An Open Letter to Tom Steyer And Mike Bloomberg

Okay–here’s the thing.

Neither one of you is going to be the Democratic nominee. And I certainly hope neither of you plans to splinter the vote and help Trump by running a third-party candidacy.

Steyer, you are just a (much) smarter, saner version of Trump. Your ads make it clear that you are unacquainted with the complexities of governing; you seem to think that because you were able to make a lot of money (which, to be fair, in your case you actually earned), you have what it takes to run the country.

Would you take your toothache to a dentist who was really smart and who’d made a lot of money but had never gone to dental school or filled a cavity? Of course not.

Bloomberg, you would actually be a more plausible Chief Executive than Tom Steyer–anyone who has been mayor of New York City for three terms understands federalism, Separation of Powers and the function–and limitations– of the Executive branch. But you are smart enough to know that the considerable baggage that experience generated means you have little chance of winning the nomination and initiating what would be billed as a fight between billionaires (a fight that would turn off the party’s Left, whose presence at the polls will be critical) despite the unholy amounts of money you are currently spending on advertisements.

Both of you need to put your massive egos aside and your billions to better use. Permit me to suggest some of those uses:

Buy Fox “News” and turn it into an actual news organization. If Newscorp refuses to sell–or even if you do get that done–go after Sinclair Broadcasting and/or other high-traffic propaganda outlets. (They can still tilt conservative, as that term used to be understood. Just not Trumpian.) (Longterm, you might consider funding that “Seal of Approval” media organization I’ve blogged about…)

If you MUST blanket the airwaves and Internet with political advertising, find the most creative people you can and go after McConnell and Trump and vulnerable Republican Senators. Hard.

Do you know what I would do if I were as rich as the two of you?

I’d hire the best private investigators I could find, and charge them with digging up the tax returns and other financial records Trump is so desperate to keep hidden, and with identifying his and “Moscow Mitch” McConnell’s connections to Russia. I’d instruct them to follow the tantalizing leads suggested in the Mueller report that were left unexamined. I’d send them looking for the high school grades and college transcript Trump doesn’t want anyone to see–not to mention the seamy details of his long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. (I’d also ask them to find out what the hell it is that Trump has on Lindsay Graham.)

The two of you have the financial wherewithal to save the country. Don’t waste it on ego trips.


54 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Tom Steyer And Mike Bloomberg

  1. Bravo Sheila! I totally agree with you. We continue to talk about getting big money out of politics and their candidacies are completely antithetical in regards to do that. They would be doing this country and the world as well a huge favor if they would both do what you have suggested. As for Lindsay I would love to know as well since it’s either what you have eluded to or he has clearly lost his moral center. Then again, maybe John McCain was his moral center just like the relationship between Yogi and BooBoo. Very strange stuff indeed.

  2. I do NOT think either of these men thinks they are about to become President. I think they are motivated by the clear and present danger that is Donald J Trump. The suggestions in todays blog are excellent. Another would be to use their influence in the business community to get advertisers to move away from supporting crazy media.
    My theory is that they are using the campaign as a way to express their views to the largest audience.
    And as far as Lindsey and the other Soviet operatives, There simply MUST be a huge trove of soviet dirt on all these people. There must be. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.

  3. Another idea for the use of the billionaire’s money would be to fund civic education in every school district in the country.

  4. Sheila; THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I wish there was a way to enlarge print on this blog to express the full depth of my THANKS for this letter.

    For entirely different reasons; the only worse possible interloper to seek the presidency would be if Rudy Giuliani decided to run against Trump in the Primary. We don’t need another billionaire businessman to tell us how to run this country like a business. Nor do we need even a former three-term mayor who defected from the Republican party and trusted the likes of Steve Goldsmith to help him run New York City.

    If Bloomberg is using this ploy to convince us he is one of those “silent” Republicans who is now going public against Trump; I for one ain’t going for it. Steyer knows and understands no more about the millions of “average Americans” who support this country, keep it running and who vote than our current Billionaire In Residence in the Oval Office. I fear these two, along with those Bernie Bots who helped appoint Trump in 2016, will only accomplish what you stated and “splinter the vote”. The Bernie Bots along with those more than 7 MILLION who voted for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson accomplished exactly that; giving the Electoral College the numbers they needed to appoint this country’s worst enemy…Donald Trump.

  5. That you, Sheila for putting in print what so many of us are thinking !!!
    I would add to your suggestions that they put their considerable wealth behind voter registration drives and contribute to the ACLU’s legal fund to fight the States that are culling their voter lists for very dubious reasons.

  6. Ms. Suess Kennedy-your words ring a resounding amount of truth. As usual, thank you from a very grateful reader, and, I hope, friend.

  7. Yes!

    So glad we don’t have to watch those commercials!

    Happy New Year Blogger friends! Cheers!

  8. You have articulated what I’ve felt for a long while-there’s got to be a better use of these billionaire’s money than running TV ads. Love your suggestions – I certainly hope someone is listening!

  9. Sheila’s direction is right on the money but Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg will never attack Trump in an effective way. They didn’t make their money by being stupid. The same goes for George Soros.

    Anyone who takes on Trump in an effective way, at this point in time, risks assassination. All Trump has to do is just make the right tweet. He’s his own secret police. It’s time to wake-up to the real political reality before all is lost.

  10. Tom and Mie should consider funding single payer health care, Greet New Deal, or whatever necessities of a better life which appeals to them which the ruling corporate democracy stymies.

    We keep linking Trump and Graham to Putin. What possible advantages can Putin, our sworn enemy, possibly offer them?

  11. The would-be Democratic voters are really getting fed up with the staged “debates” and the inevitable counter-productive attacks of the candidates on each other. These things show how shallow Tom Perez’s idea pool is for fielding the best candidate to not only defeat Trump and his gangsters, but to rebuild and repair the entire country from physical infrastructure, to environment to foreign relations.

    It’s a shame that Kamala Harris was forced out by this season of campaign spending. It’s a shame that the billionaires like Steyer and Bloomberg aren’t just funding the entire party and finding a real party chairman like Howard Dean to run the thing. A fifty-state strategy has never been more important.

  12. They might also consider running ads touting the efforts of the House of Representatives. The Republicans have tagged them as “do nothings”, when they have passed over 400 pieces of legislation covering most of what Americans claim they want to see addressed. Which side is winning the marketing war? Of course, it’s the Republicans. Just to be clear well over 200 of those bills have had bi-partisan support.

  13. I disagree. I’m not so sure that Steyer is a viable candidate – he’s successful and has established his disgust with Trump, but maybe he wouldn’t be a great choice for president. I bet he could populate his cabinet with qualified and experienced choices.

    Bloomberg is an accomplished business man and a politician/public servant. You may be correct that he would not appeal to the left wing of the Democratic party, but he would attract a larger portion of the independent voters who may be struggling with replacing the Nazi in the Oval Office with one of the current Democrats who do appeal to the left wing, but leave moderate voters cold.

  14. Vernon writes, “A fifty-state strategy has never been more important.”


    The blueprint of what the Koch brothers did for the right-wingers is available for Bloomberg and Steyer to follow. They can do the same for progressives.

    As for Joann’s ridiculous comment, the “Bernie bots” didn’t get Trump elected — the DNC and Hillary Clinton got Trump elected. The Millennials saw precisely what the DNC was all about. Against CNN’s advice, well-informed people went to the Wikileaks website and read the emails showing how the party, under Hillary’s leadership, screwed over Bernie with the help of the media blackouts.

    And if they force Joe Biden down voters throats, guess who will win another four years?

  15. I’m not so sure Bloomberg wouldn’t be a viable candidate. You’re right, he has so much baggage, such as his stop and frisk practices while he was mayor, but he can effectively counter much of Trump’s false narrative. Bloomberg really is what Trump claims to be and isn’t; the self-made millionaire and effective dealmaker. We (Democrats) need someone who will show Trump up at the debates in a way that appeals to independents and reasonable Republicans if there are any. I personally like several others more than I like Bloomberg but it’s critical that we nave a nominee that will beat Trump and get our government back on the track of sanity.

  16. Peggy, very good point.

    My cousins seemed to have been completely shocked by that. When I pointed it out, they were in disbelief. And their whole circle of drones acted the same way.


    Who can know the inner workings of a genius? LOL! It’s almost like watching the old Rocky and Bullwinkle, hey Rocky watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat; (yes I used to watch cartoons quite a bit) then he reaches in the hat and disaster after Rocky warns him that the trick never works. I know Tom Perez wants a 50 state system, I just don’t know if he’ll be able to pull it all together. Maybe, just maybe Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg are doing some of the heavy media lifting right now. And maybe, just maybe there are private investigators working on some of the stuff, I’m sure Mike Bloomberg would have something to pull out of his bag of tricks.


    What did the Soviet Union offer when they were gobbling up the remains of Eastern Europe after the 2nd world war? Power and influence! The British brought over their staunchly loyal and made them huge land owners here. Maybe Lindsey Graham would like to start a huge plantation? And of course we have POTUS for life? And POTUS kids for life?

    Freedom of speech should really mean freedom from lies, freedom from conspiracies, freedom from rumors and innuendo, and freedom to promote the truth.

    Unfortunately we have freedom of speech being used to promote lies and suppress the truth! Maybe there should be a committee of some of the best intellectuals in the Commonwealth, and also those that exhibit a very high proclivity towards compassion and civility in all manners of theirs and others lives, to VET some of the most egregious. That way informed and unbiased choices can be made legitimately.

    Freedom, we’ve all pined for freedom, interestingly, there’s a large segment in this country which does not want freedom are actually afraid of it.

    Freedom is the acting and performance of acts really according to one’s will, with or without restraints the general welfare and the use of free uncoerced will.

    Liberty is exemption from extraneous control, though ability to follow one’s own unrestricted choices/free will also uncoerced.

    If people are afraid of freedom and liberty, it’s because they prefer to be led, unfortunately if you’re being led, you are not in control of your direction. Is that a better life? If freedom of speech allows naysayers to spread conspiracies, lies and innuendo that promote fear and trepidation, its very fearful/cowardly individuals that want to be led like a Bull with a ring in its nose. They would like salvation, they want to be saved. And since they have no faith in their beliefs, they turn to wickedness against their fellow man and wicked leaders with no conscience. That’s what we have today.

    We are not Obligated towards a particular political party, we are not Obligated towards a particular religion, but we should be Obligated to our fellow man, we should be Obligated towards the children, the widows, the mentally ill, the infirmed, the elderly, and the foreign resident. Corporations and the wealthy who take advantage of the protections this country offers should gladly contribute to the cause of the greater good. When the fabric of society is strong, it cannot be torn. When it is fragmented, it ends up in the trash bin of history.

    This leads me to believe, that man really is incapable of compassionate governance for any length of time. You always have those coming along to disrupt and corrupt any attempt to govern by compassion. What was it Roosevelt said? “Speak softly and carry a big stick and you will go far” or something to that effect?

    What does our current POTUS say? Run like a bull in a china shop and then lie about who broke the dishes, while carrying a big bag of Bull Sh—- poop to live for instant gratification?

    When you’re fighting for your life in a pigsty, you have to get dirty, if you try to stay above the Muck, you’ve already lost the battle and more than likely the war. When there’s a fire, say a 10,000 acre wildfire, what’s one way to fight that fire? Set other fires (backfires) that’s where the old fight fire with fire phrase came from, unfortunately I don’t see much fire out there. A noble will never win a gutter fight with a lout, these folks better get to training.

  17. First, he’s certainly not my candidate, but It’s really not fair to compare Bloomberg to Steyer. No one hates Trump more than Bloomberg or knowns more about where his bodies are buried. Remember him looking directly in the TV during the Democratic convention and saying, “Donald Trump is a con man.” His is running a very unconventional, but very smart race focusing on exclusively delegate count. He needs to be taken very seriously. You mention nothing about his really innovative, progressive programs around gun control, the climate crisis, even reducing sugar consumption among poor children and others. He transformed NYC. I lived there for 30 years and that is an enormous feat. He is socially a Democrat, was a Democrat and could not get past the Democratic bosses to run for mayor so did an end-run as a Republican. Which is the playbook he is using now. He is an uber smart and creative thinker and follows through on his beliefs. Is he likely to win? No, but I would never dismiss him.

  18. Marv, once again, on point. If they are going to go after this guy, is going to have to be scattergun. So much activity that it would be difficult to focus on one individual. It’s a real shame it has to be this way, in some ways is hard to tell who the good people are. I suppose it’s a leap of faith, LOL. And faith is in short supply.

  19. I for one don’t care how bored billionaires are in making money and who seek new avenues for expression of their egos. I have written extensively that Bloomberg is a Republican playing pic a party. So he and Tom are against Trump? Big Deal! So are the rest of us who are sane.

    On the other hand, I do appreciate their use of putdown money against Trump but that doesn’t translate into their fitness for the presidency and I am not voting for a Republican for that office if he or she spends a trillion dollars on ads generally favoring our cause. We Democrats say we are against Big Money in politics, and politics includes all parties. By voting for either Mike or Tom we are directly or indirectly endorsing Citizens United vs. FEC, an endorsement (I would hope) unlikely to be adopted in our upcoming platform at the convention.

    The fifty state plan first discussed years ago by Howard Dean is more important this year than ever, given that the decennial census count and the leprosy of gerrymandering are up for grabs, and I presume Perez and the DNC are allocating time and resources to such plan. Delegates from Blue States will complain, but let’s remember that California once elected Republican governors, so let’s spend campaign money in Utah, Wyoming and other such red states, understanding that they have two senators as well as California, New York, Texas and Florida, and will have until we amend the Constitution.

    Back to topic > Spare me the incessant ads from Republicans alluding to their progressive views. I think the truth is that these super rich candidates may be only marginally pretending to be against Trump when they are really against Bernie as a Social Democrat and Warren with her wealth tax and her plans to rein in Wall Street excesses (which Trump opposes).

    Confession > I am now and have been since she first ran for Senate a contributing supporter of Elizabeth Warren, the world’s foremost expert on bankruptcy, a much needed attribute for a president in these days of Trump-Ryan tax giveaways and the result, i.e., ballooning deficits in the trillions both per annum and long term.


  20. Wealth, the presence or lack of it, is not any more a consideration in Presidential candidates than race or gender or religion or sexual preference is. I think that everyone on the Democrat stage right now is a legitimate candidate to be considered on the grounds of their policy prescriptions. All three wealthy ones have proven cognitive, collaboration, complexity and moral acuity accomplishments, some more in politics and some more in business both of which are important considerations for an effective Presidency. 100% of them are infinitely more qualified than the present Putin present.

  21. I would echo Vernon’s criticism of Tome Perez’s staged debates and add to it. Why should he and his small cadre set the rules for who is viable and who is not. That’s how Steyer got in and Bloomberg ultimately will. Why should the media decide which questions are relevant, who won, and who is the new darling of the party? We’ve lost Kamala and Corey to the process. Does anybody think that’s a good thing?

  22. John,

    “Marv, once again, on point. If they are going to go after this guy, (it) is going to have to be scattergun. So much activity that it would be difficult to focus on one individual.”

    Excellent analysis. The masterful leadership of Shaku Zulu comes to mind. And his expert use of the double envelopment.

    “The pincer movement, or double envelopment, is a military maneuver in which forces simultaneously attack both flanks of an enemy formation. The pincer movement typically occurs when opposing forces advance towards the center of an army that responds by moving its outside forces to the enemy’s flanks to surround it.”

    Pincer movement – Wikipedia

  23. IMO the Democrat Party process for selecting which candidates to support in their run for office is infinitely preferable to the Republican one.

  24. The only way out of this mess is a combined effort of Democrats and Republicans against a common enemy: to wit, Donald Trump, much like the Desert Shield forces aligned against Saddam Hussein, which included Arab countries as well as The State of Israel.

  25. Buying fake news organizations, like Fox and Sinclair, and ensuring they’re disseminating fact instead of fiction is a wonderful idea. It wouldn’t make a dent in Trump’s current supporters, but it would help prevent a new crop of ideologues operating on “alternative facts.” I think hiring private investigators to uncover the details of Trump’s criminality would be a waste of money, though. His base has already shown that it is indifferent to his criminality, and once he’s out of office, all that info will be readily and publicly available; it’s just not available to us now, while he’s got the power to silence those who have access to it.

  26. I guess I do watch much TV. I have not seen the Billionaire ads.

    I would agree with Gerald’s point @ 9:43 am:

    “I think the truth is that these super rich candidates may be only marginally pretending to be against Trump when they are really against Bernie as a Social Democrat and Warren with her wealth tax and her plans to rein in Wall Street excesses (which Trump opposes).”

    I would also agree with Todd, “And if they force Joe Biden down voters throats, guess who will win another four years?”

    Of course the uber wealthy mega-millionaires and billionaires will always find somebody like Corporate Joe Biden, or Mayor Pete to carry their water or Wine as the case maybe.

    Robert Reich has an excellent column in today’s Guardian about Corporate Ethics or more like the lack of Ethics. The biggest business con of 2019: fleecing workers while bosses get rich. Corporate social responsibility is the second-biggest con of 2019 (Donald Trump remains in first place).

    So who do think is going to confront the Oligarchy and Big Corporations??? It will be either Bernie or Warren. It surely will not be Corporate Joe Biden or Wine Cave Mayor Pete.

  27. Sheila: “I’d send them looking for the high school grades and college transcript Trump doesn’t want anyone to see.”

    Trump is just one big lie. I was talking with a friend the other day who thought Trump had a Masters Degree in Business because he always mentions the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.

    He went to the University of Pennsylvania as a transfer student as he didn’t have the ability to be accepted as an incoming freshman. He transferred from Fordham in his sophmore year. I have a B.S. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. It’s not a Wharton degree. If he graduated which I haven’t seen any proof, it was from the University of Pennsylvania.

    By using Wharton, he is implying that he has an advanced degree because of the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce’s reputation as having one of the top Masters programs in business along with Harvard and a few others.

    Forget his FAKING, where is there any TRUTH other than being a SOCIOPATH?

  28. I believe that their money can be put to good use to emphasize how the US deficit, made much worse by Trump’s tax bill, will hurt the common person and the US. Make it a patriotic bend.

  29. I think the dynamic will change when Bloomberg heats up. Waiting to see. I remember his anti-trump input at 2016 demo presidential convention. I wouldn’t count him out.

  30. Well done, Sheila. I don’t share your concern that Tom Steyer, at least, would, for ego reasons, splinter the Democratic party, thus giving Trump an advantage. I think he is a true patriot who wants that lump of manure out of our White House because he spent so much money on his “impeach Trump” commercials. I don’t know as much about Bloomberg, but I doubt that he’d do anything to help Trump under any circumstances.

    Steyer, especially, is a much better businessman than Trump. (even kids running a lemonade stand are better at business) He did it on his own, and that helps take some of the shine off of Trump’s star when it comes to those dumbass followers of his that think by virtue of his fake “self-made-billionaire” persona , he has the savvy to solve all of the U.S.’s problems. He can’t even solve his own business problems, which is why he is forced to borrow from Russians and Saudi Arabians. That’s one reason he’s so desperate to hide his tax returns and financial records, but the truth is, no matter how bad the records show he is at business,it wouldn’t matter to his followers anyway. He appeals to something else in their psyche–deep-seated racism, triggered by Obama’s presidency, and resentment towards better educated people, especially minorities and women, so the non-college-educated white males feel they’re being cheated out of their rightful place of superiority. He also appeals to the naïve belief that a politician can return he US to the growth and optimism of post WW 2 1950’s–coal mining, good-paying factory jobs without much education, women and blacks who know their place, white males in control, and so forth. I don’t know how someone could win over these people because they really don’t understand the changes that have occurred and that the US will never return to dirty, polluting coal as a major source of energy, that the US will continue to rely on manufactured goods from countries with cheap labor, and that ambitious women and minorities will get educations and good jobs. They prefer to hear Trump’s lies and placing blame on Obama, “the left”, “Dems” and “libs” for their lack of success.

  31. Gomat,

    Who or what would you decide to associate with? Who you decide to hitch your saddle to so to speak reveals your most private leanings. The English word association, is partially derived from the Greek noun “homilia” which basically means a deep relationship and or intercourse with another, also, persuasiveness, and marriage due.

    That intimacy is brought about by an affection and relationship with other like-minded individuals and groups. (Associations)

    That in itself does not shed a very positive light on your self, as you’ve decided to associate with, liars, thieves, misogynistic sexual predators, child predators, extortionists, confidence men, flimflam artists, mentally deranged and self-aggrandizing narcissistic louts, draft dodgers, and just plain racially bigoted, classless and uncouth malcontents.

    I would not be throwing the term around “derangement” if I were you, because you are the textbook definition of that word.

    There is no possible way you can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so, oink oink.

  32. I have to admit, Marv, Gerald, JoAnn, Vernon, Et al, you got’em firing on all cylinders today. I knew this was going to be a good one today, as they say in Australia, “I felt it in my waters”, LOL.

  33. Marv, by the way, I did see the movie Shaka Zulu. He was definitely a tactician against a superior, or, a better armed enemy. (I believe he was assassinated) Native populations were usually better tacticians anyway, the commando fighters in the Revolutionary war, inspired by the Native American fighters. The revolutionary army just added Kentucky long rifles to the mix and the British had no answer.

  34. Sheila, is it ever ok to copy your post and share? I’d like a lot more people to see this one!

  35. Mary,

    I’ve copied and posted my comments but I always have the link posted underneath to the specific letter that Sheila has posted on her blog. So my comment appears above and then Sheila’s beautiful face and her blog site below, all they have to do is click on that, they will see your comment in its context along with all of the other comments and of course Sheila’s letter.

  36. Short comments today –
    (1) Sheila – right on target – just excellent
    (2) Being adept and/or successful in business has nothing to do with running our country – the institutions, mechanisms, tools, ethos and goals are totally different
    (3) The same applies to military leadership
    (4) Todd – are you suggesting that Bernie’s supporters were so upset about the way he was treated that they threw the election to the sociopath that now infects our presidency? I did see that game before – McCarthy supporters in 1968 couldn’t get themselves to vote for Humphrey, so Nixon got elected and tens of thousands more lives were lost in Vietnam – I don’t like those moral choices
    (5) I, too, miss the presence of Harris in the debates, but this did begin as the most diverse field of candidates that I have ever seen – what is the alternative – have ten 5 hour debates where each of the 150 candidates gets 2 minutes?
    and finally
    (6) Look at the narrowness of Trump’s wins in the midwest in 2016; look at the results from 2018 where more Republicans turned out in a mid-term election than ever before — and where there was an even larger increase in Democratic turnout – in 2020, Trump’s cult will be motivated like never before – some of them have died off since 2016 – demographics would lead to an increase in the total number of potential Democratic voters — and their motivation is at an all time high – any Democratic nominee could win — unless (a) they blow it and/or (b) the losers feel that re-electing Trump is fine as long as they can express their disgust with the manner or result of the Democratic nomination process

  37. Bloomberg and Steyer – Yes, yes, yes, take your billions and buy Fox and Sinclair. THEN * fund voter registration and turnout in enough states to produce an electoral college victory for any Democratic Presidential candidate;
    * fund U.S. Senate campaigns in Kentucky against Mitch McConnell and enough other states to take Democratic control of the Senate and give a new President a fighting chance to reverse Trump’s damages;
    * fund campaigns of every Democratic congressional candidate vulnerable in Trump- friendly districts (Bloomberg has pledged to do some of this);
    * fund state legislative campaigns in states needed to overturn the current electoral college distribution of their states’ votes to make presidential elections more fair AND to repeal voter suppression laws.

    There’s more, but you’re right that unelectable billionaires could put their billions to much better use than self-promotion.

  38. I totally disagree. The real question here is do we want to take back the white house or we care more about who will look good as a candidate? We had a smarter, a qualified , an experienced candidate in 2016 but she didn’t win. Let’s be smarter this time and focus on one thing and one thing only; Win back the white house. Who is going to make the case against Trump? I don’t think we should play the same game as Hillary did and expect a different result I strongly believe that Steyer or Bloomberg will be more of a strategic choice. Either one of them will silence him during the debate. This time we have a different, unorthodox incumbent . We need to adjust our strategy and beat him with his own weapons.

Comments are closed.