Michael Goodwin

Michael Goodwin

US News
exclusive

NY Dems push Bloomberg to run for president

A dirty secret behind Hillary Clinton’s lead in the Democratic presidential race is the lack of a credible challenger. Despite rising voter disgust over sordid revelations about the Clinton Foundation, there is no appealing alternative.

The situation led some disgruntled Democrats to push Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run, an effort that folded yesterday. But now comes word of a bid to entice another big-name challenger, and this one is far more intriguing.

It aims to get former Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the race.

New York Dems friendly to Bloomberg have approached him to gauge his interest. Their argument is that Clinton’s vulnerability with general-election voters, especially independents, could result in a Republican president. They also believed Bloomberg could be interested because, as one of them told me,“Mike can’t stand Hillary.”

One visitor to the former mayor came away cautiously optimistic after a 30-minute meeting, noting that Bloomberg didn’t throw him out of the office or start fiddling with his smartphone.

“That means he wasn’t bored and was listening,” said another man who talked to the three-term mayor. They were also encouraged that Bloomberg said something to the effect that it would be “no problem” for him to drop his unaffiliated registration and become a Democrat again.

It’s far from certain that Bloomberg will run, but I can envision a scenario where he floats a trial balloon to see how people react. I’m saving him the trouble because I hope he gives the idea serious consideration.

Besides, it’s not as though this is virgin territory. As mayor, Bloomy didn’t hide his ambition for the White House, and spent considerable money to test the waters. Before the 2008 election, he sponsored polls and researched state laws on ballot access while saying he would spend $1 billion to run as an independent.

He eventually dropped the idea after concluding that he couldn’t win. He joked that the country wasn’t ready to elect a divorced, Jewish billionaire, but he also knew that a third-party race is extra difficult. A three-way split in the Electoral College would throw the decision to the House of Representatives, which would support the candidate from the party of the House majority.

Switching back to his Democratic roots would solve that problem. As for the cost, whatever Bloomy would spend to self-finance would be relative pocket change — he is worth an estimated $36 billion, making him the nation’s 10th-richest person.

His strengths would be considerable, substantively and politically. His astonishing business success and record as a bold, can-do mayor in America’s largest city could appeal to voters of all persuasions.

He is socially liberal, being pro-choice, an early advocate for gay marriage and a relentless supporter of more gun control. He’s also a security hawk who supported the Iraq invasion, and was religious about keeping New York safe from crime and terrorism. Indeed, crime rates fell to historic lows under him, a record that burdens his hapless successor.

Bloomberg also believes in pay-as-you-go government, once arguing to me that he is a true conservative because he will raise taxes to provide services the public wants. He talks with conviction about big ideas like public health and infrastructure.

His most glaring weakness is that he lacks foreign-policy experience at a time when the world is on fire. However, Bloomberg is far from parochial, as both his business and philanthropy span the globe.

He’s a wooden campaigner, but there’s an easy answer for that: The incumbent is charismatic, and look at the mess he made! Blanketing the country with TV ads can cover a lot of sins.

As for Clinton, her slide is accelerating. A damaging new poll goes to the Achilles’ heel of her candidacy: People simply don’t trust her.

A solid majority, 57 percent, say she is not honest and trustworthy, according to the CNN/ORC survey. The finding is up 8 points since March, proof that her use of a private email server and the greedy, shady conduct of her and her husband are taking a serious toll.

The decline is not limited to independents, with only about 7 in 10 Dems now saying they trust her. The poll also finds that a majority in her party want a more competitive primary.

They’re singing your song, Mayor Mike.

Lib council out to lunch

Ultra-lefties on the City Council want free food for all public school students, saying a universal handout will remove the “stigma” attached to those who can’t afford to pay.

The argument is bizarre because 75 percent of students already qualify for the freebies. So the “stigma” claim means the vast, vast majority is being shamed by, at most, a 25 percent minority.

Risky Patriot games

Sen. Rand Paul’s claim of “victory” after he blocked renewal of some Patriot Act surveillance provisions needs a clarification. If by “victory” he meant that he used the disclosures of traitor Edward Snowden to force America into lowering its guard against terrorism, he is correct. But only a fool, or a jihadist, would celebrate.

It’s a ticking time ‘bam’

There is so much bad news around the world that it’s impossible to keep up. Take the devastating message President Obama delivered Monday.

In an interview with Israeli TV, Obama took the military option off the table as a way to stop an Iranian nuke — and almost nobody noticed.

“The best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable tough agreement,” he said. “A military solution will not fix it, even if the United States participates. It would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it would not eliminate it.”

That directly contradicts what Obama’s been saying for years, when he and his minions routinely insisted that “all options are on the table” if negotiations failed.

In truth, it’s long been clear he would never use the military. Worse, he is so desperate for a deal and has made so many foolish concessions that, as a result, an agreement actually will pave the way for an Iranian bomb.

But now he’s put his cards on the table, aiming to persuade skeptical Israelis that his way is the best hope for their security.

One problem: His claim about the limits of American force is surely false. Military analysts insist that, while Israel could only delay Iran’s nuclear program, the United States has more than sufficient conventional-weapon capability to destroy Iran’s vast facilities.

His statement, then, must be taken as an admission that Obama has no intention of using force.

The Iranians surely knew this all along, but now that they have public confirmation, watch for them to ramp up their demands even more.

Perhaps they’ll simply demand that we give them a bomb, and Obama will agree. After all, he probably believes “bomb inequality” is the crisis of our times.