Michael Bloomberg Calls for National Carbon Tax–Is There a Meaning to Him Speaking On National Issues?

Michael Bloomberg has spoken in favor of a national carbon tax, raising the question of whether he remains interested in running for president as an independent.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg plans today to announce his support for a national carbon tax. In what his aides are calling one of the most significant policy addresses of his second and final term, the mayor will argue that directly taxing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change will slow global warming, promote economic growth and stimulate technological innovation — even if it results in higher gasoline prices in the short term…

In calling for a carbon tax, Mr. Bloomberg is again speaking out on national issues, as he has on gun control and public health matters like smoking and obesity. The mayor, who was elected in 2001, left the Republican Party in June of this year and declared himself a political independent, fueling speculation that he might run for president. While the presidential talk has simmered down lately, today’s environmental address could revive it…

The idea of a carbon tax has slowly been gaining support, not only among scholars and environmentalists, but also in an unlikely quarter: business groups and even the companies that emit carbon dioxide and would be the most directly affected. Earlier this year, several businessmen formed the Carbon Tax Center to argue for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Under that proposal, the revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the deficit or to finance cuts in income taxes or the alternative minimum tax.

Most economists consider a carbon tax a more effective instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the other major policy alternative, a cap-and-trade system that would require plant-by-plant emission measurements and could prompt companies to cheat. Mr. Bloomberg’s staff cited research by Gilbert E. Metcalf, a Tufts University economist who is on leave to work with the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Kenneth P. Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in support of that argument.

Bloomberg might simply desire to speak on national issues, or he might be speaking on such issues to demonstrate knowledge of national issues should he decide to run. With neither party representing the views of a large number of voters there continues to be interest in an independent run by Bloomberg, but with his reputation for backing “nanny state” policies I’m not yet certain if he’d be any better than the Democratic candidates.

The full text of Bloomberg’s speech follows under the fold. (more…)

Republicans Should Beware of What They Wish For if Bloomberg Runs

The Washington Times reports that many Republicans hope Michael Bloomberg will run for president as an independent as it would improve their chances at winning by dividing the Democratic vote.

“Ideologically, Bloomberg is much more aligned with the Democrat base than with Republicans,” says Republican direct-mail fundraiser Richard Norman. “The more effective his campaign, the more he spends, the more he hurts the presumptive Democrat nominee, Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton.”
A political operative close to the mayor’s operation says New York Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheeky and some top Bloomberg advisers are urging the billionaire mayor to make a bid for the presidency in 2008. Mr. Bloomberg repeatedly has said he will not do so.
“It’s about 50-50 that Michael will go for it, and if he does I think it would probably help Republicans,” says David Norcross, a friend of the New York mayor and chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Rules Committee

This might help the Republicans, but there is also the danger that they might regret hoping for Bloomberg to run. A lot will depend upon how the campaign plays out and who gets each party’s nomination. If John Edwards wins the Democratic nomination, a Bloomberg candidacy would probably draw off enough votes from affluent Democrats who object to Edwards’ populist campaign based upon class warfare and junk economics to give the Republicans a victory. Obama and Richardson would have a far better chance of holding together a wide based Democratic coalition, and how Hillary would do in a general election campaign remains difficult to predict.

The effect of a Bloomberg candidacy would differ in different parts of the country and among different types of voters. As suggested above, Bloomberg could attract the votes of some of the new Democratic voters who gave them their victory in 2006. Bloomberg could also cost the Republicans some votes. There are many Republican businessmen who do not support the social policies of the Republicans and are seeing that the war was a mistake. Some are voting Democratic, but there are many long time Republican voters who only see the Democrats as a threat to tax them more and are unlikely to vote Democratic under any situation. A socially moderate businessman such as Bloomberg could be attractive to many of these voters.

Ultimately it might make sense for Republicans to hope for anything which might shake up the race since, as things stand now, it appears that a Republican will have a hard time winning in 2008.

Arnold Schwarzenegger Advises Republicans to Capture the Center, Would Welcome Run by Bloomberg

Arnold Schwarzenegger has advised the Republicans to attempt to capture the center. The Financial Times reports:

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, has urged Republican presidential candidates to capture the political centre ground ahead of next year’s election by focusing on healthcare reform and education.

As the campaign has unfolded, leading candidates have drifted to the right to win support from social conservatives.

But in an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Schwarzenegger said the party’s candidates were “missing out on something” because televised debates had been dominated by questions about gay marriage, abortion and immigration.

Mr Schwarzenegger said candidates should challenge the questions they were asked in the debates. “Someone has to say: ‘We’ve talked enough about immigration, now I want to talk about healthcare reform’.” The candidates had to “move the agenda”, he said.

Shifting the debates to centre-ground topics would be a positive move, he added. “Being somewhat in the centre . . . is not a detriment. If you sell [your ideas] well and if you explain it well, that’s what leadership is all about, bringing people along.”

Schwarzenegger is right that the Republicans need to move back towards the center, but there are a couple of problems with the approach he recommended. Republicans cannot capture the center by talking about issues such as health care because they have no meaningful plans. The health care crisis cannot be solved by screaming that every meaningful proposal represents “socialized medicine” and then offering counter proposals which  would often worsen the situation.

The Republicans also cannot win the center by simply trying to shift the discussion away from their far right wing views on social issues as these are the among the  positions which have caused the Republicans to lose the center. Other issues which were not mentioned such as Iraq will also prevent the Republicans from being a viable option for many centrist voters.

Schwarzenegger also expressed interest in Michael Bloomberg:

He said he would welcome a presidential bid from Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, who is considering standing as an independent candidate in next year’s election.

Mr Bloomberg was a “miracle worker” who transcended party lines in running New York, a Democrat party stronghold, Mr Schwarzenegger said.

Bloomberg Still Flirting With Third Party Run; Hagel Criticizing Republicans

Earlier in the year there was speculation that Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel might run for President and Vice President as independents in 2008. Recent comments from them appear to leave the door open a crack. The New York Daily News reports:

An hour before meeting President Bush yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg shamelessly flirted with the idea of taking his job.

The mayor denied he wants to run for President – but didn’t deny he’d like to be President. He gave his blessing to a longtime supporter’s push to create a third party.

And with just slight provocation from reporters, he launched into a nearly 2-1/2-minute discussion of what’s wrong with America and what kind of leader could get the country back on track.

“People always ask me, am I running? That’s not the right question. The real question is, what skills should the person who leads this country have?” Bloomberg said.

“We have intractable problems which are coming closer to biting us: the cost of health care; the cost of Social Security; fighting terrorism; immigration; tax policy. All of these are issues that Congress has been unwilling to face, and we are running out of time to face them.”

Bloomberg ally Frank MacKay, chairman of the state Independence Party, is trying to start a national third party – and has told the Daily News he’s in regular touch with Bloomberg’s people.

“I wish them well,” the mayor said. “I’ve always said, the more choice, the better. I don’t know why you have to have two parties.”

Meanwhile Chuck Hagel is sounding more and more like an independent such as in this comment on closing Guatanamo:

“It’s a Republican litmus test this year,” complained Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, one of the few GOP lawmakers calling for the swift closure of Guantanamo.

“The Republican Party has won two elections on the issue of fear and terrorism,” Hagel said. “[It’s] going to try again.”

David Broder Continues to Push a Bloomberg-Hagel Ticket

David Broder apparently doesn’t believe Michael Bloomberg’s denial of plans to run for president, and realistically it is possible he could change his mind should he believe he has a chance to win after seeing the nominees of the major parties. Broder brings up once again the idea of Bloomberg running with Chuck Hagel as running mate.

Should Bloomberg run I could see him picking Hagel to balance the ticket with someone with his experience, but I’m not sure why anyone would actually push for such a ticket. The two have such diverse views that calling for such a ticket is more an act in support of a third party for the sake of a third party as opposed to fill a specific need. This is also my objection to the Unity ’08 measure. Should I be unhappy with the candidates from the two major parties and should Unity offer a better alternative I might consider voting for them. However I see no advantage at present in backing an organization which plans to choose candidates but has no clear policies which it plans to advocate.

As I discussed after Bloomberg’s interview on HDNet, there may still be a need for an alternative viewpoint to be represented regardless of whether Bloomberg decides to run. I’m not certain if Bloomberg would be a satisfactory alternative without a closer look at his record and views, but if there should be a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket I’d decide primarily based upon the top of the ticket. I am concerned about Bloomberg’s reputation as a supporter of the nanny state, but also recognize that more regulation is inevitable in a densly populated area such as New York City as opposed to somewhere like Montana. It also appears that in choosing between candidates in 2008 it will be necessary to vote for someone who I do not agree with on all issues and will have to weigh the importance of areas of agreement and disagreement.

Broder considers the forces changing American politics:

So it really comes down to a question of the strength of those tidal forces moving out there in American politics. Hagel’s sense, reinforced by a recent trip to California, where Gov.Arnold Schwarzenegger is providing a demonstration of the powerful appeal of “post-partisan” politics, is that “the tide is really moving fast.”

It is not so certain that we are really entering a new “post-partisan’ era. Schwarzenegger won under unusualy circumstances and probably could not have won a Republican primary for Governor in a normal election. The Republicans have greatly increased the level of partisanship in politics since they took control of Congress, which intensified with the election of George W. Bush. Voters might reject partisanship, or they might just reject the Republicans unless they change their ways.

The internet does create a unique situation where a candidate could organize and get out their message more easily in the past without the traditional party machinery. It remains doubtful that the internet can substitute for organized grass roots politics. If the internet was all powerful, Barack Obama and Ron Paul would be the leading contenders for their party’s nomination, and Howard Dean would currently be president. Perhaps a well financed third party could win in a general election where advertising and mass mailings become more important than the retail politics of Iowa and New Hampshire. If a third party requires that the campaign be self-financed as in Bloomberg’s case, this would represent more of a fluke than a real changing tide in politics.

 

Bloomberg Says He Will Not Run But Pressures For Alternative Remain

Maybe its because everything looks more real on high definition, but Michael Bloomberg’s statement that he doesn’t plan to run certainly sounded like he meant it when he was interviewed by Dan Rather on HDNet Tuesday night. For those who do not receive HDNet, Reuters provides a summary. I always suspected Bloomberg would not run because of not wanting to spend his money on a campaign he probably could not win. Hearing Bloomberg cite his belief that “Nobody’s going to elect me president of the United States” provides a convincing argument that he does not plan to run.

Ask me next January or February, after we have the nominees from the major political parties, whether Bloomberg’s decision is a good or bad thing.

In 2004 there was little talk of third party candidates as most people were either determined to attempt to throw Bush out of office or to reelect the person whey were conned into thinking was keeping them safe from terrorism. At this point in the election cycle, without a candidate as polarizing as George Bush, there is far more talk of third parties than in a typical election.

When there isn’t talk of individuals such as Bloomberg, Unity 08 has dominated much of the consideration of third party bids. Unity 08 looks like a backwards idea based upon choosing a candidate from each party for President and Vice President. The problem is that until they have such nominees there is no ideology for the party. A pair of from each party could turn out to be better or worse than the actual candidates of the two parties.

For a third party movement to make sense there must be ideas behind it which are not adequately represented by the major parties. If the party has the right ideas it could then seek out candidates, with current party affiliation not being crucial.

It appears to be a safe bet that the Republican nominee will be from the far right. Whether there is a need for a third party will therefore depend more upon what the Democrats do. In recent years, culminating in 2006, there has been an increase in support for Democrats among college educated professionals, small businessmen, and suburbanites. It was easy to find common cause with more traditional Democratic voters in opposing the war and the social conservative policies of the Republicans. It will be harder for these groups to agree upon policies once the Democrats are governing.

Of the candidates currently seeking the Democratic nomination, so far only Barack Obama and Bill Richardson have shown an ability to unite both traditional Democratic voters, new Democratic voters, and independents. It remains unclear as to whether Hillary Clinton can accomplish this. Beyond his fellow trial lawyers, few educated professionals or others who have achieved success will accept John Edwards-style populism. If that had been possible, the Edwards have burned that bridge with the exclusionary nature of their campaign rhetoric.

Should the Edwards campaign recover from its recent melt down and win, a large number of independents and new Democratic voters may not have an acceptable choice, leaving the possibility for attempting to develop a new political party. Running a third party candidate would only make sense if the ultimate goal is the development of a new political party considering the low likelihood of success in 2008. It was never clear that Michael Bloomberg, with his reputation for supporting the nanny state, ever was the best candidate for such a third party. The forces which drove consideration of Bloomberg persist regardless of whether Bloomberg himself is a candidate.

The two party system requires that divergent groups be able to unite despite their differences. The Perot vote, as well as the amount of talk of a third party bid in 2008, are manifestations of the inability of either party to satisfy a significant number of voters. In recent years many of us independents saw no alternative but to support the Democrats after the Republicans moved to the extreme right. The question now is whether the Democrats can keep the divergent groups who voted for them in 2006 satisfied or if we will see a major third party candidacy.

Huckabee Given Chance to Compete Following Iowa Straw Poll

My initial impression to the news of the Iowa straw poll results was that it was a victory for Mike Huckabee, an insufficient victory for Mitt Romney, and a serious loss for Ron Paul’s supporters who believe the campaign’s goal is victory as opposed to spreading a message. Other bloggers have shared this view that Mike Huckabee, as opposed to Mitt Romney, may have come out of the straw poll with the victory.

TNR writes:

Whatever the case, it’s hard to overstate the significance of Huckabee’s performance here. Combined, Huckabee and Brownback–the field’s two leading social conservatives–outpolled Mitt Romney today 33 to 31.5. If, as the results suggest, Huckabee emerges as the lone standard bearer for this group, he’ll probably end up with a block of support to rival Romney’s. (Most “Brownbackers” I spoke to would feel extremely comfortable throwing their support behind the Arkansan.) But, of course, just combining Brownback’s and Huckabee’s numbers actually way understates Huckabee’s potential ceiling. For one thing, he’s come this far running on fumes. It will be interesting to see what he can do with the fundraising boost he’ll enjoy after today. On top of that, there seem to be a lot of social conservatives currently supporting Romney because he’s running as the most conservative of the top-tier candidates. Now that Huckabee has demonstrated his viability, it’s not hard to imagine him peeling off a decent number of Romney’s conservative backers.

A final thought: The political press is absolutely head over heels for Huckabee. (There were high-fives all around when it became clear he’d finish second.) He’s a genuinely endearing guy who can banter with the best of them–watching him with reporters brings to mind the old black and white footage of Babe Ruth jawboning with sportswriters. When you add that to the political media’s general affinity for underdogs, you can see how Huckabee’s about to enjoy some serious media afterglow, which will only further boost his profile. With Romney suddenly vulnerable among conservatives and McCain and Giuliani both languishing here–last Sunday’s Washington Post poll had McCain at 8 percent and Giuliani at 14, compared with Romney’s 26–you may well have just met your 2008 Iowa caucus winner.

Captain Ed writes:

Mike Huckabee showed surprising strength in Iowa. Despite not buying any advertising at all in the state, he managed to capture more than half of Romney’s total simply by his appearance at Ames. Huckabee was the most likely second-place finisher in Iowa anyway, simply because of the roster of the people who took the time to appear — but his strength, and the relative strength of the nonentities that have been Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo in this primary campaign show a real problem for Romney in Iowa.

Romney had the opportunity to bury the rest of the field in Iowa. Not only did all three people ahead of him in the national polls bow out for various reasons, but Romney has owned the airwaves in Iowa. Given the low national polling numbers for the GOP second tier — they score roughly 22% combined, if No Opinion gets included — Romney should have at least won somewhere upwards of 40% in Ames, and probably a majority.

The Debate Link writes:

What took many people by surprise (all but the most insightful political observers) was a strong second place showing by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. With his “back against the wall”, Huckabee received a healthy 18% of the vote, well behind Mitt Romney’s total, but also comfortably ahead of third-place finisher and bitter rival Senator Sam Brownback (KS). More importantly, Huckabee achieved his total without the benefits of a huge Iowa operation, all the more impressive when his main competition for the social conservative bloc, Brownback, was heavily invested in Iowa and apparently had 60-100 buses shipping in volunteers from all across the state.

So what’s the overall effect? Well, Huckabee is in a really strong position. I mean, really strong. The primary barrier to his campaign was a lack of money and the perception that he was getting no traction. Well, guess what: he just got the latter, and I suspect the former will follow. Once he’s established as a real player, a whole mess of the support from the social conservative base of the party are natural targets to be poached by his campaign. Does anybody think they’re seriously happy with Romney, Thompson, McCain, or (shudder) Giuliani? Huckabee is the evangelicals’ choice candidate now, and I suspect he’s ready to start converting folks.

Boorman Tribune points out many of Huckabee’s far right positions. However this could be said about all the Republican candidates, including maverick Ron Paul who opposes abortion rights and does not believe that separation of church and state was one of the principles held by the Founding Fathers and an intention of the First Amendment. When compared to the other far right candidates, sometimes he appears to be the most rational Republican running, such as when talking about school prayer. The attack ads from the Club For Growth show that he sometimes varies from Republican orthodoxy on economic issues. However I did lose some confidence in him when he expressed his disbelief in evolution.

The question now is whether Huckabee can capitalize on this victory. His will only have a meaningful victory if his second place finish leads to a significant increase in contributions to his campaign and increased media coverage. He remains a long shot, but there is plenty of time if this allows him become competitive with the first tier candidates in fund raising, considering how soft the support for the top tier candidates is.

Bloomberg Charges Neither Party Stands for Anything

Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated why he became an independent by blasting both parties for not standing for anything:

Bloomberg, who left the GOP and is asked almost daily about running for president, said Wednesday that neither the Republican nor Democratic Party “stands for anything.”

“There isn’t any philosophy” for either party, he said after a speech on improving public schools.

Bloomberg has repeatedly expressed frustration with Congress, saying lawmakers favor partisanship over progress and have failed to deal with immigration, health care or education.

“Party discipline requires you to make decisions based on what’s good for the party rather than what the merits are of the piece of legislation before you,” he said.

There certainly is some truth in what he says, but if Bloomberg is really planning to run for President I’d also like a better idea of exactly what he stands for. Of course, for the moment, Bloomberg states he does not plan to run.

It Looks Increasingly Like Third Parties May Influence Outcome in 2008

Third party talk remains big today, with Michael Bloomberg joined by another name–Ralph Nader. Bloomberg denies plans to run, but The New York Times reports that he’s had staffers working behind the scenes for two years.First Read reports that Bloomberg has even met with Nancy Reagan. The Politico wonders how a marriage between Bloomberg and Unity ’08 would work.

The Politico also reports that Ralph Nader is considering a run. After all we’ve been through since 2000, he still claims there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Chris Lehane responds to Nader’s criticism:

Chris Lehane, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House and Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, said of a possible Nader candidacy: “His entry into the race, even to those who voted for him in 2000, would be just another vainglorious effort to promote himself at the expense of the best interests of the public. Ralph Nader is unsafe in any election.”

As was clear by 2004, Nader has no chance to win, and he has little impact on the positions of either party. As Steve Benen sums it up, “Nader appears anxious to run yet again — he just doesn’t seem to know why.” Bloomberg remains a long shot, but some people such as John Zogby believe he really does have a shot:

It comes down to good timing, really. After more than a decade of harsh wrangling, likely voters tell me they are tired of the vicious partisanship. In a national telephone poll last month, 80% said it was “very important” that the next President be a person who can unite the country, and 82% said the same about the need for a competent manager. Bloomberg wins on both counts.

Zogby also believes that Bloomberg might hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans:

An important side note: Contrary to conventional wisdom, my polling shows he would likely take more votes from the Democrat than the Republican. Those who consider themselves part of that growing “moderate” political class are 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans, and 38% independents.

John Edwards, Class Warfare, and Michael Bloomberg

If we can rely on The Politico, it sounds like Edwards plans to return to class warfare. His “two Americas” theme will appeal to some but alienate many more. It might work in the primaries, if his target voters can forget his mansion and $400 haircuts. Perhaps that is all that will be needed following Bush. This certainly will not help the Democrats keep the support of the moderates and “Starbucks Republicans” who supported them in 2006.

If I was Michael Bloomberg, I would be very happy to see this development, and would root for Edwards to win the Democratic nomination. On the other hand, Edwards might see the possibility of Bloomberg entering the race as allowing him to attempt this strategy.

I have a difficult time seeing how Bloomberg could win enough states to win in the electoral college, but the possible entry of Bloomberg in the race could have a major impact which might help Edwards. While Edwards would have a tough time with many of those moderate voters in any event, Bloomberg might take those votes and keep them from returning to the Republicans, allowing Edwards to achieve a plurality.

The Politico also reports that, “Edwards is trying to cast himself as the candidate of substance, with the most specific plans on health care, energy and Iraq.” Presenting plans written by others might create the illusion, but does not represent true substance. True substance might come from the experience of working on the details of legislation or governing. Edwards’ dabbling in politics does not count for much.