Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Sunday NYT Addict | Who Do We Have to Thank for a ... »

Monday, June 25, 2007

This Man is Running for President?

posted by on June 25 at 8:42 AM

This dude? The one on the right? Waving a rainbow flag over his head?


When Mike Bloomberg leaves the GOP, Mike Bloomberg really leaves the GOP.

Via Towleroad.

RSS icon Comments


He's marched in the parade before. He was also a Democrat before.

Our parade was, as usually, great.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | June 25, 2007 9:08 AM

Bloomberg has publicly supported gay marriage for some time now.

Posted by AHiro | June 25, 2007 9:56 AM

I hope this is a sign of things to come.

Posted by Mike in MO | June 25, 2007 9:59 AM

Bloomberg: leading on equality ...bringing business back to NYC after 9-11....leading on gun control....leading on environment with congestion pricing and investment in new rail lines....raised property taxes quite a bit to balance the books & is fiscally tough and demanding on his department heads and makes government work..... can throw in $500 million for ads without blinking.

What's not to like?

Hillary, Obama, watch out.

Posted by Joe | June 25, 2007 10:15 AM

Plus I hear he takes public transit to/from work.

Posted by elswinger | June 25, 2007 10:17 AM

Is the flag really in his hand or is it on the building? It kind of looks like he is just waving.

Posted by Flagman | June 25, 2007 10:30 AM

bloomberg for president means president fred thompson.

the last thing this nation needs is another GOP white house occupied by a doddering meat puppet.

Posted by maxsolomon | June 25, 2007 10:52 AM

This illustrates the difference between Bloomberg and his predecessor, Giuliani. Giuliani used to march in the Pride parade too. But, now he's running away from his past support for equality to bury himself in the bosom of the Republican party activist base. Bloomberg is running away from the Republican party so he can stand taller on the bedrock of his beliefs. Bloomberg has had all the success of Giuliani and more, but without all the police brutality and disregard for civil liberties and civil rights of Giuliani's tenure.

Posted by Bill LaBorde | June 25, 2007 10:54 AM

He isn't holding a flag.

Its behind him, but the picture makes it look like he's holding it.

Posted by ecce homo | June 25, 2007 10:55 AM

I think the scare tactics are premature. The fact that an independant runs has little bearing on the gop primary. And I think one or two gop voters are mainly interested in a sound fiscal policy, which he represents.

Posted by jkjk | June 25, 2007 11:13 AM

There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times about the possibility of Bloomberg as a kingmaker.

As in, maybe he can't win, but if he can win NY's electoral votes, that could be enough to keep either of the other candidates from getting a majority in the electoral college. At which point he can try to strike some deals for cabinet posts, etc. in order to give his electoral votes to that candidate.

Maybe a long shot, but an interesting look nonetheless.

And, yeah, Bloomberg seems pretty rad. Even if I don't agree with all his positions, it's still exciting to see someone that doesn't reflexively take a party line on every single issue.

Posted by no one in particular | June 25, 2007 11:21 AM

Here he is clearly holding the flag.

Posted by Jason | June 25, 2007 11:26 AM

#6 and #9: Then why are his fingers curled around it? All of the flags in the photo seem to be held by people, not buildings. Those buildings seem to be (like every building in NYC) has scaffolding on it so I doubt people just randomly taped flags to the scaffolding.

Posted by hey | June 25, 2007 11:29 AM


bloomberg for president means president fred thompson.

I trust Michael Bloomberg enough to trust that he won't allow himself to be a spoiler. That is, I have enough faith that Bloomberg comes from the savvy camp as opposed to the delusional camp.

Let's face it, as ostensibly sensible as they were discussing certain issues, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader both ultimately kinda had a screw loose. There was a character flaw that enabled them to make Quixotic presidential bids. It's pretty clear that Michael Bloomberg is no Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.

At this point, I'm happy to sit back and see Bloomberg play this thing out. Keep in mind there are a number of scenarios where Bloomberg can accomplish something without literally getting elected president:

  • As "no one in particular" above noted, he could play kingmaker in a kind of coalition government.
  • He could be the Democrats' vice presidential nominee. That would be a game-changing VP nomination on a par with Kerry picking McCain in 2004.
  • The threat of a Bloomberg bid could be an end in itself. He could pressure the Dems and Reps to nominate a more pragmatic, more daring presidential candidate.

Posted by cressona | June 25, 2007 11:52 AM

Bloomberg, like Dan Savage, is a big supporter of Bush and his war. In a single American Hospital for war wounded today, more than 800 of the patients have lost an arm, a leg, fingers or toes. More than 100 are blind. Dozens need tubes and machines to keep them alive. Hundreds are disfigured by burns, and thousands have brain injuries and mangled minds.

These are America's war wounded, a toll that has received less attention than the 3,500 troops killed in Iraq. Depending on how you count them, they number between 35,000 and 53,000.

Posted by bloomy | June 25, 2007 12:07 PM

bloomy: Bloomberg, like Dan Savage, is a big supporter of Bush and his war.

I wasn't aware Bloomberg had any position on the Iraq War. Care to provide some documentation?

Posted by cressona | June 25, 2007 12:36 PM

#8 makes some great points. I think Bloomberg is one of the only candidates that publicly supports GAY MARRIAGE. He is also PRO CHOICE. Those happen to be my TWO BIGGEST issues and I would be inclined to vote for someone who I think could make serious progress on those 2 issues.

I am so happy to see some very serious candidates (Dem, Repub and now Indie) who come from Urban Cities and have an Urban Cities base. Perhaps the United Cities of American and the urban Archipelago have a chance this year. These people are much more in line with my values and that makes me happy!

Posted by Urban Voter | June 25, 2007 12:39 PM


"Actually, there is an important difference between Bloomberg and most liberal Democrats. Dating back to his infatuation with Bush, the mayor has always been an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq."

"Bloomberg's pro-war rhetoric dutifully echoed the White House line connecting Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida and 9/11, almost as if Karl Rove had programmed his brain. "I'm voting for George W. Bush and it's mainly because I think we have to strike back at terrorists," he said in September 2004. "To argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist is ridiculous. He used mustard gas, or some kind of gas, against his own people."

"Should he ultimately decide to run for president, Bloomberg and his clever political advisors will have to find some way to backtrack from his unpopular statements about Iraq. But that would only return us to the fundamental question about this protean businessman and politician: Does he have any political convictions that transcend his own ambitions?"

Posted by laterite | June 25, 2007 1:01 PM
Posted by Bloomberg and savage | June 25, 2007 1:27 PM

@18, @19, thanks for the info. At least Dan Savage wasn't deluding himself about the war -- or about George W. Bush -- as recently as 2004. I mean, the mere idea of supporting G.W. Bush in 2004 should immediately disqualify someone from the job of fixing America's problems.

Posted by cressona | June 25, 2007 1:36 PM

Regarding one of the scenarios I passed along @14...
Actually, Bloomberg's enthusiastic endorsement of Bush and the Iraq War in 2004 would/should disqualify him from the VP slot on a Democratic ticket. Well, it wouldn't be the first time that Newsweek's Jonathan Alter didn't do his homework.

Well, chances are Bloomberg wouldn't qualify anyway for the VP slot on the Dems ticket because chances are Hillary's going to get the top slot and the two candidates can't be from the same state.

Posted by cressona | June 25, 2007 1:47 PM

I really like how enthusiastic all the Bloomberg fans are, even though I continue to be a big Clinton supporter. I think some of us automatically think "Nader" when we hear of a third party candidate. If he's as smart as his supporters say he is, and won't let himself become a spoiler, then having such a smart guy in the race can't be a bad thing. Can it?

Posted by Big Sven | June 25, 2007 4:13 PM

His current position on the war is more important than his previous position on the war. Saying that because someone used to support the war means they aren't really "on our side" will discount more than half of the population. I think the best attitude for you who were smart enough to oppose the war beforehand (I wasn't) is a smug "I told you so," and a readiness to forgive.

Posted by Matt | June 25, 2007 9:08 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).