Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
As to be expected, there's divided opinion on Mayor Bloomberg's expected announcement that he will purse a third term as mayor.
In one corner, big business is happy. The NY Times reports that "executives like the financier Steven Rattner, the developer Jerry I. Speyer and the media mogul Rupert Murdoch have encouraged him to seek a third term." (Bloomberg also spoke to Murdoch, Mort Zuckerman and Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the three big newspaper publishers in the city, about a third term.)
The the other, watchdog groups and other politicians are skeptical. Common Cause said, "That would be abhorrent. That is making an end run around what the voters have done twice." City Comptroller Bill Thompson said, "Right now the law says that there are two terms. It is my intention to run for mayor next year."
Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum referred to Ronald Lauder, the billionaire who sunk millions into the term limits initiative in the 1990s but expressed his support for a third Bloomberg term, "What matters here is what New Yorkers think and say on this issue, not what one powerful cosmetics heir has to say. The rules cannot and should not be changed late in the game. That's not the way our democracy works. This is a decision for the people- not for incumbents, not for editorial boards and not for a few wealthy and powerful individuals."
Reportedly three of Bloomberg's deputy mayors think it's a bad idea--it looks like a power grab, etc.--but it seems like the City Council has enough votes to pass legislation to overturn term limits. And Rudy Giuliani, our former mayor who considered overturning term limits himself after September 11, 2001, gave his tacit okay, "My view was always two terms - that seems about right. That's the way the presidency is done. But I've never had any objection to the idea of three terms... You got two things sort of weighted against each other. You have the vote of the people twice to keep these term limits ... but on the other hand we have a very good mayor and a very difficult time."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If anyone on earth should be mayor during this economic crisis, it should most definitely be Michael Bloomberg.
FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR
Oh snap! Gotbaum called Lauder a "cosmetics heir." No she didn't. She might as well have said "cosmetics airhead."
I wonder if those three deputy mayors who supposedly opposed the idea will resign if Bloomberg wins a third term. Or will they carry on because of how crucial their leadership is during this very scary, scary, scary time.
one could also say a comptroller is as qualified to lead during a financial crisis.
Disgusted.
"one could also say a comptroller is as qualified to lead during a financial crisis."
Comptroller or self-made billionaire...
I'm all for it... I love his spunky sound bites, reminds me of my grandma
I hope this means we can bring Giuliani back for another term.
I have my own opinion, but I think regardless, we should all just have a big-ass vote on the damn thing.
Yes yes yes a majority upheld the bans twice already--that doesn't stop other referenda from appearing on ballots.
Who are we going to replace him with? Some political hack with his/her payoff list. Jobs that will go to supporters, not the most qualified person. Pandering to local Soviets instead of the city in general. We know what we've got, let's keep him.
It's funny reading the daily news reader comments.
they don't want him.
screw term limits... and he's not being appointed - we're still holding an election. don't like him? don't vote for him.
i was anti-bloomberg for a long time, but i've come around. dry, even-handed, non-emotional, no-BS management from a well-connected, independent mayor who runs things by the books is just what the city needs right now.
and really - who would replace him? weiner? quinn? avella? ferrer?
prior to bloomberg, the city has been almost exclusively run by partisan, corrupt, controversial figures who cause gridlock and then steamroll over it with abusive use of power.
i'm sure mike is no saint, but he is a CEO, and that's what the city needs.
people are scared of removing term limits because they know bloomberg would win easily given the competition or lack of
Why not a fourth term?
Why not a fifth term?
Why not clone him to keep the dynasty forever?
I don't particularly care for term limits (or public referenda), but neither do I care for removing them at the eleventh hour because the mayor wants another term. The aspirations of one individual do not amount to a rationale for changing a policy that's been in place for over a decade.
Then again, no fucking way will this prick finish three terms with his good name intact. I wouldn't mind seeing him leave office with his tail between his legs.
Abolishing term limits is not the same thing as abolishing free, democratic elections. If everyone thinks a mayor is doing a particularly bad thing running for reelection over and over again, the voters can always choose to not vote for the person.
How many sitting political executive office holders get better over time?
Think of the last term and last year of Guliani, Koch, Reagan, Pataki, ect.
If we can have term limits for the president why not the mayor. I was personally against term limits when they were first proposed but having seen them in action I'm a firm supporter. The fact is that long-term incumbents have a large advantage in city elections over newcomers, and they also become tied down by special interests and drift farther and farther away from the best interests of their constituents. Just look at Albany -- wouldn't it be great if we could bring term limits there!!!
I also like Bloomberg and agree that he probably would be the best candidate for the next election. But I can't support this because the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Remember, it's not just Bloomberg who would wind up with four more years but also most of the City Council. So you're going to have a majority of the Council vote to extend term limits and the mayor signing off on it, and meanwhile they all personally benefit from the deal! Where's the checks and balances? Where's the respect for the will of the people who voted twice to limit pols to two terms? The whole thing stinks.
Bloomberg is the new Mugabe.
Bloomie rules let him back........
The Democrats need to get in line and vote "No" for a third term. The Democrats have an excellent chance of getting one of their own into the mayor's office next year. Why should they ruin their chances by supporting Bloomberg? It's foolish.
@blablanyc, Because that exactly the kind of partisan shit that needs to be thrown out.
You think Bloomie wants power? He would much rather devote his time to his charity work. But in this case the charity would be NYC. He is the most qualified for the job. He is the best mayor since, well, Giuliani, but everyone before Giuliani was a hack. He improved on what Giuliani fixed. Crime down, education better, two new stadiums (arguably better), better better better. NYC website -- better. 311 -- better. Goodness. Bloom gets shit DONE. That's what we need.
don't like him? don't vote for him. don't say shit when Catsimatidis is mayor.