Pour some water on this fire

I like Bloomberg. I think he's done a pretty good job as mayor and I like his style. The relatively straight-spoken technocrat thing is very appealing. I definitely have my problems with his apparent vision for the city, which seems to tend too much toward city as themepark/rich-person's playground. I think the city needs to diversify its economic base and keep itself open to people of all backgrounds (economic, cultural, etc.). Neither of these topics gets nearly as much attention as luxury condos and stadiums.

Regardless, I think this presidency talk is kinda nuts. Getting beyond the cultural problems--short, Jewish(!), rich, liberal, has a pronounced Northeastern accent--I have my doubts as to how effective he could be as president. The mayor of New York has just about all the power. The City Council is term limited and essentially a single party, which makes it pretty easily controlled. And there's only 51 councilmembers! The mayor controls the budget process--he proposes, and he disposes. (He also appoints agency heads without council approval.) That is, he gives the revenue estimate. He proposes the budget. The council reacts. The mayor then can withhold funds if he choses. In other words, "[he] get[s] the money, then [he] get[s] the power."

Washington doesn't work that way, to say the least. Congress has genuine power and members with strong bases of power. An independent president would lack party control over at least part of Congress. He'd be hamstrung, unable to bull his way to success. Bloomberg the president would have to be, as a matter of institutional structure, far different from Bloomberg the mayor.

And I've seen nothing noting this.