Former New York mayor and billionaire media magnate
Michael Bloomberg has recently declared himself a
candidate for the office of President of the United States,
having mulled over the option for more than a year.
What he would bring to the Dem's race for the party's
laurels is that, unlike U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren he doesn't want to grab any of one's
monetary assets (a so-called "wealth tax"); and unlike
Beto O'Rourke does not want to grab anyone's guns, just
the sugary-sweet treats many people enjoy, the extra-ounces
"Big Gulp" soda pop drinks. Remember his edict to ban
the sale of large-size cups of soda in New York when he
was that city's mayor? He thought it would help improve
and enhance New Yorkers' health if they didn't ingest so
much sugar via their sweet fizzy drinks. Yes, I know,
nanny statism on tap care of "Nanny" Bloomberg.
At least he would leave people's investment and real
estate assets alone. By the by, Beto had to say bye-bye
when his already-floundering campaign was finally sunk
by his anti-gun scheme which turned off moderate
Democrats (there's still a few of them around, believe it
or not) and independents most likely to vote in the
Democrats' primaries and caucuses. Your bemused Peasant
can't think of how a pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment state
like Texas could ever support such a candidate for president,
including one from their own state.
Bloomberg has other advantages as a candidate vis-a-vis
the rest of the Democrats' wacky field: Where Bloomberg
is coherent, clear, and smooth when he speaks, ex-Vice
President Joe Biden struggles to put a coherent sentence
together when he's on the stump, and "Uncle Joe" is
lumbered by Ukrainian baggage via his and his son Hunter's
ties to a Ukrainian energy holding firm, Burisma Holdings
and the growing scandal emanating from there. Sen. Elizabeth
Warren's ("I've got a plan for that!") plans for Medicare and
for the economy have even die-hard liberals in the Democrat
Party saying "Now just wait a minute, lady!". Sen. Bernie
Sanders, the far-left darling of the progressives four years
ago, recently had a heart attack while on the campaign trail,
causing many progs to reconsider their support of Bernie
in favor of the slightly younger Sen. Warren. Joe Biden
and his son, Hunter, are enmeshed in the Ukrainian
energy firm Burisma and its list of growing controversies,
along with the growing scandal emanating from there.
South Bend, Indiana's mayor Pete Buttigieg has at best
a mediocre record as that city's mayor, and many in his city
think he is willfully ignoring the plight of South Bend's
more run-down, racially diverse, economically depressed
neighborhoods. Sen. Kamala Harris, once well-regarded,
was shown to be the Empress With No Clothes after a fast
start with her campaign, only to be so exposed by some of
her rivals for the Dem's nomination as being woefully
unprepared. The rest of the field is just barely hanging in
there, and Bloomberg shouldn't have any trouble with
any of these tail-enders.
Being a highly successful businessman, and a billionaire
at that, would be a sore point with the many progressive
activists which dominate the Democrat Party, who hold
the vast wealth of such people against them (that's how
come ex-hedge fund manager and environmental gadfly
Tom Steyer never caught the breeze of momentum in
his sails, or should I say his windmills?), even if they hold
the same views as they on the issues of greatest concern
in their squalid party. Bloomberg will be best advised to
build a groundswell within the party to support him by
appealing to those Dems who think that their party has
gone too far leftward. There are some such Dems, enough
to make some noise along the road to their convention
in Milwaukee as well as at their bash. It could be rather
fun to watch.
But a word of caution to my fellow conservatives: whatever
qualms that you may have about President Trump, despite
his stellar performance in office, especially on the economy,
know that Michael Bloomberg is no conservative, nor even
a moderate; he merely looks like one of these next to the
Democrats' field of candidates. Bloomberg is, in fact,
a solidly staunch liberal who backs gun control (just short
of grabbing people's guns a' la Beto), abortion on demand,
and environmental regulations which would cripple some
industries and put at least one (coal) out of business.
Furthermore, Bloomberg LP, Bloomberg's media company,
announced through Bloomberg Editor in Chief John
Micklethwait "We will write about virtually all aspects
of this presidential contest," but "We will continue
our tradition of not investigating Mike (and his family
foundation) and we will extend the same policy to his
rivals in the Democratic primaries." Ah, but wait: said
in the same announcement they will "continue
to investigate the Trump administration, as the
government of the day." You see the ethical hole in the
road just ahead: What would happen if Bloomberg wins
the Democrats' nomination, and Trump the Republican's
blessing (and he is very likely to do so, as he has token
opposition who cannot possibly pose a serious challenge
for the GOP nod)? Micklethwait goes on to say that this
question will be reassessed if his boss is successful in
gaining the Democrats' nomination. Indeed.
Bloomberg's publication, while having a pro-market flavor
in its financial reporting, tacks left in its reporting on just
about everything else. What makes anyone think that this
would change, or at least be suspended in case of a Trump-
Bloomberg showdown next year? Especially given the
firm's passing on coverage of Bloomberg himself and
his fellow Democrat candidates? Very, very troubling,
and does not bode well for ethical journalism and its
proponents.
But all that being said, Bloomberg could still play a
role in educating people about the dangers of
so-called Medicare for All (which is really socialized
medicine by another name) the perniciousness of a
wealth tax, and the problems generated by raising the top
marginal tax rate to 70% (or more), and the dangers
to the middle class when the wealthy have been taxed to
the breaking point by a President Sanders or a President
Warren and they STILL would not have enough money
to pay for their socialist wet dream programs. And although
Bloomberg is 77, he is in markedly better health than
Sen. Sanders who recently suffered a heart attack while
campaigning, and Joe Biden who had bleeding in one eye
while giving a speech (a sign of dangerously high blood
pressure?); both of these men are in their 70s as well.
Personally, I don't see Michael Bloomberg winning the
Democrats' presidential nomination. But I do see him
making more than a few Democrat voters and, just
as importantly, more than a few Democrat delegates
in Milwaukee think long and hard about the issues and
the corresponding views held by the candidates.
And to compare them with those of Mayor Bloomberg's.
Could this trigger the return toward the political center
for the waywardly left-wing Democrat Party? This would
be an even more significant accomplishment for
Michael Bloomberg than winning that party's presidential
nomination, even winning the presidential election.
Bloomberg for spoiler, not for president.
MEM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment