Michael Bloomberg is considering an independent run for president and he has found some partners that are encouraging him to run. I have no objection to independent runs for president, but I do wonder about the rationale.

On Sunday, the mayor [Bloomberg] will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.

Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”

A brief look around the blogosphere shows that many of my fellow bloggers are objecting to the idea that bipartisanship is a virtue. I don’t think I need to reiterate those points. What strikes me is the role the administration plays in all of this. It’s true that the Republicans in Congress have been a rubber stamp for the administration, but that could begin to change if the Republican nominee has significant policy differences with Bush and Cheney. David Boren wants the leading presidential candidates to embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation but that’s awfully difficult to accomplish if the administration is vetoing bipartisan legislation (like the Defense Authorization Bill and S-CHIP) and constantly pushing the envelope on separation of powers issues.

I think the big issues facing the country are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, instability in Pakistan, the dismal state of Israel-Palestine relations, the federal budget deficit, a host of factors that collectively are battering the middle class, and global warming, energy, and energy independence. It’s conceivable that we could come to some bipartisan solutions to these problems, but not without the Republicans changing their tune.

Bush and Cheney won’t formally admit that global warming exists and they think ‘conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but…not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy‘. They won’t consider raising revenues to deal with the deficit. They see nothing wrong with outsourcing American jobs. Their recent initiative on the Israeli-Palestinian question is going nowhere and is insincere in any case. And they readily admit that their Iraq policy is designed to keep us occupying that country for years to come.

In this environment there just isn’t a whole lot the Democratic contenders can do to reach out. In fact, it’s not at all clear to me what Mr. Bloomberg could do to tackle our big problems that would be different or more successful than what the Democrats have already tried. It’s the Republicans that need to make the initial moves. They could pass the energy bill over Bush’s objections. Or S-CHIP. Or support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Needless to say, the major Democratic contenders are not proposing unpopular ideas. The public supports the Democrats’ positions and trusts them to handle pretty much every issue they are polled about. What’s needed isn’t bipartisanship for its own sake. What’s needed is either huge Democratic wins that make it possible to govern without Republican support, or for a significant bloc of the GOP to come to Jesus and start working with the Democrats to override Bush’s vetoes and force his hand.

Going forward, the next president is going to have to work with a Democratic Congress. Let the GOP come to us. And what can Bloomberg do to change things? I think, nothing.