An Open Letter to David Yassky Regarding Term Limits
My letter to my City Councilman regarding term limits:
So, Mr. Yassky, I assume you are now going to advocate for another term limited executive to have his term extended due to the economic situation. Can I quote you as supporting a third term for Bush as well? He also presided over the current economic collapse. I am sure he would also claim to need another four years to correct the current problems. So I assume you support a third Bush Term as well?
I have always been against term limits (look at my past blogging and you will see this is accurate), but this whole fiasco has taught me why they are important. I now support them. You, Mr. Yassky, and your colleagues have now taught me why term limits just might be a good idea.
I was also all geared up to oppose the current progressive Democrat push to help out the Working Families Party for a whole slew of reasons. I was gung ho Democrat. Now I realize that while I am gung ho for the Democrats nationally, I am pretty disgusted and embarrassed by the local version of the Party. You, Mr. Yassky, and your colleagues have demonstrated that NYC Democrats cannot be trusted to be democratic, progressive or liberal. They will side with a naked power grab by a billionaire every fucking single time and then tell us that it is in our best interests to kiss that billionaire's ass.
Let me be clear here: the stated rationales of the City Council are not logical in any way, shape or form.
Did you vote for the Bloomberg Putsch because you honestly believed that Bloomberg is the Messiah? If so, why hasn't Bloomberg lifted one single finger to prevent the Bush economic collapse. He never even spoke out against the Bush economic policy and, in fact, in 2004 supported Bush's re-election! So why trust a Bush supporter to solve the Bush economic collapse?
Did you vote for the Bloomberg Putsch because you honestly believed that term limits are wrong? Well, does it make sense to vote for a ONE TIME extension of term limits as your protest to term limits?? I guess you would then support the Supreme Court's ONE TIME suspension of the electoral process to appoint Bush President. Seems to me it amounts to the same thing.
Did you vote for the Bloomberg Putsch because you honestly believed it was in your best interest? Well, that is probably the reality. The whole thing was a naked power grab, so stop claiming you had noble motives. Seems the City Council simply chose to participate in the naked power grab. Threats and negotiations were behind it all.
Nothing good has been accomplished this day. Had the amendment to put it to a referendum passed, then I would have felt vindicated as a Democrat. Had the City Council, once the referendum had failed, rejected the Bloomberg Putsch, then I would have felt vindicated as a Democrat.
But they didn't. Instead the City Council has rubber stamped Bloomberg's claim to be the only human being alive to save us from this economic collapse (ignoring the fact that he was one of the Republicans who presided over the lead up to the collapse and he has done nothing to save us to date). How dare you side with such a blatant, such a Republican piece of bullshit that only some billionaire can save us. How dare you look us in the eye and tell us you voted your conscience when the entire Putsch is predicated on thwarting the will of the voters in order to benefit a billionaire who has Messianic fantasies. There was nothing liberal in the City Council's vote today. There was nothing progressive in the City Council's vote today. There was nothing democratic OR Democratic in the City Council's vote today. It reminded me of nothing but a typical Republican power grab.
Today at the CBID forum Eric Adams expressed his feeling that the City Council's Republican style power grab gave him a sinking feeling akin to what he felt when the WTC was attacked. In essence it was, in his eyes, a similar attack on our freedoms, our democratic system. My wife told me she felt the same way she felt when the Supreme Court dictated that the will of the voters didn't matter in 2000 and declared George Bush our president even though all signs pointed to Al Gore being the real winner. Both Eric Adams and my wife felt that the City Council today attacked democracy in a very real way, much the same way our democracy was attacked in 2000 and 2001. I didn't feel so shocked. I knew it would happen. Since I moved to NYC I was astonished at what wimps the City Council was, basically yielding dictatorial powers to the mayor. Today the City Council didn't do anything but what they have always done: kiss the mayor's ass and call it pumpkin pie. I expected it. And I expected my City Councilman, David Yassky, to, in the end, join the ass kissing pumpkin feast. I had hoped for better. I really, really had. But I expected exactly the surrender monkey bullshit I got.
All hail the God Bloomberg. Only he can save New York. I now call on the NY City Council to advocate the same term limit extension to Bush in the name of consistency. If one executive who has failed to do jack shit about the economic collapse deserves a third term, give them ALL another term. Can I count on you Mr. Yassky? Or do you first need to find out what's in it for you before you make your decision?
I have always felt an affinity with Yassky. He alienated me when he endorsed the corrupt Clarence Norman candidate for Brooklyn District Attorney in 2005. And I considered him too collaborationist with Republicans to support in his 2006 run for Congress. But I remained open to him. Today he proved ONCE AGAIN he is willing to collaborate with the local corrupt machine and to collaborate with billionaire Republicans (okay, Bloomberg is now "independent" but when did he ever speak out against the Republicans?). Supporting for DA someone whose main position was dropping charges against Clarence Norman was strike one. Supporting the one time abandonment of voter approved term limits to benefit the billionaire who supported Bush's re-election and has never lifted a finger to protect us against the Bush economy is strike two. You don't have much room to redeem yourself.
Bloomberg Putsch | surrender monkeys | Term Limits

reprehensible
My letter to Yassky today is reproduced below. I also called his office, and I urge everyone else to as well -
David Yassky (Brooklyn)
District Office Phone: 718-875-5200
District Office Fax: 718-643-6620
Legislative Office Phone: 212-788-7348
E-mail Address: yassky@council.nyc.ny.us
Dear Councilman Yassky,
I didn't get a chance to speak at CBID last night, so I'm taking this
opportunity now.
I am disgusted by your vote. The Mayor wasn't the only one grabbing
power yesterday -- the Council served themselves a heaping portion as
well, aided by you. I'm also not fooled by your smokescreen
amendment. Please - you knew it would fail (as you stated yourself).
If you meant it as more than just cover, you should have voted no
after your amendment failed, as Gale Brewer did.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of term limits
themselves. This is a Soviet-style power grab, nothing more,
nothing less. The hollowness of your disingenuous claim that you
oppose the means but support the principle is revealed by the fact
that this is a ONE TIME ONLY extension that benefits ONLY the Mayor
and sitting councilmembers who are term limited, such as yourself. It
stinks, and we all know it.
Once again, I am appalled.
Sincerely,
Joy Romanski
195 Garfield Place
Hey Joy
Don't see you post but I know you and when you get mad you REALLY GET MAD. Excellent letter and we have to remember these votes starting Nov 5th and organize to remove all members of the City Council (along with Bloomberg) who voted for the end to democracy.
You know she's pissed
Joy rarely reads blogs, let alone writes (unless they have to do with knitting). Seeing her post here is an indication of how angry she is.
Absolutely Correct
Joy is very even-tempered and when she gets mad she gets VERY MAD. Like all of us I hope she stays that way because we have 1 year to stay mad and fight to defeat Bloomberg and as many Coucil Members who voted to end term limits that we can.
I called him
in the morning before the vote. Fat lot of good that did. Personally, I think you've cut Yassky too much slack in the past; this performance was exactly what I expected.
Bush v. Gore is what I've had in mind these last couple of days. Outstanding writing, mole. I don't want you to be mad all the time, but you write angry real well.
I Knew He' Vote With Mikey
He's just as much a piece of crap as my Councilman, Dominic Recchia. At least Recchia was up front from the beginning where he stood but Yassky REALLY screwed this district.
Trouble in '09?
There are at least six people who had planned to run for the 33rd CD seat (currently held by Yassky). At least one, Evan Thies, has said that he won't run against Yassky, but others certainly will -- and couple of them seem to be well-funded early on.
In addition, Yassky spent $144K by mid-July, only $60K short of the limit for participation in NYC's campaign finance system. If the CFB is blocked from issuing new regulations that, in effect, give candidates such as Yassky a "do over" (and there's every reason to believe that the CFB will lose this case ... more on that in a later post), it means that his opponent(s) will be eligible for extra matching funds and will also be able to spend more (possibly far, far more) than the limits.
Yes, he could be vulnerable.















Yassky has at least 4
Yassky has at least 4 strikes on him. well blogged.