Bloomberg-Hagel ticket increasingly unlikely

Bloomberg-Hagel ticket increasingly unlikely
By SARA KUGLER

NEW YORK - The possibility of Sen. Chuck Hagel joining Mayor Michael Bloomberg on an independent presidential ticket seems to be dimming, with Bloomberg distancing himself on Monday from the Nebraska Republican.

The New York Times reported Saturday about a conversation one of its reporters had last week with Hagel, during which Hagel confirmed he had spoken with Bloomberg in the past about possibly being the billionaire's running mate.

The story contained no direct quotes but paraphrased Hagel as saying the rise of John McCain as the GOP nominee essentially closes Bloomberg's window of opportunity to jump in the race because of McCain's appeal to independents and moderates.

Asked Monday about Hagel's claim that the two have discussed running together, Bloomberg flatly denied that any conversation about those topics ever took place, and portrayed his relationship with Hagel as a distant one.

"I have met him a couple of times ... and I never talked to him once about being the candidate, and certainly not about who, if I were to run, which I'm not, who you would pick," Bloomberg said. "We just never had that conversation."

Hagel's chief of staff, Mike Buttry, said later Monday that the senator's conversation with Times contributor John Harwood had been "overplayed."

Buttry said Hagel did not tell the Times that he had been asked to run with Bloomberg _ he only said the two had had "general conversations."

Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty said "we stand by what John Harwood reported Chuck Hagel told him."

The Bloomberg-Hagel speculation began last May when Bloomberg and Hagel shared a not-so-secret dinner in Washington. Then, Hagel said in a television interview that it was time for a third-party candidacy to shake things up. He also mused about the idea of him and Bloomberg running together.

"It's a great country to think about _ a New York boy and a Nebraska boy to be teamed up leading this nation," Hagel said last spring.

The pair met up again for dinner last November in Manhattan, have spoken occasionally by phone, and were together for a bipartisan summit last month in Oklahoma.

Unity isn't all it's cracked up to be

Unity isn't all it's cracked up to be

Even a consensus-building, problem-solving president
can't solve political gridlock.

By Ezra Klein
January 27, 2008

It's been a tough-fought campaign, with lots of strong candidates and piles of good ideas. But I think I've made my decision. I'm supporting the candidate of division. Frankly, I've got unity fatigue.

That seems to be one of the chief buzzwords of this election. Unity. Barack Obama invokes it more frequently than John Edwards mentions "mills." My in-box, meanwhile, has only recently recovered from the torrent of messages sent by "Unity '08," a collection of political has-beens and never-weres who kept promising that if I would only click right here, I could use the power of the Internet to create a bipartisan presidential ticket that would solve problems ranging from the healthcare crisis to global warming.

How exactly would they solve them? Single-payer healthcare? A carbon tax? They never said. But they promised that whatever they chose, it would be bipartisan, and I'm not a partisan, am I?

Unity '08 has, thankfully, dissolved. But the dream lives on. Two of its founders have wandered off to create a "Draft Michael Bloomberg" movement because, if you don't count Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, this presidential cycle suffers from a dearth of rich technocrats from New York. To be fair though, it's not just the ZIP Code that qualifies him for the job. "He's not an ideologue," enthuses Gerald Rafshoon, a former Jimmy Carter aide who's running the We Like Mike movement. "He's a problem solver. He has also run things."

Ah, yes, "a problem solver," the close cousin of the unifier. Mitt Romney's a problem solver too, or so he tells me. Clinton says she's in "the solutions business." Who could be against that? An end to problems. It's a vision we could, dare I say it, unite around.

What accounts for all this talk of unity and bipartisanship and non-ideological problem solving? Speechwriters have no end of hoary terms of uplift to choose from. There's "individualism" and "family," "values" and "faith." So why are unity and competence so crucial to this year's message?

The short answer is that the candidates have no other choice. Washington these days is rived by partisanship, but that's not necessarily anything new or even particularly worrisome. In Washington, partisanship is like the San Francisco fog; it rolls in, hangs out for a while, and everyone goes about their business. The problem is, in this case, it's created total, impenetrable gridlock.

So, though elections are usually about what is to be done, this campaign has been unusually focused on whether it is in fact possible to get anything done. That's why you have Clinton touting her governmental experience and legislative skill, Obama emphasizing his unifying presence and talent for achieving consensus, Romney reminding voters that he once rendered the Olympics profitable, Unity '08 swearing that all we need is a bipartisan ticket, Bloomberg promising to be as good at governing as he was at getting rich, and so on and so on.

The problem is that hearing all these presidential hopefuls pledge to end gridlock is a bit like having a friend promise to fix my toilet by checking under the hood of my car. Analytically, it's misguided. Now, fish have to swim, and candidates have to over-promise, so let's grant that they may not believe all their own hype. But at the same time, we shouldn't ignore the essential incoherence at the heart of these arguments:

Gridlock is not something the president of the United States can solve. Political gridlock begins in the U.S. Senate, but we keep trying to end it in the White House. There is no potential executive in either party who would not like to manifest his or her agenda by sheer force of will. But in reality, President Mike Bloomberg would be as stymied as President Hillary Clinton or President Mitt Romney, because you don't get a doctor's note exempting you from the legislative process just because you ran, or even govern, as an independent. If you don't believe me, ask Arnold Schwarzenegger, the classic post-partisan unifier who couldn't attract a single Republican vote for his centrist health plan when it went before the Assembly.

Gridlock isn't a mystery. It's not some sort of untraceable crime. It happens live on C-SPAN every day of the week. It's a function of the rules of the Senate, where 40 senators can refuse to end debate on legislation and thus doom its chances of passage. Because of the undemocratic nature of the Senate, which gives Montana as many senators as California, those 40 senators can represent as little as 11.2% of the population.

This is the power of the filibuster, and it used to be a rarely invoked power, as the culture of the Senate prized compromise and consensus. In the 1977-78 congressional term, for instance, there were only 13 filibusters. Ten years later, there were 43. Ten years after that, there were 53. The Democrats used the tactic plenty when they were in the opposition a couple of years ago, but now that they're in power, it is the Republicans who are having a filibuster party. If they maintain their current pace, they'll have filibustered a full 134 times this term, more than doubling any other year on record. It's obstructionism on a truly historic scale.

Add to that obstructionist minority a divided government (the White House controlled by one party, Congress by another), the tensions of an ongoing war and a lame-duck president with no chosen successor and thus little concern for his plummeting popularity, and you have a moment that laughs at legislative progress. That's why the presidential campaign has become so focused on "getting things done."

But it's not up to the president. There are a variety of fixes for a filibuster-happy minority. The media, for example, could start accurately reporting the cause of the gridlock, shaming the relevant senators and increasing political pressure to compromise. The voters could eject politicians who refuse to compromise, laying down an electorally enforced preference for a functioning government. The Senate majority could change the rules, essentially eliminating the filibuster. Groups such as Unity '08 could arise and, rather than wasting everyone's time with idle fantasies of ever more dreamy executives, could campaign against Senate rules that are undemocratic and hostile to progress.

But the president can't do this, not on his or her own. Unity means nothing in the face of obstructionism, and problems can't be solved if legislators refuse to solve them.

Ezra Klein is a staff writer at the American Prospect. His blog can be found at EzraKlein.com.

MacKay lays groundwork for Bloomberg bid

Brand: MacKay lays groundwork
for Bloomberg bid

Rick Brand
January 27, 2008

Fueling the presidential fever, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lately has crisscrossed the country in high-profile stops, among them pitching public works projects with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

While Bloomberg is jetting about, Suffolk and State Independence Party chairman Frank MacKay, complete with his rattail coif and earring, is also on the road, but to far less notice.

Since September, MacKay says he has driven to 35 states and dropped 35 pounds along the way. His mission is to stitch together a patchwork of ragtag reform, independent and enviro-third parties to try to clear the way to the ballot for a potential Bloomberg presidential run.

While Ross Perot's former campaign manager Clay Mulford last week in Texas warned Bloomberg of the "terrible impediments" to getting on the ballot, MacKay has no doubt about the mayor's prospects.

"I guarantee you if he runs, he will be on the ballot in all 50 states," said MacKay. "What we're doing is laying the groundwork and we'll get him three-quarters of the way there with volunteers."

"Bloomberg would be our ideal candidate," said MacKay. "We're about giving the public another major choice who can speak directly with the public."

MacKay added he "doesn't give a damn about social issues" like school prayer and abortion because they have skewed the public debate. "The right wing and left wing have interfered so heavily with the candidates, you don't know where the real person is any more."

Within New York, MacKay has made himself a force by the relentless strategizing that he freely imparts to all sides, from Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. Statewide, his party has 344,000 registered voters, though party officials admit many have no idea they belong to an organized party.

Locally, MacKay first made a mark helping Thomas Spota win his Suffolk district attorney's job and still exerts influence that far exceeds his party's numbers.

"No one should ever underestimate Frank," said Edward Walsh, Suffolk Conservative chairman. "If you look at his rattail and earring one minute, the next thing you know he's five steps ahead of you."

MacKay has also made missteps - his largest was failing to back Suffolk's Democratic County Executive Steve Levy in 2003. His bid to float Donald Trump's name for president also sunk like a stone.

Undeterred, MacKay last September went national, forming the Independence Party of America and making himself chairman. It's a vehicle he hopes Bloomberg will use in a potential run. MacKay, however, emphasizes that he is working separately from the mayor, though he admits frequent contact with top Bloomberg operative Kevin Sheekey.

MacKay has also become executive director of the Reform Party of America, another remnant of Perot's presidential runs in 1992 and 1996, which will give MacKay's new party instant ballot access in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Kansas.

Just last week, MacKay also drove cross country, holding meetings in seven states on his way to Minnesota, where the state Independence Party elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura governor in 1999. That party voted at a state convention yesterday to join MacKay's new organization.

At first, Diane Goldman, a Minnesota party vice chairwoman, said she thought MacKay was "a Don Quixote chasing windmills." But now, she has come around: "He's a real go-getter, a salesman and very capable."

While billionaire Bloomberg may still have to finance massive petition-gathering operations in states including California, Texas and North Carolina, MacKay's efforts, backers say, will assure not only far easier ballot access, but better positions on November's ballot.

"In Florida, it's the difference between having the fourth spot on the ballot or the 26th," said Thomas Connolly, the new party's director for ballot access. "If you're that far down, you're only going to be elected mayor of Munchkinland."

Could there be a candidate Bloomberg in the wings ?

Could there be a candidate
Bloomberg in the wings ?

NYC mayor has money, ideas,
and maybe an opening

By JONATHAN CAPEHART

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 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, "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. Last week, 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 Sen. 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.

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 last Monday's meeting hosted by University of Oklahoma president and former Sen. 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.

Capehart is a member of the editorial page staff of The Washington Post.

Bloomberg's Quiet Canvassing of Silicon Valley

Michael Bloomberg's Quiet
Canvassing of Silicon Valley

Peter Burrows on January 23

It turns out Michael Bloomberg has been quietly courting Silicon Valley regarding a possible run at the US presidency—and that Silicon Valley, or at least a few of its moguls, is impressed.

BusinessWeek has learned that New York’s billionaire mayor was guest of honor at a dinner last summer at the home of private equity baron Sandy Robertson, of Francisco Partners. Attendees included Google CEO Sergey Brin, Software.com’s Marc Benioff, venture capitalist Michael Moritz from Sequoia Partners and Bob Fisher, the CEO of the Gap. (This might fill in at least one day on the calendar of New York deputy mayor for government affairs Andrew Sheekey, who helped arrange the event. Sheekey is also considered Bloomberg’s top political advisor, and publications including the New York Times have been seeking his travel records for months to get a better read on the mayor’s intentions.)

For the most part, it was a fact-finding mission by Bloomberg. “He wasn’t asking for anything. He was there to meet people, and understand how people on the West Coast [were] thinking about life,” says my source. But attendees seemed impressed as Bloombeg ticked off his accomplishments in the Big Apple—from the improved bond rating to green initiatives such as a plan to plant a million trees. He also seemed to make points with his argument that the two-party system is unlikely to solve America’s most difficult problems. He said a third party was the best way to “solve pragmatic issues,” recalls my source.

Fisher, in particular, was bullish, and at one point during the meal made “a passionate plea” for Bloomberg to throw his hat into the ring. Fisher, who didn’t return a phone call seeking comment, promised to help drum up support for Bloomberg in the Bay Area. Another tech heavyweight who has heard Bloomberg’s pitch also expressed hopes that he would run. “We need somebody to dig us out of the mess we’re in. It’s about competence,” the source told BusinessWeek last month.

Bloomberg wasn’t done taking the pulse of tech-land. In December, he made a return visit that included a one-on-one session with Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

With the world’s financial markets sputtering—and with the campagin of the most pro-business candidate, Mitt Romney, sputtering as well—I’d guess Bloomberg would find Silicon Valley to be fairly friendly territory were he to join the race.

Expert says hard for Bloomberg to get on ballots

Expert says hard for
Bloomberg to get on ballots

BY KARLA SCHUSTER | karla.schuster@newsday.com
January 23, 2008

Mayor Michael Bloomberg "has what it takes" to wage a credible, competitive bid for the White House, but the billionaire mayor would face "terrible impediments" in getting on the ballot in all 50 states, according to Ross Perot's former campaign manager.

"I think the country is ready ... and he has what it takes - he's socially liberal, economically conservative and financially prepared," said Clay Mulford, an attorney and ballot access expert who met with the mayor in Texas last week. "I think it would be a positive thing if he did run, but the hurdles are incredible."

Mulford, a Dallas attorney who helped run Perot's independent presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996, is a ballot-access expert who is now chief operating officer of a nonprofit education organization called the National Math and Science Initiative.

The two men initially discussed the work being done by Mulford's education group, but also talked about the byzantine ballot-access laws in many states, which Mulford described "as a mishmash of crazy rules designed to keep people off the ballot.

"We discussed some issues involving the nature of independent candidacies ... and how to overcome the unlevel and unfair playing field, but only in the most general terms," Mulford said yesterday in a phone interview. "He expressed no intention to run for president as an independent."

Mulford and Bloomberg lunched privately in Austin Friday, after the mayor appeared with Lance Armstrong and former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona at a hospital.

"We talked about a lot of things," Bloomberg said yesterday when asked about the meeting. "We talked about the political scene in the country. He has the view of a Texas resident and someone who had been involved with politics. It was actually fascinating to listen to his views of the world."

Asked if he would consider working for a Bloomberg campaign, Mulford said only: "I'm very busy with math and science in public schools."

Bloomberg has insisted he is not a candidate for president, even as his aides conduct national polls to handicap his chances. Key aides have suggested the mayor would spend more than $1 billion if he ran.

"Money alone can't do it," Mulford warned, citing the ballot-access rules in his own state as an example. To get on the ballot in Texas, an independent candidate must collect 75,000 signatures between March 5 and May 12 from residents who didn't vote in a primary.

"Seventy-five thousand signatures in two months is a very difficult task unless there's a groundswell of support," he said.

Una Clarke: Bloomberg Too Late for '08, But Not for 2010

Una Clarke:
Bloomberg Too Late for '08,
But Not for 2010
BY AZI PAYBARAH | JANUARY 21, 2008

Here’s former City Council member and current Brooklyn powerbroker Una Clarke, telling me it’s too late for Michael Bloomberg to jump into the presidential race.

“I think it’s far-fetched. I think he can be a real good player to keep people honest,” she said.

When I asked her about Bloomberg possibly running for governor - which, according to this Siena poll, is feasible - Clarke said, “That’s not a bad thing. That’s not a bad thing.”