Palin is great for the GOP, Giuliani says

Sarah Palin will visit Norman next month for a book signing at Hastings.

Hat Tip to my twitter buddy @MMStewart

A prominent, socially moderate Republican said Sunday that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has achieved iconic status with the Republican Party's conservative base, is an asset to the GOP.

"I think Sarah Palin is great for the Republican Party," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in an interview that aired on CNN State of the Union.

Giuliani said Palin generates a lot of enthusiasm for the party which has struggled to define itself and identify its leading voices after the McCain-Palin ticket lost its White House bid a year ago.

"She gets a tremendous reception even here in Democratic New York," Giuliani, who hosted Palin at a New York Yankees game, told CNN John King.

We're very far away from a 2012 election, Giuliani added, Right now, I like figures who are creating interest in the Republican Party.

"Given the decisions that the Obama administration is making, particularly on this area of terrorism which concerns me probably more than any other, we're going to need some pretty strong alternatives in 2012. I don't know if it'll be Sarah Palin or someone else. But right now it's [about] developing interest in a Republican Party and we need a two-party system and we need a healthy one.

Giuliani said he had not made any decision yet about whether he will seek the White House again in 2012 or run for New York governor. Asked when he had to make that decision, Giuliani told King, Not today, not this morning.

Oklahomans contributed more than $6 million to 2008 campaigns

Oklahomans contributed more than $6.3 million to 2008 presidential campaigns, according to final Federal Election Commission filings released Friday.

The total triples the previous record, set in the 2004 campaign.

In all, 18 candidates received Oklahoma contributions, ranging from $25 to Republican long shot John Cox to GOP nominee John McCain’s $2.1 million. President-elect Barack Obama is second on the list at $1.7 million.

Republicans outraised Democrats $3.3 million to $3 million.

Of the state total, some $1.7 million came from Tulsa ZIP codes. Oklahoma City ZIP codes accounted for $1.6 million. Suburban Oklahoma City ZIPs, including those for Edmond and Norman, came to $1.2 million.

John McCain, R, $2,058,179

Barack Obama, D, $1,711,189

Hillary Clinton, D, $821,398

Rudy Giuliani, R, $549, 795

John Edwards, D, $341,292

Mike Huckabee, R, $205,217

Ron Paul, R, $172,856

Mitt Romney, R $159,419

Bill Richardson, D, $112,070

Fred Thompson, R, $101,561

Joe Biden, D, $46,659

Tom Tancredo, R, $16,582

Sam Brownback, R, $10,852

Tommy Thompson, R, $9,200

Dennis Kucinich, D, $5,958

Duncan Hunter, R, $5,690

Chris Dodd, D, $1,100

John Cox, R, $25

Giuliani won't rule out runs for NY governor or president

From CNN

Rudy Giuliani told CNN Sunday the failure of his presidential bid this year didn’t mark the end of his political career — and that his future could include another White House run.

The former New York City mayor said that the economic environment this year may have presented too big an obstacle for any Republican presidential hopeful to overcome.

"If you had told me a year ago we would have a major economic crisis, I would've told you it would be very hard for any Republican," he said.

He wouldn’t rule out another run for the top spot. "No one knows whether you'll do something again until you come to the point of: 'Is it possible to do it again? Would you have a chance of winning?’ I mean, those are just things you can't evaluate right now," Giuliani said during a question-and-answer session with CNN International’s Hala Gourani.


Giuliani also wouldn’t rule out the the idea of serving in an Obama administration, though he said it was “unlikely” to happen.

"You never answer questions like that hypothetically," he said. “Very few people ever turn the president down, but that's an unrealistic situation."

Giuliani also left open the prospect of a run for New York governor against Democrat David Paterson. "I don't know if I'd be interested in it,” he said, when asked about the possibility of a gubernatorial bid. “But I'll think about it when the right time comes along."

Paterson, who took over as governor after Eliot Spitzer’s resignation, is planning a run in his own right in two years.

Sunset On The Clinton Era

Sunset On The Clinton Era
By Christopher Adamo

Momentarily setting aside the tragic impact on America, should Barack Obama be elected president, it is nonetheless worthwhile to ponder the significance of Hillary Clinton’s announcement last Saturday that she is dropping out of the presidential race. To be precise, she is “suspending” her campaign which, considering the history of the Clinton dynasty, could indicate that in her mind, this contest is not yet settled.

Nevertheless, her announcement highlights an awareness on her part that, at least for the moment, she cannot succeed in a toe-to-toe contest against Obama. So despite the many ominous circumstances facing this country, heartland America can heave a collective sigh of relief. The nightmare of the Clinton epoch appears to be over. Indeed, Obama’s empty rhetoric about “change and hope” belies his intellectually vacant political philosophy. But in light of past experience with the Clintons and their reputation of promoting themselves at everyone else’s expense, almost any “change” would seem to portend an improvement.

From the moment she burst upon the national scene in 1992, Hillary Clinton displayed an understanding of the qualities necessary for political dominance in an environment where the law represents a mere obstacle to the aspirations and methods of the blindly ambitious. On more than one occasion during her Congressional testimonies, she all but challenged her inquisitors with her audacious “I do not recall” responses, mocking them and essentially daring them to resort to increase the heat in efforts to make her confess to wrongdoing.

As this facet of the Clinton scheme played out, the truth became completely irrelevant. Instead of matters being determined on the basis of facts, things degenerated into a battle of nerves which she knew she would win.

Clearly, she was the driving force behind the Clintonian strategy of flouting the law not only as a means of ensuring a particular end, but as a challenge to any who might take exception. In essence her actions announced “This is my plan. Interfere at your own risk.” Time and again, her method paid off handsomely. Few on the Republican side of the aisle had the resolve to stand against her. And as the impeachment debacle proved, those who attempted to do so were all too often undermined by fellow “Republicans.”

The most unfortunate aspect of the situation as it currently stands is that it took a Democrat to shatter Hillary’s concocted aura of invincibility. Midway through Bill Clinton’s second term, it became obvious that Hillary had her sights on the White House, and would stop at nothing to get there. Reacting to her telegraphed ambitions, much of the Republican Party has been running terrified ever since, essentially accepting the notion of her “invincibility,” and politicking on that basis, often at the expense of its own governing philosophies.

Throughout the final term of George W. Bush’s presidency, and particularly after the dismal 2006 midterm elections, much of the leadership of the GOP has been fixated only on one thing, how to prevail against the presumably unstoppable Hillary juggernaut. Had Republicans shown a bit more collective spine, and not let themselves be so intimidated by her now thoroughly discredited persona of political prowess, they might well have pursued a proactive agenda touting traditional conservative principles to much greater benefit for the nation as well as to their own political fortunes.

Even the field of Republican presidential candidates who ended up running, along with some whose names were floated for several years prior to the race, often reflected a myopic strategy of prevailing over Hillary’s “super candidate” persona instead of establishing a rallying point for real conservatives.

Among others, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was suggested, not for her leadership qualities or a conservative political philosophy that could resonate with the Republican grassroots, but merely on the basis that being a woman, she might somehow neutralize Hillary’s strongest (we were told) suit. In the process, Republicans forgot to formulate campaigns that truly embodied the winning Republican/conservative principles of smaller government, and support for the moral fabric of a healthy society that enables it to flourish and prosper without the intrusions of the nanny state.

Ironically, the entire air of Clintonian political radiance was, from the beginning, merely a media fabrication. Bill won his two presidential elections with less than half of the smallest voter turnout in nearly a century. And Hillary vaulted into the United States Senate merely as a result of Rudy Giuliani’s untimely bout with prostate cancer. Only a cowardly opposition would grant them political dominance under such circumstances. But, being the opportunists that they are, the Clintons recognized that such was precisely the nature of their Republican adversaries.

Many politicians lie, but the Clintons raised the behavior to an overt level previously unseen, even in Washington. Many politicians engage in shady dealings, but the Clintons flagrantly consorted with the Communist Chinese and their Indonesian surrogates, simply ignoring cries of outrage as literal bags of dirty money passed into their hands. And many politicians attempt to intimidate their opposition, but the Clintons did so by brazenly involving the FBI, IRS, and other federal agencies as they attempted to destroy any who stood in their way.

Washington, and indeed the nation, have been irreparably changed by the Clintons. The “hardball” politics of the past has given way to Congressional “debates” in which facts and truth are irrelevant. Conventions that recognized the need to stand unified against the threats of foreign adversaries have putrefied and degenerated to a level where in their quest for power the Democrats now voice overt sympathies towards America’s mortal enemies while castigating the U.S. military on specious and often totally contrived grounds.

So, despite the myriad of perils that the nation faces, it is nonetheless fitting that at this precipitous time, the Clintons are being unceremoniously expelled by the pitiless political monster they worked so feverishly to create.

About the author
Christopher Adamo is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance

PEGGY NOONAN: Bush destroyed the Republican Party...

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
By PEGGY NOONAN
January 25, 2008; Page W14

We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."

In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?

Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage.

As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. The primary race itself is winnowing down and clarifying: It is John McCain versus Mitt Romney, period. At the same time the conservative journalistic world is convulsed by recrimination and attack. They're throwing each other out of the party. Republicans have become very good at that. David Brooks damns Rush Limbaugh who knocks Bill Kristol who anathematizes whoever is to be anathematized this week. This Web site opposes that magazine.

The rage is due to many things. A world is ending, the old world of conservative meaning, and ascendancy. Loss leads to resentment. Different pundits back different candidates. Some opportunistically discover new virtues in candidates who appear at the moment to be winning. Some feel they cannot be fully frank about causes and effects.

More on that in a moment.

I saw Mr. McCain this Tuesday in New York, at a fund-raiser at which a breathless aide shared, "We just made a million dollars." What a difference a few wins makes. There were a hundred people outside chanting, "Mac is back!" and perhaps a thousand people inside, crammed into a three-chandelier ballroom at the St. Regis. When I attended a fund-raiser in October there was none of this; perhaps 200 came, and people were directed to crowd around the candidate as if to show he had support. Now you had to fight your way through a three-ring cluster. (When I attended a Giuliani fund-raiser this summer I saw something I wish I'd noted: The audience was big but wasn't listening. They were all on their BlackBerrys. That should have told me something about his support.)

Mr. McCain is in the middle of a shift. Previous strategy: I'm John McCain and you know me, we've traveled through history together. New strategy: I'm the old vet who fought on the front lines of the Reagan-era front, and I am about to take on the mantle of the essentials of conservatism—lower spending, smaller government, strong in the world. He is going to strike the great Reagan gong, not in a way that is new but in a way that is new for him.

In this he is repositioning himself back to where he started 30 years ago: as a Southwestern American conservative veteran of the armed forces. That is, inherently if not showily, anti-establishment. That is, I am the best of the past.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, is running as I Am Today. I am new and fresh, in fact I'm tomorrow, I know all about the international flow of money and the flatness of the world, I know what China is, I can see you through the turbulence just as I saw Bain to success.

It will all come down to: Whom do Republicans believe? Mr. Romney in spite of his past and now-disavowed liberal positions? Or Mr. McCain in spite of his forays, the past 10 years, into a kind of establishment mindset that has suggested that The Establishment Knows Best?

Do conservatives take inspiration from Mr. Romney's newness? Or do they take comfort and security from Mr. McCain's rugged ability to endure, and to remind?

It is along those lines the big decision will be made.

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.

And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.

I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help.

Members Of Bipartisan Organization Push Bloomberg For President

Members Of Bipartisan Organization
Push Bloomberg For President

January 11, 2008

Several members of a bipartisan organization have left their group to begin a new mission -- drafting Mayor Michael Bloomberg for a presidential run.

Organizers for Unity 08 say two key staffers have left the group to form a committee to encourage the mayor to enter the race as an independent candidate.

Bloomberg says he is not a candidate -- but is gathering data to gauge support for a run.

Unity 08 was formed to craft an alternative, bipartisan ticket through online voting. But the project has been suspended after the group failed to receive enough support and ran into fundraising restrictions.

Unity Founders Head To Bloomberg Effort?

Two of the founding members of Unity '08 – a bipartisan group which was dedicated to fielding a national ticket comprising leaders of both mayor parties – have left the organization to perhaps join efforts to woo New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an independent candidate. Former Republican consultant Doug Bailey and former Carter White House communications director Jerry Rafshoon have left Unity '08. An open letter e-mailed to supporters stated that the group had "lost" the pair "to a committee forming to draft Mayor Bloomberg should the circumstances seem right." (The letter, posted on the Unity '08 Web site now says the two "have stepped down from the board and may have more to say about their plans in the near future). "We'll have something to say next week," Rafshoon tells the New York Daily News.

The future of Unity '08 is also tenuous, according to the letter, which cites a Federal Election Commission ruling for limiting their fund-raising ability. "And so reluctantly," the letter states, "especially given the volatility of the present situation, we're forced to scale back - not cease - our operations and suspend our ballot access project. Our website will become less interactive (it takes staff to answer hundreds of e-mails a day) and we can't in good faith make the $5 million commitment necessary to make a serious start on ballot access."

Meanwhile, the pressure is growing on Bloomberg to make a decision on a potential bid. For months, the mayor has denied interest in such a campaign while his aides and supporters have deliberately plotted one and shared such plans with the press. A front-page story in the New York Times greets the mayor this morning with the headline: "Calls Grow for Bloomberg to Make Up His Mind." From the story: "Mr. Bloomberg’s dalliance with the idea of running for president has stretched on and on, with his enthusiastic approval despite the public denials. But even before actually entering the contest, Mr. Bloomberg may have already risked losing something: people’s patience."

Calls Grow for Bloomberg to Make Up His Mind

Calls Grow for Bloomberg
to Make Up His Mind

By DIANE CARDWELL and RAY RIVERA
Published: January 11, 2008

Nearly every day a tiny new development trickles out from the stealth presidential campaign of Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York.

He has talked with Chuck Hagel and Sam Nunn, potential running mates. He has delivered a tart critique of the presidential field. He is conducting intricate polling to test his appeal in all 50 states.

Mr. Bloomberg’s dalliance with the idea of running for president has stretched on and on, with his enthusiastic approval despite the public denials. But even before actually entering the contest, Mr. Bloomberg may have already risked losing something: people’s patience.

The political parlor game — Will he run? When will he decide? How much could he spend? — that has so delighted Mr. Bloomberg is suddenly sparking a backlash. Editorial pages from The Wall Street Journal to The New York Post, The Village Voice and The New Yorker have taken him to task. Members of the administration have been rolling their eyes and referring to Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s political architect, as the deputy mayor for presidential politics.

And a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 61 percent of New Yorkers thought Mr. Bloomberg had a “moral obligation” to serve out his full term. The survey, of 1,162 New York City voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points, also found that while 16 percent wanted to see him run for president rather than for governor, 32 percent did not want him to run for either office.

“People might be saying, ‘C’mon, do your job,’ ” said Maurice Carroll, director of the polling institute at Quinnipiac. “Maybe people are thinking, ‘Look, it’s such a long shot; why don’t you think about what to do about traffic congestion in Bay Ridge?’ ”

Others offered a blunter assessment.

“It’s a very long prelude, and I think it is becoming a very old story very fast,” said Robert Zimmerman, a communications specialist who is one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raisers. “Mike Bloomberg has failed to make a case that he represents an independent movement, as opposed to a former Democratic liberal, former Republican, former Bush-backer running a campaign of opportunism.”

To be sure, there is little indication that ordinary voters around the country have given much thought to a Bloomberg candidacy, especially given the dramatic primary races in the two major parties. But his enormous wealth and willingness to spend it make him someone who cannot be ignored within the political world.

At this point, the fatigue with Mr. Bloomberg’s national ambitions seems highest within the political chattering class, but it could spread if the mayor continues to dance around his intentions without saying clearly what they are, analysts said. The speculation began in earnest last June, when he switched his registration from Republican to independent.

“With the way that he’s playing this right now, it features all the things that we like least about Michael Bloomberg,” said David S. Birdsell, dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. “It features him as the testy, hard-to-satisfy critic of candidates who are already in the race, and it buttresses, the longer this goes on, the aloof critic role we might associate with a billionaire above the political fray rather than the dedicated politician and competent manager.”

Adding to the potential for national ennui, Mr. Birdsell said, was “the very long and frustrating Fred Thompson dance over the summer,” which reduced the tolerance for indecision.

“That is going to make everybody considerably more focused on getting him to declare and to not have an erosion of enthusiasm that Fred Thompson experienced,” he said.

Closer to home, though, the impatience is already palpable, and could grow as the city’s economic situation turns more dire. After five years of ballooning surpluses, the Independent Budget Office last week projected a $3.1 billion deficit in 2009 and $4.6 billion in 2010, driven by the housing slump and softening Wall Street profits.

“There’s been a sea change where we’re moving into choppier fiscal waters that we haven’t had to navigate before,” said Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president. With the convergence of what is shaping up to be a painful budget process this month and the presidential campaign calendar, he said, “they’re going to have to show their cards.”

“He has this great political good will,” he said, “but this is the day-to-day work of being the mayor and it’s going to be hard to do the day-to-day work while slipping off to Oklahoma, unless we New Yorkers know what the program is.”

George Arzt, a political consultant who was press secretary to Mayor Edward I. Koch, said that Mr. Bloomberg was risking the political fate of Mayor John V. Lindsay, whose 1972 presidential campaign took a hit when Brooklyn’s powerful Democratic Party boss, Meade H. Esposito, urged him to end his cross-country campaigning and address the city’s growing economic ills.

In a comment that was splashed across front pages at the time, Mr. Esposito said, “Little Sheba better come home.”

“There are people who have been watching Kevin Sheekey for a long time doing what he’s doing now,” Mr. Arzt said, adding that they wonder, “What’s the endgame?”

Stu Loeser, the mayor’s chief spokesman, said that he did not worry about New Yorkers becoming frustrated with Mr. Bloomberg’s handling of his national ambitions, and that the speculation helped bring Mr. Bloomberg more attention to advance his agenda in Washington and elsewhere.

“I’m not sure that increased speculation or increased elevation is harmful,” he said. “We spent part of the day in Albany yesterday, and judging from reaction of the rank-and-file members that we met with, it seemed that they were more focused on what the mayor had to say than less.”

And others played down the notion that Mr. Bloomberg was sowing ill will because the city is largely perceived to be well run.

“I find just as many people who like that he’s a big star as are concerned that he’s out of town too much,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a likely candidate for mayor in 2009 who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens. “Now, obviously, you don’t want to be caught giving a speech in California if the streets are clogged with snow in Queens, but so far, so good.”

Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist College polls tracking New York politics, said he does not believe frustration will grow over Mr. Bloomberg’s denials of interest in the presidency, mainly because there is not a groundswell of support for him to run.

“I’m thinking about when Mario Cuomo was hemming and hawing for several years, and I think that was more frustrating for people because there was a huge support base for him to do it,” Mr. Miringoff said. “And that’s not there right now for Bloomberg.”

A WNBC/Marist poll of 505 registered voters released last week said 60 percent of New York State voters wanted a strong third political party, but only 27 percent said they thought Mr. Bloomberg should run and only 12 percent thought he would win.

Whether momentum will build for his candidacy remains to be seen. Although there are several groups working to support an independent run this year, one of them, Unity08, is significantly scaling back its operations and stopping its project designed to help independent candidates get on the ballot. In a letter released to members Thursday, organizers said that they did not have enough members or money to get on the ballot in all 50 states and create an online convention to nominate a bipartisan ticket.

Two of their leaders, the letter said, were forming a committee to draft Mr. Bloomberg “should the circumstances seem right.”

Jonathan P. Hicks contributed reporting.

Irritation at Bloomberg’s dallying

Irritation at Bloomberg’s dallying

By Christopher Grimes in New York
Published: January 11 2008 19:15

Even as Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor, conducts sophisticated polls assessing his chances in an independent campaign, some in the city he leads are growing impatient with his drawn-out flirtation with a bid for the US presidency.

A poll this week showed that 62 per cent of New Yorkers believed Mr Bloomberg was “morally obligated” to serve out the rest of his mayoral term, which ends in January 2010.

“We elected you for a four-year second term and you have an obligation to serve the whole four years” was the message from New Yorkers, said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University-sponsored poll.

In an editorial this week Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, which has generally supported Mr Bloomberg, urged him to make up his mind quickly.

Mr Bloomberg has stirred speculation about his bid by making ever more frequent trips out of New York. His presence this week at a bipartisan forum in Oklahoma helped keep him in the national spotlight even as voters went to the polls in the New Hampshire primary.

But in New York there is a growing sense the mayor should stick closer to home, particularly given the concerns about how a weaker year on Wall Street could affect the local economy.

The Quinnipiac poll found most New Yorkers believed Mr Bloomberg would run for president and, while his approval rating is high at 73 per cent, most say they will not vote for him.

But he is unlikely to bow to the pressure at home. Political analysts say they do not expect Mr Bloomberg to announce a bid until after the February 5 primaries, in which 20 states will vote.

He may wait even longer, until after the results of the Texas primary on March 4, to survey the field of nominees and assess their vulnerability in the general election.

With a practically unlimited war chest – he is believed to be prepared to spend up to $1bn (€676m, £511m) of his fortune on a run – Mr Bloomberg’s supporters say he believes he can afford to wait.

Until then, Mr Bloomberg is conducting detailed – and expensive – polls in all 50 states to determine the appetite for a third-party bid, as well as how his views mesh with those of the voters.

Unsurprisingly for someone who built a media empire by providing specialised data to financial traders, Mr Bloomberg used sophisticated polling techniques in his cam- paigns for mayor that provided a highly detailed picture of the New York electorate.

Doug Schoen, whose polling company created the system used in those campaigns, said on Friday that Mr Bloomberg was using the polls to make a “hard-headed assessment” of his chances.

“As a CEO, he was used to getting the most sophisticated data available,” said Mr Schoen, who is not currently working for Mr Bloomberg.

The Bloomberg Primary: Unity08 Loses, Independence (Party) Wins

The Bloomberg Primary:
Unity08 Loses,
Independence (Party) Wins

BY AZI PAYBARAH | JANUARY 11, 2008

“I was in 26 states in the last 76 days,” Frank MacKay, chairman of the Independence Party of America, said in a phone interview at 11 p.m. last night while driving through Alabama. “Every single state that I’ve been in, we’re talking ballot access.”

MacKay’s travels highlight why he won a major victory yesterday against the star-studded Unity08 in the below-the-radar contest to see which budding political organization would be in the best position to offer their nomination to Michael Bloomberg if the mayor decides to run for president.

Yesterday, officials of Unity08 announced they were suspending their ballot access operation—which was successful only in Florida and Mississippi so far - and losing two of their founding members, Doug Bailey and Jerry Rafshoon.

In a public letter, the board of directors of Unity08 blamed their stunted growth on a Federal Elections Commission decision limiting their contributions to $5,000, instead of the $25,000 allowed for the Republican and Democratic Parties.

“We were caught in a peculiar catch-22,” the Unity08 directors Bob Bingham, Angus King, Peter Ackerman, Zach Clayton and Lindsey Ullman wrote. “’[W]e wanted to break the dependence on big money by getting lots of small contributions from millions of members, but needed some up-front big money to help generate the millions of members to make the small contributions. And the FEC (in effect, an arm of the parties) didn’t let that happen.”

The letter went on to acknowledge that there is no room for more than one third-party candidate in the race this year. “Mayor Bloomberg seems poised to run on his own (and the fact is that two independent candidacies wouldn’t work) if the parties leave the sensible center open,” wrote the Unity08 directors in what was, in essence, their concession speech.

MacKay agrees.

“If he decides to run, I don’t care if God comes out of the sky, we’re going with Bloomberg,” he said.

Departing Unity08 founders Baily and Rafshoon agree too. The Unity08 directors said the pair were heading to a “a committee forming to draft Mayor Bloomberg should the circumstances seem right.”

While Unity08 was collapsing, MacKay was building his nationwide campaign.

The Virginia Independent Greens announced yesterday they agreed to become an affiliate of the Independence of Party of America (IPOA), making them the second statewide group in the country to do so. The Pennsylvania Reform Party affiliated with the IPOA earlier this year, and the Independence Party in Minnesota - which elected a governor there in 1998 - will vote on whether to affiliate on January 26.

MacKay said his job isn’t to find a candidate, but rather, to see how a third-party presidential candidate can get on the ballot nationwide.

“Every state has different laws,“ MacKay said. “Unity08 was trying to start from scratch. What I’m doing is I’m doing is taking people that have already done it locally, and weeding through.”

While both parties, Unity08 and the IPOA, prefer Bloomberg as their candidate, the two groups would have been trying to achieve different goals with the billionaire mayor’s candidacy.

Unity08 hoped its open nominating process - held online - would attract voters left out of the hyper-partisan primary process and lead to a fusion ticket of one Democrat and one Republican. “The past year has taught us that it’s tough to rally millions to a process, as opposed to a candidate or an issue,” Unity08 directors acknowledged.

The IPOA wanted to establish a permanent third party entity in as many states as possible, coalescing around the principles of voter reform, and led by a serious White House contender. MacKay said many states grant permanent ballot access to parties on whose line a certain number of votes are cast. So, while an IPOA candidate may not get enough support in a given state to win any electoral college votes there, that candidate could garner enough votes to establish an IPOA Party in that state.

“In Minnesota, they need a statewide candidate in every four-year span to get 5 percent of the vote. That’s what their threshold is” MacKay said. In Virginia, the threshold is 10 percent, he said.

“We’re hitting on all cylinders right now,” MacKay said. “All we need is a candidate.”

Muskogee County GOP hear presidential reps

County GOP hear presidential reps
By Cathy Spaulding
Phoenix Staff Writer
Published January 11, 2008

Muskogee County Republicans wanting to strengthen America’s borders, empower the states and get rid of the Internal Revenue Service heard about presidential candidates who want most of those same things at their monthly meeting Thursday.

Representatives for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson promoted their candidates’ position before about 50 GOP supporters at Jasper’s Restaurant. Absent were representatives for U.S. Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Speaking for Huckabee, former state Sen. Scott Pruitt got the most rounds of applause from those in the room.

“Mike’s not for reducing the tax code but eliminating the tax code,” Pruitt said. “Huckabee said we don’t need a tax on production, we need a tax on consumption. We need to get rid of the imbedded costs of production. He’d like to see a ‘vacancy’ sign at the IRS.”

Huckabee also supports modernizing the efforts to curb illegal immigration and for making borders more secure, he said.

“He was the only candidate talking about illegals going back and starting over” and coming into the United States legally, Pruitt said.

Sharon Caliendo, a Norman political consultant speaking for Giuliani, reminded Republicans that the United States has “two borders to secure.”

“The northern border is the more dangerous because Canadian immigration policies are so open,” she said, adding that Giuliani proposes Border Patrol outposts every 50 miles along the borders.

Giuliani, who was mayor when terrorists hit the World Trade Center in 2001, feels national security is a big issue, Caliendo said. “But so is border security.”

State Rep. Charles Key said Ron Paul wants to shrink the federal government, eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and return power to the states.

“Paul is against income tax,” Key said. “Our problems stem from being so used to big government.”

Paul also opposes American involvement in Iraq, but supports efforts in Afghanistan, Key said.

“The war alone will bankrupt us if we continue on the path we’re on,” he said. “It is costing us $3.5 trillion.”

Several in the audience challenged Paul’s opposition to involvement with Iraq.

“If we just bring them home, who is going to fight the war on terror?” asked Tom Tinnin of Fort Gibson. “The Islamic world wants to kill us.”

Burning issue: Can Boren keep the fire stoked?

The Oklahoma Editorial
Burning issue:
Can Boren keep the fire stoked?

CALL it Electoral College Syndrome (ECS). It's a condition affecting many Americans just before and just after a presidential election.

They suffer from the indignity of having a president chosen by a plurality of voters rather than a majority — something that happened twice with Bill Clinton — or having a president lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College vote — something that happened with George W. Bush.

The politicians who gathered in Norman on Monday may experience a condition related to ECS. They sounded all the right notes in appealing for national unity. This happens when the country is thought to be too divided — as it has been during the Clinton and Bush presidencies.

Then they go their separate ways and hope someone pays attention to them after "normalcy” returns.

With Electoral College Syndrome, calls for elimination or reform of the Electoral College system are oft-heard. These symptoms seem to disappear about the time a new president is sworn in, only to resurface almost four years later.

Calls for national unity this year are backed by a genuine desire for more civility. Coming as it did between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the Norman gathering didn't seem to get much notice.

If the effort ends here — as the effort to change the Electoral College systems ends as quickly as it begins — little will have been accomplished. If University of Oklahoma President David Boren and his co-enthusiasts for civility are determined to keep this fire burning, they must keep putting fuel on the flames.

Already the impression has been made that the effort was bipartisan in name only, that this was a gathering of moderate and liberals and exclusive of conservatives.

People say they want unity just as they say they don't like negative campaign ads. That negative ads keep coming is a testament to their effectiveness rather than their popularity.

People say they want to elect a president directly rather than officially voting only for a college of electors, who actually choose the president. Yet a system that's served this country for so long is stubbornly resistant to change, especially when demand for change wanes so quickly.

Variants of Electoral College Syndrome are easy to spot and include the recent clamor for burying power lines. This happens each time major storms leave people in the dark for an extended time. The further we get from the storm, though, the quieter the clamor becomes.

Boren's challenge is to sustain interest in his mission of restoring civility to American public life. "Hear our plea! Bring us together!” was Boren's appeal.

Perhaps a place to start is a rollback of bipartisan campaign finance "reform” that's led to the development of groups that are among the most divisive in history.

CNN Implies Bloomberg Is a Republican

CNN Implies Bloomberg
Is a Republican
By Bill Hobbs | January 10, 2008 - 08:21 ET

A new CNN report on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's quiet "research effort" to assess a possible presidential bid as an independent, is cleverly written to imply that Bloomberg is a dissatisfied Republican.

Bloomberg, a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, decided to run for mayor as a member of the Republican Party ticket.

Bloomberg, a former Democrat who was elected to the mayor's office as a Republican, joined a panel of moderate current and former lawmakers earlier this week at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. The group, made up of both Democrats and Republicans, called for a return to bipartisanship in government.

"What has changed is that people have stopped working together," Bloomberg said at the Monday gathering. "Government is dysfunctional. There is no collaboration and congeniality. There is no working together and 'Let's do what's right for the country.' There is no accountability today ... no willingness to focus on big ideas."

Bloomberg may have been elected on the Republican ticket in 2001, but he isn't a Republican. He's a lifelong liberal Democrat who only temporarily called himself a Republican in running for mayor of New York.

His 2006 mayoral re-election bid was endorsed by many prominent New York Democrats, including former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch, former Democratic governor Hugh Carey, former Democratic City Council Speaker Peter Vallone, his son, Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr., former Democratic Congressman Floyd Flake (who had previously endorsed Bloomberg in 2001), and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz.

On June 19, 2007, Bloomberg announced his decision to leave the Republican Party and be declared an independent. Policywise, he is much closer to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party than to the any part of the Republican Party. He's pro-abortion, avidly pro-gun control, anti-death penalty and publicly opposed the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Wikipedia summarizes his political positions thusly:

Bloomberg holds political positions which are generally centrist, drawing from both Democratic Party and Republican Party positions. He is socially liberal, supporting abortion rights, gay marriage, and normalization of the status of illegal immigrants, for example. Economically, he is moderate, supporting government involvement in issues such as public welfare and climate change, while being strongly in favor of free trade, pro-business, and describing himself as a fiscal conservative because he balanced the city's budget. Conservative groups have criticized this characterization because Bloomberg raised both taxes and spending significantly as mayor. On foreign policy and domestic security issues, he tends to be conservative, supporting the USA PATRIOT Act and opposing a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

Bloomberg is not a dissatisfied Republican thinking of an independent bid for the White House. He's a dissatisfied Democrat thinking of an independent bid for the White House. CNN got it wrong.

—Bill Hobbs is author of Who Is Fred Thompson, a blog-centric look at the presidential candidate.

Bloomberg will decide on White House bid by early March

Bloomberg will decide on
White House bid by early March

NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will decide by early March whether he will pursue an independent bid for the White House, a source close to the mayor told CNN.

The source, who is very familiar with the mayor's deliberations, said Bloomberg is assessing his chances in a potential bid for the presidency.

The source said the mayor -- who has been widely speculated as being interested in running for the White House as an independent -- has had data collected but hasn't started to analyze it yet.

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider said it's possible a centrist candidate would have a chance in the 2008 presidential race.

"There's a market for someone who can bring the left and the right together, Democrats and Republicans, and form a workable governing coalition," Schneider said, "but it's going to be there only if the parties nominate candidates who can't reach to the center."

Schneidner said it made sense for Bloomberg to wait until "Super Tuesday," February 5, when nearly a dozen states will hold either primaries or caucuses. The nominees for both parties will probably be clear after those results, political pundits say.

"If the Democrats nominate Barack Obama, who has a lot of appeal to Republicans, and the Republicans nominate, say, John McCain, who in the past has appealed for Democrats, there's no room for Bloomberg, and he probably should hang it up," he said.

A Newsweek poll conducted October 31-November 1 placed support for Bloomberg at 11 percent when matched up in a general election with Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, who received the support of 44 percent, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee, who received 38 percent.

When Obama was the Democratic nominee, the results changed little, with Bloomberg at 10 percent, Barack Obama at 43 percent and Giuliani at 39 percent.

Bloomberg, a former Democrat who was elected to the mayor's office as a Republican, joined a panel of moderate current and former lawmakers earlier this week at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

The group, made up of Democrats and Republicans, called for bipartisanship in government.

"What has changed is that people have stopped working together," Bloomberg said at the Monday gathering. "Government is dysfunctional. There is no collaboration and congeniality. There is no working together and 'Let's do what's right for the country.' There is no accountability today ... no willingness to focus on big ideas."

Bloomberg, 65, was elected mayor of New York in 2001, two months after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, and re-elected in 2005.

A native of Medford, Massachusetts, with an MBA from Harvard Business School, Bloomberg became a billionaire, first working with Wall Street securities bank Salomon Brothers, then as founder of Bloomberg LP, a financial news and information service.

Michael Bloomberg polls voters on presidency

Michael Bloomberg
polls voters on presidency
By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 2:47am GMT 11/01/2008

Michael Bloomberg is researching the views of voters in all 50 American states as he contemplates an independent campaign for the White House.

The exhaustive data collection process started months ago and, when it has been analysed, will provide the 65-year-old billionaire New York mayor with enough information to decide whether to run for US president.

Despite repeated denials that he might stand, the depth of the research has been interpreted as a sign that he will run if the figures suggest he has a chance of winning.

Observers have noted that Mr Bloomberg's denials have been getting weaker. He now merely states that he is "not a candidate".

Doug Schoen, who ran Mr Bloomberg's voter research - known as microtargeting - for his two mayoral campaigns, said: "They want a hardheaded sense of their chances."

Mr Schoen, who no longer works for Mr Bloomberg, has argued in a new book, "Declaring Independence," that a third party candidate such as the mayor could upset the election.

He pointed out that while previous independent contenders such as George Wallace, John Anderson and H. Ross Perot faced difficulties in their campaign, Mr Bloomberg's estimated £5 billion fortune would eliminate such problems.

So far, the surprise outcomes of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have added urgency and strength to the Bloomberg operation, Mr Schoen said.

"The uncertainty in the nominating process on both sides makes it more likely that Mike Bloomberg will explore a candidacy," he said.

Microtargeting gathers information on individual voters, rather than voting groups, to tailor and tweak the campaign message, advertisements and overall theme.

Most of the data, which goes as far as the magazines a voter reads, already exists in commercial databases. It can then be analysed to determine the chance of each voter supporting an independent.

On Monday, Mr Bloomberg fuelled speculation of a White House bid after he took part in a bi-partisan summit in Oklahoma.

According to a poll not conducted by the Bloomberg camp, 52 per cent of New York City voters say he would make a good president but only 34 percent would vote for him.

The survey conducted by Quinnipiac University poll suggested that strong support for his governorship did not necessarily translate into enthusiasm for him as US president.

Bloomberg Drops Another Hint He Might Run

Bloomberg Drops Another Hint He Might Run
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had a rapt audience on the steps of City Hall Thursday as he did what he loves to do most these days: hint that he might join the presidential race.

Some were admirers, some not -- the audience was a bipartisan group of over 40 Capitol Hill press secretaries taking a delegation trip (read: junket) to Manhattan.

Bloomberg's independent starpower as a potential third-party presidential candidate had -- perhaps now only briefly -- appeared to fade just days ago with the perceived surge for Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic presidential candidacy. But he sure didn't sound uninterested Thursday.

According to two press secretaries who were there, Bloomberg looked the crowd over and asked, "How many electoral college votes do you represent?"

Asked if that was a hint that he's getting in the race, Bloomberg just smiled, they said.


By Eric Pianin | January 10, 2008; 4:50 PM ET

Talk of Bloomberg-Hagel Ticket Returns

Talk of Bloomberg-Hagel Ticket Returns

Omaha, NE.- The talk of a Bloomberg-Hagel independent run for the White House refuses to go away.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now reportedly analyzing voters in all 50 states, checking his chances of winning in November.

And Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel's name continues to be linked with Bloomberg.

Speculation of a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket surfaced months ago, after a couple of low key, but high powered dinners between the two.

Now the speculation is back, and Senator Hagel is not stopping it.

Bloomberg continues to insist he's not running, telling reporters throughout the week that, "I am not a candidate." But he showed up at political meeting in Oklahomas this week where all the talk was about a 3rd party run.

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato says that take Bloomberg is, "looking for an opening. Look he keeps denying it and then he keeps stoking the rumors."

Senator Chuck Hagel who also attended the Oklahoma meeting was asked if the 3rd party talk will continue. Hagel said. "Well sure this is not a one time meeting for this group. We are going to continue to meet."

Backlash for Bloomberg over presidential buz

Backlash for Bloomberg
over presidential buz
BY KARLA SCHUSTER | karla.schuster@newsday.com
January 11, 2008

For months, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his aides have shown a deft touch managing the public relations around his non-presidential campaign, and recent polls show that most Gotham voters think the White House buzz is helping the city.

But with primary season in full swing and no clear leader in either party yet, there's also evidence that the strategy of simultaneously stoking and scoffing at presidential speculation may be generating some backlash.

The same polls that show city and state voters think Bloomberg would be a good president also show that they do not want him to run. City voters, a Quinnipiac University poll found, believe he has a "moral obligation" to finish his term, which ends in 2009.

Even the mayor himself appears frustrated by the attention at times. At a news conference last week about a drop in city smoking rates, he looked around the unusually packed room and quipped: "I'm glad to see there's so much interest in smoking."

But later, when he was asked why he was planning to attend a bipartisan summit in Oklahoma, he tersely replied: "Because I was invited. Next question."

Most recently, when he's asked about the presidential race or the primaries, Bloomberg often declines to comment, but then does just that, taking shots at what he calls candidates' lack of specific positions on issues such as health care, while offering few clues to his own.

The rising tension comes amid news that Bloomberg has been polling voters in all 50 states to gauge his viability as an independent candidate and that the Virginia Independent Greens are joining with the Independence Party of America to get Bloomberg on the state ballot.

"He's still in the catbird seat, but I don't see that lasting much longer," said Douglas Birdsell, a political science professor at Baruch College. "As the pressure to declare mounts, he's going to have less and less free rein. He risks negative coverage, and it's already begun."

Local newspapers have taken aim, one calling the mayor "a big tease." Yesterday, the New York Post wrote an editorial titled "Stop Toying, Mayor Mike."

Spokesman Stu Loeser said that Bloomberg has always been straight about his intentions.

"The mayor has said he's not a candidate, but he's going to speak out on national issues that affect New York," Loeser said. "All the feedback we get on the street or on the subway is that New Yorkers think this is good for the city and it is helping the mayor push the city's agenda."

One Republican operative and staunch Bloomberg supporter says the mayor has nothing to lose either way.

"What difference does it make if there is a backlash? He's mayor through 2009 no matter what," the operative said. "If he doesn't run, the worst that happens is people say, 'Oh, he led me on.' And if he does decide to run, he will do it with a media buy of unprecedented size and that will erase any equivocation that was expressed before."

Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey has said the mayor could wait until early March to declare. But after the Feb. 5 primaries, Birdsell said, he "could tip his hand more aggressively and say, 'I'm actively exploring this.' That could satisfy any drumbeat for an answer for awhile."

Bloomberg (and Company?) in the Wings

Bloomberg (and Company?) in the Wings
By Jonathan Capehart
Friday, January 11, 2008; Page A17

If you thought Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the Iowa caucuses was historic and Sen. Hillary Clinton's outta-nowhere win in the New Hampshire primary extraordinary, then be prepared to gasp once again if New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announces a bid for the White House.

That's because the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent would announce not only his own candidacy but also that of his running mate. A source close to the impending Bloomberg presidential effort told me last Thursday, "If Mike Bloomberg were to petition to get on the ballot, it would be easier to do so with a vice presidential candidate."

Let me disclose that I worked on Bloomberg's first campaign for mayor, in 2001. I mention this because, while the campaign didn't officially kick off until June of that year, my informal work on it began in mid-February. So I asked the Bloomberg operative if past is prologue: "Is it safe to assume you guys are already interviewing and vetting a No. 2 for Bloomberg?" He said, "That's a fair assumption on your part."

A Bloomberg presidential run looked much more doubtful just a few days ago, when everyone, including Clinton herself, thought the charismatic senator from Illinois would run off with the New Hampshire primary. That Obama's tidal wave out of Iowa smacked up against the stone walls of the Granite State means the billionaire mayor's White House hunt is back on track. Yesterday news broke that Bloomberg has been quietly compiling months of polling and voter data to assess his presidential chances. And Doug Schoen, a key adviser and strategist from the mayor's two campaigns, told the Los Angeles Times last weekend, "Bloomberg is going to spend the next two months doing an assessment of his prospects."

Just whom Team Bloomberg has met with about joining the ticket is not known. But Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and former senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) have been mentioned frequently. The vetting is going on because the calendar demands such a bold move.

People around Bloomberg have said that if he were to pull the trigger on an Oval Office run, it would happen sometime around March 5. That's when the petitioning process to get on the ballot in Texas begins. He would need 74,108 signatures by May 12 for an independent run in that state. According to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, if Bloomberg instead accepted the nomination of the Reform or Texas Independence parties, which have filed their intention to petition with the Texas secretary of state, he would have an additional week to gather only 43,991 signatures.

For the major parties, under normal circumstances, getting on a state's ballot can be difficult. For an independent challenger, the obstacles are even greater. Usually such a candidate is underfunded and out-lawyered. That wouldn't be a worry for Bloomberg, who could spend $1 billion of his own money on a campaign.

And by having a running mate at the outset, rather than waiting until the late summer, when the Democrats and Republicans will nominate their presidential and vice presidential candidates, Bloomberg would be saved the headache of going back to all those states to amend the ballots to include his No. 2.

The independent mayor has used his own jet to go from one high-profile forum to another to cultivate an image of nonpartisan success. The latest example was Monday's meeting hosted by University of Oklahoma president and former senator David Boren (D-Okla.), along with Hagel, Nunn and other possible vice presidential choices. All present decried Washington's partisan gridlock. Bloomberg didn't say much and didn't take questions from the media.

I'll take Bloomberg at his word that he is not running. Those close to him say he truly hasn't made up his mind. But this flurry of activity around him squares with my knowledge of the mayor as a deliberative chief executive who takes in as much information as possible before making a decision -- even as subordinates stir the presidential pot.

The writer is a member of the editorial page staff. His e-mail address iscapehartj@washpost.com.

Squeezed out?

Squeezed out?
Jan 10th 2008 | NORMAN, OKLAHOMA
From The Economist print edition

An idea revered in theory, not in practice

BARACK OBAMA won the Iowa caucus on January 3rd with a message that emphasised hope, unity and working together across party lines. By doing so he may have dispatched a formidable foe: not Hillary Clinton, who fought back and won the New Hampshire primary, but Michael Bloomberg. For several years there have been rumours that the mayor of New York is considering an independent run for the presidency. These gained credence following his decision to speak at the University of Oklahoma's conference on bipartisanship, on January 7th.

The point of the event, as David Boren, the university's president and a former senator, explained, was to “resurrect that kind of bipartisan statesmanship that united us as Americans to win the cold war.” Some observers took this as a sign that the conference would be a sort of coming-out party for a Bloomberg campaign. And Mr Boren admitted that he would be tempted to support an independent candidate “if the two parties do not rise to the occasion.”

But after Iowa and New Hampshire there may be less space for a bipartisan candidate. Mr Obama is not soon going to be knocked out by Mrs Clinton, and John McCain, for the Republicans, has staged a remarkable resurrection: both men specialise in appealing across party boundaries. Mr Bloomberg, for his part, has repeated that he is not in the running, and said that he hoped the conference could serve as a “catalyst” for a more harmonious discourse.

Bipartisanship is a popular cause. All the serious presidential candidates say they are for it. Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were elected in the Democratic strongholds of Massachusetts and New York City respectively. Mrs Clinton, one of the most polarising women in politics, has a reputation for working well with her Republican colleagues in the Senate.

This big talk may prove empty, as so often before. Faced with the choice between reaching across the aisle and ginning up turnout by appeals to the base, parties often yield to temptation. And politicians seldom police themselves. Even so, the spectre of a third-party candidacy is encouraging the Democrats and Republicans to behave a little better. Mr Bloomberg cannot afford to wait too long for the mask to crack.