"The money would be a joke, if it weren't so sad and dangerous. Viability is determined by money."
Then we have self-important billionaires like New York's "Mike" Bloomberg (and Ross Perot of Texas before him) who can't possibly win but can probably skew and screw the election in favor of the wrong candidate, for the sake of inflating their own egos. Ralph Naders with money, if you will.
Bloomberg is almost certainly running. He hasn't said what he'd do about the war in Iraq, national security, universal healthcare and other key issues. He probably doesn't even know. What's important to him is not what he can do for America, but being president to alleviate his boredom. And he may be willing to spend a billion bucks to do so, according to the New York Times. If he loses? Well, he still had a billion dollar adrenalin rush.
God save America!
Crankily yours,
The New York Crank
i wrote about that, a couple weeks back- it looks like bloomberg will run. he's certainly making all the moves to lay the groundwork. and with a billion dollars to spend, and a fawning media, he could do some serious damage without saying one substantive word!
Posted by Turkana at December 31, 2007 09:22 AMBloomberg's running will be bad news for Dems. He will take their votes and we will have another Repub in Whitehouse. Repubs are not only smart, they are lucky.
Posted by suresh at December 31, 2007 09:34 AMCNN is showing Goober Godbot speaking at a church.
Earlier, the pastor showed a Huckleberry Thin video, and without naming him told everyone to make sure they vote.
When are these political ass-clowns going to lose their tax exempt status?
Where is this theocratic transmutation of the government going? Onward Christian soldiers.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 31, 2007 09:50 AMI don't think that the Dems. will split their vote in 2008 because of Bloomberg. The memory of 2000 is still too fresh.
Posted by herbal tee at December 31, 2007 09:51 AMWell, why won't this Bloomclown draw the so-called "sensible" country club Repubs away from the Repub nominee? Or the sort of Right-leaning "independents" that ultimately vote Repub?
You know, the ones who claimed they were unhappy with Bush in 2004 and voted for him anyway?
Bloombucks seems more like a Ross Perot figure ("between" the two major party candidates) and not a Nader, who was to the left of both parties, thus taking mostly Gore votes. We survived Perot.
Posted by euzoius at December 31, 2007 10:16 AMeuzolus-
the difference is that bloomberg has held office, and isn't quite the loon perot was. the corporate media are already very comfortable with bloomberg.
Posted by Turkana at December 31, 2007 10:36 AMMark my words - if it turns in to Clinton/Guiliani/Bloomberg, the country has had it.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 31, 2007 12:42 PM