Cynical Nation

For me, it's pretty simple.

I'm sick of both the Republicans and Democrats. Bloomsberg is a smart, successful businessman who can finance his own campaign and therefore will be primarily beholden only to the voters.

Couple that with his likely understanding of the economic ramifications of high taxes and wasteful spending and what is there not to like?

He isn't perfect, as his ban on transfat showed, but I am intrigued by the opportunity to stick it to the majors who continue to put party politics ahead of America's needs and interests.

>Couple that with his likely understanding of the economic ramifications of high taxes...

Why do you feel the need to preface understanding with "likely?" Could it have something to do with his instinctive tax-hike post-9/11?

If (and that's a big if) he's truly tax averse as you claim, then he simply joins the ranks of pretty much every Republican candidate in that regard.

>...what is there not to like?

His compulsive need to micromanage how we live our private lives?

I can't disagree with Barry on either point.

I've been pretty non-plussed by "Bloomy."

Is he better than the typical northeast Liberal Democrat?

Yes, but so would Sukarno, Franco, etc., etc.

That last line is to say, "Who WOULDN'T be better?

I didn't say he was tax-averse, I said he understands the ramifications of high taxes.

Same deal with Corzine, he has brought the spending into control and stabilized state finances, but had no choice but to increase tax revenue. And he did it fairly by raising the tax that EVERYONE pays, the sales tax.

I'm as shocked as anyone that I've come to this conclusion. But quite frankly, all of the R and D candidates flat out suck. So I'm willing to support the independent who sucks less to send the message that business as usual needs to change.

Of course, you do realize that history is about to repeat itself. Bloomberg is going to help put Hillary into the White House same as Perot helped put her husband there 15 years ago.

I don't know why I like him. I just do! I think it's partly because even though he does tend to supernanny (I think that that wouldn't be so easy on a national level so I think you can relax on that score. I admit to being a bit nonplussed by the transfat thing.), I still like him better than just about everyone running. The only other person I maybe like better is never going to win (Kucinich) so...

I still don't think he's going to run. Maybe you'll find this comforting.

Oh, and really? A lot of people on the right like him (hi, CRB *wave*), I had no idea.

Thanks K, that does make me feel better. :-) At first I was willing to believe his whole "candidacy" was imaginary, but that web site thing did give me pause.

Barry, did you know that Bloomberg holds an engineering degree from Johns Hopkins? Sure, it's an EE, but that has to count for something. ;-)

I also don't believe that his candidacy is inevitable. I suspect he will wait until a clear frontrunner appears on both sides then see how he polls against them. Like any good businessman, if the numbers look good he will run.

>Barry, did you know that Bloomberg holds an engineering degree from Johns Hopkins?

Two words: Jimmy. Carter.

;-)

"Of course, you do realize that history is about to repeat itself. Bloomberg is going to help put Hillary into the White House same as Perot helped put her husband there 15 years ago."

I can not stand Bloomberg, but exactly for the reason you mention above, I look favorably at his candidacy. Good point.

BTW, could one of you please explain to me how a Bloomberg candidacy would do anything besides help elect a Republican? I really don't get that.

It is simple. Bloomberg was elected as a republican before he left the party. His VP candidate will be a republican (Chuck Hagel). He will collect the votes of (myriads of) disatisfied republicans who do not want to vote democratic. This will include anti-war republicans who can not vote dems for economic reasons. He will not get many democratic votes, as democrats are determined to win back the presidency in 08 .

BTW, could one of you please explain to me how a Bloomberg candidacy would do anything besides help elect a Republican? I really don't get that.

Everyone knows that Democrats can't think for themselves. ;-)

"But at the same time, isn't an "anti--libertarian" a bad thing? Can't we all at least agree on that? That the primary occupation of our elected official probably shouldn't be to make mundane, day-to-day life decisions for us? Hello? Anyone? Bueller? Hello? Am I truly alone here? Will anyone stand with me?" (BNJ)


Well, I do tend to agree, perhaps more and more as time goes on.

Even now, while I can certainly understand why "big government Conservatism" became popular in the wake of Bratton and Giuliani's transforming NYC from "Murder Capital USA" into Disney Town and with the post 9/11 pro-security agenda, I don't understand the inane, apparent revival, at least in some quarters, of the "big government social bureaucracy," which has always been a disaster.

In fact, I'd agree that even the "Daddy/security State" should be as cost-effective and streamlined as possible.

ALL aspects of government should always be forced to "do more, with less."

I think he's just angling for a job in the Thompson administration.

"Bloomberg was elected as a republican before he left the party. His VP candidate will be a republican (Chuck Hagel). He will collect the votes of (myriads of) disatisfied republicans who do not want to vote democratic. This will include anti-war republicans who can not vote dems for economic reasons. He will not get many democratic votes..." (BW)


You'd be an optimist on the Titanic Blue, "We don't need those lifeboats, this baby won't go down no matter what."

Bloomberg was, in fact, a Democrat (a very Liberal Dem) until his run for NYC Mayor in 2001.

He ran in Liberal NYC, where almost ALL his votes came from Liberal Dems.

His act will only play in places like NYC, San Fran, Miami, LA, etc.

And Chuck Hagel wouldn't likely do much to boost him much in the heartland, either.

A Bloomberg run would most likely be an Electoral College disaster for Dems.

He's most likely to take away Liberal votes in large urban areas, and even though those cities are safely BLUE, many of those states are not - Florida, California and Ohio may ALL be negatively effected for Democrats should a Bloomberg or ANYONE siphons Liberal votes away from the Dems in cities like Miami, Fort Lauderdale, San Fran, LA, Cleveland, Cinnci, Toledo, Columbus, etc.

Bloomy and Hagel aren't going to get many votes in places like Kansas, Texas, the Dakotas, Georgia, the Carolinas, etc.

Now a Ron Paul run COULD possibly siphon a some heartland votes away from the current crop of GOP candidates, but better still, from that perspective, would be an independent Conservative with strong outside funding.

That's what Bloomy is IN REVERSE - an independent Liberal with strong outside (the Party) funding, in his case, his own.

"I think he's just angling for a job in the Thompson administration."

WF,
Excellent point. There is actually a 0.0003457568786 % probability that Thompson will be elected president. Bloomberg being a smart businessman is positioning himself for that prossibility and is investing into that.

The view from flyover country: "Bloomberg ....uh who? He's sort of Fwench looking, isn't he?"
I think he would hurt the Hidebeast more. The Dems. who are creeped out by her (I suspect they are legion) might cast a vote for any other non- Republican. Anyone with a conservative/ Libertarian bent will reject him outright. Disaffected Republicans will more likely just stay home, especially if the nominee winds up being another machine candidate.

"Anyone with a conservative/ Libertarian bent will reject him outright. Disaffected Republicans will more likely just stay home, especially if the nominee winds up being another machine candidate." (Paul)


I think that pretty much sums it up nicely.

In the end, the Dems don't
need a "diversion candidate" to try and split the GOP vote, with the support of Republicans like Lott, Specter and GW for the recent pro-illegal immigrant Bill, the possibility increases that many diaffected Libertarians and Conservatives might well stay home.....they SHOULD consider voting Libertarian, instead, to at least make a statement.

It's the Republicaans who look like they need a "diversion candidate" to siphon votes from the Dems, and Bloomy, if he runs, would most likely attract Liberal urban voters.

Enough to effect the Electoral College in key states?

Who knows?

Bloomberg was, and is, a rather center-left Democrat who realized he stood no chance in the Democratic mayoral primary in 2001 and switched to the GOP which had nobody.

He has governed as described above. Centrist in dealing with the unions and left in his nanny state 'I know what's best for you' fiats.

The truth is that he comes across as a scold too often and has zero warmth despite a quite diverting sense of humor.

He would marginally hurt the Dems as his views are similar to theirs in most cases but he's no Perot.

"He would marginally hurt the Dems as his views are similar to theirs in most cases but he's no Perot.",/i> (Mal)


I think you and Paul are pretty much right.

It would give those moderate Dems who don't like Hillary another choice, but overall, his impact would probably be negligible.

He's best suited for garnering votes in large urban areas, which are mostly safely Blue....if his campaign DID take off, the only question would be, would that siphoning of urban votes hurt the Dems with the Electoral College vote in some close states, like Ohio and Florida.

To keep things simple, just listen to Rush Limbaugh for about 5 minutes, which won't cause permanent brain damage.

Rush doesn't like Bloomberg, because the RNC doesn't sponser Bloomberg.

Therefore JMK and Barry don't like him, and they are going to repeat everything Rush says on this blog as though they thought of it themselves.

Actually, that is the brain damage Rush causes -- after a while his listeners DO think they thought of all this stuff themselves. Goebbels, move over!

I very much LIKE the fact that Bloomberg will most likely siphon off mostly Liberal votes in large urban areas!

So your viewpoint, Barely, is inane...OK, that's redundant, but still...

Those who oppose necessary security incursions on our privacy - things like the NSA wiretaps, etc., MUST also (due to that thing called "logical consistency") oppose the even more dire incursions into inidividual rights like trans fat bans, smoking bans, and all manner of other such attempts to needlessly micromanage people's lives, not to mention the many calls for restricting economic liberty in the name of crazy stuff like "income disparities.".

In my view, while you DON'T necessarily have the right to call Afganistan on your cell phone and expect any privacy, nor walk, drive or otherwise traverse our streets without being photographed hundreds of times each day by security cameras, you certainly DO have the right to smoke, drink and generally "be merry," and keep most of the hard-earned money we work for.

You are right JMK, the Republican corporatist Bloomberg had no right to micromanage what restaurants serve. He could certainly insist that they make customers aware of potentially dangerous ingredients, but a ban?

Of course you are WRONG about calling Afganistan. If I have commited no crime, and a federal agent can't get a warrant from a judge because there is no reason at all to suspect I am doing anything wrong, I can, and I do, expect privacy, EXACTLY as the Constitution stipulates.

You almost weren't a dumbass, but then your failure to read and comprehend the Constitution dropped you on your head.

By your reasoning, one could argue that you can't "expect" to carry or actually own any firearms, but that your firearms can only be kept at the local militia headquarters, and that you can only "keep and bear" them during once a year parades monitored by heavily armed federal agents.

Why don't you interpret the 2nd amendment the same way you interpret the 4th?

I do!

Just as technology has outrun the Second Amendment - we DO ban machine guns/automatic weapons, RPG,s, bazookas, etc, technology has also outrun the 4th.

Cell phone conversations emails, etc., can be picked up by virtually anyone, making them pretty much "fair game."

Surveilance and security cameras, initially used primarily by businesses to watch their property remotely, then ATMs for customer security, have been increasingly used by government - it is NOT considered an invasion of one's personal privacy since those pix are taken in public areas.

Random roadside DUI stops, initially espoused and supported by MADD, have been wildly effective in taking drunk-drivers off the roads.

Since there is absolutely no "right" to drive drunk," the courts have ruled that, so long as the stops are "random" (ie. every third car) they're legal.

Ditto with online pedophile stings. There's nothing at all illegal about either law enforcement or even a group of private ciizens luring pedophiles by posing online as children. The pedophile is free not to respond. Since merely sending sexual content to children online is, by itself, against the law, those pedarists have already broken any number of laws before they're turned over to the authorities.

A pedophile CANNOT claim "entrapment," as no one got him to commit an act he otherwise wouldn't have. Responding sexually to someone you believe to be a child is clear intent of a criminal act.

Like the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment was not designed to be a complegte blanket, otherwise we'd have legal scholars arguing the Constituionality of existing laws prohibiting the making of explosives and chemical weapons in one's own house.

"Of course you are WRONG about calling Afganistan. If I have commited no crime, and a federal agent can't get a warrant from a judge because there is no reason at all to suspect I am doing anything wrong, I can, and I do, expect privacy, EXACTLY as the Constitution stipulates." (BH)


You go ahead and call an independent (non-US Military) number in Afghanistan and even today, you're more likely than not to be monitored.

On ANY cell phone call ANYWHERE or with ANY email, you should NOT have any real expectation of privacy, as even private citizens can access those things without much work or investment.

Of course, you're arguing "YOU SHOULD" be able to contact Afghanistan or other terror hotspots without being monitored...and that is NAIVE.

There are an estimated 200+ terror cells in the USA right now and almost NONE of those involved have criminal records in this country.

Terrorism is NOT a crime.

Since terrorism is NOT a crime, we cannot talk of dealing with it as a crime, within the framework of the Constitution.

Terrorism IS an act of Unconventional Warfare good and decent public servants insist on being given the ability to ferret out terror SUSPECTS, gather evidence without those suspects being aware, and often holding those named as "enemy combatants" without charge, barring them from legal counsel, etc.

"Enemy combatants" are not even guaranteed the Geneva Accords' "rights," so they aren't guaranteed any Constitutional rights either.

Problem is, you're looking at "acts of terrorism" as crimes and terrorists as "criminals," which is not the way US Law looks at them.

Moreover, moving to treat terrorism as a "crime," would effectively make it impossible to protect the citizens who've made clear that they demand that protection.

All spoken like a true Fascist.

As I explained to you, the TELEPHONE wasn't invented when they penned the 4th Amendment, so your argument is retarded. According to your logic, authorities have NEVER NEEDED a wiretap warrent, because the phone wasn't invented and was NEW TECHNOLOGY!

The 2nd amendment says "to bear arms", which means firearms. It doesn't say "to bear all implements of war" ... dumbass.

Firearms are legal. Privacy is protected. Everything else you are saying is pure Fascism.

Why do you hate America?

You have it exactly WRONG.

The 2nd Amendment is as clear and as "absolute" as is the 4th. "Arms" means all firearms....but WE'VE made the conscious choice, well, those who've crafted our laws have, to say, "Wait, the technology has outstripped the law and the risks of people carrying machine guns and RPGs around is greater than the potential rewards" - an arguable point, that has been argued, and settled in favor of those who've chosen to "err on the side of caution."

Likewise communication technology has also outstripped the law and besides, there is NOTHING in the 4th Amendment that "protects" suspects from being listened in on under many circumstances, or from informants being used to illicit information from them, etc.

In fact, the 4th Amendment ONLY protects our property (homes, papers and personal effects) from "unreasonable search and seizure."

That's how I interpret, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Since private citizens can so easily access cell phone calls with a simple scanner and a list of frequencies, there's really no way to protect any cell phone privacy rights once that signal is out in the ether.

The argument goes, "Since a call I make at a public phone booth can be traced and recorded, as it's a "public" phone/facility, the same case can be made when I bounce my cell signal or my emails are sent via a public-use sattelite."

That makes perfect sense, as there is no "expectation of privacy" in a "public-use" facility, which is why the courts have upheld all manner of security and surveillance cameras, random DUI stops and online pedophile stings.

NONE of the protections in the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct, or "absolute," not even speech, which is subject to restrictions on slander, threats, inciting a riot, even reckless and irresponsible speech ("fire in a crowded movie theater, as the famous example).

In short, there are NO "rights" that are absolute.

Which brings me to my last point, "Dees 'dumbass,' I no theenk that word meeen, what you theeenk it meen."

Know what I mean?

Duh hyuk, dur, I think that nuclear bombs are firearms! Hyuk!

According to my dumb ass, the govament never need ANY wiretap warrants, because landline telephone wires go through public space, so anybody can just tap right in and spy! Hyuk! According to me, if George Bush Washington was out in public, he could be seized and searched NO PROBLEMO!

Now I'm going to go back to trying to understand that Dick and Jane book, hyuk, it has me stumped! What does it mean???

Currently emails and cell phone calls DO NOT enjoy the protections that landline calls do.

If that was not so, that could be easily documented. No Wikipedia articles....huh???

In fact, the EFF is currently trying to fight for expanded electronic privacy rights, so far with mixed results.

Moreover, the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that deals with cell phone privacy rights;

"The Bartnicki v. Vopper case before the U.S. Supreme Court raises some serious questions about where to draw the line between personal privacy and freedom of the press. The Court heard oral arguments in December, and is now faced with the task of sorting out privacy issues surrounding third-party taping of private cellular phone conversations and the right of the press to disseminate information of public interest.

"In 1993, Gloria Bartnicki, a teachers' union official in Pennsylvania, was having a conversation on her cellular phone with a fellow union official discussing pending contract negotiations. An unknown third-party taped the conversation and provided a copy to a group opposed to the teacher's demands. The group, in turn, provided a copy to a host at a local radio station who played the tape on the air. Bartnicki and the other union official sued the host of the radio program, the radio station and the individual who intercepted the call."

"The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal and state wiretapping statutes were unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court is weighing whether personal privacy and the right to communicate freely and confidentially via wireless phones is greater than the right of the press to broadcast or print private conversations that are of public concern."

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/archive/legal_updates_cell.htm

Now I agree with the 3rd Circuit Court that "the federal and state wiretapping statutes were unconstitutional," at least so far as they apply to cell phone communications.

Since they're bounced off public-use, public-domain satellites there is NO "reasonable expectation of privacy," in my view.

They must have some very astute judges on the 3rd Circuit.

Durrrr, hyuk ... any telephone call can be taped, whether wireless, cell, or normal landline -- hehe, I guess that it has nothing to do with "technology" but is a privacy issue like Bailey said, hyuk!

Learn to read...you always say inane things like that, but never take your own advice.

The Third Circuit Court RIGHTLY (in my view) ruled that "the federal and state wiretapping statutes were unconstitutional," as applied to cell phone communications.

THAT'S the reality we're dealing with right now, not the reality that is "the way Barely THINKS things would be."

Duh hur, hyuk, nucular weapoons are firearms!

Gas Prices

Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or “jawbone,” Mideast oil producers to increase output.

A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.

Uhhh, the amusing thing is that ANYone would think that an American President "jawboning" OPEC about oil prices would/could reduce the worldwide market price for oil.

Sure, pressuring the Saudis to keep the sigget open has always worked in the past, BUT even the Saudis' willingness to do that can't keep up with the increased global demand (India & China are the fastest growing industrialing nation).

No, the global market price for oil is what it is. It spikes from time to time based on speculators selling long or short...and at home it increases by an average of 24 cents per gallo when we switch to those government mandated "summer blends."

There is NO input from the WH involved in setting the world market price for oil and their shouldn't be!

If U.S. firms were indeed "price gouging" then there'd be plenty of oil available from British and Dutch companies like BP & Shell, respectively, that would be undercutting companies like Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Sunoco and Texaco...but they're not.

Now one COULD make the argument that Bill O'Reilly makes, that "American oil companies, which get oil from U.S. sources (offshore drilling, etc) for about $20/barrell DON'T have to sell it to American consumers at world market prices, especially during wartime," but that argument is fatally flawed!

First, YES, American based oil companies MUST sell oil at global world market prices or risk making far lower profits than their foreign rivals and eventually being bought out/taken over by those same rivals.

I'm sure Bill O'Reilly is a very nice fellow and he's right on his anti-illegal immigration and anti-child predator stances, BUT on this matter, like the death penalty (he opposes it), he's utterly wrong.

The price of gasoline per gallon is still LESS than it was in 1981 (adjusted for inflation, of course).

I'd like to see cheaper oil, but that's highly unlikely given the rapid industrialization of 1/3 of the world's population!

I'd like to see a cheaper alternative, like cellulosic ethanol even more, but we're not there yet, either.

But the idea that there's been some WH-based conspiracy to raise the price of oil, is beyond "batshit crazy," or BSC and very closely approximates what some call, "Weapons Grade Crazy," or WGC.