I have said in the past that I felt for most of the 90’s and 2000’s that some Social Conservatives didn’t care about the economy and only cared about the social issues. Well it’s worse on the Progressive side of things. Many Progressives claim to be fiscally conservative but Socially Liberal. However, when confronted with a choice they will chose their Social Liberalism over Economic freedom.
The Neo-Fascist Mayor of NYC and Dhimmi of the Caliphate Mike Bloomberg has endorced Barack Obama. This is really not shocking news. What intrigues me is his rational. He openly admits Mitt Romney would be better for the US economy. But Bloomberg says Obama’s stances on social issues, Gun Control and Global Warming is why he’s voting for the President. Bloomberg even admits that economically, Obama is to far Left for his tastes. Yet Bloomberg feels that Social issues override the economy.
I believe Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and he would bring valuable business experience to the Oval Office. He understands that America was built on the promise of equal opportunity, not equal results. In the past he has also taken sensible positions on immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and health care. But he has reversed course on all of them, and is even running against the health-care model he signed into law in Massachusetts.
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.
In 2008, Obama ran as a pragmatic problem-solver and consensus-builder. But as president, he devoted little time and effort to developing and sustaining a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real progress on illegal guns, immigration, tax reform, job creation and deficit reduction. And rather than uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he engaged in partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused more on redistributing income than creating it.
[….]
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.
[….]
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.
You guys read that correctly. Mike Bloomberg admits Mitt Romney would be better on the economy. But In Bloomberg’s world abortion, gun control, gay marriage and global warming stances are more important than economic growth. He then claims he would have voted for the 2003 version of Mitt Romney. I have news for Bloomberg, the Mitt Romney of 2003 is the same guy we have running in 2012. Yes Mitt took some socially conservative stances to win the GOP nomination. But no one thinks he really cares about social issues.
Does Bloomberg really think Mitt Romney is going to spend political capital to ban abortions or undue gay marriage? If George W. Bush who was the most socially conservative person to be President and who really was into these values issue didn’t ban abortion, doe anyone think Mitt Romney who is really a Eisenhower Republican moderate is going to ban it? This is pure dishonestly on Mike Bloomberg’s part.
The real reason the Neo-Fascist Mayor is backing Obama because he is rich enough to survive the false god-king’s economic policies. In his mind, he could care less about a stagnant economy. It’s all about abortion on demand and fighting, taking away gun rights and fighting the global warming hoax that are his priorities. Bloomberg could have been honest and come out and said that since he is rich, he could care less about the economy.
Mike Bloomberg should have asked Obama why he didn’t keep his promise of stopping ocean flooding. Parts of NYC City are flooded due to Obama not keeping his promise of stopping ocean levels from rising. But I would not expect Mike Bloomberg to even ask Obama this question. After all, Obama supports abortion on demand and that is what Bloomberg cares about.
