Democrats don’t have luxury to wage an ideological battle when single goal is to top Trump
“Bloomberg’s cash recasts campaign playbook” by Victoria McGrane and Jazmine Ulloa, (Page A1, Feb. 16) was reassuring. The billionaire Mike Bloomberg is overwhelming the airwaves with slick ads, driving the buzz on social media, and outspending President Trump on Facebook because that is what it takes to end the Trump presidency.
Fortunately, Bloomberg has created a media empire that catapulted him to immense wealth. He also has a commitment to public service. The causes he has financed are indicative of the direction in which he would take the country if he is elected.
The Trump administration has broken too many rules, violated ethics, and ignored the law. We are beyond normal in terms of the political playing field. The endless scandals of the Trump administration make it clear that Democrats should unify and follow the lead of a pragmatist. We don’t have the luxury of waging an ideological battle when the country needs to heal, focus on restoring stability, and end income inequality.
Traditionally the economic well-being of the voters assures the incumbent a reelection victory, but the moral vacuum created by Trump must be filled with hope and with policies that lift the middle class.
Bloomberg will maintain the social safety net because he understands the challenges faced by the disenfranchised. I have known him for 44 years, since I worked with him at Salomon Brothers. He will create a supernaturally improbable outcome by winning back the White House for the Democrats. Voters should seize the moment and follow his lead.
Steven A. Ludsin
East Hampton, N.Y.
It’s clear we value dollars over the voice of each voter
On Sunday morning I read the two articles in the Globe on Mike Bloomberg. The front-page article (“Bloomberg’s cash recasts campaign playbook”) gives the impression that Bloomberg’s awesome spending on his presidential campaign is not just big but “smart.” The second article (“Complaints about sexist talk follow billionaire”), on Page A12, illustrates how Bloomberg treated his female employees with disrespectful, cruel talk, even allegedly telling a pregnant woman to “kill it.”
The current rules of campaign spending and contributions value dollars over respecting the voice of each voter in our democracy. These rules were decided in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. It is not surprising that we now have more than one misogynistic billionaire vying for the presidency.
Joel T. Patterson
We shouldn’t give in to that common prejudice: wealthism
Are you narrow-minded and a liberal thinker?
I would like to call out what I believe is a common prejudice in people who believe themselves to be open-minded. That prejudice is against those who have succeeded financially.
For us to discount those who have worked hard and achieved financial success, among many things, is to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Specifically I’m referring to people who feel that Mike Bloomberg is someone they couldn’t vote for because he has too much money. This implies that all rich people are heartless and can’t understand people who are middle class.
That depends on where that wealthy person started. If one inherits his or her wealth, then yes, that statement may be true. Bloomberg did not inherit his wealth. His wealth is a reflection of hard work, early adoption of new technologies, and an understanding of what people wanted, which creates a winning business model and life model.
My hopes are that the open-minded will look at the candidates’ motivation and their roots, and not just their wealth.
South Portland, Maine
Seeing troublesome signs (along with all those dollar signs)
If Deval Patrick had Mike Bloomberg’s money, he’d be the Democratic hopeful all the other candidates would be worried about. The same goes for Kamala Harris and Cory Booker and Michael Bennet, and maybe even Seth Moulton.
Does anyone see a problem here?
Maybe the parties should just rename themselves the Billionaire Left Party and the Billionaire Right Party and get it over with.