WILL THE DEMOCRATS’ ROSS PEROT ELECT SARAH PALIN?

Remember 1992?  A first-term president, who started out with sky-high popularity then squandered it, was running against a governor from a hick state – and lost, thanks to billionaire Ross Perot’s third party candidacy that split the GOP vote. 

Will history obversely repeat itself 20 years later, with a billionaire’s third party candidacy splitting the Dem vote and electing Sarah Palin?

That’s why the most interesting political development this week wasn’t the deal President Obama struck with congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, or the bizarre news conference Mr. Obama held to defend it. 

It was a speech New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave Wednesday morning (12/08).

Mr. Bloomberg denied afterwards the speech was a precursor to an independent run for president.  In an interview with CBS’ Katy Couric, he said, "I’m not going to run for president period, end-of-story."  Yeah, and George Bush the Elder said, "Read my lips: no new taxes."  I’m reading Mr. Bloomberg’s lips, and I don’t believe him.

A lot of other folks don’t believe him either, like the Politico’s Ben Smith, who thinks Mr. Bloomberg is clearly "positioning himself for the national stage."

The self-styled "centrist" group "No Labels," which many think is a stalking horse for a presidential run by Mr. Bloomberg (the group denies this), is having its media rollout next Monday (12/13).  Check out the Featured Speakers list.  It’s a RINO’s and liberal squish’s dream – with Mr. Bloomberg at the top.

Mr. Bloomberg is fond of  expressing contempt for both Republicans and Democrats.  And after playing golf with Mr. Obama, Mr. Bloomberg said: "I never in my life met such an arrogant man."  (Has he never looked in the mirror?)

And after the Republican landslide on Nov. 2^nd,  Mr. Bloomberg told the Wall Street Journal: "If you look at who we’re electing to Congress  — they can’t read.  I’ll bet you a bunch of these people don’t have passports."

And after playing golf with the president, Mr. Bloomberg said: "I never in my life met such an arrogant man."

Mr. Bloomberg is far wealthier than Ross Perot ever was.  He’s is a billionaire 18 times over.  He could spend twice as much as the record $454 million Mr. Obama spent on his presidential campaign, and never miss it.  This is one reason why political consultants have been flocking to Mr. Bloomberg like flies to a pile of horse manure.

His financial resources alone would make Mr. Bloomberg the most potent third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.  In addition, Mr. Bloomberg is in his third term as the mayor of America‘s most populous city, and (obviously) is a successful businessman.

So if he chooses to run, Mr. Bloomberg would have a big impact.  But what would that impact be?

This depends on the state of the economy in 2012, what’s happening abroad, the identity of the Republican nominee.  But history suggests third party candidates hurt the party in power more. (Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot in 1992 caused the defeat of Republican presidents.  Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory over President Jimmy Carter in 1980 was facilitated by the independent candidacy of Rep. John Anderson, a liberal Republican.)

Mr. Bloomberg’s positions on hot button issues also suggest he would take more votes from Democrats.  He and the "founding leaders" of No Labels describe themselves as centrists.  Most would more accurately be described as "limousine liberals who can balance a checkbook."

The economic platform Mr. Bloomberg outlined in his speech Wednesday "largely mirrors the views of the Chamber of Commerce," Mr. Smith of Politico said.  But on other issues "Nanny Bloomberg" (so named for his crusades against smoking in bars and salt in food) is very much a liberal.  He favors construction of the Ground Zero mosque, opposes Arizona‘s immigration law, favors gun control and abortion, and has expressed scathing contempt for the Tea Party.

Geography also suggests Mr. Bloomberg would hurt Democrats more.  Mr. Bloomberg figures to be most popular in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, Democrat strongholds all.  He is not likely to be very popular in Alabama or Wyoming.

The GOP candidate Mr. Bloomberg probably would hurt the most is Mitt Romney.  Mr. Romney is more conservative and less egotistical than Mr. Bloomberg.  But to most Americans, they’re both rich guys from the Northeast.

The GOP candidate Mr. Bloomberg probably would hurt the least is Sarah Palin.  He has little appeal to people who are crazy about her.  And if Mr. Bloomberg were to split with Mr. Obama the votes of people who despise her, that would be all right with Sarah.

Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Palin have a symbiotic relationship of sorts.  Her candidacy would be the best rationale for his argument that both parties are too "extreme."  His candidacy would give her the best chance of winning.

A Bloomberg candidacy also could have an impact on President Obama’s posturing.  Mr. Obama’s deal on the Bush tax cuts and his attack on "sanctimonious" liberals at his press conference defending it seemed to some a clumsy attempt at triangulation, in which he tries to occupy a middle ground between liberal Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

But if Mr. Bloomberg runs, how can a triangulation strategy work?  Mr. Obama can’t be in the middle ground between Pelosi and Reid on the one hand, and the GOP on the other, if Bloomberg with a billion-dollar megaphone is already occupying it. 

Further, if Obama insists on staking on such a "centrist" strategy in spite of Mr. Bloomberg, that would provoke a purist Moonbat independent candidacy like Ralph Nader’s in 2000.  The Moonbat would likely draw up to 5% of the vote nationally , and could produce some fascinating results in the electoral college.  Vermont in the Republican column?

Such a Moonbat would earn no electoral votes.  But Bloomberg could – and states with a bouquet of them, such as New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.  If he were to do so, plus gain a few others, no candidate would win a majority of the Electoral College, and the election would go into the House of Representatives. 

In what is called a "Contingent Presidential Election," as specified by the 12^th Amendment, every state House delegation gets one vote – California with 53 and Wyoming with 1 are equal.  Only states get to vote, not DC or any Territory.  So 26 state delegation votes or more elects the president.

The 112^th Congress will have 31 states with GOP majority delegations, and 17 Dem (Minnesota is tied at 4-4).   This guarantees the Republican candidate wins.

(Interestingly, the 12^th Amendment has the Senate vote in a Contingent Election for the vice-president, with a simple majority of 51 winning.  With Dems at 53-47, this could result in a Dem VP.)

Although the electoral odds are daunting, Bloomberg’s massive ego, stoked repeatedly by all those consultants with $$ in their eyes, may propel him into running.  He may delay a decision as late as Spring 2012.  Meantime, his No Labels outfit fueled by his giant pocketbook can build a well-oiled national organization capable of getting the signatures necessary for the ballot in all 50 states in very little time.

Sarah also has the luxury of being a late decider, since her millions of devoted fans give her an organization almost everywhere.  She’d have to decide by Nov/Dec of 2011, but she wouldn’t have to decide before then.  That’s got to have the other Republican contenders tearing their hair out.

Yet neither of them may wait that long.  By next summer, we may see both Mike and Sarah announcing.  With Bloomberg, Obama, and a Moonbat dividing up a Dem-Left vote pie, Sarah may waltz right into the White House. 

Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.