First The Koch Brothers switch sides and now Michael Bloomberg backs Clinton as it appears America's oligarchy is showing its true colors as 'Billionaires for Billary' emerge from the RNC woodwork...
As The NY Times reports,Michael R. Bloomberg, who bypassed his own run for the presidency this election cycle, will endorse Hillary Clinton in a prime-time address at the Democratic convention and make the case for Mrs. Clinton as the best choice for moderate voters in 2016, an adviser to Mr. Bloomberg said.
The news is an unexpected move from Mr. Bloomberg, who has not been a member of the Democratic Party since 2000; was elected the mayor of New York City as a Republican; and later became an independent.
But it reflects Mr. Bloomberg’s increasing dismay about the rise of Donald J. Trump and a determination to see that the Republican nominee is defeated.
Mr. Bloomberg will vouch for Mrs. Clinton “from the perspective of a business leader and an independent,” said Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to Mr. Bloomberg.
“As the nation’s leading independent and a pragmatic business leader, Mike has supported candidates from both sides of the aisle,” Mr. Wolfson said. “This week in Philadelphia he will make a strong case that the clear choice in this election is Hillary Clinton.”
In the past, Mr. Bloomberg has rebuked Democrats for attacking Wall Street — a part of his record that may sit uneasily with liberal Democrats, and especially with the supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont who are already smarting from his defeat.
Mr. Bloomberg has been quiet about the presidential race in recent months. But in the past he has criticized Mr. Trump in stark terms, describing him as a threat to American security.
Mr. Bloomberg, who served for 12 years as the mayor of New York, has never addressed a political convention in a partisan capacity. He appeared at the 2004 Republican convention in New York in his role as mayor of the host city.
He endorsed Mr. Obama for re-election in 2012, writing in a column that his views on climate change had been the decisive factor.
would he sell the government (perhaps at low prices to his friends and at high prices to his enemies) for various prices (as Clinton already has done — sold it to both her friends and her ‘enemies’ — but which sales she now only needs to deliver on);
or would he, instead, refuse to sell it, and actually try to run the U.S. government for and on behalf of the American public?