What if Bloomberg, after a few more weeks of consideration, became a Democrat. What would your response be? Would you A.) hate him B.) not care c.) Want to coat him in chocolate on slowly lick it of his body while loving him.
Readers here should challenge candidates (and potential candidates) and their merits and not on their party loyalty.
Back when I was in the Navy, ol' Jesum Jim left the Republican party and caucused with the democrats but opted to remain independent. He continued to be one of our more conservative voters, along the line of Lieberman. But when that event happened, the Republicans ran him through the mud. He was branded a traitor by the MSM and the right blogs. The people in VT though? They didn't seem to care. So long as his voting record didn't change, they said, it didn't matter.
Follow me down yonder
Now, I wasn't a huge jesum jim booster, but I was happy he left the R's to follow his conscious and I dare say few others here felt differently.
Personally, I see the two major parties in this country as part of the problem. I see this addiction to big money as part of the problem. I see this sense of party loyalty over principles as a part of the problem.
And what is this "problem"? Well, good governance. Is this something we truly have within the Democratic party? Some people, yes. Feingold. A few members of the house. Bill Clinton. But of the hundreds of elected officials in DC, how many are actually providing good governance as opposed to "occupying a seat that would otherwise be in the hands of an R"?
I think it is rare we get someone like Bloomberg in NYC. People who live or work in the city know this. People who are outside looking in sometimes forget that the city has one of the worst histories of political mechanizations in this country, even beyond Chicago. Seriously, take a look at the democratic party in the city, I mean really look, and then tell me that Bloomberg's decision to switch wasn't a good idea at the time.
The irony here is not that Bloomberg has been a mediocre mayor with some mistakes but rather he has been a fantastic mayor with very few mistakes. I marched in the 2004 protest and saw how some of the dissenters were handled during that protest and this was certainly a mistake. I also think, partially from the way the MSM hyped the event and partially from R national party counseling, that the city was preparing for a G-8 like protest. That protest didn't end up like a G-8 protest, but might it have given some other mayor? I don't know.
In some other diary I read that Bloomberg is intolerant for dissent. I have to say, this person obviously has never been to Union Square, The east and west villages, the park, Williamsburg... shall I go on? I see more dissent in 5 minutes getting out of a subway station and into cab then i do anywhere else in an entire year. This is the problem here, people only want to see the negative and will even fabricate negatives when there are none.
Go back through the diaries and find a single real criticism of him. The only thing you will find is 2004. That's it. Oh, and he supported Lieberman. Well, so didn't a lot of Democrats, as you will recall and many more were happy to remain conveniently silent about it. Do I like that? No. Are people allowed to have thoughts of their own? Absolutely.
This brings me to my next point. If I was to sit down and critique every pol for every issue I care about and make sure they are perfectly aligned with my views the only person I will ever vote for is me. In politics, we need to give up some things we care about for other things we care about more deeply. There is this entire debate raging in other diaries that Bloomberg is pro-war and honestly, what are people basing this point on other then a vicarious association with Lieberman. If he decides to run I am certain we will find all about his views on that position.
Now, ask yourself this, if Bloomberg had announced he was a democrat instead of I, would you be supporting him or maligning him.