Diary

Beware the 'No Labels' Group, NY's Bloomberg

(The editorial below was written just before the launch of the so-called ‘No Labels’ group, which is allegedly rejecting partisan politics. Do not be fooled. ‘No Labels’ is a liberal shell group that may well be preparing to work with billionaire New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg on a 2012 independent White House bid that will have only one goal – insuring Obama’s re-election.)

 

Beware of Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City. Although he denies it, he may be planning a third-party independent presidential candidacy in 2012 that will not be intended to win the White House but only to insure that Barack Obama does not lose the presidency.

 

Bloomberg is a media mogul with an estimated $11 billion fortune based on the Bloomberg financial news service. He first was elected mayor in November 2001 and was re-elected in 2005. He then was elected to a third term in 2009 only after manipulating the city council to modify the law on term limits. And he only barely won in 2009 after spending $80 million of his own money in defeating a little-known city councilman by a small margin.

 

In other words, the people who know Bloomberg best don’t like him much.

 

He started out as a Democrat then became a Republican when he first ran for mayor. Then he declared himself an independent. This alone should be a warning that Bloomberg is a manipulative chameleon who will say and do anything for political power.

 

Bloomberg also has been able to successfully govern New York City only after Rudy Giuliani served two terms (1993-2001) and completely reformed the city using the kind of hardball tactics that Bloomberg never would employ. Because Bloomberg is not really a leader, but is an ultra-liberal politician in an empty suit.

 

He is no ‘independent’, either. That is his mask. He is a far-left liberal who has fully backed the proposed Ground Zero mosque; has repeatedly imposed nanny-state restrictions on New York residents like bans on trans-fats and cigarette smoking; and immediately after the May 1, 2010 attempted bombing of Times Square he conjectured in knee-jerk fashion that the bomber was not likely Islamic but probably was some conservative upset with the health-care bill.

 

These are the kinds of policies and extremist rhetoric that shows Bloomberg for who he really is. He is not moderate and he is not even mentally stable.

 

Bloomberg has tested the waters before, considering an independent run for president in 2008. And he knows that the Democrat party may really need him in 2012 as part of a bigger strategy of running third-party candidates in order to siphon off votes from Republicans, which is becoming a standard tactic since Democrats are losing at the ballot box.

 

In Massachusetts in the November 2, 2010 election, Tim Cahill ran a third-party candidacy and took 7.9% of the vote. Republican Charlie Baker lost by 6.3%. And in a state like Massachusetts, independents draw largely away from a Republican.

 

In 1992 America witnessed the big success of the third-party strategy. Texas billionaire Ross Perot ran as an independent for president for one reason only – because he hated the Bush family and because George HW Bush was the incumbent president that year. And in taking a whopping 19% of the national vote, he is said to have taken substantially enough more votes from Bush than from Democrat Bill Clinton to give the White House to Clinton. Clinton beat Bush 43% to 37.5%, a margin of only 5.5%.

 

This is what Bloomberg might be using as a model for 2012. Because he will market himself as a “centrist” and a “moderate” and point to his abandonment of both parties as an indication. And if the GOP nominates a genuine conservative like, say, Indiana congressman Mike Pence, Bloomberg would draw many votes away from Pence by mounting an aggressive campaign to stop the ‘far-right’ Republican agenda. Ultimately that strategy would keep Obama in the White House.

 

Reported thehill.com, the Washington, DC news website about Bloomberg’s potential effect:

 

‘If New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) decided to wage an independent bid for president in 2012, he would end up aiding President Obama’s reelection prospects, according to a new poll out Monday. 

 

Numbers from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling show Bloomberg polling at 11 percent in a hypothetical three-way matchup with Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R). Obama led the way with 44 percent to Romney’s 38 percent. Another 7 percent were undecided.

 

Bloomberg, who flirted with an independent bid in 2008, cut into Romney’s support among independents substantially. The mayor had the support of 22 percent of independents, compared to 32 percent who went for Romney. 

 

Bloomberg also costs Romney support among some Democrats. For the small number of Dems who favored the former governor over Obama, Romney loses half of them with Bloomberg in the race. 

 

In a two-way matchup between Obama and Romney, the president leads by just a single point — 47 percent to 46 percent. Without Bloomberg in the race, his supporters break for Romney over Obama — 50 percent to 21 percent. 

 

Bloomberg has repeatedly said he has no intention of running for president two years from now, but that hasn’t stopped speculation that the billionaire might change his mind and opt for a self-funded run in 2012. 

 

The poll also found that just 19 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Bloomberg, compared to 38 percent who have an unfavorable view of the mayor.  

 

The poll also found Obama leading all other potential GOP 2012 hopefuls, but the president doesn’t make it above 50 percent against anyone but former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who trails Obama 51 percent to 42 percent. 

 

Obama leads former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee 48 percent to 45 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 49 percent to 43 percent and Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) 48 percent to 37 percent.’

 

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can read excerpts from my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.