Big Apple Mayor Bloomberg Too Indispensable; NY City Council Abolishes Term Limits

[Cicero]

Bloomberg proves Lord Acton's adage:
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/ts_nm/us_newyork_bloomberg

 

[Peephole]

Good, term limits are ********.

 

[dudalb]

Good, term limits are ********.

It is not so much that Term Limits were abolished, but the way it was done that is upsetting people. It was not put to a vote of the people, but done in a back room political deal.
Tammany Hall lives.

 

[dudalb]

BTW this thread should be moved to the general politics section.

 

[tomwaits]

Good, term limits are ********.

Let me say that, being a man in Chicago, having a mayor without term limits has its fair share of problems.

 

[Cleon]

BTW this thread should be moved to the general politics section.

I agree. Done.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cleon

 

[boloboffin]

The first thing I thought when Bloomberg announced his intent to pursue this was, "Does this apply to Giuliani as well?"

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Bloomberg proves Lord Acton's adage:
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/ts_nm/us_newyork_bloomberg

Ok Cicero....make your case. He has acted within the limits of this democratic law.

Guiliani could have done the same...no?

The elected officials (by the people) of NY have said that maybe Bloomberg is the best choice.

I lived in Manhattan in '01...I would have let the cross dressing Rudy have a 3rd try...

 

[Cicero]

Good, term limits are ********.

Professional politicians are the best reason why term limits should be the law of the land. Dingell, Kennedy, Byrd, Hatch, etc prove that it is much more difficult to vote out a politician, then vote in a replacement. How is the U.S. served by career politicians?

 

[dudalb]

Ok Cicero....make your case. He has acted within the limits of this democratic law.

Guiliani could have done the same...no?

The elected officials (by the people) of NY have said that maybe Bloomberg is the best choice.

I lived in Manhattan in '01...I would have let the cross dressing Rudy have a 3rd try...

The case is the will of the people of New York, as shown by their adaptation, in popular vote, of term limits has been set aside by a backroom poltical deal.
Of course the only reason you are opposing Cicero is for the sake of opposing Cicero.
Just about the level of poltical discourse we have come to expect from you.

 

[Cicero]

Ok Cicero....make your case. He has acted within the limits of this democratic law.

Guiliani could have done the same...no?

The elected officials (by the people) of NY have said that maybe Bloomberg is the best choice.

I lived in Manhattan in '01...I would have let the cross dressing Rudy have a 3rd try...

The point is Giuliani didn't go to the city council to change the law. But I wonder how a Republican mayor trying to hold on to power when his term was nearing an end would play in the media

 

[dudalb]

Bloomberg is a supporter of the Bloomberg party.
He changes political parties out of sheer expedience.

 

[Cicero]

Bloomberg is a supporter of the Bloomberg party.
He changes political parties out of sheer expedience.

The guy's hubris knows no bounds.

Bloomberg said, "it was too late to put a public referendum on the Nov. 4ballot and impractical to conduct a special election before the mayoral campaign next year."

U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, a likely Democratic candidate for mayor said, "it was not too late for a special election. There is a right way and a wrong way to overturn term limits. What he announced today was the wrong way."

 

[WildCat]

Let me say that, being a man in Chicago, having a mayor without term limits has its fair share of problems.

Amen brother!

 

[Praktik]

I'm no fan of term limits, but I do think that they should have been changed democratically - a referendum, heck maybe even a "special" one held only for that purpose. The will of the people should be respected, and that incidentally, is why I dislike term limits: if the people want the guy in there a 3rd, 4th or 5th time, why shouldn't they have that?

If they become disappointing "career politicians" and they're that bad they'll get voted out eventually! What goes up must come down and all that...

 

[Thunder]

this is not the fair, just, or democratic way to end term limits. most of NYC knows that.

let them put it to a referendum...for a 3rd time.

 

[WildCat]

New Yorkers will rue this day!

 

[The Painter]

Bloomberg is a megalomaniac.

"If you do this, you are undermining the very people who voted for you," Councilman Charles Barron argued. "Even though the mayor will win today, he is the big loser, because he lost democracy, he lost the favor of the people."

 

[Cleon]

Bloomberg proves Lord Acton's adage:
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

New Yorkers will rue this day!

Bloomberg is a megalomaniac.

Such drama.

This move was rather sleazy, and could have been done more democratically.

But beyond that...So?

The bill he pushed through the council extends the term limits from two to three. Also, he still has to win another term, and this move isn't exactly helping him in the popularity department. Again, it was a sleazy stunt, but it doesn't establish him as a "mayor for life," abolish term limits altogether, or anything like that.

Also, Bloomberg is a political moderate, who (as far as I'm aware) hasn't done anything obscenely terrible. And unless there's some news story that hasn't broken yet, his administration hasn't been particularly rife with corruption.

I don't agree with him on a number of issues, and I wouldn't vote for him, but isn't it possible that y'all might be overreacting just a wee bit?

 

[Cleon]

The bill he pushed through the council extends the term limits from two to three.

On that point, I note that the thread title is incorrect.

Not Cicero's fault, though...I'm noticing that a lot of the news stories about this are pretty vague about that.

However, just to substantiate what I said:

From AP:

Critics said he ignored the will of the people by going through the City Council instead of the voters to change the law by giving officeholders a third, consecutive four-year term.

Again:

By a 29-22 vote, the council agreed to allow officeholders three consecutive four-year terms. Existing law limits them to two terms, and Bloomberg's second is up at the end of 2009.

Term limits have not been "abolished," merely extended from two to three.