October 23, 2008

"A sad day for New York’s democracy"?

So Bloomberg got his way.

49 comments:

Simon said...

New York has forgotten that the office is bigger than the man.

Eli Blake said...

I'm no fan of Bloomberg, but I'm fundamentally against term limits. It seems that people who back term limits are really saying that they think the voters are too stupid to decide on their own when it is time to throw the bum out.

XWL said...

A preview of 2015, perhaps?

The One can not be limited to just two measly terms.

The One will have just barely begun to perfect this nation by that time, he'll need at least 4 or 5 terms beyond that to really be The Change We Need.

(by 2036, maybe one of his daughters will be ready to take over)

Simon said...

Admirable forethought, Eli, just admirable... Some seven or eight years ahead of the deadline and you're already sowing the seeds. Bravo. "I've been saying for years that the voters can decide for themselves whether they want to reelect Barack..." My hat is off to you, sir.

mccullough said...

Wow, there are 3 Republicans in the NYC City Council. I thought there were 0.

Maybe Rudy will now run against Bloomberg.

Actually, I think Bill Clinton would be a great mayor for New York City.

mccullough said...

Obama will not have more than one term.

jdeeripper said...

"A sad day for New York’s democracy"?

Of course it is undemocratic to allow the voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.

We need to limit choices as much as possible to prevent mob rule.

blake said...

Actually, I'm with Eli, in theory.

People should be able to vote in who they want. Also, there's the matter of always having inexperienced people in office, going against dedicated, lifelong special interest groups.

In practice, of course, those in office have the power to construct massive roadblocks to others seeking office. And they do.

The Dems and Reps do it to third parties, and they do it to each other.

The real question is what is the problem term limits are meant to solve, and do they solve them?

mccullough said...

Anyone think Bloomberg was in favor of repealing term limits back in 2001?

Me neither.

Buford Gooch said...

New Yorkers may be dumb enough to vote to re-elect a man who just overrode their previous votes making him ineligible. And the stupid ones are in fly over country?

mcg said...

It seems that people who back term limits are really saying that they think the voters are too stupid to decide on their own when it is time to throw the bum out.

And a majority of the city's voters twice decided that's what they think of themselves. So be it.

The Drill SGT said...

Eli Blake said...
I'm no fan of Bloomberg, but I'm fundamentally against term limits. It seems that people who back term limits are really saying that they think the voters are too stupid to decide on their own when it is time to throw the bum out.


Unless of course that the people, as reflected in their democratic votes (twice) recognize that the power of incumbancy, and the record of incumbent abuse, requires another solution.

rhhardin said...

It's a representative democracy. They can ignore the voters.

Some brief commentary at econtalk.org at 20:40, in the larger context of spontaneous organizations.

Revenant said...

People should be able to vote in who they want.

Terms limits in NYC were, according to the article, enacted by term limits. If the majority of people REALLY wanted Bloomberg to be Mayor again, they could pass a new initiative extending or eliminating the term limits. So there is no sense in which democracy is being thwarted here.

The way our system works, voters are generally faced with two candidates to choose from; in rare cases, they might get a small handful of options. It is entirely possible -- in fact, LIKELY -- that most of the electorate doesn't want ANY of those candidates holding the job. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a solid majority of Americans doesn't want either McCain or Obama to be the next President, for example. Term limits are a way for that majority to clear the decks of unwanted politicians.

If you can't stand the current officeholder, you've basically got one alternative: the other party. If THAT party nominates a loser (as the Democrats did in '04 and the Republicans in '96) then you've got no option. Term limits improve the available choices by periodically forcing the ruling party to nominate a fresh face.

Nichevo said...

Well, at least now we can get Giuliani back.

Bissage said...

I know they used to say: "Anything you want you can find it in New York City."

Still true?

Trooper York said...

Nanny Bloomberg is an evil and corrupt man who has sold off whole sections of New York City to his real estate cronies. The Nets deal in Central Brooklyn, the waterfront along Williamsburg, the Brooklyn Piers and the West sides of Manhattan and the current rape of Willets Point are all part of carving up of the city eased by having this corrupt boss in charge. The reason why there has been no uproar is because he pays everyone off to shut up. The neighborhood activists like Al Sharpton and Rev. Draughty and Calvin Butts in Harlem were all bought off. Charles Barron and Albert Vann your caped crusaders took the money for their political action committees and shut up. The good government league types know better than to challenge his checkbook so he will donate to their charities. Even Ronald Lauder the moneybags guy who led the fight was shitting his drawers and made a deal because he is afraid of Bloomberg’s money and power. It is ludicrous to think that no one could do the job of Mayor other than Bloomberg. The journalistic whores and the pigs in the City Council will do as they are told or be cut off from the largess of Nanny Bloomberg. He is an evil and corrupt man, contempous of his fellow citizens. A plutocrat of the old school much like John Jacob Astor and the Rockefellers. He is a common type in the history of New York City. Boss Tweed with a better publicist. He knows better than the plebeians about what they should smoke, how they should vote and even what they can eat.

But I do not despair. Third terms for New York City mayors always turn out to be a disaster. There will be a corruption scandal in the third term because there always is one and hopefully he won’t be able to buy his way out of it. It would be a sin and a shame if the most corrupt mayor since Fernando Wood could escape from the consequences of his crimes unscathed.

Did I mention that Bloomberg is evil and corrupt?

mccullough said...

Trooper:

Don't worry. President Obama will make sure his DOJ takes Bloomberg down. Bloomberg is a threat to Obama.

Bob said...

Trooper, I'm sensing you're not a big donor of his? Term limits help act more like the founding fathers originally thought. That we wouldn't have a permenant ruling class. That you would go in, serve, and then leave. Not become, like Byrd, a fixture in the institution. That you'd have to go out into the "real world". Of course Bloomy did pretty well on that last count. Given that he's an Independent what does it say about our two political parties? And as an upstate New Yorker I just know that somehow I'm going to pay dearly for this.

Trooper York said...

This is the type of elitist douche bag that Nanny Bloomberg is, the worthless prick.

In the first year he was Mayor, the Mets were in a playoff game. Hard to believe right? Anyway since your Mets fan is usually a drunken asshole from Long Island, they all decide to tail gate in the Shea Stadium Parking Lot. Nanny Bloomberg sends the cops in to enforce the open container law in which you get a summons for drinking a beer in an open container outside. Usually you get that if you outside a bar or walking the streets
waving around a bottle. But they give all the working class guys a ticket for having a beer while they are grilling a hot dog before the game. They gave out about 11,000 tickets.
A big brew-ha-ha ensued.

Later that weekend, there was a Shakespeare in the Park performance in Central Park. Many thousands of your upper west side and Upper East Side elitists had picnic baskets with cheese and brie and bottles of wine. Nobody got a ticket.

When asked why this was so, Nanny Bloomberg said that the people in Central Park were “a better class of people” and would be well behaved so it was appropriate that they could enjoy a little wine with the Bard. But the plebeians had to be kept in line.

Did I mention that Bloomberg is evil and corrupt?

Simon said...

I basically agree with Rev as a general matter. I think that term limits have some problems (the "yes minister" phenonomon is the only one that I think's seriously - I don't think that the "let the people vote for who they want" argument is a particularly compelling argument when arrayed against the advantages of incumbency and entrenched party rule), but are on the whole a good.

That said, I do think that the best way to do term limits - not least because it nullifies arguments about letting people elect who they want - is a consecutive rather than lifetime rule. So, in congress, for example, one might set a term limit of any twelve years in any sixteen years. The goal can't be to micromanage. It can't be to keep good people - or even bad people - out of office. The goal must be to defease the advantages of incumbency to improve the choices of the electorate.

And with all that said, although I support term limits, I'm not so convinced that they're a boon that I would at this time be willing to amend the Constitution to enforce them on Congress, even though I believe that that's the institution that most desperately needs them. I don't believe that the Constitution should be amended just because I or anyone else thinks they have a good idea that might be an improvement. The bar is higher than that.

Trooper York said...

Nanny Bloomberg is supposed to be such a great manager. So why hasn't downtown been redeveloped since 911.

It's because his cronies aren't getting the money that's why. With all his money and power and "smarts" he could have led the way to develop lower Manhattan when there still was money to do it the last few years. Now it is too late.

Glen said...

Voters can change the law. Fine. But the current incumbent should be ineligible to receive the new benefit.

Bloomberg should have to step aside for a term, then come back and win the office again to gain the benefit of this legislation.

Trooper York said...

Nanny Bloomberg banned smoking in bars and restuarants. He banned the use of trans fats in food. He wants to make all restaurants list the calorie content of every item on their menu. He changed all of the parking regulations in New York to increase revenues by making most streets in Manhattan for commercial use only even on weekends. So many thousands of people are getting tickets for illegal parking when it was legal to park there since Peter Minuet parked his fucking windmill there in 1632. Of course a lot of people don't know this but they will find out when they park in the city during the holidays.

Trooper York said...

Nanny Bloomberg tried to get a stevedore company thrown out of the Red Hook Waterfront. It employed 300 working class people. He didn't care. He wanted to develop it with cafes and yuppie bullshit in conjunction with the docking of the cruise ships and the new fucking Ikea store. Fuck those losers who unloaded freight for a living. The thing that made New York City great. A port city second to none.

Ferns and mimosas and brunch with a view of Manhattan are much more important.

Trooper York said...

Nanny Bloomberg is behind the development of the Willets Point area. Junk yards and scrap yards and auto repair places have been there since Henry Ford's motherfucking Model T's first got in an accident. They want to destroy all that and all those family businesses that have been there for decades and decades. You see it is "unsightly." A blight. Not seemly. Fuck the workers on the edge who eek out a living there. Better we put condos up for nonexistent yuppies who want to move to the taint of Queens.

Trooper York said...

Nanny Bloomberg made a deal with Christine Quinn the Speaker of the City Council. She recently got in trouble because the fucking whore journalists finally woke up and realized that the greedy cocksuckers of the City Council are appropriating monies to “charities” and “non-profits” and “community groups” that close family members of the council were running or working for and raking in six figure salaries. So Quinn was in no position to run for mayor so fast as she is tainted by this scandal. So she figures, why not let Bloomberg get another term and run when the heat dies down. Plus Nanny Bloomberg can cut some checks to keep these “charities” going until it all dies down and no one is looking.

Of course don’t expect your jizzbag journalists to investigate any of that. The only reason that any of this came out is somebody flipped when they were indicted and spilled the beans. But it is all there if they want to look for it. But they don’t. Nobody wants to rock the boat. Every body is getting paid.

Did I mention that Bloomberg is evil and corrupt?

Trooper York said...

Mayor La Guardia had a bunch of scandals in his third term. Police corruption and price fixing and what not. Same for Mayor Robert Wagner. Koch had Donald Manes and Stanley Friedman and a bunch of corruption scandals. Third terms are always disasters for New York City Mayors.

Bloomberg will have to buy himself out of a lot of trouble before all this is over. When the details of some of the crooked deals he cooked up come out, they are not going to pass the smell test. It usually takes about ten years or so when his co-conspirators get busted for something else and then they trade themselves out of a jackpot by giving him up.

Did I mention that Bloomberg is evil and corrupt?

Revenant said...

Terms limits in NYC were, according to the article, enacted by term limits.

That should be "enacted by voter initiative". :)

ricpic said...

So which is it, Troop, Met fans are drunken Long Island louts or effete snobs? Reason I ask is just a few days back you characterized Met fans as just that -- elite effetes (or words to that effect, I'll be damned if I'm going to go back and unearth the post in question). Okay, I make some allowance for the unhinging effect of the Yanks continued execrable performance but you can't have it both ways about the Mets. Well, you can but it's uncomely.

ricpic said...

I'll grant you Bloomberg is power mad and insufferably righteous but is there actual evidence of corruption? I mean corruption by him personally, not his underlings. Just asking. I don't follow the matter closely enough to know one way or the other.

SteveR said...

Trooper, based on your excellent record as a commenter on Althouse, I'm going to accept your opinion as entirely valid.

Sofa King said...

I don't believe that the Constitution should be amended just because I or anyone else thinks they have a good idea that might be an improvement. The bar is higher than that.

Well if you won't make the case Simon I will. Congress is failing as an institution. The results of that failure have gone from inconvenient to serious to disastrous. Do we have to wait until it's catastrophic before we conclude there is a systemic problem?

mccullough said...

I love New York, but it's more provincial and predictable than Cedar Rapids.

Nichevo said...

When asked why this was so, Nanny Bloomberg said that the people in Central Park were “a better class of people” and would be well behaved so it was appropriate that they could enjoy a little wine with the Bard. But the plebeians had to be kept in line.

Did I mention that Bloomberg is evil and corrupt?


No he di'int!

Trooper York said...

Ricpic there is no record because Bloomberg can buy his way out of it. It is a strange kind of corruption because he is not taking the money but rather he is spending it. I know it is hard to follow and seems counter intuitive but it is right there for you to see.

Bloomberg does not directly profit. He doesn't need to as he is rich. But his real estate cronies like Ratner and Silverman and Goldman and others who are developing these sights, take his prompting on contributing to charities and projects that he is pumping. His corruption is that he is buying the silence of political opponents by contributing to their Pac’s and charities. One of these days someone will get caught and come out with what is been going on and Mayor Mike will be taking a long vacation in Bermuda. Just like Jimmie Walker. Wait and see.

XWL said...

Simon above, "I basically agree with Rev as a general matter. I think that term limits have some problems

Terminal limits on the other hand . . .

Trooper York said...

Ricpic, your Met's fans come in two basic types.

You uber-liberal yuppie types like Jerry Seinfeld and Mike Lupica and Doyle. And your idiot drunken fools from Long Island. And all of the slow learners who learned at their fathers knee about the Dodgers and how National League baseball is better. Recently they have gotten a lot more Latin fans. They are usually Democrats.

Your Yankee fans are usually your Wall Street Frat Boy types and your idiot drunken fools from upstate and New Jersey. Also lots of business people who use the seats for business purposes. Plus a large minority contingent that is often missing from Shea.

Of course with the new stadiums, most regular fans will be priced out of the game so it will be all rich yuppies or business drones.

And when did the deals wasting taxpayer money and selling bogus government bonds happen. Why when Nanny Bloomberg was mayor. Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!! Funny how that happened eh?

Trooper York said...

Who sold those stadium bonds on Wall Street? Who got the commissions? What about the park that was supposed to replace Macombs Dam park near Yankee Staduim? When will that park be built? Who doled out the contracts for the stadiums?

Good questions eh?

Don't expect your jizzbag journalists to find out anytime soon.

Revenant said...

Do we have to wait until it's catastrophic before we conclude there is a systemic problem?

Is there any reason to conclude that the problem is systemic, though? Sure, Nancy Pelosi's a dumbass, but short of forbidding San Fransicans from holding elective office I'm not sure how we can fix that problem with a constitutional amendment.

mccullough said...

The Yankees will never win another World Series.

They will be the Cubs of the 21st Century (along with the Cubs).

The Mets are the better team, but they can't seem to beat the Phillies and were embarrassed by the Cardinals in '06.

New York is a pretty shitty sports town. The football teams play in another state, the basketball team(s) suck(s), and the hockey teams should move. The college teams are horrible even in women's sports

Boston has been the sports capital for the last 6 years, followed by Chicago.

Why would the city waste money on stadiums for two has-been franchises?

Peter V. Bella said...

I am a firm believer in term limits. It is also fiscally responsible. We would not have to pay the ruling class douche bags pensions.

We have the Chicago Democratic Machine. It is the epitome of political corruption. The same machine Obama is a product of.

Dennis said...

He still has to run and win again, right? Democracy will still have a say in whether he gets to stay, right?

I'm no fan of the current occupant, but the possibility of some ghastly Democrat like, say, Mark Greene, taking over the city worries me far more than another term of Bloomie.

hdhouse said...

Trooper....

I take if from your comments that you won't vote for him. Don't you think that is for the people to decide? Or no?

Trooper York said...

hd do you think it is right to change the rules in the middle of the game? The people voted term limits in twice. That doesn't matter? Aren't you a commie who hates rich people? Why do you want a rich guy to buy another election?
Is there no one else who can run the city? Bill Thompson the comptroller would be a fine mayor. He actually has experiance and would be better in a lot of ways than Bloomberg. Anthony Wiener is an up and coming guy who would be a resonable choice. I am surprised that an old school commie like you wants to vote for the rich republican who wants to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Trooper York said...

Mr mccullough I guess you didn't see the Super Bowl where THE WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS destroyed those cheatin' scumbags from New England. The Red Sox reign is over when they dumped Manny who was the real reason they won. Big Papi can't do all himself and the rest of your guys are really overrated.
This was a transitional year for the Yankees who only stepped back because they didn't spend any more money and tried to intergrate young blood into the team. About 40million in salary will come off the payroll this year and we can spend that to get what we need to be back in the hunt.

You are right about the Mets though. They suck.

William said...

I think Bloomberg has been Rudy without tears. Rudy deserves the lion's share of the credit for turning NYC around, but Bloomberg has kept it on the right course. The banning of trans-fats has been for me personally a tragedy of almost unbearable proportions, but I remain convinced of the solidity of his financial judgement. Perhaps prudent food tastes are of a piece with financial restraint. Skinny people do not declare bankruptcy in anywhere near the same numbers as fat people.....I would have no problem with voting for Bloomberg in a time of financial crisis. However, I am a democrat. I do not believe that the will of the people should be so casually disregarded in cases of term limits as well as capital punishment, gay marriage, etc....I remember how the liberals howled when Rudy tried to extend his term for a few months after 9/11. It is instructive to compare that howl with the soft, slurping sounds they make in the presence of Bloomberg's money.

Trooper York said...

Hd doesn't want Bill Thompson to be mayor because he is black.

If Mort were awake he would say that is racist.

Kirk Parker said...

Trooper,

You seem f'n mad about this. Or maybe Rachel Lucas is on strike and you feel the need to make up the f'n deficit or something? :-)