Hizzoner has aggressively pursued reducing smoking in the city, by raising cigarette taxes, curbing smoking in public places, and encouraging some hard-hitting advertising. Smoking is down in the city from 2002 by about 20%, one of the steepest declinces in the country in the past 40 years. The CDC estimates that this reduction will save some 80,000 lives if those who stopped remain smoke-free.
This policy has met a lot of resistance from businesses like bars & restaurants and anti-tax advocates, but Bloomberg did it anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/nyregion/22smoking.html
I’m continuing to think he should run in 2008 for President. Anyone who has listened to his press conferences can’t help but be impressed with his candor, his intelligence, and his wit.
The big thing I’m curious about are the statements that he would siphon votes away from other candidates.
But who’s votes would he siphon? Democrats? Republicans?
He may be a viable third party candidate, but assuming that he comes up short in the final vote, which party would benefit?
This could be a terrible election if Hillary, Giulianni, and Bloomberg are the major nominees.
The big thing I’m curious about are the statements that he would siphon votes away from other candidates.
But who’s votes would he siphon? Democrats? Republicans?
He may be a viable third party candidate, but assuming that he comes up short in the final vote, which party would benefit?
This could be a terrible election if Hillary, Giulianni, and Bloomberg are the major nominees.
I read an opinion this morning that suggested that Bloomberg isn’t going to run for President, because he can accomplish just as much for NYC by being a power broker. Say he becomes nationally known, and reasonably well-liked. He might be in the position to deliver to another candidate a substantial number of votes in exchange for who-knows-what.