I like the guy because he is pretty hard-headed while being socially liberal on most of the things I'm pretty liberal about myself. I also think he's tough enough that he understands national security priorities. A bit smoother than Guiliani and certainly has more management experience than HRC or OBambi. The Christian right would go nuts (a very socially liberal NY Jew ), of course, which is okay with me too. If he were an independant in a Rudy / HRC race it would be a tough call as to whom he would hurt most. On most issues HRC couldn't get to the left of him and on tough and competant Rudy would have a hard time getting to the right. Throw in a running mate that is outside the box ( my mind reels trying to come up with someone that would really stir things up ) and 2008 could be fascinating. Lets see - HRC/OBama vs Rudy/Condi vs Bloomberg/(fill in prominent Christian female a little more conservative and from sunbelt with good foreign policy cred not currently in politics - or Colin Powell )

>You're right about the primaries being irrelevant to Bloomberg. I somehow managed to overlook the actual news item, which is that he is leaving the Republicans to become an independent. (Sound of loud smack against forehead). He has not said anything about running for President. That is all speculation. Anyway, sorry for the goof.
>
>You're right also about disillusionment with both parties. IMO if they asked the question this way the leading candidate in both parties would be None Of The Above.
>
>
>>What different do front loaded primaries make? He don't need no stinkin' primaries. He's an independant. All he has to do is be on the ballot in November and buy a billion dollars worth of TV time in September and October. He has 5 billion dollars personally.
>>
>>As to executive competence - he actually is an executive.
>>
>>I think if the guy really wants to be president he may even have a shot. No grass roots - yet - but people are very disillusioned with both major parties.
>>
>>>>>I don't think it matters whether Bloomberg gets in or not. Not electable.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're just joking with that Vince Foster stuff, right?
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, I don't think Clintons had him whacked ... anymore than I saw Tony explicitly say to take out Phil Leotardo <g> ( no, there is a lot of mystery about the Foster thing, and while I think there is a lot to it the Clintons would not like public I don't think they killed him - though I think they know a more about it than they'd like to ) I like Bill Clinton, for all his roguishness, and I even see a lot to admire in HRC. I just don't want her anywhere near the White House ever again.
>>>>
>>>>Seriously, the issue isn't Bloomberg being electable ( though he is probably more electable than Hillary ) but what his candidacy would do to the election. Remember, this guy has the money to launch a better funded campaign than either party and he's not Perot-crazy. He could definitely frame the whole election in whatever image he chose. And I believe he just might do that. This could get really interesting. When Bloomberg talks people tend to listen. From a sheer administrative point of view he might not make a bad president. We could use some executive competence ( can't remember the last time we actually had any in that office )
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't forget Dubya ran offering the same concept of executive competence ;-( Remember the promise that it would be an "MBA administration"?
>>>
>>>I don't know that Bloomberg can frame the election in whatever image he chooses. Money goes only so far, especially in a front-loaded campaign. There is less than 8 months to go until Super Duper Rootin' Tootin' Tuesday or whatever they're calling it now. And don't underestimate the ignorance of much of the voting public. Bloomberg is an unknown to many outside New York.
>>>
>>>Rudy must be delighted by the prospect of another New York mayor in the race.
>>>Even one was testing the boundaries of the Republican base.