Except for the people who are deliberately mean and hateful, seeking to harm others — and those who are inconsiderate, indifferent to the feelings of others, I find opportunists to be the most irritating sort of human being. They don’t seem to believe in anything but their own advancement.
No wonder I was never a great fan of former President Clinton — or his wife. Each Clinton seems to shift his* position, not because of what he* feels in his heart, but what he believes is most likely to further his election. While many gay activists can’t seem to contain themselves at the mere mention of the former president’s name, he showed that he preferred political expediency to helping gay people. Gay people bore the brunt of that Democrat’s opportunism.
When it helped him to have gay support (in the three-way 1992 election), he promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military. When he realized repealing the ban could cost him politically, he signed “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” into law, making it impossible for his successors to do what his predecessors (and he) could have done, repeal that ridiculous regulation with the stroke of a pen.
Yesterday, another political opportunist made headlines. New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, twice elected as a Republican, “left the Republican Party and become unaffiliated in what many believe could be a step toward entering the 2008 race for president.” The Mayor hadn’t been a Republican very long, having switched in 2001 “his lifelong Democratic registration to avoid a crowded primary.”
Just another opportunist, becoming a Republican in order to bypass the Democratic primary. And now leaving the party as he contemplates a presidential bid, knowing he wouldn’t have a prayer in the GOP’s presidential primary, given the presence of his more accomplished predecessor.
Some people, ever eager to blame everything on Bush, seem to think his departure has something to do with the president’s “betrayal of conservatism.”** Except that, as Robbie, who tipped me off to that silly statement, noted Bloomberg hasn’t been much of a conservative. And he doesn’t seem to be leading the charge for fiscal prudence, either as Mayor of New York or in his prospective presidential bid.
Nope, Michael Bloomberg is a political opportunist plain and simple. (As Robbie puts it, “Should” Bloomberg run for president, “his leaving the party will mirror the purpose of his original joining – pure political expediency.” So, there’s not much of a story to his second change of partisan affiliation since George W. Bush became president. Except that he may be trying to succeed that man in that office.
*****
* this pronoun is grammatically correct.
**This blogger agrees that the President hasn’t been all that conservative.
My question is who the hell would miss him. I doubt anybody noticed that he was a Republican.
Bloomberg hasn’t been much of a conservative.
My question is what, exactly has he been?
I believe the charge of opportunism is legitimate here. Frankly I have to agree in wondering how much of this is because he knows he’ll never win the nomination of the GOP so wants to run for president as an Independent. He wasn’t much of a Republican before all this that I could see but New York City isn’t my home so I didn’t pay close attention. Btw, good bit on Clinton and DADT. I still have forgiven the man for that and will never let anyone excuse it to my face. He was a political coward who broke his promise after exploiting gays for votes.
Ah, he was a lifelong Democrat until 2001. That explains a lot.
He has governed NYC rather as Hillary Clinton might have.
Michael Bloomberg is no conservative. His assault on the Second Amendment, in my book, makes him a moderate or liberal such as Rockefeller or Jacob Javitz. I have no idea what his fiscal policies were to categorize him correctly.
The question is if he makes a run at the White House which party will he hurt more? In 1996, in 4 states, if Perot were not a candidate those votes would´ve gone to Dole and he would´ve been president. In 1980, John Anderson, probably took more votes from the Democrats than from the Republicans. 1912 Teddy Roosevelt´s third party run defeated President Taft and gave Woodrow Wilson the victory. Bloomberg is no Teddy Roosevelt but he could be another Ross Perot.
RE: Bloomberg´s assault on the’Second Amendment he announced he wants to reduce guns in the city. He´wants to deny right to carry permits saying, “If you tell me you need a gun permit, you´re telling me that you don´t think the NYPD can do a good job in protecting you. Most people, I don´t see any reason why they need it.-” If that´s his policy in New York City, imagine a PResident Bloomberg!!!
To quote Michelle Malkin: “Wake me up when the Big Nanny candidate’s 15 minutes in the national spotlight are over.”
Maybe we should start calling him “H. Ross Bloomberg?”
Regards,
Peter H.
The good news is that this frees the NYC GOP to run a real Republican candidate in the next mayoral race.
Considering that New York City really doesn’t HAVE a viable Republican Party, I’m less inclined to be harsh. The GOP has influence and successes at the State-level due to the balancing effect of “up-state” New York; but in the City it’s never really a player at the big table. The City GOP basically rents-out it’s name and endorsement to moderate Democrats like Bloomberg…or it offers only token opposition. The story’s the same in Philadelphia where Democrats outnumber the GOP five or six-to-one. Absent a renegade Democrat crossing-the-aisle, mayorial races in either city end at the Democratic primary.
It’s not “just” political expediency, it’s the way the game is rigged by political demographics and the entrenched party bureaucracies on both sides. And considering the political dwarves currently presented on the GOP podium, we NEED more such renegades just to avoid being swamped-under by the radial-socialist and liberal-wings of the current Democratic Party.
Ted, agree wholeheartedly. I was surprised and impressed when NYC elected Bloomberg, thinking it had the common sense not to discredit Giuliani’s successes and not to pay attention to the fear-mongering Village Voice (among others). Then Bloomberg began his administration and my surprise quickly wore off.
Is Bloomberg an opportunist? Yes, probably. But were I thinking of running a liberal city, I might cross party lines and massage my message a bit, giving the opportunity for some leftists to claim “See, we have common sense too!” For many, voting is emotional, even psychosomatic — marking the little oval for the candidate is not a thoughtful decision, but a nervous tic.
Does liberalism really exist in any substantive way? Most of the folks I know who call themselves liberals are married and very stable, they pay their taxes, some are having beautiful babies, they are responsible, productive, believe there is no free ride, get good grades, etc. The personal lives of most are indistinguishable from those of conservatives; they live as conservatives, but preach liberalism. I’ve always thought of modern liberalism as merely the mitigation of consequences for bad decisions, but it seems that for the vast majority, liberalism is theory — a set of ideas to be worshipped, but not practiced. If not practiced, what’s the point?
(All our definitions of these terms differ in varying degrees; I’m using the broad, generally-accepted ones here.)
Brent Bozell put it best: Bloomberg leaving the GOP is a little like Madonna leaving the Catholic Church. ‘Nuff said.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter-
Well, Brent scooped me as I was trying to think of a similar analogy to debunk the MSM’s meme today that Bloomberg is breaking with the GOP.
Kind of like Jim McGreevey divorcing his wife, in fact.
“Gay people bore the brunt of that Democrat’s opportunism.” LOL. There was no Republican Congress, nope, keep talking about Clinton…LOL.
Oh, and let’s go into the Rose Garden and do a press conference supporting the FMA. For votes. Bush is not an opportunist plain and simple at all! Always laughs on here…
Clinton could have easily vetoed DOMA and DADT, sean. ‘Nuff said.
Oh, and let’s go into the Rose Garden and do a press conference supporting the FMA. For votes.
But of course, you had no problem with Clinton buying commercial time on Christian radio stations to tout the fact that he signed DOMA as reflecting “American values”.
Furthermore, sean, given that HRC’s Democrat leadership endorses and supports FMA supporters, I fail to see what exactly your problem is.
This cracks me up!
Is this actually news to anyone? Bloomberg was a Democrat. Giuliani asked him to run for mayor knowing he could never get the Democratic nomination so he switched parties and ran as a Republican. I guess now that he’s an independent all the GOPers will be claiming he’s been a lousy mayor.
I like Mike. I don’t love him. He’s a politician now after all. I can’t imagine he could be president. He’s pretty much devoid of charisma. But he has been a decent mayor. The city still runs pretty well and without the constant infighting the Giuliani used to thrive on.
I’m terribly pleased that the only Republican I have voted for since 1990 is no an independent.
As for third party candidates, I think it’s pretty convenient in any race to count the votes for someone else. I don’t know anyone who voted for Perot who would have bothered voting at all if he hadn’t been in the race. I suspect that’s true of most of the people who voted for Nader as well.
Sorry Sean, it was a Democratic Congress that passed Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.
Dear ND30,
I had a lot of problem with Clinton signing DOMA. And I’m well aware that he used it as an election strategy.
But are you saying Dole wouldn’t have signed it?
But yes Clinton did and shame on him. And it’s one of many reasons why I am hoping HRC does not get the nomination.
BTW, Bush ran ads against Richards in 1994 because she had tried to get rid of the state’s sodomy laws. Did you still vote for him for governor and later for president?
HT
IS Bloomie GAY?
#17 – “BTW, Bush ran ads against Richards in 1994 because she had tried to get rid of the state’s sodomy laws. Did you still vote for him for governor and later for president?”
Sorry, Houndie, but I live here in Houston and I have to say that I never saw any of these ads. Plus, to my knowledge Ann Richards never addressed the sodomy issue while in her term of office. If you have some links to back it up, I’d love to see them.
Regards,
Peter H.
BTW, Bush ran ads against Richards in 1994 because she had tried to get rid of the state’s sodomy laws. Did you still vote for him for governor and later for president?
I was living in Texas at the time. Didn’t see that either.
And actually, it was Richards who gave Texas the sodomy law. Libs love to claim she was forced into it, but the liberals ran the legislature at the time. Therefore, the famous court case was, when you’re honest and boil it down,
Lawrence v. Richards.