The democratic race for president this election has been, to say the least, overcrowded and confusing. That’s putting it kindly, of course. But why is Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire fifty-six times over, running at all?
To start this journey, we have to go back to March 5th of 2019 where Mike Bloomberg said he would not be running for president but that the democrats “nominate a Democrat who will be in the strongest position to defeat Donald Trump”.
Later, on October 14th, Bloomberg announced that he was “still looking” at running for president if Joe Biden were to drop out, but that “nothing can happen unless Biden drops out”.
Then, on November 7th, he stated that he was taking all the preparations to enter the race and the very next day, November 8th, he filed for the Alabama Democratic presidential primary.
Good question. It certainly wasn’t for a lack of options in the Democratic race as at the time he entered we had twenty-nine people in the race, most of whom would drop out before the first debate. So what’s his angle? Why at this stage of his life (the man is seventy-eight years old for crying out loud) would he bother himself wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in a presidential bid?
Well, believe it or not, I believe it’s for three things: Money, power and prestige. Bloomberg, like any other billionaire, simply can’t ever own or have enough. Let’s take a bit of a deeper look at Mike “gets it done” Bloomberg.
First off, Bloomberg was a Democrat most of his life until 2001 when he decided to become a registered Republican from 2001 to 2007. Odd, isn’t it? Why the brief stay? To put it in simply terms, that was because a Republican was president and Bloomberg wanted to get close to that power. So he signs up, becomes a card carrying member of the Republican party, starts throwing millions of dollars around and PRESTO! Instant access to the most powerful man on earth.
He also wanted to be Mayor of New York and ran for and won that election just months after signing up with the Republican Party. So it was a “marriage of convenience” and nothing more. Rudy Giuliani was a Republican, so Mike figured he’d stand a better shot running under the same party banner. He was right.
But what’s odd is, what is the first thing Bloomberg did in 2002 when he took office? He raised taxes. Once again showing that historically, it’s always been Republicans that increase taxes on the working class far more than any democrat.
He left the GOP in 2007 and was an independent riding the fence and dipping into either side to use to his advantage when it suited him. Not surprisingly, his fortune doubled in just three years after doing so.
Just lately, Mike Bloomberg is showing us who he really is. For instance, ProPublica just published a story on how Bloomberg actually helped the Sackler family. For those of you not familiar, the Sackler family were behind the creation, manufacture and mass marketing of Oxycontin, the opioid that would come to be infamous for it’s addictive and ultimately deadly nature after millions succumbed to it.
The Sacklers had managed to stay out of the entire thing. Apparently, nobody had dug deep enough to connect their “good name” to the actual company (Purdue Pharma) that made, distributed, pushed the drug. Then, in 2017, two magazine articles connected the dots and suddenly the Sackler family had a major problem.
Most very wealthy people become philanthropist. It’s a way to make yourself look credible and caring while burning the earth and every living thing on it in a quest for too much is not enough. Of course Mortimer Sackler knew Michael Bloomberg as they both traveled in the same philanthropist circles. So Sackler calls on Bloomberg and his media power and connections to get him out of it. Museums had started sending his donations back to him and other organizations were starting to question whether they should have anything more to do with the Sackler family at all.
Mike “gets it done” Bloomberg to the rescue! From the article:
So, in the end, Michael Bloomberg was a spin doctor for the family responsible for the entire opioid epidemic. Another snipet from the article:“I am meeting with Michael Bloomberg tomorrow morning at 10 am to seek his help and guidance on the current issues we are facing,” Sackler wrote to Purdue’s top executives in December 2017. “I plan to discuss the following with him: 1. Current narrative vs the truth. 2. What advice does he have on how best to deal with it? 3. Does he have a journalist that he would recommend who could get the FULL story out there”?
“The first thing you should [do] is to thank Bloomberg,” Purdue’s head of communications, Josephine Martin, responded. “Any positive news or ability to get our side out is through Bloomberg. We have given them exclusives and they have treated us very well.”
All of this happened just a year-and-a-half ago. Billionaires look out for one another. It’s part of how the 1% rule us all and subject us all to things they know full well will kill us, destroy the planet, destroy our nation and more. They do it because they don’t care. They care only about themselves, their money, their prestige and their power and there is never, ever enough for them. Ever.Previously undisclosed emails, including some filed in lawsuits against Purdue and others provided by sources, reveal a little-known relationship, forged in part by mutual philanthropic interests, between the Sacklers and Michael Bloomberg. They show that when the Sacklers were facing critical media coverage, they looked to Bloomberg and his news and philanthropic organizations for help. Bloomberg advised Mortimer Sackler on how to handle negative coverage in 2017, and steered the family to a crisis communications specialist who had been his mayoral press secretary. In 2018, Bloomberg Philanthropies staff met with Sackler to discuss launching a joint initiative to combat the opioid crisis.
So in the end, Bloomberg is exactly who the other candidates accuse him of being: a self centered, egomaniac that’s trying to buy the election.
And we all know what happened when someone did that last election, don’t we?