Bloomberg in 2008

Here's a scenario from Barone at NRO. I hope his analysis is correct. I may dislike Giuliani, but Bloomberg is far worse.

The Perot scenario. In February 1992, a short billionaire from Texas told CNN's Larry King that he might run for president. Ross Perot was able to partly self-finance a campaign, and his calls for reform stirred voters who were tired of stale, bitter partisan division.

The short billionaire in a position to do something similar in 2008 is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has high job ratings and stands above partisan politics. With an income said to be $500 million a year, he can completely self-finance a campaign. He is also said to be interested in running. In 1992, many voters were unmoored from old partisan allegiances — as many seem to be today.

Why it won't happen: A Bloomberg candidacy will probably be viable only if the major parties nominate candidates who reflect their narrow party bases, and they may not. Bloomberg also doesn't have the military experience that made Perot a plausible commander-in-chief.

Unfortunately this doesn't mention the primary reason that none of the present front running Republican candidates are with any consideration. They all have a serious problem with rights. McCain proved his willingness to ignore rights with the McCain-Feingold repression of political speech act. Giuliani and Romney both show similar willingness to ignore rights with gun control. If rights are so simply ignored now, how would they be expected to act in the big chair?

And I'm not saying the Dems are any better. In fact I'd put them on a much more sinister level on rights than I do the present Repubs.