New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made billions of dollars in the private sector by filling a need in the financial information market. Now he apparently sees a need on the national political front, for a leader who can get things done. By formally leaving the Republican Party, the mayor could be opening the way for a possible independent run for the White House. Time will tell. But Mr. Bloomberg is certainly right when he says the American public wants leadership in Washington. Congress continues to be bogged down in partisan wrangling over major issues, and the White House seems continually at odds with congressional leaders. The result is gridlock.
By contrast, Mayor Bloomberg has a record of getting things done, often in the face of strong opposition. Most recently, he's been in the forefront on environmental issues, including a proposal to improve air quality by charging drivers a fee for using congested Manhattan streets. He's been in the forefront on health issues as well. He led the push to ban smoking in New York City restaurants and, more recently, the ban on trans fats in restaurant meals.
And he considered himself a Republican? In truth, Mr. Bloomberg, who joined the party to run for mayor, never seemed comfortable wearing the GOP label. Unlike many successful business leaders who are faithful Republicans, Mr. Bloomberg did not blindly follow the Republican mantra that tax cuts are the solution to all problems. One of his first acts after assuming office was to raise taxes to close a $6.4 billion municipal deficit he had inherited from Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Close it he did.
Mortimer Zuckerman, writing in the latest issue of U.S. News & World Report, notes how critics warned at the time that because Mayor Bloomberg raised taxes during a recession, businesses and jobs would flee the city. They were wrong. Today, New York City's economy is booming, unemployment is at a record low, tourism is up, and there is a budget surplus.
Not surprisingly, New Yorkers have given Mr. Bloomberg higher approval ratings than those for Mr. Giuliani. But whether his popularity at home will translate into a national voter base remains to be seen. Indeed, for all his accomplishments, he remains much less widely known than his predecessor, who is recognized as the mayor who helped his city recover from 9/11.
The question, then, is whether Mr. Bloomberg can present himself to voters as a viable alternative to the candidates seeking the 2008 presidential nomination. For now, though, he has shaken up national politics, and that's not a bad thing.
Obama fundraiser held at legendary rock club Young supporters courted with beer, words of hope and history BY MEGHAN BARR The Associated Press
NEW YORK — Save for the American flag backdrop and the presidential candidate onstage, Sen. Barack Obama’s fundraiser could have been mistaken for a rock concert. Beer was served in plastic cups, the young crowd snapped photographs with cellphones and a deafening roar of approval met Obama at the Hammerstein Ballroom — a venue known for rock rather than rubber chicken. The event Friday night mirrored the Obama campaign’s aura — youthful, polished and filled with idealistic talk of the future. Invoking the successes of the civil rights movement, he challenged the crowd, which consisted mostly of people under 40, to get involved in politics. “There’s a wind that’s blowing,” said Obama, who was introduced by folk singer Ben Harper. “The air is stirring. People are waking out of their slumber.” Obama’s speech encompassed most of his campaign talking points, including the need for universal health care, reforming public education and ending the war in Iraq. “And while we’re at it, we’re gonna close Guantanamo,” he said, referring to the detention facility for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Human rights advocates and foreign leaders have repeatedly called for c l o s i n g t h e prison, which has become a crucible for criticism of the Bush administration. The White House said Friday that President Bush has made closing the prison a priority. Obama also advocated increasing fuel efficiency in automobiles to 45 miles per gallon to combat global warming. The Senate voted Thursday to boost average fuel economy by 40 percent, to 35 miles per gallon, for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2020. Obama poked fun at his “politics of hope” refrain, joking, “They think I’m a hope peddler — a hope monger.” Yet his speech sometimes sounded like a college history lecture, with hope being the central theme, as he vividly described the seminal voting rights march from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery, Ala., in 1965. “We bring about change by millions of voices coming together,” he told the crowd of about 500. Cheers erupted when Obama related a story of his first night as a Columbia University student years ago, when he slept in an alley next to a homeless man due to a housing mix-up. “He’s young and energetic,” said Amber Gaines, 31, of Belleville, N.J. “He has fresh ideas. He’s not corrupt yet.” Jordan Thomas, a coordinator for the grassroots group Brooklyn For Barack, disputed a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll that showed Obama trailing rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton among lower-income, less-educated Democrats. “That hasn’t been my experience in working-class neighborhoods,” Thomas said. A few blocks downtown, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards spoke to about 200 supporters at a grassroots campaign function at a nightclub. He gave a detailed, policy-laden speech that focused heavily on fighting poverty. “We desperately need universal health care,” he said, pointing to a detailed plan he has laid out for achieving that goal. Edwards emphasized re-establishing America as a “moral leader” and urged Congress to set a timetable for ending the war in Iraq. “George Bush will never change unless he’s forced to change,” he said. Edwards also addressed the prison in Guantanamo Bay: “On the first day I’m president of the United States, if it’s still open, I will close Guantanamo,” he said.
3 New Yorkers too many for presidential race? Many voters across country left fl at by Empire State choices BY LARRY MCSHANE The Associated Press
NEW YORK — New Yorkers: They’re smug, egotistical, and already think they run the country (if not the world). So what’s the rest of the nation to do now that three of ’em are mentioned as White House hopefuls, ready to swap Penn Station for Pennsylvania Avenue? Cringe? Clap? Or just consider somebody else? “That’s pretty sick,” said Norm Whipple, 59, of Los Angeles, offering a wry grin about the presidential prospects of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republican Rudy Giuliani and unaffiliated New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “Someone has to keep an eye on those New Yorkers.” The specter of an all-New York November 2008 was raised when Bloomberg, a titular Republican since his 2001 mayoral run, announced last week that he was quitting the GOP to become an independent. His predecessor, Giuliani, is running for the Republican nomination for president, while second-term New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is among the Democratic hopefuls. While New Yorkers are all too aware of the differences among the Big Apple’s big three, folks beyond the Hudson River were not as certain. “I think basically they are the same candidate,” said Bob Haus, a Republican from Des Moines, Iowa. “We all love New York. But when our options are New York, New York, New York, I think people want to see a different life experience.” Angeles Perry, , Vegas, saw more similarities than differences among the New York triumvirate. “They have the money,” said the retiree from California’s Silicon Valley. “And they all have big egos.” She’s right. Billionaire Bloomberg spent more than $155 million for his two mayoral campaigns, and reports indicated he could drop $500 million on a presidential campaign — despite his repeated and coy refusals to announce a candidacy. Giuliani and Clinton have millions of dollars on hand. None shrinks from the national spotlight, although it’s shone a little brighter on some than others. “I know nothing about Bloomberg,” said Belinda Abelar, 51, a nurse from Los Angeles. “Can you tell me something?” Although the nation’s most populous city is regarded by many — including its residents — as the nation’s financial, fashion and cultural capital, it has rarely served as a catapult to the White House. Mayor John Lindsay’s Democratic presidential bid in 1972 was the most recent failure. Statewide office offered little promise, either: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected in 1932, was the last governor elected president. Oft-mentioned Mario Cuomo, a Democrat, never mounted a campaign, and talk about his GOP successor, George Pataki, making the move was just talk. Attorney Felix Lasarte, 36, brought his 9-year-old daughter to see Giuliani speak last week in Hialeah, Fla. He was not bothered by the concept of three New Yorkers vying for the presidency; he even thought their Empire State pedigree was a plus. “Coming from a big city, it really helps the candidate to address the issues that are really relevant to the country,” Lasarte said. “Certainly on issues of safety and terrorists, it helps if you’re from New York.” As some people noted, two of the three are not New Yorkers anyway: Giuliani was born in Brooklyn, but Clinton hails from Illinois and Bloomberg still bears a trace of his Boston accent. “They just happen to be living in the New York area,” said Marvin Hall, 57, of Chicago. Hall said he is more concerned with the abilities than their addresses, although a fellow Windy City resident wondered if too many candidates from adjoining zip codes was a good idea. “It doesn’t give me heartburn, or cause concern, but you know what?” said Mary Tripoli, a Chicago court clerk. “I don’t think it’s a great idea. For one thing, it’s not really representative of the nation.”
Richard Cohen History points to trouble for Democrats Richard Cohen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
There are two ways to predict the winner of the 2008 presidential race: Check the polls or read some history. The polls tell you that with George Bush’s approval ratings abysmally low, with the war in Iraq becoming increasingly unpopular, with the GOP lacking a dominant candidate, and with the party divided over immigration, social issues and even religion (Mitt Romney’s Mormonism), the next president is bound to be a Democrat. History begs to differ. The history I have in mind is 1972. By the end of that year, 56,841 Americans had been killed in Vietnam, a war that almost no one thought could still be won and which no one could quite figure out how to end. Nevertheless, the winner in that year’s presidential election was Richard M. Nixon. He won 49 of 50 states — and the war, of course, went on. Just as it is hard to understand how the British ousted Winston Churchill after he had led them to victory in Europe in World War II, so it may be hard now to appreciate how Nixon won such a landslide while presiding over such a dismal war. In the first place, he was the incumbent, with all its advantages, and with enormous amounts of money at his disposal. In the second place, back then the Vietnam War was not as unpopular as you might think — or, for that matter, as the Iraq War now is. In 1972, almost 60 percent of Americans approved the way Nixon was handling the war. Maybe more to the point, most Americans did not endorse the way the Democrats would handle the war — nor the way the anti-war movement was behaving. Nixon seized on those sentiments and, in a feat that historians will be challenged to explain, characterized George McGovern as a sissy. In fact, the Democratic presidential nominee was a genuine World War II hero, a B-24 pilot with 35 combat missions under his belt and a Distinguished Flying Cross on his chest. Nixon, in contrast, had served during the war but never saw combat. He had, however, seen the polls. This is similar to what happened in the 2004 campaign. The George Bush-Dick Cheney ticket consisted of two Vietnam slackers. Bush had served in the Air National Guard and Cheney had obtained five draft deferments. Their opponent was the muchdecorated John Kerry — Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Yet during the campaign, the Republican ticket and its allies in the Swift Boat Veterans movement managed to paint Kerry as a quivering liar. The character attack was so bold, so outrageous, that it of course worked. Now we come to the current race. The war in Iraq is not — or not yet — an issue for Republicans. With the exception of Ron Paul, they all more or less support the president. It is among the Democrats that the war is a divisive issue — John Edwards sniping at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and Obama sniping at both. Everyone now opposes the war, but the issue is not so much their positions as much as the intensity of their feelings. Antiwar Democrats in key primary and caucus states, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa, will not vote for a lukewarm anti-war candidate. This accounts for why Clinton recently reversed herself and voted to end funding for the war. The one presidential candidate from the Senate who did not was Joseph Biden. He said he opposed the war but saw no choice but to fund the troops. Precisely right, Joe. But more than right, prescient as well. As if to suggest what an issue this will become, Rudolph Giuliani called Clinton’s vote a “significant fl ip-flop.” Since then the Republicans have mostly trained their fire on each other. You can bet, though, that if Clinton gets the nomination, this vote will be hung around her neck and the hoariest of cliches will be trotted out: weak on defense. It will have added resonance because Clinton is a woman. This is where history raises it ugly head. The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security. It is equally adept at saying so in the most scurrilous way. And while most Americans would like the war to end, they do not favor a precipitous withdrawal and neither have they forgotten Sept. 11, 2001 — the entirety of Giuliani’s case for the presidency, after all. Will history trump the polls? It will, if as in the past, the Democratic Party so wounds itself fighting the war against the war, it nominates a candidate beloved by a minority but mistrusted by a majority. It has happened before.
Elizabeth Edwards latest liberal to cave on 'gay marriage,' says LaBarbera Jim Brown OneNewsNow.com June 26, 2007
A pro-family leader says the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has sent a terrible message to young people. On Sunday, Elizabeth Edwards kicked off San Francisco's annual "homosexual pride" parade by voicing support for same-sex "marriage."
Mrs. Edwards voiced her stance -- which conflicts with that of her husband, who supports homosexual civil unions but not marriages -- while speaking to an influential Democratic organization in San Francisco the morning of the parade. "I don't know why someone else's marriage has anything to do with me," Edwards said. "I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage."
An Illinois-based family advocate believes the wife of the former North Carolina senator is inflicting great damage by making such remarks. "A sad thing about what Elizabeth Edwards said is that she is a role model," says Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Action. "And young children, for example, look up to what she says.
"The more these liberals talk about homosexual marriage being okay and [that there is] nothing wrong with it, the more they're teaching children that this terrible thing -- the destruction of marriage, the radical redefinition of marriage to accommodate immoral behavior -- is okay," he adds.
LaBarbera contends that once politicians advocate homosexual relationships, it is only a matter of time before they promote same-sex marriage. "We knew that it would not take long for the liberal politicians to go from domestic partnerships to civil unions to full, outright, so-called 'gay marriage' -- and that's precisely what's happened," he says. "We're seeing the complete cave-in of liberal ideology on this issue. They are disposing of all pretense of opposition to homosexuality ...."
LaBarbera also wonders how Edwards can profess Christianity and yet support something God calls an abomination. He says she should have a "big problem" with that. He contends that all aspects of the homosexual agenda must be resisted, starting with sexual-orientation and gender-identity laws.
Pastor says Obama abandoned campaign promise by condemning 'Christian Right' Jim Brown OneNewsNow.com June 26, 2007 The head of the Christian Defense Coalition says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has taken political dialogue to a new low by "demeaning, mocking and belittling" the faith of millions of evangelical Christians. Over the weekend, Senator Obama (D-Illinois) accused evangelical Christian leaders of "hijacking faith" and politicizing religious beliefs in an effort to divide the country. Obama told the national meeting of the liberal United Church of Christ denomination that the "Christian Right" has exploited its stance on several hot-button issues to attack the Democratic Party.
"Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said. "At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer, and intelligent design." He added: "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."
Pastor Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, says Obama's comments were a "cheap attack" on what the Illinois Democrat viewed as an open target.
"Senator Obama, when he entered the race, promised to bring a new tone to Washington, DC, and a new tone to presidential campaigning -- and that was not to be harsh, not to be divisive, not to be negative," the Christian minister notes. "And here, he literally attacks millions of evangelical Christians, saying that they are trying to divide; that they have co-opted the Christian faith."
Mahoney contends it is Obama who is doing the "dividing." The Coalition leader cites a oneness he says he has witnessed on moral issues.
"Historic Christianity and evangelical Christians have been unified in their commitment towards the protection of innocent human life, the sanctity and dignity of human life, and protecting women from the violence of abortion," he says. "The evangelical community has been one voice in terms of saying that marriage is between a man and a woman."
Mahoney says Obama, who is trailing Senator Hillary Clinton (D- New York) in national polls, is "veering hard to the left to win more delegates for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party."
"Christian Right" has exploited its stance on several hot-button issues to attack the Democratic Party.
I agree....this alot of wasted time and air.....
And it's not ,,,,hate the sin not the sinner......
It's the powers and pricipalities ,though mostly never named, that still get to hunt around for 'victims' and play us for pawns...we are only victims when we choose not to name the enemy...instead we call them weaknesses....it's a beautiful world with hard choices...atleast,,, I have a hard time with it.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Mrs. Edwards voiced her stance -- which conflicts with that of her husband, who supports homosexual civil unions but not marriages -- while speaking to an influential Democratic organization in San Francisco the morning of the parade. "I don't know why someone else's marriage has anything to do with me," Edwards said. "I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage."
Oh no, we have another Hillary here. These women have got to stay out of the political lime light. They are NOT the ones running for office!
Quoted Text
Over the weekend, Senator Obama (D-Illinois) accused evangelical Christian leaders of "hijacking faith" and politicizing religious beliefs in an effort to divide the country.
Mr. Obama, in case you haven't noticed, the division in this country started a couple hundred years ago. Remember? It is called the DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS! Ya know, THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT! And yet again, THE LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES! Our government was built on DIVISION! Clearly this guy needs a lesson in American History.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Obama raises $32.5M to lead Democratic presidential pack BY JIM KUHNHENN The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama reported Sunday raising at least $32.5 million for his presidential campaign from April through June, a record for a Democratic candidate. That is about $5 million more than what Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s main Democratic rival, has said she would raise for the reporting period that ended Saturday. At least $31 million of Obama’s total is for party primaries, according to campaign aides. That fi gure could further distance Obama from Clinton, whose fundraising has included significant sums of money eligible only for the general election. The first-term senator from Illinois received donations from more than 154,000 individual contributors and through the first half of the year had 258,000 donors, an extraordinary figure at this stage of the campaign. Obama raised $25.7 million in the first three months of the year. Clinton Obama “Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race,” Obama said in a statement Sunday. “That’s the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it’s just the beginning.” Meanwhile, Democrat John Edwards raised more than $9 million from April through June and relied on nearly 100,000 donors during the first half of the year. The fundraising total met the campaign’s stated goal but was about $5 million less than what he took in during the first three months of the year. The campaign has said it is on track to raise $40 million by the Iowa caucuses in January. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was at Edward’s heels, with his campaign reporting more than $7 million raised. But Edwards’ sixmonth total was $23 million, compared with more than $13 million for Richardson. “Democrats are clearly engaging the public and expanding the donor base,” Edwards’ deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, said Sunday in reaction to Obama’s fundraising. He said the aim of the Edwards campaign was to attract more contributors by holding more small donor events to build a grass-roots network. “We feel we are exactly where we need to be,” Edwards adviser Joe Trippi said. “This is not a money race, it’s a race to win the nomination.” Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., on Sunday reported raising $3.25 million in the quarter for his presidential campaign, bringing his total raised this year to $7.3 million.
Sen. Barack Obama reported Sunday raising at least $32.5 million for his presidential campaign from April through June, a record for a Democratic candidate.
I guess that means he should just be voted for.....all the rich folk and unions have given their money there,,,,I must follow,,,I must follow.....
What is the purpose of an article like that---is this a 'pre-vote'????......excuse me,,,,I have to go puke
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Now, with polls showing Obama flagging in the race against Hillary Clinton — a recent USA Today/Gallup survey showed Clinton had widened her lead to 12 percentage points over Obama — Oprah is out to rescue him once again.
This time she is hosting a mega-fundraiser at her sprawling Santa Barbara, Calif., ranch.
In her invitation, Oprah touts the fundraiser as "the most exciting Barack Obama event of the year anywhere.”
The star-studded event is set for Sept. 8.
The gala event at Oprah’s estate is designed to rekindle support for the Illinois senator from the entertainment industry, which has contributed heavily in recent months to Hillary Clinton.
"It’s a trifecta for Obama,” Hollywood politico Rick Jacobs, who is on the invitation list, told the Los Angeles Times.
"New donors, a rarefied ball with the queen of celebrities, and a chance to glimpse the woman everyone seems to want at least for vice president. This one’s hard to top.”
Entry to the event will cost invitees $2,300, the most allowable under federal campaign laws.
Those who can raise $25,000 or more from friends and family will get to attend a VIP reception and mingle with a host of yet-to-be announced celebrities.
And for $50,000, guests can stay for a private dinner with the senator, the TV talk queen and anyone else who forks over $50,000.
Obama fundraiser Kerman Maddox said Oprah’s support will invigorate the campaign in Hollywood.
"It was a blow when Steven Spielberg endorsed Hillary,” he told the Times. "But this is a huge shot in the arm. Everyone is motivated. They don’t get any bigger than Oprah.”
Obama already enjoys the support of Hollywood moguls like David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, and California was his top donor state in the second quarter with a total take of $4.2 million.
Readers of NewsMax Magazine got an early look at Oprah’s potential influence on the presidential race.
The recent edition featuring the front-page "Obama & the Oprah Factor” story probed how her backing could go a long way in helping to elect the first African-American president.
A Zogby poll commissioned by NewsMax for the issue revealed how much power Oprah wields — an impressive 32 percent of respondents said they would vote for Oprah over Hillary Clinton to serve as president.
"There’s no doubt that Oprah could tip a close presidential election,” psychologist James Houran, co-author of the book "Celebrity Worshippers: Inside the Minds of Stargazers,” told NewsMax, "if she strongly backs one candidate.”
Just as we predicted, Oprah, the biggest figure in TV entertainment and America’s richest women, wants to be the most powerful with her friend in the Oval Office.
Rest assured Oprah will remain a powerful figure in this race.
Logged
