Video: Are you ready for Hagel/Bloomberg? Update: “Great possibility” that Newt will run

posted at 10:20 am on May 14, 2007 by Allahpundit

Last week’s rhetorical question is becoming less rhetorical by the moment. He’s in full Nader messianic mode here: he didn’t leave the party, the party left him; we need fresh, new, independent, non-ideological ideas; and as far as what his meeting with Mike Bloomberg (who’s polling better than Rudy in NYC) was about, mum’s the word — although he offers that they didn’t “make any deals.”

The Prowler says they’re serious about it. But there’s a twist.

We might be looking at Perot 2.0. How’d that work out last time?

WashTimes has a scoop this morning about prominent Christian conservatives already throwing their support to Fred!, albeit anonymously just in case he doesn’t get in. My one hope for Fred’s campaign is that he doesn’t lay on the good ol’ boy crap too thick — I know it plays well with “the heartland” but, like Bainbridge, I’ve had enough of it, particularly when it bleeds over into anti-intellectualism. (Remember Bush’s overreaction to David Gregory asking a question of Jacques Chirac in French?)

As for the current ostensible frontrunner, having been fully exposed now as pro-choice, the attack on his weak points is ending and the attack on his strong points has begun. (As expected.)

Update: “[T]here were several ‘my daddy used to say’-s…” The more that keeps up, the further I drift towards Mitt as my social con alternative.

Update: This would answer my prayers for an intellectual Republican candidate, but I think Newt’s too well associated with Clinton-era partisanship to make him an attractive pick for 2008. Although maybe that’s what he’s counting on with Hillary expected to win the nomination — to entice Republicans into meeting Clinton with the anti-Clinton.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

who’s polling better than Rudy in NYC

Ok. So, Bloomberg is polling better in a Liberal city than Rudy. That’s bad news for Rudy, how? Yes, it was Rudy’s city, but there’s not going to be loyalty for that in a Liberal city that wants the most Liberal candidate possible. On the Republican side, Bloomberg’s right there.

amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:29 AM

America’s mayor can’t win his own city?

Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:30 AM

I don’t support Bloomberg or Guiliani because of their anti-2nd Amendment stance. I don’t usually vote on one issue but their willingness to scoff at a actual Constitutional right will supporting abortion as a “right” even though it isn’t in the Constitution scares me.

bentman78 on May 14, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Do you really expect him to carry the nomination of New York, against someone more Liberal than himself, or in the general against Hillary? One thing he can get is New York state, and California, but the city itself? No. I lived there for 30 years. If you’re God and a Republican, they’ll vote for the Democrat.

amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:32 AM

In the Presidential, anyway. They’ll vote for Republicans for mayors, because they have the most direct impact, and Republicans have done much better with the city. On the national stage? Democrat.

amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:33 AM

The saddest part about all of this is that Bloomberg owes his entire political career to Rudy. Bloomberg trailed Mark Green by something like 15 points in the last two weeks of the campaign before Rudy endorsed him.

Shivv on May 14, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Hagel needs Bloomy’s coattail$ more than anything. I just don’t see Bloomy writing a check for the privilege of riding shotgun.

Kid from Brooklyn on May 14, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Did you see the Prowler piece?

Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:38 AM

I’m amazed how arrogant and petty Hagel is. I shouldn’t be, but I am.

Bad Candy on May 14, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Hagel/Bloomberg!?! You’ve got to be kidding me.

CP on May 14, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Oh, great. A third party idea. ‘Cus you know that worked so well for Nader and the Democrats. He is arrogant. BTW, Bloomberg is from Boston, not NY.

amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:43 AM

La la la, I can’t hear you…

tickleddragon on May 14, 2007 at 10:44 AM

the most bland duo in the history of politics

mfnorman on May 14, 2007 at 10:45 AM

How can anyone fail to be thrilled at the possibility of a tag-team consisting of Hagel, co-author of the most disastrous immigration legislation ever conceived, and Bloomberg, the mayor of America’s largest sanctuary city?

Beats me!

tommy1 on May 14, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Hagel: Messiah of Nebraska.

tommy1 on May 14, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Eeyuugh…those two goobers could turn Miller Time into a Maalox Moment.

fusionaddict on May 14, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Hagel and Bloomberg! Good lord will it never end.

rplat on May 14, 2007 at 10:54 AM

“[T]here were several ‘my daddy used to say’-s…” The more that keeps it, the further I drift towards Mitt as my social con alternative.

Et tu, Chris?

Kid from Brooklyn on May 14, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Not ready…nope…never.

StoutRepublican on May 14, 2007 at 10:58 AM

all Hillary needs is a third party candidate to get 3%-5% of the vote, then the Femi-nazi’s will do the rest. This election has 3rd party wrote all over it, we are screwed.

politically Hagel might as well, his senate career is over in Nebraska after next election. He may get beat in primaries

jp on May 14, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Et tu, Chris?

I agree with Matthews there. I can’t tell you how sick I am of “authenticity” being associated with the south.

Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:59 AM

we have to many older people and politicians that do not understand or grasp modern technology and what that means for the flow of ideologies, thus the resurgence of Fortress America foreign policy….and probably many other protectionist measures like anti-free trade.

jp on May 14, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Hagel?…….0.5% of the vote, max….Mr. Hagel is no Perot.
Fred!……..as a friend of corn-pone I don’t mind it but it does need to be toned down. He did fine in metering it out on Hannity.

Limerick on May 14, 2007 at 11:06 AM

on the other hand, all the democrat male voters may go third party with Hagel/bloomberg along with far-right buchanan types. then you may have a % vote of around 33/33/33 give or take between Dem/Gop/ind…

jp on May 14, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Re: authenticity. In my opinion, that is why it is a better move for Rudy to say ‘this is what I think, now you decide how important it is to you’, then to be shading between key social con issues.

And I think it also accounts for the ground-swell for Fred! because regardless of personal politics, value voters need the perception of authenticity more than any other kind of voter (economic issue or defense issues can be more politics of expediency – don’t care how you do it as long as you get it done).

That’s going to be associated with the south as long as that is where that voting block resides.

Spirit of 1776 on May 14, 2007 at 11:10 AM

What the heck are non-ideological ideas? Isn’t that a bit like wanting water that isn’t wet?

Watcher on May 14, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 10:59 AM

I agree, but some of that misperception has been self-inflicted (Exhibit A, Exhibit B). Unfortunately, the entire rationality of this argument gets lost in the rank elitism of the “…I hate guys with f’n ranches” blast.

Kid from Brooklyn on May 14, 2007 at 11:18 AM

I don’t understand people like Hagel. He wasn’t left enough to side with the democrats on various issues, but he constantly stuck it to the President on the Iraq war wherever he could. I honestly don’t understand his appeal. Probably because there isn’t any. Who is telling that there is? How do they sleep at night? Hagel isn’t just a turd sandwich candidate; he’s an entire scatological smorgasboard. Here’s to his spectacular flameout after being asked a direct question on his position on any major issue, and then proceeding to make Bill Clinton’s ‘is’ statement a model of precision.

austinnelly on May 14, 2007 at 11:18 AM

…as a friend of corn-pone…

Limerick on May 14, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Ha! Nice!

What the heck are non-ideological ideas? Isn’t that a bit like wanting water that isn’t wet?

Watcher on May 14, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Yeah, that makes no sense. Good analogy there.

CP on May 14, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Newt is a loser so cut the pining for him. As for Bloomberg and Hagel – Bloomberg is too pro Israel for the raging alocholic Hagel.

Hilts on May 14, 2007 at 11:25 AM

I do agree that Fred! shouldn’t lay the folksy stuff on too heavy.

I think maybe Newt for VP, but he’s got strong negatives, so I doubt it unless he really strong, he’s not going anywhere because of the negatives.

Bad Candy on May 14, 2007 at 11:36 AM

I like Fred, and it’s not because he’s “authentic” or any other euphemisms we can come up with to describe the fact that he’s Southern. I’m a life-long resident of New York state (about an hour or so outside NYC), so I have no particular affinity for Southern candidates. What I like about him is that he seems to be a rather strong Federalist. As much as I don’t like it, it seems we’re more and more moving towards a bigger government. I’d rather that government be on the smaller state scale than at the federal level.

Shivv on May 14, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Sorry Newt, Recycling is for my beer cans – not my politicians.

I will not give you another chance to disappoint me.

Wander on May 14, 2007 at 11:42 AM

HEY GUYS>>>MICHAEL BLOOMBERG IS REEEEAL POPULAR DOWN HERE IN VIRGINIA TODAY.

Local Color Invents “BLOOMBERG GUN GIVEAWAY” To Support Brothers In Arms Sales

Poll THAT.

seejanemom on May 14, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Did any of you watch the Foxnews Sunday interview with Guiliani? I thought he did rather well in explaining why he did what he did in NYC.

Regardless….

All conservatives should be praying that FRED THOMPSON gets in the race. I hope everyone here jumps on the bandwagon and votes for Fred. He is the right guy for the job.

msipes on May 14, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Bush’s overreaction to David Gregory

I don’t see that as “anti-intellectualism.” There’s a difference between being an intellectual and a pretentious Arschloch, as they might say in Behrleeeen.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 14, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Update: “[T]here were several ‘my daddy used to say’-s…” The more that keeps up, the further I drift towards Mitt as my social con alternative.

Dag-nabbit. I guess this means that Fred! couldn’t count on carrying Queens in the general election.

Probably San Francisco, either.

(Me, ah lahks me some folksy!)

see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 1:18 PM

P.S. And so does my ol’ pappy!

see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Dag-nabbit. I guess this means that Fred! couldn’t count on carrying Queens in the general election.

Exactly. If the GOP wants to become a fully southern party, by all means, let it. I and the other non-southern conservatives will happily look for alternatives. We’ll see how you guys do without us.

Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 1:20 PM

I just watched Bloomberg give the commencement address at my college graduation this past weekend. He’s a terrible speaker – whiny is the word that comes to mind. He was trying to say that the political environment was too hostile and divided in this country – instead he flubbed it and said “there’s too much bipartisanship in this country.” The speech was full of similar missteps. Totally unimpressive.

redaerobaby on May 14, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Did you think the GOP was counting on carrying New York and California in the general election?

It’s happened, but I don’t think we should count on it. (We tried a New York stater on the ticket in 1996 and it didn’t help much.) Better to bash Hollywood and sway the good folks of Michigan. Conservatives in Deep Blue–which right now includes me as well as you, electorally anyway–are pretty much just along for the ride.

Why the concern about Fred’s accent? It’s not fake like Hillary’s. And no one’s digging on Rudy for his accent. Hey, Brooklyn sounds tough, and the country likes tough. There are some substantive faults in his resume that seem like a bigger deal.

see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Sorry, that last sentence wasn’t clear. Faults in Fred’s resume is what I meant.

see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 1:59 PM

So, it’s style-over-substance time, AP? The bottom line ought to be integrity to principles, with a large side order or adherence to the Constitution. Fred is far closer to filling that bill than Rudy McRomney the frontrunner(s).

Freelancer on May 14, 2007 at 2:01 PM

or = of

Freelancer on May 14, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Why the concern about Fred’s accent?

I’m not ragging on his accent. The point Bainbridge is making isn’t related to accents, it’s related to showy cornpone trappings of “authenticity” like ranches and pick-up trucks and NASCAR. It’s tiresome. And I’m not as sure as you are that people from Michigan will take to it all that much better than blue staters.

If the GOP wants to become a purely regional party, by all means, let it continue on in this way. It’s going to alienate swing staters.

Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:02 PM

OK, swing staters is a different argument. It would be interesting to see some polls on that, although it would be difficult to write a poll that captured what you’re talking about.

see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Perhaps we’re placing way too much emphasis on the importance of these regionalisms.

Come election time, I’m voting for the global-warming-skeptic-tax-cutter-most-likely-to-nuke-Waziristan, regardless of whether or not they know to do the sidewalk stoop while eating a hot dog or a slice of pizza.

Kid from Brooklyn on May 14, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 14, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Thank you for the laugh Attila – perfect!

All pandering is fake but real in our political lives. I resent it from all sides. Authenticity/sincerity still wins hearts and minds. People just know fakery. Too bad the handlers/candidates don’t get this.

Did you think the GOP was counting on carrying New York and California in the general election?…

see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 1:58 PM

If Fred runs, I predict he will carry Kalifornia in the general. Hollywood and Arnold will help to make that happen.

Entelechy on May 14, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Update: This would answer my prayers for an intellectual Republican candidate, but I think Newt’s too well associated with Clinton-era partisanship to make him an attractive pick for 2008. Although maybe that’s what he’s counting on with Hillary expected to win the nomination — to entice Republicans into meeting Clinton with the anti-Clinton.

The problem with this is that his negatives are worse than Hillary’s. In the polls that ask “would you definitely not” “would you definitely” vote for, Hillary always hovers around 49-50% “definitely not”, Newt is something like 75% “definitely not”. It’s good because it means Hillary should be easy to defeat, but not good if Newt were our candidate. He won’t get in though… but I wouldn’t be mad at Fred! if he got the nomination and picked Newt for VP.

RightWinged on May 14, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Newt would raise the level of debate. I cannot say that he can win the nomination at this time due to so many believing the liberal spin against him. I continue to have high hopes for Thompson but with neither candidate running right now how can anyone even make a decent guess?

Hilary continues to have high negative rating. That could mean that a 3rd. party candidate would hurt her. It is anyones guess as to what will happen to the black vote in ’08′. Obama has made an impact and people know how the Clintons went after him…

DannoJyd on May 14, 2007 at 3:18 PM

So Newt might run? I guess that explains this comment I overheard at the NY Times today

I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced…”

I would love to see a Rudy/Newt ticket if only to see the NY Times’ reaction to “Benito Giuliani/Satan in ’08″

Veeshir on May 14, 2007 at 4:51 PM

“authenticity” like ranches and pick-up trucks and NASCAR. It’s tiresome.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:02 PM

AND his pickup truck schitck is a lie anyway. He drives it out of sight of his supporters, he gets in his limo, and his aid drives it away.

csdeven on May 14, 2007 at 7:01 PM

fred? has more problems than his reliance on folksy colloquialisms to hypnotise his groupies. He’s going to have to explain his lobbying activities, his pickup truck fakery, his “activities” around DC when he was single, his lackadaisical attitude towards campaigning, his lack of ANY executive experience, his bland record in the Senate, his poor performance tracking down the Clinton/China connection, and last, but not least, his pro-choice stance in 1994.

My ol’ granpappy ust ta say about this kinda feller…

A farmer was resting on a tree stump when a rabbit, running at full speed, crashed into the stump and died. The farmer took the rabbit to the market and sold it. The farmer said to himself ,”Why bother farming when I can make a living picking up dead rabbits?”

freds? sitting on the stump waiting for the presidency to fall in his lap.

Pretty soon freddie boy is gonna have to actually do something and then we’ll see just how he compares to other candidates.

csdeven on May 14, 2007 at 7:20 PM