New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorses President Obama

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Four years ago, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg did not endorse a candidate for president. Probably because Bloomberg still harbored dreams of running for president himself, until the casino capitalism of Wall Street that made him a billionaire came crashing down in an economic catastrophe in September 2008.

Now that Bloomberg has since established himself as the "Nanny" of New York trying to regulate everything from what people can eat and drink to how much exercise they should get, his dreams of becoming president are over. Nobody likes that guy.

This year, following the damage wrought by Hurricane Sandy on the New York region, Mayor Bloomberg has endorsed President Obama in a sometimes critical editorial opinion for the Bloomberg View. Mike still suffers from that "masters of the universe" grandiosity of Wall Street tycoons, after all.  A Vote for a President to Lead on Climate Change:

The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief.

* * *

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

Here in New York, our comprehensive sustainability plan -- PlaNYC -- has helped allow us to cut our carbon footprint by 16 percent in just five years, which is the equivalent of eliminating the carbon footprint of a city twice the size of Seattle. Through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group -- a partnership among many of the world’s largest cities -- local governments are taking action where national governments are not.

But we can’t do it alone. We need leadership from the White House -- and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year.

* * *

If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I may well have voted for him because, like so many other independents, I have found the past four years to be, in a word, disappointing.

* * *

Nevertheless, the president has achieved some important victories on issues that will help define our future. His Race to the Top education program -- much of which was opposed by the teachers’ unions, a traditional Democratic Party constituency -- has helped drive badly needed reform across the country, giving local districts leverage to strengthen accountability in the classroom and expand charter schools. His health-care law -- for all its flaws -- will provide insurance coverage to people who need it most and save lives.

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

Of course, neither candidate has specified what hard decisions he will make to get our economy back on track while also balancing the budget. But in the end, what matters most isn’t the shape of any particular proposal; it’s the work that must be done to bring members of Congress together to achieve bipartisan solutions.

Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress -- and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.

Um, Mike, who exactly are these moderate Republicans you seem to believe are in Congress? They do not exist.

Steve Benen comments in Bloomberg backs Obama:

As endorsements go, I'd say this is bigger than most. As Jamison Foser cleverly explained, Bloomberg is "basically what the Republican Party would be if it weren't crazy." For the high-profile, independent, billionaire mayor to throw his support to the Democratic president -- after already having endorsed Republicans this cycle -- is therefore no small development.

* * *

Also note, Mitt Romney really wanted Bloomberg's support to send a signal to independents and moderates.

Maybe if Romney supported FEMA and believed in climate science, today would have gone differently.

UPDATE: President Obama released the following statement after receiving New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's endorsement:

“I'm honored to have Mayor Bloomberg's endorsement.  I deeply respect him for his leadership in business, philanthropy and government, and appreciate the extraordinary job he's doing right now, leading New York City through these difficult days.  

“While we may not agree on every issue, Mayor Bloomberg and I agree on the most important issues of our time - that the key to a strong economy is investing in the skills and education of our people, that immigration reform is essential to an open and dynamic democracy, and that climate change is a threat to our children's future, and we owe it to them to do something about it.  Just as importantly, we agree that whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or independents, there is only one way to solve these challenges and move forward as a nation - together.  I look forward to thanking him in person - but for now, he has my continued commitment that this country will stand by New York in its time of need.  And New Yorkers have my word that we will recover, we will rebuild, and we will come back stronger.”

Comments

[Richard Grayson, Americans Elect Party candidate for Congress, AZ-04]

As a lifelong New Yorker -- no matter where I also live -- and not a fan of Bloomberg, I would dispute that "nobody likes that guy." There are plenty of Bloomberg fans in New York and elsewhere, and he's been incredibly good on some important progressive issues to which he's contributed generously, like the push for marriage equality. He is arrogant, but you know, when he is arrogant in favor of progressive positions, like marriage equality or marijuana law reform, he can make a valuable contribution. I agree he is not "likable" by most people; he's incredibly out-of-touch in the same way that a very rich person like Romney is (though he's far, far wealthier than Romney) and so he's incredibly bad sometimes, on issues like a livable wage or sick days before the City Council or in his appointment of Cathy Black (a great magazine editor but abysmal as schools chancellor) and people like her.

New Yorkers don't like likable mayors. Rudy Giuliani and Ed Koch were not at all likable, even by most of the supporters -- they can be, in different ways, but also like Bloomberg, petulant, bullying, annoying, self-involved, self-serving know-it-alls -- but most of us New Yorkers are those things. This is New York, not Tucson.

David Dinkins, it is almost universally agreed upon here, was the most likable New York mayor anyone can remember.

[Thane "Goldie" Eichenauer]

I don't see Bloomberg casting his support for Obama as changing any voters choice in this election. I think that the vast majority of truly independent voters don't find being an advocate of the nanny state to be a plus in a politician. I'd believe the same thing if he endorsed Mitt Romney. Obama and Romney are both nanny staters who only differ in their specific policies not their basic philosophy.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/silver-circle-trailer/