Bloomberg 101

Marketwatch: Everything You Need To Know About NYC Mayor And Possible Presidential Candidate

(MarketWatch)  No doubt, political reporters in Washington and elsewhere have read the big stories in Time and New York magazines, among others, about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Despite the heavy coverage Mayor Mike has been receiving for announcing his exit from the Republican Party, I have a sneaky feeling that the national media don't understand my old boss. (I worked in close proximity to Mike Bloomberg for his Bloomberg News from 1993 to 1999, before resigning to join MarketWatch.)

To help Beltway journalists and others who may want to know the inside story, I offer my version of Bloomberg 101, what every political maven needs to know:

Sure, Bloomberg hasn't declared himself as a presidential candidate — yet. But I'm reasonably sure he will. He lives for the big stage and loves to beat the odds. He did it in the early 1980s when he left Salomon Brothers with about $13 million in his pocket to launch Bloomberg L.P., an information company for Wall Street traders and other professionals. He then expanded it and added an ambitious news-gathering operation.

It could be argued that one reason that Reuters Group and Thomson Corp. decided they would merge several weeks ago was to crush Bloomberg, their chief rival.

Know this about Bloomberg: He is the smartest guy you're likely to meet. He is profoundly goal-oriented and has a habit of thinking ahead of everyone else.

Even if Bloomberg couldn't win the 2008 election, he'd have a reason for entering the race. Maybe he would want to advance a political issue or put his name out there for the future, or otherwise enhance the value of his company, already worth many billions of dollars.

Mike Bloomberg himself is a billionaire many times over. If he decided to auction his business, he's probably wind up with a net worth in the neighborhood of $15 billion to 20 billion.

I imagine that Bloomberg will bide his time and announce he's running for president later this year. He'll count on a "rope-a-dope" strategy, letting the other candidates burn themselves out on the stump and wear out their welcome with the media and voters. When everyone gets tired with the roster of contenders, Bloomberg will make his move. Timing is everything with him.

So here's my Bloomberg 101: Why will Bloomberg run? He loves beating other folks at their game. I can imagine how much satisfaction Mike must be getting from receiving more publicity lately than his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. The former mayor couldn't have been happy when Bloomberg recently left the Republican Party, because Mike's standing as an independent candidate could eventually threaten Giuliani's chances.

Why is Bloomberg in politics? Conspiracy theorist that I am, I always figured Mike was influenced by "City Hall," the 1996 movie with Al Pacino as a short, brilliant, brassy, ethnic mayor. (Hello, Mike!) Check out the movie sometime.

It may not be easy for reporters to get a lot of "dirt" on Bloomberg. He has a knack for building a super-loyal staff. Sure, Bloomberg paid above-average salaries, but people rallied around him because he created a winning atmosphere and he cared about his employees.

Bloomberg has a short fuse but really means no harm. He will, on occasion, call out a reporter for asking a less-than-intelligent question.

If you're lucky, Bloomberg will favor you with a raunchy joke now and then. When he ran his company, he got a kick out of saying stuff you'd hear in a locker room or on a Wall Street trading desk.

The endearing joke about Bloomberg at one time was that he'd "think Yiddish and dress British." He was regarded as such an Anglophile that people thought his chief goal was someday to be named U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom (or the Court of St. James, as it was once known).

At the recent Time 100 dinner, Medford, Mass., native Bloomberg cited Arnold "Red" Auerbach, the legendary visionary behind the Boston Celtics' championships, as one of his heroes. I've heard that his favorite actresses include, Cybill Shepherd and Sharon Stone. Word also is that he had great affection for "Blazing Saddles."

Perhaps the most helpful piece of information I can impart is Bloomberg's favorite pet expression. It may just be the key to his success, too. It's something he tells colleagues to make sure they don't let him down. It's a four-word statement, or warning: "Don't f*** it up!"

[prinzowhales]

Bloomberg's Film Office wants to make independent film makers get licenses and insurance just to run a movie camera in New York so as to keep the criminality of the gangsters in police department and their abuse of citizens off the internet and public access channels.

Bloomberg, if he runs, will probably only serve to split the mainstream vote--those who will tolerate Bush policies without Bush...sugarcoated imperialism under an Obama, a Clinton, a Romney or an Edwards. He is unlikely to gain votes from those who know the political score in America and are supporting Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and legitimate third parties

[donnie900]

Well, you have to be careful about blanket statementing the making of movies and all that stuff. The internet is an untamed animal. And not in the sense that it makes movies that are controversial, but in the sense that it has an enormous potential for deceit. If you go to a public library, you take out books made by authors who are accredited. Who don't just write books for the sake of writing books, but know what they're talking about. And are established in the community for knowing what they're talking about. The internet, on the other hand, is an enabler of rhetoric disguised as non-fiction. Just like a song you buy turns out to be sung by someone else. Or a movie.

Its a more lighthearted, casual type deal that people have to learn to take with a grain of salt, or be fooled.

[donnie900]

And its not that people are trying to shutup the public, though it may seem like that. Its just that people want the lack of anonymity. People need it if their going to base something serious, like their vote, or their investments on it. You can't just be a fancy fiction writer, or a fancy web designer, and expect to be taken seriously.

Its more legal than philosophical, the philosophically speaking, the internet has an enormous impact already.

[donnie900]

"Its more legal than philosophical, the philosophically speaking, the internet has an enormous impact already."

*though* philosophically speaking..

But you see what I'm saying? People think democracy is access. And its not. If it were just access there'd be a million lunatics up there spouting things people had no ability to filter out the truth from the non-truth. The system thats set up is public, but with legitimacy. The legitimacy of accountability for what you say, and what you publish. Such is not the case for the internet. And it can only work one of two-way: A mass effort to make everybody who publishes on the internet accountable for what they say, or 2) educating the public about the lack of legitimacy of open access, and somehow restricting complete open access to certain areas.

[donnie900]

Online Banking:

Before the invention of online banking, there was no need whatsoever to regulate the internet. None. People could say, and do anything they wanted to. And there were even clubs! Of people! Who, like ham radio operators, made it a hobby! To create completely non-fictional virtual worlds. And virtual might not mean what you think it does. Virtual in the sense that nothing they say, not one word.. is true. It is ALL fiction. The whole thing. And oh sure, ya got thieves, and ya got sexual predators.. but fiction writers? "Oh my gawd!" The online banking community said to itself. "We can't have fiction! This is money!"

[donnie900]

Be very very careful of the things you call "truth".. Thats what makes wars.

[bluestardad]

ALL AMERICA NEEDS IS THIS LITTLE ISRAELI LOVING **** TO THROW HIS HAT IN THE RING!

[lochlan-2009]

Careful America, we may be in a transition from the far right to the far left. So far, I haven't seen a single 2008 contender (both sides) with America's interests above their own.

[hypnotoad72]

What would happen if Mr. Bloomberg won?

What would happen if ____ won?

[eccentric506]

With the rampant taxation of peoples in NYC it easily forseeable that if King Mike is elected or has much input into the new administration, our taxes will all rise to above 50% with the exception of the exceptionally wealthy whose taxes will decrease exponentially

[perception5]

For those Americans who still don't believe that America's has one of the most corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press well this artilce is what I'm talking about.

You know how ever story that our liberal wolfpack does on Mitt Romney mentions his religion.?? Did you know Michael Bloomberg is JEWISH? Why doesn't the writer of this story, Jon Friedman, mention that? Is Mr. Friedman Jewish?

Where's all the stories, like Mitt's, that ask the question is Americans really to elect a Jew for President? Where are all the polls, like Mitt, that ask the question ......Would you vote for a Jewish candidate for president?

Dear corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press, your corrupt days are over. You need to implement ASAP AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS TO INCLUDE NOT EXCLUDE more moderates and conservatives as well as other religions..........the jig is up and the lies, distortions, smears, and sterotypes are coming to an end.

[kansas1946]

"The endearing joke about Bloomberg at one time was that he'd "think Yiddish and dress British." He was regarded as such an Anglophile that people thought his chief goal was someday to be named U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom (or the Court of St. James, as it was once known)."
*******************
Well, I pretty much knew by this paragraph that Mr. Bloomberg was Jewis, and I think we pretty much went through the Jewis president business when Joe Lieberman ran with Al Gore. I will mention here that Gore won the popular vote, so more than half of Americans weren't the least bit concerned about having a Jew a heart beat away from the presidency. As for Mitt, I would vote for a Morman in a minute, I just wouldn't vote for Mitt. He has sashayed around every issue and has done more flopping and flipping than a catfish on a mud bank. I would vote for an atheist, a Catholic, a Methodist, a Muslim, a Bhuddist, a Hindu,....and on an on if I though that they had America's best interests at heart, and had consistant stands on issues that are dear to my heart. Bloomberg sounds fun to me. Might spice up the election with an independent.

[macusweil]

Having enough courage to dump the GOP he's got my vote!! Can't see myself casting a ballot for any one of those self serving enough to remain loyal to the culture of corruption party.

[perception5]

Having enough courage to dump the GOP he's got my vote!! Can't see myself casting a ballot for any one of those self serving enough to remain loyal to the culture of corruption party.
Posted by macusweil at 10:51 PM : Jul 03, 2007

Yeah there's no corruption on the Democrat side:

John$400
Harry, $1 million land scandel, Reid
Jefferson D-La, cool 90K
Mayor Naygin
Bill and Hillary Rotten-Clinton

[prinzowhales]

It is hard to believe after the Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations that anyone would be considering voting for the Establishment candidates ever again. Do you people have a national suicide pact of which I'm not aware? Do the open borders, the illegitimate wars, the dimunition of our Constitutional rights and the unparalleled looting of the nation mean nothing to you? Bloomberg, Romney...their religions be damned...McCain, Hill-Bill, these are the glad-handing, smiling heads that rope the cattle in for the Establishment. Just look at Giuliani... the worst of the lot...the only man to ever survive after using 'Joker Products'.

If you want Bush policies without Bush--these MSM candidates are your natural choice....

[mcdonaj3]

The Federal Government, unfortunately, is the largest "business" in the country. No one can question that Bloomberg is a consummate businessman. Why not run the government like a business. Nah, never work, it make too much sense.

[prinzowhales]

"Run the country like a business"...maybe like an S&L...or K-Mart...or Penn Central? McNamara came from Ford and tried to do just that...that turned out swell....Cheney came from Halliburton...First he cuts the troops as Bush41's Sec. of Defense, then he goes into the private sector to scarf up on the 'bid-ness' he created for himself.

Government is not a business and, if it were, we wouldn't have to be forced to do business with it through the IRS. The United States government was assigned a limited set of powers and it has grown through the roof into a conglomerate...Its succeeded like gang busters! It has more money coming in than ever before, it provides fewer and fewer services, its not responsive to consumers, it run by lawyers and bankers with expensive perks and bonuses and it doesn't care who it hurts as long as the goals of its business plan are met...Goals 2000...PNAC...It rips off its shareholders and blames the "business climate" for its failures.

Government has been run like a business for far too long.

[hungry1968]

Government has been run like a business for far too long.
Posted by Prinzowhales at 01:00 PM : Jul 04, 2007


No - it's actually been used as a money machine for the two most powerful political parties. The game is played by scamming as much money out of the vault as you possibly can, to funnel the money home for pet projects that make your constituents happy. For example - the bridge to nowhere, building a major ship yard to produce ships that the Navy said they didn't want, etc. Then the constituents back home are happy that the federal money keeps pouring in, so they re-elect the politician that brought the cash home.

Are the politicians corrupt? ABSOLUTELY!!
Are the people that keep re-electing these corrupt politicians just as much to blame? ABSOLUTELY!!

[prinzowhales]

Each and everything you mentioned was NOT for the political parties--it was for the businesses behind them. Stockholders have been swindled before by crooked businessmen--during the great railroad building drive in the 19th century, one of the great swindles was to funnel the assets of a railroad company off to an engineering firm or other company that was controlled by insiders.
In a sense, this is what the creatures who control the regime in Washington are doing.

The business of business is to turn a profit and if government is a business, who do they turn that profit off of?--Us! They take that tax money and they turn it over to the Halliburtons and Blackwaters and other contractors--the ones who get $99 a load for doing a soldiers bag of laundry.

They are in the business of "asset stripping"-- taking the wealth of our public lands and roads and turning it over to the insiders of the toll road companies.