Days before the election, the business community is abandoning
Republican “businessman” Mitt Romney in order to endorse the Democratic
incumbent President Obama. These are not ringing endorsements, but
rather concern over Romney’s failure to make the math work and his hard
turn to the right. In other words, Mitt Romney has finally managed to
lose the faith and confidence of the one constituency that he was
supposed to have locked up.
The Mayor of New York and the founder/majority owner of Bloomberg
News endorsed Obama today. Bloomberg said if the old Mitt Romney were
running, he might have voted for him. But given Romney’s tack to the
right, Bloomberg is endorsing the President for a second term. He
concluded, “If he (Obama) 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.”
Bloomberg wrote:
“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.”
President Obama responded by saying, “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.”
The Economist
endorsed Obama saying, “America could do better than Barack Obama;
sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill.” Yes, not exactly a ringing
endorsement, but then that speaks volumes about Mitt Romney.
They say Obama’s foreign policy could be better, but “Mr Obama has
been a safe pair of hands.” They cite his healthcare achievement in
addition to their view that his foreign policy is an achievement after
spending the entire paragraph citing what’s wrong with it, “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.
‘Obamacare’ will correct that, but Mr Obama did very little to deal with
the system’s other flaw—its huge and unaffordable costs.”
They are very unhappy with Obama’s surrender to “left-wing Democrats”
— a charge the left would take issue with. They then go on about their
doubts, leaving the reader with the impression that they would endorse
anyone but Obama. They seem resentful of Obama’s attitudes toward
business and capitalism (leaving one with the idea that they watch too
much Fox News). They feel Obama has spent his entire campaign attacking
business. I say learn to read; Obama didn’t attack business, he attacked
greed and failure to pay taxes. But hey. They really can’t stand Obama.
And yet, they can’t endorse Mitt Romney. They write, “Many a Mitt
makes a muddle.” Romney’s foreign policy terrifies them (so they are
awake). The Economist writes, “But Mr Romney seems too ready to bomb
Iran, too uncritically supportive of Israel and cruelly wrong in his
belief in “the Palestinians not wanting to see peace”. The bellicosity
could start on the first day of his presidency, when he has vowed to
list China as a currency manipulator—a pointless provocation to its new
leadership that could easily degenerate into a trade war.”
Romney’s math is a problem for The Economist, “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.” Here they praise Obama for getting it
and shame Romney for being in “the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you
can do it entirely through spending cuts.” They say that backing
business is important, but first you better get macroeconomics. Ouch.
The Economist counts Romney’s tack to the right as his biggest
detriment, “(T)he extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest
handicap.” And ultimately they decide to go with the “devil we know.”
So, basically, they think Obama is the devil but he is a better devil
than wildly right wing Romney who doesn’t even get macroeconomics and
whose foreign policy is a threat that could lead immediately to a trade
war.
Romney had to stink pretty badly for The Economist to come to this.
Mitt Romney has now managed to lose the one constituency he was
supposed to have locked up, even as he fought for the evangelicals and
Tea Party of his own base. Forget winning Independents, Romney is losing
the business community. Meanwhile, the economic data is showing steady
signs of modest
improvement.
