Ace of Spades HQ

December 30, 2007

Group Of Has-been Politicians Meet To Call Attention To The Need For Bi-Partisanship And Themselves. Well, Mostly Themselves.
— DrewM.

A group of self-appointed grandees is going to get together to whine about how partisanship is ruining America. Naturally, they think if people would stop fighting for what they believe in and listen to these super cereal geniuses, everything will be so much better!

If there is ever going to be a hall of fame for Annoying Politicians Who Think They Are Smarter Than Everyone Else But Who Nobody Listens To, this will be the inaugural class of inductees.

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.
Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.

Ah yes, the siren song of ending gridlock. Why dont these fools realize that gridlock is a feature not a bug of the American system? Oh yeah, because gridlock prevents them from sticking the fingers further into areas they and the government have no business being in the first place.

What this all comes down to is a bunch of politicians who cant command any support from within their respective parties, so they will simply resort to complaining about the system and telling each other about how they are too good and pure to actually engage in a battle of ideas.

The best thing that could come out of this is Bloomberg will have so much smoke blown up his ass about how only he can save America that hell actually run for President. Considering hes a Northeastern, big government, nanny-state liberal, hell likely hurt the Democrat nominee far more than the Republican.

Posted by: DrewM. at 01:29 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Sorry DrewM, but we need to create a new amendment to the AoSHQ Constitution prohibiting the use of the "but mostly" clause to everything except when dealing with goat-raping, boy-pedophiling, crippled kid bomb-using, average joe-beheading, martyr-by-surrendering islamist.

Posted by: TheEJS at December 30, 2007 01:34 PM (JyC8j)

2 TheEJS,

That's a good point. I didn't even realize I was doing it.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 30, 2007 01:36 PM (hlYel)

Well, when it comes to the "Republicans" on that list, I know first hand how Danforth has been trying to disrupt the conservative movement in MO. He and his family, who had a zillion dollar stake in Washington University in St. Louis and the grant/research money that would come from it, were vocal supporters of the stem cell ballot initiative in 2006. Danforth has also been a vocal critic of the growing rigtward tilt of the party.

As for Hagel, what else can I add? Whitman? She was good for beating Florio, but she was a knife in the back of her boss when she was in Bush's Cabinet.

And Brock? Who is he?

Posted by: eddiebear at December 30, 2007 01:37 PM (BVi3+)

4 People who actually believe in anything are so pesky!

Posted by: ricpic at December 30, 2007 01:46 PM (tJMnS)

5 The repubs on the list were has-beens when they were still in office. As retired, or whatever the hell it is they are now, ex-politicians they have ZERO import to anyone. Period.

Let them meet and tell each other how now is the time to fix Washington, and Bloomie is the one to lead their merry troupe around the DC-New York corridor. And just watch how people will laugh and point at them as they pass by. Please please please Santa, convince Bloomie to run. It will so guarantee a Republican in the White House.

Posted by: Ken at December 30, 2007 01:50 PM (55ymE)

Considering he’s a Northeastern, big government, nanny-state liberal, he’ll likely hurt the Democrat nominee far more than the Republican.

I can only assume you mean mike huckabee.

right?

oh well.

Posted by: jdub at December 30, 2007 01:50 PM (XNRdS)

7 Why don’t these fools realize that gridlock is feature not a bug of the American system?

Preach on, Brother!

Posted by: Farmer Joe at December 30, 2007 01:54 PM (gDNGv)

8 I do enjoy pointing out that Mark Foley was a member of Christie Wittman's main street coalition of liberal Republicans.

Posted by: V the K at December 30, 2007 01:56 PM (/0sRQ)

9 Bloomberg isn't an idiot. He's a "Republican" only because he couldn't win the Democratic primary in NYC. Which is larded up with pathetic city council members.

And the Republican party in NY, state and city, is a huge joke. Blah. Just want to slap the lot of them. I know Pataki did nothing for the party here, and now I'm thinking through Rudy's effect, which I believe was also nil. What the hell is wrong with these guys?

Posted by: meep at December 30, 2007 01:57 PM (7uTCa)

10 Part two: who really likes Bloomberg? Seriously?

I can see liking him more than Huckabee or Hillary, but come on.

The only reason it was Bloomberg who got elected is that no sane person would elect anybody who has served on the NYC council. And that's what you're going to get from the Dems. Nobody wants Dinkins redux.

Posted by: meep at December 30, 2007 02:08 PM (7uTCa)

11 I understand that Edwards is a big supporter of bi parties. Maybe they can get him involved after his campaign finally craters.

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at December 30, 2007 02:40 PM (NdG3x)

12 Lowell Weicker must be pissed.

Posted by: Tom M at December 30, 2007 02:41 PM (Cycyn)

13 Is Arlen Specter funding this?? Oh, wait. Arlen is m-u-c-h too busy tossing Leahy's salad to be working on this.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at December 30, 2007 03:27 PM (p0Yi7)

And the Republican party in NY, state and city, is a huge joke. Blah. Just want to slap the lot of them. I know Pataki did nothing for the party here, and now I'm thinking through Rudy's effect, which I believe was also nil. What the hell is wrong with these guys?

It's pretty much the same in NJ. It's a one party state - what's called the Republican Party here, aside from Chris Smith, is effectively just useless liberal placeholders erected by the Democrats and the mafia to prevent anyone with a brain from opposing them. These faux Republicans are completely complicit in keeping the state in perpetual Democratic control.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at December 30, 2007 03:35 PM (/FDfc)

You have to remember that most of these folks, such as Hagel, do not really have any core belief other than holding public office. That plus TV face-time and fawning MSM coverage are what they really live for. That's what this silly little group-hug event is really designed to accomplish.

Posted by: canuk at December 30, 2007 03:42 PM (vPj5M)

16 You just hit on one of the most annoying characteristics of many politicians. They think they are smarter than everybody else. Most politicians could not carry water for most of the people I know.

Posted by: Harry at December 30, 2007 03:44 PM (6VPHl)

17 Good God, what a concatenation of has-beens!

As for Bloomberg, normally I'd dismiss him with a wave of the hand - except that he happens to be a billionaire, which means that he can spend enormous amounts of money attracting votes to himself. Obviously, he can't win, but he can hurt somebody. The question is, who would be more open to his message - Democrats or Republicans?

Posted by: Brown Line at December 30, 2007 04:11 PM (OJ6qn)

spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.

Oh dear God no.

Posted by: Giant Bolivian Rat at December 30, 2007 04:57 PM (/XDWj)

19 For all of Bloomberg's onerous nannyism he's also very tough on crime. Giving strong backing to his Police Commisioner, Ray Kelly, he has held crime at lower levels than Giuliani, no slouch in this department, was able to achieve. He's also been strong on developing new parks, an important liveability factor for New Yorkers; and his rezoning initiatives have literally brought once dead neighborhoods back to life. He's a strong executive.

Posted by: ricpic at December 30, 2007 05:00 PM (tJMnS)

20 "For all of Bloomberg's onerous nannyism he's also very tough on crime." -- ricpic @ 19 above
--OR--
"For all of Rosie's onerous heft, she's also very nice to puppies."
"For all of Mussolini's onerous murdering, he did make the trains run on time."
"For all of Mao's onerous killing, he did create a great slogan or two."

I hope you get my point.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at December 30, 2007 05:09 PM (fDEB4)

21 We need less partisanship when it comes to winning the war. Yet that's where we have the most, at least in D.C..

Elsewhere, we need more partisanship, not less. Because that means you have a choice. Leave the Tweedle-Dee/Tweedle-Dum parties to Europe, where the citizenry is not trusted to make any important decisions.

Posted by: Noel at December 30, 2007 05:17 PM (Hiy8f)

22 Why would these f-tards band together to support Bloomberg when they could go the Lieberman route and throw their support behind the equall worthless McCain?

Posted by: burnitup at December 30, 2007 05:24 PM (/v6Id)

"That's what this silly little group-hug even..."

What will really occur is a nonpartisan circle jerk, bukakke fest for Bloomberg.

Posted by: cranky at December 30, 2007 05:35 PM (7rKVk)

24 Topic drift:

Peter Robinson has posted a powerful comment on Fred Thompson's "closing argument". It is titled "Thompson Makes His Move"

Robinson finishes with:

This is reminiscent of Reagan’s talk to the people of North Carolina in
1976. Simple, straightforward, modest production values—just the
candidate in front of an American flag and an Iowa flag—but (to use the
word again) compelling. Reagan’s 1976 talk enabled him to recover
after a string of primary defeats, winning in North Carolina, then
going on to come within a handful of delegates of wresting the
nomination from Ford. Will Thompson’s talk move voters in Iowa? Does
his campaign have the money to get it on the air? Throughout the
state? Or even in a few of the most important markets? Beats me. But
we have here a serious man, making a serious case—and doing so in the
context of a campaign that has otherwise descended into mere
caterwauling.

Even at this late hour, I wouldn’t count Fred out.

For those that don't know, Peter Robinson was a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, and he was the principal author of the 1987 "Tear Down This Wall" address.

Posted by: mrp at December 30, 2007 06:10 PM (HjPtV)

25 What will really occur is a nonpartisan circle jerk, bukakke fest for Bloomberg.

Hey cranky--do you get off on making people puke?

Posted by: Tinian at December 30, 2007 07:08 PM (1Mq7K)

26 Are they combining forces with The Elders?

Posted by: eman at December 30, 2007 09:22 PM (8iSfZ)

27 DVD Burner for Mac,DVD Converter Mac,DVD Creator for Mac,DVD Ripper for Mac,Mac DVD Ripper

Posted by: cvcxvcv at January 20, 2009 03:13 PM (EM0QA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment