfect. But I happen to think that none of the others in the 2 major parties is worth spit. Bloomberg isn’t either.

    I foresee myself NOT voting, or at best voting Libertarian.

    I’d rather not vote than vote for someone who will not increase the liberty of all who live in this country. At least then I know I didn’t give my approval to a corrupt system.

    (Of course, there is the argument that if I am considering not voting…I should just not vote for ANYONE no matter who! Voting at all is approval of the current system, on a certain level)

  37. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - I don’t care if he’s not worth voting for in your (very skewed) eyes. It doesnt’ matter if I vote for him either. The point is PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR HIM. The business community will defect the GOP and split the party in two. You don’t think that’s a good thing? It’s not all about you, you know. I know very few people can live up to your bizarre right-wing socialist standards, but this is Third-Party Watch, so an event that could restructure the party system would seem to be of interest to anyone posting here.

  38. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 21st, 2007 at 2:10 am
    Andy - I don’t care if he’s not worth voting for in your (very skewed) eyes. It doesnt’ matter if I vote for him either.”

    I’m not an all-or-nothing throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater kind of person. I don’t necessarily have to agree with a candidate about everything in order to vote for them.

    Having said this, I do have to believe that a candidate has enough positives to merit voting for them. Thus far, I just haven’t seen any reason for me to support Bloomberg. I’d rather vote for the Constitution Party candidate or the Green Party candidate before I’d vote for Bloomberg. Heck, if you were in the race as an independent I’d vote for you over Bloomberg!

    “The point is PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR HIM.”

    So what? There were people who voted for Bush & Kerry. There are people who vote for crappy candidates in every election.

    “The business community will defect the GOP and split the party in two. You don’t think that’s a good thing?”

    Not if the end result is that some Democrat like Hillary Clinton gets elected. Whether we end up with Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or John McCain or Michael Bloomberg we’ll be screwed.

    The only candidate (at this point in time) that is any good that stands even a remote chance of winning is Ron Paul (and I know that the word REMOTE should be stressed).

    All of the leading Democrats and Republicans outside of Ron Paul SUCK. I wouldn’t look to Michael Bloomberg to save the day because he SUCKS as well.

    “It’s not all about you, you know.”

    I never said that it was all about me.

    “I know very few people can live up to your bizarre right-wing socialist standards,”

    I voted in Presidential elections three times. In ‘96 and 2000 I voted for Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne. In 2004 I voted for Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. Neither of them were “right wing socialists”. This more accurately describes the mainstream of the Republican Party.

    “but this is Third-Party Watch, so an event that could restructure the party system would seem to be of interest to anyone posting here.”

    It might be “interesting” to watch - kind of like how a car accident can be “interesting” to watch, but I don’t consider Bloomberg to be a candidate over which I’d be enthused.

    One thing that would suck about a Bloomberg run is that he’d suck up all of the “3rd party” attention and the real anti-establishment candidates would get ignored.

  39. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    “Heck, if you were in the race as an independent I’d vote for you over Bloomberg!”

    Awwwe! That’s the sweetest thing you’ve ever said to me, Andy.

    You’re missing my point. If the GOP nominates an anti-trade candidate—Thompson being the top choice by far—then Bloomberg is going to run and the GOP is going to implode. The extent to which it implodes will depend on who the Dem nominee is. Hillary is the devil they know and they’re already giving her cash. Obama is also strangely well-liked. There will be defectors, en masse, regardless, but if a true far-left anticapitalist like Edwards somehow gets the nomination, then Bloomberg’s candidacy would be significantly bolstered.

    I know the realities of third-party politics and I don’t get my hopes up. But I honestly belive that a perfect storm of Thompson/Edwards would almost definitely see Bloomberg winning electoral votes. You’re telling me that wouldn’t be awesome just for entertainment value? Sending the election into the House? That would be sweet. But more than just entertaining, it would KILL the GOP. This would either cause the two parties to realign, or POSSIBLY open the door for the LP’s emergence.

    This is why I think we should be rooting for Bloomberg regardless of what we think of him as a candidate.

    And I’m sorry but Ron Paul has literally no chance of winning the nomination. That’s just how the system works. He knows it too. He’s running to gain attention for his ideas. I commend him for that. I wish he didn’t surround himself with racists, I wish he wasn’t a nationalist, but what the hell, all the rest of them are too. Ron Paul is advancing libertarian ideas, but he has no chance of winning that nomination. None. Zero. You have as much chance, statistically, as he does.

  40. matt Says:

    If Edwards and Thompson win the nominations, one of them will probably run on a pro-free-platform (in spite of themselves) just to prevent this. I’d be amazed if three guys get electoral votes. The media just isn’t wired to talk about it, and they learn slow, even if they’re learning at the behest of a billionaire.

  41. Bill Wood Says:

    G.E I like your Campaign website. This may have been asked somewhere else, but I’ll ask it here anyway. Is that a photo of you ?

  42. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Matt - Bloomberg OWNS the media. Besides, what kind of conspriacy-theory anarchist are you if you think that a media-owning, rich, New York, “Jewish” banker can’t get media coverage?

    Bill Wood - If that weren’t a picture of me, do you think I’d use it? It’s not like I posted a pic of Brad Pitt.

  43. SovereignMN Says:

    “This is why I think we should be rooting for Bloomberg regardless of what we think of him as a candidate.”

    GE is right on this. Any candidate that poses a threat to the current 2 party system is to be encouraged. This isn’t saying that one has to approve of Bloomberg. It’s just realizing the fact that the collapse of either of the 2 parties is good news for all of the 3rd party movement. It will open the door for a realignment that could allow us greater access.

    “Is that a photo of you ?”

    I’ve been wondering that myself. I used to work with a guy who sounds just like you read regarding business and trade. The resemblence of this guy to the picture is uncanny…it would be a perfect match if it were you.

  44. Bill Wood Says:

    LOL!

  45. matt Says:

    GE,
    I’m more of a conspiracy-theory agnostic these days.

    Bloomberg does have certain advantages due to his position, connections, and financial status, but his competitors can’t be expected to cover him without bias, and you can bet his own network will be watched VERY closely.

    Also, many people will be prejudiced against him because of the things I mentioned and many more that I won’t mention because to do so would be racist/conspiratorial.

  46. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    SNM: That picture is of me, but unless you worked at Hantz Financial in Bay City, MI and we had a conversation I don’t recall, I’m not your man. Fat people all look alike.

  47. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    His “competitors” in the corporate media are… THE CORPORATE MEDIA! Operative word being “corporate.” Two anti-corporate campaigns by the majors will, if anything, cause the corporate media to be biased in Bloomberg’s favor. And I think you guys are underestimating how much $5 billion is and what it can buy.

  48. Chris Moore Says:

    And I think you guys are underestimating how much $5 billion is and what it can buy.

    Just to give you an idea of how much money $5 billion is:

    Bloomberg could spend ~$30 million PER MONTH on the campaign next year, and in the end he would still have $5 billion dollars.

    He could easily spend $100 million PER MONTH, and still be a billionaire many times over by the end of the campaign.

    He could buy 30 minutes of primetime on network television every week from January to November and still be a billionaire after the election.

    He could produce 10 high-budget action films starring himself as the dashing hero who saves the world from global terrorists, and he would still be a billionaire many times over when the election was over.

  49. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    In non-political terms (for context), $5 billion would produce $13.5 million in after-tax interest… PER MONTH.

    Bloomberg is 65. If he put all of his money in cash, he could spend $16,307 PER HOUR and he would reach 100 years of age before he ran out of dough.

    Let’s say Wayne Allyn Root has $10 million (haha, yeah, right!). Bloomberg has that much… 500 times. That’s 5,000 stacks of $1 million.

    There’s no way his campaign is going to be “ignored” unless he wants it to be ignored.

    Hell, he could just give $65 to each of the SEVENTY-EIGHT MILLION non-voters to get them off their asses to vote.

  50. matt Says:

    GE,
    To paraphrase Tolstoy, all skinny guys look more or less the same, but each of us fat people are fat in our own way.

    The presence of a 5 billion dollar man with no political party connection will inspire an amazingly negative grassroots response on both sides, and I think people are too cynical for the “virtuous billionaire running for president” character.

  51. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    What about Ross Perot? Who are “the People”? Are people on Wall Street not people too? Are business owners and capitalists and investors throughout the country not “people” too?

  52. matt Says:

    I mean the mass of people, duh. We’re all people, but we’re all only one person. Ross Perot had, shall we say, cultural advantages that Bloomberg does not. He was an old, crusty texan that could poke fun at himself. That alone counts for a lot.

  53. SovereignMN Says:

    “Hell, he could just give $65 to each of the SEVENTY-EIGHT MILLION non-voters to get them off their asses to vote.”

    Here’s something that I’ve always thought. What if he promised each elector in the electoral college $10MM for their vote, regardless of how the state voted? If all 538 electors agreed that would cost him $5.38 BILLION. If only 270 electors agreed that would cost him $2.7 BILLION.

    I’m not suggesting it would happen but if such a thing were to occur how many electors would accept?

  54. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    SMN: Yeah, that would be a better idea than my $65 per. Also, despite the obvious immorality of it, I don’t think there would be anything illegal with what you’re proposing—at least nothing that could stop it. Several states have toothless laws about how the electors have to vote, but there are probably 270-electoral-votes worth that don’t.

  55. SovereignMN Says:

    I don’t think there would be anything illegal or unconstitutional either. However; I would think/hope that Congress would immediately vote to impeach a President and VP who openly bought their seats on the open market. President Pelosi? Shudder

Leave a Reply