_the_Honorable_Ray_Mabus_and_New_York_City_Mayor_Michael_Bloomberg_share_a_laugh_prior_to.jpg)
This election season has been very entertaining to say the least. For our endorsement, we looked very hard at all the announced candidates plus a few who have expressed interest in running, and we have made our decision. We need a billionaire in the White House with experience running a large private business. We want someone with New York values. We want someone who knows when to tax, when to cut, when to spend, and when to win. We chose the wealthiest, most winningest, most anti-establishment, socially liberal, fiscally conservative man to consider running for president in 2016: Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is intelligent. He was able to secure for himself a fortune of over $40B during a long career in the financial and technology sectors. In 1973, Bloomberg became a general partner at Salomon Brothers. After the company’s takeover by Phibro in 1981, Bloomberg started his own business delivering high-quality, timely business information to high profile clients. In the following years, Bloomberg turned his business into a media giant, starting Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Message, and Bloomberg Tradebook. Bloomberg has experience in the private sector, unlike Washington career politicians, and used that experience to great effect as Mayor of New York City.
Alexander Hamilton, when arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, threatened the secession of New York City from the rest of the state. Had Hamilton followed through, today New York City would be the twelfth most populous state in the Union. And from 2002 to 2013, Michael Bloomberg would have been its governor.
Instead, Michael Bloomberg served simply as Mayor of New York City; no small feat considering the five boroughs are home to over 8.4 million people. Elected first as a Republican, he fled the Grand Old Party in 2007, two years after winning a second term in office. He was then re-elected to a third term, albeit by a much closer margin than his second election.
Michael Bloomberg is as much of a “political outsider” as a person who has held elected office can be. Unbeholden to either the Democratic or Republican parties, Bloomberg is able to make tough decisions without party elites worrying if it will reflect poorly on themselves. Bloomberg has been a member of all three major political parties. Just as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940, when the markets crashed in 2007, Bloomberg announced that he would run for an unprecedented third term in office, citing his experience on Wall Street and in the financial sector as crucial to save the New York economy. In the current geopolitical climate with oil prices fluctuating wildly, China artificially devaluing its currency, and a mass of refugees who could throw a country into the red or the black, Michael Bloomberg is the logical choice to lead America deeper into the 21st century.
For the most part, Bloomberg is a social liberal. He is pro-abortion, environmentally conscious, and for increased gun control. He also undertook a rather nanny-state approach towards health care, advocating for a ban on sugary drinks. Bloomberg has, what one junior senator from Texas may call, “New York values.” Others might call “New York values” simply being more in tune with the direction of the country. However, his stance on 7-11 big gulps is not why we are endorsing him. The Review is endorsing Bloomberg because he is socially liberal, fiscally conservative, reform minded, and accomplished. Bloomberg is a staunch supporter of free trade; Trump and Bernie are not. He favors tax cuts to tax hikes. He turned NYC’s $5B deficit into a $4B surplus. He supports entitlement reform. He demolished the bureaucracy in NYC that harmed education, and he expanded charter schooling. In essence, Bloomberg has a track record of making principled decisions on economic and social policy.
When thinking of a businessman running as a third party challenger, the mind immediately turns to 1992. Texas oil tycoon Ross Perot announced, on Larry King Live of all places, that he would run for President if his supporters could get him on the ballot in every state. Lo and behold, they did.
Perot was famous for buying out-of-pocket 30 minute blocks on prominent news stations where he would explain in depth his economic policy proposals. His campaign was largely self-financed, and he was able to reach people across the nation with relative ease. The downside of his evenly-spread appeal cross-country was that the Electoral College works against him. Despite receiving almost 19% of the popular vote, Perot did not win a single elector.
Consider, however. Ross Perot, through a massive, self-financed campaign, was able to convince 19% of the American public to vote against the two-party system. Perot’s bank account is nothing to be trifled with - he has a net worth of over $4 billion, making him the 129th richest person in America. Michael Bloomberg is worth over 10 times that.
But, cold hard cash is not all that sets Bloomberg apart from Perot. Conventional wisdom and the word on the political street is that Bloomberg would only declare his candidacy if the race is between Trump/Cruz and Sanders. He, as an independent, could shoot the gap between extreme ideologies and emerge on top, unlike Perot, who was running against two comparatively centrist candidates on either side, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton. Above all, Bloomberg must prevent himself from becoming a spoiler to the candidate from whom he’d steal the most votes, allowing a lesser popular rival to win the White House (perhaps a Socialist one).
The Brunswick Chronicle has decided to endorse Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio has admittedly put a lot of time into sounding smooth. His lines are catchy, witty, and resonant with voters. He’s a young, handsome, smooth talking, Roman Catholic junior Senator. They’re trying to make Rubio out to be the next Jack Kennedy.
Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.
Far from J.F.K, Marco Rubio resembles more than anything else a short-circuited, Washington-made robot. On the PBS debate before the New Hampshire primaries, Marco Rubio repeated the same line four times within a span of an hour and three times within the span of ten minutes.
“We need to dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing; he knows exactly what he’s doing...”
The worst part of the whole debacle was that Chris Christie called him out on it while he was saying his scripted line, and astonishingly Marco went back to that same attack twice more throughout the course of the debate. Following his awful debate performance was a similarly pitiful showing in the New Hampshire primary, putting an end to talk of the so called 3-2-1 strategy that his campaign had been touting - third in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, first in South Carolina. In fact, in South Carolina, Marco finished 11 points behind Trump even with endorsements from popular party elites there like Governor Nikki Haley. Marco Rubio lacks experience. He’s yet to complete his first term as Senator of Florida. Of course, he would be the second president in a row elected as a first term Senator, so if you can admit that Barack Obama lacked experience (as many Republicans can), then you must say the same about Rubio. Rubio also has not been showing up for work. He has missed more votes than any of his Senate colleagues. In fact, a prominent Florida newspaper that supported his original campaign is now calling for his resignation on the basis that he has not fulfilled his duty of representing the people of Florida.
Rubio is your typical Washington politician whose only job is to get reelected. He’s flip-flopped, launched nasty attack ads, and has sold out to a number of companies eager for favorable legislation. Bloomberg would be able to run a campaign without private influence. He has a record, experience in both the private and public sectors, bipartisan views, and possibly the delegates from one of the largest states in the union, New York. He would be a forceful candidate.
This election season has been very entertaining to say the least. For our endorsement, we looked very hard at all the announced candidates plus a few who have expressed interest in running, and we have made our decision. We need a billionaire in the White House with experience running a large private business. We want someone with New York values. We want someone who knows when to tax, when to cut, when to spend, and when to win. We chose the wealthiest, most winningest, most anti-establishment, socially liberal, fiscally conservative man to consider running for president in 2016: Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is intelligent. He was able to secure for himself a fortune of over $40B during a long career in the financial and technology sectors. In 1973, Bloomberg became a general partner at Salomon Brothers. After the company’s takeover by Phibro in 1981, Bloomberg started his own business delivering high-quality, timely business information to high profile clients. In the following years, Bloomberg turned his business into a media giant, starting Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Message, and Bloomberg Tradebook. Bloomberg has experience in the private sector, unlike Washington career politicians, and used that experience to great effect as Mayor of New York City.
Alexander Hamilton, when arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, threatened the secession of New York City from the rest of the state. Had Hamilton followed through, today New York City would be the twelfth most populous state in the Union. And from 2002 to 2013, Michael Bloomberg would have been its governor.
Instead, Michael Bloomberg served simply as Mayor of New York City; no small feat considering the five boroughs are home to over 8.4 million people. Elected first as a Republican, he fled the Grand Old Party in 2007, two years after winning a second term in office. He was then re-elected to a third term, albeit by a much closer margin than his second election.
Michael Bloomberg is as much of a “political outsider” as a person who has held elected office can be. Unbeholden to either the Democratic or Republican parties, Bloomberg is able to make tough decisions without party elites worrying if it will reflect poorly on themselves. Bloomberg has been a member of all three major political parties. Just as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940, when the markets crashed in 2007, Bloomberg announced that he would run for an unprecedented third term in office, citing his experience on Wall Street and in the financial sector as crucial to save the New York economy. In the current geopolitical climate with oil prices fluctuating wildly, China artificially devaluing its currency, and a mass of refugees who could throw a country into the red or the black, Michael Bloomberg is the logical choice to lead America deeper into the 21st century.
For the most part, Bloomberg is a social liberal. He is pro-abortion, environmentally conscious, and for increased gun control. He also undertook a rather nanny-state approach towards health care, advocating for a ban on sugary drinks. Bloomberg has, what one junior senator from Texas may call, “New York values.” Others might call “New York values” simply being more in tune with the direction of the country. However, his stance on 7-11 big gulps is not why we are endorsing him. The Review is endorsing Bloomberg because he is socially liberal, fiscally conservative, reform minded, and accomplished. Bloomberg is a staunch supporter of free trade; Trump and Bernie are not. He favors tax cuts to tax hikes. He turned NYC’s $5B deficit into a $4B surplus. He supports entitlement reform. He demolished the bureaucracy in NYC that harmed education, and he expanded charter schooling. In essence, Bloomberg has a track record of making principled decisions on economic and social policy.
When thinking of a businessman running as a third party challenger, the mind immediately turns to 1992. Texas oil tycoon Ross Perot announced, on Larry King Live of all places, that he would run for President if his supporters could get him on the ballot in every state. Lo and behold, they did.
Perot was famous for buying out-of-pocket 30 minute blocks on prominent news stations where he would explain in depth his economic policy proposals. His campaign was largely self-financed, and he was able to reach people across the nation with relative ease. The downside of his evenly-spread appeal cross-country was that the Electoral College works against him. Despite receiving almost 19% of the popular vote, Perot did not win a single elector.
Consider, however. Ross Perot, through a massive, self-financed campaign, was able to convince 19% of the American public to vote against the two-party system. Perot’s bank account is nothing to be trifled with - he has a net worth of over $4 billion, making him the 129th richest person in America. Michael Bloomberg is worth over 10 times that.
But, cold hard cash is not all that sets Bloomberg apart from Perot. Conventional wisdom and the word on the political street is that Bloomberg would only declare his candidacy if the race is between Trump/Cruz and Sanders. He, as an independent, could shoot the gap between extreme ideologies and emerge on top, unlike Perot, who was running against two comparatively centrist candidates on either side, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton. Above all, Bloomberg must prevent himself from becoming a spoiler to the candidate from whom he’d steal the most votes, allowing a lesser popular rival to win the White House (perhaps a Socialist one).
The Brunswick Chronicle has decided to endorse Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio has admittedly put a lot of time into sounding smooth. His lines are catchy, witty, and resonant with voters. He’s a young, handsome, smooth talking, Roman Catholic junior Senator. They’re trying to make Rubio out to be the next Jack Kennedy.
Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.
Far from J.F.K, Marco Rubio resembles more than anything else a short-circuited, Washington-made robot. On the PBS debate before the New Hampshire primaries, Marco Rubio repeated the same line four times within a span of an hour and three times within the span of ten minutes.
“We need to dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing; he knows exactly what he’s doing...”
The worst part of the whole debacle was that Chris Christie called him out on it while he was saying his scripted line, and astonishingly Marco went back to that same attack twice more throughout the course of the debate. Following his awful debate performance was a similarly pitiful showing in the New Hampshire primary, putting an end to talk of the so called 3-2-1 strategy that his campaign had been touting - third in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, first in South Carolina. In fact, in South Carolina, Marco finished 11 points behind Trump even with endorsements from popular party elites there like Governor Nikki Haley. Marco Rubio lacks experience. He’s yet to complete his first term as Senator of Florida. Of course, he would be the second president in a row elected as a first term Senator, so if you can admit that Barack Obama lacked experience (as many Republicans can), then you must say the same about Rubio. Rubio also has not been showing up for work. He has missed more votes than any of his Senate colleagues. In fact, a prominent Florida newspaper that supported his original campaign is now calling for his resignation on the basis that he has not fulfilled his duty of representing the people of Florida.
Rubio is your typical Washington politician whose only job is to get reelected. He’s flip-flopped, launched nasty attack ads, and has sold out to a number of companies eager for favorable legislation. Bloomberg would be able to run a campaign without private influence. He has a record, experience in both the private and public sectors, bipartisan views, and possibly the delegates from one of the largest states in the union, New York. He would be a forceful candidate.
