Michael Bloomberg on Presidential run, “Nope, not me!”

A pretty smart move, as it is a little late in the game now.

Via Bloomberg report Michael Bloomberg writes:

My parents taught me about the importance of giving back, and public service has been an important part of my life. After 12 years as mayor of New York City, I know the personal sacrifices that campaigns and elected office require, and I would gladly make them again in order to help the country I love.

I’ve always been drawn to impossible challenges, and none today is greater or more important than ending the partisan war in Washington and making government work for the American people — not lobbyists and campaign donors. Bringing about this change will require electing leaders who are more focused on getting results than winning re-election, who have experience building small businesses and creating jobs, who know how to balance budgets and manage large organizations, who aren’t beholden to special interests — and who are honest with the public at every turn. I’m flattered that some think I could provide this kind of leadership.

But when I look at the data, it’s clear to me that if I entered the race, I could not win. I believe I could win a number of diverse states — but not enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the presidency.

In a three-way race, it’s unlikely any candidate would win a majority of electoral votes, and then the power to choose the president would be taken out of the hands of the American people and thrown to Congress. The fact is, even if I were to receive the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, victory would be highly unlikely, because most members of Congress would vote for their party’s nominee. Party loyalists in Congress — not the American people or the Electoral College — would determine the next president.

A smart move on his part, it is a bit late in the race now to try to start a campaign. This is why Bloomberg is as wealthy as he is; because he is a smart cookie. Bloomberg might be a Democrat, but he is not an idiot. I would say that he might end up a Vice President; but Bloomberg does not strike me as the type to be a second banana. So, I am thinking he will bide his type, until the next election. Because, if Trump is elected, and his Presidency is a huge flop, Bloomberg can run as a Savior-type.

Just my 2 cents.

Related:

Others: CNBC, CANNONFIRE, FiveThirtyEight, Grist, Balloon Juice, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, EveryJoe, The Moderate Voice, Hit & Run, Guardian, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Washington Post, Towleroad, Politico, Advocate, Business Insider, Mediaite, The Gateway Pundit, Outside the Beltway, Gothamist, Yahoo Politics, The Right Scoop, The Atlantic, RedState, Talking Points Memo, Vox, Boing Boing, The Week, Independent Journal Review, NPR, New York Magazine, Washington Times, Mashable, Mother Jones, The Daily Caller and Deadline, more at Mediagazer », No More Mister Nice Blog, Washington Post, Weasel Zippers, Lawyers, Guns & Money, Business Insider, The Atlantic and Political Wire, Business Insider, addictinginfo.org

 

 

Is the Republican Party going to lose in 2016?

Please note: this posting was written last night at about 3 o’clock in the morning and I would have uploaded it then, but my blog was down so here’s the post in a few hours late.

——

This is one of those late night postings, that I am dictating from my phone, using voice to text. So, if it comes out not looking like what I normally type, this is why.

Earlier tonight, I had a conversation with my mother about the Democratic Party debates and the Republican Party debates. During this conversation with my mother, my mother made a very astute observation about the debates of both parties.

Basically she told me this, that the Republican Party debates looked like a bunch of kids fighting and arguing up on stage. She also told me that the Democratic Party debates were much more civilized and much more adult like.

Click here, there is more inside!

Guest Voice: No Change in Foreign Policy from 2016 Standard-bearers

With all the turmoil and uncertainty coming from this election cycle, one constant is already known. U.S. Foreign Policy is well under the control of the international interventionists. The career globalists on the American payroll continue to push for more and greater engagements. Step back and consider the premise. Seldom is there an international involvement that is not eagerly embraced, funded and expanded. Based upon this premise, the record of continued failures is better understood. The systemic decline of a once great nation has developed into a pathetic deterioration of an imperial empire.

Click here, there is more inside!

Leftists show their true colors at the news of Nancy Reagan’s passing

This, my friends, is the true colors of the Democratic Party and the leftist base that supports them. This is why I quit voting for them. This is the sort of bile that drove me away from that Party. I was no fan boy of Bush and Co. But, this sort of bile is uncalled for. Which is why I stopped voting for them, supporting them and such.

Check out:  First 30 Minutes: Vile Tweets About Death of Nancy Flow On Twitter – Breitbart

There is no excuse for it, at all. This is why Ronald Reagan left that party.

Update: Seriously Wonkette? I hope the Reagan family sues the crap out of you for this bile.

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

Video: Romney Rips Trump, Ryan Ducks

My video comments on this, but first the stories:

On Romney’s ripping on Trump, Politico reports:

Mitt Romney opened a new front in the Republican Party’s civil war on Thursday, going after Donald Trump in a scorched-earth speech that eviscerated the Republican front-runner as lacking the temperament, business record and substantive policies to occupy the White House.

Romney immediately said at the outset of his remarks he would neither endorse a candidate nor announce a third presidential bid of his own. Instead, he focused nearly the entirety of his speech on the urgency of stopping Trump.

 “If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished,” Romney warned, speaking at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Trump’s economic policies would lead to a sustained recession, Romney charged. “Isn’t he a huge business success and doesn’t he know what he’s talking about?” Romney asked mockingly. “No, he isn’t, and no he doesn’t.”

“He inherited his business. He didn’t create it,” Romney said. “And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there’s Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.”

On Ryan Ducking, Politico reports:

Mitt Romney’s running mate is staying out of the 2012 nominee’s slugfest with Donald Trump.

Paul Ryan told reporters Thursday that he hadn’t even seen a copy of Romney’s speech denouncing Trump before Romney went public. The speaker said House Republicans would work with “whoever the nominee is.”

Ryan, however, did say he “laughed out loud” when Trump said Ryan would “pay a big price” if he couldn’t get along with the billionaire businessman, if he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.

“Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction these days. I don’t really think anything of it,” Ryan said. “I’m a good-natured guy. I get along with everybody.”

“Mitt and I are very close friends. We have talked about lots of things over the days and weeks,” Ryan added. “But I am not sure exactly what he is going to say. He feels the need to speak out on behalf of the Republican Party.”

My thoughts on these two:

By the way, I am listening to Chris Christie’s presser. He didn’t resign or withdraw support. He called the presser to answer questions and respond to calls for his resignation. He isn’t resigning.