wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Voter from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:10AM

  Voters ALWAYS have the final word on term limits by… VOTING.

  Voters vote in primaries; they won’t have to vote for Bloomberg.

  Voters vote in elections; they don’t have to vote for Bloomberg.

  Anyone who says having Bloomberg on the ballot is a danger to democracy is really saying they lack the ability to unseat him as mayor.

  Sounds like Mr. Weiner is arguing in his own self interest, not the voter’s interest.

  Here’s a easy solution, make Bloomberg run as a third party candidate and let the Republicans and Democrats run their party protectionist racket.

  
  
• [2] Voter from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:13AM

  And term limits aside, since the first term is generally considered to be where one learns how to govern as mayor, is that really what is best for NYC at this time? A novice at the helm during an economic crisis?

  
  
• [3] Ethan from Upper West Side October 17, 2008 - 10:14AM

  With all due respect to Mario Cuomo and all the other luminaries, of present and past, who are currently "weighing in" on the term-limit question: there could be no greater challenge to the very fundamentals of democratic government than to upend, to nullify, the voice of the people, without the people's input. I'm philosophically against term limits, but this is not the way to go about removing them, and I will work against any politician who supports removing term limits without a public referendum.

  
  
• [4] O from Forest Hills October 17, 2008 - 10:14AM

  I don't believe Bloomberg has 70% approval rating in all NYC. Perhaps in Manhattan, but ask the people in Queens in working class areas like Flushing, Corona, Rego Park, Forest Hills, Sunnyside, Jamaica.

  I will be voting for a new mayor. Definitely not Bloomberg. 2 terms is plenty.

  
  
• [5] Steve (the other one) from Manhattan October 17, 2008 - 10:15AM

  Who says Bloomberg is the most qualified? Isn't he an integral part of the financial system that just crashed and burned due to government and institutional mismanagement?

  
  
• [6] Mike from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:16AM

  I wholeheartedly agree with the first comment: If people don't like Bloomberg ramming the term limit change through the City Council, then let him do it and VOTE HIM OUT!

  It can be equally said that term limits themselves actually LIMIT VOTER CHOICE.

  What I'm really in favor of is 3 term limmits for all city offices except Mayor. It has been shown in the past that all mayors have basically worn out their welcome after 3 terms at the most anyway. However, city councilmembers can sit on a district seat practically for life - turning that body into a cesspool of corruption.

  
  
• [7] nycerbarb from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:16AM

  People also freaked out when Sept 11 happened and said Rudy should stay on. And it turned it out just fine. Rudy was not the only capable person in this city.

  And Mike Bloomberg is not the only capable person in the city, too.

  I originally opposed term limits, but I believe that it has kept our politicians fresh and limits cronyism.

  
  
• [8] Karen from Manhattan October 17, 2008 - 10:16AM

  Mr. Weiner is indulging in sterile formalism. We need a way to put Mayor Bloomberg on the ballot, because we need his financial expertise in a financial crisis. Waive the rule now, and hold the referendum later.

  If you're not practical, you're floating on Jonathan Swift's cloud in the sky.

  
  
• [9] mc from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:17AM

  I was opposed to term limits both times. However, this is the height of hypocrisy on the part of Bloomberg. We were able to do quite well after 9-11 without having Rudy stay longer, even though many people thought it was a good idea. The idea that only Bloomberg can get us through this is absurd.

  
  
• [10] Hank from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:18AM

  I agree with Weiner. Put it to a referendum.

  I will vote for Bloomberg but not if its done by City Council fiat.

  
  
• [11] amt230 October 17, 2008 - 10:18AM

  Brian: "we only have 30 seconds, so please make it about you..."

  Guest: "it's not about me, blah blah"

  I want to go into politics so I can be exempt from actually listening to people and answering questions.

  
  
• [12] Alex from brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:19AM

  Comment for air:

  This national/global financial crisis is NOT something that the mayor of NYC can do anything to solve, help or mitigate. It is for national and/or multi-national solutions or aides.

  The NYC issue is a budget crisis. And NYC has these every decade.

  Should we expand term limits every time there's a budget crisis?

  
  
• [13] Leo Queens from Queens October 17, 2008 - 10:19AM

  Thank you to Congressman Weiner for challenging Brian!!.

  Though Mr. Bloomberg has done a good job there are a lot of things that have been done by the mayor and city council which have been corrupt and a detriment to the future of our City.

  Repealing term limits is a power grab.

  Unfortunately, the media in this City - From WNYC to WNBC to the NYPOST are in the tank for Bloomberg and have refused to challenge him primarily because of the amount of money he provides to the media organization either through donations or ad dollars.

  NYC, despite being the media capital of the country does NOT really have a local media that addresses the issues affecting us locally

  
  
• [14] Voter from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:21AM

  That segment was pointlessly stupid. If Anthony Weiner doesn’t want anyone’s right to choose whom they would like to become mayor infringed upon, why is he trying to prevent New Yorkers from choosing to have Mayor Bloomberg serve a third term, if they so wish? If the voters don’t want a third Bloomberg term, they will throw the bum out.

  (I happen to agree with #6’s views on term limits)

  
  
• [15] DAVID from NYC October 17, 2008 - 10:23AM

  #4 O From forest hill your right I dont think he has the approval rating people think he does and im from manhattan and I commend rep. Weiner you got it right let the people decide the problem with having another election #6 mike from brooklyn is that Mayor Bloomberg has everyone in his deep pockets to infuence ignorant voters.

  
  
• [16] mc from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:24AM

  There is something disgusting about two billionaires, Bloomberg and Lauder getting together to decide how the city should or should not deal with term limits.

  
  
• [17] patrick who has pledged from Queens October 17, 2008 - 10:27AM

  Brian,

  At some point in time could you have a guest what may be achieved in a referendum vote in NYC.

  For instance could the voters of NYC choose by referendum to alter the basic structures of NYC government. For instance by taking a system that now is based on a strong mayor, to one with less mayoral control. Or by reducing the number of city council seats from the odd number of 59 to 33. Or changing or eliminating the public advocate's position.

  
  
• [18] Leo Queens from Queens October 17, 2008 - 10:30AM

  Karen from Manhattan.- It's EASY to put Mr. Bloomberg on the ballot - Have him run for City Comptroller!! - This way he can run our finances and retirement funds!. CRISIS SOLVED!!

  When you say we need his financial expertise, what do you mean? - I know he has made billions for himself... but he has 'financed' his projects by taxing and fining ALL activities including walking. The only activity not taxed/fined is breathing - yet..

  All agencies have been 'reformed' to be revenue generating agencies yet they have not been reformed to be efficient and less bureocratic

  
  
• [19] Voter from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 10:57AM

  #17, MC from Brooklyn, you are correct, there is something disgusting about billionaires getting together to decide how the plebeians will be able to vote. I am more troubled by Mr. Lauder’s actions than Bloomberg’s, because Lauder started the original drive for term limits and now wants to drive the discussion on it this time. One private citizen shouldn’t be able to use their financial clout this way, but in the end… if you don’t like Bloomberg, vote him out.

  Interesting that people are questioning Bloomberg’s poll numbers in the same breath as saying he’ll get reelected because “Mayor Bloomberg has everyone in his deep pockets to influence ignorant voters”

  
  
• [20] Carol Latman from Manhattan October 17, 2008 - 11:09AM

  I agree with Anthony Weiner that although I am opposed to set term limits (elections supply as hoc term limits) BUT I do not think it is right or legal for a Mayor or Legislative Body to overrule term limits or any other law that has been passed by the people's referendum vote. This is expecially wrong when the overrule would benefit those who pass it.

  I used to wonder if Mr. Mayor Bloomberg has ever read or respects the U.S. Constitution since he seems to be so willing to defy it with surveillance, random searchs, police roundups, etc. However, I now wonder if he ever had a basic course in civics or, if so, whether he passed it since he has no understanding or respect for the basics of civic law.

  Maybe we could treat him to a course in civics and the Constitution before allowing him to run for any public post again.

  
  
• [21] mc from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 11:29AM

  #19 Voter,

  I agree. So let's put it to the voters and that way no one in office gets to profit by it now.

  
  
• [22] Denis from Manhattan October 17, 2008 - 11:31AM

  Here's a thought. An incumbent Mayor can run for a third term and is elected only if he or she secures 67% or more of the votes cast.

  
  
• [23] Voter from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 11:36AM

  #20 (Carol Latman),

  All news reports I’ve heard have said it is 100% LEGAL for the legislature to repeal term limits. The legislature probably could have enacted limits without consulting the people and definitely can revoke them without directly consulting the people. In representative government, representatives make decisions on behalf of the people whom have voted for them. So in effect, the people’s voices are being heard. Vote out your representative if you don’t like what they are proposing. Lauder’s original call for limits and the current kerfuffle is just political jockeying. The people didn’t call for limits, Lauder did.

  I don’t think it’s Bloomberg who needs the civics lesson.

  And to MC, what's the point of having representative government if EVERY issue has to be put to referendum? (it seems like referendums or attempts to have them are currently used as political weapons, and not as a means of seeing what voters really want)

  
  
• [24] shaun from astoria October 17, 2008 - 11:46AM

  I am one of the uninsured (and paying for it dearly), and I want to know... WHICH of the uninsured will Obama's plan help, and which will it leave behind? After all, Obama's plan is not universal, so which of us will still be on our own here? I'm 29 and new to the workforce, having just finished grad school this past May. Will I continue to be left out of an affordable system? Between my student loans, rent, food, transportation, other bills, etc, I am not optimistic that Obama's plan will help me.

  P.S. You know who's plan would? Cynthia McKinney's - one major reason she is getting my vote.

  
  
• [25] Jon from Astoria October 17, 2008 - 11:54AM

  To comment #1 and all those like him.

  What if President Bush decided he wants a third term tomorrow? Would you still say "aw, let the voters decide"? To people like me it sounds crazy and dangerous, irresponsible.

  Plus, Mayor Bloomberg is not the best choice to lead us. What gives you guys that idea? Where the heck has he been the last eight years? If Bloomberg is just now learning about credit default swaps, that's even scarier.

  
  
• [26] Voter from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 12:04PM

  #25, Jon From Astoria…

  With almost all national polling, not limited solely to Republicans, showing Bush’s numbers below 30%, do you really think G.W. Bush would put himself through the embarrassment of running for a third term if he could? And yes, I would object in this case (you said “if he decided tomorrow” because he would be deciding to run three weeks before the general election and, presumably, running as the unchallenged incumbent usurping his party’s primary process.

  
  
• [27] Bob Bennett from Pelham October 17, 2008 - 12:10PM

  To eliminate the City Council's conflict of interest, it should extend term limits only for citywide offices and future-elected Council members. This would be similar to the current provision of the State Constitution, which prohibits a sitting state legislature from voting current members a pay raise. It would also smoke out whether the members are truly against term limits for philosophical reasons and out of concern for limitations on voter choice (which this change would address), or simply concern for their personal careers.

  
  
• [28] mc from Brooklyn October 17, 2008 - 12:16PM

  Voter #23,

  I am not advocating putting "EVERY" issue to a referendum. CA does that and look where it got them? I am advocating putting this to a referendum, since that is how it was decided before. There is a precedent for elected officials in NYC not enacting something that benefits them directly. If we need to address this then let's do it. It won;t be in time for '09, but oh well. Should have thought of that before.

  
  
• [29] Jon from Astoria October 17, 2008 - 02:17PM

  #26, thanks for answering, but your own answer begs the obvious question, well what if he was very popular? See, it has nothing to do with the candidates fitness or popularity.

  Another scenario: Pretend there was no economic crises. By what right would the mayor want to usurp the will of the voters as clearly shown when the embraced term limits? That's the answer I want. By what right?

  Just as, if Bush had maybe fifty percent instead of 28 percent favorables, and he saw McCain tanking, I would be shocked if he said "I want congress to change the Constitution to allow me to have another term". What is the difference he3

  here?

  Best Jon

  
  
• [30] Leo Queens from Queens October 17, 2008 - 03:29PM

  I find it offensive the attitude of some people's comments on this site which are the same as Bloomberg and Quinn " well, you can vote us out!" . How many incumbents are voted out? and how many people, other than billionaires, have $100M to buy off an election? The reelection of 2005 was NOT a real election - The media, which is owned by his friends, as well as all civic organizations in the City were bought off. As a result, there was no discussion about the Real estate taxes, the education 'reforms' which consist of cooking the books with testing and no accountability- We as a community have not been able to discuss these real issues and will not have a venue to discuss them as occured during the 2001 election (Prior to 9/11).