Bloomberg tells it like it is

[SlowGoose]

Next President will be an adult

[leemajaz]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Thursday that whoever wins the presidency in November, "at least we'll have an adult in office who can lead and accomplish something."
art.bloomberg.gi.jpg

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he is looking for a candidate who is "willing to face reality."

During a question-and-answer session, Bloomberg said he will not have to agree on all matters with whomever he ultimately endorses for president.

"I'm looking for a candidate that is willing to face reality and say, 'We can't have everything and there are costs and we've got to make choices.'"

The billionaire media mogul added, "Some of the things they will be in favor of I will agree with, some of the things they will be in favor of I won't. But at least we'll have an adult in office who can lead and can accomplish something."

Bloomberg then ticked through a list of major issues affecting society, citing international relations, terrorism, health care, public education and energy independence as examples.

"Right now, everybody is afraid to tell the American public that there's no easy answers," he said. "Nobody is willing to do anything other than say, 'I'm in favor of motherhood and apple pie.'"

"You may have a different solution to the problem than I do, but at least tell me, tell the public, there's a reason to stand up and pull together, and it's going to require sacrifice and dedication and compromise," he said.

Asked if he was criticizing President Bush, Bloomberg said, "He's not running for office. It's immaterial, and I'm not focused on the past. I've always tried to focus on the future.

"What this country has to do is not judge George W. Bush on the last eight years. The public voted him into office twice and then he governed for eight years. What is before us now is a very important decision: who do we want to lead for the next four years ... that's what we should be focusing on."

This week, the mayor said he had no immediate plans to endorse anyone. A few months ago, Bloomberg briefly flirted about running for president. He later wrote in an editorial to the New York Times that he would not be a presidental candidate.

During the session, which was moderated by talk-show host Charlie Rose and included California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the mayor also criticized redistricting, which has made it less likely for a state and federal seats to change parties in elections.

"It has stopped Washington cold, and it is stopping state legislatures," he said.

Schwarzenegger noted that only four of 496 seats in his state have changed parties during the last three election cycles -- a system he called "really fixed."

[Fourstring]

Except for killing any chance of winning the southern, I still think Bloomberg would make an outstanding veep.

[mikem317]

Not really post worthy, but I agree with Bloomberg's thoughts.

[SAHTT]

I don't know most of his positions but I bet I'd like him.

I think we need a lean mean business back ground person in office. I don't consider GWB even close to that mark, or anyone else who has been in politics their whole life. If you can start at the bottom and then lead from the top, you'll learn cost vs benefits and know how to balance long term and short term results.

These career politicians scare the hell out of me.

[Baldrick]

Problem with a "lean mean business background person" is that they think in terms of profit and loss, while the federal government simply can't be run that way, at least in my opinion. How does current standard business practice square with things like the military, police/fire departments, regulation/enforcement of safety/health/financial reporting, just for a few starters? I just don't think it does. We've had 7 years of a business background person (granted, one who failed in every venture he tried...), and that got us lots of really happy corporate executives, a deficit that could crush our economy, and a military that's on the verge of uselessness, due to over extension, and a concentration of wealth not seen in some 100 years.

IMHO, business, like churches, need to be kept OUT of government (they pretty much run it these days), since that would allow it to actually be responsive to the people, rather than narrow corporate interests.

Pie in the sky thinking, perhaps, but there it is...

[SAHTT]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

Problem with a "lean mean business background person" is that they think in terms of profit and loss, while the federal government simply can't be run that way, at least in my opinion. How does current standard business practice square with things like the military, police/fire departments, regulation/enforcement of safety/health/financial reporting, just for a few starters? I just don't think it does. We've had 7 years of a business background person (granted, one who failed in every venture he tried...), and that got us lots of really happy corporate executives, a deficit that could crush our economy, and a military that's on the verge of uselessness, due to over extension, and a concentration of wealth not seen in some 100 years.

IMHO, business, like churches, need to be kept OUT of government (they pretty much run it these days), since that would allow it to actually be responsive to the people, rather than narrow corporate interests.

Pie in the sky thinking, perhaps, but there it is...

Understand your point but I think you missed mine. Like we both said, I don't think dubya is a good example. I don't understand what you mean by current business practice vs i.e. the fire department. Define 'current business practice' because that's extremely vague and IMO impossible to define. Not all business people are 'evil' or have 'bad' business practices/ethics, many are very generous and intelligent people. Those don't make the news too often though.

I think they apply to non profit driven industries too. When you run a corporation you aren't just looking at profit despite what many people think, you are looking at efficiency, input vs output, critical analysis of results, etc. Those all apply and should be applied MORE to non profit ends like the police department, fire departments, etc. Non-profits still need excellent management, no one will deny that and non-profits are ESTATIC when a 'real' CEO more or less volunteers to run the firm.

Let's cut the childish game blaming bush over and over again for our corn flakes getting soggy.

Businessmen by nature would not allow such a federal deficit to occur and would understand the economic ramifications of his actions. We've already seen what happens when you can't stay disciplined.

In the year 2008 we don't need someone to add another billion stupid ass laws and increase legislation. Our government is already a massive self feeding blob of ineffeciency and waste. We need to cut the fat, lower our debt, and get our shit straight.