Skip to main content

Bloomberg For President?

I would like to see the next President be a person who can "unite the country" is also a "competent manager" and can work not only "across party lines" but Internationally, in a non-partison and diplomatic way, to get things done. So what else is new, who wouldn't?

Zobgy makes the argument that Bloomberg could be such a "leader" that his polls show 80% of Americans want. In some ways I wish it were true, I wouldn't mind voting for an independent and sending both parties a little message to clean up their act. But I doubt that it is true because the American people themselves are so sharply divided. And, the election process is not the place from which unity naturally flows because the whole process is focused on the negative...what's wrong with the other guy.

Nothing I'm aware of from Bloomberg gives me the slightest comfort that he's thought about how he would "unite" or "lead" or even what his priorities would be for getting things done. Even if he eventually did that reasonably well, the man is just not that inspiring. I was inspired by the likes of Kennedy, Regan, Patrick Moynihan, Howard Baker, Bill Bradley, Bob Dole, Sam Nunn, Colin Powell and a few others but Bloomberg is just not in their league and I don't want to settle for less (I've done that for the past 20 years).

The most interesting thing that Zobgy points out about Bloomberg's potential entry into the Presidential race is that it might be more likely to divide the left in the same way that Perot divided the right in 1992. That could make room for a more inspiring and gifted figure from the center-right. It isn't obvious to me right now who that is. It would be ironic if that turned out to be Guiliani, one NYC major paving the way for another. One can only hope.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

DouglasRoss.com

Network Solutions is having a sale on URL's. Mine (http://www.douglasross.com) doesn't do anything at the moment (I'm saving it for a rainy day) but it was coming up on ten years and I needed to renew it to protect my name. So I decided to take them up on their pay-in-advance 20 year package sale for $279.00 or $13.95 per year (about half of the regular annual fee...probably not that good a deal in hindsight.) But the kicker was, after I hit the pay button it dawned on me that I'll be over 83 years old when this thing expires. How creepy is that? If I make it I'll take it as a good sign and re-up for another 20 years. And by then maybe I'll have done something with it.

Climate Change and Open Science - WSJ.com

This Wall Street Journal article Climate Change and Open Science - WSJ .com made the right basic point about liberal hypocrisy in the Climate Change debate, but disappointingly it failed to cite the best sources of real information from an unbiased scientific point of view. I believe that source is Dr. S. Fred Singer & Dr. Craig D. Idso , from the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, who coauthored "Climate Change Reconsidered; The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" published in 2009. In this book, the petition letter shown here from Dr. Frederick Seitz ( Ph . D. Physics) President Emeritus of Rockefeller University was published. Dr. Seitz circulated this letter: urging fellow academics with qualifications in the physical sciences to sign the petition at http://www.petitionproject.com/ and thereby acknowledge their agreement with this statement in the petition: Accor...

The Evolving Internet: A look ahead to 2025 by Cisco and the Monitor Group's Global Business Network

My employer (Cisco) published its most recent forward looking study of the Internet today. It's called " The Evolving Internet: A look ahead to 2025 by Cisco and the Monitor Group's Global Business Network " and although I haven't studied it in detail yet, I scanned it this morning and I liked what I saw. Those who know me will not be surprised that I particularly liked the three dimensional evaluation criteria that they used to frame their analysis. Lately nearly everything I do ends up finding its way into some sort of analytical cube like this. I've been wondering whether there is something wrong with me that I can't seem to frame things simply in two dimensions. Glad to have company.