Bloomberg quits Republican party !

[Murffieus]

Interesting ! There can be only one reason for this and that is he's planning a 3rd party run. He's smart enough to know that he won't win the white house, but as the link below indicates----if he runs the Democrat nominee will be fatally crippled. Meanwhile Bloomberg has to know that a 3rd party victory is a long shot.

So why is he in all probability going to run as a 3rd party candidate? Bloomberg is Jewish and he ssees the threat to the Jewish state in Israel presented by Islamic Facism-----the republicans understand the problem----the Dems don't------so Bloomberg wins by losing----the Republicans win and the war against Islamic Facism continues unabated!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg_politics

[ChicosBailBonds]

He was a Democrat for 50+ years and as far I could tell, a Democrat the last 6 as well.  Who it hurts and who it helps will be interesting to see.

Of course the first Clinton got in because of a 3rd party candidate and I hope history doesn't repeat itself.  If he does get in, this will virtually guarantee that a Democrat won't get 50% of the vote streak alive through 2012....a streak that runs currently from 1976 to the present.

[SoCalwarrior]

So why is he in all probability going to run as a 3rd party candidate? Bloomberg is Jewish and he ssees the threat to the Jewish state in Israel presented by Islamic Facism-----the republicans understand the problem----the Dems don't------so Bloomberg wins by losing----the Republicans win and the war against Islamic Facism continues unabated!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg_politics

You're a one trick pony, Murf.  Everything Bloomberg says contradicts your cut and paste response.  Or are you saying he would only run as a ploy to ensure a Republican victory and for the war in Iraq to continue?  Either way, it's a pretty ignorant theory.  Bloomberg's response to New Yorkers after the "JFK" plot was to "stop worrying and get a life." 

If Chicos was implying that Bloomberg leans more left than right, I would agree.  He's a social moderate and fiscal conservative.  And that could entice Democrats and Rebuplicans alike.  However, like the article points out, most polls have him taking votes from Republicans.  I think the Ross Perot example is a good one, but it depends on the Republican candidate.  IMHO, If it's Rudy or Mitt against Hillary, then Bloomberg takes votes from the Republicans.  If it's Thompson, then it might be Bloomberg taking from Hillary.

[Pakuni]

With his combination of financing (his own), centrist views and record of accomplishment, Bloomberg could be a Godsend to the growing contingent among us deepy disatisfied with both parties. It won't hurt that extremely long and probably hard-fought primary campaigns on both sides will do plenty to dirty up all those candidates.
FWIW, the only logical reason for Bloomberg to do this is to set up a presidential run. Good for him, I say.

For more on Mr. Bloomberg:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/070617/25edit.htm

[mviale]

He is also considering Hagel as a runningmate.  I would vote for this team in a heartbeat

[Murffieus]

See what I mean---a diehard liberal like mivale will vote for Bloomberg and take votes from Hillary to insure a republican victory. There are a lot of mivale's around to have this happen.

Run Bloomberg run!

SoCal-----Islamic Facism is a threat to Israel. It used to be that Israel could take on the whole Arab nation-----not any longer. Why else would Bloomberg run other than to insure a republican victory-----the history of 3rd parties in this country is not very good.

Oh BTW, ----never put a lot of stock in what a politician says about his motives-----Bloomberg isn't any different----he's not going to come out and say that he's in it so that the party that understands what we are up against (Islamic Facism) will win----but why else would he run?----he can't win!

[jutaw22mu]

i think bloomberg will run, it should have the effect of snagging quite a few hilldogg votes.

by the way, did anyone see the video on hilldoggs website?  if not you should seriously check it out.  the clintons are worse actors than they are politicians, and thats saying something!

[StillAWarrior]

the clintons are worse actors than they are politicians, and thats saying something!

I can't stand the Clintons, but if you think that they're bad politicians, you are frighteningly clueless.  He's a hick from Arkansas who spent eight years in the White House.  She's a nutcase from Chicago/Arkansas who won a Senate seat in New York and may well become the Democrat's presidential nominee.  They may not know much, but they certainly know politics.

[ChicosBailBonds]

[Murffieus]

The Clinton political MO is very simple-----take a poll and do what pleases the majority!

[ChicosBailBonds]

He is also considering Hagel as a runningmate.  I would vote for this team in a heartbeat

Proving once and for all that team would be liberal.   

[mviale]

I realize moderate is left or liberal for Murf and chicos.

these guys yearn for the crusades

[Pakuni]

I realize moderate is left or liberal for Murf and chicos.

these guys yearn for the crusades

Anyone left of Jesse Helms, Michael Savage and Bob Dornan is a liberal to some around here.

[tower912]

So, Bloomberg is an equal opportunity quitter.  Who could vote for somebody who quits?   

[Murffieus]

Bloomberg has carefully avoided taking a stand on the war  except that he recently came out in support for GWB's surge.

Another thing----he endorsed Sen Lieberman in the 2006 congressional elections whose platform had as its major plank persistance with ultimate victory in Iraq!

So my thinking that he'll run to win, but barring that to tip the scales against Hillary to keep the republicans in to fight the war (s) and prevail could wel be right on!

[ChicosBailBonds]

I realize moderate is left or liberal for Murf and chicos.

these guys yearn for the crusades

Anyone left of Jesse Helms, Michael Savage and Bob Dornan is a liberal to some around here.

Not exactly....I'd be very happy with a JFK, Sam Nunn, Truman Democrat....has anyone seen one in the last 30 years?  Anyone...anyone...Bueller?

[Murffieus]

The closest is probably Liberman----before that the Senator from Georgia!

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

Oh Pleeeeeease.....Other than Iraq both parties are exactly the same SPEND...SPEND...SPEND...OVER promise and SPEND some more.

[mviale]

Bush-cheyney draw more comparisons to darth vader and the emperor.

[Murffieus]

mvail-----darth vader is trying to save your ass ----and your family's, if you have one!

[mviale]

Murf - BushCheney are trying to make the shareholders of HalleyBurton (sp?) happy.  Being in Iraq is not protecting me

[ChicosBailBonds]

Murf - BushCheney are trying to make the shareholders of HalleyBurton (sp?) happy.  Being in Iraq is not protecting me

So lame....Cheney hasn't owned any Haliburton shares since he became VP.  And almost all of the proceeds he did make went to charity.  Good Lord is this getting old.

[tower912]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
A little dated, yes, but stock options and deferred compensation still equals ties to Halliburton.   But, that ship has sailed and the countdown to the end of the embarrassment this administration has been is underway.   BTW, how can Cheney claim that his office is not part of the executive branch while still claiming executive privilege?   Gitmo is closing.  The conservative 4th circuit has told the administration they can't hold the detainees forever, Petraeus says we will be in Iraq 10-50 years.    Congress got what it deserved ratings wise for trying to parse the argument and not taking a stand and doing the will of the people, i.e. starting the withdrawal.   

[Murffieus]

Tower----so you want to surrender without regard to the consequences.

I've got news for you ----the surge is workimg!

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
A little dated, yes, but stock options and deferred compensation still equals ties to Halliburton.   But, that ship has sailed and the countdown to the end of the embarrassment this administration has been is underway.   BTW, how can Cheney claim that his office is not part of the executive branch while still claiming executive privilege?   Gitmo is closing.  The conservative 4th circuit has told the administration they can't hold the detainees forever, Petraeus says we will be in Iraq 10-50 years.    Congress got what it deserved ratings wise for trying to parse the argument and not taking a stand and doing the will of the people, i.e. starting the withdrawal.   

The "conservative 4th circuit"....oops, you forgot one detail.  It was only a 3 judge panel....and oops, it was a 2-1 decision...and ooops....the 2 that were appointed by Bill Clinton ruled against.

So when 2 of the 3 judges are appointed by Bill Clinton, explain to me how it's the "conservative 4th circuit"?  Yes, the 4th circuit in general is conservative, but since this was an en banc 3 judge panel, it most certainly wasn't "conservative"...though libs keep hammering away trying to score points like it was...I'm shocked, how about you?   

As for Haliburton...better get a more recent source.  Here, how's this from FACT CHECK.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html


Finally...the "will of the people" was to withdrawl and surrender on the War on Terror...really?  I don't recall seeing that anywhere.

[tower912]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Check your number's Chico. 30% in favor.  41% Oppose because it was a mistake to go in, 26% oppose because it was mismanaged.  Nearly 2/3 want the withdrawal to start now, 54% say it isn't morally justified.   Ya got me.  I am the the extremist. 

[Murffieus]

What! Not "morally justified" to defeat the enemy?

Our public has the exact same sentiment "peace at any cost" that the British had in the Neville Chamberlin era -----they found out the hard way what "peace at any cost" meant (London Blitz) !

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Check your number's Chico. 30% in favor.  41% Oppose because it was a mistake to go in, 26% oppose because it was mismanaged.  Nearly 2/3 want the withdrawal to start now, 54% say it isn't morally justified.   Ya got me.  I am the the extremist. 

I didn't post any numbers on this subject, so what exactly should I be checking?  I said the will of the people was to surrender on the War of Terror?  Show me a poll where it says SURRENDER ON THE WAR OF TERROR that is supported by the majority.  You're mixing arguments again about Iraq.