I’ve been watching with interest the drama of Mayor Bloomberg of NYC leaving the Republican party this week, along with the rumors that he’ll run for president. It looks like a few NYC tech bloggers greeted this with enthusiasm which I suppose stems from his success in running that city.
I think that more centrist technocrats and fewer partisans at the national level would be a very good thing, as I’m sure people in places like New Orleans would agree. But Bloomberg (and Hillary Clinton, for that matter) are not likely to get my vote based on their positions on Iraq. Bloomberg was a cheerleader for the war early on; he’s parroted the totally hokey Bush position that Iraq is just another battle in a war that started on Sept. 11. Knowing what we know today, I can’t believe that a single American with a triple-digit IQ still buys into this, but there you go. Have fun justifying your position on the campaign trail, Mike.
Today the NY Times has an excellent roundup of Bloomberg’s positions on various issues. I sure wish they’d do this kind of piece on the actual presidential candidates — every time I see Wolf Blitzer breathlessly obsess over which dark-horse candidate may be getting into the race and who their running mates might be without saying anything at all about what each candidate stands for I want to yack.
Related posts:
I find your bafflement at Bloomberg to be a perfect completement to the NYTimes’ perspective on California. :) “Those people are crazy over there!”
Well, the typical NY Times story on California focuses on mindless cliches, while most Times stories on Bloomberg make him out to be Jesus without really saying why that is.
I wish that Mike’s position on the war were as bogus as notion of Californians surfing to work, but in this case they actually ran quotes from the horse’s mouth.