John LeBoutillier
Monday June 11, 2001

Is anyone who proclaims themselves to be a Republican automatically ‘accepted’ as a Republican?

What if someone is a practicing, true-blue liberal Democrat and then – for expediency’s sake – suddenly converts to become a Republican?

What if someone voted for Hillary Clinton last November for the U.S. Senate – and repeatedly invokes her name and her campaign style – and now wants to be elected himself?

Last Wednesday New York saw the sad spectacle of billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg announce his candidacy for New York City Mayor as a Republican.

By his own admission, Bloomberg was a liberal Democrat last fall – and only switched parties because he "could not compete with four other candidates in the Democratic primary. This way I will be on the ballot in November with a shot at winning."

When gently pressed by WABC's Sean Hannity about who he voted for last fall – Hillary and Gore or Lazio and Bush – Bloomberg dodged with the lame excuse that "ballot anonymity" prevents him from revealing his choices.

What nonsense!

His non-answer tells us all we need to know about him: he clearly voted for Hillary and Gore and is afraid to admit as much because of how it will be used against him in the September GOP primary by his opponent, former Congressman Herman Badillo.

But what is most disgusting is to see the fawning over this Democrat-in-Republican clothing. New York Governor George Pataki – even before Bloomberg started running – proclaimed him to be a "great candidate.” Yesterday, at New York’s Puerto Rican Day parade, Bloomberg marched side-by-side with Pataki.

Is a "great candidate” defined as having a few billion in the bank?

Is that what it has come to?

Have GOP leaders like Pataki gone so low as to welcome liberal Democrats with open arms – as long as they have open checkbooks?

After one day of campaigning last week, Bloomberg clearly was feeling the heat of trying to remain a liberal in his heart while wearing the GOP coat on his back. So he suddenly called for "nonpartisan elections for mayor.” He said the whole election is about” the delivery of city services.”

He is clearly trying to blur the traditional differences between liberal and conservative because he is uncomfortable being a Republican.

All he wants – by his own admission – is to be "on the ballot in November.”

And the GOP nomination is apparently "buyable” – while the Democratic nomination was unwinnable for this liberal running against four other elected liberals.

Republicans have been spoiled for the past eight years by the success as mayor by Rudy Giuliani.

His original election was due to the horrendous condition of the city under the stewardship of Mayor David Dinkins – a very nice man who was utterly incapable of even keeping his own supporters in line.

New York City is overwhelmingly Democrat. It takes ‘special circumstances’ for a Republican to win.

However, the Republican nomination can not be simply given to someone because they’re rich.

Because if we will do that for the mayoral nomination today, then we’ll do it for a more valuable nomination for some other office.

No, the party of Lincoln, Ike and Reagan won because we have stood for certain strong principles - and we should hold all potential nominees to those very high standards.

If they were Democrats and, disgusted by that party’s failed policies, decided to switch, then we welcome then with open arms.

But if they are still loyal to that party – and are trying to mask that loyalty – then our message should be clear: our nomination is not for sale.