Bloomberg Quits the GOP...

[camberne]

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York officially left the Republican Party yesterday and changed his voter registration to "unaffiliated," further stoking speculation that he will enter the already crowded 2008 presidential race as an independent."

Rest of the Article... from the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/20/bloomberg_quits_gop_stirs_buzz/)

So, what is everyone's reaction??

I personally don't care for someone who keeps jumping ship from party to party because of a "marketing strategy".

[LyLMyssChaos]

I don't like people who can't make up their mind either. I didn't think Bloomberg was a good fit for the GOP anyway.

[IrishEyes]

I'm not surprised. While he's a fiscal conservative, he's definitely more liberal-leaning in terms of social issues. I think that considering how he differs from many items in the Republican Party platform, it's not a big step. And he's got the money and popularity (right now) to be able to separate himself from the GOP.

[nylons73]

Speculation has this as his first step towards a 2008 presidential bid. I have to say that I don't really get this. He's (mostly) beloved in NYC, but outside of it, I don't know that he has a 'national' image (like Guliani does.) I mean, if I didn't watch The View, I probably wouldn't even really know how much NY'ers like him and his politics (for the most part.) I don't know how he translates his NY success, into an Independent bid for Pres (without the backing of one of the major parties!!)

[kris97]

I love Michael Bloomberg, and would vote for him in a second. It doesn't bother me that he switched parties because he was never a true Republican. Furthermore, the fact that Bloomberg isn't beholden to party politics or the party line is the principal reason I admire him - he's far more interested in getting things done than in securing victory for his party, or playing the political game. He's a refreshing change from the Democratic machine here in NY.

[MLA]

I love Michael Bloomberg, and would vote for him in a second. It doesn't bother me that he switched parties because he was never a true Republican. Furthermore, the fact that Bloomberg isn't beholden to party politics or the party line is the principal reason I admire him - he's far more interested in getting things done than in securing victory for his party, or playing the political game. He's a refreshing change from the Democratic machine here in NY.

I was thinking that it's sort of refreshing, also. DH and I were just talking about how hard it is to be true to your beliefs when you have a party machine chugging along behind you.

I don't know that I'd vote for him, but I love the idea of a fiscal conservative and social liberal in the White House. My only fear is that if he runs, he may end up splitting the Democratic vote (because of his liberal views), which could lead to another Republican in office. That's the last thing I want to see.

[kris97]

FWIW, I"m not convinced he's really running for President. He's talked about retiring after 2009 to be a full time philanthropist. (His second term as mayor ends in 2009; he's barred by term limits from running again). Another reason to love him is his incredible generosity to charitable causes. /end swoon

[msnicolea]

It doesn't bother me that he switched parties because he was never a true Republican. Furthermore, the fact that Bloomberg isn't beholden to party politics or the party line is the principal reason I admire him - he's far more interested in getting things done than in securing victory for his party, or playing the political game.

ITA. So sick of the games, on both sides of the aisle. Bloomberg gets shit DONE--that's what I'm talking about!

[kd 9.21.02]

I hope this is a sign that independents will have more power in the future and we'll eventually move away from the two-party system.

[greenbunny]

I ditto kd, I'd love to see less of a focus on dem/rep. I hate that I have to register one or the other in order to vote locally.

[Delta]

I actually feel like he'd draw more Republican votes than Democrat if he ran as an Independent.

I think he is pretty effective, but the whole transfat issue is a bit too Big Brother for me.

[MLA]

I hope this is a sign that independents will have more power in the future and we'll eventually move away from the two-party system.

I don't know. The only independents that seem to have a chance at the presidency tend to be billionaires. I don't know if we want to move towards that . . . Of course, if we actually ended up w/an independent in office, it might make it easier for less well-heeled independents to run in the future.

[kd 9.21.02]

I don't know. The only independents that seem to have a chance at the presidency tend to be billionaires. I don't know if we want to move towards that . . . Of course, if we actually ended up w/an independent in office, it might make it easier for less well-heeled independents to run in the future.

I guess what I'd ideally like to see is an uprising of a "purple party" as outlined by New York magazine last year. I've never had strong political ties but when I read this issue it got me really psyched and I thought... "Now this is a party I could get behind." I don't know that Bloomberg is the one to make it happen, but I see it as a positive step. I guess I just really hate the whole concept of the primaries. Candidates must go either extremely left or right in order to get the ticket. That drives me nuts. I have to believe that most of these people are not that extreme in their beliefs but they must present themselves in such a way to get the vote.

New York Magazine - April 24, 2006 issue
Introducing the Purple Party (http://nymag.com/news/politics/16713/)
Building the Frankencandidate (http://nymag.com/news/politics/16742/)
But Is a Third Party Possible? (http://nymag.com/news/politics/16743/)
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President and Vice President... (http://nymag.com/news/politics/16742/index4.html)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

It'd be nice, but I just don't see anything changing re:the two party system because of another billionaire third candidate. Why would it be any different than when Perot ran?

[kd 9.21.02]

Baby steps, people.

Jeez... Lots of pessimism here. I do think things are changing. Is it going to take a while? You bet it is. But things have to change and I think they will.

Where should we begin on the comparison of Perot and Bloomberg...? Yeah, they're both billionaires but Bloomberg is actually getting things done. I'm not saying he's going to run for president or could ever win. I'm just saying that it's not only the few people in this thread who are frustrated with a two party system. I am hopeful that changes can be made and am not ready to give up on it just yet.

Not that it compares to the presidency, but Connecticut's Senator Lieberman left the democratic party, ran as an independent and won.

And he may be a nut but Perot got about 17% or 18% of the vote (if memory serves).