On Monday's "NBC Nightly News," correspondent Mike Taibbi oddly suggested that Barack Obama could be considered an "independent" or centrist politician as he included the liberal Senator as one of several politicians with an "independent streak" with whom New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been associated. Taibbi: "Bloomberg was a long-time Democrat, turned Republican mayor, turned Independent, who has kept company with others with an independent streak, from Senators Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger." Such a juxtaposition seems especially out of place in light of National Journal's 2006 vote ratings which found that Obama had a more liberal voting record than all but nine of his Senate colleagues. (Transcript follows)
Taibbi's report focused on Bloomberg's participation in an upcoming meeting of centrist politicians from both parties and the possibility that such a meeting could lead to an independent candidacy for President by the New York mayor. During his report, Taibbi mentioned two truly moderate Democrats -- former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren -- and also Senator Joe Lieberman, who has sided with conservatives on the Iraq War. Taibbi: "Bloomberg says he's only going to Oklahoma to meet with others who object to what he calls Washington's hyperpartisanship, a group including former Democratic Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren, and Republican stalwarts Senator Chuck Hagel and former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman."
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Monday December 31 "NBC Nightly News":
MIKE TAIBBI: The idea of a Bloomberg candidacy is no joke, especially to those who say the two-party system is broken and needs to be replaced.
DOUG BAILEY, Unity '08 Founder: The two parties barely talk to each other in Washington, much less find common ground for successful and sustainable change.
TAIBBI: Bloomberg was a long-time Democrat, turned Republican mayor, turned Independent, who has kept company with others with an independent streak, from Senators Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: We're here not to represent parties. We're here to represent the people.
TAIBBI: Bloomberg says he's only going to Oklahoma to meet with others who object to what he calls Washington's hyperpartisanship, a group including former Democratic Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren, and Republican stalwarts Senator Chuck Hagel and former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman.


TAIBBI: Bloomberg was a long-time Democrat, turned Republican mayor, turned Independent, who has kept company with others with an independent streak, from Senators Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.












Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Taibbi needs to thaw his mind out
January 1, 2008 - 01:16 ET by Lame CherryFrom his lessening hairline it appears Taibbi suffers from having his brain frost bitten and needs to thaw out.
The only thing right in his report is Bloomberg is a Famous Hot Dogger.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Taibbi only likes Obama
January 1, 2008 - 02:50 ET by mostlymoderateTaibbi only likes Obama Barrack Hussein because they both have squirrly names.
Obama is no centrist
January 1, 2008 - 06:50 ET by PShannonIn his first memoir, "Dreams," Obama included a description of black student life at Occidental College in Los Angeles.
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
He added: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
Hyperpartisanship? Why not
January 1, 2008 - 06:59 ET by jdhawkHyperpartisanship? Why not super duper hyperpartisanship? Or super super duper duper hyperpartisanship?
The only time we hear the liberals talk of a lack of "consensus" is when conservatives beg to differ from their insidious attempts to march us to more socialism (or is hypersocialism? No, wait a minute, super duper hypersocialism).
The fact is that Obama is a liberal - a far left liberal. And, for that matter, so are Liberman, Schwarzenegger, and Bloomberg no matter what political party they happen to be in at the moment. The last three differ from Obama in that they aren't far left liberals.
How about "Triple-dog
January 1, 2008 - 08:34 ET by motherbeltHow about "Triple-dog hyperpartisanship"?
(Sorry, I just went through a week of "A Christmas Story"! LOL)
You're right tho, the Democrats' idea of "nonpartisanship" is that Republicans fold on what the Democrats want.
Good grief! I couldn't
January 1, 2008 - 08:30 ET by motherbeltGood grief! I couldn't get past this, touting Bloomberg's "independence":
"Bloomberg was a long-time Democrat, turned Republican mayor, turned
Independent, who has kept company with others with an independent
streak, from Senators Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama to Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger."
Bloomberg is an opportunist. He couldn't get on the mayoral ballot as a Democrat, so he called himself a Republican. Now he's an Independent because he knows he can't anywhere in the Republican party. He should just call himself a "free agent"...going wherever he gets the best deal for himself. The only party he supports is the Bloomberg party.
}}---> Bloomberg
January 1, 2008 - 08:35 ET by Cool ArrowIf the late Bloomer jumps in, I'm thinking it only hurts Hillary who would have to cut a deal with him as VP to reconsolidate.
I ♣ My Seal
Bloomberg/Ventura
January 1, 2008 - 10:48 ET by motherbeltIn my opinion, Michael Bloomberg is a more refined version of Jesse Ventura. Both disavow the two main parties at some point and claim that that makes them beholden to no one, and therefore able to craft a consensus.
But neither one is/was interested in consensus, but more enamored of the idea of being "above it all" and therefore the perfect "final word" on governance. Not so much interested in consensus, but in what they see as their own imagined benevolent dictatorship.
After what Bloomberg crafted in NYC, is there any doubt that he hopes to take his "I'll tell you what's good for you" attitude national?