A Billionaire for Bloomberg dropped by the site last night and left a comment with a link to this video. He wanted folks to see this clip arguing the case to “let Bloomberg finish” what he started. Indeed.
Since I am all for giving both sides an opportunity to argue their position (although one could say that the Mayor has much of the media locked in taking care of that for him), here it is:
Spread the love
Pretty funny — and scary. All at the same time.
Dead on. I’m so used to not being surprised by what is true in this city under Bloomberg, that I actually was worried before watching the clip that there was a serious group called “Billionaires for Bloomberg” that put out an ad advocating for their interests without cracking up mid breath… There have literally been instances where I’ve laughed out loud at news in the city, thinking for sure it was an ingenious bit of satire, to find out that it was, in fact, REAL. You always have to question the motivations of someone who wants to overturn term limits while they are in office. I mean come on. The implications are pretty obvious. Great video!
Yup, there are “still poor people” (ME!!)
And, we ain’t going away. KK
No way I’m for Bloomberg, but you bring up the issue of term limits.
I’m struggle on this issue.
In one sense, getting rid of term limits allows the voters to decide.
In another, I imagine term limits “might” make the candidate less calculating. She or he knows she or he can’t run again so may tend to waste less time on the campaign and spend more time working for the city.
If term limits are good maybe we should have them across the board. Maybe it would bring some fresh ideas to our Congress too.
Hi Bruce,
It’s good to weigh the pros and cons definitely. I’m sure we’ve seen where it can be good and where it can be ‘bad.’ But if someone is an incumbent who then runs again for the same office, they do still need to “campaign” but perhaps not as strenuously as if they run for another (higher) office.
I think actually the Mayor’s office should be two terms and perhaps the OTHERS could be three but, then again, I wouldn’t want to see Christine Quinn in again. I think she took her political ambitions and ran amok. Now, if she didn’t have to leave after two terms and could stay in City Council, would she have been less ambitious and reckless because she knew that she only had to run for City Council vs. the higher office of Mayor…? I don’t know. But a principled public official would not do what she did and just follow Bloomberg’s lead again and again.
Also, if what these people (the media mostly) are arguing is that BLOOMBERG is so important – which I’d question a million times over – why are we presented with only the option of getting them ALL back? It’s because it’s political favors – the city council does what bloomberg wishes and he takes them along for the ride.
No matter what the ultimate term limit decision IS, it’s time for Bloomberg and Quinn to GO and I’d say the rest of this crew of City Council members, except for a few exceptions. This maneuver alone is worthy of ousting them all, first and foremost, Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Thanks for raising the issue and your thoughts on it.
Cathryn.
WSP Blog