Thanks a lot for this great perspective. It is my hope that a majority of New Yorkers will heed your call and not sheepishly allow themselves to be seduced by Bloomberg's money and selfish aggrandisement clouded in deceitful mild personality.

In the next few weeks, New York City will hold elections for its public officers, among which is the office of the Mayor. The two major candidates are William Thompson of the Democratic Party and the so-called independent candidate and the current Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who of course is quite happy to carry the banner of the same party, the Republican Party that he used to get into office in the first place and then disposed off like a rag. The pundits and the polls would have us believe that were the elections to be held today the status quo would be maintained.

Those political pundits and much of the elites seem to be contended with that possible outcome. In their opinion, the administration of the city in the last eight years has been so perfect that Bloomberg can ‘rule’ the city for ever if he wanted. Even, some in the leadership of the Democratic Party are less than enthusiastic about their support for their own party’s nominee.

The question then might be, why. The press and much of the Bloomberg-wagon would like us to believe that it is because he is so good that he is irreplaceable. Some of these people are the same chorus singers who 8 years ago after the attacks on the World Trade Center were almost on their knees begging for the pre-9/11 much-derided Mayor Giuliani to not ‘abandon’ the city because of fears that without him the city could not dig itself out of the after-effects of the attack. Now, I am sure that some of those people will agree that the city has not missed that former Mayor.

While I will not count myself as one of the accolades of Bloomberg who consider him the best thing that has and will ever happen to the city of New York, I will also not be so unkind to fail to acknowledge that he did some commendable things in the years so far since he has been mayor. But, on at least one powerful single issue, he deserves to be voted out of office. And, that is on the self-serving role that Bloomberg played in setting aside the term limit provision that New York City voters had endorsed twice in the past. This is a fundamental democratic principle that nullifies any argument that he may make for his continued stay in office.

The idea that the time calls for ‘continuity’ and, Bloomberg’s supposed unique managerial abilities without which the administration of the city would fall apart are not only self-serving but also egoistic. It is exactly the reason why dictators and despots around the world think of themselves as next to God if not the irreplaceable and incomparable God Himself. And, if the constitution of the United States of America doesn’t make any exception for the term limit of the office of the President – not war, not impending economic calamity – why should the affirmed will of the people of the city of New York be overturned just so that one ‘indispensable’ person can save the city?

Besides, I recall the period before the election in 2001 when there was suggestion in some quarters that the consequences of the terrorist attack were such that called for exactly what Bloomberg is trying to use to justify the perpetuation of own self in office. At the time, the city had a different Mayor, and I think I remember that candidate Bloomberg did not exactly endorse that idea. In a November 4, 2001 ‘New York Times’ article titled, “No Fun City” James Traub correctly said that “Giuliani risked sacrificing some of his moral prestige when he tried to inveigle his way into a third term, or (even) at least into a 90-day extension of his current term.” Frank Rich, also in the same newspaper (“The Coup at Home”, November 11, 2007) recalled that “after 9/11, he (Rudolph Giuliani) tried to mount a coup, floating the idea that he stay on as mayor in defiance of New York’s term-limit law.” A coup is how Frank Rich described it, and it is what Michael Bloomberg did. The question then is: ‘has New York City, and by extension the United States of America become so unprincipled and undemocratic that Bloomberg will be rewarded for the coup against the people of the city?’ I would hope that New Yorkers will remember these arguments, which are still valid today.

Secondly, and equally important is Bloomberg’s campaign rhetoric of not being beholden to any special interest group because of his self-finance campaign, implying that whoever is cannot be trusted with public office. Obviously, a bogus proposition because only a handful of elected officials finance their election without any contribution from the public. Would the illogic of Bloomberg’s point be made logical by placing a blanket ‘special interest-bought’ label on all these officials? With the exception of ‘Saint’ Bloomberg and his super-rich, billionaire-likes?

To reiterate how unreasonable Bloomberg’s argument for his self-perpetuation in public office is, the question may be asked: if the above makes sense, are we then supposed to reserve public office for billionaires such as Bloomberg? Or, in the absence of any other interested, bored super-rich, we can just save ourselves the trouble of campaign and election and simply ask our benevolent Bloomberg to remain in office for as long as he desires?

Let me just point out the hypocrisy of Michael Bloomberg that I haven’t seen challenged as such publicly. If he believes that accepting campaign donations make candidates less worthy of public office, what then are we supposed to make of all the money that he so generously donates to various candidates and their political parties? Doesn’t that amount to Bloomberg attempting to buy influence and possibly dissuade a challenge to his candidacy and, or his policy positions? Evidently, there are more than a few takers – we have a comatose, compliant City Council and a Republican Party leadership that is contented to put itself at the mercy of the billionaire without a care for the future of the party or whatever the Party believes are in the interest of the people other than the self-interest of the leadership of the Party.

Finally, the argument has also sometimes been made that Bloomberg is such a mild and unoffending person that we could just let him be. But, is he really even if he is not exactly ‘nasty’ Rudolph Giuliani as another former mayor, Ed Koch described him? I think that the real character of a person is revealed in how he reacts when he or his ideas are challenged. After all, even dictators and bullies can appear to be likeable and benevolent as long as they are not asked to explain their actions. And in that instance, Bloomberg has not portrayed himself as the most respectful person. I will site only a couple of instances, one of which was his reaction to the ‘New York Observer’ reporter who questioned him on his rationale for overturning the term limit law through the backdoor of the city council. Instead of answering the question, Bloomberg retorted that the reporter was a disgrace! How dare the reporter try to do his job asking the honorable, above-it-all Mayor a question of interest on behalf of the people of New York? And, have New Yorkers forgotten the unkind and unsympathetic words Bloomberg had for the family of the first responder who died as a result of the illness he developed from the time he spent at the World Trade Center? Only an insensitive person can publicly declare that the first responder was no hero.

Needless to say that it is my hope that New Yorkers would see through the façade of Bloomberg, thank him for his 8 years of service and send him to retirement on November 2nd. If he is as good-natured, caring and philanthropic as he wants to be portrayed, he shouldn’t have much problem finding ways to continue to be of service to the city.

Olutayo Oluyemi