Vice President Bloomberg?
Michael Bloomberg says he definitely isn't running for president, said Mark Silva in Tribune's The Swamp blog, but "he leaves the door wide open" to helping someone else with a "nonpartisan approach," whatever that means. It means he's
Michael Bloomberg put to rest speculation that he would launch a bid for the White House, writing on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times that he is not—“and will not be”—a candidate for president. But the billionaire New York mayor—once a Democrat, then a Republican, now an independent—said he was ready to help a truly “independent” candidate with a “nonpartisan approach” win the election. (The New York York Times, free registration)
What the commentators said
Bloomberg promised to help the right candidate, said Mark Silva in Tribune’s The Swamp blog, but “he leaves the door wide open on what that help means, or who that candidate might be. The founder of the Bloomberg news service cannot give anyone his own money, but he sure knows how to raise it.”
Bloomberg said he wouldn’t run for president, said Lee Ward in the blog WhizBangBlue. But he didn’t say a word about running for vice president. “Throughout this campaign season Bloomberg has been careful what he says and doesn't say.” If he isn’t saying he wouldn’t accept the No. 2 slot, he might. But for which party?
Neither, said John Riley in a Newsday blog. “It's not in his DNA. And a pro-gun-control guy is too dangerous to the electoral math of both parties.”
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
MOST POPULAR ON THE WEEK
- 7 ways to be the most interesting person in any room
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Sorry Belle Knox, porn still oppresses women
- What the collapse of the Ming Dynasty can tell us about American decline
- Colorado’s new ‘drive high, get a DUI’ commercials are actually pretty clever
- Why is American internet so slow?
- 22 TV shows to watch in 2014
- Who are the real gay marriage bigots?
- Watch The Daily Show mock Fox News' confused man-crush on Vladimir Putin
- Religious liberty should be a liberal value, too
Subscribe to the Week