Tag Archives: Michael Bloomberg

Bloomberg set to spend several fortunes on POTUS race? Wow!

There is something profoundly off-putting to learn that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is ready to spend a billion of his own dollars on his campaign to become president of the United States.

I’m not sure what Bloomberg is worth. I hear it’s anywhere from $20 billion to $50 billion. When he commits to spending as much as $1 billion of his own stash to become president, I realize it’s a mere drop of spittle in the man’s personal fortune. Good grief. He can piddle away that amount of money and never even miss it!

Is this what we can expect? Donald Trump’s election in 2016 marked a historical turning point in that regard … regardless of the countless other matters that have drawn so much public scrutiny.

Here we are again as we enter another election year.

Bloomberg is forgoing the early primaries. He is spending mountains of money on TV ads. They’ve been airing in Texas incessantly, focusing primarily on health care issues. Indeed, a Dallas Morning News story in today’s paper talked about how the still-large Democratic Party primary field is going to focus greatly on Texas as the POTUS train chugs its way toward Super Tuesday in March.

Does this portend a fight for Texas’s 38 Electoral College votes in the fall campaign once Democrats find a nominee? Well, time will tell.

I happen to one American voter who is likely to be turned off by the idea of a major party nominee purchasing a nomination with cash drawn from his bottomless pockets.

Perhaps there’s the issue, too, of the waffling that Bloomberg exhibited prior to getting into this contest. He made a fairly big show of telling the world that he would not run for president. Then he’s in, saying he was dissatisfied with the quality of the Democratic field fighting among itself to see who would run against Trump. Talk about presumptuous!

No one asked my opinion, but I happen to be one of those Democratic-leaning voters who is satisfied with the field that is running for the party nomination. One of them will emerge as the nominee and it is my hope the party selects someone with the right stuff to take on Donald Trump.

Moreover, my sentiment prefers that the nominee be battle-tested in a primary system that pits the nominee against the other candidates head to head.

Bloomberg is acting like someone who believes he should remain “above the fray.”

Uh, Mr. Mayor? That doesn’t necessarily play well with at least one primary voter. That would be me.

Bloomberg trying to buy Democratic presidential nomination

Michael Bloomberg has put a price on the Democratic Party presidential nomination he is seeking to buy.

Whatever it is, he can afford it. As the former New York mayor throws millions of bucks at TV ads, though, he is annoying the daylights out of this voter … that would be me.

I am troubled by the idea of this megazillionaire forgoing the early primary states to blanket the airwaves with TV ads that proclaim that he can parlay his business acumen into the presidency of the United States.

We had another rich guy do the same thing, in 2016. Donald Trump sold millions of Americans a bill of goods about his business success. We’ve all since learned that Trump’s success was, well, a bit of a mirage. He’s still rich, or says he is rich. He lives large with those glitzy resorts where he retreats from his duties as president.

But back to Bloomberg.

I recall the 1968 presidential primary campaign. Sen. Eugene McCarthy surprised President Johnson with a strong second-place finish in New Hampshire. Then came Sen. Robert F. Kennedy into the battle. RFK and Clean Gene fought state to state in primary battles. Kennedy won most of those fights; he lost the Oregon primary in May, then ventured to California, where he won that state’s primary.

On the Fifth of June, a gunman rewrote history. Sen. Kennedy died the next day.

Meanwhile, Vice President Hubert Humphrey had skipped the primary fights. He spent his time gathering up delegates more or less off the grid.

There’s a certain similarity to what we’re seeing today, except that VP Humphrey wasn’t pouring millions of his own dollars into the fight, chiefly because he didn’t have the money stashed away. Bloomberg is seeking to self-finance his campaign.

This whole exercise turns me off. I want him to face his opponents on a stage, answering questions about his change of heart. You’ll recall how he declared with what we now assume was a faux sincerity that he wouldn’t run for president in 2020. Now he’s in. What gives?

I prefer presidential candidates to get scuffed up along the way. All the rest of ’em this year have suffered their share of nicks, cuts and bruises. Michael Bloomberg’s vast wealth shouldn’t exempt him from the same kind of treatment.

Count me as one who is ‘satisfied’ with Democratic field

No one has asked for my opinion on this matter, but I’m going to offer it anyway.

You may count me as one American voter who is satisfied with the quality of the Democratic field competing for the chance to run against Donald J. Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

So, with that I should declare that Michael Bloomberg’s relatively late entry into the contest strikes me as more than just a tad presumptuous on the part of the former three-term New York City mayor.

He once was a Republican. Then he became an independent. Now he wants to run as a Democrat. Make up your mind, Mr. Mayor! Who are you and what, precisely, do you believe? Yes, I have stated my preference for a moderate candidate to emerge from the large field, but this guy is nearly impossible to peg.

Bloomberg, who once said he wouldn’t run for president, says he fears the current field lacks the heft needed to knock off the Republican president. I beg to differ.

The Democratic herd of candidates is full of talent, full of ideas, full of executive government experience and full of integrity needed to compete against the carnival barker masquerading as our president.

I am struck by the notion that Bloomberg plans to skip the early primary and caucus states and hit the trail in time for the big super Tuesday event later in the spring.

He’s worth about 50 billion bucks — give or take a billion or three — and is saying (a) he won’t take any political contributions from anyone and (b) won’t accept the chump-change presidential salary if he’s elected in 2020; the office pays a measly $400,000 annually, but hey, the office provides the best public transportation possible, not to mention 24/7 security.

I get that Bloomberg is a smart guy. Well-educated and all of that. He did a good job running the nation’s largest city. He’s richer than God and can add some considerable gravitas to the campaign.

However, I want to arc back to my initial point: Does the Democratic Party field need this guy to give it the oomph Bloomberg thinks it needs to kick Donald Trump out of the Oval Office? I do not believe that’s the case.

Stay out of the 2020 race, Mr. Mayor

Michael Bloomberg once was thought to be considering a run for the presidency in 2020.

Then he said “no,” he wouldn’t be a candidate for the White House.

Oh, but wait! Now he’s back in, sort of.

The former New York City mayor has announced his intention to file for the Alabama Democratic primary. It seems that Bloomberg is unhappy with the slate of Democrats battling for their party’s nomination and the right to do battle with Donald J. Trump.

My request of the ex-mayor is this: Don’t do it!

I want a candidate with a set of principles and a commitment to governing. I am not interested in considering someone who is dissatisfied with the candidates who already have made that leap of faith and are asking Americans to join them in that leap.

It’s not that Bloomberg is a fringe player. He’s a mega-rich guy. He has been a registered Republican, a registered Democrat and a registered independent. I don’t know what he considers himself at this moment. That he is going to file in the Alabama Democratic primary tells me he is now a Democrat … for the time being.

I get that the Democratic field so far hasn’t excited a lot of folks. I have problems with every singe one of them still in the fight. None of the problems I have with the Democratic contenders, though, matches the profound loathing I feel for the Republican who is running for re-election as president.

My queasiness with Bloomberg, though, is based on his in-out-maybe-back-in posture. Is he committed to governing or is just interested in making some sort of media splash?

Stay out of the race, Mr. Mayor.

Bloomberg giving Democrats the jitters

NEW YORK, NY - AUGUST 26:  Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg speaks on stage during the opening ceremony during Day One of the 2013 US Open at USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center on August 26, 2013 in the Flushing neighborhood of the Queens borough of New York City.  (Photo by Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)

Michael Bloomberg is creating a certain buzz as the presidential campaign starts to gear up.

The former New York mayor is pondering whether to run for president as an independent.

Not surprisingly, Democrats are trying to talk him out of it. Why? They consider him a potential spoiler in the party’s bid to retain control of the White House.

My own hunch is that Bloomberg won’t run if the Democrats appear set to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton for president.

If it’s Sen. Bernie Sanders? And if the Republicans nominate Donald Trump? Well, then it becomes dicier for everyone involved in the election . . . in both parties.

This brings back memories of Ross Perot. Perot, the Dallas billionaire, ran twice for the presidency, in 1992 and 1996. Republicans keep saying that Perot’s strength decimated GOP President George H.W. Bush’s chances for re-election, handing the election to Arkansas Democratic Gov. Bill Clinton.

The jury, though, really is still out on that. I’ve seen plenty of evidence that suggests that Clinton would have defeated Bush that year without Perot on the ballot, that Perot attracted nominally more Republicans than Democrats, but that his candidacy wasn’t necessarily decisive.

See analysis here.

Bloomberg’s entry into this race as an independent is hard to gauge.

He’s a friend of Hillary Clinton. He once was a friend of Trump . . . before the two men got tangled up in some business deal.

Given the utter madness that has enveloped the 2016 campaign to date, I am not willing to assume a single thing about what Bloomberg might do and what effect it will have.

Let’s just chalk this up to one more nod to the craziness that’s brought us to this point.


Flight ban was no embargo

The Federal Aviation Administration has lifted its brief ban on commercial U.S. jet service to David Ben-Gurion International Airport.

Did the FAA knuckle under to some ridiculous political criticism? I hope not.


The FAA had banned the flights into Tel Aviv’s air terminal, citing security concerns created by Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. One rocket landed about a mile from Ben-Gurion, causing the FAA to suspend U.S. air carrier service to the massive airport.

Then came the ridiculousness from the likes of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Their complaint? They called the flight-service suspension an “economic embargo on Israel” that punished the Israelis unfairly.

Bloomberg even went so far as to board an Israeli El Al Airlines jet from New York to Tel Aviv, and fly to Israel to make some kind of bombastic statement criticizing the suspension.

Cruz, of course, wasted no time plastering this decision — which was made independently by the FAA — on President Obama. This has become a common theme from Cruz and other loudmouthed Republican lawmakers: Let’s be sure to politicize this any way we can and, oh yes, be sure to put the blame squarely on the president; and in this case, let’s be sure to imply that he is following some kind of “anti-Israel” policy, which of course is standard for someone with “pro-Muslim” leanings.

Their stupidity is mind-boggling.

And to think Republicans still rail at those who — they contend — still want to blame George W. Bush for the nation’s economic mess and all these foreign-policy crises.

Well, the ban on U.S. carriers’ flights to David Ben-Gurion has lifted. That’s a good thing. The FAA assessed the security risk and determined that it’s OK to fly there.

Take it from me, as one who’s flown in and out of that terminal: You haven’t lived until you’ve been interrogated by an Israeli airport security official prior to boarding an outbound flight from David Ben-Gurion International Airport.

They know how to protect themselves against terrorist attacks.

As for the FAA, they were being extra cautious. Given the stakes involved, I’m glad they locked down those flights.