The Cherry Orchard

So Mike Bloomberg, the mayor of my city, has ended his affiliation with the Republican Party and may run for President as an independent. This is an interesting proposition, and since I’ve been aware of Mike Bloomberg (as a businessman more than as a politician) for over a decade and a half, I’ve got some thoughts (and a bit of newsworthy gossip) to offer.

In 1992 I was the youthful Manager of Software Development for a start-up financial database company, Loan Pricing Corporation, based in New York. We specialized in information systems for the banking industry, and our role model was a vastly successful company called Bloomberg, which had managed to sell cute little television sets with dedicated live financial news and pricing feeds to every stockbroker on Wall Street. Mike Bloomberg’s name frequently came up in meetings, because we yearned to replicate his success, and occasionally these references would take on a reverential “What Would Bloomberg Do?” tone.

My company also did business with Bloomberg (we were one of their countless data sources) and I remember a curious story making the rounds about Mike Bloomberg’s surprising insensitivity towards women in the workplace. My friend Steve, an economist and journalist, attended a meeting with Mike at the Bloomberg offices and came back wide-eyed. In the middle of the meeting, an attractive secretary walked in with refreshments, and after she left Bloomberg held up the conversation to watch her walk away with a salacious grin on his face. He then made a remark that, Steve said, caused everybody in the room — both men and women — to feel extremely uncomfortable. Others at my company who had worked with Bloomberg concurred with Steve — apparently this was a routine he was famous for, and it made everybody uncomfortable, but that was Mike. Our role model was a sexist slob.

This certainly gave me a bad first impression of Mike Bloomberg, and years later when he ran for mayor of New York City I wondered if these stories would surface and cause him problems. He broke no law, of course, but he did offer a disappointing key to his personality that might cause voters and journalists to doubt his judgement. I was surprised that no such stories ever surfaced, and I have to assume that this brash entrepeneur has matured and is no longer behaving in public like Michael Scott in “The Office”. And that’s all I’m going to say about this story, because I’ve come to have a slightly better opinion of Bloomberg, who has been my major for the last six years.

It’s not his politics but, ironically, his plain-speaking and modest personality that I’ve come to feel better about. New York City mayors tend to be loud publicity-seekers — Rudy Giuliani, Ed Koch and John Lindsay come to mind — but Mike Bloomberg’s public appearances since becoming mayor have shown him to be mild, sensible and humane. He seems to seek the middle ground on most issues and never leaps towards the types of broad-stroke politics that define his predecessors. He also gets points for speaking at my daughter Liz’s Forest Hills High School graduation a few years ago — as a good Democrat, I sat on my hands when others clapped, but I have to admit his speech was refreshingly humble and appropriate to the occasion.

Clearly the man has grown up a lot — haven’t we all? — but the fact that I’ve come to not dislike his public persona doesn’t mean I agree with his politics. Until this week I’ve had no idea where he stands on the conduct of American foreign policy in the Middle East, for instance, and some Google searches have only shown that he is against a withdrawal timetable for Iraq (which doesn’t impress me much) and that he dislikes our administration’s “go-it-alone” approach to foreign policy (that brings him closer to my heart).

I’m a long, long way from supporting Mike Bloomberg for President — in fact, I’m quite sure I’d never support him for President– but my instincts and initial impressions tell me he’s more clued-in than most Republican candidates, and I like it that he avoids the stink of cloying “America Is So Great We Can Do No Wrong” chauvinism that seems to infect so many in his former party.

I don’t think Mike Bloomberg will be our next president and I don’t think I want him to be. But I’d take him over the frenetic Rudy Giuliani in a minute, and over the slick flip-flopper Mitt Romney in two minutes. I’m sticking with the Dems for 2008, but the opposition just added an interesting surprise player who may shake things up. I’m all for that.

Probably the most dramatic moment during last night’s Fox News Republican debate: Rudy Giuliani criticizing outlier candidate Ron Paul for suggesting that the 1991 invasion of Iraq was a primary cause for the September 11 attacks. Here’s Fox’s record of the moment:

“That’s really an extraordinary statement,” Giuliani said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. “That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

All the other candidates then clamored for a chance to echo Giuliani’s strong condemnation of Ron Paul. Here’s the only problem: what Paul said is a simple historical fact. It’s not even a contested fact. Every serious history of the events leading up to the September 11 attacks agrees that Saudi rich kid Osama Bin Laden formed Al Qaeda as a direct response to the arrival of USA troops in Saudi Arabia to reverse Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait in 1991. This isn’t something only lefties and Democrats say — it’s something every credible historian is in agreement on. It’s also one of the main points of Lawrence Wright’s bestselling book The Looming Tower, widely considered the most authoritative (and non-partisan) history of Al Qaeda.

So, if Giuliani is standing there with a straight face saying “I don’t think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11″ we must conclude that he has not read Lawrence Wright’s book or any other history of Al Qaeda. And yet he believes he has the ability to lead our country’s absolutely critical battle against this enemy — from a position of ignorance about the history of this enemy, one can only assume.

Fighting an enemy from a position of ignorance about that enemy: I thought that was George Bush and Dick Cheney’s unique style, and I thought our country had at least learned the lesson that we need to understand our enemies better before we engage them in battle.

I guess not. The fact that John McCain and other candidates praised Giuliani’s dramatic criticism of truth-teller Ron Paul is pretty disturbing. My respect for a few of these candidates has just dropped a couple of notches. America cannot afford any more military leadership by politicians too haughty or proud to know the basic facts of their enemy’s history.

I’ve now had two good televised looks at Mitt Romney, who many consider the frontrunner for the Republican nomination: a televised debate on MSNBC several days ago, and a Mike Wallace profile on 60 Minutes last night.

My immediate reaction: slick, slick, slick. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Romney sure does look presidential, and his background as a successful venture capitalist and turnaround-artist for troubled companies is impressive. The 60 Minutes shots of his large family — five sons, ten grandchildren — was heartening. But the fact that he has now thrown away the old liberal-friendly views on abortion rights that got him elected as governor of Massachusetts in order to appeal to a pro-life national Republican voter base shows a lack of conviction on social issues. I also haven’t heard him say anything that’s not a safe, generic cliche about the Iraq war or the war against Al Queda or about foreign policy in general, so it seems pretty clear that he is a fix-the-economy, all-business type of politician. There could be worse, but we are at war and I am concerned that his convictions about foreign policy go no deeper than his convictions about abortion.

Why is Mitt Romney the frontrunner? John McCain’s strong convictions on the importance of victory in Iraq show strong principled consistency, but America is perceiving a fervid believer in need of a reality check. As for Rudy Giuliani — well, as a New Yorker I find his candidacy strange and surprising. For years, Rudy was our familiar “bad cop” mayor here in Fun City. He was undoubtedly an honest man and a hard worker, and he was also a familiar face. I’ve seen him on the streets or at events several times in New York City, and never for a minute (before September 11) did anybody think of this straight shooter as presidential material. When he was mayor, many of my friends just thought of him as the enforcer who put Gotti in jail and kept robberies down but also turned Times Square into DisneyWorld New York, and made it a lot scarier to smoke weed on the streets. That was his image, the sum total of it, and today six years after the September 11 attacks I still can’t imagine this rough player winning a national Republican nomination for anything.

So it looks like Mitt Romney is the frontrunner, and he seems smart enough to take whatever heat he gets in this difficult role. I’ll be watching closely and calling the shots right here.