Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The End | Pallin' Around With Scarerrori... »

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Mayor Forever

posted by on October 9 at 7:18 AM

Killing term limits?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Wednesday secured a fellow billionaire’s once-wavering support to change the city’s term-limits law, even as other obstacles formed to the politician’s attempt to extend his tenure.

On some track, a rapper, I think it’s Dr. Dre, describes his situation in the hiphop world as: “…running things like a mayor.” Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, the city that birthed hiphop, evidently wants to run things like a dictator.

RSS icon Comments


He keeps asking for a break on term limits so he can stay in office, and New Yorkers keep saying NO. Now that we won't give it to him, he's going to take it. GTFO Bloomberg. We have term limits for a reason.

Posted by Red | October 9, 2008 7:15 AM

If New Yorkers don't want him they should vote for someone else not have their options to re-elect him withheld.

Term limits are bullshit.

I have no opinion on Bloomberg.

Posted by patrick | October 9, 2008 7:24 AM

We are supposed to have term limits; they're called elections.

BTW, the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution was pushed by the Republicans in retaliation to FDR. Term limits deny voters choice. AND if a genuine emergency arises at the end of a President's second term the country does not have the option (though an overwhelming majority may want it) of keeping the sitting President in office for another term.

Term limits are bad. POWER TO THE VOTER!!!!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | October 9, 2008 7:24 AM

Thing is, Bloomie's not doing this for power, certainly not for the money, he's actually doing it because he's a great manager. And you know what? New York City has never been run better in it's entire history.

Posted by Steve | October 9, 2008 7:41 AM

He's not the first NY Mayor to try this. I lived in NY on 9/11 - when Giuliani's term was coming to an end and he wanted to do the same thing. He failed. Bloomberg will most likely fail, too.

I personally think term limits are not a bad thing. There is so much corruption in government - getting new people in every few years (in NYC mayoral terms, every 8 years) is not a bad thing. I sure don't want someone like GWB and his cronies deciding they get to stay in office forever because we're at war - a needless war they started and have perpetuated ad nauseum during their entire administration and if they had their way would continue until the end of days.

Posted by xina | October 9, 2008 7:47 AM

RE: #4 - New York City has never been run better in it's entire history.

Really? That's a pretty bold statement - care to back it up with any facts? Do you now or have you ever lived in New York City?

Posted by xina | October 9, 2008 7:50 AM

I wish Seattle had term limits.

@3: you don't work for nickels, do you?

Posted by Trevor | October 9, 2008 7:54 AM

Term limits are great ways to remind the idiot electorate to vote out incumbents who don't actually do anything. So naturally, we put them on executive offices instead of legislative offices, where they would be much more useful.

I'm not complaining too much though. Bloomberg may have to go, but Florida managed to rid themselves of a Bush two years early because of term limits.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | October 9, 2008 7:54 AM

you might be surprised, but many new yorkers are for a 3rd term and I think he'll get it. he's smart, successful, and very popular even in the midst of the problems on wall street. - does no one remember when he was floating the idea of running for president and it was getting serious traction?

Posted by westcoastn | October 9, 2008 7:59 AM

Living in Chicago, mayoral term limits are sort of a foreign concept to me. Daley will be mayor until he decides he doesn't want to be anymore. And honestly, most people don't care all that much -- he gets things done (even if occasionally the things that he does are a little suspect).

If we didn't like him, we wouldn't keep voting him in.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | October 9, 2008 8:05 AM

Bloomberg is an excellent argument for the repeal of term limits.

Why NYC wouldn't want to maintain its financially astute leader at this point in time, I have no idea. At any rate, they should be given the chance to decide for themselves.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | October 9, 2008 8:15 AM

I am in favor of recalls and against term limits. I am consistant. Nickels should be recalled or face serious challengers next year.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | October 9, 2008 8:20 AM

There is a big difference between limits on Presidential terms and on state/local leaders.

There vetting process is much longer and more well funded for national elections. State/local reps have much less money and power to work with - to get anything done while in office and to get elected.

Posted by patrick | October 9, 2008 8:25 AM

I agree that term limits deny voters of choices. Worse, in California (where they are severe for legislatures) they put all the power in the hands of the lobbyists, who remain the only bearers of institutional power. How's that supposed to keep government accountable to voters? Term limits are not a solution to the problem.

Posted by Raphael | October 9, 2008 8:29 AM

Bloomie is the shit. A much better Mayor than Giuliani or Dinkins ever was. Don't know if he lives up to the loveability of Ed Koch though. I've lived in NY for all four's terms, and Bloomie has really turned the city around after Giuliani fucked it like a plunger in Abner Louima's ass.

Posted by Brian | October 9, 2008 8:35 AM

And, yes, Charles, it was Dre who wrote the lyric in question. It's from "Keep Their Heads Ringin'" off the Friday soundtrack. It's no "Nothing But a G Thang," but classic Dre nonetheless.

Posted by Brian | October 9, 2008 8:38 AM

I'll take three terms of Bloomberg in Seattle. Maybe something, anything, would get done.

Posted by heywhatsit | October 9, 2008 8:38 AM

People voted for Bloomberg because he was part of the Heroes of Wall Street and they thought he would bring prosperity. Now he's just another Bank Failure, Bailout, Hey, There's No Money in the Safe Guys.

Posted by John Bailo | October 9, 2008 8:50 AM

@12, in theory I suppose we agree but I have a very high threshold for moving forward with a recall -- pretty much high crimes and misdemeanors kinda stuff.

It strikes me as partisan drama queening to mount a recall every time some politician makes a dunder-headed policy move or exhibits general ineptitude. To the former, you can't please everyone all the time and to the latter, It's relatively rare for a previously accomplished pol to suddenly turn stupid in office so if the guy/gal turns out to be inept, many voters probably already knew it so you gets who ya votes for..."tough titty" as the scholar once wrote.

Recalls should be saved for moments of criminal action or such gross misconduct of the role that actual damage to the civic structure -- or citizens themselves -- results. And yes, there are a thousand ways to define that -- all the more reason to keep the "nuclear option" of the recall in the bottle till it's truly useful.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | October 9, 2008 8:50 AM

There's nothing dictatorship-y about opposing term limits. Bloomberg would like to stay in office. A lot of people would like him to stay in office. None of that really matters, because it's not an extension of his term (which is what I think Giuliani tried to do after Sept. 11). It's an election. If people want him out, they can vote for his opponent.

Posted by Kristen | October 9, 2008 9:05 AM

I understand the appeal of term limits, but I still think they're a terrible idea. If enough people want Bloomberg (or whoever) to stay in office, let him.

Unless, of course, our elections are so crooked that there's really no way to know what the electorate wants.

Posted by Ben | October 9, 2008 2:36 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.