Search
Mayor Mike weighs his options
As the end of his term nears, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his senior advisers have been exploring strategies that would allow him to remain in political life, including undertaking a campaign to overturn the city’s term limits law or making a bid for governor, according to two people who have been briefed on the deliberations.
Mr. Bloomberg, as part of that effort, commissioned a poll recently to determine whether city voters would be open to lifting the term limits law, which forces him and other elected city officials from office after two four-year terms. The poll found that even as voters approved of his performance as mayor, they would strongly oppose any attempt to undo the limits. Voters were receptive to the idea of a Bloomberg candidacy for governor, however.
Either move by the mayor would dramatically shake up the political world in New York and beyond, given his national profile and previous pledge to try to shape the presidential campaign this fall, perhaps by establishing an independent political organization. [Emph. added]
Two things: first, you really have to wonder what the outcome would be if there were a statewide referendum on term limits. Such as, say, term limits applicable to the state legislature. The rock-solid support for such limits in the City most likely is not confined to the five boroughs. If two terms and eight years were good enough for George Washington, why aren't they sufficient for Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno, in office for thirty-two years, or Joe Lentol, at thirty-six?
Second, a Bloomberg run for the governorship raises the stakes for this year's election. It would bode well for Governor Paterson's re-election prospects if the legislature, once the state Senate is liberated from republican-obstructionist control, actually passes Progressive legislation to move this state forward. Of course, that would also require the other house, the Democratic state Assembly, to suddenly move beyond the posturing of one-house bills knowingly passed for theatrical effect.
It's either that, or Democrats might face a little problem in 2010, and unfortunately, that little problem carries a multi-billion dollar checkbook.
Term Limits
Michael,
There's a difference between term limits for strong executives and for legislators.
Personally I like 8 years for President, Mayor of NYC, and other "powerful" jobs.
However, I think if you want to do term limits on legislators, they should be longer than 8 years. We've seen the results of the 8 years system in New York, which was Tom Manton picking Giff as Speaker and Tom Manton and Vito Lopez picking Christine as Speaker. Next time around it will be Joe Crowley and Vito Lopez picking Dan Garodnick or Inez Dickens speaker...and the cycle will go on and on every 4 years unless they pick an incoming councilmember as speaker. The Speaker should be able to serve 8 years as speaker.
That said, a lot of these people have been around too long. Not all of them are bad, though. Dick Gotfried just passed GENDA and introduced a bill for state-wide comprehensive health coverage. The solution is campaign finance rules and public financing of campaigns, so challengers have a decent chance of unseating some of these people, not term limits. Let there be a good challenge to my Assemblyman, who you mentioned as dead wood! When the system if fair, we have term limits in this country, it's called an election! (Paraphrase from President Josiah Bartlet).
If term limits are insisted upon, I would suggest 12 or 16 years for legislators. Also, they should have 4 year terms--this two year term thing is bullshit.
Mayor Mike
As to Mayor Mike...
Why, after the said over and over and over that he wasn't running for president did the press continue to cover it? Because he did things like he's doing again now, like having fake polls to feed speculation. When came down do it, he meant what he said--he's not running.
Then it was the term-limits thing. "Does Mike want to run again?" says the media. He denies it, but the media still reports it. Listen to the words, not these sneaky actions.
At what point does it go from "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me"?
Now, it's that he's running for Governor (which we've also heard before), but then he says he's not! Guess what? He's not!
The MSM and bloggers need to take the man at his word already and not report this untrue crap. I called it all along that he wasn't running for President--the media wanted a story so they reported and looked like idiots to people like me who said it wasn't true all along. But they continue to do it! When will they (and you) learn?
These are pathetic attempts to not be the lame duck that he is and anyone reporting it is enabling him.
Not so strong
The original referendum in 1993 passed by a 60-40 margin. The 1996 bill to extend term limits only failed 54-46.
The main argument in favor of keeping term limits is that the city did not go to hell in a handbasket as all citywide elected officials, four of five borough presidents, and 38 of 51 City Council members came into office even as the ashes of the World Trade Center were still smouldering. It proved what Americans have (supposedly) always known -- that governments can be replaced without chaos ensuing.
The main argument against term limits is that you throw out the baby with the bath water.
The real problem is not solved by term limits. The real problem starts with the way people get elected and reelected -- by raising the most money from large special interest groups who fund elected officials even more than unelected candidates for office. This problem can be met by a "Clean Money, Clean Elections" system of virtually full public funding of elections.
The second part of the problem is that elected officials get to spend our money on things that enhance their image. "Member items" and "discretionary spending" are two examples of how this problem manifests itself. (I've recently written about this in my TDG post entitled "Limited Membership.")
The third part of the problem is that incumbents have an easier time getting press coverage. I don't see a solution to this yet that doesn't involve eliminating freedom of the press (a cure worse than the disease), but I'm open to suggestion.