Bloomberg quits Repubican Party

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now a politician looking for a party.

He may also be looking at a run for the President as an independent in 2008.

Bloomberg quit the Republican Party Tuesday, saying “the politics of partisanship…have paralyzed decision-making.”

The break is not a surprise. Bloomberg is a frequent critic of President George W. Bush’s policies. He also was a lifelong Democrat before switching to the GOP in 2001 for his first run for Mayor.

Reports The Associated Press:

“Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city,” Bloomberg said.

With an estimated worth of more than $5 billion, he easily could finance an independent presidential bid.

The 65-year-old mayor has increasingly been the subject of speculation that he will run as an independent in 2008, despite his repeated promises to leave politics after the end of his term in 2009. He has fueled the buzz with increasing out-of-state travel, a greater focus on national issues and repeated criticism of the partisan politics that dominate Washington.

“The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy,” he said in a speech Monday at the start of a University of Southern California conference about the advantages of nonpartisan governing.

Throughout his 5 1/2 years as mayor, Bloomberg has often been at odds with his party and President Bush. He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But he never seemed willing to part with the GOP completely, raising money for the 2004 presidential convention and contributing to Bush and other Republican candidates.

Just last year, he told a group of Manhattan Republicans about his run for mayor: “I couldn’t be prouder to run on the Republican ticket and be a Republican.”

8 Responses to "Bloomberg quits Repubican Party"

  1. Stoney13  June 19, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    He only switched parties to get Rudy’s endorsement! He was never a Republican in the first place!!!

    Stoney Browning

  2. Carl Nemo  June 19, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    This is great news for the American electorate and I surely hope a few other “deep pocket”; i.e, deepwater models like Mayor Bloomberg does the same. Vitriolic partisan politics has crippled this nation to the point that we are now on life-support and the EKG blips are getting ever more faint…!

    If this country fails and it surely will with the likes of the “republicrats” that are currently in office and also running for higher office, then the greatest experiment in freedom for all time and all places will be extinguished.

    My salute goes to Mayor Bloomberg for his decision to possibly offer “we the people” another option in November 2008. My commentary does not represent an endorsement or my vote, it’s just that the electorate needs alternative options beyond the duty “republicrats” that are now contenders for the presidency.
    Carl Nemo **==

  3. Rick Fuller  June 19, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    A lot of Americans have been waiting for the moment that Mayor Michael Bloomberg puts his hat into the Presidential race.

    He has been mayor of NYC for six years and has a 76% approval rating. The man has his own money to run on and he is not beholden to ANYBODY’S PAC money.

    Should mayor Bloomberg enter the race, Guliani’s numbers are going to drop like a lead balloon. (Not that Fred Thompson hasn’t already helped THAT cause already).

    Micheal Bloomberg “sounds” like the PERFECT Presidential candidate to me.

  4. SEAL  June 19, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    While I would love to see another party formed and candidates running, I have a no inclination for a independant candidate just for president. The last election is why. There is no doubt that Nadar gave Bush the win. That guy is such an ass. He only ran hoping to be the difference and he accomplished that. He loves that power. HE decided the election. But look at the result. Nadar doesn’t give a damn about his country, only himself.

    Anyone who would consider an independant run at the presidency must consider what the impact would be upon the nation and leave ego out of it. Who is elected to run this country is too damn important. Perot was a serious contender and if he had not made a couple of huge mistakes late in the campaign he might have pulled a lot more than the 19% of the vote he got. As it were he did not affect the outcome even though most “experts” agree that he drew more of the Clinton votes away. But did Clinton receive a majority of more than 50%?

    What if Perot had not made those mistakes and pulled 30-35%? An even three way split with one candidate winning and two-thirds of the voters casting ballots against him? Is there a provision in the election law to prevent that? Do we want a president that only get one third of the votes?

    A person like Blomberg should use his money and following to organize a legtimate Third Party. There are many, many people in the country that would join if they saw a real foundation that could be built upon. It might only be able to run a few candidates in this election because there isn’t enough time. But even that would impress all the totally fed up people.

    I would support his run for president if he were running as the “National” third party candidate. The central part of his campaign would be the establishment of the third party and use this election to advertise and promote it. Then after the election keep working on the third psrty by recruiting candidates for office ant all levels. By the time the next elections roll aroud they would have several good ones and, if they picked the right spots, get some of their people in government. Build on it. I belive it would not take too long for voters to get behind it if they did it right.

  5. dbumRob  June 20, 2007 at 8:23 am

    Seal, I partly agree with you. I would like to see a lot of parties that are effective. Or perhaps even barring political parties. Despite how fast they grew up around candidates, our system was not set up to be run like this. Only having two , and when fueld by a narrow minded ideology like that on the right, has polarized the country, or so we are told.

    I don’t care for the ultra-rich being the only ones who can run. That is what is out of balance. Which is why I like the Progressive arm of the Democrats. They have fielded a lot of run-of-the-mill canddiates at local elections all over the country for the last several years and done marvelously well. I personally think they need to split from the Dems and make their own party.

    The Constitution party claims they are the only legitimate third party. They are pro-life, pro-gun(they call it second amendment), and pro-God, despite the Constitution’s obvious secularism. I get e-mails from them regularly.

    I am sure the right could even fracture into separate parties about now. Real Republicans would love to slough off the fascist theocons, who would then marginalize themselves quite quickly due to their irrelevance. But I’m not certain that removing such an intricately intwined tumor wouldn’t irreparably damage the body. As it stands, there are several waves that are indicating that the GOP is making itself irrelevant in future elections just based on how out of touch and corrupt they are.

  6. LurkingFromTheLeft  June 20, 2007 at 8:47 am

    …and too sadly, let the dirt diggin’ begin -

    …someone will find SOMETHING that he did once upon a dark night that will taint his image -

    …after all, isn’t that what ‘we’ do -

    …’we’ expect the candidate to be perfect yet none of us are -

    LFTL

  7. SEAL  June 20, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    If Blomberg runs as an independent, all that means is he wants to be president. It’s all about him, not the nation. I can’t believe he actually thinks, as an independent president, he is going to be able to make any real changes in government. Both parties in congress will be adversaries. It takes cooperation between the administration and a majority of congress to make amything happen.

    If he or anyone else wants to really do what it takes to change the political landscape, they will have to organize a new political party. And they better have some damn good lawyers on board.

  8. ChrisG  January 7, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Here is my take— It is rare that you find a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue. But at the end of the day, the President is the executive manager of the world’s most powerful enterprise, the US government. I believe most voter’s underestimate the value of competence and management experience. What is most important to me is, do they have the competence and the experience to manage such an enterprise? Will they keep the economy strong? Will they make sound judgement in a crisis? Will they hire competent people, or just give valuable positions to unqualified individuals because they either have party connects or “owe” someone because of a campaign contribution?

    This makes Bloomberg the right man at the right time.

    Run Mike Run
    Michael Bloomberg for President
    http://www.RunMikeRun.com

Comments are closed.