I know what you're thinking - the communist bane of Wall Street taking the "tainted robber baron bone marrow of the proletariat" from one of its biggest Monopoly Men? Never happen in a bazillion years. Impossible. Inconceivable.
You need to think again. Because politics is what originated the concept of strange bedfellows, and in this case, the respective anti-Hillary ambitions of both Senator Warren and Bloomers, and the practical need for cash to compete with La Clinton Nostra (whose only asset is cash) create a powerful incentive to bring them together:
Even Hillary, unopposed, tacks toward an Internet-and-millennially-centric left that tolerates fewer and fewer deviations, and that sees the center as its enemy. And while she may hope she can come back, this too is arguably part of the Hillary deficit: a desire to be liked by the wrong people (a desire to be popular among people who don’t really like her).
The race from the center, on the part of the Republicans and now joined by the Democrats [???], leaves an extraordinary political opportunity, one that, likely, can only be seized by someone not weighed down by ideologically driven money or afraid of an internecine primary fight.
If, as everybody seems increasingly to understand, political parties now facilitate the opposite of consensus, then an effectively independent political power base — in a sense, the only one in the country — like Michael Bloomberg’s could be a wonderful, even astounding, corrective.
It’s the fundamental duh formula: a [communist] social conscience with pro-growth economic views. In the aftermath of the left’s terrible drubbing in Britain, Tony Blair, the ultimate centrist architect, expressed the obvious synthesis necessary for political success: “ambition and aspiration as well as compassion and care.”
Michael Wolff's political analysis here is laughable tripe. Bloomie already dabbled with this pipedream in 2012 and didn't take the plunge. There is no "center," and never has been. And if there was, he'd never have been in it, as he is as much of a hard-left nanny-stater as he is a moral reprobate.
But he would be an el primo candidate to bankroll a Democrat challenger to Mrs. Clinton like Fauxcahontas, that the Nutroots love as much as they hate her. What would be in it for Bloomie? Maybe she quid pro quos the Treasury Commissar post to him for his trouble. Stranger things have happened.
But one thing is certain: The Democrat base desperately doesn't want to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2016, and there is a huge opening for somebody, like Barack Obama eight years ago, that they can genuinely and enthusiastically support instead. Elizabeth Warren is that candidate, and Michael Bloomberg can be the financial wind beneath her wings....
....before she crashes and burns next November. But he wouldn't have to bankroll that.
UPDATE: Still think Fauxcahontas wouldn't invite Bloomers into her campaign fundraising teepee?
No comments:
Post a Comment