The mumbling Jewish divorcé

Some of you may have heard of Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire businessman who has been lurking at the margins of the 2008 presidential race like a wallflower at a prom. Bloomberg is currently the mayor of New York, and is considering an independent campaign for the White House, presumably on the grounds that (a) Gracie Mansion, his official Manhattan residence, isn’t big enough for his billionaire-sized ego, and (b) America needs a choice of New York mayors for the top job (his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, is also in the frame).

Now let me say at once that Bloomberg is undoubtedly a prince among men, a financial genius who took on the giants of business journalism and mopped the floor with them. The success of the Bloomberg news agency and related businesses has earned the mayor a personal fortune currently estimated at $11bn. He is now thinking of spending at least one of those billions on a self-financed crack at the presidency.

He has by most accounts been a pretty good mayor, cleaning up a lot of the economic and other messes left by Giuliani. Add to that his stated intention to give most of his fortune to charity, and it’s clear he is a man of considerable qualities.

Yet here’s why he doesn’t stand a chance. The notion that America is somehow waiting for a third-party knight on a New York charger to rescue the country from the dire clutches of Hillary, Obama, Rudy, Huck and all those other Democrat and Republican presidential dudes is, to begin with, deeply flawed.

What is it about these billionaires anyway, that makes them think their brilliance on Wall Street automatically elevates them to presidential reckoning ?  I’m not an American voter, but I don’t think I’m alone in being really tired of hedge fund masters of the universe who believe their own publicity. So Bloomberg has deftly steered New York through the greatest economic boom in its history ? Hell, I could have been mayor and the city would still be booming. It’s simply not good enough to run for president just because you can afford it.

So is there something else about Bloomberg that makes him an appealing choice for voters tired of partisan squabbling and nervous about this year’s prospects for a black, female or Mormon president ?

Newsweek magazine recently devoted a 7,500-word cover story to minute analysis of Bloomberg’s leadership qualities, but I only need three words to tell you what I think is wrong. He’s a mumbling Jewish divorcé.

Let’s start with the Jewish thing, which no-one has dared discuss in America. Suffice it to say that if Mitt Romney has trouble because of his Mormon beliefs, Bloomberg is in for a rough ride. What is the Arab world going to make of a Jewish American president ? Can a Jew in the White House seriously act as an honest broker in Middle East peace talks ? There are countless questions of this ilk that have simply not been publicly discussed.

Then there’s his marital status. He is divorced, but lives with a very pleasant and respectable woman named Diana Taylor, who is also divorced and acts as his First Lady in New York. By most accounts they have no intention of getting married, but it is a very long time since an unmarried president occupied the White House and it’s hard to remember a serious candidate who ever campaigned while technically living in sin. (For history buffs among you, Grover Cleveland was a 49-year-old bachelor when he got married in the White House in 1886 to Frances Folsom, who was 21, the dirty old goat).

It’s the mumbling that will kill him, though. America is not exactly on the edge of its seat, waiting for a new candidate to emerge. Anyone who hopes to enter the race at this late stage had better be able to make an immediate public impact over and beyond his brilliant tax policies or his promises to kick out all the Mexicans.

Bloomberg may be a superman, but he has the charisma of a stepladder. And a very short ladder, too – he’s only 5’7”. He’s the kind of speaker who makes your attention wander the moment he opens his mouth. At his meetings in New York I’ve seen members of his audiences read the paper, play games on their cellphones, fall asleep, conduct in-depth investigations of the contents of their handbags – anything but listen to the dreary drone that is Bloomberg’s public speaking.

In an age when starstruck American voters seem to demand a touch of Hollywood from their candidates, Bloomberg offers them a murky street corner in Brooklyn. It may well be the case that a third-party presidential contender could cobble together a decent campaign and overtake Ross Perot’s 1982 record of 19% for a billionaire candidate.

But President Michael Bloomberg ? If that happens, I’ll eat this blog.

Comments

[Don S]

I can't see Bloomberg making it. It's possible that we could have sworn in Ross Perot in 1993 had he played his cards right, though. I think the US electorate is in a nasty mood this year, and a wise-cracking phrasemaker of a third-party candidate could draw a lot of support this year - as Perot did in 1992.

Bloomberg is obviously not that man. But I can still see one great reason to vote for Bloomberg; I've never seen anyone try to eat a blog - it would be a learning experience!

[Heather]

There are a lot of really scared and desperate Republicans who might vote for Mike if (when?) the party nominates one of the crackpots. If we get a subway series with Hill vs. Rudy vs. Mike, the rest of the country will resent NYC even more than it already does!