Getty Images
In 2007 and 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama reached out to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for support, but came up short -- the Republican-turned-Independent mayor chose not to make an endorsement in the last election cycle.
Four years later, however, it appears Obama has done more to impress.
In a surprise announcement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday that Hurricane Sandy had reshaped his thinking about the presidential campaign, and he announced that he was endorsing President Obama. [...]
"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 next Tuesday's presidential election into sharp relief," Mr. Bloomberg wrote in an op-ed article for Bloomberg View.
"Our climate is changing," he wrote. "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 may be -- given the devastation it is wreaking -- should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."
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.
For that matter, note why he supporting Obama -- the president, unlike his challenger, accepts science, believes global warming is a pressing issue, and believes in taking action to address the climate crisis.
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.
Leave a Comment:
First it's Governor Chris Christie (R) of New Jersey, now it's Mayor Bloomberg (I/R) of New York. I wonder how many other Republicans and Independents may be considering endorsing President Obama.
I've been a Republican since 1978! Even the crazies haven't made me change my affiliation, but I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and I will be supporting President Obama in his efforts to be reelected!
Though the hate by the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh are monopolizing the Grand Old Party, their enterprising efforts to undercut legitimate institutional relationships will come up short, and when the President wins reelection, Hannity, Limbaugh and the likes of all those others who have hoisted dissension, division and derision upon humble, unassuming Americans will end up in the dust bin of the ill begotten Bush Era of our past! -Kevo
Don't forget to include Colin Powell in your list of credible republicans. There aren't that many of them left, getting these endorsements is noteworthy. Ah...willard got Trump and Meatloaf - to todays republicans, that's probably more impressive.
Well this is going to counteract the FOX narrative that Bloomberg is "bitterly disapointed" in Obama.
The question to ask may be; Just how scared of a person with a good tan do you have to be to vote for anybody else ?
Sad.
Fran, the most recent incarnation was just two days ago, when Fox tried to use Bloomberg to balance off the debacle on Fox and Friends with Christie saying a Romney visit would be a waste of his time. Fox's headline on the story was that Bloomberg asked Obama not to come to NYC, an an attempt to mirror the statement Christie made on Fox that morning that Romney was not welcome in New Jersey. If you look at the story, the Mayor was simply describing a discussion regarding where the president should be spending time, and the greatest need was New Jersey.
I wonder what they will do now to put counterspin on Bloomberg-Christie-Powell defections.
We are going into hyper meltdown now.... Hopefully fatalism will cause right wing voters to shun any participation in a "loser" narrative, and stay away, allowing Nancy to be swept back into power due to shift in the down ballot races.
How will that happen? Do you expect FOX to cover this?
Finally!
Sanity has broken out in the right wing insane asylum.
in other words: Christie and Bloomberg kick off the 2016 presidential race.
Big of them. Really.
How much money and lives had to go into this little eye-opener for these two. Perhaps if a (large) number of other Republicans weren't so pampered and sheltered and coddled by the media, they too could find the grace and courage to face reality and endorse a decent president...
I don't have any problem with that. Looks to me like the Dem party has a deep bench.
Funny how reality can change positions.
Maybe Blomberg is a little leery of having to deal with a Privatized FEMA?
.
Not only a privatized FEMA but he has major infrastructure to build. Romney/Ryan do not see the importance of investing in infrastructure at home. They only want to build if we bombed it first.
Christie hasn't exactly covered himself in glory on that front, either.
I don't think Romney could have ever gotten the nod from Bloomberg. I just don't think Bloomberg could endorse a liar like Mitt.
It means more than the crap nuts like you spew.
linksys: you really are the very embodiment of a wingnut cockroach, aren't you, little boy?
Don't get me wrong: I'm glad Obama got this endorsement.
But seriously: Did it really take a natural disaster to bring the differences between the two candidates into "sharp relief"? What was Mayor Bloomberg looking at before? Their taste in neckwear?
It must be hard to break from a party as well-controlled as the Republican party. I don't think Bloomberg has cared for Romney probably since the first time he met him, but he still tried to maintain the "party line". I just think Sandy was the last straw!!!!
I really HOPE there are other moderate Republicans out there who are taking a HARD LOOK at their so-called "party" now!!!
Exactly. Style before Substance. Mitt's got an R on his voter card.
Maybe all of that is true, and I appreciate your responses.
But I wonder if that take overstates just how much of an "R" Bloomberg is. Sure, he ran as a republican and continues, sort of, to identify as one. But this isn't exactly Paul Ryan here -- a creature of the GOP machine through and through. Bloomberg doesn't rely on the Republican machine for money, for support, for ideas, or for notoriety. He's much less of an "R" than Giuliani ever was -- and shaking it off wouldn't be hard.
So I think you're right in general but wrong about Bloomberg. He is far, far, far from a party man.
Please understand that the Republican Party in the past was NEVER what this "new" Republican Party represents! This "takeover" by the extreme right destroyed the party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Dirksen, and even Nixon. Bloomberg is STILL a Republican, but he is not and never was a neocon.
The old Republican party was pretty liberal on social issues but conservative on fiscal issues. This "new" Republican party is conservative to the point of craziness on social issues and has NO UNDERSTANDING of fiscal issues!
Thanks, OAR. All of that makes sense -- especially the part about the change in the GOP.
But you're still wrong about Bloomberg. He was a self-identified Democrat until 2001, the very year that GWB and his neocon crew rose to power. He switched his party affiliation simply to run for mayor, and it worked. He wasn't then and he isn't now part of the GOP fabric.
The old Republican party may have been better. Maybe not. But Bloomberg wasn't a part of that GOP either. Just the facts.
Hey, don't diss neckwear. It's a key tribal identifier.
Romney dresses like his first tailored suit was before he was out of diapers. Obama does OK for a guy who spent his youth wearing bathing trunks (with or without sunscreen!) but doesn't come across like it's second nature to him.
And people like Bloomberg pick up on that. Some are aware of it, others aren't, but all of them respond.
Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, OnceARepublican, but the last time the GOP was a positive presence in America was 1865, before the assassination of Lincoln. My great-grand-uncle, who worked for Harry Truman, told me long ago tjhat "the only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies." As to the Party of Eisenhower, Ike was of no discernible political party before he became President, in fact at one point the Democrats thought they could recruit him.
Nixon was ALWAYS an asswipe wingnut scumbag. Dirksen only ever did one good thing, not oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
35 years ago, when I had to deal with them in the California Legislature, the best thing you could say about them was they weren't the obvious morons they've become since the Old Confederacy took over. Some of them could even read and understand words of more than one syllable.
But they have ALL always been dickwads.
Ahhh, be careful there TC - you will get me started on my rant of why I think Obama is actually a liberal Republican.....
As for Eisenhower, he CHOSE the Republican Party. It was just a pipe dream of Truman's that "maybe" Eisenhower could be convinced to be a Democrat!!!
Nixon had a lot of "issues" but overall, he was a good President. He actually did a lot of good things for this country , like EPA and enforcement of desegregation, and getting us out of Viet Nam - but it all got wiped away because of his "paranoia" and his lack of morality.
Actually Dirksen did a lot of good things too! Did you know he helped WRITE the Civil Rights Act? Yep, Republicans did things like that back in the day!
I don't know about California Republicans - but I know good people in both parties, and the Republicans I know and respect wouldn't have a thing to do with THIS so-called Republican Party!!!
Never mind 2016.
We are in a race for the Future TODAY!
General Powell. Governor Christie. Mayor Bloomberg.
Game. Set. Match.
Wow. Wow. What if these reformers regain dominance, eject the looneys and go after the hispanic vote. As Reagan famously said: "Latinos are republicans. They just don't know it." There is a lot of truth to that.
I wish them the best especially if they press congress to compromise on a carbon tax used to fund disaster relief , Green technology research, massive wind and solar farms, and Amsterdam scale pumping and flood control infrastructure for vulnerable cities.
Although the GOP could have a reasonable green energy policy for 2016, even if we shift to the right and choose Hillary as nominee, I would still fight hard for her in order to keep these moderates from appointed Scotus Justices.
But, to return to reality, the dixiecrats will continue to poison the GOP. The best these moderates could do is split off.... But that is never going to happen so long as we refuse to upgrade our elections to Ranked Choice voting.
Man, that really kicks the legs out from under the pundits who keep on pining for a Bloomberg third-way candidacy. I love it!
Better late than never Mr. Mayor! WTH were you waiting for?
Yeah sure but, Mitt Rmoney has perfected his skin color for Spanish television!
That and "dismantle FEMA" so overshadow a Bloomberg emdorsement.
Ask that linksys0.0001 guy!
The Economist has also endorsed the president.
Who is next?
This is the one we should be talking about the most, because for some strange reason the economy is the only thing where Mitt Romney has a lead. Ignoring a few things, "The Economist" says it best:
“Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers’ unions. But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it.”
“America was in a downward economic spiral when he took over, with its banks and carmakers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month. His responses—an aggressive stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, putting the banks through a sensible stress test and forcing them to raise capital (so that they are now in much better shape than their European peers)—helped avert a Depression. That is a hard message to sell on the doorstep when growth is sluggish and jobs scarce; but it will win Mr Obama some plaudits from history, and it does from us too.”
“Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.”
This is why I love reading The Economist. They have one of the best editorial pages around.
Endorsements from Powell and Bloomberg are great for Obama. But the best non-endorsement endorsement has come from the man who endorsed Mitt.
The nail in Mitt's campaign coffin is the whole country seeing Christie--who has been so outspoken against Obama and who has been a leading surrogate for the Romney campaign--praising the President's leadership, and seeing the two of them working so closely together.
I think the country is beginning to wake up from its fever-dream of the parties hating each other for all time forevermore. They see politicians actually doing what they are elected to do: work together for the betterment of the people who elected them. And thus they might not stand for their representatives to continue their bad behavior in Congress.
Lisa, it's a lovely vision. Sort of like Lennon's "Imagine" or Simon and Garfunkel's "Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream."
It may even happen before the other two, although I'm not bold enough to bet on it.
Powell's endorsement and Christie's comments gave Bloomberg cover. A lot of Republicans will be going into the voting booth wondering if "party right or wrong" is right or wrong.
Well, it should be apparent to voters, the adults are starting to stand up and be examples for dealing with national and foreign issues.
Being as nasty as possible to the duly elected President and saying no is not going to cut it. I'd like to see some sign of that from Congress.
My wife and I have been thinking about the many comments that Romney has backtracked/flip-flopped/forgotten, etc. on over these many months. We have noticed a pattern of forgetting what he has said and looking lost. We don't mean to be harsh but could he be in the early stages of dementia or alzheimer's disease? Has any reporter questioned if Romney's mental faculties have something to do with these miss steps?
Thank you, @snook46. This is a topic that routinely gets "pooh-poohed," but I've wondered for months whether Romney is on some kind of serious medication. Pick any photo of him over the last several months and his eyes are always the same -- unfocused and glazed. And his statements of, "I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was" -- Say what? There's something wrong with this guy.
June,
I think I've agreed with you before on this thought. I still do. Of course, all the GOP wants is someone (a puppet) with a working hand to sign bills with. The funny thing is, I think they've tried to make Romney look, act, and sound like Reagan. Ironic that he appears to be like Reagan only in that he's starting to lose his faculties.
In other words, The Manchurian Candidate?
Happy to give you the 5th rec on that, KJ -- well said.
Bloomberg's endorsement is another tipping point that shows the election is clearly moping in the president's favor. Read what the New York mayor has to say about Romney and it is a damning indictment of a failed candidate. The more Romney and the Republicans complain about polls and media coverage, the more obvious it becomes that they are losing and falling behind. Every poll outside of biased junk from Rasmussen shows a big electoral college win for Obama on the way. This election is increasingly becoming a one-way blowout. It's becoming obvious that Mitt Romney may not be able to win at all. proposals that are ridiculously lacking any substance. - progressive
The AM radio wingnut pundits were all but crucifying Christie earlier today and in ugly ways. "How dare one of the fold step out and praise this Muslim Communist" was the gist of it. Disgusting. I was never a Christie fan, figuring he was all about Christie, but I saw a governor deeply affected by the damage to his stated and grateful that someone was helping. I applaud Christie for his honesty and can't wait to see how he retaliates against the nay-sayers once this crisis is over. Let's hope this is FINALLY the catalyst for the rest of the TRUE Repulicans to step up and take their party back and embrace bipartisanship.
I'm not from NYC, so not really familiar with Mayor Bloomberg. But I do remember what the Republican party of my youth was like. It was a bit right of center and not full of people who simulate the Taliban. I could never imaging Eisenhower or Barry Goldwater endorsing the kinds of messages and deeply held beliefs that this new gang want to force the American people into, whether it is our belief or not. I cannot imagine any of them endorsing a man who has so little use for the truth, integrity or care for the Americans he wants to rule (I didn't say serve, because that is clearly not his intent.)
When I was younger, I found the Republicans and Democrats to both be acceptable. Now I am afraid for the country if we allow these same people to rule the US again.
True that, Sherry. I've been voting for 32 years and am a registered Independent, as I always prided myself on voting for the candidate and not the party. I do tend to lean left on social issues but understand the need for fiscal responsibility. This election cycle, for the first time ever, I voted a complete Democrat ticket, because I can't trust ANY Republican any more. Too many have hopped on the TeaBag Wagon and when the obstructionism started, I decided I wouldn't vote for any Republican until the party disavows the far Right fringe. Let the TeaBags form their own party and stop bastardizing and corrupting the current Repulican party.
I have discovered despite rumors to the contrary that Democrats have done better jobs balancing budgets. So yeah, it's Ok to vote Dem until they mess up. It's just Repubs hate taxes and want everything privatized. I say gov't does better with things that don't need a "middle man" to excessively profit or gouge consumers or taxpayers.
My sentiments, exactly Missy. I've been voting straight Dem since Bush I and will continue to do so until the Republicans show some true integrity.
Bloomberg just didn't throw this endorsement out there. He is going with a winner. I don't think leaders with the clout of Bloomberg, Powell & Christie want to be on a losing side.
I saw a new side of Christie for the first time. He actually cares about people, the 100% and it shows.
Empathy -- caring about people -- is overrated. I don't see either Obama or Christie as particularly caring people, and that's fine by me.
What I want is a President with a sense of duty. When the fecal matter is approaching intersection with the rotary air circulator, I want the person in charge totally focused on "Not on MY watch!" That's what I got from Obama over Benghazi and Sandy, and I'm seeing the same from Christie over Sandy.
Doesn't matter to me whether they have the hearts of saints or of cast-iron egotistical bastards [1] -- as long as they're aimed on doing the job no matter what.
[1] From the record, bastards are a better bet. But whatever it takes to do the job.
Interesting that nobody here is concerned about the 4 dead americans in Benghazi. What do you all think about Benghazi? It is hard to believe that this president could go on a campaign tour Las Vegas after getting the news on the four Americans murdered in Libya. Shame on this administration.
Shooter, you reregging?
But YAWN - yea, yea, yea, all you trolls say the same thing - like it means something. It doesn't and never did!
But you keep trolling this - what it does is show everyone how stupid and desperate you Repubs are!!!
off topic troll bait.
You are the folks trying to manufacture something out of a tragedy. I've seen people that know some of those killed and spouses asking you folks to CAN IT. I agree, trying to make a conspiracy. Gross.
On behalf of the 2 seals families, STFU. Get a freaking life. Their families have asked that their deaths not be politicized. Who the hell do you think you are? The families hate Romney and disagree with his policies. And yes, I know this personally. They were my daughters friends.
Every time the trolls start with Benghasi give them this:
Hey Bengahzigate boy , Where was the outrage about embassy security then.
Your Boy Bush and the neocons had a few security issues.
Go Fu*k yourself and turn off Fox News . It is impairing your critical thinking skillls
2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured
2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan
2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia.
2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria
2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens
2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen
2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/14/krauthammer-whitewashes-bushs-history-to-bash-o/189890
You're still on that, you dumbass Republican nitwit? Your talking points never did work or make sense, you never based any of your bullshhitt on Actual Facts, and all you do now is make yourself look as much the ignorant moron as you are.
You people really are "the cockroaches of American politics."
I don't think we have all the facts yet, Lliz. Right Wing radio and Fox News think they have all the answers but I'm confident there is more to the story and that story will be told when all the facts are in.
I heard Bloomberg on one of the morning financial channels awhile back say that he thought Romney would do a better job on the economy. He must have figured out that there is much more to running a country than being a "business whiz". Now as for Christie I think he is being so nice to the President because he wants to meet "The Boss" Bruce Springsteen. Think so?
Lliz, are you aware that the morning after the Benghazi attack President Obama spoke in the Rose Garden for over 14 minutes calling the attack an act of terror?
Foxnews.com's home page currently has the headline "Bloomberg back Romney." They got the story right if you click the link but if you just see the headline it is blatantly wrong. Honest mistake or deception?
Thanks for posting this. They have fixed it now. I am new and am unable to post the image or use an url. Here is an image of the post. I can't put in a link to screencast, but here is the link if you take away the spaces. screencast . com / t / LiOdekageDj
Yeah, yeah. Just like every time a Republican officeholder gets caught with his pants down he suddenly becomes a Democrat on Fox.
Funny how these little slips always run the same direction, though.
Faux and Limpy are trying to brainwash everyone with untruth, it's so bad they don't even know these folks are always trying to shape your minds and tell lies as truth. I can't stomach any of them. It's one thing to be uninformed, but willfully misinformed using propaganda is just .. just… sick. (not in a good way-as I've heard youth say sick in a good context)
Question for everyone out there. Since we have truth -in- advertising laws, can the Rom ney campaign and the Romney PACs be sued for false advertising? I'm not talking about the half-truths and misrepresentations of positions that are typical of all politicial advertising. I am talking about the blatant lies, including the work/welfare ad and the jeep ad that Romney is running. I am just curious.
The world would be a better place.
I don't see how the civil courts are full of libel suits. Trying to felaciously ruin someone's career doesn't have consequences?
I know I would hate to be a known felaciouatorior.
Mike, not since Citizens United was passed. That's why these corporate douche bags can tell their workers who to vote for, force then to donate to the campaign of their bosses choice, attend rallies, the coal miners were forced to stand behind Romney without pay.