Bloomberg Endorses Obama, 1994, 2003 Versions of Mitt Romney

Michael Bloomberg made some news yesterday, endorsing Barack Obama for president.  While the New York City mayor called Obama’s four years in office “disappointing,” he tied his endorsement to Obama’s perceived strengths on climate politics in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, which Bloomberg blamed on a changing climate. Bloomberg added that he’d endorse Mitt Romney, who “would bring valuable business experience to the Oval Office,” if the 1994 or 2003 version were running.

Eight years ago, when Bloomberg was a first-term Republican mayor and not a third-term Independent one, he endorsed George Bush at a convention in New York City, pinning that endorsement on “leadership” too, and specifically, in the wake of 9/11, leadership on national security. Bloomberg didn’t make any endorsement in 2008, saying at a press conference in February that “I don’t think as an elected official that I should be expressing my personal views as to who others should vote for.”

A Democratic town by something like a four-to-one margin, the city hasn’t had a Democratic mayor in nearly 20 years. Bloomberg won an unexpected victory in 2001 after a surge of support for then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani. A life-long Democrat, Bloomberg ran as a Republican to avoid the crowded primary on the Democratic side. The only other candidate in the 2001 Republican primary was the former 1970s Democratic congressman Herman Badillo. Bloomberg won re-election handily by nearly a 20 point margin, though in a city of 7 million that translated to just about 753,000 voted. Outspending his Democratic opponent 10 to 1 in 2009, Bloomberg only eked out a win by 50,000 votes in an election cycle that saw President Obama campaign for losers Jon Corzine in New Jersey and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts but  not Bill Thompson, who brought Bloomberg so close to a loss, but had to settled for running ads where he touted Obama’s tepid endorsement. That election, of course, was before the ginned up outrage over Citizen’s United and campaign spending, so the idea of the president endorsing someone with such a huge cash advantage wasn’t as cognitively dissonant as perhaps it might be today.

The city’s last popular Democratic mayor, meanwhile, Ed Koch, has re-upped his endorsement of Obama. He endorsed Bush in 2004 along with Bloomberg.  Incidentally, Ed Koch defeated an incumbent Democrat in the 1977 mayoral primary largely thanks to the city’s blackout that summer.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, everybody that's been hit hard by the storm is coming out and saying all sorts of sweet things about Obama...

    And I'm sure it's in no way related to their desire for more storm related aid. I'm sure there's no way Obama would make backroom deals for political gain--like he did with Hillary Clinton making her Secretary of State, either...

    And certainly no promises of more money. He's the president! There's just no way Obama would do something like that.

    ...or maybe getting more money for smooching up the president in the days before the election is such an obvious quid pro quo that it doesn't even need to be said. Obama couldn't buy these kinds of endorsements with campaign ad money--especially the ass-kissing from Christie. But Obama can buy it with my taxpayer dollars!

    And that's what he's gonna do. I really do wish all the storm victims well--but up yours, Barack!

  • T o n y||

    You need to be deprogrammed before you give yourself a coronary. Obama didn't strangle your puppy. You have just been taught to hate him by fat people being paid to shill for the opposition. Get a grip. The angrier you are now the sharper the grief is gonna be on Wednesday.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Regardless of who wins, Obama will still be a shit-eating aardvark, and you'll still be oblivious.

  • T o n y||

    And Mitt Romney will be the biggest most shameless liar ever to run for office anywhere, ever.

    But at least he didn't pass healthcare reform and won't use drones. Oh wait, he did and yes he will.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Take a hint, Tony.

    Almost nobody's voting for Romney because they like Romney.

    They're all doing it because they think your hero stinks.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Mitt Romney will be the biggest most shameless liar ever to run for office anywhere, ever.

    Obama broke a campaign pledge while still campaigning.

  • T o n y||

    Like any of you give a shit about Obama's campaign pledges from four years ago. For my money no president has kept as many promises. Mitt Romney is going to have to figure out a way to inhabit multiple parallel universes if he's going to keep 1/10th of his.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    He broke a promise BEFORE HE FINISHED CAMPAIGNING. And this is one he had absolute control over. There was no Congress he had to work with. The only changing circumstance he had to deal with was the fact that violating his promise would benefit his war chest now instead of his opponents. He's as blatant a liar as it's possible to be.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Mitt Romney is going to have to figure out a way to inhabit multiple parallel universes if he's going to keep 1/10th of his.

    Tony's oblivious.

    No one gives a shit about Romney, Tony.

    They're disgusted with Obama. That's why they're voting for Romney.

  • T o n y||

    Yet many people still adore Obama, and he's probably going to win, so I guess it just must really suck to be you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Yet many people still adore Obama, and he's probably going to win, so I guess it just must really suck to be you."

    You're right, Tony. It really will suck if Obama is reelected.

  • Jordan||

    Like any of you give a shit about Obama's campaign pledges from four years ago.

    Oh, I very much care since he said some very good things about civil liberties and transparency and then proceeded to completely shred the Constitution. Not that I was actually gullible enough to vote for the piece of shit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, a lot of people were fooled by that.

    But at least he closed Guantanamo.

  • ||

    Ken, don't forget how he said no to special interests. You know, the ones that wrote Obamacare. He said no to them, I'm sure of it.

  • CE||

    And Mitt Romney will be the biggest most shameless liar ever to run for office anywhere, ever.

    But at least he didn't pass healthcare reform and won't use drones. Oh wait, he did and yes he will.

    Tony, the voice of reason every now and then!

  • Jgalt1975||

    I'm sure there's no way Obama would make backroom deals for political gain--like he did with Hillary Clinton making her Secretary of State, either...

    Yep, certainly no other President in American history chose a cabinet secretary based on perceived political advantages. It was a 100% meritocracy in cabinet appointments until that filthy "Chicago" politician got into office.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say no one else has ever done it.

    I said that's what's probably happening here.

    Thank you for reenforcing the point--that Barack Obama is shamelessly exploiting the suffering of the people of New York and New Jersey, and he's probably making backroom deals to get what amounts to endorsements, too!

    Obama's behavior is disgusting, isn't it?

    Thank you for underscoring the point.

    Good work.

  • ||

    Whew, all my doubts about not voting for Obama have been eased.

  • StephT||

    There were no hurricanes before the oil companies began raping and pillaging our Mother. You didn't see trillions of dollars worth of damage to Long Island before the Europeans ruined this country.

  • StephT||

    Long live Obama--he can change the climate back to what it used to be. That's what I'm voting for.

  • MJGreen||

    He just needs one more term to get the tide to recede. Forward!

  • CE||

    So, Obama's the climate-conservative and Romney's the climate-progressive? This is confusing.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Man alive, Tony is increasingly churlish and boring the last few days - it is almost as if he is worried about something?

  • sarcasmic||

    If the Bush tax cuts expire his mom is going to kick him out of the basement.

  • Hyperion||

    Bwahhhahaahhaa

    + 100

    funniest post in a while around here...

  • LTC(ret) John||

    That was pretty good on a number of levels, yes.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm going to give Bloomberg this much credit:

    He has to know that nothing he does or says now is going to make the slightest difference in the federal moolah coming NYC's way after the disaster. Any "deals" or favors or whatever expire at midnight on Tuesday.

    I think he knows good and well that NYC is filled to brim with O-bots, and he's just throwing them a bone, figuring he'll need it when he is up for re-election.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I seriously doubt that.

    Especially with Christie. I don't know why Christie would give Obama something so valuable in the days before the election--for free?

    Christie hurt himself with Republicans nationally, and Obama couldn't have hoped for a bigger ass-kissing than he got from Christie. Christie made joint appearances with Obama! Extolling him with Obama on the same stage...

    There's no way you give that away for free. Christie may have harmed his chances for national office irreparably with Republicans convention delegates over this--and you think he gave that away for free?

    "He is one tough red-state player on a blue-state field. If Mitt Romney loses, will Mr. Christie garner Republican criticism for his hearty embrace of president Obama just days before the election? Yes, he will."

    http://professional.wsj.com/ar.....54020.html

    Public endorsements is the currency in which politicians trade favors. And usually that's just local--public endorsements before a national audience, that's the stuff appointments are made of. That's how Hillary Clinton got to be the Secretary of State!

    You think Bloomberg gave away the most valuable thing he could do in the days before an election--for free?

    You must think Bloomberg is an idiot.

  • tarran||

    Well, the mayor of Atlantic City, who had been bitching about Christie got completely neutered by Christie's maneuver.

    My understanding is the poor asshole had to sit for 2 - 3 hours in the hangar where AF-1 was parked for two minutes of face time with Obama outside the view of the press.

    Christie just fucked the Democratic mayors out of an opportunity to complain about him in front of the media, and Obama let him do it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Christie just fucked the Democratic mayors out of an opportunity to complain about him in front of the media, and Obama let him do it."

    Obama didn't LET him do it.

    Obama almost certainly made a deal for it!

    Christie's concerns are local. He's playing on a Team Blue football field, as Noonan wrote.

    But Obama isn't playing this in New Jersey. That appearance of Obama with Christie went national! For Obama, it isn't about New Jersey--it's about Ohio, too.

    Obama wants undecided voters in Ohio to see Christie kissing his ass on national television a few days before the election--if Christie didn't negotiate something for himself and/or the state of New Jersey in exchange for that ass kissing?

    Then Christie is the dumbest politician in the history of New Jersey.

  • R C Dean||

    if Christie didn't negotiate something for himself and/or the state of New Jersey in exchange for that ass kissing?

    Then Christie is the dumbest politician in the history of New Jersey.

    My point is that, whatever Christie thinks he got, he was jobbed.

    After Tuesday, exactly what does Christie have that Obama needs, that he can hold over Obama's head to enforce his presumed deal?

    Nothing, that's what.

    Either Obama wins, and will never need Christie for anything ever again, or he loses, and will not be able to deliver on any deal, as well as not needing Christie for anything ever again.

    Unless you think Obama is going to keep his word just because?

  • tarran||

    I think Christie got what he wanted... the neutering of a bunch of mayors who were about to get a chance for national attention and media celebrity.

    Now they will continue to be anonymous people not well-known outside their enclaves.

  • R C Dean||

    See, that I can live with. Christie hogged camera-time because (a) hogging camera time is always good and (b) it kept future rivals off the radar.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's the same way it worked with Hillary Clinton.

    After Hillary agreed to drop out of the race, what made Obama keep his word to make her the Secretary of State?

    I make deals for a living. And I trade on the fact that I've kept my promises in the past. If you get a rep as somebody that only keeps his promises when he has no other choice, then your ability to make deals in the future becomes severely compromised.

    I don't know what Bloomberg wants to do after he's mayor, but there are all sorts of fun things Obama could appoint him to be.

    I don't know what Christie's plans are after this, but people have made appointments across party lines before.

    And, certainly, more money to his home state isn't going to hurt Christite's chances of getting reelected. More money for New York isn't about to hurt Bloomberg's poll numbers in New York either.

  • R C Dean||

    After Hillary agreed to drop out of the race, what made Obama keep his word to make her the Secretary of State?

    The muscle and fund-raising power of the Clinton machine.

    I make deals for a living. And I trade on the fact that I've kept my promises in the past.

    So, why would anybody make a deal with someone who has a very long record of breaking promises and underbussing the inconvenient, unless they had some kind of stick to keep him in line?

    Your working assumption is that Obama will keep his word to people who have no ability to hurt or help him. I see no basis for that assumption.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So, why would anybody make a deal with someone who has a very long record of breaking promises..."

    You're talking about promises--to the voters?

    Breaking promises to the voters? Nobody cares about that.

    I'm talking about making deals in Congress. I'm talking about making deals between one politician and another. I'll do this for you if you do that for me.

    I'm not talking about politicians lying to their constituents. I'm talking about Obama when he's doing some horsetrading with other politicians, he makes good on those deals. As far as the Clintons as fundraisers are concerned, I'm sure that helps...

    But the reason Clinton dropped out of the race was becasue Obama wanted to stop fighting Clinton for the nomination--which was making him veer to the left for Democratic primary voters' support.

    ...and he wanted to start moving to the center--sooner--so he could challenge for undecided voters in the middle. So long as Hillary was still fighting him for the nomination, he couldn't move to the middle. So, she agreed to drop out of the race, and he made her his Secretary of State. That's the way these things happen.

    I mean, sometimes people pick whomever they want, but sometimes, when it's politically expedient to make a deal, you make a deal!

    It was so expedient for Obama to make a deal with Christie, it's very hard for me to imagine Obama didn't do so. ...especially after seeing Christie slobber all over him like that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If Obama doesn't make good on his side of the bargain, then Obama will have a hard time making such deals again--when necessary. And it will be necessary.

    And Obama will still get to keep doing favors for people right up until he leaves office. Being the U.S. Ambassador to Austria is a great gig. The wives love it! And that doesn't include all the pardons you can give. Obama can pardon anybody for anything.

  • Robert||

    What makes you think Obama's favor-doing would end when he leaves office? He's a young man, and he'll probably stay in politics, i.e. in the power-wielding biz.

  • R C Dean||

    I dunno, Ken. My limited experience in the halls of power was that politicians fuck each other over pretty regularly, and if you don't have a hold on the other guy, then you don't take him at his word.

    And here, Obama wouldn't even be fucking over fellow Dems. He'd be doing it to Repubs. He's never shown the slightest interest in doing deals with Congressional Repubs, so its not like he cares about having credibility on that side of the aisle.

    I fully expect that Obama made promises to Christie, and if it costs him absolutely nothing at all to keep them, he probably will. But, see, anything that he could do for a basically blue state that costs him nothing, he would do anyway. Christie got nothing that he wouldn't have gotten anyway, and Obama captured a critical news cycle for free.

  • Gleep Glop||

    "I don't know what Bloomberg wants to do after he's mayor, but there are all sorts of fun things Obama could appoint him to be."

    Maybe Secretary of the Department of Business...? Or whatever it will be called...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Bloomberg might want something bigger than that.

    Hell, he has more experience than Hillary did when she was made the Secretary of State. ...and I understand Hillary has already said she wants to resign after Obama's first term. So, I think there's a vacancy there.

    Bloomberg might simply want Obama's support and endorsement when he makes his own run for the presidency in four years.

  • CE||

    Yeah, those Obama-boot-licking photo ops and gonna cost Christie the 2016 nomination when he runs against Rand....

    Hallelujah!

  • Ryan60657||

    Mayor Big Government endorses President Big Government? Is anyone surprised?

  • Hyperion||

    Not in the least. Those are two statist peas is a big statist pea pod.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    While the New York City mayor called Obama’s four years in office “disappointing,” he tied his endorsement to Obama’s perceived strengths on climate politics in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, which Bloomberg blamed on a changing climate.

    Believe harder, Mikey!

    "Well, yeah, he slaps me around pretty good, but if I leave him, I might end up with somebody worse! He only hits me because he cares."

  • CE||

    And lo, the messiah's ascendance to the ranks of the deities.... now he no longer has only the power to bring hope to the hopeless and change to the downtrodden, even the weather itself yields in fear and reverence to his magical killer drones....

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Will Hurricane Sandy be an Allahsend for Obama or an albatross around his neck? The Welch post a few before this one shows the shine coming off the big government apple for many of the affected.

    And Global Warming? Really? A fucking cat 1 hurricane during hurricane season. How do these people successfully feed themselves much less attain money and power?

  • RBS||

    But but but SUPERSTORM!!11!!!!!

  • mr simple||

    But there's never ever ever been a hurricane that hit New York and this was possibly the worst storm EVAR! At least that's what Gov Cuomo told me.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Weather isn't climate!

    ...unless that makes a better case for government action.

  • T o n y||

    Extreme weather events predicted by climatologists as a result of climate change are evidence that there is no climate change, because you misunderstood a clarification of definitions?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Extreme weather events predicted by climatologists as a result of climate change are evidence that there is no climate change

    Extreme weather events are not evidence that there is climate change.

    That is difference from them being evidence that there is no climate change.

    Start trying harder sockpuppet. You're usually more engaging than this.

  • T o n y||

    Storms and extreme weather events have been more frequent and stronger in each succeeding decade over the past few.

    When people say "weather isn't climate" it's always in response to some mouth-breathing idiot who thinks a snow flurry disproves all of climate science.

  • tarran||

    Storms and extreme weather events have been more frequent and stronger in each succeeding decade over the past few.

    Yes, because that's what happens when an oscillating system recovers from a minimum.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Which is exactly the same as claiming a storm proves that it's true.

  • tarran||

    Actually, Cback before politics got involved, climatologists were predicting less extreme weather events Tonykins under AGW, since the poles were expected to warm more than the equator, and it's the temperature gradient between the two that generates extreme weather.

    Moreover, this weather is not unusual. The 1950's were worse.

    The guys claiming that global warming would lead to more extreme weather events are all celebrity climatologists - the guys who spend lots of time whoring for media attention - and they tend to put everything on the doorstep of global warming: mild weather, terrible weather, increases of animal populations, decreases of animal populations, increases in car accidents, decreases in car accidents etc.

    It's what prophets of millennial cults do! Everything is a sign of the approaching apocalypse.

  • tarran||

    Whoops, editing fail. First para should read:

    Actually, Tonykins, back before politics got involved, climatologists were predicting less extreme weather events under AGW, since the poles were expected to warm more than the equator, and it's the temperature gradient between the two that generates extreme weather.
  • sarcasmic||

    AGW is a doomsday cult. Period. End of story.

  • Killazontherun||

    Tabloid Climatologist

  • R C Dean||

    Extreme weather events predicted by climatologists

    Haven't been happening. We're coming off years of relatively quiet hurricane seasons.

    During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.

    Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.

    http://www.outlookseries.com/A.....n_Maue.htm

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Pfft, you and your facts! Tony has FAITH!

  • MJGreen||

    Under the Pat Robertson model, one could have predicted an extreme weather event on the northeast seaboard.

    Because of all the gays. It was bound to happen. Robertson has been vindicated!

  • Hyperion||

    See, we told you, deniers! There was a hurricane in the Atlantic, the science is settled!

  • Ken Shultz||

    We can only hope the big mouths in the Democratic Party will make this all about global warming now.

    I bet Obama doesn't mention climate change once until Wednesday.

  • ||

    Speaking of idiotic endorsements, The Economist also endorsed Hopey McChangey. It's really a sad day for that once great magazine. I refuse to buy that thing from now on, even stuck in a goddamn airport.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's always been a magazine that caters to people who think of themselves as sort of international elite...

    To the international crowd, Romney is scary like George W. Bush, only he's scarier becasue he's Mormon, and they're not sure what the hell that is.

    Sounds worse than Bush's ol' time religion, though, doesn't it? I don't think we appreciate how scary American religiosity really is to Europeans.

  • ||

    I disagree completely. They endorsed Bush in 2004, for example. I started reading The Economist when I moved to Europe in '95 but not because I thought of myself as international elite. It is what set me on the path to be a classical liberal, now a self-described libertarian. They were hardly in lockstep with anti-American pseudo intellectual Europe.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    They have been sliding downhill for years, much to the chagrin of many, now former or infrequent readers.

  • tarran||

    Heh! My mom reads it religiously, and I have increasingly found myself having weird debates where she's advocating bizarre Keynesian ideas.

    Maybe this will push her over the edge to cancel her subscription. :)

  • mr simple||

    Agreed. They've come under new management relatively recently, haven't they?

  • ||

    I think it was five or six years back, and they've been going downhill ever since.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What the Economist likes about Obama:

    "The other qualified achievement is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal."

    "America cannot continue to tax like a small government but spend like a big one."

    What the Economist doesn't like about Romney:

    On dealing with the budget...

    "Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts."

    "The extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap....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."

    http://www.economist.com/news/.....-which-one

  • Ken Shultz||

    I look at that, and I see pandering to people who imagine themselves the internationalist elite.

    It isn't much different from when I used to read it back in the '90s. I guess the Economist was on board with the Neocons and their foreign policy, but there was a fair amount of that thinking in 2004 before everything went to hell. Back then, Kerry wasn't even running against the war. Kerry just thought the war should be run differently.

  • ||

    I look at it and just see liberal talking points.

    They used to actually promote classical liberal ideas. Now they just pretend to, sort of like Maher calling himself a libertarian.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They look at the world from a different standpoint.

    If you were living on a continent, half of which was actually communist 20 years ago, you might think that the government should be involved in caring for everybody from cradle to grave--and still think of yourself as classically liberal, as well.

    At least you're not a communist!

  • Robert||

    That's about it. AFAICT, The Economist is liberal...relative to their milieu. They know all the right stuff, but they just accept as fait accompli that there's going to be a lot of redistribut'n y gov't-provided safety net. They know the most efficient ways to do it, and would be against, say, price controls in almost all cases, and oppose trade barriers. They like privatiz'n, as long as it's done in a way that doesn't threaten other goals.

    And this is the way you have to think. You have to take into account your milieu and push for what's achievable, or you lose people's att'n y lose traction.

  • CE||

    My prediction for Big Tuesday:

    G-Money FTW!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement