TELL ME SOMETHING: IF MICHAEL BLOOMBERG IS MAYOR FOR A 3RD TIME, WHAT IS GOING TO STOP HIM FROM LEGISLATING FOR A 4TH TERM?

Okay, so many of you are going to say this is a stretch, but it isn’t: come next month, and let’s say Michael Bloomberg is elected to a third term as mayor (although I hope not), what is going to prevent him from overturning the term limits law again, and legislating himself a chance at being a four-term mayor? And furthermore, who is going to stop him? Pray tell.

The initial answer is as obvious as my handsome face: nothing. The secondary answer is even more obvious than my charm and wit: no one. Nothing and no one can stop Michael Bloomberg from going for a fourth term if he were to win again next month. Well, maybe the courts can (maybe).  

Remember when he won re-election four years ago and the question of overturning the term-limits referendums came up; he deftly said that it would be wrong to overturn the will of the people via two referendums (a max of two four-year terms for all city officials/ except District Attorneys). He stuck to this answer for almost three years. Then once he realized that he was out of electoral options (president, senate and governor were gone), he quickly turned into a politically immoral, and an ethically challenged elected. He had evolved into another politician whose credibility was in bankruptcy court. And the joke is that most of these electeds don’t seem to understand that credibility is like virginity: “once lost, it’s never regained”. 

Michael Bloomberg should change his first name to “John”; since he thinks he can purchase all of us New Yorkers for whatever immoral and self-serving aim he envisages. We New Yorkers -as voters- need to tell him that the “pussy” isn’t for sale. Not this time, not anymore: been there; done that; don’t feel good about it. 

Look; I don’t know much about these things, but I have been told that Bloomberg’s tenure in office, has become “the morning after the night before”. That’s when you wake up to some “bat-faced” girl or guy in your bed, and you can’t figure out what happened. (As I said, I don’t know much about these things).

The fact is this: Bloomberg has been a decent (though somewhat overrated) mayor of this city for the past eight years. I would take him over Rudy Giuliani any day of the year; any minute of the hour(s). But from now on there will always be an asterisk alongside his name and tenure. Look at the blogs and see the responses he has been drawing from columnists who are brave enough to confront the issue, honestly and fearlessly over the last fourteen months. There are many people in this naked city who are strong enough to put a “Not for Sale” sign on their chest, for when Bloomberg’s army of canvassers come calling.  And they have surely come a calling. They have knocked on close to a million doors since last year. They have mailed millions of colorful pieces of John’s literature. Still, they can’t put away Bill Thompson as yet. He is sticking around in the polls no matter how many obscene millions are spent. Bloomberg’s people aren’t too happy about this folks; they aren’t: no matter what they tell you.  

I believe I know the path to a victory for Bill Thompson. He should give me a call. He reads my blogs regularly and he will know how to find me. Bill Thompson is very close to a victory folks. Unlike my race, where I banked mainly on white voters to come out and vote me in, Bill Thompson has a reservoir of voters waiting for a call to arms. In the primary only 11% turned up, but in the general election it will be different.  The key is in knowing how to turn them on (and out).    

Nowadays -with most of these electeds- it isn’t about respect for voters anymore. It is all about whatever limited power they can accumulate and hold on too. It’s all about egoism and self-aggrandizement. You don’t trample the ideals of democracy -while the rest of the world is looking- just because you selfishly want another term in bed. Many voters know this. Many of them fully comprehend the deeper implications of what was done last October in the New York City Council. They know the blame falls on Bloomberg’s doorstep. He will pay for his disrespect.

When “John” Michael Bloomberg first took office in 2002, he was #48 on the annual “Forbes” billionaire’s list, and now (7years later) he is #8. All this on a one dollar income from his office. What’s that all about Alfie? Weren’t his holdings supposed to be in escrow? Weren’t his assets frozen? Is there something we need to know here? Isn’t an explanation forthcoming? And definitely before the election; no?

One of these days Charles Barron (just like “John” Michael Bloomberg) will wake up and smell the rancid aroma of credibility lost: then he too will understand what Bloomberg is feeling with every internal poll. No matter how much money “John” spends, he can’t seem to shake the hard core voters who keep telling the pollsters they will never vote for him again. No matter how big an edge one has as an elected, when you get to the place where “John” is, you will have trouble getting the respect you deserve. Sure, you can be re-elected because of the built-in advantages incumbency holds; but what about your legacy, and your decency, and your conscience, and your self-respect? 

You can have all the money in the world, but it cannot buy you class. A classy mayor -in Bloomberg’s position- would have returned term limits to the voters for another referendum.  And that’s why I say shame on Colin Powell. And shame on Mario Cuomo for his position-take on the term-limits extension legislation. That one hurt me no end. And shame on Peter Vallone and his lame-brained kids. And the comatose Ed (Crotch)Koch too. Shame on all of you. And even Lew Fidler, Al Vann and all the spineless councilmembers who voted yes on the extension bill. And shame on all those (male and female) notables who now support “John” Michael Bloomberg. As true leaders go, they are morally bankrupt. It appears that they are all for sale. That’s not real leadership: that’s prostitution.

A true leader leads by example: always. You always stand up for things that are right. No one should mess with the spirit of true democracy when millions all over the world shed blood and/or die for it, every day of the friggin week. No one: especially a multi-billionaire mayor, who should have known better. 

Stay tuned-in folks: I am not through with this one; look out for another column on this topic.



Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 4:07pm.
"When “John” Michael Bloomberg first took office in 2002, he was #48 on the annual 'Forbes' billionaire’s list, and now (7years later) he is #8. All this on a one dollar income from his office. What’s that all about Alfie?"

What that says is that with his own money on the line, Bloomberg was able to find succesors who could carry the ball at Bloomberg LLP, doing a better job than he did.

But for the city of New York, according to all the newspapers, he is personally indispensible. There is no Bloomberg movement, and there could be no Bloomberg candidate other than Bloomberg.

Not only is there nothing to stop Bloomberg from going for a fourth term, even if he doesn't want it I'd expect the City Council to push off term limits for themselves over his veto, now that he has lost moral authority.

Submitted by bklynpol on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 9:02pm.
I would strongly disagree with your assessment, Larry.  The fact is that while Bloomberg pretends to serve the City for $1 per year, he actually has earned billions.  The City has enhanced Bloomberg's name which is eponymous with his LLP.  Although he isn't taking funds directly from the coffers, he is earning billions from the name recognition New York City has afforded him.  That's his game.
Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 8:34am.
his third term may not be good for the company.
Submitted by Cynical Negro on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 10:25am.

Rock, you are 100% correct. Even the most casual observer understands that money - not issues, not personalities, not endorsements, not even name recognition - is the be all and end all in politics. Money drives everything else. In the vast majority of cases, underfunded campaigns are losing campaigns.

However, it was somewhat surprising that here, in (supposedly) the largest liberal-big city in America, one of the world's wealthiest men could singlehandedly weaken the underpinnings of representative democracy and subvert the will of the voting public by literally buying people off. Done in any other country, such conduct would be harshly and justifiably criticized by the media.

Nevertheless, can Thompson overtake Bloomberg? He's not yet reached all of the people he needs to pull the lever for him. With Bloomberg stuck around 50% in most polls, Thompson needs to make this election the referendum on Bloomberg that the public itself was denied when Bloomberg changed turn limits.

Hurry and post your next column.
Submitted by James (not verified) on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 2:16am.

It is true that the money Bloomberg is pouring into his campaign is distorting the democratic process but whats worse is that his actions have set a very *dangerous* precedent for other cities and other seats of government.

 Then again that is what you get when people constantly misidentify this country as a Constitutional Democracy when in fact it is supposed to be a Constitutional Representative Republic.

Granted I think our country has become more of an Oligarchical Plutocracy than anything else, which would explain why Bloomberg could get away with such nonsense :\ 


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.