A Bloomberg run for president would be a dangerous thing according to DH (Whys). As usual, I'm inclined to agree.
On the surface (meaning a Wiki entry), Bloomberg seems like a great candidate. He's been a good mayor as far as I can tell, he is non-partisan (as evidenced by party swapping), liberal on social issues, spends his own money to avoid special interest debt, and actually has some ideas that really produce results. On the other hand, his ties to and comments about business are quite concerning. For example, he is in favor of tax breaks for those who need it least.
Whys: "Sure, let's just cut out the middlemen and put a CEO directly in charge of our country!"
There was sarcasm in that statement, did you catch it? Whys thinks the Republicans may actually be encouraging a Bloomberg candidacy to play spoiler. While I'm not sure I'd go that far, the outcome may be the same if Bloomberg chooses to run. Clinton would probably be the most vulnerable democratic candidate under such a scenario.
Alas, what would he be spoiling? By putting one special-interest beholden candidate in front of another? All of our options, on both sides of the ticket, are millionaires. Who is representing Americans?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment