Today I've been watching a CFR forum on the 2008 election and foreign policy, and the question of Mayor Bloomberg of New York and his possible decision to enter the race came up pretty quickly in the Q&A session. There's enough "restlessness" now among the voters as to make him a viable candidate, said Douglas Schoen (it was basically a dialogue of pollsters).
This possible Bloomberg candidacy was received quite enthusiastically by the Israel Factor panel. When we added him to the Factor, the verdict was clear: "Bloomberg, like leading Republican Rudy Giuliani and leading Democrat Hillary Clinton, is from New York - and that matters."
Bloomberg was second (behind Rudy Giuliani) in some of our surveys, and was third in the last one. In the next one (I already have the numbers but need to work on them a little bit more, they will be published early next week), Bloomberg will still trail Giuliani, but will be tied with Clinton. Seven of eight panelists gave him a score of 7, 8 or 9 out of 10. For three of them he was the top candidate (tied with Giuliani in all cases).
But what is it that Bloomberg really stands for when it comes to the Middle East?
Among other things, we sent the panel members this news item dealing with the group Bloomberg is now associated with. "The forum included former Republican Sen. Bill Brock of Tennessee, former Defense Secretary William Cohen, former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, former Democratic Sen. David Boren of Oklahoma, former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman." It also included "Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who is often mentioned as an ideal running mate for Bloomberg."
Some of the people in this group were not considered the most supportive of Israel in their political careers (Cohen is a case in point). Hagel, previously a candidate, was ranked by the panel as low as anyone. But the question the panel dealt with this week is one we talked about long ago, when I wrote this:
"Here is a possibility that will confront the panel with a fascinating dilemma: At the beginning of the week, the Republican senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, hinted that there is still a possibility he will run. If he decides to do so, he might enter the race as an independent. He has received the lowest score from the panel for many months; one panelist explains that this is because he is "multilateral in his international approach."
Others offer similar reasons: "He has a simplistic concept of foreign policy and the Middle East," and "he is the least sympathetic to Israel," "his cold attitude toward Israel," and "he is ready to accept countries that support terrorism."
Hagel, who does not conform to the Republican line, is one of the fiercest critics of the Bush administration. In the panel's perception, his attitude toward Israel will be closer to that of the first president Bush than the second. But what will the panel do if Hagel realizes his dream and runs as an independent - not alone, but on a ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg?"
So, many months later, we asked the Factor panelists. Are they bothered by the association of Bloomberg with the Oklahoma group? Will it be bothered by Bloomberg taking Hagel as a running mate? A score of 1 means that the group or Hagel makes the panelists less comfortable with Bloomberg, a score of 3 means the panelists are as comfortable as they are is currently, a score of 5 means much more comfortable. These are the numbers we got, and some analysis:
1. Bloomberg is still seen by the panel as a candidate who will be good for Israel, and as friendly as they would like an American president to be. In fact, this is why writers like Glenn Greenwald of Salon keep complaining about Bloomberg ("Bloomberg is basically just Rudy Giuliani with a billion or two dollars to spend to alter the election. When it comes to foreign policy, war-making and government power, he offers absolutely nothing that isn't found in destructive abundance among the most extremist precincts in the Republican Party," wrote Greenwald - and we know this panel tends to like Giuliani).
2. A Bloomberg candidacy is far from certain, as Michael Fund pointed out in the WSJ last week.
"Consider the voters who know him best," he wrote. "A Marist poll last week of New York state voters found that only 27% wanted him to run for president, and only 12% wanted him to win. A new Quinnipiac University poll found that even in his home base of New York City, only a third of voters would cast their presidential ballots for him." This might have some effect on the level of seriousness with which the panel scrutinizes his statements and positions.
3. The Oklahoma group does not seem to bother most of the panelists, but it also doesn't make them view Bloomberg in a more positive light. Saying it doesn't make much of a difference is saying (in this case) that things are not clear enough to make a more definite judgment regarding this group.
4. But what about Hagel? Here the answer is clear: if Bloomberg takes Hagel with him, the panel will no longer think he is a candidate favorable to Israel. Five of the panelists said such move will make them very uneasy with Bloomberg. Three of the panelists said it would not matter - but not one said it would make Bloomberg more appealing
|
