Today's news that Bloomberg will seek a second term, and the prompt stamp of approval from the arbiter of the city's reform movement, the Times edit board, sent me back to the September 28, 2001 editorial titled "The Mayor's Dangerous Idea."

They wrote then:

Neither New York City nor the nation has ever postponed the transfer of power because the public was convinced it could not get along without the current incumbent. The very concept goes against the most basic of American convictions, that we live in a nation governed by rule of law.

Today's case is technically a bit different. City Hall is legally within its rights, even if there's something a bit "uncomfortable," as the Times puts it, about using the City Council to undo a referendum. But the core argument is the same: In this unprecedented moment of crisis, we can't do without this "effective and popular" individual.

"Not to serve any individual’s political career" -- of course -- "but to serve the larger cause of democracy."