From NY Times:
WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them.
The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them.
Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is.
In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades?
More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.
I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.
In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.
The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country.
These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future.
3 comments:
Bloomberg's History
This has been an extraordinary race, I personally have to say since Bloomberg's visit to Mummy England his campaign strategy has been remarkable. He's like the homosexual in the men's room who doesn't want to get caught.
Wow, this is another side I haven't heard:
Bloomberg Lies: “I AM NOT RUNNING” Only Dripping Copiously
Cheerio,
H.S.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn’t understand the problem with the two major parties. After announcing he wouldn’t seek the presidency as a third party candidate, he suggested he would support a major party candidate who leveled with the American people about the issues facing the country. Unfortunately, major party candidates are prisoners of their own parties.
Those running on a major party ticket need the support of party activists who often have an unrealistic oversimplified view of issues. These activists want candidates who will at least give lip service to their views. Many of these activists are what longshoreman Eric Hofer once described as “True Believers” who believe they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
Democrats, for example, want a candidate who will end U.S. involvement in Iraq regardless of the consequences. They don’t care what happens afterwards because they cannot comprehend any negative consequences such as al Qaeda taking control of Iraq or the substantial number of American casualties that might result from a precipitous retreat from a combat zone.
Many Republicans want all illegal immigrants removed from the country regardless of the economic consequences. They would prefer to endure a severe recession or depression than have to share the country with “illegals”. The anti-immigrant group doesn’t understand that we have a shortage of younger workers and will need even more workers as the baby boomer generation retires.
Bloomberg has no national constituency that he could encourage to support either major party candidate so his offer of support to one of them is meaningless. Bloomberg can change the situation only if he runs for president himself. As a third party candidate he would be free to take any position on the issues he felt was appropriate.
Only by running for president Bloomberg could demonstrate that Americans want a candidate who levels with them. Of course maybe Bloomberg is wrong. Maybe Americans prefer a president who lies to them. Maybe they want a president who tells them what they want to hear instead of what they need to know.
One should not worry so much about the problems of the two party system, your founding fathers of America knew exactly what there were doing in principle on that; therefore, as a historian you should know that there are factions, and always have been factions, within both parties that represent a contrary view of what the United States Constitution embodies. In other words, your two party system works, it is ingenious; but under British globalisation, it is intolerable.
Take the case of Aaron Burr in the Democratic-Republican Party, he, without a doubt was a traitor to the United States; Andrew Jackson of the Democratic Party, who ran the "trail of tears" against the American Indians, he was a traitor; the confederacy during and after the civil war supported any party that serve the interest to them on the question of slavery and land rights, it was traitorous; Felix Rohatyn who is supposed to be a Democrat today, hates the U.S. constitution, and his partner George P. Shultz on the Republican side has policies completely opposed to the American Constitutional System, therefore without a doubt they have been acting as traitors to the United States.
Lastly, for the record, Bloomberg with his kind of financial backing, hence Felix Rohatyn and George Shultz, will follow in the tradition of those specified above, who have systematically subjugated your non-domicile people. Bloomberg has proven to me that he will do what any so-called financially wealthy individual would do today, which is maintain the corporal structure for the doms and make sure there will never be an opposition to policies we put forward. Our crown jewel is globalisation that lives on.
That’s why us domicile Brits support him!
Cheerio,
H.S.
Post a Comment