YourCT.com header image 2
← Norwalk: Colonial Village Kingpin Arrested Rell Just Says No, Vetos Medical Marijuana Bill →

Mike Bloomberg Opts Out of Being A Republican


by turfgrrl


June 19th, 2007 · 14 Comments

Just in from the AP wires,

NEW YORK — New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the GOP for his first mayoral run, said the change in voter registration does not mean he is running for president.

Why else would he do it? And do it now? And who else will take the plunge?

“Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city,” he said.

Despite his repeated claims, the mayor’s decision to switch his party affiliation stokes the speculation that he will pursue the White House, challenging the Democratic and Republican nominees with a legitimate and well-financed third-party bid.

Bloomberg has an estimated worth of more than $5 billion and easily could underwrite a White House run, much like businessman Ross H. Perot in 1992.

The 65-year-old mayor has fueled the buzz with increasing out-of-state travel, a greater focus on national issues and repeated criticism of the partisan politics that dominate Washington.

“The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy,” he said in a speech Monday at the start of a University of Southern California conference about the advantages of nonpartisan governing.

A Bloomberg entry would roil the already volatile and wide-open race to succeed President Bush.

“If he runs, this guarantees a Republican will be the next president of the United States. The Democrats have to be shaking in their boots,” said Greg Strimple, a Republican strategist in New York who is unaligned in the race.

The belief among some operatives is that Bloomberg’s moderate positions would siphon votes from the Democratic nominee. Others say it’s not that cut and dry; they say whom he would draw from depends on the nominees.

2008 could be a very interesting presidential year.

source: The Washington Post, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Leaves GOP By SARA KUGLER, The Associated, June 19, 2007; 7:32 PM

Tags: In the News · Presidential 2008

14 Responses so far ↓ “Mike Bloomberg Opts Out of Being A Republican”



  • 1 Broke Citizen // Jun 19, 2007 at 9:31 pm

    Bloomberg was the ultimate RINO. He is/was a lifelong democrat who only changed parties to win the Mayoral election in NYC. The way he is running the city he should register in the socialist party. “Do as I say, I know what is best for you.”

  • 2 mattw // Jun 20, 2007 at 5:10 am

    Lame:

    “The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy”

    Partisanship and inaction are signs of a deeper underlying disagreement. What politician is going to make Americans agree on abortion, or on Iraq, or on global warming?

    And Mayor Mike’s support of Holy Joe was a vote of confidence in inaction and excuses as a basis for governing — what other American politician is more dedicated to public obfuscation in service of an indefensible ideology than Joe Lieberman?

  • 3 Katie // Jun 20, 2007 at 6:20 am

    Well this announcement will certainly give both national parties a run for their money. On the Democratic side, the popularity of the 2 front runners is a result of the national party push and the media. I guess there isn’t much else going on in this country and the world! On the other side, the current administration is floundering for the mess they have created domestically and internationally. This will certainly impact any candidates running on their party’s ticket.

    Bloomberg not only has the billions but the media savy and a huge army of support(probably because he pays everyone real well). It is however unfortunate that it takes someone like him with all of his money to get attention to what is going on. There are and have been many good, viable candidates but have not been able to make a dent since whichever party they represent doesn’t support them. Perhaps now things will change.

    If Bloomberg decides to run, he has a very good chance of winning. At least it will give us all something to think about and maybe we will pay more attention to what is going on and get involved. If anything it will be entertaining!

  • 4 Dave Roberts // Jun 20, 2007 at 8:24 am

    First a Democrat, then when opportunity knocks a Republican, now an Independent. Do you really want this guy for a President? Will he decide that he can gain an even better chance of becoming president by becoming a member of the Taliban? Will he give up his citizenship to become a citizen of England if they tell him that this will give him a better shot at becoming the Prime Minister?

    Just sounds a bit scary for my taste.

    I think he has finally used up his credibility with the American people.

  • 5 anonymous // Jun 20, 2007 at 8:41 am

    He has a strong stance on gun control. That’s a real plus in my book. Party labels don’t make your idealogy, you just lean more one way or another. Unless you practice blind loyalty…which is pretty hard to swallow if you’re a Republican in CT.

  • 6 turfgrrl // Jun 20, 2007 at 8:48 am

    America has been ill served by the religiosity of a two party system. Issues are not so binary. I think Bloomberg can be very much like a Teddy Roosevelt presidency, so what’s not to like there. The Republican presidential candidates are all lame choices anyways.

  • 7 Anonymous // Jun 20, 2007 at 10:26 am

    To Dave Roberts, a correction: Bloomberg is NOT an Independent. He is an unaffiliated voter.

    Please see this phrase: “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated…”

    I am amazed at how many supposed knowledgeable reporters also play fast and loose with the facts, including an AP story I saw today.

    Running as a petition candidate or on a third party line are different, but he is an unaffiliated voter. He is not a member of any party right now therefore unaffiliated and certainly not a member of the Independent Party. Just had to get that out of my system…drives me crazy!

  • 8 ENrwlker // Jun 20, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    Turfie, I think Bloomberg would be a lot more like Lowell Weicker than Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt believed in freedom and self-reliance; Bloomberg is the ultimate protagonist of the Nanny State, looking to regulate every last aspect of our lives, since he knows SO much better than the rest of us how we ought to live them.

    That having been said, its hard to see him doing well in Red states; his beliefs are pretty congruent with the Democrats on most issues. Unlike Perot in 1992, who helped elect Clinton by posing as a conservative, Bloomberg’s more likely to pull from Blue staters, who share his liberal views on social issues. From a Republican perspective, his candidacy should improve our chances of holding the White House, since he’ll split the opposition vote with Hillary or Obama. His candidacy may be the best hope for the GOP to win in ‘08.

  • 9 anonymous // Jun 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Ugh Lowell Weicker. I think Bloomberg is a lot smarter than that old fool.

  • 10 turfgrrl // Jun 20, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    ENrwlker: I’ll admit that Bloomberg has some nanny state tendencies, like the smoking ban. However, much like TR, Bloomberg has the right mix of regulation/capitalism balance that we don’t see much these days. I’ve heard him speak on immigration and education, both times citing TR, and think the results he achieved in NYC with the school system speak to the management style he actually brings to the table versus the rhetoric of political moments. Weicker, I’m afraid, hasn’t many redeeming qualities for me. He, like many politicos on this state pay mucho lip service to the idea of “fair taxation” without addressing spending. I don’t think Bloomberg falls into that group at all.

  • 11 Dave Roberts // Jun 20, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    To Dave Roberts, a correction: Bloomberg is NOT an Independent. He is an unaffiliated voter.

    ME BAD…..

  • 12 Dave Roberts // Jun 21, 2007 at 7:32 am

    In post 9 anonymous wrote;

    “Ugh Lowell Weicker. I think Bloomberg is a lot smarter than that old fool.”

    PLEASE his name is a cornerstone on the list of Connecticut infamy.

    It is Lowell “INCOME TAX” Weicker.

  • 13 Dave Roberts // Jun 21, 2007 at 7:36 am

    Hey Turfy, It was great chatting with you last night…

    PS

    What is up with the PDF section of the Hour website?

    Lately I am having a problem getting their PDF files.

    Are you finding the same problem?

    I am going to call Jim Connely who is in charge of the website today and see if it is them, or me.

  • 14 turfgrrl // Jun 21, 2007 at 7:46 am

    Dave Roberts: Same here, all counts. My guess is that they are too large causing their automagic posting the articles to not work too.