…of every awful, content-less faux-centrist narrative, applied here in a lengthy, fawning Washington Post “will he run?” article on New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
“He’d be a candidate almost in the progressive tradition,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York political consultant. “He could make the argument: ‘A pox on both their houses.’ He’s a celebrity by definition because he’s a billionaire.”
But why should he be president? Because it’s remotely possible?
He’s a party-switching, uncharismatic billionaire. His running for president sure sounds exciting to Washington media – who adore nothing more than slagging off Democrats, but are finding it increasingly difficult to apologize for incompetent and corrupt Republicans – but that’s about it. The truth of the matter is that most Americans do prefer one party over the other – there’s no great silent consensus out there for people like Michael Bloomberg.
Ech…there’s more, now not just in quotations:
…if he ran as a Democrat, he might sacrifice his reputation as an independent-minded businessman who is above politics.
Save us from politicians who are “above” politics, and from those writers who would imagine such a thing possible.
The above passage follows an observation on the impossibility of Bloomberg’s securing the GOP nomination. So I ask again – just where is this great silent majority that exists in neither party but would be able to elect a man like Michael Bloomberg president?
Bloomberg himself is quoted towards the end, and supplies the answer:
“How can a 5-foot-7, divorced billionaire Jew running as an independent from New York possibly have a chance?” he has asked.
He can’t. And that’s fine. Politics is the business of disagreeing about what to do. If Bloomberg can’t find constructive ways to disagree, then there’s really no reason for him to think twice about running for president.