May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Imagination | Main | Free Will in Fruit Flies »



Oy Vey said:
What about picking a President sort of like the Catholics pick a Pope?

How about a bi-partisan committee of a variety of high ranking, mostly elected officials... and they have to select someone by a unanimous vote?

Actually, that's pretty much how the "Electoral College" works, at least up until the 60s.

Little me

To Mark:
"Are there really still people who think that someone who inherits a title is better or 'higher' than someone who does not?"

Very few, if any. And that is not what monarchies (of today) are about. Why don't you visit one, and get a first hand experience...

Being a regent is a tough job. Quite unfair that one guy (or family) needs to do it alone. But they have practiced it for most of their lives, so they should be good at it. And that is good for the nation.


I worked for Bloomberg from 1993 through 1998, and I worked as a professional political scientist from 2002 through 2006, so I'm pretty well-qualified to comment here. Mike is smart enough and pragmatic enough that I expected he'd be an effective mayor after climbing the learning curve, and I correctly predicted it would take him 2 years to learn how to be mayor which gave him enough time to get popular and be reelected since it was a 4-year term.

I don't want the President to learn on the job any more than is absolutely necessary. This is why, for example, Hillary is the only Democrat I wouldn't expect to send the country down the toilet, since she's already been President. Bloomberg just isn't ready.

A ticket with Bloomberg and Hagel would have no shot because neither man has much personal charisma, and without such charisma you have to be extremely well-known for people to be comfortable with you (like Nixon, or Hillary again).

The previous comments are independent of politics. I think that Bloomberg would be just as liberal in office as any Democrat (his only advantage is he wouldn't be LEFTIST and so would avoid the worst Democratic craziness), and as a Conservative in my private political opinions, there is no way I would ever vote for him.


Anyone named Bush or Clinton must be automatically ineligible from now on. I've had more than enough of McSmirky the Chimpster. And why is it that Bush sr and Clinton seem to be friends now?

Oh, and all monarchies must be abolished. All people are equal and must have an equal chance at being head of state of their country.

Are there really still people who think that someone who inherits a title is better or 'higher' than someone who does not? Abolish all aristocracy! And abolish all hereditary titles and hereditary privilege.


You, sir, may be psychic. Or maybe Reuters is using you for some leads. Or maybe Bloomberg just thinks you have something here...


Why go through this bother every 4 years?
Return to America's British roots.
Have Queen Elizabeth as head of state.
Canada manages quite well with this arrangement.

Kilgore J. Trout

Everyone is cavalier about their health until they are in chemo.


Ugh. I want more choices. I lean towards libertarianism and and centrist on most issues but I htink that makes me the minority. If you watch TV you get the impression that most people are fringe loonies, but I think that's because they yell the loudest. That said I can't see bible belt middle America electing a black man with an unpronounceable name (except the Hussein part), a rich white woman that most people hate, or a short rich Jewish guy. I just don't see it happening. How weird would it be to see Guiliani and Bloomberg as the Presidential candidates? That'd be a fun election but again it will never happen. Right wing Evangelicals in their masses will not choose a pro choice candidate. They'll sooner stay home. One can only HOPE!
I worry a great deal when people's religious convictions effect politics.


"Could a short, Jewish, highly competent guy get elected president?"
Short? Yes.
Jewish? I think so.
Highly competent? Never. It's hard enough to get a moderately competent guy elected. Voters like politicians who are competent at lying to voters, and nothing else.

Appalled in Tokyo

Nope, not if he has even the slightest thing to do with the Republican Party. And he quacks like that duck.


Nurse Bloomberg? Oy vey.


Has anyone seen this? Apparently it's a bipartisan, grassroots coalition that is making what appears to be a good attempt at creating a third party in our two party system. What's more, they are considering pushing Bloomburg as their candidate. Check it out.


Any guesses as to how impotent a president without a single Senator or Representative to help carry his water is going to be?

Bloomie is a good bet to found The Nanny State Party.

Walter E. Wallis

President Bolton will take care of everything.


"Could a short, Jewish, highly competent guy get elected president?"

No. This country will never have a highly competent President.


OK, now you're really just trying to get our goat. I'm not biting.


"Could a short, Jewish, highly competent guy get elected president?"

No one higly competent will be nominated... they can't be pupeteerd. (Or however it is spelled)

Boraxis Baugmonster

Goats don't have the right to vote?

Let them eat tutnups!

DilbertWhore? *DilbertWhore?*

-- baug


Bloomberg would not seek the presidency for money, he would seek it to push forward a social agenda that is contrary to the will of the authors of the Constitution. He is a draconian big brother who wants nothing more than to make certain all of us "less-enlightened" folks are safe from our own free will.


Chuck Hagel, another moderate Republican, recently said he might run with Bloomberg on a third party ticket. I think that would be very interesting. I live in CA, so there's no real point in me voting anyway because my state always goes blue no matter what. I might as well vote for them.


Since most people are stupid, if he puts on a good enough show, he may get a statistically significant percentage of votes. I suspect he would pull more of these from the Democratic side than the Republican.

A side note: Anybody who attacks somebody based on physical characteristics is loudly proclaiming their intellectual bankruptcy.


let me also add that 'beholden to no one' is remarkably naive. bloomberg has cut a bunch unscrupulous deals in New York to prop himself up for this run.

also frankly i think your last statement infers that anyone opposed to this smart guy must be because he is Jewish.

Is someone's background an issue? can it be discussed?


let me also add that 'beholden to no one' is remarkably naive. bloomberg has cut a bunch unscrupulous deals in New York to prop himself up for this run.

also frankly i think your last statement infers that anyone opposed to this smart guy must be because he is Jewish. Being Jewish is an issue at least on Foreign policy which are painfully learning in the Middle East.


All you wimps saying he can't get elected. All he needs is to take slightly more that 1/3 of the vote from each party in each state, or the right states. A third party of Moderates has a good chance of winning. Personally, I vote for myself. That way I can still complain about the president whoever wins.

Someone can win a state with 34% of the vote.



Since by your examples he obviously doesn't understand what government is for, he's not really my first choice Scott. It's not about smoking and arteries, it's about private property and free trade. If I can control who smokes in my house, why not in my bar? Anyone forced to come into my bar? Nope. And as long as everyone is able to be clear on ingredients, where is the force? Where is the fraud? No injustice happening in a Big Mac.

Everyone is HARDLY a libertarian. Libertarians establish a principle of zero aggression and then follow it unwaveringly, regardless of the consequences. This is because their goal is not to create a society that suits their particular fancy, but to create a just government, be the resulting society what it may. Almost everyone else is doing the exact opposite: they decide what they think society should be like, and are willing to pass nearly any law in an attempt to make it so. The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. Most people aren't just ignorant or stupid: they genuinely prefer government control of their own and their neighbors' lives. We can hand out flyers for the rest of our lives, publish as many books as we like, make speeches until we're blue in the face, and most of them aren't going to change their minds. While they disagree among themselves about the details, authoritarians of one sort or another constitute an overwhelming majority.

But I am not merely a means to your ends, or to the ends of the rest of society. I am an end unto myself. Society exists for the benefit of its members – not the members for the benefit of society. In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men; it administers justice *among* men who conduct their *own* affairs. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. What difference is it to me if a decision is forced upon me by a dictator or by half of my neighbors? Either way my right to free, peaceful action has been nullified.

Apologies to Spooner, Mencken, Spencer and others for stealing their words. Especially Spooner, since he believes in Intellectual Property. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.