December 21, 2007
Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel Can Win in 2008 (Brent Budowsky)
The great political reality of the 2008 campaign is this: If the negative and personal onslaught of the Clinton campaign against Barack Obama repels and appalls political independents beyond a point of no return, Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel might run, and could win.
There is no need to recapitulate the sludge that is polluting this presidential campaign from various sources, except to highlight this point:
Americans desperately want to turn the page to a higher and nobler form of leadership and Hillary Clinton is systematically alienating the voters who will decide this election, and by doing so, doing grave damage to the Democratic Party’s chances in November.
Independent voters are asking a variation of Reagan’s question in 1980: Do you think your living rooms and your lives will be any more pleasant under Hillary Clinton than they were four years ago, under George W. Bush?
Hillary’s problem is the living room problem: We are not merely choosing a politician, we are selecting a leader who will be in our living rooms, at our dinner tables and at the center of our lives for at least four years.
Americans will ask, about whomever the party nominates: Do we want to spend four years with this person at the center of our personal and national lives?
The danger for Democrats is that regarding Hillary Clinton, Democrats say, approvingly or reluctantly, yes, but independents say, in large numbers and with increasing certainty, no. Upon numbers like this, the future of America will be decided, and the door for Bloomberg and Hagel could be opened.
While Hillary systematically alienates the independent voters, and the Republican candidates declare religious wars against each other and compete for supporting wars abroad, it is time to begin a serious discussion not only about the tactics of a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket, but the substance of what they might offer to determine whether such a candidacy and presidency makes sense.
Here is my opening bid:
Bloomberg and Hagel should openly advocate a national unity government and should very aggressively challenge the best leaders in the nation to join their government, if they run and win.
Example: Former Sen. Sam Nunn is the most authoritative and commanding American voice on national security matters. The former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is universally admired by leading experts on national security, by leaders around the world, and by Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Sen. Nunn has recently mused about the possibility of his running for president himself, but said he would not consider any other office. This is not an acceptable answer. If Bloomberg and Hagel are truly serious, they should call on Sen. Nunn as a matter of patriotism, with our troops under fire and the threat of terrorism real, to join their government, as secretary of State or Defense, or national security adviser.
Bloomberg and Hagel should specifically name the kind of leaders they would ask to join their government and go to the voters with a true national unity campaign, offering a true national unity government.
Examples could be Republican Sen. Arlen Specter as secretary of Homeland Security, Democrat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend being America’s voice to the world as United Nations ambassador at a Cabinet level, and retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones to assume a high national security position.
Bill Clinton’s suggestion of former presidents initiating a world tour to restore American credibility and leadership is a good idea, regardless of the political machinations behind it. I suggested a similar proposal in a column I once wrote for The Hill newspaper, which I called the “POTUS Plan.”
Bloomberg and Hagel should call on presidents Clinton and George Herbert Walker Bush to publicly agree to join such an effort, no matter who is elected. They should also say they would seek, respect and value the advice of President Carter, who has achieved more than any American president in history for Middle East peace, even if we may disagree with his more controversial statements.
Bloomberg and Hagel should say they would name Al Gore, and either John McCain or Arnold Schwarzenegger, to co-chair a special presidential transition team, beginning on the day after the election, ending on inauguration day. They would develop a landmark program for climate change and alternative energy to be enacted into law within the first hundred days of their national unity presidency.
Bloomberg and Hagel should upgrade the Council of Economic Advisers and formalize regular economic advice from “wise men and women” of national stature. These could include Warren Buffett, former General Electric Chairman Jack Welch, Wall Street CEO Muriel Siebert, famed Goldman Sachs analyst Abby Joseph Cohen, Bill Gates, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, leading progressives such as Dennis Kucinich and Paul Krugman, and creative conservatives such as Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich or Arthur Laffer.
Finally, if Mayor Bloomberg is truly serious about being leader of the free world, at a major moment and dangerous moment in history, I would propose that he make an enormous personal donation to homeless and disabled vets, and call on all Americans to do their part.
What is happening to our troops and vets is a national disgrace, with more than $500 billion of long-term unmet needs for healthcare, medical research, veterans centers, homeless heroes, disabled vets and emergency financial assistance among many other needs that our country should be morally obligated to meet.
I have proposed a Soldier Bond, modeled after the 1940s war bond and the modern U.S. savings bond, in which every American can participate in supporting our troops and vets, regardless of our views on the war, by buying an interest-bearing bond to finance the unmet needs, demonstrating our pride in those who serve, putting our patriotic national unity behind them.
Chuck Hagel has been a lifetime champion of our troops and vets, from his service as an authentic war hero to his support on the floor of Congress. Bloomberg and Hagel should inspire the nation to the gold standard of commitment, which would be powerful politics, and far more important, a powerful moral and patriotic statement of unity, commitment and resolve.
I don’t know Mike Bloomberg, and cannot evaluate whether he has the right stuff to be the true leader of the free world. I do know Hagel, and he darn well does.
Americans want to turn the page, to move into the future together, and to build it together, and to lift and unite the nation. Americans want to move beyond the Bush years, to return to our first principles as a nation, and to the unity and spirit that have always made America great, and always will.
Should Bloomberg and Hagel run? Can they win? Would they lead Americans who aspire to the highest levels of our greatest heritage in our wonderful history as the world’s beacon of democracy and our people’s beacon of opportunity and hope?
I don’t know right now, but instead of settling for the negativity of our current politics, let’s elevate our debate, our sights and our standard for what America can be, and should be, as a united people and the authentic leader of the free world.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 11 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Why don't you talk about Dennis Kucinich?
He has won four online straw polls already, yet you ignore him just like the rest of the MSM.
Worse yet, you pen a convoluted scenario that has zero chance of taking place with politicians who have shown no evidence of entering the presidential race.
http://www.Dennis4President.com
Comment by Kevin Schmidt, Sterling VA — December 21, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
This is unreadable bullshit. The main problem with "independents" is what passes as "thought" for them. The only thing Chuck Hagel is fit for is confessing to and serving time for betraying democracy. One of Budowsky's worst, out of many such poorly thought out pieces … thus the editor of Buzzflash found it worthy of stinking up his front page with a big link to it. Hagel owned the machines that defrauded the popular Democratic incumbent…and Hagel needs to admit that he did not "win" in a "historic upset" including an unprecedented majority of black voters suddenly counted as voting for a rethug. Hagel wants a clean new start in another party? He needs to clean his conscience, then…as for Budowsky, he needs to retire. All these former rethugs *always* revert to type and promote other racist rethugs running under "independent" cloaks.
Comment by Zee — December 22, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Brent,
I don't really disagree, but this would go down as the "Hail Mary" pass of progressive politics.
Unfortunately, you left out the a few guys who actually deserve to be on the list. Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold.
My current plan is to vote for Kucinich's nomination and to vote for Kucinich regardless of who is nominated.
It's not the waste of a vote, it's the only meaningful vote I can make.
Comment by gm pierce — December 22, 2007 @ 11:21 am
The issue is not whether Ms Clinton would break too much from the path we are on, but whether she would break from it at all.
We are again at the point that America found itself in 1930, but with many much more intractable problems than existed then, and the rising Fascism taking place, not in a distant country, but under our own noses.
Bloomberg and Hagel Running might indeed get the Republican vote of the growing disaffected folk that Perot got, but the true believers will still vote for whomever the Republicans anoint.
If Hillary is the Democrat, most will vote for her and hate it, among those who are progressive even if Ms McKinney is more palatable as they remember Y2K.
The result will be what it always is with a popular third party, a disaster for anyone the third party most agrees with.
Personally I hate that fact, and would definitely work for anything that would make a real change to wider participation, but fact it is and just hating it won't help.
Comment by Freedem — December 22, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
I thought that a tacit (or forced) melding of military marshals and corporate chieftains was one of the more accepted and traditional definitions of fascism.
I understand the concept of all gettin' together for something that is 'bigger than all of us' (i.e. National Unity) especially with the very real prospect of 'all that negativity' some foresee as a by-product of extending the bush-clinton-bush-clinton era in the US - and, by the way, both families historically have really been in the unity party of those who don't want to disappoint corporations or say no to the military/surveillance complex - but…National Unity, National Unity Party–notice that when you use capital letters it begins to look a little leni riefenstahl?
Reminds me of a holiday movie, the kind of syrupy but rather interesting in light of the world in 2007 Capra film, 'Meet John Doe'- remember, in that film it was a group of industrialists who were plotting that mid-20th century coup, or as Mr. Budowski may frame it, who "openly advocate a national unity government and should very aggressively challenge the best leaders in the nation to join their government"
I really wonder if those unified American leaders would repeal those noxious executive orders that give the president limitless control in the event of some vaguely defined 'national emergency' - see story-
State of Emergency Laws Reduce Congress to Comatose Posse-
http://www.redstateupdate.net/full-page/fullpage-archive-76.html
or reinstate habeas corpus here in the US - see story-
Unprecedented Interpretation Contravenes Constitutional Convention-
http://www.redstateupdate.net/full-page/fullpage-archive-88.html
or put an end to the repugnant practice that allows the president to nullify law called the 'signing statement' - see story-
Signing Statements Signal Sentiments for Sidestepping Statutes-
http://www.redstateupdate.net/full-page/fullpage-archive-36.html
or, on the other hand, would the leaders of the NUP realize in their wisdom that it is all very reasonable, you know, and in a scary world with all that terror, those tools do serve a useful purpose in a modern America (after they get the power and become 'the sole organ', of course).
http://www.redstateupdate.net
funny, frightening, free since 2005
particle61
Comment by particle61 — December 22, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
I've had acid trips that were far more lucid and far less frightening than this bizarre halucination. Your fetid line-up of corporate whores should not be touted, but rather hung.
Comment by roger greer — December 22, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
I have absolutely zero desire ever to see either Bloomberg or Hagel in our highest offices, but since you mention Gore for their transition team, why then can you not see that he really is the most obvious and best possible choice for President?
Comment by quousque — December 23, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
I personally think Mike Bloomberg will make a great president.
But no matter what one's political leanings are, people all over seem very unhappy with their choices. A third party run that breaks the two-party duopoly control of the US Government would be good for everyone (except the career politicians). Michael Bloomberg has the money to do his on his own, and that is the only way it could be done. He is the right man at the right time. Run Mike Run.
Comment by Michael Bloomberg — December 30, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
I agree with Budowksy. Chuck Hagel can and would be the best choice for the time we live in. I predict Obama will lose his party's nomination and the Clinton Machine will be on the fast road to another 4 years of the same. McCain will lose to Romney and that would be the open door for Hagel to ask Obama to be his Vice-president running mate with the almost guarantee of an Obama presidency 4 to 8 years later. Gridlock will almost come to an end. Pelosi, Kennedy, and whoever is left of the Republicans will fall in line or be booted out in a new poltical revolution of ruling from the center. The pedulum has swung far left, now far right, and will now balance to the center. May God have grace on us all.
Comment by Victor Diaz — January 9, 2008 @ 8:54 am
This Unity 08 is one of the more interesting political developments of my life time but I’m very skeptical. First of all, this notion of some lost age of reason and comity smacks of nostalgia and sentimentality, which runs contrary to my own experiences. In my 55 plus years, there has always been a fair share of bomb throwing opportunists and craven politicians willing to follow in their wake. Bipartisanship is a good thing only when it produces good legislation and not something to be sought in and for its own sake.
What really would help in DC, is a dose of humility, dash of solemnity and a boat load of gravitas. Why not start there and the rest will follow? All that would be required in this case, would be for the politicians to take an oath to honor and defend the Constitution. Oh, I forgot, they already do that, at least in theory but that is so pre 9/11, n’est ce pas?
As some one who was raised in a family of staunch Republicans and who came of age during Vietnam, I was some what of a doubting Thomas. My father ( an engineer and by temperament a very analytical man) and I, had many spirited but civil debates on political and philosophical issues. I still have a photo of him and Reagan as an ironic reminder of all the misery, this crowning moment for my father has visited upon his only son. If my father were still alive today, I doubt that his party loyalty would blind his intellect , to the fact ,that Reagan’s cynical courting of the evangelical vote has done so much wholesale damage to the Republic. As a descendent of a people who came to this country to escape the Religious conflicts of Europe, I never quite understood his willingness to accommodate such but if I could, I sure wouldn’t mind telling him, “I told you so at the time”. Having ignored my advice, now it becomes MY job to make the party of Rove and Delay bare some faintly recognizable, ghostly image of Ike. Thanks a lot for the challenge, I’ll get right on it.
Now, here is the $64,000 question, just how, exactly, will a Bloomberg and my old Sen. Sam Nunn quell the acrimonious waters of the Tidal Basin, if elected?
What magic powers do they possess to restore the faith based, politicized Judicial Branch of the Government? Who will they enlist to replace the thousands of civil servants, who were run out of their positions or quit in disgust, because their departments were headed by people who, not only didn’t believe in their mission but had they succeeded would have negated their own political ideology? I’m all ears.
Comment by R Cochran — January 12, 2008 @ 9:55 am
One more thing:
Newt Gingrich is not and never will be a member of the "wise men and women" group. I happen to know many people who had him as a professor and a couple who know him socially and the only thing he has ever done, is to advance the only cause he cares about, himself. To put it kindly: a more rapacious, meretricious human, has yet to occupy public office. A rank opportunist and bomb thrower of the first order.
Mr. Budowsky has just negated his own limp argument, by suggesting that one of the most divisive political figures of the 20th century and an intellectual mediocrity could do anything but contribute to our further demise. It also demonstrates, just how deep we are in the swamp, when this passes for serious thought, in the elite circles of the pundit priesthood.
Comment by R Cochran — January 12, 2008 @ 10:47 am