Gothamist: Quinn Finally Backing Term Limits Extension Bill

Qraymond

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:20:51 -0500

This an embarrassment. These politicians have lost my support with their self-serving act.

ides_of_march

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:29:08 -0500

"It makes sense on paper, but it would be no more representative of the public than allowing the council to decide the issue itself." Bull crap.

iralarry

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:12:29 -0500

I don't give a caca if the mighty Quinn is all for lifting the ban on term limits. I just don't want her and her council approving it without a referendum. And if and when they do, because none of us are going to do anything about it, I will not vote for him or any of the council I can vote for come the next go round. Another masses rape. I would like to ask Mayor Bloomberg how my wife and I who earn in the top 5% of income in this country can not afford to rent let alone purchase a decent 2 bedroom apartment in Manhattan? Who here can answer this?

iralarry

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:04:08 -0500

sinisterteashop

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:08:07 -0500

Bloomberg is not a Maverick. He's done well for his crowd, the billionaires, real estate and Wall Street. If the future is wrestling with the hacks in the NYC party machine then so be it. But the answer isn't to hand over electoral politics to the men who are rich enough to buy it.

petercow99

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:06:47 -0500

If Quinn had a chance of beating Bloomberg, do you think she'd go for this? Under any circumstance it would be tough - and with the phony-budget scandal, she had no chance. Her plan now is to wait him out, and hope that Weiner gets a post in the Obama administration.

Mr Mel

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:32:22 -0500

Let's not be so anxious to rid ourselves of the current Mayor. If you let Democrat political clubs have their way, it'll be hack-time again. The new person will come in with all the baggage. The jobs will be handed to incompetents and it'll be right back to the bad old days.

Roquentin

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:24:23 -0500

The only thing that could possibly stop a 3rd term for Bloomberg(given his public approval) is outrage over term limits being overturned. It doesn't seem like the public outcry is there at the moment, so unless that changes before election time we'll see another term for Bloomberg. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. There's also the danger that people will vote for the opposition, regardless of who it is, just out of spite for term limits being overturned and put an incompetent leader into office. I wish leadership in this city was more left wing, but Bloomberg has done pretty well overall.

HUGO_MEGO

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:11:33 -0500

What was Quinn waiting for? She held out as long as possible to see where the political wind was blowing. Quinn is just another phony who doesn't have the guts to do what is right.

blablanyc

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:55:54 -0500

The City Council has the chance to "tinker" with term limits because Bloomberg and Lauder made it an issue. I don't believe you have a grasp on what is going on here. There is subversive activity at City Hall to overturn a law that was voted on by the people of NY. I don't trust Bloomberg, Lauder or Quinn.

JacqueMehoff

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:55:24 -0500

that's scott stringer in drag.

S.D.

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:54:59 -0500

Regardless of it's history: Term limits was voted in by the people of NYC twice. This end run is just a cheap trick by the Mayor and the City Council. Me, I'm voting against the Mayor any member of the council that supports it.

TimSPC

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:51:28 -0500

They definitely need to get the actress who played Rhonda Pearlman on The Wire to play Quinn in the movie version of this.

thefacts

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:27:27 -0500

Term limits was a sham, an ad campaign bought for by a spoiled rich trust=fund brat, right-wing Republican billionaire, Ron Lauder, who, in revenge for losing to Rudy in 1988, spent millions of his own dollars out of spite to f*ck all the rest of those who won. Since no one had the money to spend to rebut his campaign, the voters fell for it, hook, line and sinker, and voted to limit other voters' right to choose whom they wanted to represent them. Just as ad campaigns can convince us that Coke is better than Pepsi, so too did this ad campaign work - to the detriment of democracy. That is, if you don't want a politician, don't vote for that politician (like what happened to Marty Connor this year, or Koch or Dinkins, or Bush 1). But Lauder's ad campaign convinced us that every poltician is corrupt = except the ones WE vote for. What a joke! Does it matter if the City Council tinkers with it? Or, do you want to rely on a spoiled trust-fund brat like Lauder controlling elections?

blablanyc

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:27:19 -0500

Bloomberg supports McCain and not Obama.

MH622

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:25:17 -0500

Is that Cartman's mom?

blablanyc

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:19:02 -0500

I'm so upset with Koch. I expected this from Quinn. She's a jellyfish. Bloomberg has her in his pocket. What get's my goat is the fact Lauder and Bloomberg forced the issue. We didn't ask for a change to the term limits. I hope this all blows up in their faces. There will be a public hearing about term limits at City Hall on October 16 and 17.

JacqueMehoff

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:14:38 -0500

I didn't vote for Quinn nor bloomberg, I knew she was a khunt from the get to. you have some decent council members but she's not one of them. I liked the guys who went after Con Ed and the mayor didn't like them making faces at city hall.

peanuthead

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:08:02 -0500

as the dead kennedys said ... bedtime for democracy .. (again)!

Wza

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:17:58 -0500

Definitely no surprise here. I agree with John Liu. These people disgust me.