perfidy

Perhaps peripherally related, from this past weekend:

Hizzoner">http://issuesblog.com/2007/05/12/non-campaigning/]Hizzoner goes to Houston

But no, it doesn't include the cite you speak of.

I can't really see a closeted homosexual busybody gun-grabber attracting lots of votes in Middle America.

Shilling your other blog, eh?

I really like the idea that he's playing real life SimCity with the Big Apple.

Bram - WHOA? Gay? Where is that coming from? First I have heard of this.

Poorly kept secret enforced by threat of massive lawsuit by rich guy attorneys.

There are places west of the Hudson where inconvenient questions are asked of middle-aged single men.

Bram - If he really was gay, I'd probably like him better as a person. I'm a fag hag and we could totally hit Webster Hall together. (Geez, is that place still open? I'm showing my age here.)

Shilling? Not really, just humored that we both wrote about the same thing, independent-like.

Mine was just so long-winded that I decided not to inflict it on the good readers of Perfidy.

As for him being closeted, I find it odd that, in NYC, he'd feel compelled to go west of the Hudson. Would anyone in the city even care? Should they?

He is a busybody, of course, but he'd be unable to pull that crap on the broader stage.

Once more, I insist that nothing (based on history here) is inappropriate for inflicting on the good readers of the Ministry. I mean, they keep coming back! They must like it. All ten of them.

In NYC they don't care - they suspect but don't care enough to force an answer. In a national campaign it would be much different.

I want to see him campaigning in coal towns in Kentucky and farm towns in Alabama - that would be some great reality TV.

Bigger gun-grabber than Giuliani or Romney, if that's possible. Not only is he unelectable, he'd be persona non grata in much of Red-State America.

Of course, having a billion dollar warchest will go a long way indeed. And running as an independent will allow him to duck most of the hoops that the other candidates go through.

Think of it: He'd have all the advantages of Ross Perot in 1992, but without the gigundous flap-in-the-wind ears.

That quote you were looking for Maps, from the WSJ's">http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/05/01/bloomberg-in-2008/]WSJ's Washington Wire, a couple weeks ago.

Ken: You're probably correct, but much like on abortion, the president has next-to-nothing in the way of a lever to make such a thing actually happen. Same thing on trans-fats and smoking, by the way.

The meddlesome crap a mayor can get away with is totally different than what a US president can, and I'd guess Bloomberg knows that. At least I'd hope he does.

Patton: No. I saw that. That's not the quote. There is one floating around straight from the horse's arse. I saw it a few months ago on Wikipedia. (which of course is COMPLETELY unbiased and factual.)

Legislatively there isn't much he can do, Patton, you're right about that. Administratively, though, he can get up to plenty of mischief. He gets to appoint the AG, and can direct said AG to direct F Troop to get medieval on every scratched-out state abbreviation on every 4473 they can find, for example (see the current case of Red's Trading Post).

Great - the ATF working for Bloomberg. Thanks for that image.

Mapgirl, I think this is what you're looking for:

"How likely is a 5'7"-Jew-from-New-York billionaire who's divorced and running as an independent to become president of the United States?"

(Wiki articles all have a "history" that you can browse through - I got this from an early march version of the page.)

YES!!! MARK! That is the quotation!