Well, since Jonathan Stein isn't "buying in," I guess no one else should either. Right... Is Bloomberg not liberal enough for MoJo? I think he would be a decent canidate for the following reasons:

*Self financed- would not need to rely on lobbyists and special interest groups for money. It's rare politics attracts smart, saavy people like Bloomberg. He certainly is not doing it for the money.

*He has proposed making all taxi cabs in NYC hybrid by 2010, I think?

*He is on the "left" on many social issues- i.e. gay marriage, gun control, etc.

I know it breaks the heart of Mojo there is not a Sheehan / Chavez ticket for 08' but Bloomberg does seem appealing and has heck of a better chance at it than jokers like Ralph Nader who only ran to stroke his own ego.

The spin stops here.

I think that everybody agrees that Bloomberg will split the progressive vote and hand the election over to the GOP, who will go on to bomb Iran. I wonder why Bloomberg would do this?

I understand Mo's comment and strongly agree with FARTER's. In response to Mo, I have to say that Bloomberg really is quite a bit better than all of the current candidates. He does have enough money to run his campaign. And, despite the Forbes poll results is extremely intelligent and excellent at getting results. I don't think he's perfect. I don't like that he is pro-nuclear power. I don't like that he just waltzed in and bought the mayorship.

However, the other Democrats are all either pro-nuclear as well, or worse, pro-liquid coal. Also, as politicians go, there are far worse things to say about a candidate than that they bought their office with their own money. There are even some positive aspects of the financing issue, as FARTER pointed out.

So, while I understand Mo's comment, I have to take a wait and see attitude to try to gauge whether this is really the case or whether the man can actually just waltz in and buy the presidency as he did the mayorship. If this looks possible, I would vote for him over any of the other candidates thus far, though not over Gore.

That said, I have to comment on this Forbes poll. Is it just me or is everyone else pretty much used to polls having things like sample size and margin of error? Is it just me or did this particular poll also concentrate way too much on pure looks rather than real issues? Though I am predisposed to distrust polls, I have to say that this one is shockingly poorly done. Personally, I think a poll like the Forbes poll that is unwilling to give the real data behind the poll can be simply dismissed as the heaping steaming mound of dung that it is. Anyone have a different read on it?

It would seem to me that given the situation that the US is facing in the Middle East, Bloomberg is out before he begins—unless Happy Hanukkah from the White House is some new form of reaching out to the Muslim World about American sincerity and the desire for peace in the Middle East. Unless the US places a serious individual in the White House that is competent in international affairs, the US is going watch a meltdown internationally in a way that the French and the British did during the fifties or the Soviets at the end of the 80's the beginning of the 90's. That rules out the GOP completely and it limits the field of Democrats considerably. It's hard to believe that the US fails to see just how precarious their situation is really. Bush has one place in the world where he looks good—Albania and this is an indicator of how the US stands in relation to the world—Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City for crying out loud. He's a distraction not a candidate.

Merry Christmas from the White House is no different. It's not like we have an atheist in the running. Or, are you suggesting that the only way to appease the Muslim World is to elect a Muslim?

As for mayor of NYC, so was Rudy and he's making a fair go of it. He doesn't even have the support of NYC and he's doing well. He doesn't even have the support of the NYC Fire Departments and he's doing well.

I think Bloomberg, IF HE DECIDES TO RUN AT ALL, will be far more than a distraction. Unless Gore enters the race, he'll likely be our best option.

Yes, I realize how precarious our situation is. I think you may be missing just how precarious our situation is with respect to the environment.

Global thermonuclear war can kill us all, but someone would have to press a button. Climate change and other environmental catastrophes will cause global civilizational collapse and possibly human extinction if we take no action at all.

Vote for the environment.

"You know the two parties are still converging -- they don't even debate the military budget anymore," Nader said in a 30-minute interview. "I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties." Nader is a true progressive. I know that too many Jews don't like him because he is not a Zionist like Bloomberg.

Bloomberg's being Jewish is just as relevant as Mitt being Mormon, so we need to talk about the Zionists and AIPAC and the influence, if any, upon Bloomberg. The Jews contribute more than 60% of the money to the political parties and 87% vote democrat. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have the first Jewish president to show that America is not anti-Semitic.

Mayor Bloomberg has good boni fides with the expected groups, AUGUST 29, 2004 announcement: Mayor Bloomberg Speaks at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and United Jewish Communities (UJC) "Community Celebration" Event. He will make a good president representing Israel's interests.

My comments above toward Mr. Blomberg are meant to stand in relation to the world stage as it is today. This is no time to be romantics, to pretend that religion “shouldn't matter” when it does. I have no doubt about the high quality of Blomberg's character as an individual, and I endorse his idea of creating a political center together with Schwarzenegger. It is dearly needed in our country because we seem to be void of all diplomatic intelligence—though I am impressed by the great work of Christopher Hill and his team. I do not mean to say Bloomberg isn't without talent, but given the situation that our nation is in today he's just wrong guy for the job. We are at war in the Middle East, our partners are Arabs and our opponents are Arabs and on both of these Arab sides animosity towards Israel runs deep and is grounded in events that occurred at the conclusion of WWII with the creation of Israel—to say religion doesn't count is to deny reality. For me as an individual Bloomberg's religion is not significant but it isn't just the US where the president counts—his or hers significance extends beyond the US. As an American I could careless about one's religion just so long as it isn't Active Cannibal.

Still I have to laugh. We are clearly in an un-American age. Religion has become a hang up—our religion is democracy that is supposed to hold no religion higher than your rights as individuals—today they've been stolen by a fanatic. The difference between being Jewish and a Mormon might have domestic significance, but certainly not of the same magnitude as it will have in the Middle East. You know Jimmy Carter, who did everything he could to protect Israel has been called an anti-Semite recently because he described in full agreement with Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu the truth concerning Israel's policies toward the Palestinians as apartheid. From the time that Ariel Sharon came to power in Israel, his entire objective was the destruction of the PLO. He succeeded. Ironically in reaction to this hard-line oppression he empowered the militant Hamas—thus Sharon proved to be nothing more than a catalyst for the terrorist cause—igniting the wide spread use of the suicide bomber. And then after Sharon became ill, Olmert implemented Sharon's planned attack of Lebanon. While all of this occurred, the entire Palestinian population was systematically walled in, an entire people were put in prison and Bush did nothing. And in Lebanon where a war was carried out in a preemptive fashion with about approx. equivalent grounds as the American invasion of Iraq—for two kidnapped Israeli Soldiers Israel the entire infrastructure of Lebanon was leveled. Again Bush did nothing. He sat on his bony butt because he knew. It was planned. But Bush had said to the international community that he supported the democracy that had formed in Lebanon, so what he really signaled to the entire Arab world and beyond was what his conception of democracy means in terms of his New Speak dictionary—the American and Israeli right to use preemptive unilateral military force at will—the American public has also been preempted. Why don't you sign the following petition to win back habeas corpus and attempt to take the US into at least the Magna Carta age of justice from 1200. http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=Pk7TNsXMM6fmU2cYYVBffA..

I am sure Olmert is acutely aware of the stupidity of his blunder. He is apparently attempting to lend legitimacy to Abbas by means of Mubarak and Abdullah, perhaps the most positive “gestures” in the Middle East in 7 years. This though does force a clear polarity of power for Egypt—Mubarak's relationship towards Hamas defines his domestic policy towards the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, this will demand increased forms of oppression but force a question in regards to the US president; What stimuli might ignite insurrection in Egypt; where's the breaking point in terms of revolt—would for example the symbolism embodied in a Jewish American president be enough when rubbed in the face of fundamentalists to trigger revolt? I believe Saudi Arabia has similar fears, perhaps King Abdullah in Jordan. A Jewish president therefore divides our allies in the Middle East because it threatens their own internal politics, which weakens our ability to achieve our interests. How long will these countries be able to sit and wait for an outcome in terms of American-Israeli unilateral policy to iron things out—five years has simply worsened the situation and they are worried about our ability to lead, because we are incapable of leading because Israel determines too much our actions--our interests in the Middle East are different than Israels, it is that simple.

Still Israel's support of Abbas lacks credibility. Israel's sports yoyo diplomacy, they embrace the PLO, they destroy the PLO, then they opposed Hamas and now they are back to quasi hugs with the PLO, not confidence inspiring. Unfortunately for Israel a wake up call came during their sojourn into Lebanon—their military is no longer invincible. They were held to a stalemate by an inferiorly equipped ragtag army that has comprehended in a skillful manner the meaning of digging in. Still whether it is the out and out act of aggression by the US in Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Lebanon or the systematic destruction of what was once the PLO—the US and Israel find that all they have accomplished through the preemptive, distinctly American Internationalism of Bush is to widen the spread of chaos. They have used over a trillion bucks and have failed. There's nothing to show for it and in fact are on the defensive. The obvious fact is that they have considerably weakened the position of the US geopolitically. The rest of the world is being forced to decide—ain't it time to dumped the American bozos for more serious people? Bloomberg no matter what his politics are will be perceived by Arabs and Iranians as a mere extension of Bushism, but more critically as a direct extension of Israel. He represents, at least in my limited opinion, a dead end in the Middle East, at a time where the US cannot afford a new domestic media created president.

The US has done a lot of damage to the whole world in more subtle ways than Iraq, though it is a consequence of Iraq. By their direct act of aggression against Iraq they have forced the price of oil up from 25-28 dollars a barrel in 2001 to well over 60 dollars a barrel today. Therefore the world has seen their cost of energy skyrocket by 250%. The Republicans have taken a 90 billion dollar budget surplus and run it to over 300 billion dollars in debt where the prognosis for this year is said to be in the neighborhood of 423 billion. They have taken the balance of trade to a 67 billion dollar debt—if we go to war or increase tension with Iran this could easily force prices of oil up and the balance of trade will start looking like the budget deficit. We are in fact constrained in our actions by economic realities. The debt has forced the exchange rate of the dollar from 0.90 dollar to a Euro in 2001 to 1.34 dollar for Euro, an over 40 percent devaluation in the dollar. These actions are also forcing the world interest rate upwards though not yet dangerously but the real danger lies not now but some years in the future when the US pulls out of the war and the war economy crashes, where key economic variables like unemployment, inflation, interest rates, will turn into contradictory forces (no matter what the decision maker does its wrong) Thus the mismanagement of American foreign policy means the mismanagement of American monetary policy because Bush has destabilized the American currency in relation to all other currencies and consequently the US is not just worse than despised in economic terms they are irresponsibly criminal—because in essence the policy of Bush is a form of “taxation without representation”—everyone else's goods get 40% more expensive in relation to the US and everything produced by the US gets 40% cheaper—do the math. This fluctuation is the direct result of aggressive and criminal acts endorsed by the president while he offers social welfare for the American millionaire. It is in this kind of climate that I believe the religion of Bloomberg, as well as his general ignorance in international affairs would prove to be an aggravated negative. Our situation requires an experienced politician that comprehends the world arena. I myself like Hilary though I would have preferred Gore with Hilary as his side arm.

To me Bloomberg would wield little credibility—he would be “prejudged and framed throughout the Arab world as a member of the Jewish Lobby. It won't matter if it is true or not—he will be framed at a time where the USA cannot afford it—his religion does matter. Yet he would be walking into a hornets nest where he would be tested from day one and in a fashion where the object will be to dethrone the US, not just in the Middle East, but in each region of the world, to weaken the sphere of American influence because we have, to borrow a religious phrase “broken the covenant” between nation states and their sovereign rights—and therefore no one trusts us for the simple reason that there is no reason to trust us—we have proved to be irresponsible and led by the ideology of demonization, not pragmatism or realism. As I said above, to me Bloomberg is a distraction and represents a recipe for disaster and this was glimpse of my reasoning. Sorry that I'm so long winded.

Re Roberta's comments that electing Bloomberg would prove America is not anti- semitic is nonsense. AIPAC has done an incredible job of labeling anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies or US policies that are biased towards Israel as anti semitic. America is not anti semitic. Howard Dean when he called for "fairness" in Middle East policy was not anti semitic but he was treated as such despite being married to a Jew.
The vehemence of many American Jews -a consequence of the lasting emotional trauma of the holocust - in their defense of Israel and their inability to examine facts without emotion, in my judgement precludes any Jew with Zionist leanings from the Presidency. All one has to do is look at what Chenney's gang has done these past 7 years and their consequences. Ironically there is more freedom to challenge AIPAC policies in Israel than there is in the US.

G.P., Bush is a Christian Zionist. Too Many of the Evangelicals, like the late Jerry Falwell, are as Zionist as many Jews. Falwell got a jet plane as compensation from Menachem Begin. Unfortunately, AIPAC and some in Israel are taking advantage of these simple minded Evangelicals to the detriment of most Americans. Western Europe does not have this problem.

Bloomberg just has to sit tight and wait for the false flag operation to drag us into IRAN. Then he announces he is the "anti-war" candidate and instantly creates a party and brand that subracts from the democrats. The democrats will be caught flat footed between looking tough on enemies and preventing another fiasco and therefore will not appear tough enough for fight for America, the center or the left.

Johnny, Bloomberg is on the record for supporting action in Iran to help Israel, just like too many of the leading Democrats and GOP.

Zionists got us into this mess, why think about another one. he s an autocratic GUN GRABBER as well. This guy is a piece of crap, and he is loaded. Why would america want a rich guy to represent?

So, Mick Russom, just out of curiosity, which NON-Rich guy (or gal) are you backing next year?

Micky likes Ron Paul, like most people who use the Internet. Check out his blog gvc. gvc, how is the corn growing in Indiana? About harvest time?

GVC likes Ron Paul, too.
GVC's been contributing to his campaign.

I like www.opensecrets.org as a source on candidates, their finances and their contributors, and referenced the other day that of Ron's top contributing "companies" (contributing INDIVIDUALS employed by said companies) the US Navy, US Army and US Air Force are among the top 5.
That's an impressive statement for the lone GOP candidate who opposes using those same contributors in an occupation of Iraq, and no Dem candidate can boast anything approaching that either.

Corn's done well over most of Indiana this year, though scant rain has reduced, but not devestated yields in some areas.
Sweet corn's been in for a while, but the feed corn & what's going to be "ethanol" corn (the 'cash crop' variety, and the bulk of what we grow) will be getting harvested pretty soon.

Just as a heads-up for you folks who don't hear much in the way of farmer chatter: Government tinkering vis-a-vis the promotion of ethanol is driving the price of what would have been 'feed' corn through the roof, displacing other crops, like hay and beans which would otherwise have been grown here.
Food prices WILL be higher as a result.

Also, some farmers in the midwest are even creating new fields and devoting them to corn-for-ethanol production.
What used to be pastures and woodlots full of beautiful hardwoods are being plowed under to make room for high-paying 'ethanol' corn.
The money's just too good for some struggling family farms to resist, but don't you folks go off on "big-agri", over depleted woodlands, because they never keep much in the way of 'non-productive' acreage in the first place.

Once again, federal government didn't look at the full potential impact of those policies that they made sound Sooo good to the public when they were promoting them.

thanks