Wednesday, June 20, 2007

"President Bloomberg?" Part II

NYC Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced Tuesday that he's ditching his Republican Party affiliation and becoming an Independent. With that, the 2008 presidential election just got a helluva lot more interesting. And ya know what? Bloomberg's got the chops to actually be our next president, which is why the national news media is now obsessing over this new wrinkle. But it's a subject I wrote about over a year ago in a piece titled "President Bloomberg? The Mayor Says No, But His Actions Say Maybe." Well, his actions now say "Yes."

Here's what I wrote back in May '06:

There's been a lot of chatter lately about a possible '08 run for the White House by New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Despite repeated denials of a presidential bid, he's been expanding his political horizons by commenting on a wide-variety of national-interest issues such as the environment, illegal immigration, gun control, stem-cell research, intelligent design and gay marriage. Regardless of his broader political aspirations or lack thereof, I happen to think a Bloomberg candidacy has a lot of viability.

It's unlikely he'd be able to win either the Democratic or Republican nomination. But with voters' anger and frustration with Bush and the Republicans never greater, and with their clear lack of enthusiasm for Democrats, the time has never been better for a 3rd party candidate to race down the middle and capture the disenfranchised on both sides. Though such independent candidates have never fared well in American politics, that doesn't mean they never will. What Bloomberg has that no other candidate has is party duality. He's the only one who could say "I've been a Democrat, I've been a Republican, and I can give you the very best of both parties while also giving you the fresh perspective of a Washington outsider who's not beholden to any special interests." He could run on a bi-partisan platform that promises to bring the nation together after more than a decade of unprecedented nastiness between the parties. In an era of unjust war, record deficits, skyrocketing energy costs and rampant corruption, this sort of message could strike a major chord with voters and change history.

Unlike the current White House occupant and "CEO" president, Bloomberg is a highly effective and successful chief executive in both business and politics. His media empire has made him one of the richest people in the world with an estimated $5 billion fortune. This success has translated into political success as mayor of New York. On his watch, NYC has amassed a $5-billion budget surplus; crime has continued to drop; the public education system has been overhauled, and test scores have risen; the streets are cleaner; and tourism has never been stronger.

As if this record wasn't enough to attract voters, consider that his politics represent the mood of a majority of Americans today: socially moderate and fiscally conservative. He's got the track-record, the deep pockets, and the f**k-you attitude towards special interests to appeal to the tens of millions who are fed up with the current state of politics.

The big question is, if he did run, and he didn't win, would he simply be a spoiler as Ralph Nader was in 2000? And if so, who would he pull votes from, the Dems or the Repugs? Stay tuned. I have a feeling we're going to be hearing a lot more about "non-candidate" Bloomberg's candidacy over the next several months.

What a difference a year makes. The GOP's in a state of flux, with no clear frontrunner to give Mayor Mike a run for his endless supply of money. Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, once the party's "sure thing," has alienated his core conservative base; they're not sure whether they should worry more about his pro-abortion stand, his delusions about the Iraq war, or his penchant for cross-dressing. Sen. John McCain (AZ) has firmly attached himself to Bush's shredded coattails and subsequently watched his campaign self-implode. And Stormin' Mormon Mitt Romney has about as much chance of becoming president as I do. That leaves them with their new great white hope, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who very well might have more skeletons in his closet than a forensic pathologist. Over on the Left, Sen. Barack Obama (IL) is on a fast train to nowhere, while the ever-posturing, always polarizing Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY) is pulling away from the pack. But will that pack soon include Al Gore? I say it will, and that could really help The Goracle. An Independent Bloomberg would surely on some level split the GOP ticket. But let's look at it from Bloomy's perspective and assume Gore's not running. That means he goes head-to-head against Hillary and whichever weak candidate the GOP props up. Suddenly, Mayor Mike starts to look like President Mike.

Maybe Bloomberg-as-president is what America needs right now. Our two-party system has failed us miserably, and maybe the one true positive legacy of the failed Bush administration is that it made voters sick of the current political process and of politicians in general. And only Bloomy can run as a "non-politician." Unlike our current "CEO President," who's truly not equipped to run the corporate mailroom let alone the boardroom, Bloomberg essentially turns everything he touches into gold.

I am more convinced now than I was a year ago that Bloomberg will indeed run, and quite possibly forever change America's political system in the process.


Unknown said...

Well Andy I am sure you are very astute when it comes to New York politics. I can't help but think Bloomberg would pull more support from the Democratic nomine than the Republican.
The big difference I see between Bloomberg and Nader is that i think Bloomberg could actually govern if elected. Nader will never win and will be a thorn in the side of the Demo nominee no matter whom it might be.

Anonymous said...

Andy, I hope someday you'll let me borrow your crystal ball for a little while so I can finally make my fortune! I agree completely with your assessment of Mayor Bloomberg and think it would be a much-needed shakeup of the two-party system if he ran for president as an independent, possibly on the Unity '08 ticket that Sam Waterston is advocating.

Anonymous said...

It's a brilliant strategy on Bloomberg's part.

He's smart enough to realize voters are suffering from Bush fatigue and furious with Democrats for failing to end the war.

Now, as an unaffiliated candidate and at least $1 billion of his own money at his disposal, Bloomberg isn't beholdened to either party and their lobbyists.

If I were Hillary or Ru-Dee, I'd be afraid. Very afraid.

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg is a fascist. His draconian anti-smoking laws (whose rights will be taken away next, folks?--things just don't happen in a vacuum) He locked me up during the anti-War protests, raised $$$ for the fascists, and then preemtively had other anti-fascist protestors arrested before the 2004 RNC. Remember the Westside Stadium plan? Stadiums: Yes. Affordable Housing: No. So: Are you insane, Andy? Methinks you are.

Anonymous said...

What a relief to read 7:49 and finally hear the voice of truth about Bloomberg. Bloomberg was exposed today on Buzzflash as a corporate loyalist who wants to privatize social security and cut back Medicare. WE SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE ANOTHER CORPORATE MONARCH IN THE WHITE HOUSE> My friends in NY say the same thing. He is a CEO tried and true and despotic without considering other posisilbilities when making a decision. Who does that sound like? Not only that I am very afraid of someone who could actually buy the election by paying others when it could help him. We've already suffered this administration paying Armstrong Willians and others. Bloomberg could be King with his ability to payoff, investigate, and lure others into his realm. His money and now his powerful connections make him much too powerful for a democracy.

And I find Bloomberg's unwillingness to enter the race unless if he's sure he can win an unacceptable trait in the leader of the free world, as our president is called.

Bloomberg must not be consdiered. Al Gore must run to save the country.

Anonymous said...

9:32 is right. If Bloomberg has to know he will win to enter the race for the presidency, it doesn't indicate that he would be good at compromising. This is another "sound familiar?"

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg supported and always has supported Lieberman. How does Bloomberg feel about the war? He's beginning to look like a Rudy-type Republican although he's left the party.

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg is a serious threat to Julie-Annie, and a minor threat to Hillary giving a place to go for those who would hold their nose to vote for her, but not a threat at all to any truly anticorporatist Democrat

Anonymous said...

I'm "Anonymous" @ 7:49. A friend of mine had a theory on this last night--Bloomberg doesn't want the presidency; he's banking on a Hillary Clinton win so he can position himself for her vacated Senate seat. Less dangerous, but he's still dangerous. Andy: Why did you post in favor of Bloomberg? You live in this town, too. It's a fascist hellhole that is not NYC, just a slavetown for workers to serve the Bloombergs--and we can't even light up in a friggin' Blarney Stone!

Anonymous said...

7:49 aka 2:08 -- I think your friend's theory is interesting but from what I see of Bloomberg I think that his inclination would not be to work in a group (Senate) meant to cooperate and compromise. That's not the autocratic style he seems to prefer. No, I think he intends to "buy" the presidency and work his will from that office.

Why indeed is Ostroy "backing" Bloomberg. I sincerely can't imagine.

Anonymous said...

10:19 Your unsophisticated response to 2:08 clearly reveals that you are not a New Yorker.

Anonymous said...

Just as America will not elect a black president in '08 (or half-black in the case of Barry Obama), it will not elect a NY jew. Sorry, but that's reality.

Anonymous said...

People, focus on what matters. Not whether he is Jewish, divorced, or anti-smoking.

I remember the massive arrests that occurred during the 2004 Republican convention which was held in New York City. Americans were taken into custody. Courts eventually ordered their release and records of their arrests expunged. These releases came after the Republican Convention ended, just as the Mayor understood from the beginning.

This massive violation of our most basic civil rights, the right of free speech and assembly, came on the orders of Mayor Bloomberg.

This is a VERY dangerous harbinger of what can come from the kind of man who potentially would be giving orders to the FBI, the IRS, the Secret Service, and the CIA.

Anonymous said...

1:10 I am very worried too. One thing that worries me is New Yorkers have not been able to curtail Bloomberg's acitivites nor do they seem to want to. Sharpton is praising him. My friends from NY say he's a "mixed bag" but not too bad. They are overlooking the danger you report, which I believe to be true. I was shocked at the approval several very liberal friends in NY gave him. What's to be done? Why is Ostroy for him?

Anonymous said...

11:02 p.m. -- Speak for yourself Freepnoid.

Andy --> "Senator Barack Obama is on the fast train to nowhere"

LOL !!!!! I've snipped your comment and will re-post it in about 8 months to remind you of your ludicrous comment.

You are right about one thing. Clinton is POLARIZING and the MSM Polls showing her on top are pure B.S.

If God forbid she does somehow become the Democratic nominee - you're right, Bloomberg will be a huge factor.

Thankfully the MSM polls are full of crap though. After eight years of HELL, why on earth would we risk putting up a polarizing figure like that?? Answer: We wouldn't!!

Mark W

Anonymous said...

More Democratic Corruption:

Will Ostroy and his gaggle of libs be outraged ?

Clinton Tape 'Captures Commission of Crime,' Lawyer Argues
By Fred Lucas Staff Writer
June 19, 2007

(Editor's note: Clarifies wording in the 14th paragraph.)

( - A videotape shows New York Sen. Hillary Clinton committing felonies and should be admitted as new evidence in a California civil case, a forthcoming legal brief to be filed by Friday argues.

The tape shows Clinton -- currently the leading Democratic presidential contender -- speaking in 2000 with Peter Paul, a Hollywood mogul, and comic book icon Stan Lee about a massive fundraising event for her 2000 Senate race. Paul spent about $2 million of his own money to produce the event. The legal contribution limit to a candidate then was $2,000.

"The evidence is of that rare type that captures the very commission of a crime, namely, that of knowingly soliciting, coordinating and accepting federal campaign contributions far in excess of the legal limit of $2,000," says the brief to be filed by Paul's attorney with the Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District arguing in favor of including the tape as evidence.

Cybercast News Service first reported the existence of the tape in April.

A portion of the videotape captures the closing words of a lengthy conversation in which Paul was present.

The voice of Hillary Clinton is heard telling Lee that Paul and her chief campaign aide "talk all the time, so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need." She is then heard adding, "I wanted to call and personally thank all of you ... [and] tell you how much this means to me. It's going to mean a lot to the president, too."

Clinton and her supporters have maintained that she had no direct knowledge that the event violated campaign finance rules. In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, the senator said only that she didn't remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser.

"I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton," Clinton said in the declaration.

"I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred," she added.

The Federal Elections Commission already ruled that Clinton's 2000 campaign committee underreported cash it received at the fundraising event Paul sponsored. The FEC slapped the campaign committee with a $35,000 fine.

The fallout from Paul's Hollywood fundraising event also led to the federal indictment of David Rosen, the senator's campaign finance director, who was acquitted on charges of lying to the FEC.

Paul alleges this tape proves Clinton and her campaign were not truthful to either the FEC or the grand jury investigation that led to Rosen's indictment.

Neither Clinton's presidential campaign nor her Senate office returned phone calls regarding this story Tuesday. Likewise, Clinton's attorney David Kendall did not respond.

In recent briefs in the case, Clinton's attorneys point out that Paul pleaded guilty to manipulating the company's stock price. He has a previous felony conviction of defrauding the Cuban government in the 1970s.

The U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York gave copies of 90 tapes to Paul on April 11. The office had taken possession of the tapes six years ago during an investigation of a securities case against Paul in 2001.

Paul was the majority partner with Lee in a multi-million dollar Internet venture in 2000 before the company collapsed.

Paul contends that President Clinton had agreed to work as a rainmaker for the company after he left the White House in exchange for the massive star-studded fundraising event in Hollywood which Paul produced that included Cher, Whoopi Goldberg, John Travolta, Brad Pitt, Sugar Ray, and Queen Latifah.

Trying to stay out of the lawsuit while she ran for reelection to the Senate and laid the groundwork for a presidential campaign, Clinton used a California statute intended to protect political candidates from frivolous lawsuits.

That's where this tape could be key, said election law expert John Armor, who has tried election laws since the 1960s.

"The tape shows her committing several crimes," said Armor, who is not a party to the case but will appear on camera for a documentary Paul is producing on the case. "The court either should accept it on appeal, or bump it back to the trial court."

Past precedents have denied the introduction of new evidence into appeals proceedings because it either could have been introduced at the trial level, isn't conclusive or contains a factual dispute, said Paul's attorney, Colette Wilson with the U.S. Justice Foundation.

That would not apply here, she said.

"This is set apart. It's a wow case," Wilson told Cybercast News Service. "At the trial level, this would have changed everything."

Anonymous said...

10:33 am,

What's the big deal??

"...knowingly soliciting, coordinating and accepting federal campaign contributions far in excess of the legal limit of $2,000, ..."

She only exceeded the legal limit by $1,800,000.00 !!

Hillary is a Democrat, and Democrats are allowed to commit crimes. It's those evil Republicans that we need to concentrate on. You are eating your own!!

We, the bloggers of this site, are not interested in Democratic corruption. Our mission is "to help Democrats regain the White House and Congress.". Check the top of the page, and turn a blind eye towards Democratic corruption.

- The Ostroy faithful

PS: anyone who criticizes Democrats is a Nazi!!

Anonymous said...

10:33 and 12:40 We who read this blog are blessed to have two contributors who are so wise and see things in their true perspective. After your opening our eyes, who on earth, now, would want Hillary for President. As evil as her charcter is she might lie to the country, start a war and be responsible for hundreds of thousands deaths; she might take away our civil liberties; she might spy on American citizens; she might overlook laws and humane behavior and hold people without charging them or letting them go; she might believe in and implment torture to other human begins; she might fail to support the salvation of the world by opposing global warming; she might be so inadequate and harmful that all the countries in the world will hate us; she might overlook the next natural disaster, she might hire only incompetent and corrupt people; she might refuse "our right to know" and hide important government activities; she might even break the laws of our country; and of course she could continually wear an ugly, yellow tie. Thank you so much for the warning.

I know I've left out some more dreadful things she could do but I'm sure you know how bad it could get.

Anonymous said...

8:06, you forgot she might also suck off a couple interns in the Oval Office!

sorry :-) I enjoyed the post.

Anonymous said...

The radical, peace-loving religion of Islam continues to assert its power. And there's not a country that seems to want to do anything about it.

Just over a week ago, Hamas took over Gaza, defeating Fatah and asserting its power in the region. This put a smile under the scraggly beards of our al-Qaeda friends. They are joyous. In fact, they are so grateful to have a more radical presence in power, that they have called on Muslims around the world to back Hamas with arms, money and violence against US and Israeli interests. Osama Bin Laden's number two said, "Taking over power is not a goal but a means to implement God's word on earth." Which God? Well, that would be Allah ... the one who calls for the destruction of innocent non-believers in his name. The one who, devout Muslims tell us, demands the suppression of women.

Generally, al-Queda doesn't think Hamas is radical enough (who knew?). But in this case, al-Queda is willing to support any group that is within striking distance of Israel and U.S. strongholds.

OK .. that's enough. Just a brief refresher to help you keep the players straightened out.

Keep your eye on Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the other Democrat-ilk. They are cheering for the defeat of the US Military in the Middle East, and doing their best to help Hamas and Al Qaeda accomplish their goals.

Anonymous said...

10:31 Well, now, which God was Bush worshipping when he started this war with lies and without provocation which has resulted in the "destruction of innocent non-believers in his name?" Certainly not the God of Love that Christians worship and obey.

So when you start bashing those in our country who want to stop the slaughter and find a diplomatic way of ending the conflict remember the PLAYERS who got us into this catastrophe.

Anonymous said...

10:56 am,
Saddam's Iraq was not provocative??

What do you consider Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

How about his 13 years of ignoring his terms-of-surrender and thumbing his nose at the United Nations?

Do you care about the Oil-for-food scandal ?

After using chemical weapons on his own citizens, Saddam was firing missiles at our Air Force pilots patrolling the north and south no-fly zones.

I suppose you wish we were not flying those patrols so Saddam could continue to use chemical weapons on innocent Iraqis.

What do you consider Saddam paying Palestinian families when a family member kills Israelis via suicide bombing?

You may disagree with the invasion, but you are plain stupid if you think Iraq was not provocative under Saddam.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous @ 10:56

My cardiologist once explained it this way: You only have heart surgery when the risk of NOT operating is more serious than the risk of operating.

Of course Saddam was an evil man who posed a threat to the world community. But our invasion has made the world community LESS safe.

Prior to our invasion, Iran and Iraq stared at each other over hostile borders. Each was the natural predator of the other.

Do you think for a moment that Saddam would have permitted neighboring Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

As long as Iraq and Iran were threats to one another, the rest of the world was relatively safe. Now that we've removed Iraq from the picture, Iran can act with impunity.

Our invasion of Iraq has made Iran a greater threat to the world than Saddam ever was.

Anonymous said...

7:30 Yes, the suffering of others ir provocative. Were you provoked to sacrifice your own children's welfare to help all the suffering, sick, homeless chldren in our country? I doubt that. And do you really believe this administration lied so it could invade Iraq and save the masses? Rather, how about lying to save the rich American corporations' oil interests in that country and region. And, if, as you seem to think the mission was humane, look at how by butting in, this administration has created monunmental suffering and death for the very people you believe were meant to be saved. The only ones we've helped are the rich people connected to Haliburton. Talk about stupid.

And, bacl, to your wish to save the world, we've weakened our ability to help because the entire world hates us - the people we tried to help and those in other countries who once were our friends. They just wish we'd leave them alone.

8:00 has pointed out clearly that Saddam was no threat.

Anonymous said...

Haliburton was making money BEFORE the invasion too. Who do you think was providing logistical support for the protection of the north and south no-fly zones? Would you prefer that we continued to patrol these zones (and get our pilots shot at) for the rest of Saddam's live, plus the remainder of his idiot son's lives? How long should we have continued to patrol Iraq while he ignored his terms-of-surrender? Forever?? Obviously 13 years of it was not long enough for you. When would YOU have said enough is enough?

Anonymous said...

regarding Halliburton:

In 1997, Halliburton LOST the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.

The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now.

Anonymous said...

I don't get the point of 8:54 and 9:05. Are you saying that because, as you say, Haliburton was doing a good job (despite the cheating) that the invasion of Iraq was justified? I am totally confused by your rebuttal over justification for the invasion of Iraq. They had no WMDs and they did not attack us on 9/11.

What is your point?

Anonymous said...

Iraq did have WMDs. Saying "they had no WMDs" is a lie. Of course, Iraq did not have nukes, or warehouses full of WMDs, but they did have WMDs. Saddam used them against the Kurds and we found sarin and mustard gas bombs, along with plenty of other weapons that were not disclosed to the United Nations, like they were obligated to do.

I also NEVER said Halliburton was doing a good job. Al Gore did the praising of Halliburton. Re-read what I posted.

I also think the "they didn't attack us on 9/11" is a reasoned response. France didn't attack us during WWII, neither did Germany, but we invaded France on D-Day. Was that wrong? I don't think so.

Using the argument that we can only attack Afghanistan because of 9/11 is silly. Al Qaeda is not bound to a single country. If they simply moved to Pakistan (or Iran), your strategy would be pointless.

Anonymous said...

3:30 Your comments are not true. In the past I have read reports which do not support your claims. However, I do not have to rely on memory since Frank Rich, whom I trust, was on MSNBC and

Frank Rich said:

1. There were no weapons of MASS destruction in Iraq;
2. Al Qaeda had NOTHING to do with 9/11

Scarborough agreed Rich was right.

And, by now most say that we cannot bomb every country that some Al Qaeda inhabit. The way to deal with a "gang" is to use intelligence and police work. Would you bomb London because so many Al Qaeda live there? Well, yes, you probably would.

Your arguments are bogus. You sound like "Neal."

Anonymous said...

4:18 PM,

1) There were weapons of MASS destruction in Iraq. Saddam used them against the Kurds. Mustard and Sarin gas bombs are weapons of mass destruction. One example is March 16, 1988, when Saddam murdered 5,000 innocent Kurdish civilians in a matter of hours by having his military spray the town of Halabja with VX, Sarin, and mustard gas. If you don't consider this mass destruction, then I'd like to see you volunteer your family for a test run of it. Do a google search and look at some pictures.

2) Al Qaeda had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. You are really showing your ignorance with this statement. I hope you are a high school kid, because if you are an adult, I really feel sorry for you.
Osama's number 3, Khalid Sheik Mohammad's nephew conducted the first attack on the WTC in 1993. This is a fact. During the 1990's, Al Qaeda were responsible for attacking us 7 times. On 9/11, Al Qaeda attacked us again. OBL admitted it, the facts prove it was Al Qaeda. You probably think Global Warming knocked the towers down.

I would not bomb London because so many Al Qaeda live there for one simple reason. England is helping us try to capture and kill Al Qaeda. Afghanistan had 2 weeks after 9/11 to work with us, but chose to stay on Al Qaeda's side. That is why we bombed Afghanistan. We would not have bombed Afghanistan if the Taliban turned OBL and his murdering muslims over to us.

Of course, none of this would have happened if Bill Clinton and Al Gore did their jobs in the 1990's and protected America from growing threats. Unfortunately for us, Bill was too busy raping women and accepting political bribes from China.

Anonymous said...

9:19 I can only say as mistaken as you are I'm relieved that you at least have your standards for bombing cities - in this case London. Your criterion is they have got to be our friends. Well, that leaves the entire world pretty much a target for your madness.

And I'm a citizen who depends on his information from the media - I don't have an inside track. Frank Rich and all other reliable journalists have proved you to be absolutely wrong about almost everything you say in your rant.

I am a high school kid, an honor student and very smart , so don't discount my knowledge and thinking processes.

Anonymous said...

no offense kid, but you don't know what you are talking about. Al Qaeda held a press conference on 2/23/1998 to declare war on the United States. You were probably 8 years old. After the declaration of war, Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger prevented the CIA from killing/capturing OBL at least 4 times (documented in the 9/11 commission report). There is plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda attacked us 7 times during the Clinton Administration, and they boasted about their role in 9/11.

If you are going to claim I'm wrong about 'everything', maybe you can hone your honor student skills and use facts for rebuttal instead of name dropping the liberal Frank Rich.

Do they still teach the difference between fact and opinion in today's establishment of government indoctrination?

BTW, I don't want to bust your bubble, but being an 'honor student' in the 21st century means absolutely nothing. You are learning in an environment under the control of the all-powerful NEA, out-of-control political correctness, the excessive protection of self-esteem, and zero-tolerance policies so your school officials don't have to think. I bet all your teachers are liberal.

The United States school system is not even in the top 20 for math and science.

If you want to read about the roots of Middle East terror, read "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer.

Anonymous said...

12:02 My parents think the public schools are not so good since the Republicans have been in power so long. They think the Republicans are more for vouchers and home schooling than a good public school system for all. They hated to, but they send me to an excellent private school where many of the excellent teachers are liberals.

About the book 'ALL THE SHAH'S MEN." I went to Amazon to check it out.

I was shocked by the first line of one review: "This book is written thru a LEFTIST perspective and is full of resentment for the late Shah of Iran and the United States of America." I must admit I never thought you'd recommend anything written from a leftist point of view. I was considering ordering it until I read on:

"The author thinks the entire terrorism thing is a result of 1953 coup against PM Mossadeq but the truth of the matter is that the hatred for the west existed hundreds of years before the events of 1953 or even 1979 for that matter. Radical Islamic terrorists hated the western way of life way before the 1953 coup. And th author fails to grab the fact. Yes, the coup was a mistake but when we put it in Iranian historical context it was a wise and important decision. Shah put PM Mossadeq in power in 1951 and when he asked Mosssadeq to resign, he resisted and it resulted in the ugly events of 1953. Had Mossadeq resigned there wouldn't be any coup and there would not be any problem at all."

Another reviewer said most of the the "facts" in this book were wrong. Do you want me to get that review for you too?

Granted some of the reviews were favorable but I am a young cynic and think the good reviews are usually written by friends.

Have you read the book? If so, why would you recommend a book favoring a Liberal point of view> You don't sound like a Liberal in your blogs. Or is it that you're young too and just finding your way.

Anonymous said...

10:04 am,
I'm glad to hear that your parents sent you to a private school. I'm also glad that you actually went to my link. Let me make a few points about your post. Sorry it's such a long post.

- I think that your parents are somewhat incorrect about public schools "since the republicans have been in power". Democrats have had the majority of power for most of the last 40 years. I do somewhat agree with your parents as well. I do not believe government should be involved in the education (or indoctrination) of our youth. If you read about Marx, putting government in control of indoctrination of youth is one of the steps to taking control away from the people.

- The book may have been written from a leftist point-of-view in that it does blame America. Don't be surprised that I would recommend the book. I'm not a republican, I'm actually a registered Democrat, but I firmly believe that neither party is good for America. DNC vs. RNC is just like Coke vs. Pepsi. All they care about is you are voting for one or the other, and not a third party. They are both trying to take power from the people and consolidate it within their parties. Neither party will provide salvation to American citizens. If you haven't registered yet, I beg you to register as an independent. Please don't tie yourself to a political party. I actually just moved to a new state and when I register to vote, I'm changing from Democrat to Independent.

- About the book: I did read it, and I recommend it to any intelligent person with an open mind. I think the reviews you quote do not accurately reflect the book's contents. You should read it for yourself and make your own decision. Its not a boring book, but the first chapter does start slowly.

The saddest part is that Mossadeq was the greatest ruler of Iran, and we assassinated him. Iran was a friend of America before we did this. I think a better summary is this:

Britian was in control of Iran at the time. They made Iranian tobacco farmers give their crops to the British and buy them back. The Iranian people had enough and boycotted their own tobacco. This was the start of Iranian nationalism, and you'd have to respect their wishes to be free from Britian's control. Britian also laid claim to ALL of Iran's oil. Mossadeq believed Iranian oil to be the property of the Iranian people, so he started challenging Britian's control and also started to push for the nationalization of Iranian oil. We would do the same.

The British needed help to control this revolution, so they turned to the USA. We were friends with Iran, and Truman tried really hard (for years) to get the Iranians and the British to compromise and settle their dispute. The British refused to compromise because they believed the Iranians were beneath them and also didn't want to set a precedent that would result in India (and other colonies) wanting freedom.

Truman could not get the British to compromise, but needed the British to help fight the cold war. The British told Truman that they would not help the US in Korea if we didn't help them with Iran. (I don't know much about the history of Korea, so I can't add much here). In parallel, Truman set the CIA on a mission to covertly fight communism worldwide. The CIA determined that there was a possibility that if the Iran fell into the hands of Russia, it would support the domino-effect of countries turning to communism. We will never know if that assessment was correct or not. The CIA created Operation Ajax to overthrow Mossadeq, but Truman refused to let the operation go as planned.

A few weeks after Eisenhower came into power, the British made a new push against Iran, but presented it differently than they did w/ Truman. Eisenhower agreed with the British and let Operation Ajax go ahead. The US overthrew Mossadeq in 1959, and Iran lost the greatest "for the people" ruler that Iran ever had. You know some of the names involved in Operation Ajax (Roosevelt and Dulles, as in Dulles national airport in Washington DC)

It's interesting to note that the reason the Iranians took control of the US Embassy for the 300+ days in 1979 was because they believed we were going to meddle in Iranian affairs again. I'm not condoning kidnapping, but their assumption was not baseless. This is what gave birth to the current Iranian dictatorship. Nobody knows what would have happened if the British would have compromised with Mossadeq. It is possible that Iran and the Middle East would be peaceful today, but it's purely speculation.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope you read it and will also read the book. BTW, I'm 34 years old and always trying to learn something new. I have a masters of science in Computer Science and chances are that if you are on the internet, you are using some technology that I helped create. Don't let anyone on this blog tell you that I'm some stupid neocon. I have no allegiance to either the Democrats or Republicans. I challenge the Democrats on this blog because this blog is a "democrats can do no wrong" bubble. I'm not a bush lover either and have only voted for 1 republican ever in presidential elections, and I've been voting since I was 18. So far, I've never voted for a Democrat for president, and I vote for whomever I think is best for the job.

Facts are facts and cannot have a left or right point-of-view. The left and the right take facts, twist them into their points of view, and try to attack the other point of view. At this point, I wouldn't recommend any candidate from either party. It's my opinion that Gore is not the answer either. I could be wrong, but that is my belief.

Don't let anyone fool you with political stereotypes. Even Ostroy. Like the use of absolutes, stereotypes are always wrong. (I do realize I used an absolute in the previous sentence.) Keep an open but cynical mind and challenge EVERYONE...even your teachers. If you are really trying to put things together, read "All the Shah's Men". Good Luck!

PS: People here, who want you to vote for Democrats, will tell you that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. Voting for the best candidate, even if he/she might lose, is NEVER throwing your vote away. Don't become a pawn for the DNC (or RNC).

Anonymous said...

It's me again. I was wrong when I stated that we 'assassinated' him. I was typing too fast and should have said we 'overthrew' him.

Anonymous said...

The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, from before the 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq is now called BP (British Petroleum/Beyond Petroleum)

Anonymous said...

Candidates who leave a party generally don't have alot of future success.

az carpet cleaning said...

I never thought it possible that an independent could win the Presidency but considering how angry the electorate is it just might happen.