Political Punch

Think about it, if Bloomberg was for a front runner, would he have been sitting the sidelines until now. If he is an OB supporter (which his fans have declared him winner all ready) he don't need Bloomberg, right? I would like to think Bloomberg is getting off the sidelines for the fact he doesn't care to be seeing how this process is being held. Maybe this man understands, "the people" are getting pushed out too much! Time will tell, he's for common sense, no front runner has that, they have political backing-that they will be endebted to, before our economy.

Bloomberg will endorse Ralph Nadar or Mike Huckabee. Reason being they are the only two that are independant with a common sense approach. Not a super hwy, super nafta, super delagates, they are intelligent enough to not require 100 of millions to get a 400,000 a yr position. Now that is common sense approach from the start. Bloomberg is awesome to not sit the sidelines, he cares for America more than some candidates running.

You people are nuts if you think McCain has had it easy from the press! Not! They just swift-boated him for God's sake on the NY Times. McCain knows what a counter-insurgency strategy is. He backed the choosing of Petraeus early on and the surge. He can turn Iraq around. It needs to be attempted, and not have the US defeated by adversity! We're fortunate the McCain and Obama is a choice between two great candidates.

I say that this is a direct pitch to McCain - "I'm available for VP!" He knows full well that McCain is more of a centrist than Obama, but it sounds like he wants to be president so bad that he'll take an offer from either one of them!

Whoops - Line 6 of that last post was meant to read: "That doesn't mean that he does not have some very questionable positions that deserve scrutiny." Apologies to the reader.

Mark: Thanks. Maybe it explains why there wasn't much coverage of the Rev. John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain this week. Hagee is infamous for his contention that "God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin." Senator McCain certainly did not "denounce or reject" the endorsement. Is the media going to continue it's lockstep coverage of Obama and McCain or are we going to get real reporting in this election? John McCain is charming and funny and he is a hero. That doesn't mean that he has some very questionable positions that deserve some scrutiny. And I don't mean that flimsy reporting by the NYT. I want to know what a hundred-year war in Iraq is going to cost me and I want to see some journalists who have the backbone to stand up and ask real questions. Enough about the kool-aid.

One thing I've noticed is that when a Republican leans left they take most of the heat from the party establishment and the right-wing media. Meanwhile, their base largely stands behind the politician and ignores the noise-machine. Contrast this with the Democrats, who can lean right and have that go unchecked by their party establishment while the base roars out in disdain, possibly even trying to unseat them.

A Republican risks bad press, but a Democrat risks their office.

Mara: I couldn't more heartily agree! if there's ANYONE in this race who's been enjoying a free ride from the media due to its long-standing (more than a decade) crush on him, it's McCain! HE is the one with more a cult-like, unquestioning following!

But just wait until finally McCain receives the imminent microscopic scrutiny he managed to avoid in 2000, because his "good buddy" Bush knee-capped and slimed him in the South Carolina primary and knocked him out before the *real* inquiries began....

Sen. McCain was born on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was stationed there as a Navy officer on order from the US government.

RE: McCAIN. Political Punch blogs from 11/07 to the present, have slammed Rudy, Mitt, Clinton on occasion, and Obama on endless occasions. There is not a single comparable piece on McCain, although there are several sympathetic pieces (11/14, 12/17, 1/07, 1/10, 1/14, 1/15 and 1/17). IThe Bush campaign slimed McCain in SC and that it was unconscionable. However, McCain has not even called out for his outright flip-flop on torture - which was one of his signature issues. (Tapper posted a piece on the torture issue on 2/8, with no commentary, no outrage or even disappointment). Obama isn't the one with the cult-like following - it's McCain - and the cultists are the national press corps. McCain is endearing and he has a sense of humor. I like and admire him. But that doesn't mean he should get a free ride on changing his position on torture to curry conservative support. It doesn’t negate that fact that his suggestion that the US should spend the next 100 years in Iraq is frightening and wildly impractical. Has anyone in the press corps asked the Iraq people how they feel about an American presence in their country for the next century? Or the American people whether they would rather spend their tax dollars in Iraq for the next 100 years, or on health care and education for Americans?

How many people here know this? McCain was NOT born in the United States. Does this disqualify him from becoming president? If someone knows the answer to this please respond.

Given all things written here and the fact that I have already seen elected Democrats collaborating with elected Independents far more often than Republicans on lesser levels of government, I see it being Obama.

It's as if the Democratic party better hears and understands the damage the two party system has created in the eyes of voters-- many of which are not nearly as partisan oriented as they once were.

There is no question a three party structure would have an easier time avoiding gridlock or that the party that helped this to occur would stand a great deal to gain for some time to come.

We all can see that McCain, the maverick, is not representing his whole party nearly as easily as Obama, the unifier, is. Respective legislative records aside, John's bipartisanship isn't adding significant numbers of new members to the GOP nor does he hold on to Independent voters as tightly. Obama does. All things factor.

it sounds like "maverick" mccain.

Complement to my precedent post:

I think that Bloombergs statement are a
clear message to McCain to do as I write
in my post a few minutes ago

The response is obvious. McCain..........Lets forget Hillary, as she is out...... OBAMA is promising to reform Washington, his stance is interesting and uplifting, but will he stand up against his party orthodoxy ??
He has not shown this up to now, even there were little opportunity to do so....

MC CAIN IS EXACTLY WHAT BLOOMBERG IS PAINTING. I HOPE THAT McCAIN WILL CHOSE HIM AS VP, previous agreeing on a action
program, taking into consideration enough Bloomberg consideration and his
extensive Business and Executive experience (Government and coorporative), which is a perfect supplement of McCain's

I think Chuck's got it spot on. But I would argue that Obama is best positioned because he can pull the 'nixon in china' to stake the center, his rhetoric indicates that is what he would do, and his base loves him unconditionally. John's base is feisty independents who love that he sticks it to the right and the left. That may be fun to watch, but it is a lot harder to create consensus.

Bloomberg chooses Obama.

The mayor's a smart man, and an astute pol. He knows John McCain would assure a continuation of the hopeless partisan gridlock caused by the failed, divisive policies of the outgoing Bush cabal, and that such a continuation would ultimately destroy our country.

Bloomberg will back Obama.

Mr. Obama has no record to stand on, so backing him would be a vote to support rhetoric as opposed to substance. It seems that Mr. Bloomberg is too wize to fall for that.

Mrs. Clinton has a highly partisan record - highly unlikely.

Mr. McCain has a substantial record, with accomplishments that are nonpartisan.

Mr. Nader - a non-factor and Mr. Bloomberg is too high-profile to "throw away" his support.

And, you know, some of the comments regarding IRAQ are so naive, they are laughable. Like it or not, the US Military is there and it is the stabilizing force in the region. Leaving would be irresponsible.

Pulling out of IRAQ anytime soon will destabilize the region; yes, region. Turkey, Iran and Iraq would soon engage in open warfare among one-another for reasons that go back thousands of years. It might even pull Afghanastan and then Pakistan.

Don't think in terms of regional family squabbles, these fueds are built on cultural bias that goes back nearly three-thousand years. This is exacerbated by the Suni-Shiite factions. As an American, it can be difficult to think in these terms, because our great nation has been on the scene for less than three-hundred years.

Sounds to me like anything other than an endorsement of Obama would be unlikely. He cretainly isn't touting anything that signifies the Clinton race. It does match many points for the Obama race.

Maybe I'm crazy, but the undertone I'm feeling coming from Bloomberg is that he is all but onboard with Obama and now they'll just have to hammer out exactly what his role will be in the new administration (possibly VP, but many other choices as well)

Also, he might demand a policy concession or two from Obama so it will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

McCain wants a 100 year war. He's nonpartisan only in the sense that he'll be the big general, democrats will be his grunts.

First off, Bloomberg's endorsement will matter to this independent voter.

Objectively, who fits the nonpartison bill the best? That's tough because what's the "bipartison solution" for Iraq? Seriously. It's either stay the course or pull out. Isn't it? Yes, McCain has a history of reaching across the aisle, but in my view a bipartison solution is one with broad appeal, and McCain's stance on Iraq, the most important issue facing the nation, is not one that has broad appeal.

I guess, I'd give bipartisonship begrudgingly to Obama.

Huck and McCain have rejected party orothdoxy when circumstances made doing such practical and pragmatic.

And Obama has drawn new voters to the polls without using the tired old polarizing politics of the past.

HRC is a old culture warrior just like GWB but on the other side. We had enough of that over the last 16 years.

So I don't think the Mayor'll be helping her.

We need to look not only at what the senators have done in Congress but also what they are doing as presidential candidates. How are they running? Who or what groups are shaping their positions? I think Senator McCain has a problem there with compromises to receive support from perhaps the most polarized groups in America.

Guess Bloomberg can scratch John off his list.
I would go for a Nader / Rumsfeld ticket. Small rooom 1 table 2 chairs 1 pen and some paper. Results on one important policy issue in one week then send it to congress.

The author of this article and all media pundits need to understand that we have to have a Democrat in the White House, or this country will continue to slide into a recession. Conservative ideology is an idea that fails as a means of governance. Look what 7 years of George Bush has brought this country. A Democrat in the White House, with large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate (big enough to override a filibuster in the Senate) is the only way to save this country.

PLEASE, Jack Tapper and all media, stop pretending that a John McCain presidency would be good for this country. We need to undo 7 years of Republican mismanagement. 100 more years in Iraq will bankrupt this country and is morally abhorrent.

I am shocked, given the disaster in Iraq and McCain's unwavering support for Bush's policy there, coupled with large majorities of Americans that don't support these policies, that even a significant minority support McCain. PLEASE WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!

A Democrat President is our only hope, period. McCain will mean an immediate Iran invasion and $300 oil. Frankly I could care less about bipartisanship at this point, The Republican Party should be dissolved. I'll settle for a President who won't veto any legislation which doesn't put money in his buddies' pockets and go from there.

Geldof has good things to say about President Bush. Perhaps Laura could run

I'm afraid I'd have to answer "none of the above." Sen. Obama talks a good game, but has yet to back any of the talk up; Sen. Clinton hasn't demonstrated any significant successes in creating bipartisan support; and Sen. McCain may have "reached across the aisle," but has been extraordinarily unsuccessful in creating any lasting bipartisanship. Moreover, he's quick to bash the opposition whenever it suits his purpose, which doesn't engender good relations. I would suggest that they all reread Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

obama provides more empty words. stands by his buddy Wright.

Mayor Bloomberg's entry into the race would have made it more interesting/competitive, unfortunately it didn't happen. Ralph Nadar wouldn't make an impact, he's trying to make an impact in a race where his role as an agent for change passed years ago.

Obama.

Obama denounces the anti-Semitic comments of supporter Farrakhan. McCain denounces nothing of supporter Hagee.