Exploding the Bloomberg myth

The New York Times looks at Michael Bloomberg's record and positions and discovers that, yes, the man is basically a liberal Democrat.

Hundreds of miles from the hustings of New Hampshire lurks a possible presidential candidate who supports gay marriage, abortion rights and stricter regulation of handguns. Who doesn’t mind taxing the rich on their income or big companies on their carbon emissions. Who says that deporting illegal immigrants would destroy the nation’s economy. And who is not necessarily averse to adding more bureaucrats to the government payroll.

That politician — Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York — has spent months laying out his vision for a post-partisan approach to politics that would take the best from left and right.

Yet a close reading of the policies Mr. Bloomberg has promoted during his mayoralty suggests that Mr. Bloomberg actually has a lot in common with one party’s leading candidates — the Democrats — and not so much with the other’s. Indeed, on issues like gay marriage and gun control, Mr. Bloomberg stands well to the left of top-tier Democratic candidates like Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama.

Except for his opposition to an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, he comes down on the Democratic side of all the major issues.

So why all this talk about his running as an independent candidate who can bridge the two parties? There's only one reason - money.

“If you want to place him in the spectrum of American politics, he’s a liberal Democrat on all the major litmus test issues, and he’s a liberal Democrat on taxing and spending,” said Douglas A. Muzzio, a professor at the Baruch College School of Public Affairs. “I don’t see the product differentiation, except for the $4 billion bank account and the aura of the philosopher-king.”

If he wasn't a billionaire, there would be no rumors. His supporters try to portray his billionaire status as a strength by saying that he wouldn't be beholden to special interest groups to get elected. That hasn't led him to stiffing the unions in New York City.

With all the difficulties of running as a third party, Bloomberg only had a hope if there was widespread discontent with the chosen nominee of each party. With Obama now looking as the likely Democratic candidate, he doesn't have that excuse to throw his bank account into the ring. He wouldn't even have the fig leaf of saying that he was trying to bridge the parties since that is what Obama claims to be doing. The only reason for him to jump in would be for his own ego. It's his money, but I suspect he didn't get to be that rich without understanding when it was a bad idea to waste his own wealth.