Sure, "quixotic third-party candidacy" has a nice ring to it, but . . .
Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced tonight that he is quitting the Republican party and changing his affiliation to independent.Assuming that Bloomberg decides to enter the presidential race with the goal of winning, I can't see why it would make more sense for him to run as an independent than as a Democrat. Is there some Byzantine setup in place that would exclude him, at this still-early date, from critical party caucuses and primaries? Because, otherwise, why not just flip all the way back to being a Democrat, spin whatever forgotten-in-a-week narrative is necessary to fix yourself in the popular mind as a legitimate Democrat, and drive on?
The announcement came after Mr. Bloomberg gave a speech denouncing partisan gridlock in Washington, stirring renewed speculation that he is preparing to run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2008. - New York Times, June 19, 2007
It would be a long shot any way you sliced it, so why not an approach (running as a Democrat) that has occasionally borne fruit in American political history, instead of being the latest quixotic third-party candidate to go nowhere?
Labels: 2008 presidential campaign, rhetorical questions: the lazy blogger's pal
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home