In the midst of ignoring Staten Island and sulking over the cancellation of his marathon, Mayor Michael Bloomberg sat down with The Nation to discuss a variety of topics including his endorsement of Obama.
Explaining that endorsement, Bloomberg said that he endorsed Obama “not because I’m thrilled with him, but to me, choice, gay rights, the environment are the real issues, more important than economics. I spoke to him last night, and I told him, ‘Don’t make any mistake, my criticism of your economic policies still stands.’”
The mayor who couldn’t be bothered to care about the little people in the outer boroughs, also couldn’t be bothered to care about their jobs. Not when the holy trinity of liberal 1 percenter politics, gay rights, abortion and green tech are involved.
It’s telling that even a consummate liberal like Bloomberg could not even begin to defend Obama’s economic policies. It’s why every major New York City paper, from the New York Observer down to the Daily News and Newsday endorsed Romney on purely economic issues. Dissenting was the New York Times, the newspaper, which like Bloomberg, puts abortion, gay rights and the environment ahead of pesky jobs.
The old split of guns or butter has given way to a new split of gay marriage or butter. It’s no longer Republicans who vote on social issues, but Democrats who care more about whether gays can marry and carbon credits, than about whether working families will have food to put on the table.
The economic debate has been won by Romney. But the social fanatics would rather have a bankrupt America with a recycling bucket and an abortion clinic on every block than an America where people have enough to eat. And that is the decision that ordinary people will have to consider.
Bloomberg has the luxury of considering his social hobbies more important than economics. Do you?