Bloomberg for President?

Every once in a while someone comes along to demonstrate a level of comic incompetency that is truly hilarious. Today it's Tom Friedman of the NY Times who drafts a poorly written plea for Mike Bloomberg to throw his hat in the ring and run for the presidency as an independent:

"But, today, neither party is generating that mandate — talking seriously enough about the taxes that will have to be raised or the entitlement spending that will have to be cut to put us on sustainable footing, let alone offering an inspired vision of American renewal that might motivate such sacrifice. That’s why I still believe that the national debate would benefit from the entrance of a substantial independent candidate — like the straight-talking, socially moderate and fiscally conservative Bloomberg — who could challenge, and maybe even improve, both major-party presidential candidates by speaking honestly about what is needed to restore the foundations of America’s global leadership before we implode."

This guy must be referring to some other Mike Bloomberg-fiscally conservative? This is only true if we place the mayor along side all of the far left loons that come straight out of the Working Families Party. Bloomberg the conservative is the same guy who raised taxes on homeowners, increased the size and scope of government, and has introduced onerous and expensive regulations to cripple small business in the name of health. And we haven't even gotten to his use of eminent domain to take away people's property. Some social conservative!

Still, we're not sure why Friedman feels there is a need for Bloomberg to get into this-after all, he has high praise for Obama: "President Obama has significant achievements to his record. He has done a solid job stemming the economic crisis he inherited and a good job managing national security and initiating important reforms — from health care to auto mileage standards."

Our view is that his real rationale is to split the anti-Obama vote and help the president-because no one really can believe this: "That’s why I still believe that the national debate would benefit from the entrance of a substantial independent candidate — like the straight-talking, socially moderate and fiscally conservative Bloomberg — who could challenge, and maybe even improve, both major-party presidential candidates by speaking honestly about what is needed to restore the foundations of America’s global leadership before we implode."

But finally Friedman lets the cat out of the bag: "Bloomberg doesn’t have to win to succeed — or even stay in the race to the very end. Simply by running, participating in the debates and doing respectably in the polls — 15 to 20 percent — he could change the dynamic of the election and, most importantly, the course of the next administration, no matter who heads it."

Sure he would. Maybe the Mike Bloomberg of Friedman's dreams would do this, but not the man we have come to know so well over the past ten years. That's another cat entirely.