We got into a discussion of third parties a bit over the weekend.  Over the last week, there were a couple of items in the larger media that touched on this, but as is usually the case, not in the way that we would like.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to carry the hopes of people like Thomas Friedman who want a centrist third party to emerge.  Larry Kudlow claimed that Obama will tap Bloomberg to be his Treasury secretary when Geithner leaves. Friedman didn't mention Bloomberg but there's really nobody else who fits the bill of the third party candidate he thinks will emerge in 2012.

I'm not buying Kudlow's Treasury Secretary scoop.  I don't think Kudlow has the sources to make claims like that (the Obama White House isn't telling Kudlow anything, so all he could possibly get would be Wall Street rumor).  I also think people overestimate Bloomberg's ability to generate national appeal.  He does fine in New York City but this is where he's been part of the power structure for decades.  People know him here and they mostly respect him here and he still had to buy three terms as Mayor (including just eking out the last election, mostly because he amended the city charter to let himself have a third term, which ticked a lot of people off).  He's a fine mayor.  He's certainly competent and he's certainly bright.  But he's also too overbearing to ever be president and he lacks charisma.  But he's also richer that Croesus and that counts for something.  I don't think he could ever win a presidential election but he can certainly affect the outcome in key states.

The formula for the centrist third party candidate seems to go something like this:

One part bashing public sector unions, especially teachers.

One part deficit hawk and willing to cut Social Security to prove it.

One part environmental steward (it's not all bad).

One part tax cuts for business.

One part reasonable immigration reform.

Mix vigorsously with ice, strain into a highball glass and you'll get what people used to think was John McCain before he went nuts and revealed himself as the paleocon he really is (and ever has been).  The result is called centrist but it isn't really.  It's more just a Republican you can talk to because he isn't batshit crazy.  Friedman would add one more bit on the left side of the column: a willingness to regulate Wall Street more forcefully than the Republicans would allow.  If it's Bloomberg you can forget that.  Wall Street is his base and Bloomberg pressed hard to get New York's federal representatives to go easy on lower Manhattan.  It's understandable.  Not only did Wall Street make Bloomberg into a tycoon, it accounts for more than half the city's tax revenues even in a bad year.  If Bloomberg is the centrist spoiled in the 2012 elections he is not going to be the vanguard of economic populism.

If Bloomberg or someone like him runs in 2012 (an "independent-minded, self-financing mogul" type) it could actually be good for Obama.  But only if the media presents the candidate honestly as a moderate Republican wearing the independent label.  There's really nothing in it for a Democrat to vote for Bloomberg.  What do you get, environmental and immigration promises that the Democrats are offering anyway alongside the typical Republican financial plan?  No thanks.  A guy like Bloomberg should win the votes of northeastern-style Republicans who would like tax cuts without global warming.

The problem is, this is asking a lot of our media, which will probably fail us by not presenting the Diet Coke Republican choice for what it is.