How typical of the American media. They specialize in creating "overnight sensations." Now they have instantly anointed Michael Bloomberg the next President of the United States. Why? Because he has big ideas? No. Interesting "out of the box" ideas? No. Is he the potential leader of a political revolution? No. The answer is simple: because he's a Billionaire (that's with a capital "B"). You see Michael Bloomberg is a very very very rich man! Perhaps $19 or $20 Billion dollars worth of rich (but hey what's a billion among friends). He could very easily spend $500 million, or perhaps even a billion of his own money on the race for the White House- and that's more than any campaign has ever spent before. That's a lot of buttons, bumper stickers and TV ads! And his biggest advantage of all is that it's his own money- so he doesn't have to waste valuable time attending fundraisers and sucking up to various special interests and rich fat cats. Bloomberg can just get out his checkbook and start writing checks. And this very rich guy can keep writing those checks forever!
But winning the Presidency isn't just about money (although it helps). If writing checks were all it took, Ross Perot would have been elected President. Or John Kerry. There's something everyone is forgetting or ignoring- the power of personality. From everything I've heard, Bloomberg is a nice man and a very bright man. As far as business goes, he's a genius. But by all accounts, he is not exciting. He is not bold. He is more of an administrator than a leader or visionary. He has been described by the media as a "non-political manager." In other words, he's exceedingly competent at managing things- whether they be a business, city or perhaps a country. But is that the kind of personality that wins national elections in the age of MTV and Paris Hilton? Is that the personality America is looking for to win over friends (and enemies) on the world stage? Is that the personality to reform and dramatically reduce government? Is that the personality to lead the war on terror?
If Americans agree we need bold change to turn this great nation around, then I don't believe Michael Bloomberg is the answer. Bloomberg is quite simply "Guliani-lite." To be fair and honest, Rudy Guliani is the mayor who turned New York City around; who guided New York through 9-11; who took on the mob; who made big headlines with his bigger-than-life personality. But Bloomberg? He's simply "the guy that followed Guliani." He's the administrator that took over the ship and kept it floating. He kept it floating well, by the way. No knocks on his management style. But all the heavy lifting was already done. All Bloomberg had to do was steer! So if you want to congratulate a guy for keeping the trains running on time, well then Bloomberg's your guy. He's the King of Status Quo. How exciting is that? How impressive is that? This guy makes accountants look exciting. But because he's got a fortune in the billions, literally overnight the American media has awarded Bloomberg the mantle of frontrunner. Those dollar signs around Bloomberg's neck are so massive that everyone has forgotten how boring this guy is. Heck, give him a few weeks on the campaign trail, and Bloomberg will make voters hunger for the excitement of Al Gore!
So why is the media so enamored with Mayor Michael Bloomberg? It's pretty simple- GREED. Yes, the same media that spends all their waking hours attacking capitalism, business, and businessman is steeped in hypocrisy. You see all they really care about is the bottom line. The media makes its living condemning greed- but that is simply because big headlines attacking wealth and wealthy people sells papers and creates higher ratings. The news media is actually greedier than the greedy businesspeople they attack. Hypocrisy at its finest!
So how does the candidacy of Michael Bloomberg help the greedy hypocritical liberals that run the American media? First of all, a high-profile billionaire third party candidate (ala Ross Perot) creates excitement, headlines and RATINGS. So if the media can help create, build and promote that candidate, the result is an exciting three-way horserace and lots of controversy, hype and headlines. That adds up lots of people buying newspapers, magazines (Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, etc.) and watching the news. And of course those sky-high ratings translate into billions of dollars in profits for the media.
Secondly, if Bloomberg enters the race and spends a remarkable one billion dollars to get his message out, guess who the beneficiary is? The media. He'll spend that billion on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. And even better, Bloomberg's record-setting spending will trigger a political "arms race" of epic proportions. He will force the Democrats and Republicans to spend more than they've ever spent in history. Michael Bloomberg is the best thing that has ever happened to a corrupt, greedy, hypocritical, biased American media that is riddled with conflicts of interest. They need Bloomberg to run. They want him to run. They will profit from his decision to run. And in order to make it happen, they will create the story (as opposed to reporting on it). They will purposely build Michael Bloomberg into a third party savior and superman of epic proportions. Even if in reality he is just a bland, boring administrator.
But it's actually much more than just greed that drives the media to over-estimate Michael Bloomberg. The media is ultra-liberal. That makes them biased and flawed in their thinking process. They wouldn't know what a typical American voter was thinking, if it hit them square in the face. The media has therefore misinterpreted the definition of "moderate" that American voters are looking for. Yes, the GOP has drifted too far to the extreme right. Yes, Democrats have drifted too far to the extreme left. There is no doubt that the 2-party system is a dramatic failure. Neither party is representing the interests of the American people. The time has never been more ripe for a successful third party candidate. That much is true. That's precisely why I'm running for President of the United States as a Libertarian.
But is Mayor Michael Bloomberg the answer? Absolutely not. Here's where the media has misjudged. Being a bland personality is the smallest of Bloomberg's problems. His biggest problem is that his stands on the issues are bland and boring. I am running for President as a Libertarian because I believe the American people want someone to lead this nation who has strong opinions and the bold personality necessary to carry them out. Someone who can lead a political revolution. Not a revolution that leads us to the boring, namby-pamby, wishy-washy center that stands for nothing. Not a competent administrator that leads us to various shades of grey. Not a man who is proud of the fact that subways run on time. Not a man who instead of cutting government and taxes dramatically, is proud of the fact that he didn't grow government very much, or raise taxes very much. Wow, is he a daring revolutionary! Wow, that Bloomberg fellow is really going to shake up America!
The media is correct about one thing- the majority of American voters are neither extreme left nor extreme right. But that doesn't mean they want wishy-washy moderation. To be moderate on every issue is to declare vanilla the best flavor and go home. Bloomberg has no strong convictions- he's just a competent manager. If status quo is what American voters want, Bloomberg is the perfect administrator for the job. He is a brilliant business strategist and he will certainly keep the trains running on time and the ship on course. His opinions are neither left nor right- so he won't offend anyone. Nothing controversial. Nothing out of the box. No inspiration (like JFK). No charisma (like Bill Clinton). No leading of revolutions (like Ronald Reagan). If Bloomberg was a color, he'd be vanilla. But is that what the American people want? Is that who they will follow? Is a bland vanilla administrator the right choice to shake up a fat, over-reaching government that seems intent on taking over our lives, decisions and bank accounts? I believe that we need a bold visionary. Someone who doesn't run away from controversy- but rather embraces it. Someone to lead a seismic political revolution. Someone to dramatically change "business as usual" in Washington, D.C. Someone to throw the bums out on their butts!
It's time for a Libertarian Revolution. The time for vanilla is long since past (Dwight Eisenhower was the last time that vanilla was the solution). Yes, American voters are sick and tired of the 2-party system. Yes, they are angry at "business as usual." Yes, they want moderation, instead of extreme right or left. But the definition of moderation that they crave is my Libertarian definition. You see American voters are both conservative and liberal (depending on the issue). What they're looking for when they say they want "moderation" is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, yet STRONG on every issue. Not wishy-washy middle of the road. Wishy washy doesn't work- it just gets the trains running on time. But it won't change a complicated, unfair tax system. It won't change crushing tax rates that force most Americans to work until April or May to pay their taxes (only then can they see a dime for themselves). It won't eliminate death taxes. It will not lead to dramatic reform of the Social Security or Medicare system. It won't reduce out-of-control government spending. It won't end welfare as we know it. It won't dramatically lower foreign aid. It won't boldly secure the borders. It won't solve the Education crisis we face- where 50% of minority children drop out of our public schools. Yes, we all want the trains to run on time- but there are more critical issues for a President of the United States. We have cabinet-level administrators for that job. So if you admire the competent job that Bloomberg has done by getting the trains to run on time, let's make him Secretary of the Department of Transportation. But not President of the United States.
The new immigration reform bill known on Capital Hill as Kennedy-McCain is a good example of the damage that moderation, compromise and "wishy-washy" can inflict on our nation. It's certainly moderate. It's certainly full of compromise. It certainly brings together politicians from both the right and left. Yet the result is disaster. The bill stinks. Moderation is a worthy goal in this country. But my definition of moderation is completely different than that of Mr. Bloomberg, or the media. Moderation- like the Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill- is in many cases a huge failure. Most solutions are not found in the middle. They are found on either the right or left- just not all right or all left. That's the complaint of the American people. Republicans think every answer to every problem is found on the right. Democrats think every answer to every problem is found on the left. But as O.J. would say, one glove doesn't fit all hands. Sometimes the solution is from the right, sometimes from the left. But rarely is it a
wishy-washy mishmash of moderation.
I define myself as "moderate" because I believe that some solutions are found on the right…and some are also found on the left. Polls prove that most Americans agree. I'm strongly, passionately and unabashedly conservative on issues such as limiting the power of government; reducing the size and scope of the federal government; dramatically cutting taxes; reducing spending; cutting entitlements (including corporate welfare); cutting foreign aid; supporting each citizen's right to bear arms; supporting States' Rights (moving the power of government whenever possible to the local level); instituting lawyer abuse reform: ending affirmative action and racial quotas; encouraging parental choice and competition to solve the education crisis in this country; establishing personal savings accounts to solve the Social Security crisis; securing our borders; and protecting rights and freedoms for the individual. Those are strong conservative stands that Michael Bloomberg would find far too bold…far too controversial.
Yet at the same time, I believe that certain social issues demand a solution found only on the left- a women's right to choose (with limits), gay rights, stem cell research, the right to die (the Terri Schiavo crisis), protecting the environment, legalization of medicinal marijuana and online gaming, ending government interference in the censorship of television, ending warrantless wiretaps, repeal of many aspects of the Patriot Act. On those issues I fall clearly on the side of freedom. I want to end "the Nanny State" and give the power back to the people. I don't want government involved in my bedroom, on my computer, on my television set, or having control over my body or my personal decisions.
That's the definition of "moderation" that I believe the American people are looking for. A willingness to move to the right or left, depending on the issue. Moderation does not have to mean weak. The Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill will fail because it tries too hard to be "moderate." It combines both right and left to create a complicated, dysfunctional disaster that works for no one. There are in fact strong, common sense solutions for the crucial issues that plague our country- those solutions come from both the right and left. The answer isn't compromise in the middle, but rather a willingness to utilize bold solutions from wherever they come. What America needs now is a strong, bold leader who can lead us in a new direction. Bloomberg's version of "moderation" will leave American voters feeling dissatisfied, bored and bland- in other words, vanilla is not the answer to every craving 24/7 for the rest of our lives. But hey, at least the trains will run on time.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to: