Report: Bloomberg Will Run for Third Term

[Matt Molnar]

NY Times:

Bloomberg Called Ready to Announce Third-Term Bid (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html)

By MICHAEL BARBARO and DAVID W. CHEN
Published: September 30, 2008

After months of speculation about his political future, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg plans to announce on Thursday morning that he will seek a third term as mayor, according to three people who have been told of his plans.

The extraordinary move promises to upend New York City’s political world.

Right now, Mr. Bloomberg is barred by law from seeking re-election. But he will propose trying to revise the city’s 15-year-old term limits law, which would otherwise force him and dozens of other elected leaders out of office in 2009, the three people said.
On one hand I don't like the idea of changing the law, but given our piss poor alternatives in the next mayoral election (Wiener? Quinn? Thompson?) and the very real possibility of a return to "Dinkins Time" thanks to the implosion of Wall St, I'll vote for Bloomberg again.

[bonanzabucks]

I would vote for him too.

I'll just add that my first job when I moved to NYC was working the the NYC Office of Management and Budget. I worked under both Giuliani and Bloomberg Administrations and while Giuliani was good, Bloomberg was much better and a much more pleasant and rational person to work under. If it wasn't for him, the city would have been in a difficult situation after 9/11, but his rationality and clear-thinking got us through that mess. I'm only disappointed that he didn't run for President.

[wunaladreamin]

On one hand I don't like the idea of changing the law, but given our piss poor alternatives in the next mayoral election (Wiener? Quinn? Thompson?)

Add Ray Kelly to the list. Popeye has been positioning himself for a run ever since he became Commissioner.

Gloomturd should be told what he told Rudy..


To serve the city in a voluntary capacity, and leave office like the law dictates!!

Its a self serving statement to say that we can elect a new POTUS in these tough financial times, but that NYC can't switch mayors because Bloomberg is the only one who can lead us at this time!!

[NIKV69]

Gloomturd should be told what he told Rudy..


To serve the city in a voluntary capacity, and leave office like the law dictates!!

Its a self serving statement to say that we can elect a new POTUS in these tough financial times, but that NYC can't switch mayors because Bloomberg is the only one who can lead us at this time!!


I wasn't the biggest fan of term limits and always thought you shouldn't have to leave until the people voted you out but the law is the law and he did shoot Rudy down when he asked for a small extension after his term. Now Bloomberg wants 4 years. Interesting.

[bonanzabucks]

By the way, I have met Bloomberg, Giuliani, Mark Green and a few of the others who have run for mayor (Freddie Ferrer) or are on city counsel. Ferrer was an ass. Giuliani was kind of a jerk, but he's very smart. Bloomberg is a VERY nice guy and VERY smart. And Mark Green, although I totally disagree with his politics, he is a VERY nice guy too, which surprised the hell out of me because I thought he would be a pompous ass. I actually saw him again on the subway and he was kind of dressed like a bum and he remembered me and said "hi". His wife is gorgeous and very classy. Oddly enough, she was dressed really well and he hadn't shaved in two days and was dressed in tracks.

[PhilDernerJr]

I agree that the term limits shouldn't be abused, but I do agree that Bloomberg is the best for us these days.

I say just let the people speak. Let him run....if he wins...then that's that.

[Matt Molnar]

I say just let the people speak. Let him run....if he wins...then that's that.
Exactly. He's not pulling a Hugo Chavez where he wants to become supreme leader indefinitely...there will still be an election, where the people can vote him out if they want.

As for the comparison to Rudy's bid to stay, I think the situation is a lot different. By January 2002, the city was well on the road to recovery, and there simply wasn't much of a compelling reason for Rudy to hang around. Today, we are just beginning a dive into what will probably be some very dark times for the city with no prospect for recovery for many years.

[moose135]

Its a self serving statement to say that we can elect a new POTUS in these tough financial times, but that NYC can't switch mayors because Bloomberg is the only one who can lead us at this time!!
Well said, Kenny. I have mixed feelings about term-limit laws, but I don't like the idea of changing the rules in the middle of the game. If you want to eliminate the law, fine, but it needs to take effect for the next person elected. And don't forget, with no other changes, Bloomberg will be office for another 15 months. If we are still in a "crisis" at that time, I don't think it matters much who the mayor is.

[Tom_Turner]

It'll matter who the mayor is if we get someone like David Dinkins again.

No Thanks.

Tom

[NIKV69]

I say just let the people speak

They did, they voted for term limits. Two terms and your out.


Exactly. He's not pulling a Hugo Chavez where he wants to become supreme leader indefinitely

In a way he is. He does not like the laws and he is trying to change them mid game. Also like Kenny said it's incredibly self serving and also pompous and elitist for himself or anyone like you or me to think he is the only one to lead NYC.


As for the comparison to Rudy's bid to stay, I think the situation is a lot different. By January 2002, the city was well on the road to recovery, and there simply wasn't much of a compelling reason for Rudy to hang around

So let me get this straight. Rudy did a good job but he had to go. Bloomberg is doing a good job but just because you think we are going to have tough times for years to come he can stay? Matt this is lunacy. Also your constant doom and gloom outlook on NYC as well as the rest of the country is not helping. You seem to think our market would crash and we would all be on the bread lines after the bailout vote went down in the house. Well looking at the market that hasn't happened and I would wait a little before you condemn our complete economy. It is also not a strong argument to bring Bloomberg back for a third term. Let the system work for everyone and not give a pass to the candidates you like.

[PhilDernerJr]

Rudy CHOSE to not run again. He wasn't shot down.

Bailout or not, I don't think bread lines are the far of a stretch for us, to be honest. I want Mr. Moneybags himself in the office.

Don't like it? Vote for the other guy. Oh, wait, you live on Long Island. :wink:

You have the luxury of not potentially having Mark Green as your Mayor.

[moose135]

Rudy CHOSE to not run again. He wasn't shot down.
Sorry, I hate to ruin your argument with facts, but the law prevented him from running again. He did float the idea of extending his term several months in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

From the NY Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE3DA113AF934A1575AC0A9679C8B 63)

THE NEW YORK PRIMARY: THE INCUMBENT; GIULIANI EXPLORES A TERM EXTENSION OF 2 OR 3 MONTHS
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER WITH MICHAEL COOPER
Published: September 27, 2001

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was exploring the possibility yesterday of getting the three mayoral candidates to agree to an extension of his term for two or three months to ease the transition to a new administration, as New York attempts to recover from a terrorist attack...

But the mayor also appeared to be setting aside, at least for now, his and his staff's flirtation with a full third term, after receiving a lukewarm reception from some top lawmakers who were reluctant to overturn the term limits law. Voters twice approved term limits in the 1990's, restrictions that are forcing Mr. Giuliani to leave office.

[Matt Molnar]

So let me get this straight. Rudy did a good job but he had to go. Bloomberg is doing a good job but just because you think we are going to have tough times for years to come he can stay?
Rudy's bid was last minute and would have had no input from the voters. Bloomberg is doing an end around the voters as far as the law goes, but they still get to decide if he stays in office.

The term limits law was voted in mainly because people were sick of our useless city council members doing nothing for decades at at time.


Matt this is lunacy. Also your constant doom and gloom outlook on NYC as well as the rest of the country is not helping. You seem to think our market would crash and we would all be on the bread lines after the bailout vote went down in the house. Well looking at the market that hasn't happened and I would wait a little before you condemn our complete economy.
Thankfully I know more about the city and state governments than I do about the markets. :)

The city and especially the state were on the fast track to broke even with the billions they were pulling in from Wall St, which is where they got 10% of their tax revenue from. Even if there is a successful bailout plan, when all is said and done tens of thousands of jobs in the city are going to be lost directly (bankers, bank administrative staff, janitors in those banks' skyscrapers) and indirectly (restaurants, cigar shops, and strippers those bankers will no longer frequent). Thousands of apartments where those folks lived, and even large apartment buildings themselves are going to be foreclosed upon. Property tax revenues are going to plummet.


It is also not a strong argument to bring Bloomberg back for a third term.
Unlike many of our other leaders, he has always advocated restraint in spending during plush times so we wouldn't be completely screwed during Wall St. downturns. Who knows how much worse it would be if not for him?


Let the system work for everyone and not give a pass to the candidates you like.
Nick if you lived in NYC, saw conditions already beginning to deteriorate, and knew anything about the sorry alternatives we are going to have in the next election, you'd probably be a bit skittish, too.

[Tom_Turner]

This isn't Bloomberg doing this thing on his own, right? The Council is going to overturn that particular law that was put in place during the City Charter exercise some years back... Thats just the way it goes. Laws change. :lol:

If the Senate can hand over 700Billion (and there'll be more to come after that), as surely as we can go to Iraq and change the story year to year, certainly the city can change a term limits rule.

While much of the rogues gallery that was city government in the 60s/70/ and early 80s- and they really did act and even look like Villains out of Batman or Dick Tracy - are now off the scene, there's apprentice and novice crooks, kooks, incompetents, busybodies, and social engineers (far worse the Bloomberg on the latter) waiting for their turn.

We'd be better off with Bloomberg than that silly Anthony Weiner or a maniac socialist racial arsonist like Charles Barron. Wouldn't we?

Of course perhaps Rudy can run for Governor this time.

Tom

[moose135]

Interesting AP article (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jpzbVnsi4wA6i41pQJcS334ACndQD93HNMI80)

For a long time, Mayor Michael Bloomberg seemed to despise the very notion of changing a voter-approved law restricting elected officeholders to two terms in office.

When a bill reached his desk in 2002 that would have extended the terms for some officials, he vetoed it. He said the proposed law was wrong because elected officials shouldn't be changing rules to benefit themselves politically. But Bloomberg now appears to have reversed himself. He wants to change the law and run for a third term.
- and -


In 2006, Bloomberg scoffed at the notion that an individual could be truly irreplaceable.

"My experience in business has been, whenever we've had somebody who was irreplaceable, their successor invariably did a better job, and I think change is good," he said.

I found this NY Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/nyregion/29limits.html?em) interesting also:

Top Bloomberg Aides Said to Oppose Third Term
By MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: August 28, 2008

As he weighs a bid to rewrite New York City’s term limits, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is encountering an unlikely group of opponents: his own aides.

Three of Mr. Bloomberg’s most trusted advisers at City Hall — Deputy Mayors Edward Skyler, Patricia E. Harris and Kevin Sheekey — have confided to associates that they oppose revising the city’s election laws so that he can seek a third term, according to people familiar with the conversations.

The objections, from the three most influential aides in the administration, offer a glimpse into the spirited debate inside City Hall over Mr. Bloomberg’s political future. And the debate exposes a crack in the administration’s reputation for squabble-free, unified command.
You are right, Tom, the City Council would have to change the law, as it is too late to get it on the ballot for this November (not sure how it works in the city, as twice city voters have voted in favor of term limits.) But given that overturning term limits would also allow the Council to run again, do you think they would put up any significant opposition?

[Tom_Turner]

But given that overturning term limits would also allow the Council to run again, do you think they would put up any significant opposition?

Nope. They know whats best for the city and they love their jobs.. :wink:

The single person most in need of a "term limit" is Shelly Silver at this point. Its really Albany that needs to be cleaned up, but thats probably never going to happen.

Tom

[NIKV69]

The term limits law was voted in mainly because people were sick of our useless city council members doing nothing for decades at at time.



Come on Matt, we are not going to play monday morning quarterback with a bill that passed 15 years ago? Term limits was proposed, put to a vote and it passed. Now because it doesn't suit your pick from NYC governor it passed for the wrong reasons?




The city and especially the state were on the fast track to broke even with the billions they were pulling in from Wall St, which is where they got 10% of their tax revenue from. Even if there is a successful bailout plan, when all is said and done tens of thousands of jobs in the city are going to be lost directly (bankers, bank administrative staff, janitors in those banks' skyscrapers) and indirectly (restaurants, cigar shops, and strippers those bankers will no longer frequent). Thousands of apartments where those folks lived, and even large apartment buildings themselves are going to be foreclosed upon. Property tax revenues are going to plummet.


Matt this happens all the time. Car dealerships, IBM, bars, businesses everywhere downsizes and lay people off when the economy slows down and starts up again when it turns. It has been happening since the beginning of time and will continue long after we are dust. Doesn't mean Bloomberg is the chosen one and the only guy qualified to be mayor of NYC nor does it mean the city will collapse if he doesn't try to circumvent term limits.



Nick if you lived in NYC, saw conditions already beginning to deteriorate, and knew anything about the sorry alternatives we are going to have in the next election, you'd probably be a bit skittish, too.

Do you think NYC is the only geographical area that is experiencing this? Matt come on you are looking at this from a very narrow, insular point of view. Nassua, Suffolk hell the whole country is going through this. I spoke to some friends in Nevada where I winter and they are all hurting. Doesn't mean that no other candidate can run the show. Your getting way ahead of the situation. If you can already tell two years down the road that the other candidates for NYC mayor are going to be inferior to bloomberg can you tell me who win the super bowl this year and what the score will be?

[Tom_Turner]

Nick, good points as always, but odds are overwhelming a Bloomberg alternative will be some career politician owing favors to their contributors, their party etc. not some great leader.

Rudy and now Bloomberg are historical anomalies. Despite their faults, we've been very lucky in my view. These guys are overseeing a bigger budget and more folks and services than say, the Governor of Arkansas or some feckless Senator. It is a big deal.

I hope you're right about the economy, but just remember Rome only last a thousand years give or take, and we're not quite there even. Of course, having a $hitload of nukes might count for something at the end of the day. (or might not).

I've seen it suggested the monetary system gets reinvented every few decades or so and we might have more stability if we based the world currency on heroin. :wink:

Tom

[moose135]

These guys are overseeing a bigger budget and more folks and services than say, the Governor of Arkansas or some feckless Senator.
I think you meant the Governor of Alaska or some feckless Senator. :D

Maybe you guys are right - maybe Bloomberg is planning to fund the city out of his own pocket. Then it would be a good idea to keep him around.

[PhilDernerJr]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-abraham-lincoln-inexperienced-illinois-senator.jpg

[Matt Molnar]

Do you think NYC is the only geographical area that is experiencing this? Matt come on you are looking at this from a very narrow, insular point of view. Nassua, Suffolk hell the whole country is going through this. I spoke to some friends in Nevada where I winter and they are all hurting. Doesn't mean that no other candidate can run the show. Your getting way ahead of the situation. If you can already tell two years down the road that the other candidates for NYC mayor are going to be inferior to bloomberg can you tell me who win the super bowl this year and what the score will be?

Nick I'm not usually such a doom and gloomer. I'm one of the most optimistic people I know. But when I think back to not that long ago, not even half a generation ago, when vast swaths of the city were simply unnavigable without weapons, and violent street crime had begun creeping into traditionally "nice" neighborhoods well outside the traditionally "bad" neighborhoods, and I think about who was in charge back then, it's friggin' scary. Why? Because one thing is almost 100% certain: Bloomberg's replacement will be another Democrat with ancestors from Tammany Hall, maybe not in the same vein as Dinkins and Koch and Boss Tweed, but still answering to some of the same old hacks who haven't died yet.

[PhilDernerJr]

Gotham's right. When the economy is in the pooper, crime tends to go up (which it is already), and I think that with we need someone who will be tough on crime and quality of life in addition to the economy, which I think Bloomberg has proven. I am getting older, and God forbid I have kids, I don't want them growing up in an NYC thatis similar to what it was in the 70s and 80s.

What's the harm in him seeking a 3rd term? If people don't want it, then they can vote and show it.