Bold prediction: New York Mayor
Michael Bloomberg will not be our next president.
Richard Cohen has a
column in today's Washington Post
speculating that the billionaire "might" run, and he bases this on
some groundbreaking investigative reporting:
I say "might" because Bloomberg
has gone from the firm "no" he offered me some months ago to a more
intriguing "I'm considering it" that he offered someone I talked
with recently. Indeed, among this city's moneyed, journalistic
(not, alas, the same thing), entertainment, financial and other
sorts of elites, there are always one or two at the table who say,
with great solemnity, that they happen to know Bloomberg will
indeed run for president as an independent. Knowing my duty, I
called the Bloomberg people and asked if that is the case. By press
time, as they say in the movies, I had yet to hear back. I take
that as a wobbly affirmation.
It's
difficult to think of a candidate that would have less appeal to
anyone than Bloomberg. He's a tax-raising lifelong liberal
Democrat, which would mean he could forget conservative votes, and
having governed as mayor with an R next to his name would turn-off
many Democrats. His crusades against smoking and trans fats won't
endear him to any libertarian voters either.
Cohen argues that Bloomberg could do better than Ross Perot did
in 1992 because he's richer than Perot and "sane" rather than
"deranged." But there's a huge difference between 1992 and 2008,
and that's national security. Bloomberg has absolutely nothing to
offer on that issue whatsoever.
Bloomberg is a gambler, Cohen says, which means he may just be
willing to bet a half a billion of his fortune on a longshot
presidential run, just like he spent $74 million and $84 million in
his 2001 and 2005 runs for mayor. But clearly, running for mayor
cost much less money and offered a far greater chance for success
than a bid for the presidency. He may be a gambler, but he's also a
businessman.
topics:
Business, Movies
