![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
The Candidate of the Permanent WillPosted on Feb 15, 2008By David Sirota To the consternation of news bureaus, political consulting firms and has-been politicians, The Wall Street Journal’s poll last month shows that America is hostile to an independent presidential candidacy by Michael Bloomberg. The New York mayor is viewed more unfavorably than favorably by voters. In head-to-head general election polls, he gets crushed everywhere, losing even the city he now governs. Yet, despite the unprecedented enthusiasm for the major parties’ 2008 presidential contenders, the media and political gatekeepers keep floating the possibility of Bloomberg’s candidacy, showing just how much change frightens the status quo. To review: Bloomberg is the billionaire who spent roughly the same amount to buy New York’s mayoralty as Bill Clinton spent on his entire national presidential campaign in 1992. By most measures, he is the antithesis of what Americans want in a president. He is a CEO at a time when his own Bloomberg News polls show Americans overwhelmingly distrust CEOs. He heads a media conglomerate and is considering an independent presidential candidacy in an era when Gallup surveys show voters strongly distrust media companies and are satisfied with the current field of major-party candidates. Bloomberg is an icon of Manhattan’s effete aristocracy in an election pivoting on working-class voters in Ohio and the Mountain West. He is the caretaker mayor of a city that is an embarrassing spectacle of economic inequality—at a moment when Americans are worried about inequality. Even on foreign policy he is out of step. With the public outraged at the Iraq war, Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has documented Bloomberg’s pro-war extremism echoing right-wing attempts to dishonestly connect 9/11 to the conflict; telling America to support President Bush because of the war; and offering a post-"Mission Accomplished” parade for the president. Bloomberg is positioning himself as an issues-based alternative to both parties’ aspiring nominees. Yet his confidante admits the Bloomberg candidacy would be a Seinfeldian display of arrogance: a campaign about nothing, other than one egomaniac’s self-importance. “It isn’t about which candidate Mike could live with,” the Bloomberg friend recently told New York magazine. “All Mike cares about is whether he can win or not.” Regardless, the portrayal of Bloomberg as Principled Savior continues. Late last year, Newsweek’s editor penned a brown-nosing front-cover love letter to the mayor, lauding his “American odyssey.” In January, Doug Schoen, a Bloomberg pollster, popped up in articles pushing the Bloomberg candidacy. Just weeks ago, a group of retired lawmakers trumpeted a Bloomberg run. Some of the motives are obvious. Washed-up politicians are looking for White House jobs. News executives and political consultants see dollar signs in potential Bloomberg for President ads. Reporters would like to ingratiate themselves to the head of a burgeoning media empire. Power-worshipping pundits see in Bloomberg a fellow upper-cruster they can relate to at social gatherings. But this is about more than just Cabinet slots, cash, careerism and cocktail parties. In years past, campaign contributors controlled figurehead candidates like Bush, and corporate front groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council pummeled threatening challengers like Howard Dean. These were reliable instruments of corruption that enforced what Alexander Hamilton once called the Establishment’s “permanent will.” Now, though, voters are forcing both parties to ignore that “permanent will” and embrace real, unbridled change. The Wall Street Journal notes that the ascendance of Republican John McCain, a sometime opponent of corporate America, is downright “nerve-wracking” for insiders already “jarred by intensifying populist attacks from the Democratic field.” Barack Obama (D) is now hammering away at lobbyist-written trade deals that help companies outsource jobs, and even Hillary Clinton (D)—the candidate who has taken the most cash from the health care industry—is criticizing health insurance profiteering. Thus, the elite are desperate for a stooge, and in Bloomberg, they’ve found one. Politically repugnant to most Americans and representing no mass constituency whatsoever, his wallet nonetheless imparts “legitimacy,” and his corporate career ensures a candidacy working to suppress the change impulse under meaningless bromides about “bipartisanship.” Bloomberg’s machinations will be the subject of ongoing media speculation. However, the real story is not about one prima donna, but about the entrenched interests pushing him to run in the first place. Whether this billionaire becomes a candidate or not, you can bet those interests will keep working hard to trip up change on its way to the White House. David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” will be released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Previous item: Outmaneuvering the 'Inevitable' Next item: Clintons vs. the Media Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Claire M, February 20 at 10:58 pm # Dictator BloombergBloomberg is a dictator and a trifling micro-manager. He has told New Yorkers how to cook their food, he performs illegal acts in other states and expects special treatment for himself and his goons (and so far, the BATFE has slapped him on the wrist, rather than indicting him as they do innocent citizens who cross their blood-thirsty path). He has no business being president. I may hold my nose in the voting booth in the next election, but Bloomberg is a non-starter.
By Wordsmith, February 18 at 11:00 am # The Slogan KingAnd the video ‘Yes, We Can’ is the epitome.
By JOHN PAULY, February 18 at 9:25 am # WHERE WERE THE GOVT. INSPECTORS?I THOUGHT GOVT. INSPECTORS WERE ON SITE AT THESE MEAT PACKING PLANTS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. WHERE WERE THEY IN THIS CASE? WHAT ABOUT OTHER SITES? ARE THERE ANY INSPECTORS ANY MORE?
By Conservative Yankee, February 18 at 6:06 am # One of the benefits of a caucus state//We get together in a big room (there were about 40 people from my town) and discuss potential candidates. In larger towns, “ward bosses” get to tell D’s how “the party” feels, but my town is small, and we have no “Democratic committee” People struggled with Obama or Clinton. The generat consensus was “we want someone else” There were disenfranchised Kucinich voters who saw Hill-the-business-shill as a “Bush enabler” but there were also people who wwere supporting her who pointed to Obama’s record of partial support and series of “NV’s” In the end Whiting (which is fairly represenative of the state as a whole gave Obama the nod with a 7/17 victory. that means out of almost 40 people who came out on a rainy/icy day just over half bothered to register an opinion. Those like myself, who “held their nose and voted” were not happy or pleased… and the air was ripe with cynicism. The coffee and doughnuts went untouched, and people left immediately following the final vote. I did not get any feeling that these people were committed to vote Democratic” come the fall. Maine has been a blue State for the last 5 elections (barely) If it goes red on election night, that would be a early indicator of where the Country is headed. What it would mean is that the Democrats who still have a job… stayed home.
By Conservative Yankee, February 15 at 6:46 am # David Sirota says the populous is “satisfied” with the current candidates and by extension the two party system. It is my personal opinion that the slate of candidates presented by the two parties was, and remains the worst buffet of my lifetime. There are few of these fools who I wauld trust to wash my truck, much less run the country, and after listening to others speak at the Maine Caucuses, I know I am not alone in this belief. Maine picked Obama, BUT they really want someone else. Preferably someone LESS connected..... Where David Sirota is correct is in his assertion that the “someone else” is NOT Bloomberg !!
By Jimmy Charite, February 16 at 6:58 am # Re: Re: Maine picked Obama, BUT they reallyFinally, I thought I was the only one who thought he was saying nothing. Pure generalizations! Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article