« This is rare | Main | Media bias or just plain indifference? »

A third term for Mike?

I realize Mike Bloomberg is hardly the first politician to reverse his stance on term limits, but there's something particularly galling about this. It's probably because I recall how critical he was of a proposal during the darkest days of post-9/11 New York, not to repeal the two-term limit, but to extend Giuliani's second term by three months. While Giuliani favored this proposal for a time, the idea did not originate with him, but from a concerned and frightened citizenry who were desperately seeking stability (Giuliani, for the record, is supportive of Bloomberg's bid.)

Bloomberg attributes his reversal to the current economic climate, claiming the city needs his guidance through uncertain times. Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the current liquidity crisis in the credit markets rise to the level of 9/11. And even so, it turns out that New Yorkers made it through the mayoral transition in 2001 just fine.


Term limits suck, always have and always will.

Bloomberg in '09!

Term Limits are absolutely necessary.

There's no such thing as "politician" as a career path.

Anyone who thinks any of today's Pols actually planned out such a path or intended to make a career out of winning popularity contests is insipid or insane or both.

A "political career" is an accident.

No one should be allowed to spend more than eight years in ANY elected office in ANY combination.

I know we're not losing "the best and brightest" to politics (and we don't want to) BUT even these folks should get back into the public sector and really try and "make a difference" where it counts.

Sez who? Oh that's right, sez YOU!

I'll take a super-competent Bloomberg for another four years over an Anthony Weiner or one of the Democratic clubhouse pols waiting in the wings or a Mark Green...I'm not really interested in reversing many of the gains of the past 16 years.

Bloomberg's been at best, a mixed bag, Fred.

He's no fiscal conservative. He's overspent radically in civil service hirings and has doled out some very generous Civil Service contracts all around recently. What do I say about that last one?

Thanks a lot! I'm just hoping the private sector continues to put up with this.

Like any regular, run-of-the-mill pol, Bloomberg spent like the Wall St good times would never end, so on that score I see little difference between him and, say, Bill Thompson or Ray Kelly, BOTH of whom would have a better shot in the next election than Weiner would.

I can prove that there is no such thing as "political expertise" - her name is Carolyn McCarthy, who seamlessly went from Long Island housewife to Rep. McCarthy.


Because there's no such thing as political requirements or expertise.

That's the sad and ugly truth - our "politicians" don't really know much more, if ANY more about governance and world affairs than does the local plumber.

They DO know a lot more about how to win popularity contests, but that's really about it.

Back in the day, when the U.S. Congress was peopled primarily by farmers, I would've thought we'd come to see a day when more bakers and candle-makers would populate those hallowed halls in the future, not mere dullard lawyers.

I guess that only proves that even past generations of Americans dropped the ball on that score.

Have you met any candle-makers, Fred?

I have and two of them are just about the smartest people I've ever met.....awwww, if we only had more candle-makers and bakers in politics, I'm pretty sure we'd all be a LOT better off.

Those folks at least tend to have the humility to acknowledge their own limitations.

Post a comment