Independents Win! Bloomberg Pulls Out

Mike Bloomberg's Decision Not To Run Is A Sign That Independents Have Found Candidates They Like, Says CBS' Dick Meyer

(CBS)  This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

---

Independent voters in this country won a huge victory when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he was not going to run for president.

Bloomberg isn’t running, and indeed could not have run credibly, because independent voters have found candidates in the main parties that they like, for a change. That is a victory for independents, if not for Mayor Bloomberg.

Self-identified independents make up about one-third of the electorate. But they make up about one one-hundredth of the people who talk about politics on television, which is why you may think there aren’t so many.

John McCain is extremely popular with these independents. So is Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton is not. If Obama gets the nomination, the election of 2008 will be a paradigm shift backwards to the days when candidates ran to capture the middle. In this case, regress is progress. Important progress

Even if there is a major transformation in the dynamics of electioneering in 2008, however, it does not follow that there will be a transformation of governance in 2009.

That is why I am still disappointed, though just mildly, that Bloomberg isn’t running. Bloomberg would have had to govern independently. We would have had to have a bipartisan cabinet. He would have had to tick off both parties.

This would not be true of Obama or McCain.

The three or four regular readers of this column know I have been a shill for “Bloomberg 2008” for well over a year. My enthusiasm was inspired less by faith in the man than by the conviction that the two main parties are kaput. It is my view that any important and enduring improvement in the business of campaigning and governing cannot be spawned by the two party system.

That system is entrenched, intellectually and commercially, in a view of the country as polarized that is phony and destructive. Mainstream candidates, mainstream media and the mainstream political elite are heavily invested in polarization. It spawns good talk shows, fiery direct mail campaigns and rousing speeches. It’s just that most voters aren’t polarized. They’re sensible, eclectic and independent-spirited.

Bloomberg knows this. So do Obama and McCain.

That does not mean there aren’t intense and significant differences between Americans, the parties and between Obama and McCain. Of course, there are. There are intense differences on some important issues between almost any two people you pick randomly. That is not polarization. That is freedom. Polarization is the Civil War or the protests of the sixties.

If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, 2008 will be a transformational election, and not just because Obama would be the first black presidential candidate from the two party system. It will represent the resurrection of the independent voter.

But a transformational campaign does not mean a transformed government or style of governing. Bloomberg, or another independent president, would have provided that. Obama or McCain could provide that. It would be in spite of two parties.

Still, Bloomberg’s withdrawal is a huge win for independents, ironically. It shows that the two parties have produced candidates independent voters like, for a change.

---

E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.

[noregion5]

Go independant! Any one is better than the front runners status quo trying the weed out any competition. The people are on to it. The back door shadow is hard to have with the light on! Bloomberg seems intellegant and interested in Americas best interest. Time will tell where he really stands with issues and which man is right for the job.

[vet_sk]

Obama has been talking to Bloomberg. Perhaps Bloomberg for Vice Pres.

[hungry1968]

Independents Win! Bloomberg Pulls Out




The whole country loses by Bloomberg not becoming our president. It''s a real shame.

[shingles1]

kansas1946, I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries but his ego-driven pandering, hypocrisy, and flip flops and have left me disgusted with him. What''s funny is that news pundits still keep referring to him as a straight talking maverick when he is anything BUT.

I guess people in Washington DC are a little slower at figuring things out (to put it nicely).

And all of Mr. Meyer''s platitudes and cliches about how wonderful bipartisanship is (which I agree with on an intellectual level) mean absolutely nothing when one of the two main parties has gone completely off the deep end. How are you supposed to work with a party that is completely corrupt, dishonest, treats the government as a giant cash ATM for it''s political pals, and just like banana republics everywhere, treats the law like a malleable inconvenience.

But I digress.

What we really need is to get to the bottom of the whole Clemens matter. (sarcasm)

[kansas1946]

Comment: Independents are apolitical people who don''''''''t have the interest in politics to make ideological choices.
***************************************

That is a really ignorant statement. Independents are interested in the person running and their positions, not the party.

[kansas1946]

It is kind of funny that it is going to end up McCain against Obama. In 2000, as an independent, but long time Republican prior to that, I was a big McCain fan. He was the first national candidate that I sent money to, mainly because I detested Bush. Now, eight year later, I am a bit Obama fan, and wouldn''t vote for McCain for anything. How things change.

[rbwinn3]

Even eccentric billionaires as independent candidates are better than no independent candidates at all. Party politicians have made it impossible for independent voters to run for office by un-Constitutional nomination petition signature requirements.

[davidlar2]

Comment: Independents are apolitical people who don''''t have the interest in politics to make ideological choices

False, independents are people with value systems (ie libertarian) that are not represented by either major party. I personally dislike the left wing economics of the Democrats and the corrupt corruptist economics of the Republicans. I also don''t like the evangelical and intolerant social politics of the Republicans and I don''t like the collectivist politically correct social politics of the Democrats (ie affirmative action). As you see, I have strong ideological views, but don''t like either party. There are enough others like me, even if we are a minority.

[dan9111]

Nader wahts the Government to do everything for everyone. Paul wants the Government to go back to pre-1900 level. That does not sound like a good match to me.

Posted by gwagener

Both of Nader and Paul want to end the sickness of warfare-fetishism and stop forcible leverage of our EARNED money for corporate subsidy and maintenance of the good-ole-boys (in public and private sectors) who could never earn a dollar in a free market.

Nader is very bad at finding solutions -- but he''s good at identifying problems. Paul is vice-versa.

Obama/McCain and all the other mental-asscracks refuse to put down the ****** guns they are pointing at us, so it is best to call them what they are: violent criminals.

[Razzl]

My long experience tells me that independent candidates run for reasons having to do with their own personal tics, not any reasoned evaluation of their potential support. Statistically speaking, none of them ever had a chance in the post-WWII era, so calculation could not have accounted for their decision to run.

And talking about independents as some kind of unified voting block is another error. Independents are apolitical people who don''t have the interest in politics to make ideological choices and will choose their candidate on election day with the same lack of focus as the independent candidates who from time to time choose to run.