downdb.net

It was hardly a surprise a few days ago to find David Broder writing a column in the Washington Post in which he was practically salivating at the prospect of a third-party run for the presidency by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg:

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a “government of national unity” to end the gridlock in Washington.

Broder’s whole schtick is namby-pamby “bipartisanship”, wherein Republicans set the agenda, and Democrats agree to it without complaint. In other words, this sort of story is his bread and butter.

What remains a mystery, though, is why, outside of the fever-dreams of the Washington press circle, anyone would imagine a Bloomberg candidacy to be anything aside from an exercise in futility.

He’s been a serviceable mayor, but following the horror show of Giuliani, just about anyone would look good. He has demonstrated an ability to flip parties depending on where the votes are, but while Bloomberg’s blandness may excite the Broder crowd, it’s not quality that’s going to pull enough voters away from the major parties to have an impact. He doesn’t even have the fringe-candidate appeal to attract the disaffected Nader/Paul crowd.

According to Broder’s article, Bloomberg’s main advantage would be the group of political heavyweights who would be backing his theoretical candidacy. Ezra Klein sums that one up pretty well, though:

Hey look! It’s a bunch of people who don’t matter! What constituency does Susan Eisenhower control? What sort of leverage does Jim Leach — who was beaten in the 2006 election — wield? Does an anxious nation really turn its eyes to Edward Perkins?

Of course not. This set of elderly white eminences can count on affection from a small group of DC’s political elite, and is mistaking that recognition for actual power. Alan Dixon and William Cohen do not have the clout to themselves pass legislation, nor lift the objections of the forces impeding reform. What they do have is David Broder’s home phone number, and so can expect a laudatory column detailing their efforts. But this, right here, is the peak of their power.

With any luck, this scheme will die the quiet death it deserves.