By Morgan Pehme (a.k.a. The Brooklyn Optimist)

Before I lay out exactly why you should be against the City Council's move to extend term limits without your say, let me start by putting two common misconceptions to rest.

The movement against extending term limits is not about whether Mayor Bloomberg has done a good job in office. For the record, I think that he has. And if the City Council puts extending term limits on the ballot, as I believe they must, then you will have still have the opportunity to re-elect our Mayor if the measure passes.

So many New Yorkers are confused that this is an anti-Bloomberg initiative because that is how the Mayor has shrewdly framed the issue. Since the majority of New Yorkers feel pretty positively about him, miscasting the debate as “Bloomberg vs. No Bloomberg” twists the odds in favor of his agenda.

Second, this is not a debate about whether term limits are good. Personally, in an ideal world, I would be opposed to term limits, because the people should have the right to vote for whomever they want, for as long as they want. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. But I’ll get to that in a moment.

As does everyone under the sun, I'm sure you too get about one or two emails every day calling on you to head out to Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, wherever, and once there, to go knocking on doors, man phonebanks, all that good stuff. And there is great value in that; I did it in 2004 myself.

Allow me to suggest, though, that you're needed here at home as well. We're probably going to take three House seats - NY-29 (Eric Massa), NY-13 (Mike McMahon), and NY-25 (Dan Maffei) - and hopefully six Senate seats, like this one and this one and this one and this one, just to name a few.

Obama is going to win Pennsylvania.

And Ohio.

And Florida.

So before you run out of state - which, if you decide to do so, is awesome, and more power to you - see if there isn't a critical race closer to home. Odds are, there is.

The numbers are staggering: In Suffolk County, as of August, there were 8,055 homes in foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure. Of these, 5,088 were 30 days past due to lenders. Statewide, up to 150,000 homes could be lost to foreclosure.

In Caesar Trunzo's fief, the Third Senatorial District, the numbers indicate real and growing pain. Brentwood has 526 loans in foreclosure and Central Islip has 433 loans in foreclosure. Yes, that's almost a thousand homes in just two towns. Now, think about what that means: that's a thousand families - more, no doubt, because the district is larger than just these two municipalities - on the verge of eviction; several thousand more of their neighbors whose home values are going to be negatively impacted by empty properties next door or down the street (the Empire Justice Center estimates value lost to neighboring houses at $18,000); declining property tax revenues to local authorities just as the demands on them rise; in short, a witches brew of negative effects on entire communities.

In that context, it's fair to ask why Caesar Trunzo and Senate republicans voted against a one year foreclosure moratorium that easily passed the Assembly. Trunzo's vote is especially unforgivable among his peers, and here's why: his district is the hardest-hit Senatorial district in the state. There are other areas being devastated by the foreclosure crisis - Queens, Kings, Nassau, Monroe, Erie, to name a few - but in Suffolk, the pain is greatest.

And Caesar Trunzo walked away from providing relief. Think it's time for a change?

On the web: Brian Foley for Senate

So I mainly recognized Sarah Silverman from her role as the occasional stalker in the TV show Monk. But she is part of a great voter outreach effort that really needs to be up here on Daily Gotham. The Great Schlep: getting your Jewish Grandparents in Florida to vote Obama. It could swing the election!

And where better to plug the Great Schlep than in New York City?

In what is a potentially lethal line of attack, Democrat Rick Dollinger is calling out his republican opponent Joe Robach for his ties to the companies now being bailed out by the Federal government.

Rochester, NY – October 14, 2008 – Today, Democratic State Senate candidate Rick Dollinger criticized Republican Joe Robach and State Senate Republicans for accepting nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from the Wall Street corporations that had to be bailed out from their reckless investments. Dollinger pointed out that Republicans also lavished billions of dollars in tax breaks to these same corporations that taxpayers are now being forced to save. Republicans handed out these breaks in conjunction with loosened regulations and safeguards, allowing Wall Street to run rampant with "golden parachutes" and to gamble away billions of Main Street's dollars.

"Over the past eight years Republicans in the State Senate have enabled the fallacious practices of Wall Street banks and corporations by granting billions in tax breaks and passing bills that eliminated government oversight and accountability to taxpayers," said Dollinger. "These practices have dominated the agenda of the Republican controlled State Senate, and mirror the careless policies of the Bush administration."

"We can no longer afford the Republican model of leadership that favors the needs of big businesses on Wall Street over the economic crisis facing struggling taxpayers on Main Street," continued Dollinger. "Now taxpayers are being told that they must provide a $700 billion crutch to Wall Street, a burden inflicted upon New Yorkers as a direct result of the corruption within the Republican-controlled State Senate."

For the past 10 years, State Senate Republicans have lavished tax breaks equivalent to $2.5 billion, and another $1.5 billion in incentives upon Wall Street, while also passing legislation that dismantled measures requiring accountability and transparency within these corporations.

Dollinger concluded, "For years, New Yorkers have suffered from a weakening economy, crippling property taxes, and as a result, young people leaving the state in record numbers. In the face of all that, Republican Joe Robach decided it more important to help out the Wall Street barons bankrolling his campaign than protect the Monroe County taxpayers who voted him into office."

With Goldman Sachs and - or so scuttlebutt has it - Morgan Stanley applying for New York banking charters, do you really want republicans in charge of regulating them? How'd that work out up until now?

Councilman Domenic M. Recchia told the New York Times on October 7th that he favors the extension of term limits, “A lot of us Council members feel that passing it through legislation is giving ample opportunity to the voters of the city to voice their opinions.” He added: “If the voters don’t like their council member, they can vote him out of office. And if they don’t like the mayor, they can get rid of him too.”

One of the problems Democrats down the ballot may face is ticket-splitting, whereby voters may choose to go with Barack Obama and, say, Randy Kuhl (Okay, that's unlikely) or Joe Robach.

Here's why nobody in their right mind should consider that (via Pam's House Blend).

The original of this filth has been removed from the internet, but there's a saved version here. Go read it, and then tell me you're still going to split your ticket; because what you see here is what the republican party, today, stands for.

(Note: Another cross-post from my website.)

City Council members who have been looking to run for higher office have a money squeeze. It has nothing to do with the economic meltdown (well, sort of). The money squeeze would be a consequence of extending term limits.

How does this work?

Under the city's campaign finance rules, if a candidate wants to get matching funds, the candidate must agree to limit spending. The limits are different for different positions; running for mayor is far more expensive than running for a council seat. The problem is that some supposedly term-limited people (Speaker Christine Quinn, for instance) have been planning to run for higher office, and have already exceeded what their spending limits would be if they decide to run for their old office again next year.

There's really no problem. These people can simply refuse matching funds, and all is well. Of course, any opponent would get extra matching funds, and would have their spending limits lifted, so the incumbents would lose a lot of advantages that their huge campaign warchests would normally give them. But...

As you may have heard, ourt overlords in the City Council have scheduled exactly one hearing to discuss whether or not they should overturn the twice-expressed will of the people and award themselves a third term to leach off the public purse. Astonishingly enough, the Supreme Soviet Council has allowed this hearing to be open, with citizen feedback. You can testify, too.

Sign up here. And keep talking into the depths of the night and the bright light of early morning. Whatever it takes to stop this (probably) unconstitutional power grab.

Part 1: Albany Reform

Surveying the national political scene these days is a thing of wonder and beauty for patriotic Americans, and cause for despair among republicans. In every region of the country, formerly red states are embracing Barack Obama and Democrats; we're leading in Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, North Dakota, Colorado and New Mexico. Our Senate candidates seem poised to win in such unfriendly terrain as Alaska and North Carolina and many others besides, putting a filibuster-proof sixty seat majority within our grasp. If we do capture majorities of this magnitude, we will transform the nation for a generation. Here's what the big map looks like today:

It's a truism in every Presidential election cycle: what really matters is the Supreme Court. The republicans certainly understood that in 2004; note how Bush's one signature achievement in his "second" term was the elevation to the bench of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, along with many others in a similar extremist, un-American vein to the lower levels of the Federal bench.

The main line of defense against the infestation of the Federal bench by extremist ideologues is at the state level. And here, again, the Senate is the first line of attack for the forces of reaction. The two main woman-haters in the upper house are Serph Maltese and Frank Padavan, offering between them four pieces of anti-choice legislation.

Bill Number: NY S6645
Defines pregnancy and conception in such a way that it could jeopardize access to contraception. Requires women receive state-mandated lecture which includes medically inaccurate information prior to obtaining abortion service and prohibits abortion unless women wait an additional 24 hours after receiving lecture. Subjects abortion providers to burdensome restrictions.
Sponsor: Maltese (R)

Bill Number: NY S6644
Allows certain individuals to refuse to perform any abortion services in all or most circumstances. Allows certain individuals to refuse to provide or dispense contraceptives in all or most circumstances.
Sponsor: Maltese (R)

But wait, there's more.

Bill Number: NY S3117
Amends definition of person in several sections of the criminal code to include "unborn child at any stage of gestation."
Sponsor: Maltese (R)

The only other anti-choice bill offered in the Senate in 2008 was Frank Padavan's NY S4431. The likely effects of these bills on women's reproductive freedom are profound. Maltese's three bills represent a three-pronged attack on women themselves: by defining a fetus as a person, during pregnancy, a woman is a ward of the state, responsible to the government, not her family or her doctor, for the well-being of a citizen. No comparable burden exists for men under any circumstances. By allowing providers to refuse to dispense contraceptives, and to refuse to provide required medical services, women are reduced to second-class citizens in a vital area of their lives, their health.

There's no reason to expect, what with a Democratic majority in the Assembly, that any of these bills will ever become law. However, the republican majority in the Senate precludes any affirmative steps on women's reproductive autonomy. Now, things are looking good for the forces of freedom right now; but remember, as Team Rove learned at its cost, that political fortunes can change in a historical instant. If we want to enact strong protections for choice, for access to contraception, and other issues of concern to women and men both, as a backstop against future reversals at the Federal level, we need a Democratic state Senate.