Didn't he switch to (I) from (R)? They must be in full swing to disown him because 1st round polling shows him getting most of his vote support from republicans....

Snoopy, he first changed from (D) to (R) to run for mayor. Now he's changed from (R) to (I) to run for president.

And just about everyone seems to think his candidacy would only hurt the democrats, including Eric Alterman.

Are we voting for the person or the party?  I don't support Bloomberg and I don't think that he is a liberal, nor do I support Clinton or think that she is a liberal.  They can hide behind whatever Party label they want, and it makes no difference to me.

 I don't support Bloomberg and I don't think that he is a liberal

Well Steve this sure doesn't sound like anything a Conservative would come up with...

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Department of Education has just approved a plan to pay poor kids to get higher test scores. The city will pay kids if they take tests, pay them if they pass tests and pay them if they get high scores. It will pay them to pass high school graduation exams. It will pay their parents to get library cards and to meet with the children's teachers. It will pay them if their children have a good attendance record.

This plan is insulting to poor kids and poor families. It assumes that they won't do the right thing for themselves unless the government pays them to do it. It demeans the poor parents who do meet their children's teachers; who do have library cards; who do care desperately about their children's schooling. And it insults the kids who are trying their best but having trouble because New York City has the most overcrowded classrooms in the state of New York.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/bloombergs-misguided-pay_b_53387.html

-----------------------------------------

Poor Could Draw $6,000 a Year Under Bloomberg PlanBy ELIZABETH GREEN

Staff Reporter of the SunJune 19, 2007

Getting a library card, going to the dentist, and keeping a job will soon yield up to $6,000 a year in bonus cash under a test program that New York City is trying as part of Mayor Bloomberg's anti-poverty initiative.

About 13,000 families will be eligible for the payments, part of a $50 million program whose details were announced yesterday by the deputy mayor for health and human services, Linda Gibbs.

The idea is to offer payments to encourage behaviors that have been shown to reduce poverty. A library card for an elementary or middle school student will bring his parents $50; a preventive dental visit brings $100 for each family member; and a steady full-time job pays $150 extra a month.

http://www.nysun.com/article/56868

Actually, Jeter, it sounds very much like a conservative plan to fight poverty. It seems to assume that if somebody's struggling, it's because they're ignorant and lazy,and that the only motivator is money. ;0)

I don't buy that argument at all.  Pretty much all college scholarships have performance requirements in order to maintain them.  Does that assume that the recipient isn't studious?  (In fact, many are awarded to students with already positive academic performance.)

Targetted assistance is simply far more effective at achieving the intended goals.  There are both practical and psychological reasons for that, which I won't try to cover here. The bottom line is that hand-outs may assuage our guilt, but are more effective at suppressing the impoverished than helping them improve their lot.

That said, if someone is starving or in need of immediate medical assistance, I believe we have a moral obligation to fulfill the critical need without judgment.  But I don't think that precludes any use of incentive programs.

Maybe, but this is what I based my comment off of:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Bloomberg was a Democrat up until he decided to run for mayor in 2001.  There was something like seven Democrats running in the Democratic primary and the republicans had one crappy candidate.  He switched parties and ran as a republican and won the nomination easily.  After the eventual Democratic candidate (Mark Green) made a mistake during the campaign, Bloomberg won the election (I voted for him in 2001).  If Bloomberg had not supported Bush's reelection, I would have voted for his reelection.

Running this way, and running that, he's going to run like a scalded cat, trying to hide from the long arm of the law, p.d.q., as he sees his personal fat goes in the moneybags fryer.

To Jake Tapper, the term "liberal" is not a modifier of the word "Democrat," it is a synonym.

So he's basically saying Bloomberg is the Democrattiest of the Democratic Democrats. 

No.  Liberal is a philosophy.  Democrat in the context of his statement refers to a member of the Democratic Party, which in only a handful of ways has a platform that is drawn from the Liberal philosophy.

(I meant, of course, to say that LiberalISM is a philosophy.)

Arrgh.  And to cap it off, I think I misread your comment.  =)

To Jake Tapper, the term "liberal" is not a modifier of the word "Democrat," it is a synonym.

So that makes Zell Miller a liberal, then?

On a related note, does his endorsement of Mr. Bush automatically undermine Ed Koch's liberal street cred?

I think we forgive you Bittermarv :)

Huh? that's odd, I hit post and a message appeared saying, "you have not posted here enough, your post needs to go through a moderator and than if it does not violate our rules it will appear"

I've posted thousands of times here and never had an issue, anyone know whats going on?

Just a little glitch with the comment probation system. Sorry for the inconvenience.

A Liberal Democrat who ran as a two term Republican.  Interesting

Where has Rip van Stephanopoulos been sleeping all this time?   Bloomberg would appear to hold a contrary position on the issue of greatest concern to voters, i.e., Iraq.  So how is that tapping into a national mood? 

I'd also like Zakaria to explain how Bloomberg's apparent support of Bush foreign policy is a common-sensical approach.  I thought he understood that it's not just Bush's execution that stinks, but the whole policy strategy.   I guess I was mistaken...or Zakaria hasn't read Bloomber's comments on the subject.

Anyway...this is a great example of the inadequacy of the black-and-white, Democrat-vs-Republican view of politics.  Bloomberg is liberal on some issues, conservative on others.  I'm glad to see a prominent politician rejecting the two-party system.