Here's a goofy idea: Edwards/Bloomberg

by emptypockets

I'm no fan of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg -- in fact, the one time in my life I volunteered for a political campaign was a quixotic attempt to get rid of him.

(For someone who until 2004 chose never to vote, that was a big step toward political involvement... if an utterly impractical one.)

So I'm a little disturbed by the goofy idea running around the back of my mind: the idea that, should former Senator John Edwards be nominated next year, Bloomberg would be a hell of a running mate. It started with this piece one month ago:

Bloomberg, in Washington, Warns of Economic Inequality

Flanked by national leaders in government and business, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg warned on Tuesday that widening financial inequality in the United States was "not morally right"...

The mayor's most striking remarks were about economic inequality, as he voiced views not widely articulated by his fellow Republicans.

"This society cannot go forward, the way we have been going forward, where the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing," said Mr. Bloomberg, a former Democrat. "It's not politically viable; it's not morally right; it's just not going to happen."

Sound familiar?

While he mentioned economic equality as a moral issue, he framed it even more strongly as a practical one -- as a matter of America's preeminence in the intellectual world. He said (same link as above):

"We have a competitiveness problem in this country, not just in finance, but in medicine and in science and in education and even in the art world..."

"China is investing in factories in Eastern Europe, not because their labor costs are lower, but because they want to be closer to their markets. We're not doing that. They're buying natural resources in Africa. They're trying to buy up the whole continent. We're not doing that. We're not making the investments for our future."

I won't recount Bloomberg's many sins in my eyes, but I'll say instead why I find myself almost eager for the chance to move past them.

First, I believe strongly in the economic populist platform that Edwards (and others) have been building and while Edwards (and, perhaps, others) has the chops to sell it from the heart and gut, Bloomberg drives a harder-nosed bargain: he's got a sterling reputation as a financier with none of the bleeding heart about him. He can sell it to the wallet.

Second, I think this cycle will be a major opportunity to pull a "reverse Reagan" and bring many disaffected Republicans into the Democratic party for the long term. That may happen more easily with a ticket that has the glow of being above the usual partisan labels.

Third, all the usual reasons you'd pick a running mate: he's got deep connections to deep pockets in the political donation capital of America, not to mention deep pockets of his own, and as a Northeastern executive would provide good balance to a Southern lawyer and lawmaker.

Obviously this scheme is a little half-baked and counting caucuses way, way, way before they've hatched. I just wanted to put it out there to see what folks thought. At the very least, I hope Edwards gave Bloomberg a call after the Treasury Conference last month, to commend him on his setting economic equality as a priority for America's future. It's a bell we need to ring more loudly.

Comments

[Alice Marshall]

Has Bloomberg been a populist Mayor? As Mayor have his actions had the practical effect of reducing inequality in the city? No?

Pay no attention to what he says, look at what he does.

Sounds like a Trojan horse to me.

[bmaz]

I am not sure about this, and there is little chance it will work; but your thought is extremely well stated and worthy of consideration.

[Forrest R. Prince]

Better idea: Edwards/Waxman. John Edwards is a great candidate for president. While not as progressive as I'd personally prefer, he's close enough. He's got charisma, which isn't necessarily a progresssive value, but it means one heck of a lot when it comes to getting elected. He's already put forth a fairly detailed plan for universal health care, which really puts him up in my eyes, and is also a draw for voters on both sides of the aisle; you know there are millions of Republicans who can't access quality health care because of the way the current health insurance system sucks.

Henry Waxman would be a superb VP. He's been in the system for a long time and has never wavered on his progressive values and his fights to advance them. He knows how to get good things done in Congress. And come 2016, who knows? President Waxman?

Nah, I'm just dreamin'. You know Obama's got the lock.

[bianco]

the "two americas" ticket. lol.

[joejoejoe]

Here's a better idea - Edwards/Inanimate Carbon Rod.

[bianco]

>>Here's a better idea - Edwards/Inanimate Carbon Rod.

hilarious.

" you're travelling to another election, an election not only of sight and sound .. but of mind -- a journey into a wondrous .. hey wait a minute -- i'm made of solid carbon, i have no mouth -- hope is on the way !! "

[emptypockets]

Forrest R. Prince, Obama may have the lock but I still like to think a white male could become President someday

joejoejoe, re: Inanimate Carbon Rod -- isn't that what I said?

[anwaya]

I would like to scare the bejeebers out of the wingnuts by seriously proposing Pelosi-Murtha '07. She's third in line, and he's her mentor. It's a natural ticket for the replacement.

[Beel]

Let's not have any more Kerry/McCain tickets.

[Bill Durbin]

Senator Webb from Virginia has been making the same argument passionately for months. He's always had good "credentials" with Republicans. I would much prefer Edwards/Webb. However, I think Edwards just might pick a woman - one of the two impressive women governors.

[jonnybutter]

Very interesting idea, EP. Never occured to me before (and I support Edwards). I also like Edwards/Webb or, as Bill might be suggesting above, Edwards/Sibelius.

[kim]

"(For someone who until 2004 chose never to vote, that was a big step toward political involvement... if an utterly impractical one.)"

You mean you didn't pick Perot over Clinton? I voted for him both times, I had my disinterested-scientist phase also.