Yeah, I pretty much agree with what's said here. Bloomberg doesn't really have any compelling reason to run, and the bipartisan fetishists don't seem to realise that bipartisanship doesn't stand a chance of working if the two parties' positions are fundamentally incompatible. But since the public favors the Democratic position on virtually every issue (or may be to the right of what the public wants), it's clear that what the Democratic party needs to do is to include more GOP position stances in its agenda. I just can't wait until all these Broderism-spouting jackasses are dead so that we don't have to hear from them anymore.
Then again, there is one way to increase bipartisanship that I can think of--people actually voting for the Democratic politicians of whose solutions they claim to support. A decade of entrenched and popular Democratic rule would force the GOP to move back to the center, thus fashioning a new bipartisan consensus. But no, that sounds a little too much like politics to me. Must fashion a dreamland in which everyone gets along and is happy. I'm not sure when D.C. elites' dreams started sounding more like the board game Candy Land, and yet that's what's happened.
There is one wrinkle to this issue that I find interesting. People wonder if Bloomberg would help the Dems or the GOP, and I'm not entirely sure. I do think that the Democrats would be able to neutralize the criticism of being "nanny-staters" by just pointing to the many things that "Republican" Bloomberg did as Mayor of NYC. Then they can point out his affection for Bush and his cheerleading for the war. Bloomberg does not stand a chance, and I'm getting sick and goddam tired of hearing the self-loathing liberals in the media touting his liberalism-that-dare-not-speak-its-name agenda every couple of months. This ISN'T news. If he announces, it's news. Until he does, just shut up. That is all.
