Nostrildumbass Rides Again

In a previous post, I discussed the possibility of NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg running for president. One of the appealing things about him is his lack of blind party loyalty. He’s been a Democrat. He’s been a Republican. Recently he left the Republican Party. People speculate that it’s a first step toward running for president as an independent.

If he runs, here’s my prediction. I think you’ll see a web-oriented campaign, the likes of which you’ve never seen. I think it will redefine the campaign process. In particular, I predict his web site will do what no political web site has done before: Show both sides of the issues.

Politicians are advocates. They minimize the other side of the argument and exaggerate the wisdom of their own side. This is a fancy way of saying they are liars. That’s how politics works. The best liar wins. As long as our choices are limited to liars, we’ll keep electing them and wondering what went wrong.

Bloomberg strikes me as 80% businessman and 20% politician. A good businessman knows how to bring the opinions of his “customers” into the process. I don’t think he’ll minimize any side of an argument. As a businessman, he’ll highlight the pros and cons (via the website) and then tell you why he picked the side he picked. It will be rational and fact-based government.

Bloomberg could be the first presidential candidate immune from the idiocy of the “flip-flop” accusation. A normal brain is supposed to change opinions if the information or the situation changes. The first candidate to make that case to the voters will seem to be the only sane person running.

I don’t have enough faith in the voters to believe an independent can get elected president. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he finished a strong second to the tall guy with the good hair (Romney).

Comments

[Bruce Harrison]

Nice try, Scott. Bloomberg is as much a Republican as I am a pink fuzzy bunny-shaped space alien. He only ran as a Republican in New York because the Democrats had already nominated a candidate.

He is an absolute nanny-government type, believing (as you appear to) that people (other than you) are just too stupid to determine anything in their lives and must be directed in the minutest detail by the enlightened genius of our rulers, er, I mean, our elected representatives.

It's nice to see you giving him a pass on flip-flopping; I would say, however, that flip-flopping on something as basic as to which political party he belongs would ping even your low-power political radar, but I guess that's just wishful thinking. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term (or have once again tried to make a new definition for it).

Let me clarify: the term "flip-flopping" as it is used in politics has nothing to do with changing your position in response to changes in a situation. It has to do with political expediency -- sticking your finger into the wind, and then coming up with a new position diametrically opposed to your old one because you think it will get you elected.

Bloomberg is a gazillionaire who may attempt to finance his way into the White House. He is a big-government nanny-stater in the Hillary mold. If you like Hillary, you'll love Bloomberg. Remember Bloomberg's ban on trans-fats in New York? What will he do if he can influence the whole country instead of just one city?

You'd better start reviewing the menu at Stacey's, Scott, because if your favored candidate gets in power, he may ban your favorite meal's ingredients. After all, you're just too stupid to decide what you should eat. Or think. Or do.

So go for it, Scott. Good luck. But don't expect a lot of support from anyone who believes they can find their ass with both hands without the "help" of government.

[Will]

Scott wrote: "...the idiocy of the “flip-flop” accusation..."
-------
If you still think flip-flop haters are idiotic, I suggest you go back and re-read your "new favourite book" Influence (by Cialdini), Chapter 3 (Commitment and Consistency).

Unless of course, you are the sole rational human being in existence, and you have never felt embarrassed because you changed a strongly held stance. No, changing a stance on your blog (e.g. effectiveness of torture) doesn't count. How about strongly held stances and convictions you've shared with friends, family? I don't suppose you go around changing those all the time. For example, I'd be really surprised if one day I hear that Scott Adams...:
1) ...has denounced capitalism
2) ...is no longer a vegetarian
3) ...believes the average American business is managed by geniuses
4) ...thinks the average human is rational and enlightened

Nope, everyone has their own strongly-held convictions. These convictions are partly the basis of our "identity" and also affect how others view and judge us. Whether our convictions "come from inside of us" or whether we have been manipulated to hold them, there is usually a social penalty for going back on them. We call people who change their strongly-held convictions "flakes"; in politics, they're known as "flip-floppers". Rational or not, right or not, that's reality for ya.

[Ron Hardin]

Soap opera women who watch the news on TV determine all the campaign issues. Even the terrorists cater to them.

[Argenbert]

William Skyvington, i'm a spanish speaker and i know that sometimes it's a little harder to understand some words.

but, the "blending of words" is very likely the most productive source of humour in the english language. and it's really a very good and smart way of humour. You see, you cannot simply do that in other languages, like latin-based french, spanish or italian.

English has that facility to phrases like "squirrely wrath" that are really very funny within its context.

Philosotainment is also a very good example of what can be done by mixing. every one that reads Philosotainment will get a pretty good idea of what is it about. you cannot do that in other languages that i know of, easily and "gracefully".

so i don't really agree with you. after all languages grow by mixing. there's no 100% pure english, or 100% pure spanish, etc. that happened somehow.

open up, man

[me]

You obviously don't live in new york city.

[tubaguy]

I don't think Romney can be elected president because he's Mormon. That's going to give him massive problems with grass root Republicans. As a Mormon myself, I don't think he SHOULD be elected because he's a second generation millionaire politician. We need to avoid aristocracy.

The next best choice is Thompson. He's popular, tall, has a great voice, and his hair is at least 80%.

[pooper725]

I'm all for an independent running for Prez! I'd have voted for Ross P. if he hadn't gone kooky.

I don't care what the indie thinks about anything - anything right now is better than the ineffectual democrats or the near-nazi repubs!

[Stan Slaughter]

"As a businessman....rational and fact-based ...."

I really know nothing of Bloomberg, but I could not believe that you put these two concepts together in connecting sentences.

[Bob]

Sounds like a nice dream.

[spike17]

Your audience has fallen for your trap....you've just demonstrated a subject in which your blogosphere is incapable to clarifying an issue for you....in fact, many of them have unwittingly displayed that they're, in fact, blithering idiots.....good job, dude.

[Jules]

Good luck in finding honest & intelligent men
who will gather everybody`s good-will around them into making the world a better place.

[Lego_90]

ROFL

I love posts that start out, "I don't have any evidence, and I'm not going to even point out what I think are examples to back me up, but here's my opinion based on gut feeling/wild generalizations/heresay: ... "

Very convincing way to start a position statement!

[Henri Kwakman]

US politics is money, pressure groups (military, oil, tobacco, rich folks).

Sadly, it has very little to do with ethics, or people.

Clinton winning was something you won't see for a long time. He was an extroardinarily healthy and ethical(yes) man. It's a miracle he could fight the republican mob. Republican party is organized crime, hiding behind legislation. Perhaps Hillary is lucky the republicans couldn't find an unqualified actor or straw puppet that has a nice smile this time around. She might win, because she is so coldhearted (in a non-evil way, it's more about a stoic determination) that she understood how much money she would need, and how she has to look, and what side to take on issues. It's all impressions. Not issues.

[Kevin Kunreuther]

If I may add one more dumbass comment of my own, what I perceive is that Bloomberg is not setting himself to run for President. He's very clever; he's setting himself up as the VICE PRESIDENTial nominee - for either party. Vice Presidency has gone from being a do-nothing job to awfully fucking powerful, thanks to Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Also cancels out support for fellow New York State politicos, that is, the self serving know nothing Guiliani and the self serving self righteous know it all pragmatic Clinton.
Yes, it will be fun to watch Bloomberg in action.

[pierre]

Hasn't president Shrub been a businessman in his previous life too ?

Berlusconi also has been an extremely successful businessman before being Italy's premier.

Two recent shiny successes of business guys dabbling in politics.

[Jocky]

Ha - you guys still think you live in a democracy - bless your little cotton socks.

[simom]

"You should stay away from politics, religion, and abortion if you want to keep your blog interesting and entertaining. As a comic strip writer it does you more harm than good to provide a forum for heated debate."

As a voter, human and potential parent you have every right to comment on these issuses. Getting a rise out of far right extremists like this is just a plus .... well done

[William Skyvington]

Most invented words in the Dilbert context are funny, but the transliteration of Nostredamus into Nostrildumbass doesn't amuse me. Why not? It reveals a lack of linguistic culture and sensitivity. It's like your recent blending (if I remember correctly) of "philosophy" and "entertainment". People who get a kick out of dragging foreign terms back into their own parlance don't usually master the foreign language in question. When my Australian cousins were kids, they found it hilarious that the French word "piscine" (swimming pool) sounds like "piss in". Since then, they've mastered French [becoming members of the French Doctors organization] and ceased to be amused by such childish wordplay.

Scott, you often propose solutions for solving the world's problems. I've often meant to ask you: Have you ever set foot outside of the USA in any serious way?

[Maisey]

I'm still amazed at how the american voting system works. Ah well, at least I live in a liberal country (The Netherlands) :D

[Ian Smith]

Why not just tell the truth. You don't like the look of any of the candidates so far and want a better option. Given that just about all politicians come from the same mold, and are about as trusthworthy as a rattlesnake, you consider that someone that will do as they are told is preferable. You think a businessman will.

However, then you stop and think. In essence, one of the major problems with the candidates is that via focus groups they end up reflecting what large sections of society want. And that is frightening. In reality democracy is a failure because *so* many people are insane and out of touch. You don't want them telling you what to do, you don't want them having any power - in reality you don't want them anywhere near you. They are martians.

You also realise that the country is in a mess, and that there are real important issues round the corner that need a steady hand, real decisive action, and an IQ in triple figures. You don't want any of the existing candidates because you don't have that confidence in them. You certainly don't want the flightly martians that share the country with you to have say.

So what do you do?

In a prehistoric age you would have taken a bunch of your like-minded friends and struck out for fresh pastures - setting up a group that reflects your ideas and separating yourself from the unfolding disaster.

Today, that option has disappeared. Not only are there no new shores, the consequences of past failures is global. You have to find a way to make it work, and that means corralling the weirdos so they can't cause problems. First however you have to fool them into letting your man have power. So you need a candidate that can convince people he is supporting them, but really will act on your behalf.

And then you realise, someone else is already doing it to you.

[Xena]

A misspelling of Nostradamus eh?

It was an amusing headline.

[Roni]

Sheep don't want to know the pros and cons about issues, they want spin, so they can snuggle under their blankets at night and sleep at peace (even if there's a war on terror, drugs, poverty etc. going on outside)

I propose a government system where all the proven logical rationalists debate the issues and agree on solutions. This is then handed to the politicians to take the message to the people in a format that makes them happy. The electorate still votes for the politicians that they like the best.

I'm very excited about your tall, good hair, nice voice theory. That means John Howard is out and we can look forward to an era of Kevin Rudd until his hair falls out.

[Kilgore J. Trout]

Living in NYC I'd have to say I like Mike.

The Republicans have fucked up things pretty bad. On the other hand the Democrats will only fuck up things worse.

For all you foreign people making comments on the US, what the fuck do you know? Butt out.

[Jim]

To the libertarian guy who wants to vote for Bloomberg...
Mike Bloomberg banned smoking in bars in NYC and banned transfat in resteraunts. He is most definetly a left wing politician. Now some people may support the government banning the use of legal products by people on private property, so if you like that he does it. However I belive the government that governs best governs least and I will never vote for a person who is in favor of more government involvement in our private lives. Oh, a good prediction, If the government passes a universal health care system, how much you want to bet that unhealthy behavior starts getting penalized and then outlawed in the name of lower costs for health care.

[Mike]

Scott,

I cannot believe that your readers are not agreeing with you. (at least the comments I skimmed on the way down) A politician that shows you his thought process - scratch that. A politician that has a thought process, how refreshing.

A few of the comments I read said they didn't want a candidate built on marketing or focus group. First of all, your post didn't contain either of those words. More importantly, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK WE HAVE NOW.

And yes, when someone actually uses the Internet, like Ron Paul could, they will get a huge boost.

Cheers-

[bill]

I love how you used your own 80 20 rule. You use it quite a bit, for the readers who don't know, Mr. Adams outlined it in one of his books (too lazy to figure out which one). It's where you say something is 80 % one way 20% the other and it doesn't matter which direction. Watch "he's 80% business man 20% politician". Now witness the magic "he's 80% politician 20% businessman". Works either way (except this may be weakened because he has the primacy effect going for him, because you read the post first). Anywho way to put you concepts into action Mr. Adams.

P.S. I'm awesome

P.S.S. sorry I'm legally bound to write that

[massy]

One of the people running should, as one of their policies, say that if they are elected they will open all of the "secret" files concerning aliens and captured flying saucers etc.

Probably thinking now that I am some kind of nut but if I am there are quite a few nuts about so it would be popular. And wouldn't you like to know the "truth" concerning aliens? plenty would.

[creamcitian]

right, because business are all about the business and not the money. because businessmen always care about keeping the business going as well as possible and not about getting more for themselves. where's the darned sarcastic tag when one is needed.

[Kurt In NYC]

It seems like most people here know about New York from watching Seinfeld and Friends. From a New Yorker who remembers John Lindsay as Mayor. let me enlighten you.

Back in 2001, when Bloomberg ran for Mayor, Bloomberg said that something has to be done about taxes in NYC, the highest in the country. After winning, and spending about $70 for each vote he got, he did! He raised property taxes 18% across the board, raised the city income tax, raised to city sales tax, doubled city fines, got rid of free meter parking on Sundays. His response to criticism: "New York is a luxury item and people should expect to pay more for it."

What is the most important issue for a NYC mayor to tackle first? The budget? Taxes? Crime? City unions? Race relations? No! For Bloomberg, the top issue facing New York was the problem of people smoking in bars. His solution? Involuntarily deputize every bartender in the city to enforce the law for you free-of-charge. Fine bartenders who are lax in their duties. Make possession of any ashtray as bad as an illegal gun.

But he stimulated business right? Yes, he raised city cigarette taxes by $1.50 a pack and now we have a very healthy bootleg cigarette industry. He said that it would raise $200 million for the city each year. After one year, the actual amount was $78 million or 39% of estimates. Because of Bloomberg, we have people grubbing cigarettes from strangers on the street.

There was the whole Westside stadium fiasco. Bloomberg wanted to build a stadium for the NY Jets on the west side of Manhattan. He said we need to build this so we could get the Olympics in 2012. Who in New York wanted the Olympics here? Probably only Bloomberg. But there wouldn't any parking facilities. How are people supposed to get to the stadium? According to Bloomberg, mass transit! Riiight.

The same person who wanted to build a stadium in Manhattan now wants to charge $8 a car and $21 a truck to go into Manhattan during rush hour. Drop someone off and leave? Eight bucks! And install a thousand cameras to track cars. Heavy fines on cheaters or people who just don't know. And, of course, the city will make a profit on this too. Riight.

I could go on about the most tone-deaf mayor that I can remember, and I can remember six of them. Criminalizing trans-fats, setting up and shaking down gun store owners, paying parents to send their kids to school, etc. You could disagree with Koch or Guiliani and either one would give you a reasonable explanation for their policies. Bloomberg says things so stupid that I sometime feel embarassed for the guy.

To be fair, he hasn't screwed anything major up either. But what has done about the highest combined taxes in the US, the highest per capita municipal debt in the US and the highest number of municipal employees per capita in the US. Easy! He increased them all.

And, six years later, the World Trade Center is still a hole in the ground.

[AustralianIdiot]

The possibility of an independent leader in Australia is nil. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the largest parliamentary representation. So we're always stuck with a partisan leader with the emotional and truthfulness ratings of an angsty teenage weasel.

[Erik]

We don't need government by focus groups. The legislature is the focus group.

We need leaders with a strong sence of whats right and good, combined with a vision with how to move forward in a productive direction. Why do fence sitters find it unconfortible that a leader has made up his/her mind? I want people with strong convictions Left or Right.

Keep your marketing people out of leadership.

[sambobly]

I am from outside America, and am constantly appalled at the gun control (or lack thereof) in the US. I don't quite understand why it is necessary for any person who is living in any suburban or residential area to carry a weapon. Why is it necessary? Maybe this is why the US has so many shootings each year...

[Kevin Kunreuther]

I don't have hard evidence, but memory and gut experience tells me almost every businessman who succeeded to high political office were worse at job than professional politicians. Close inspection of these businessmen turned politicians show they were either incompetent or crooked (or both) in their business dealings before their political careers, showing they've been major fuckups most of their professional lives.
OTOH,Bloomberg has been good in his professional business life and OK as a New York City Mayor. If he managed to become elected President, he might posssibly be a terrible President because he would defeated by the entrenched bureaucracy that would resist any reforms and he would be antagonized by both Republicans and Democratcs in Congress. He would need to have a coalition of like minds in House and Senate to push any agendas he would have in mind. His only chances of succeeding as a President, if he was elected under a mandate of some kind of national crisis or emergency and Congress would be willing to be a rubber stamp for him. Current events, as they are, are not the magnitude of an American Civil War or a Great Depression, and Bloomberg doesn't strike me as very charismatic, he strikes me as a dull but competent CPA. It looks like we'll either get sincere Barack or slick Romney for President. Clinton? Whether she knows it or not, she'd headed for a seat on the Supreme Court.

[Jim]

We have a two party system. Recent history and long term history has proven that one party actually balances the budget, attempts to care for individual citizens and attempts to serve the general welfare. The other party has proven that they are basically a criminal organization dedicated to stealing as much as possible, borrowing more to steal and at the same time incapable of prosecuting a war, defending our country and because they can't provide for the poorest among us demonizing the poor and the unfortunate. They can't confront a natural disaster without resorting to racism to cover their incompetence.
In this day and age if Donald Duck were the democratic candidate and Abraham Lincoln the republican candidate I'd vote democratic.
There is no third party saviour. Your choice is between a gang of sharp eyed thieves and people who have proven they can govern. If you don't get that please don't vote.

[HAW HAW]

Is a banana your only breakfast?

[Prashant]

He appears to favor a strict problem-solving approach over an idealogical one. That single trait is enough to get him my vote (If I had one that is).

[Millbert]

If you are basing this "campaign, the likes of which you’ve never seen" on a website, forget it. The majority of voters are still old people (I have no facts to back this up), the kind of old people that don't like and don't trust computers. They don't know what a dag nab website is. The boomers coming up that do are still working and have better things to do. Wait 10 years before more boomers are retired and bored and then the web will be a factor.

[Anonmeous]

You should stay away from politics, religion, and abortion if you want to keep your blog interesting and entertaining. As a comic strip writer it does you more harm than good to provide a forum for heated debate.

[Thiago Figueiro]

Do you have anything to do with that?

http://exile.ru/transient/265/aldilbert_02.gif

:-)

[Marxist]

American Plutocraty in action.

[John Elliot]

"Bloomberg should excite libertarians much more than Ron Paul does"

I bet he does, what with the indoor smoking and trans fat bans in NYC. Knowing Libertarians, just the thought of him at the helm probably makes them scratch at the bottom of their cages in a way Ron Paul could never manage.

Although it always amuses me how every political party believes that it's the party of rationality, since according to whatever axioms underly their philosophy, they are the ones consistent with them.

Pfft, rational parties. Where are the empirical parties when you want one or two? You know, parties whose policies are based upon reality with some quantifiable value to the Republic, rather than whatever dime-store Ayn Rand philosophy that came to mind while pondering the universe from the inside of a bathroom stall?

Not that it matters, in the spectator sport that is U.S. politics, people stick with their team win or lose; right or wrong.

[Og the Invincible]

Don't know anything about Bloomberg. He might be a total loser and destroy the country. He might be great. But, I can agree that the two-party system is a total train wreck. I would vote for Mickey Mouse so long as he didn't have party ties.

[Chris Brown]

He has decent hair. All he has to do is ask Danny DeVito to be his running mate. He will suddenly SEEM extremely tall.

[g]

Bloomberg FTW

[Indian Techie]

Should you say "Ina prior post" instead of "In a previous post"

For me english is a second language so I would not know.
:-)

[Sam B.]

Hey, if you really want a candidate who tells it like it is, vote for this guy...

http://www.Ronpaul2008.com

Scott, I have never seen one word from you about this candidate. Ron Paul is anti Iraq war and has been from the get go. So what gives? Ron Paul is not a multi-millionaire, but perhaps you could throw some recognition his direction anyway.

[Dixon]

I hate the argument that because no third part candidate has won since the 2 party system was intrenched that third part candidates should stay out. I think it's a specious argument for 2 reasons:
1. Bloomberg can essentially decide who is the next president. We all get one vote, but he can take thousands from the other candidates running and affect the outcome of the race.
2. If we ever want to get away from the polarized, garbage campaigns that people run now, we need more third party candidates in the race.

[JD]

For all of you saying that "no third party has ever won", "third parties can't win", et cetera, may I remind you that when Abraham Lincoln first ran for president, the Republican party WAS "a third party".

[Nobuddy]

"Bloomberg could be the first presidential candidate immune from the idiocy of the “flip-flop” accusation. A normal brain is supposed to change opinions if the information or the situation changes."

HUH?!! The “flip-flop” accusation is applied to people who change their opinions when the facts have NOT changed, and thus who are changing their stated views just to match the current whims of the people... that's why it's a criticism.

[Dan Quixote (formerly "The Dan")]

Sorry for repeating the cliches, but I'm gonna do it anyway. These are the cynical things I tell my kids:

* Anyone who does what it takes to get elected President in the USA has, by virtue of doing so, demonstrated that he is unworthy to lead a free nation. So don't get too excited about any candidate.

* Every nation gets the government that it deserves (by virtue to letting the hostile and the insane take over). Us included. You can thank your idiot public school peers for abdicating their personal responsibility to said hostile and insane people.

Incidentally, we'd be Republicans but they're too liberal and have no spine. We're not voting for invertebrates. But we like Fred Thompson. By the Dilbertian criteria, he should be fairly electable. He's the tallest candidate (6'5"), has the deepest voice, good hair for an old balding guy, and has been in front of the camera enough to look good to the rest of the world. [And now Jack can finally get to be the District Attorney on Law & Order!] He's got my interest because he used to be in Congress, and he's conservative enough to make John Birch look liberal. Assuming that all politicians can only wreck things, I think he'd wreck things less than Bloomberg would. Conservatives are (or at least should be!) more about mitigating the downward slide of everything rather than mucking it up worse like the liberals ["Hey there, friend, mind if I take half of everything you'll ever earn and give it to people who don't deserve it and who will resent you anyway?"]. I'm afraid (or perhaps >convinced<) of Bloomberg's agenda making things worse.

[Håkon]

What I've noticed about presidents hair, is that their hair turn grey after they've become presidents. Check it out. I guess it some crazy psykological thing (becomming a silverback).

(BTW, I think it would be great if everyone could give "thumbs up", or something like that, to comments that are good. That way, we would save ourselves from reading all the stupid comments.)

[Robert Hamilton]

Scott if you insist on posting about politics, you should, as a matter of full disclosure, state that you do not vote. If you wanted to, you could add it is because you have a fear of being wrong which is why you typically avoid stating your positions. I'm smiling as I say this pardner, I still love you and all, but it is especially hypocritical to comment on a subject in which you are afraid to participate. You do not have to re-state the weak excuses you have used (not enough info, etc...) in the past. BTW, I do think that Bloomberg would be an excellent candidate. Register and vote, even if you vote for Dogbert or Ratbert, then you're in the game.

[Jim]

Mike Bloomberg Didn't leave the REpublican party - he left the RINO party - Republican In Name Only. He was never a real republican.

[Stephen W. Stanton]

It would be great if your prediction proves accurate. However, Bloomberg does have a track record in office. He is a strong advocate for his own views, period. For example, there is no mention of the other side of the issue when it came to the smoking ban.

[mike abbott]

A possible blog topic for you Mr. Adams. How do you know when you are under the influence of wishfull thinking?
I too would like pragmatic and intellectually honest leadership but it is manipulating emotion not analysing information that wins elections.

[CBush]

Mitt Romney has already made the case that he is a candidate who is willing to change and evolve based on the situation. (Think abortion)

[Brad]

Your timing is impeckerable, Scott! The Washington Post has a story today about how Romney economic advisor Greg Mankiw is off the campaign's reservation by offering support of the immigration bill (you know, cuz it makes economic sense) while Romney wants to build a wall 2 feet wider and 10 inches thicker than the other candidates. The money quote is at the end where Romney's spokeshole says people vote for the candidate's vision, not the quality of advice he gets from wonks.

Article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061901070.html

[dave]

yeah, [Siddharth] doesn't Bush butthead JR say he's a ""businessman""!

[RipplingBeast]

The only candidate who hasn't flip-flopped? You obviously know nothing about Ron Paul, the only adherent to the US Constitution in the race.

Thpthpthptphpthpthphtphpht.....

[Rich]

If he runs all that he will accomplish is taking votes from the democratic candidate and allow another fucking republican moron to win. We're doomed. I quit.

[Sam]

I'd vote for him if I were four years older. But after checking the Wikipedia article, there's no way he'd win. He's a Jew. They'd elect a Mormon before one of us Jews, but if he did win, He could use his Jew powers to eliminate the national debt :)

[David Nesting]

I've often wondered why we don't see blogs and forums managed by the government, or our legislators and leaders in particular. We seem to get far more openness out of businesses (one hospital's CEO even blogs!) than we do out of our own government. Our federal executive branch seems to even fear speaking out, always deferring to the official party line.

What better way to inform your constituency of some problem or change that you're considering than a blog post about it? Let the people discuss the issue in forums or blog comments, and use those tools to both guide your decision, and to explain your rationale to those that want to know why.

I think people have far too much of an expectation of perfection from their elected leaders/representatives (he did pot in college? get him the hell out of office!). A window into the minds of at least the first generation of politicians taking these steps would almost certainly lead to universal disappointment (and thus a failure to re-elect), until we realize that these guys are humans after all.

I personally loved Bloomberg's "headless chickens" comment.

[skraps]

Anyone who REALLY wants to be president should be disqualified. Unfortunately, it's hard to judge motives.

Being a rational, fair president is the surest way to get yourself dragged through the mud for four very public years.

[Michael]

I can't imagine how he'll avoid the "flip flop" accusation by switching parties as often as some people change television channels.

As for presenting both sides of issues, that's where he'd avoid the "flip-flop" accusation. He's unhesitatingly liberal to the point of insulting conservatives as "ignorant and stupid."

I predict a well-funded and completely incompetent political campaign, followed by accusations that it was somebody else's fault.

[JShope]

Flip-Flopping isn't just about changing your vote. A better expression would be "blowing with the wind". This sums up most politicians, who base their decision on self-serving polls and questionable statistics.

We expect our politicians to use all of our money that they spend on personal pages, staff, and research to find out the answers to the hard questions before they make a firm decision. This is their duty, as a public servant, so that we can focus on our jobs that pay their salary.

I don't consider it a flip-flop to say, "In light of new evidence I am inclined to change my opinion on this matter." But, John Kerry, the King of flip-floppery, demonstrated numerous times that although evidence had not changed, his opinion changed with his audience.

[b sizelove]

I fail to understand how libertarians could possible like buttinsky bloomburg. Even if you agree that the things he's had banned are bad for you, how is it the governments right to tell me what to do. Next he'll outlaw diet coke. And I need my diet coke

[heidianne]

"Nobody with a silly name has ever been elected president."

define silly. i've always caught myself smiling when i hear a name like millard or how about ulysses?

[Sam D]

I'm an independent voter, and Bloomberg seems like the level headed kind of guy I would vote for. But I must remember why I became an independent in the first place. So, I could vote for the person with the nicest tie.

[Fuzznsmoo]

Now you've gone and done it - no excuse not to vote.

[Raskolnikov]

Several years ago at our dinner table:

Wife: Let's go to NYC for New's Years. The city needs our support.

Me: Um... OK

New Year's Eve, 10pm at hotel 1/2 block from Times Square:

Me: Good job getting a room this close, Honey! It's just inside the police barricades!

Wife: It's cold out there so lets wait until 11:30 and go into Times Square.

Me: OK!

11:30 in front of our hotel:

Me: Hey! You moved the barricades! We were inside at 10:30 but now we're outside! Can we come in?

Cop: No.

Me: But we came all the way from California to see the ball drop. And there's hardly anybody in Times Square!

Cop: You can't come through.

10 minutes later:

Cop: Move aside! Move aside! Mayor Bloomberg's party coming through the barricades!

Me: Well, that sucks.

10 minutes later:

Me: Look, Honey! I caught a stray piece of confetti!!!

[Bill Tkach]

Who are these people? What style of gov't is this?
Republican? Democrat? Bush? Borat?

Where's my seal club... I'm going hunting.

Bill from Canada

PS - If you can't find me, just ask anyone this side of the border. We all know each other.

[Giordy]

As usual, your mistake is to believe that everybody is as blindly, mechanically rational as (you think) you are.

Not only the politicians, but also the voters are advocates. They will vote for the candidate that appears to have the same views as they do. Nobody cares about (or would even take seriously) a website that purports to show both sides of the issue - they want websites that make good points in favour of their own side.

If Bloomberg gets elected, it won't be because people are rational, but because he'll have spent enough money to convince enough people that he thinks like them and will take care of them.

[Robby]

"You're going to have to explain the differences between the two major US political parties ... looking from the outside they're virtually indistinguishable, a bit like Coke & Pepsi." --Calgarian

Alright, here's the difference.

The Democrats are making themselves into -- hell, the Democrats are the anti-war party. They seem to think that if we sit at home with the lights off, all the problems in the world will go away. Meanwhile, they want to change the way health-care works in our country, allow gay people to get married (to each other) and prevent anyone doing anything that will kill a single blade of grass anywhere in the world. Naturally, they're big believers in the gobal warming apocalypse, and want to legislate to prevent it. They tend to raise taxes to pay for all of their programs. The campaign slogans of their presidential candidates all sound like, "Bush sucks, and I'm not him. Vote me!"

The Republicans can't sound as though they're in favor of war, especially with the Iraq war going so wrong, but they also can't come out against it because that would require admitting that the Democrats are right. They adopt a middle ground, saying that the war is a necessary evil and that we have to finish what we started. They think that gay people should crawl back into whatever holes they came out of, that anyone who gets an abortion or experiments with stem cells should be convicted of murder, and that the extremely old and sick should not be able to choose to die if they want. They're very big on giving huge tax cuts to the richest 10% of Americans and still spending more money than before. Their presidential candidates are all saying, "I'm an intelligent Republican, unlike that idiot Bush. Vote me!"

In other words, the Democrats are the party that's pretty good on domestic policy and completely off their heads on foreign policy. The Republicans are pretty good on foreign policy and completely off their heads on domestic policy.

But, if you don't have a good head for details, you could just say that we have a choice between the lying bastard idiots and the other lying bastard idiots.

[RogerTheShrubber]

Sadly, our next president will be selected by Diebold.

[drjdouglas]

You, of all people, placing faith--in a businessman?

Hiding in that 80% businessman there's bound to be a PHB.

[cubicle refugee]

Scott, you've written several books about the many ways businesses lie to their customers in order to succeed. Now you're saying that a guy who's 80% businessman is going to be more honest and forthcoming than the average politician. If politics and marketing are both species of lying, as you point out, how can Bloomberg possibly be any different?

[CLB]

It seems an independent candidate HAS to be a millionaire to get their message out. If all of the candidates running had a cap on how much they could spend campaigning, an independent candidate might stand a chance.

[Bobzilla]

"I don’t think he’ll minimize any side of an argument."

Ok, so he'll spend the entire campaign with his moistened finger to the wind. Big improvement Scott.

[Sam Thornton]

The last businessman we had in the Oval Office was Warren G. Harding who published a newspaper and sat on the boards of various businesses. Once elected, he presided over what has been described as one of the most corrupt administrations in American history.

If you liked George and Dick and their cronies, you'll likely really get your rocks off with Mike Bloomberg and his cronies.

[David]

20% of the country will vote Democrat and 20% will vote Republican no matter who you run.

Which leaves 60% to grab. That means a 3rd party canidate would have to get 85% of the "undecided", which is a pretty tall order. Not impossible, extremely unlikely.

A 3rd party candidate also lacks some of the resources set up by the established parties, such as get out the vote campaigns, etc. . .

While 3 party's have won in some states, remember Jesse the Body, it has yet to happen on the national level. The election is not a popular election, but the electoral college. No 3rd party candidate has won any electoral votes since the 2 party system of Democrat and Republican became entrenched.

Best way to change the direction of a party is from within during a primary. The Democrats have done so, slowly.

Bloomberg only wants power, he switched parties because he didn't think he could beat the Democrat in the New York Mayor primary. He is doing the same for president, waiting until April to see if he can win as an non-party candidate. He seems to be somebody that just wants power.

[Brett]

You are all under the false assumption that the United States is a democracy at the federal level. It isn't. Not even close. Having elections is not enough, (assuming they where fair and honest and everyones vote is equal, big strectch) you need to exercise a democratic voice. Nope, in America Money has that voice. Not people.

[Felicia]

“A normal brain is supposed to change opinions if the information or the situation changes.”

From “Today I will Improve Your Sex Life”

"One of the most potent forms of persuasion has to do with people’s innate need to be consistent. Studies show that people will ignore logic and information to be consistent. (In other words, we are moist robots.) According to the research, humans are hardwired for consistency over reason. You already knew that: People don’t switch political parties or religions easily. What you didn’t know is how quickly and easily a manipulator can lock someone into a position."

Please explain.

Thank you.

[ND]

Hey, if you really want a candidate who tells it like it is, maybe you Americans should all vote for this guy...

http://www.zod2008.com/

[Sir Mike Tallon]

Today's Dilbert is really funny. I love Wally.

[Ray]

Per Monty Python:

"We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are more concerned with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes befroe the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, not to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby ulcerous little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across."

[Keith]

I don't know about Bloomberg's views on issues or his abilities in politics or business. So I'm not disagreeing with your opinions or predictions about his campaign. However, the impression I get from your post is that he would make a good president if elected. The one aspect of you failed to address is the hundreds of morons in Congress who are completely political. You could qualified to be president and try to be a great president, but you can't get anything done unless you work with the politicians. Even then it doesn't seem like anyone in Washington can get much done. How is Bloomberg or any indepedent going to work with people who don't seem to like to work with other people not in their political party (and sometimes don't even like working with people in their party)?

[Joshua]

Great points, except Bloomberg just isn't very good.

He tried his hardest in his first term to not get re-elected, but the democrats said, "Heck No! We want it even less than you"

It would be interesting though, if you are right and Bloomberg wins, there is a possibility (though unlikely) of having three major candidates from New York Guiliani, Clinton, and now Bloomberg.

A woman, an Italian Catholic, and a Jew. Voter turnout might be 172 nationwide.

[Calgarian]

You're going to have to explain the differences between the two major US political parties ... looking from the outside they're virtually indistinguishable, a bit like Coke & Pepsi.

What your political system needs to generate outside interest is 20% of the country speaking a different language and wanting to form their own country ... the Bloc California?

[EJ Smith]

Bloomberg is only 20% politician? BS. He is all politics, all the time. Nice try though. He a liar just like the rest of them idiots.

[~cuttsy~]

Scott Adams for President!
ooh no..

DILBERT for president!
ooh no, hang on...

DOGBERT for president!

~cuttsy~
http://www.cuttsy.com/

[Anonymous]

From a foreign policy prospective, its important to vote for the tall guy with good hair... He will be the one representing our country, and most of the world doesn't speak English, so looks are going to outweigh smarts.

I'll bet North Korea is actually a great place, with a happy population - but with the weird looking little guy as their leader, the world can only assume the place is awful.

[Ken Dyck]

You might be oversimplifying the behaviour of American voters when you say that the tallest candidate with the best hair always wins.

According to Peter Collett's Book of Tells, the winner of every (if I remember correctly) presidential election since they started televising debates has been the candidate with the deepest voice.

So it's not just about height and hair. It's about height, hair and voice.

[Rich T.]

Another point - a businessman who runs for president has made it that far by being 80% political, even during his business career.

Also - America doesn't want a businessman president at this juncture in our history. We need someone to overcome our cultural civil war. Emotions will outweigh rationality. The rational people can be in the cabinet to fix things, but will not be the president we need.

[landowner75]

It's been years since a president that belongs to a racist organization has won an election.

[RPK]

It's always an attractive idea to have a successful business person run for office, to get the city, state, or country running better. But government does not operate like a business. The president of a company can make a business decision and have it carried out. Employees might not agree with it, but they will either do it or be looking for a new job. The President of the US has to go through Congress, and sometimes the Supreme Court to get anything done, and his decisions are questioned loudly and publicly. Not many businessmen are comfortable with that.

I hope Bloomberg does run ans an independent, and gets a significant percentage of the vote. It's hard to believe he could win as an independent, but the Democrats and Republicans need a wake-up call. Those two parties have run the country for more than a century, and they are both concerned more with power for the party than the good of the country. The US desparately needs a legitimately strong third party to challenge the two existing parties, and get them to focus on serving the people who pay their salaries. A strong showing by an independent could help make that possible. For that reason, I would vote for Bloomberg if he ran as an independent.

[Rich T.]

Here's all you need to know:

Hillary wins.

It's hers to lose. If nothing bad happens to her, she wins. It's a demographic thing.

Interesting side point about third-party candidates. Hilary is our next president because Ross Perot ran in 1992. Work out the logic for yourself.

[milkey]

A stand-up guy that's 80% business and 20% politician? Please, he uses his power and money to go on personal vendettas, despite what the law says.

I humbly ask that you research his draconian, over-the-top position on gun control and the illegal actions he takes to impose his will on others not only outside of New York City, but outside of the entire state! One link of many:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902573.html

He doesn't stop with illegal actions to impose his personal opinion on others. He also intentionally misleads the public in his intentions. This is evidenced by the many mayors that are leaving his phony "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" coalition once they realize that he isn't just after criminal use of guns. The Coalition's webpage sounds innocent enough, unfortunately, that's not their whole mission. He's after harsh restrictions on law-abiding citizens. One link of many: http://www.nysun.com/article/46799

As a seemingly rational, logical guy, I'd love to get your take on this.

[Twilight]

Willard "Mitt" Romney?

Nobody with a silly name has ever been elected president.

He'd do better if he went by "Willard", but it's too late for that.

[Eric Hanson]

I think it's one of the great success stories of the Republican and Democratic parties that they have managed to convince the American people that there are only two choices every four years.

I'd like to see an independent running on a one-plank platform . . . the "I'll do what's best for America" plank.

[sayantan]

does tht mean ur gonna vote?

[RogerX]

I;m right behind you on this one, Scott. I recently left the Ron Paul camp because despite his good points, he's really a thocratic bigot with a really poor record of personal liberties, regardless of what the "people who fancy themselves libertarians" try to tell you. Bloomberg should excite libertarians much more than Ron Paul does... you're right, he embodies rationality as well as lacking strings to major "causes" or "interests."

[More]

Trying to change politics is dangerous. If he goes for being clear and open about gouverment, he will only be painting a bullseye on his back. Either from the current powerholders, or dumbass radicals (democrat or republican)

[Mason]

This is the condensed version of something I found on the web yesterday. It somehow seems appropriate here:

--------------
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three candidates. Who would you vote for?

Candidate A.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be our choice?

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

Here's a link to the whole bit: http://officespam.chattablogs.com/archives/049850.html

[Siddharth Kumar]

So businessmen and corporations don't lie. And Enron was just an exception.

[Dilbert's Rabbi]

I believe you're giving Bloomberg too much credit for being intelligent... I mean, if the guy's so smart, why is he thinking of running for President?

[deegee]

I can't see Bloomberg's appeal beyond NYC. He's a great businessman with flexible politics and ideas that seem work in his home town. That makes him unique?

Ross Perot was a businessman, too, with a lot of money to bankroll his own campaign of plain-speech proposals. Remember his bar charts? Problem was, he had a limited grasp of the constitution or its institutions, and he apparently believed he could really run a government like a company. As soon as the voters recognized that he didn't have all the answers, and that they'd have limited influence through their congressional representatives, he didn't look so good.

I've come to respect what it takes to create a political consensus, and yes, that includes flipflopping positions. That's how stuff gets done in a democracy. Come to think of it, I believe that's how stuff gets done in a business, too.

[steve]

One of your best serious statements!

[Guy]

When do we get to have a president that not only is a good decision maker, but is tall and has good hair?

[Wilson]

An internet campaign likely will not work to the effect that it should for another generation. 65% of the voting population is 45 or older. I'd say that they also turnout in higher numbers than the younger generation also. Based on internet usage statistics, this older demographic doesn't use the internet nearly as much. In 15 years, the internet will be THE choice advertising/information medium and at that point will greatly influence the information provided to the voting public. How old will Bloomberg be then?

[Ed]

Well cosnidering he has flip flopped parties, first a democrat then a republican, then an independant, I doubt he will be immune to the charge of flip-flopping.

[Karl N]

Scott, please check out Republican candidate (former Libertarian) Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. He's exactly the kind of person you're describing in this post, and he's already a presidential candidate. He has a huge internet following and is infamous for sticking to his rational principles and never flip-flopping.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

[He can't win because of his voice. -- Scott]

[Real Live Girl]

Does that mean that Hillary will try to become a tall guy with good hair? That would make things even more interesting.

[Jay]

Your title had me chuckling, then the post wasn't funny at all. I'm highly disappointed. If you really want to be respected for your predictions, try writing them in incomprehensible poems like Nostrildumbass did. People will be analyzing and re-analyzing them for years, and call you a genius, when really you are just making up weird stuff.

[Randy]

I hope your happy. After yesterday's post (and the one detailing your day), I now have a craving for bananas every morning.
Does that mean I will eventually turn into a disgruntled employee (too late) and syndicated cartoonist?

[CarlM]

It would be nice to have someone as president who was able to see both (or all) sides of an issue, actually shared with us that he or she UNDERSTANDS both (or all) sides of the argument, and then shares the reasons for whatever decision is ultimately made. This is true for the president of a country as well as for the president of a corporation (or university).

My concern about nationwide elections in the US is that they seem to be getting more and more polarized. The majority of the voters are somewhere in the middle while the parties tend toward the extremes (to ensure that they please their so called "bases"). I've maintained for a long time that the first party to move toward the center will dominate politics. (Of course I realize that it isn't as simple as that, but this is a quickie post on a blog.)

[Heather]

So THAT'S why I want to vote for Romney? A subconscious attraction to his height and hair? Huh.

For anyone who hasn't read Time's recent cover story about Bloomberg and Ah-nuld ("The New Action Heroes"), http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1633089,00.html might be worth a look.

[Dave1-20-2009]

he’ll highlight the pros and cons (via the website) and then tell you why he picked the side he picked. It will be rational and fact-based government.

AMEN! Too bad an honest debate and intelligence are the opposite characteristics required to get elected in todays America.

[T.G.]

Damn, with today's post i realiced that i am getting older, being afraid of changing things and that impredictability always is for the worse (yeah, what you vote affects all the world, nice thought ha?).
The tall guy with the good hair is democracy, the said least worst form of government, hehe.

[JJ]

Arnie for VP!

[Coolbreeze]

Don't be naive, Scott. Bloomberg is no saint. Neither is he going to set anything right. He is just another power hungry wannabe-president, just as anyone else. He doesn't have the will to remove the rot that has set-in deep. I believe no one can. They will all lie, regardless of the condition of the country or the situation around. All for personal gain.

All your hopes about " ... [a] rational and fact-based government" will leave you only dejected and disillusioned, again.

Don't be naive, Scott.

[Penethra]

If I'm Nostril Dumbass, then you must be Aristootle.

[niCk(MemBeth)]

Always vote for the good hair. Only the guys with good hair can make run the country:

http://no-thinking.blogspot.com/2006/11/favorite-ape.html

[George W. Lucas]

Scott I wanted to thank you for yesterday's post, it was very enjoyable and one can see you went to a lot of hassle and invested quite a large slice of your day to produce it. Cheers and keep it up! (Next time could you please mention the brand of your chair, seems to be quite ergonomic)

[Jake]

They would have my vote...but the problem is that no Independent candidate will be elected to the Presidency in the current state of affairs. The system is completely setup for the two parties with the funding, the TV time, the debates, everything. Then you should consider the fact that the majority of Americans are in a rut the size of the Grand Canyon when it comes to party affiliation. Additionally, I believe that a significant portion of people who WOULD vote for an independent candidate still will not vote as per their conscience but instead vote for a perceived outcome (I like this guy, but I'm not going to vote for him because he won't win and I'll be taking a vote away from the the next worse guy who might actually win).

[rob kay]

I wish I could agree with Scott on this one, but Bloomberg has some habits that worry me. The first is his statement that there's no way he'd run for president. If he does do it, it'll be hard to justify that decision, no matter how much the situation changes. Secondly, he hasn't run for New York office the way you think he'll run for president. He ran for mayor in the traditional fashion. Third, he's stuck the government's nose in places no one has ever convinced me that it should be. Banning trans fats and smoking in bars? I certainly understand the argument for banning them, but is it the government's job to do so, even the local government? It asks the question, why not ban alcohol and tobacco entirely? How bout cars? Those give off enough "second-hand" smoke to be unhealthy. Why not monitor his citizens spending habits? He can make sure they're saving as much as they should be. I understand that you should be saving, at a minimum, 10 percent of your income. The average American saves -1 percent. I'm not advocating more government involvement, I just wonder about a guy who keeps butting into his citizens' lives. Where will it end? Finally, there's the tradition of the "crazy-billionaire" running. It'll only be a matter of time before he bares a striking resemblance to Ross Perot, and gets a half-blind, senile running mate.

[SoWhy]

Maybe we get a result like 30 (D) to 30 (R) to 40 (Bloomberg) if he runs and manages to pull over voters from both camps. After all, he only needs 40% of both parties' votes to win while each party needs 100% of their votes ;-)

[Cache]

I dunno... independent presidential candidates have a weird thing about going crazy in the later stages of a campaign. Remember Ross Perot? You'd think a millionaire could handle the stress...

This is why idiots always get elected president. Who else could go into a job with so much stress and yet genuinely be smiling and happy? Only a perfect idiot, that's who.

[Smokefoot]

Your predictions about how Hamas would adapt to being elected seems to have been totally off. If I can't trust you to predict terrorists, how can I trust you to pick a candidate's campaign?

[I said the Hamas politicians would start acting moderate. They did. It didn't work. Nothing lasts forever. -- Scott]

[Justin]

I certainly agree with you, however, the problem is that while Bloomberg will list out the pros and cons of each side, all that will get picked up is a sound bite of him listing the cons of the side with which he actually agrees. That coupled with the other candidates simply saying the pros of their position will make the voters who get all of their information from a 2 minute news piece agree with the "liar" candidate.

People are rationally ignorant, and if they hear person A say the truth - that Issue 1 has these bad things, but these good things, and it's because person A believes the good things are better than the bad that he or she chose it, and then they hear person B say that Issue 1 only has bad things, and that's why he or she is against it, well, there is more airtime for the negative on Issue 1, and people are going to say to themselves, "Well, even the guy that's for it said there's all these bad things with it, how can it be right?"

[E]

If someone actually did that, I would vote for them.

Not holding my breath.

On a not quite related note... the last time Nostradamus made the news, I actually picked up a $2 copy of his "writing." It was hysterical. It read just a mad lib - remember those?

"And woe to the great [noun] that shall be [verbed] by the [noun]. So the [adjective]city of [noun][adverb]run to the sea of [noun]."

[Eddie]

I've usually vote Libertarian, but, if Bloomberg is in, he has my vote.

[Stephen Harris]

More than just being a business who rationally evaluates situations, he also appears to be grounded somewhat in reality. For example his comments after the proposed JFK attacks were along the lines of "grow up, you're not at risk. Stop running around like headless chickens"

If I was able to vote in US elections (I'm an alien resident), he'd get my vote!