#Centrism - Teapot Tommy Friedman can't help himself again

Once again, Teapot Tommy is beating the drum for "centrism," and again, the particular presidential centrism of Americans Elect. (Sorry, no longer providing a link to a group of largely rich folks even more secretive than Republicans and Democrats.)

Teapot Tommy now has a man crush, or a political boy toy, to carry this party's standard: Michael Bloomberg.

And, the dual crush, on party and man, has so besotted Friedman, he says this:

Bloomberg doesn’t have to win to succeed — or even stay in the race to the very end. Simply by running, participating in the debates and doing respectably in the polls — 15 to 20 percent — he could change the dynamic of the election and, most importantly, the course of the next administration, no matter who heads it. By running on important issues and offering sensible programs for addressing them — and showing that he had the support of the growing number of Americans who describe themselves as independents — he would compel the two candidates to gravitate toward some of his positions as Election Day neared.

How, other than the Peter Principle, did Friedman get his current, sweet gig? (And why does the NYT not wonder why it becomes less and less relevant?)

First, being "Miss Congeniality" in an election gives you no power to sway election dynamics. Second, when have a politician's election homestretch promises ever actually been honored?

I mean, if Friedman is too dumb to grasp even that, what was he doing in all those interviews before he got his op-ed gig?

Or, if he's too conniving to be truthful here, why is he, even by Punch Sulzberger's lax standards of Judy Miller and all, holding the spot he does?

The real answer? This is what passes for wisdom inside the Beltway/New York axis, and even more so, inside its incestuous mainstream media. As proof of that, Friedman quotes Peter Principle fellow grad Matt Miller of the Washington Kaplan Post:

“The right kind of independent candidate would explain that the real question on taxes, once the economy is back on track, is this: Given that taxes have to rise, how should we raise the revenue we need in ways that are best for the economy?” wrote the columnist Matt Miller in The Washington Post last week. “The answer would involve lower taxes on payrolls and corporate income, and higher taxes on dirty energy and consumption.” 

Yet, neither Miller nor Friedman can be bothered to explain details, no more than the mainstream parties they profess won't make the tough choices. Besides that, is there any guarantee Bloomberg will propose any real tax hikes? Let alone progressive ones?

And, yes, I feed the Peter Principle every time I write about Teapot Tommy. I usually don't even bother to read him, but, in this particular case, his blatherings are the symptoms of a larger disease. The same "centrism" led to the rise of neolib Democrats who are now too liberal for the likes of Teapot Tommy.