Moderates Unite!
Moderate Democrats and Republicans have united, and have told their party’s leaders that if they don’t reach across the aisle, Bloomberg will run as an independent.
What many American moderates have hoped for - for years now - could very well happen: it seems that Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg has teamed up with moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. This group of people - who are in contact with Unity08 - has talked to several Republican and Democratic leaders, basically telling them, according to Broder at least, that if the Democrats and Republicans don’t nominate someone who reaches across the aisle, they’ll prepare an independent run.
Is that scary for both Republicans and Democrats?
Yes.
Bloomberg is a billionaire. If he starts spending his own money on a massive third party campaign he’ll pose a threat to the nominees of both parties. He could, as Americans call it, be a “spoiler.” A spoiler for who? Who knows. Could be for both in theory. In other words, Republicans and Democrats would rather not take the risk. Not only that, R’s and D’s also realize that if both parties nominate extremes (say Edwards and Huckabee) many Americans will consider voting for a third party candidate.
Especially if this third party candidate is backed by several prominent politicians from both parties and has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend for his campaign.
Here’s what Broder writes:
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a “government of national unity” to end the gridlock in Washington.
Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to “go beyond tokenism” in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.
And if that’s not enough:
The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Conclusion: moderately conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans are preparing a rebellion. They’ve had it with all the partisan bickering.
Here are some other blogs on Broder’s article. Obviously, I think it’s a great idea, but quite some bloggers - especially liberals of course - disagree:
- Justin Gardner (who shares my view)
- Ron Chusid (who argues that the Democrats should not nominate an extreme liberal like Edwards, for if they do, a third party candidate could be very successful)
- Taylor Marsh (who isn’t willing to reach out to anyone)
- TalkLeft
UPDATE
Also be sure to read Booker Rising’s Shay’s post on this:
I’d give a Michael Bloomberg presidential bid a look, as I am with other candidates. Illinois, a populous state with a relatively diverse population, moved up its presidential primary by about six weeks so we can for once influence who gets the bid! I consider myself a moderate-conservative (staunch fiscal conservative/social moderate/foreign policy moderate) with a strong libertarian streak, but my voting record is more centrist. In 2004, I voted in the Republican primary, but in the general election 54% of my ballot went to Democratic candidates and 46% to Republican ones. Last year, I voted in the Democratic primary, but in the mid-term election 58% of my ballot went to Republicans candidates and 42% to Democratic ones. With over a month to go before my state’s primary on Mega Tuesday, I still have no idea whether I’m voting in the Democratic or Republican primary.
Read more at BR: it’s a good post. I suggest that both Democrats and Republicans read Shay’s post and do something with it. Those who ignore Independents and moderates will lose in the general election. It’s that simple.
The republicans have a longer distance to this sensible middle, especially since they betrayed their own principles in order to play on people’s limbic systems and obtain a very comfortable six-year period.
It is a lot to demand that some phalanxes among the democrats should try to show a good example. Some liberals simply argue that a) they have a lot of republican claymores and goal-post shifting to undo, meaning that playing the buddhist is to betray their principles and chances b) they have nothing to gain from playing a bipartisan game.
Despite seeing the rationale behind protesting any democrats getting the notion that it is the job of the DNC to mend things up, I am still for Obama, and partially because he flips the bird to both the idea that he has to avoid aggravating any right-wing klaxonheads and the idea that he has to participate in any trench warfare against the other side. Clinton is more divisive than him, and not just because people on the right go apopleptic at the very sight of her.
One can not endorse Bloomberg’s move without giving a thumbs-up to Obama’s rationale.
I suspect you will find the (utterly predictable, telegraphed for well over a year) Bloomberg bid will vanish if Clinton and/or Giuliani make the ticket.
Bypartisanship has been killed a few years ago, by the GOP.
I knew that the ones who branded liberals ‘the enemy’ instead of ‘the loyal opposition’ would start whining about bipartisanship and ‘angry liberals’ the minute the shoe was on the other foot.
Hell, yes, I’m angry. And I’ll stay that way. They should not try to rape us and then insist that we like it and tell how great it was.
No reconciliation ,no peace with the likes of Kristol or Rush or Coulter, not for me…
That’ll cost the Democrats elections, that’s one, and two, such an attitude is very bad for the country, any and each country.
What’s more, as I see it, your side has been fighting back from day one, basically, so it’s not as if you’re still punishing the GOP for partisanship now, it’s more like a tribal fight (humpty kills dumpty, dumpty kills zumpty, zumpty kills kumpty, etc.).
Yeah, I’d have to say Sashal’s attitude and the attitude of the left has been poisoning the debate for years. Point out to me how any of the speech on the right equates to Bush = Hitler, the trashing of military & war effort, praising and meeting people like Chavez. I have not heard people on the right - unless you are talking about windbags like Hannity or Limbaugh branding liberals as enemy, but plenty of liberals trashing everything Republican or right wing. Bush, Cheney, Rice & the Repulican leadership have for the most part held their fire constantly while being trashed in the most vile ways.
I believe I am a moderate, have voted R & D over the years, but I would not consider Bloomberg moderate or a Republican, regardless of the fact that he ran as an R this time. Everything he has said and done that I have seen since he has been in the public eye is further left than Hillary & Obama.
You don’t have to look further than Giuliani or McCain for moderate, middle of the road - people that have reached across the aisle constantly - too much for Republicans.
dear Bob W.
I found a few straw or incorrect statements in your argument.
—liberals never trashed military, never,
—-liberals do not support Chavez;
—Though Hannity and his ilk are "windbags" they do have great influence and their propaganda is extremely pernicious, just talk to a few loyal listeners.
I am a liberal and I voted Rs and Ds before.
“—liberals never trashed military, never,”
What was it that Kerry said? If your’re stupid you get stuck in Iraq? Despite his best efforts to reinterpret it later it sounded like trashing the military to me.
"What was it that Kerry said? If your’re stupid you get stuck in Iraq?"
Curses, you’ve seen through our clever ruse of speaking collectively through one man.
If we build it, Mike will run. <a href="http://www.uniteformike.com">Join the grassroots effort to Draft Mike Bloomberg for President!</a>
Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy have all made denigrating statements about the military, about progress, etc. Osama bin Laden basically paraphrased Harry Reid in one statement. It does not take much googling to find them.
I believe that Danny Glover, Sean Penn, Naomi Campbell and many others have all been down to pay homage to Chavez and to trash the evil US while down there. And Joe Kennedy does commercials for his friend Hugo Chavez that play up in the Northeast to promote the cheap heating oil. Last week, Oliver Stone went down, and called Chavez a "great man." Not sure, but I would probably consider these all speaking for the liberal side of things.
My main point is that the vitriol seems to be much worse - and extremely antagonistic and hateful compared to what you hear from the right.
I would love to see a moderate block made up of the 70% of people towards the middle, but I doubt it will happen, the edges have gotten to loud, mean & forceful.
Bill W, you may want to read this :
I would rather they break the two party system instead of trying to mend it. Making a temporary threat of a third party nomination will only hold off partisanship until the threat is past, then it will be back to business as usual. Too little, too late. Remember, Bush ran of the slogan, "A uniter, not a divider." That time has past. Let’s create a new party and move on.