Dem Debate quick thoughts, mainly on Bloomberg, bit on Bernie

For a man who so calculatingly delayed his entry into the race (he did plan this, bet on it) Bloomberg sure wasn't prepared for oppo research hitting him this quickly and this hard.

And he's sure been thin-skinned about it. This and more showed up in the Las Vegas debate. Politico has a decent summary.

But this isn't just MiniMike. The Donald is the same way. Ross is Boss Perot was the same, too.

It's the CEO syndrome. Corporate heads get largely insulated from criticism by servile boards and on-demand corporate PR staff. They forget about two big things: The media, and two other branches of state or federal government. Trump has gotten enough fawningness from GOP legiscritters that unconstitutional things like his misprision of funds on the fall for which Dems refused to impeach gets covered over by them, too. The third branch? On this, in the American federal judiciary system, the wheels of justice aren't even grinding slowly. To show my age, they're like a 78 rpm record played on the old 16 rpm speed. (Yes, more than 33s and 45s existed at one time, folks.) Compounding the problem is that the Supreme Court, IMO, not only could but should be exercising original review on a lot of these issues and refuses to do so.

Anyway, Bloomberg got some hard hits and didn't take them well.

Bernie? His health probably is good. But, the non-disclosure makes him look like a backtracker. That's because he IS a backtracker on previous pledges, stanners. Just own up and admit it was a gaffe by Bernie, because it was. Now, how he gets off this hook, other than simply saying that the doctors' statements he's offered have met the bar of transparency and moving on, I don't know.

Back to Bloomberg, speaking of backtracking. Five bucks says he doesn't release his back taxes before the April 15 IRS filing deadline. That, too, will be calculated, not because a billionaire can't pay salaried accountants and tax attorneys to work enough overtime to make it so.

#Bloomberg, anti-sugar idiot

I didn't realize until today, when I read that a New York judge struck down New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-sugary-drinks law, that:

1. It only applies to sodas and not other sugar-laden drinks (that's YOU, Starbucks, we're talking about, among top offenders with sugar-laden dairy drinks) and
2. It only applies to restaurants, not convenience stores.

The first is bad enough, and per a Facebook friend, appears to have been influenced by New York's dairy lobby.

The second is simply idiotic.

If Bloomberg is really worried about sugar intake, then wouldn't C-store "Big Gulps" be No. 1 on the "hit list"?

Does 7-Eleven have lobbying office in Gracie Mansion?

Then there's this:

The ruling stunned the Bloomberg administration, which was deep into preparations to begin enforcing the ban and had even boasted on Monday that it should be applied nationally as a remedy to rising obesity rates. Mr. Bloomberg had scheduled a news conference for Tuesday morning to celebrate the inauguration of the new rule, when he would stand with lawmakers who supported the initiative, according to a person told of the plans. 

"Stunned"? Why? Justice Milton Tingling's ruling is, frankly, absolutely correct legally on Item 1. It's absolutely correct morally on Item 2, if not legally as well.

Now, the $64 question. Is Bloomberg a political naïf (to be polite), or is he Just.Another.Politician.™?

I lean more toward the former, based on this:

At a news conference on Monday, hours before the ruling, Mr. Bloomberg predicted little resistance to the measure. “I think you’re not going to see a lot of push back here at all,” he said. “I think everybody across this country should do it.”  

Earth to Bloomberg? Maybe you didn't tax Starbucks Frappucinos because you need to smell the coffee yourself?

That said, I think the judge is wrong on another point:

The judge also appeared to be skeptical of the purview of the city’s Board of Health, which the Bloomberg administration had maintained has broad powers to seek to better the public’s health. That interpretation, the judge wrote, “would leave its authority to define, create, mandate and enforce limited only by its own imagination,” and “create an administrative Leviathan.” 

Regulatory agencies in general have powers that are often broad, and sometimes "latitudinarian."

Meanwhile, it appears this is just part of a larger pattern of behavior by Bloomberg, making decisions without city council members' approval. It's why, going back to Ross Perot, this idea of a big businessman having some magical skills to use as president, is laughable. They all want to be like Bloomberg or Perot — authoritarians ignoring Congress.

Which doesn't work, at least not on domestic policy.

American exceptionalism on decline? Maybe, maybe not

The New York Times columnist Charles Blow has a good column about American exceptionlism and its possible decline. He notes that a Pew poll had just 49 percent of respondents saying the U.S. was "exceptional." Among those aged 18-29, the percent saying America was exceptional was less than their counterparts in Germany, Spain and Britain.

Unfortunately, two kinder, gentler neocons, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, seemed to have missed the message vis-a-vis Iran. The duo is kinder and gentler because they aren't calling for nuking the shit out of Iran, but for "smarter sanctions."
Here's where they still indulge in American exceptionalism -- claiming that we can dictate the terms of future sanctions against Iran.

Meanwhile, despite neocons' general claims to be about a New World Morality, this duo is willing to co-opt China:

(W)e should allow companies from countries that have little interest in Iran’s nuclear program, or its pro-democracy Green Movement, and that are willing to risk their access to American markets — mainly Chinese companies — to continue buying Iranian crude in whatever quantity they desire.

First, how this would be smarter sanctions, I don't know, even with this claim:

This would reduce the number of buyers of Iranian petroleum, without reducing the quantity of oil on the market. With fewer buyers to compete with, the Chinese companies would have significant negotiating leverage with which to extract discounts from Tehran. The government could lose out on tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue, loosening its hold on power. 

In case the Iraq War didn't make it clear, this should. Neocons are generally DUMB as well as amoral. (That's the subject of another post.

That said, the narrow-minded focus on U.S. oil prices the duo betrays is an example of American exceptionalism, namely that we can opt out of world marketplaces just because we say so. Behind that is the American exceptionalist idea that we can lead China around by the nose. That wasn't true when neocons were dumb enough to push to invade Iraq in 2003 and it certainly isn't true now.

UPDATE, Nov. 21: Here's the reality of the U.S.'s cobbled-together sanctions, world opposition to them included.
More proof that American exceptionalism is alive and well? Business immorality, your latest example coming courtesy of the Baum law firm in Buffalo.

Remember the mortgage foreclosure law firm in Buffalo? The one with the Halloween party about coming dressed as your favorite foreclosed tenant? Yeah, THAT Baum law firm, Steven J. Baum PC. Well, now, it's picking a fight with the NYT columnist who helped publicize its evil:

“There is blood on your hands for this one, Joe,” (Steven J. Baum) wrote at the end of that second e-mail. “I will never, ever forgive you for this.” 

But, per New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, people like this, as well as Wall Street bankers, had nothing to do with our financial meltdown.

There's the next part of American exceptionalism that's still alive and well. I think that, in much of the world, even the developed democratic world, politicians expect the public expects they're lying much of the time. In America, land of moral self-righteousness, many politicians still think the public actually believes them.

Finally, when American companies that may support SOPA complain about Chinese web censorship, we now have American exceptionalism entering the online world.

RIP for #OWS?

So, what will happen to Occupy Wall Street now that Mayor Bloomberg has given it the boot, and in somewhat goonish style? Will protesters file a legal appeal? Will they reassemble? Will they negotiate with both Bloomberg and Zucotti Park owners for a compromise? Given that one legal ruling's already gone Bloomberg's way, the court process might be iffy. And, given that Bloomberg's NYPD was goonish enough to arrest members of the press and injure a city councilman, he's not in a big negotiating frame of mind, I'm sure. (Especially when his staff is now claiming OWS was making weapons. Surprised the "of mass destruction" didn't get tagged on.)

And elsewhere? The weekend saw crackdowns in Portland, Denver and elsewhere. Will Bloomberg's actions only accelerate a crackdown elsewhere?

 I'd definitely say yes to that last rhetorical question.

What about Barack Obama, who has said he understands OWS, but hasn't even gone so far as to say he feels their pain?


Nope.


Per al Jazeera's live blog of related events, Dear Leader has now come out and said that dealing with OWS, whether in NYC or elsewhere, is purely a decision of local governments. So, any Obamiac types within OWS expecting "leadership" from him? Forget it.


In NYC, I'll say that some protesters try to reassemble, period. Others will file a further legal appeal, probably while undertaking negotiations at the same time.

Meanwhile, why did Bloomberg do this? As a New Yorker blog notes, a fair amount of OWS action was outside of Zucotti anyway. As for the encampment, let colder weather drive more away and the start of the holiday shopping season sap it of attention. At the same time, John Cassidy notes that the tensions inherent in the movement will now get pushed to the fore.

However, the New York Times says Bloomberg didn't think weather would drive Occupy protesters away: 

City officials could not imagine how the protesters would leave voluntarily — even with winter approaching — because other demonstrators were watching from around the world and there was no way for the New York group to simply declare victory and walk away.

That's certainly believable, that understanding, and possibly true. Did OWS want to "declare victory"? Did it want to provoke a confrontation Thursday on subways and at the NYSE?

Adbusters, interestingly, disagrees:

On Monday, Adbusters, the Canadian anti-corporate magazine that conceived of the movement, indicated that the protesters should “declare victory” and head indoors to strategize.

That, then, leads to the question of who's more obnoxious: Adbusters or Bloomberg? And, Adbusters lovers need to read Doug Henwood, linked below. That said, I agree with Adbusters' take, and think Bloomberg is definitely stupider.

But, the latest story indicates that Adbusters isn't exactly smart:

Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters, ... said the "original magic" faded somewhat as news coverage of the encampments around the country began to focus less on the participants' youthful idealism and more on drugs, violence and homelessness.
"Somehow, we lost the high ground, we lost the narrative," he said. "Tactically, the moment was right to declare victory, have a big global party and come back swinging next spring."

I highly doubt that a fair amount of the physical Occupiers will turn out next spring, either to physically occupy more spaces on a regular basis, or do other things, unless they get .... leadership, leadership that is visible, and a program.

Anyway, I hope they, the non-Adbusters/Anonymous portion of the movement, whom I might just call a "we" some day, succeed in some way, shape or form.


And LEARN, dammit. More on that below the fold.

The crystal ball for top Republicans says …

Just as Hillary Clinton’s Democratic primary campaign failure can be reduced to one event – deciding to campaign in Iowa – so McCain’s failure in the general election can largely be reduced to one event.

In this case, Sarah Palin was McCain’s Achilles heel.

And, it’s not just me; 59 percent of Americans, which has to include at least a few Republicans, find her a drag on the ticket.

I don’t think he ever totally got over the petulance he had at being told by Karl Rove that he couldn’t pick Joe Lieberman as his Veep. (And, some “maverick,” eh? If he really were a maverick, he would have told Rove and Steve Schmidt where to get off.)

Another turning point? McCain’s “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” line. But, I think he could have done more to overcome that without the Palin baggage.

That said, what’s ahead for McCain?

He’s a 72-year-old senator whose one signature piece of legislation was passed in the face of massive opposition from senators in his own party. And, for the next two years, he’ll be in a Senate with shrunken GOP membership and, on many issues, an inability to filibuster. On other issues, Harry Reid, assuming he stays as majority leader, is likely to call Republican filibuster bluffs.

If you thought McCain was in danger of melting down during this year’s election, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

He’s up for re-election in 2010, and there’s already plenty of speculation popular Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who has shown she can stand up to the GOP, will run for his seat.

I actually hope he doesn’t retire in 2010; I’d like to see him get another beatdown.

Meanwhile, here’s what happens to some other top Republicans.

Sarah Palin? Well, her future has taken yet another twist in the last week or so, with Ted Stevens’ conviction followed by his re-election. Assuming his appeals fail and he finally gets the boot from the Senate, she has to be eyeing his seat.

If not? I expect she’ll face both a primary challenge and a three-way general election race for governor in 2010. That’s unless she decides to run for Lisa Murkowski’s Senate seat, in which case she’ll have her head handed back to her in a hat. She may try to run for president in 2012, in which case she’d better have a hat ready for her head again. After that, the Peter principle kicks in and she goes to Fox News.

Meanwhile, Newsweek delivers more of the goods on the horribleness of Campaign Barbie, from the Secret Service seeing her incitements raise the threat level against Obama to just what a clothes horse she really is.

Somehow, I don’t think her and First Dumbass Todd being seen as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast” helps her image unless Alaskans are even more down with political corruption and cynicism than say, Louisiana voters.

Mitt Romney? He’d like to bid to be the “kinder, gentler” Religious Right-focused candidate. But, especially if GOP bloodletting after this convention pushes the part further right, there’s no chance of that. Beyond general reasons, his Mormonism will remain unacceptable to many. On the flip side, the way Mormon money pushed Prop. 8 over the top, he has to be looking at 2012.

Mike Huckabee? He could be the Religious Right front-runner, but I won’t say “should be”; he’ll have to keep himself in the public eye enough in the next four years.

Tim Pawlenty? If re-elected in 2010, he could be the “sensible conservative” alternative. Obama’s victory aside, governors still have many advantages over senators in running for the presidency. (Don’t forget that before Obama, the last Senator-cum-President, Jack Kennedy, had been in the Senate less than a decade.)

Mitch Daniels, re-elected in Indiana, is a possible up-and-comer. He raised taxes there despite protests from Grover Norquist and his ilk.

Rudy Giuliani? He’ll continue to get rich off 9/11 legends of his involvement. At the same time, he misses the game. I think he has to be tempted to run against Patterson for gov in 2010, but only if he has a pretty clear GOP field. With Mike Bloomberg apparently wanting another term as mayor of the Big Apple, one potential opponent is out of the way.

Mike Bloomberg? He’ll be the Hamlet of Gracie Mansion on another third-party bid.

Arnold Schwarzenegger? I’m really not sure. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t run for re-election. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did and lost. Or won. Or ran for the Senate in 2010 against Dianne Feinstein. She’s going to be 75-plus, and I don’t doubt age will be an issue. That all said, his “No on 8” stance has probably ended what remains of his love affair with the California GOP. I think he could win a primary for the Senate as easily as he could for his current spot, if not more so.

Charlie Crist? If the GOP bloodletting turns out not to make the party into a Constitution Religious Right party writ large, Crist has to be considered a front-runner for the nomination. His dignified, quiet distancing of himself from McCain’s more nutbar attacks on Obama, ACORN, etc., stand him in good stead.

The Republican Party? McCain’s loss will probably be interpreted through the lens of Prop. 8 success in California. That said, a pro-life issue in Colorado lost, so Religious Righters could push the GOP into further trouble if they insist their view is the correct one.

Meanwhile, let the infighting begin.

Outgoing National Republican Senatorial Conference Chairman John Ensign says the GOP needs a bigger social tent, while Grover Norquist and Tony Perkins are gathering a meeting of ’wingers tomorrow.


I think the choice to head the RNC in the future will be a “tell.”

LATER – some leading Democrats.

Why SHOULD taxpayers pay for primaries?

Michael Bloomberg, in the midst of his petulance, has a point. Courts have repeatedly ruled that political parties are private entities. Also, inasmuch as in many states, you have to be registered with a party affiliation to vote in a primary, it’s arguably… wait for it…

taxation without representation

for people like me to fork over dough for Repubican and Democratic primaries.

Obama and 20 VP possibilities — first impressions

Barack Obama’s vice presidential search team reportedly has 20-candidate list.

Who’s NOT on there, and who’s most likely not on there, might be a good starting point.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a favorite of pundits, has said “no, thanks.”

More on Strickland’s ixnaying here.

John Edwards declined some time back. You know Al Gore doesn’t want it, anybody who holds to that idea.

I’ll take an unofficial gander that both Joe Biden and Chris Dodd don’t represent “change” enough.

The CNN article throws out the intriguing name of Michael Bloomberg, but I seriously doubt he would settle for the No. 2 slot, either.

We’ll start learning in a day or two who wasn’t getting serious consideration by the “no, thanks” comments from people who, unlike Strickland, weren’t on the A list in the first place.

Bloomberg for Prez looking more official

The Unity08 website to reconstitute as a “Draft Bloomberg” one.

Spare us, please. Bloomberg has nothing new to add to the campaign. He has a mixed bag of pro-stay in Iraq (pro-war from the start), generic social liberal and moderate economic proposals, all of which are already out there somewhere.

That said, per a post of mine on this issue about a month ago, I think (pending the actual Democratic and Republican nominees) he stands a chance of hurting Democrats more than Republicans.

Bloomberg run: Would it hurt Dems or GOP more?

It looks more and more likely New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will run for president. So, as I rhetorically asked about the “Mitt Romney” Christmas card a couple of days ago, cui bono?

I think which party benefits depends on the candidates, though, given Bloomberg’s stance on most social issues, he seems more likely to take actual or potential Democratic/Democratic-leaning independent votes than GOP ones.

If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, even if her “divisiveness/Clinton history” negativity is overrated, it’s not non-existent, either. I think Bloomberg takes a heavy cut into her vote.

Edwards would probably be hit second-hardest, and Obama the least hard of the top three Democratic candidates.

On the GOP side, it would be hit hardest if Huckabee is nominated. Given that the non-Mayberry conservative hardcorers are already piling on Huck in National Review and elsewhere, some of them will see Bloomberg as solid enough fiscally to jump ship.

I think Romney and Giuliani are hit somewhat, and that McCain, rightly or wrongly seen as a “straight shooter,” gets hit the least.

Meanwhile, former Missouri Senator John Danforth summed up where many more moderate GOPers feel:

Danforth said he remains a Republican but finds little cause for optimism among the current GOP candidates. "My party is appealing to a real meanness," he said in an interview, "and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy. I hope it will be less extreme, but I'm an American before I'm a Republican." Danforth has also written critically about the impact of religious conservatives on the Republican Party.

Yes, John, but did you pull the lever for Shrub in 2004, or at least stay home if nothing else? And, let’s not forget that you’re the senator who foisted Clarence Thomas on us. Even if you couldn’t have seen everything about him in advance, the man showed his intellectual dishonesty in advance of his confirmation by essentially denying he’d ever been helped by affirmative action.

In addition, as Steve Benen points out at Washington Monthly, in comparing Unity ’08 to most Democratic candidates, at least, the movement’s focus on “bipartisanship” is a problem in search of a solution, as Obama, Edwards and Richardson have all pledged to have Republicans in their cabinets. (Whether such a pledge is a good idea, and whether “bipartisanship” is such a good idea, is another question entirely.

Update: Per Glenn Greenwald, the simplest characterization of Bloomberg is either as Rudy Giuliani with much more money, or a kinder, gentler, neoconservative.

That second characterization is especially apt.

Bloomberg gave blank-check support to the invasion of Iraq, on that issue, and, as far as being in the Israel lobby’s corner, gave blank-check support to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

Bloomberg bubble — hold the phone on Iraq

Via TPM Election Central, it appears Big Mike does NOT favor an immediate or a full pullout from Iraq.
At a speech at Google HQ Monday:

“We are in trouble overseas. There’s obviously an unpopular war, but a war that has no easy answers. The people that say, ‘let’s just automatically pull troops out,’ I don't think have really looked at the consequences of destabilizing the world, and the genocide that may or may not occur, depending on who you believe.”

The only other quotes TPM EC has about Bloomberg’s position are pre-invasion; any further information about his stance between then and now, to flesh out the picture, is welcome.

In any case, the first picture of him on Iraq is that he won’t be more progressive than any Democrat to the left of JoeMentum Lieberman (whom Bloomberg endorsed over Ned Lamont).

So, contrary to somebody like M.L. Rosenberg over at TPM, right now, I personally don’t have a hankering for Bloomberg, and, unless he changes positions on Iraq, some other progressive bloggers are probably right that he’ll draw more from Republicans, should he jump in.

Also, and something I missed, Bloomberg’s been ginning up speculation for a month, even to the point of a possible VP to run with him.

Only days after Bloomberg’s [mid-May] Houston appearance, maverick Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) hinted broadly that he was considering joining forces with the billionaire mayor to run for the White House as independents.

So, his Hamlet-like demeanor will wear thin soon enough.

Michael Bloomberg update — good news or bad for Democrats?

Via Talking Points Memo, I see that he has left the GOP. Here’s his statement guts:

”As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face. Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology.”

Well, doesn’t THIS stir up the pot? His claim he’s doing this to be a better mayor for NYC is of course spin and nothing more.

Let’s look ahead to 2008. If he does run, this likely knocks New York State out of any Democratic win column. Probably Connecticut, too. Could even have consequences in The Golden State if Dems have a weak presidential candidate. Bloomberg could run well in Florida, too, I’ll bet.

So, contrary to 1992, I do NOT think this is generally good news for a Democratic presidential candidate. It may not be bad news; it may be a wash. But, I do not think it is good news.