CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Bloomberg's Attempt at a 3rd Term
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bloomberg's Attempt at a 3rd Term

post #1 of 31
10/23/08 at 8:56pm
Thread Starter 
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/...il-third-term/

I was a big fan of Bloomberg as mayor... he is the only Republican I've voted for at the gubenatorial level (I think of mayor of NYC as governor of just about any other state). But suspending a law so he can run for a third term... I can't get behind that.

We have some still resident NYC chewers here and probably more NYC ex pats... what do all you anti-American elitists think?
Reply
post #2 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:05pm
Soylentgreen to Mayor : Drop Dead

Then again, republican is as republican does.
Reply
post #3 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:11pm
Thread Starter 
Technically he's a Democrat turned Republican turned Independent.
Reply
post #4 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:17pm
I dunno, I like Bloomberg. He's done a lot for the city, and doesn't really fall under the category of "Democrat" or "Republican." I don't really agree with suspending a law for a 3rd term, though, because that will open the door for anyone to do that in the future, and could lead to all kinds of problems.
Reply
post #5 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Technically he's a Democrat turned Republican turned Independent.
What does that make him then? Is there an official affiliation identity that represents someone who has tasted all the porridges?


eta: What InTheShadows said. It's not a personal gripe with Bloomberg at all. It's the, to quote Joe The Politcal Scientist Plumber, slippery slope it skates on to that irks me.
Reply
post #6 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:18pm
If he were to run for President, I'm pretty sure he'd run as an independent.
Reply
post #7 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:19pm
The Times had a decent editorial making the case for abolishing term limits:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/op...ef=todayspaper

The election's more than a year away, but my feeling right now is to thank the Mayor for abolishing term limits so that I can vote him the fuck out of office for trying to extend his term.
Reply
post #8 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:23pm
I figure that if the majority of voters want him to continue his work...well, thats why we have the voting process.
Reply
post #9 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:25pm
Thread Starter 
I have no dog in the term limit hunt, but suspending laws just seems oogy.
Reply
post #10 of 31
10/23/08 at 9:33pm
I really like Bloomberg and a lot of his policies and would probably vote for him for governor or President (depending on who he was running against), but this "suspending laws" thing is just dodgy to me. The Times makes a pretty good case, though. I kind of wish they'd found a way to have the city vote on this before now -- get the issue on the ballot for this election. My feeling is that this has to do with the economy, obviously -- people are depending on Bloomberg's financial acumen to get them through the current crisis. We'll see.
Reply
post #11 of 31
10/23/08 at 10:27pm
I imagine that debating the term limit issue when no one is currently in position to shoot for it right away, hence giving time to fully mull through it, would make the whole thing go over much easier.

Having the issue not only come up just as Bloomberg is rounding out his second term, but having him be the one pushing for it under circumstances that require hasty legal gymnastics just makes the whole issue look Weimar.
Reply
post #12 of 31
10/23/08 at 10:41pm
The main problem with Mayor Bloomberg is he ignored the 2 previous public referendums...one in 1993 where 59% of New Yorkers voted for a 2 term limit on politicians, and then a whopping 89% in 1996. It gets worse than that though...Christine Quinn after arm twisting several dissenters to vote for a 3 term limit without a public referendum...steps down as head of the City Council to become Deputy Mayor under the man who would be King...Mayor Michael Bloomberg. On top of all that, there apparantly was a rainy day fund of taxpayer money that Bloomberg used to pay off the management council that decides whether or not there should even be a vote. Out of the 51 members of the City Council 35 of them would have been out of office if not for the new 3 term limits. 29 out of the 51 chose to extend the limits. Hopefully Bloomberg will be voted out of office and his would be deputy mayor Christine Quinn with him.
Reply
post #13 of 31
10/23/08 at 11:00pm
Whoa.
Reply
post #14 of 31
10/23/08 at 11:05pm


"What happened? I blacked out."
Reply
post #15 of 31
10/23/08 at 11:05pm
Of course, this means that with the right amount of persusaion, Koch could run again. He expects to be around at least ten more years.

("If they want a parade, let them parade in front of the oil drums in Moonachie")
Reply
post #16 of 31
10/23/08 at 11:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post
The main problem with Mayor Bloomberg is he ignored the 2 previous public referendums...one in 1993 where 59% of New Yorkers voted for a 2 term limit on politicians, and then a whopping 89% in 1996. It gets worse than that though...Christine Quinn after arm twisting several dissenters to vote for a 3 term limit without a public referendum...steps down as head of the City Council to become Deputy Mayor under the man who would be King...Mayor Michael Bloomberg. On top of all that, there apparantly was a rainy day fund of taxpayer money that Bloomberg used to pay off the management council that decides whether or not there should even be a vote. Out of the 51 members of the City Council 35 of them would have been out of office if not for the new 3 term limits. 29 out of the 51 chose to extend the limits. Hopefully Bloomberg will be voted out of office and his would be deputy mayor Christine Quinn with him.
What he said.
Reply
post #17 of 31
10/23/08 at 11:19pm
Is NY trying to compete with Venezuela?

No, you don't get to change the law for yourself, you want to make it 3 terms go ahead and lobby for that but only let your successor be the first one to be able to benefit from that law not yourself.
Reply
post #18 of 31
10/24/08 at 12:09am
See, the thing is, I wouldn't even mind Bloomberg getting a third term. The problem with it is, is that's just the rules (for a reason), and you can't just go and change em'. It's just one of those things you have to think about for the future, because I don't think NY has a candidate that could do as good a job as Bloomberg did.

But to play devils advocate, if he ran and the people elected him, why the hell shouldn't he be allowed a third term?
Reply
post #19 of 31
10/24/08 at 4:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheShadows View Post
But to play devils advocate, if he ran and the people elected him, why the hell shouldn't he be allowed a third term?
No executive should be allowed more than two terms. Hell, I'm all for legislative term limits.
Reply
post #20 of 31
10/24/08 at 4:27am
Length and number is up for debate I suppose, but we've got 'em for a reason.
Reply
post #21 of 31
10/24/08 at 5:01am
No no no.

You don't want to go down this path. Elections are there to remove bad politicians, term limits are there to remove good ones. Eventually everyone in a position of authority has to go or it will end badly.
Reply
post #22 of 31
10/24/08 at 6:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
No no no.

You don't want to go down this path. Elections are there to remove bad politicians, term limits are there to remove good ones. Eventually everyone in a position of authority has to go or it will end badly.
But that's what I mean -- elections. It's a tired phrase, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence against it when it comes to career politicians, "They're in the business of getting elected..."

But yes, I get what you mean. The election is the "people's judgement" and it should end there. Problem is that the majority of the people aren't nearly informed enough to make that kind of a judgement.*






*Has no data.
Reply
post #23 of 31
10/24/08 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
Whoa.
Really. And the sad part is everybody else above board will have missed out on that.
Reply
post #24 of 31
10/24/08 at 1:01pm
Bloomberg knows how to run the city, and he's run it well. So did Giuliani and we all know what happened when he asked for another term after 9/11. If Rudy didn't get it then, Bloomberg isn't going to get it now.
Reply
post #25 of 31
10/24/08 at 1:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cordo View Post
Bloomberg knows how to run the city, and he's run it well. So did Giuliani and we all know what happened when he asked for another term after 9/11. If Rudy didn't get it then, Bloomberg isn't going to get it now.
Again, I'm a Bloomberg supporter and can't support a third term but these are not identical situations.

When Giuliani made his statement about staying on for a third term it was with less than two months to go before the election spurred in part because the primaries got messed up by 9/11.

It's further different in that the City Council has already suspended the law. Giuliani wasn't allowed to run for a third term only to get beat. He wasn't allowed to run at all. Bloomberg is allowed to run.

As Fleed mentioned, this wasn't a law passed by the Council and subsequently removed by the Council. It was passed by voter referendum and removed by the Council. It stinks.
Reply
post #26 of 31
10/24/08 at 8:31pm
Well, he can run so it doesn't matter anymore.
Reply
post #27 of 31
10/24/08 at 11:34pm
Isn't this push for a 3rd term also because there really isn't any one worthwhile up for the job? This basically reminds me of a book I had read about the 1940 election which stated the fact no one worthwhile could succeed Roosevelt, so he just ran again.

Frankly I am a believer in term limits although more so in the executive than legislative. While a great idea, it really has fucked up the legislature to ungodly clusterfuck it has become.
Reply
post #28 of 31
10/25/08 at 12:06am
Thread Starter 
There's 8 million people in New York. I'm pretty sure they could muster someone else up.
Reply
post #29 of 31
10/25/08 at 12:10am
From what I've heard the people that were considered as possible replacements were either lackluster or just lame.
Reply
post #30 of 31
10/25/08 at 12:24am
Yeah, I'm racking my brain trying to come up with a potential candidate who has the resources and the vision to run a mayoral campaign and would actually be good at the job, and I got nothing. I'm sure fleed or Devin or Alex will school my ass on this (that's not sarcasm), but myk's kind of right -- Mayor of New York City is a governor-level position, and not just anybody can do this job.

My favorite rumored contender (and this is from a while back) was Bill Clinton.
Reply
post #31 of 31
10/29/08 at 6:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Frankly I am a believer in term limits although more so in the executive than legislative. While a great idea, it really has fucked up the legislature to ungodly clusterfuck it has become.
I am against term limits in the legislative too. It is not like the executive branch where all the power is with one man. The power is already spread out between all the legislators within the body. If you constanly have only new faces in the government every 8 years, the non-elected bureaucrats end up wielding more power over policy because they are around much longer.

I think the term limits should only apply to the actual head of government, the presidents, governors, mayors, etc. In California, you have a bunch of government officials playing merry-go-round through the Secretary of State, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, etc. because of term limits. If we are going to keep voting in the same people to the government, might as well have them in the same post instead of having them taking turns in different offices.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Bloomberg's Attempt at a 3rd Term