Streams

30 Issues Day 30: Term Limits

Friday, October 30, 2009

Democratic Mayoral candidate Bill Thompson has made term limits a central issue in the mayoral election. Oliver Koppell, NYC council member (D-11), and Wayne Barrett, senior editor at the Village Voice and veteran political reporter, discuss the term limits issue and if it will play a role in the outcome of next week's election.

Guests:

Wayne Barrett and Oliver Koppell

Comments [74]

MJ

Why are so many Council members Democrat and running solo - I had not other opponent to choose!

Nov. 03 2009 11:19 PM
James B from NYC

Term limits are unconstitutional. It does NOT matter if a majority of voters are in favor of them. Term limits infringe on MY right to vote for whom I choose for office. If you do not want someone to continue in office you can vote against them. Elections are the opportunity for voters to impose limits on ANYONE's tenure in office. However, if there are term limits, voters are prevented from re-electing someone (like F.D. Roosevelt, or Ted Kennedy or Orrin Hatch) they believe has done a good job & is better than the alternative choice. Term limits are undemocratic no matter what the 'majority' of voters think. Rights should not be subject to referenda.

Oct. 31 2009 12:23 AM
Bob [Bogen] from Mount Kisco

Term Limits are against democracy. They block voters from voting for their choice. They are proposed by those out of power, usually Republicans, who can't win on issues, like popular social programs. As in the NYC Council, they were discounted by the same folks who had favored them, but only AFTER they were elected. The same with Newt Gingrich Congress Members, including my FORMER Congress Member.

The only logical appeal of a Term Limit is that it reduces the power of money in elections. And that, gross differences in campaign spending by lobbyists and candidates, is the real issue in creating democracy through elections. Democracy is not possible where individuals wealth or lobbyist money is permitted in election campaigning. Fully democratic elections must eliminate, forbid corporate or private funding, through total public funding of election campaigns, as in some states. Grotesque Bloomberg campaign financing should be the final proof that public election funding is essential to a democracy.

By the way, despite repeated ignorant “Comments” here that Bloomberg changed the Term Limit rule, it was the elected City Council who acted legally to change the limit.

Oct. 30 2009 12:47 PM
hjs from 11211

To # 65 Here is the vote on term limits From The Times: The 29 yes votes are the bad ones that repealed term limits. The 22 no votes are the good guys who voted to retain term limits.

NO:
Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. of Queens, no
Tony Avella of Queens, no
Charles Barron of Brooklyn, no
Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan, no
Anthony Como of Queens, no
Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn, no
Mathieu Eugene of Brooklyn, no
Daniel R. Garodnick of Manhattan, no
James F. Gennaro of Queens, no
Vincent J. Gentile of Brooklyn, no
Eric N. Gioia of Queens, no
Vincent M. Ignizio of Staten Island, no
Letitia James of Brooklyn, no
Jessica S. Lappin of Manhattan, no
John C. Liu of Queens, no
Melissa Mark-Viverito of Manhattan, no
Michael E. McMahon of Staten Island, no
Rosie Mendez of Manhattan, no
Hiram Monserrate of Queens, no
James S. Oddo of Staten Island, no
Annabel Palma of the Bronx, no
David I. Weprin of Queens, no

YES:
Maria del Carmen Arroyo of the Bronx, yes
Maria Baez of the Bronx, yes
Leroy G. Comrie Jr. of Queens, yes
Inez E. Dickens of Manhattan, yes
Erik Martin Dilan of Brooklyn, yes
Simcha Felder of Brooklyn, yes
Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn, yes
Helen D. Foster of the Bronx, yes
Alan J. Gerson of Manhattan, yes
Sara M. Gonzalez of Brooklyn, yes
Robert Jackson of Manhattan, yes
Melinda R. Katz of Queens, yes
G. Oliver Koppell of the Bronx, yes
Miguel Martinez of Manhattan, yes
Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, yes
Michael C. Nelson of Brooklyn, yes
Christine C. Quinn of Manhattan, yes
Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn, yes
Diana Reyna of Brooklyn, yes
Joel Rivera of the Bronx, yes
James Sanders Jr. of Queens, yes
Larry B. Seabrook of the Bronx, yes
Helen Sears of Queens, yes
Kendall Stewart of Brooklyn, yes
James Vacca of the Bronx, yes
Peter F. Vallone, Jr. of Queens, yes
Albert Vann of Brooklyn, yes
Thomas White Jr. of Queens, yes
David Yassky of Brooklyn, yes

Oct. 30 2009 12:05 PM
Bill from New York

Not so cut and dry a fact as that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Grant tried for a third term. It was not the will of his party that he get the nomination.

Oct. 30 2009 11:52 AM
JK from Midtown

actually, elisain, it makes perfect sense because its a FACT. washington set the precedent for two terms, and decided not to run for a third term because he likened such to a monarchy and easily succeptible to tyranny, which as we all know led to the american revolution.

all other presidents followed suit except for fdr.

and if bloomberg didnt send out those color high glossy mailings every day, one wouldnt be wasting more resources to get the paper to be recycled.

Oct. 30 2009 11:07 AM
brett sroka from bushwick

The founding fathers did not put term limits in the constitution, but our great first president Washington decided to step down after two terms saying that if he didn't it would turn the democracy he fought so hard for into a tyranny. That then became the tradition of leaders who I guess had much more self awareness and self restraint than Bloomberg or the rest of the self serving sheisters in city hall. Washington was skeptical of those who cling desperately to power and so should we be.

Oct. 30 2009 11:04 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

#61, Donald from Manhattan,
That is a dishonest answer. Quinn and Weiner didn’t run against Bloomberg because they knew on which side their bread is buttered and wanted to keep the power they had versus risking losing it all together.
Besides, I think Weiner wants to be a US senator. Maybe he would try if Obama wasn’t bulling people not to run against Gillibrand.

Oct. 30 2009 10:59 AM
Bill from New York

The lame duck argument is another good one: term limits frustrate the ability of a politician, elected by the will of the people, to get the people's work done when, made by term limits a lame duck in his second term, the political structure with which he must contend now has little incentive to work with him. Limiting a politician to two terms almost limits him to one and a half. Re-election should always be a possibility.

Oct. 30 2009 10:57 AM
Derek from 42nd St.

KING Bloomberg should run for Detroit Mayor if want to create real change. I have no problem with self-funded campaigns, but to overstep the people will is criminal. Also, that study about self funded campaings failing probably does not account for the funding of the candidate, I ran a Congressional campaign in 2008 with less than $2,000 and i lost, If I had KING Bloombergs' $100 million I could have won that race. What a stupid study and for bloomberg news to cite this study is just bad reporting.

Oct. 30 2009 10:57 AM
Steve from Brooklyn

Where can we find a list of which council members voted with Bloomberg to overturn term limits? Could someone please post a reference? I've tried searching for it online but I am getting nowhere.

I want to use my vote for each race on Tuesday to make the point that I will not support any candidate who does not respect the will of their constituents.

Oct. 30 2009 10:56 AM
Ann Hall Every, CCP from Forest Hills

I will be voting with a protest vote against Mr Bloomberg....I might have been able to overlook the issue of his buying the election & overturning term limits.......but I cannot forgive nor overlook his pandering to supporters of Rudy Giuliani when mr. Bloomberg appeared with him accepting his endorsement.

Oct. 30 2009 10:51 AM
JB from Gramercy

Good point #46 - but that's true of any and every law or referendum passed before you move to a place. The way to overturn a referendum is to run another referendum to overturn it. Bloomburg chose not to do that -but to wait until it was too late to do so and then go around the people.

Oct. 30 2009 10:49 AM
Tim Young from Manhattan

Putting Bloomberg back in office is a mistake. In his own words, his friends asked him to run again. Let him be mayor somewhere else where he and his friends can have their fun. I don't want it.

Oct. 30 2009 10:49 AM
donald from manhattan

the mayor changing the rules caused two candidates to not run: Representative Weiner and Speaker Christine Quinn. we would have had a real choice, but they withdrew because of the huge amount of money bloomberg spent and it is usually impossible to beat an politician in power. What is to stop future mayors and councilmen etc. to do the same. Democracy has been dealt a blow.

Oct. 30 2009 10:48 AM
Elisain Pena from Bensonhurst

JK, That makes no sense. There were NO term limits on any federal governmental office enacted by the founding fathers. It was after FDR's run that term limits were enacted for the presidency.

And to your second reason, Recycle the paper. It's what I did.

Although I hate what he did, he is certainly much more qualified than Thompson. I don't trust Thompson at all after all the shenanigans going on in that office. Bloomberg; while flawed on some levels, Has been very good for the city.

Oct. 30 2009 10:47 AM
JB

Him spending tons of money is a GOOD thing. Self-financing eliminates special interest influence! And "enlargen" isn't a word, so...

Oct. 30 2009 10:46 AM
JB

Him spending tons of money is a GOOD thing. Self-financing eliminates special interest influence! And "enlargen" isn't a word, so...

Oct. 30 2009 10:46 AM
JB

Him spending tons of money is a GOOD thing. Self-financing eliminates special interest influence! And "enlargen" isn't a word, so...

Oct. 30 2009 10:46 AM
john from office

Thompson will bring back the poor governing of the poverty pimps, from the 60s.70s and 80s.

Remember Crown Heights, riots and crime

Oct. 30 2009 10:46 AM
Mark Winters from Washington Heights

The idea of term limits dates to when the Constitution was amended specifically to address FDR's being elected four time; post mortem. Term limits are insane as they eviscerate the wisdom of institutional memory. If the people wish to elect and re-elect their public servants, the will of the people ought to be respected. How about Paul O' Dwyer? We are not a direct democracy. We are a representative republic

Oct. 30 2009 10:45 AM
Mark Winters from Washington Heights

The idea of term limits dates to when the Constitution was amended specifically to address FDR's being elected four time; post mortem. Term limits are insane as they eviscerate the wisdom of institutional memory. If the people wish to elect and re-elect their public servants, the will of the people ought to be respected. How about Paul O' Dwyer? We are not a direct democracy. We are a representative republic

Oct. 30 2009 10:45 AM
john from office

Thompson will bring back the poor governing of the poverty pimps, from the 60s.70s and 80s.

Remember Crown Heights, riots and crime

Oct. 30 2009 10:45 AM
JB

Him spending tons of money is a GOOD thing. Self-financing eliminates special interest influence!

Oct. 30 2009 10:45 AM
kai from NJ-NYC

One of the major problems with American democracy is embodied in Bloomberg; the fact that money in campaigns trumps all. This extends beyond Bloomberg to the show how the corridors of American democracy are made of money.

Oct. 30 2009 10:44 AM
yourgo from Astoria

I dont like that Bloomberg went against the voters and overturned term limits but i think that he loves his job and used his power to keep doing it. This shows he can get things done and that he will do whatever he can to do what he thinks is right for the city.

I am a liberal but i like bloomberg.
I like that he cant be bought cause he is rich. i also bleive he genuinly loves his job.

I dont like Thompson. All he is doing is complaining about the term limits thing. He hasnt told me what he is going to do for NYC.

because of the term limits fiasco i will most likely vote Green Party. Sorry Bloomy wish you luck.

Oct. 30 2009 10:44 AM
inwoodgal from inwood

I don't believe in term limits since I believe an election is a term limit and I voted against them. But since I live in a democracy, I have to go along with what people voted for. If Mike Bloomberg believes in democracy he has to go along with what people voted for. And since he has billions of dollars to finance his own campaign he can get away with it.

Oct. 30 2009 10:44 AM
JB from Gramercy

I used to follow the logic that we could just not vote against Bloomburg if we wanted to. But in overturning term limits, Bloomburg drove out a number of very qualified and interesting candidates. I find this (possibly unintended) consequence the most damaging to our democracy. These candidates realized they couldn't spend as much as the mayor and should not participate. The change also allowed them to run again for the positions they have (assuming they are incumbents). This takes the choice out of the hands of the people.

Oct. 30 2009 10:43 AM
Bill from New York

A term-limits referendum is as despotic as a referendum for a mayor to serve for life: it's an imposition on the citizens that come after those who pass it. I wasn't here for any of those referenda and I wouldn't have presumed to determine the choice of voters in future elections through them.

Oct. 30 2009 10:42 AM
stanley dorn from g village

Tried to call. I haven't heard anyone comment on the effect of Bloomberg's candidacy as an extraordinarily wealthy incumbent has had in narrowing the candidate pool.

Oct. 30 2009 10:42 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

#13, Steve… I have the same question… If all of these people are bitter over term limits, then Thompson wouldn’t be down by double digits. Now the fact that he (Thompson) is not qualified (by the so called issues he focuses on or claiming his performance at the Board of Education is irrelevant) to scoop poop aside, people are upset because they wanted an easy Democratic win.
Freddy Ferrer was a total joke when he ran against Bloomberg and Thompson though just being a Democrat would get him in.
If the Democrats ran competent and qualified opponents instead of the ragged campaign Thompson has run, then they would win even while being outspent 10:1 in a Democratic stronghold.

Oct. 30 2009 10:42 AM
Ken from Soho

I don't believe in term limits, and don't actually remember whether or how I voted in the referendum. I have no problem in the decision of the City Council to extend term limits, and I intend to vote for Mike Bloomberg.

Oct. 30 2009 10:42 AM
Sherry from Manhattan

Term limits are actually a really BAD idea. They effectively make a government official totally LAME DUCK for the whole second term. Then they are NOT accountable to their constituency for actions through the whole second term. Their main priority then is to feather their own nest and look out for their next position, not to look out for the best interest of constituents. Bloomberg, with his long term vision, will be very good for the City.

Oct. 30 2009 10:41 AM
JB

Term limits limit choice. That's it.
Citizens don't always know what's best for them. That's why we have the electoral college, representative government and a stronger house of congress as the one in power for longer.
Our founding fathers didn't enact term limits. Some of our greatest leaders would have been limited by them.
"The vote of the people" is their choice on Nov 3. Citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote for removing choice.

Oct. 30 2009 10:41 AM
Richard Johnston from Upper West Side

I plan to vote against Bloomberg because of his arrogance and failure to listen to and respect other people. His decision to serve a third term reinforces my impression he feels he is indispensable when we all know we will do fine without Mike Bloomberg.

Oct. 30 2009 10:41 AM
Sabrina from Manhattan

Overturning term limit is a reflection of Bloomberg's consistent dictatorial style of government. That's the larger context of the problem of his overturning term limits.

Oct. 30 2009 10:41 AM
Michael from Long Island

When Bloomberg runs for a third term people become furious, but the fact that Joe Biden was in the senate for 36 years or that Ted Kennedy was in office for 47 years seems not to bother anyone. Why?

Oct. 30 2009 10:40 AM
Caroline from Manhattan

I don't approve of what Bloomberg has done in regard to term limits. I know what he and the City Council did was legal and therefore democratic but he would have won any referendum put to the people so it is mystifying. However, Bill Thompson has had every opportunity to discuss his positions and -- it appears to me -- all he can talk about is how he should be mayor because everyone should vote against Bloomberg because of term limits. Not because he has said in any way that he is actually competent. By the 2nd debate he appeared downright ridiculous. I'm voting for Bloomberg because I'm one of the millions of New Yorkers who will suffer by having a bad mayor. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face!

Oct. 30 2009 10:40 AM
Gretchen from Delamar, NY, formerly of Brooklyn

I'm in a state of cognitive dissonance. If I still lived in NYC, I'd vote for Bloomberg (and I'm a democrat). But obviously, it's not just matter of voters now having the opportunity to vote against Bloomberg. He has the incumbent's advantage. He obviously outspent Thompson, and outspent is an understatement. And a different field of candidates would have emerged had Bloomberg not run again.

Oct. 30 2009 10:40 AM
Rich from Staten Island

Why doesn't even take a millionaire to even initiate a referendum? Can a regular citizen enter one for consideration? Is there a procedure besides having access to wealth to get thru the process?

Oct. 30 2009 10:40 AM
Robert from NYC

This isn't baseball you don't need three strikes to get out!

Oct. 30 2009 10:40 AM
adam from fort greene

I was pissed off by term limits. But Bill Thompson has not given us ANY other reason to vote for him. Your question was to him was just right - does it trump the record? And he had almost no answer. I'm with the caller who said that she might abstain. Or maybe I'll have to vote for one of the third party candidates. How about the Rent is Too Damn High Party? They have a clear message (Rent should be $550 a month!) and a hot theme song!! http://www.mcmillan09.org/

Oct. 30 2009 10:39 AM
Jason from Booklyn

Brian,

The Mayor's and Councilman Koppell's argumens do not ring true. By running again as incumbents they limited our choices. How many people did not run for Mayor (Anthony Weiner) or against senator Koppell because the odds are strongly in the incumbents favor. This is the worth kind of self dealing. Vote the bums out.

Oct. 30 2009 10:39 AM
Nina from East Village

The problem for me is, Thompson seems to have no issue other than term limits. I need a reason not only to vote against Bloomberg (the fact is, I have more than one!) but I need a reason to vote for Thompson - a reason other than he's not Bloomberg.

One thing I do know: I support Sadiq-Khan!

Oct. 30 2009 10:39 AM
brett sroka from bushwick

this issue makes my blood boil, especially the arrogance of Bloomberg to say "you got a problem with it then vote for him". Beside the base emotions involved I thin they've done a great disservice to the city because it is so difficult to beat an incumbent, we will have a lot of awful people ensconced in city government for years and years more than they deserve.

Oct. 30 2009 10:39 AM
CJ from NY

Maintaining democracy is more important than anything Bloomberg might wish to accomplish. What is really offensive about this situation, as well, is that seems if have enough money you can get around anything. Moves like this make it seem like wealth is more important than all of the values this country was founded on. Is this what we want to tell our children?

Oct. 30 2009 10:39 AM
Angela from Harlem, NY

I'm appalled and disgusted at Mayor Bloomberg's abuse of his power. It's important that people vote against him to show we will not tolerate his flounting of the law. I'm not a fan of Bill Thompson, and am tempted to skip voting this year (something I've never done), but if we don't vote at all-Bloomberg wins. I will vote against him and any council memeber who voted to allow his illegal campaign.

Oct. 30 2009 10:39 AM
Patricia Compton from Weschester, NY

Referendum and recall are CHECKS and BALANCES in a constitutional form of government!!!

Oct. 30 2009 10:39 AM
Carla from Chelsea

One thing that Mayor Bloomberg does not seem to realize is that term limits benefit the elected official as well as the public. At this time Mayor Bloomberg owns all of the problems of the city and in difficult times that could be dicey. Too bad he didn't read his New York City history to understand what people thought of Mayor Laguardia or Mayor Koch during their third terms.

Oct. 30 2009 10:38 AM
Larry from Brooklyn

How can we have a credible democracy if our leaders get to decide how long they should be in office??? I think term limits are stupid and yet that is what the people of NYC want. If president did this anywhere in the world, we would denounce it as a terrible blow to democracy. Bloomberg has done a great job. I have to use my vote as a protest.

Oct. 30 2009 10:37 AM
Patricia Compton from Weschester, NY

Referendum and Recall are part of the CHECKS and BALANCES of the constitutional system of government!!!!!

Oct. 30 2009 10:37 AM
JT from NYC

#6 In total agreement. Besides, I can't believe people have drank the kool-aide and actually believe we live in a true democracy. It's all smoke and mirrors anyway.

Oct. 30 2009 10:36 AM
cnh

It's not just term limits: it's like Putinburg is allergic to democracy hence bike lanes and nanny regs on trans fats and East River tolls etc. etc. All important issues but important enough to worth of going to the people first not as a cram down.

Oct. 30 2009 10:36 AM
Rich from Staten Island

The process in which Term Limits was overturned was a selfish effort by the Mayor and the City Council to protect their jobs.

Oct. 30 2009 10:35 AM
Bill from New York

Term limits are put before the voters every time who hold an election.

Oct. 30 2009 10:34 AM
Steve from Brooklyn

Pardon the typo ... fascism.

Oct. 30 2009 10:34 AM
Brigid from Astoria

I also agree with JK from Midtown --

The "green" mayor has ruined that good record with the excess of mailings! Between my roommate and myself, we receive about 4 a day!

Oct. 30 2009 10:34 AM
Steve from Brooklyn

I will not vote for Michael Bloomberg. The fundamental reason why not is that he overturned term limits and therefore undermined the democratic process. It may be an exaggeration to say this, but there is a corollary to what Bloomberg did and facism. Ignoring the will of the voting populace is a hallmark of a dictatorship.

That said, neither will I vote for Bill Thompson because he has not made a case for why his candidacy is worth supporting. I think the two-party system (Bloomy's "independence" aside) is hopelessly broken and corrupt and I refuse to support any candidate who promotes the mainstream, ineffectual political culture of this moribund city and state.

Oct. 30 2009 10:34 AM
RA

Bloomberg is nothing more than a banana republic dictator, who after a taste of power, with the help of his friends in the legislature (city council) overturns term limits so he can run again. His promise to not run again in 4 years is worth the same amount as his promise that he wasn't interested in a 3rd term.

In a democracy, you don't overturn the will of the voters to satisfy your personal whims.

Oct. 30 2009 10:33 AM
RLewis from bowery

2 terms is a crappy Maximum.

I'm all for term limits, but things move too slowly in nyc for 2 to be the Maximum someone can serve. Good changes in this City take a decade or more.

Too much money will be wasted because projects in mid-realization will get scapped or re-started (and re-expensed) everytime a new pol moves in.

Oct. 30 2009 10:33 AM
Larry from Brooklyn

Former Mayor Guiliani felt the city would not survive without his leadership and we are still standing. I like Mayor Bloomberg, but his arrogant behavior is disturbing. By the way, I don't believe there should be term limits.

Oct. 30 2009 10:33 AM
SteveR from Manhattan

If you don't want Bloomberg again, don't vote for him! Why is this so controversial??

Oct. 30 2009 10:33 AM
Michael from Greenpoint

I was literally undecided until you played that clip of Mayor Bloomberg saying that if I disagreed with his move on term limits, I should vote for his opponent. I don't like Thompson and don't think he believes in many of the progressive stances he has taken in the race and have been dismayed by his stance against specific bike lane projects. But I was disgusted by Mayor Bloomberg's move on term limits. Thanks for making up my mind- I'm voting for Thompson on the Working Families Party line!

Oct. 30 2009 10:33 AM
gowanda from nyc

term limits aren't the issue in this race - it's the surprising public indifference and inertia over the mayoral race. We live in a Democracy that doesn't care much for this mayoral race, even as millions are spent over media campaigns by the wealthiest candidate. Even as one candidate is a genuine New Yorker born and bred. Weird!

Oct. 30 2009 10:33 AM
anon from nyc

The term limits issue isn't the whole issue, but a symptom of what is, for me, a serious character flaw that Bloomberg has shown since the beginning of his first term. He has a tendency to act as if the rules are for everyone EXCEPT Mike Bloomberg. If he doesn't like the rules, he changes them. If governing bodies (like school boards) don't agree with his stance, he replaces them with those who WILL do things his way. "My way or the Highway" is bad regardless of hoe rich or "enlightened" the despot is.

Oct. 30 2009 10:32 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

So… Is Estee Lauder (the corporation) or Ronald Lauder (the person) financing Bill Thompson?
He has no other issues to stand on, so I’d just like to know who’s bought Thompson.
(For those with weak memories, term limits would not have existed without billionaire Ronald Lauder.)

Oct. 30 2009 10:31 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

So… Is Estee Lauder (the corporation) or Ronald Lauder (the person) financing Bill Thompson?
He has no other issues to stand on, so I’d just like to know who’s bought Thompson.
(For those with weak memories, term limits would not have existed without billionaire Ronald Lauder.)

Oct. 30 2009 10:31 AM
Danielle from Queens

I find Bloomberg's general arrogance and nonchalance towards this issue offensive. I feel compelled to vote AGAINST him rather than FOR Thompson.

Oct. 30 2009 10:31 AM
Bill from New York

This is dumb. If the Mayor is reelected you simply cannot say that it's the will of the people that he not serve a third term. How many people have aged into and died out of the franchise since term limits were passed, how many have moved into and out of the city? The People who voted for term limits are not The People who will vote Tuesday, and what's profoundly undemocratic is the presumption of those who formerly comprised The People to make electoral decisions The People of the future.

Oct. 30 2009 10:31 AM
KC from Manhattan

Term limits is THE issue, completely, categorically. I don't like having my vote run around. It IS hypocrisy, it IS the height of hubris. It IS a complete lack of respect for me and my democratic voice. Enough. Bloomberg has got to go.

Oct. 30 2009 10:31 AM
Brigid from Astoria

Term limits is the ONLY thing holding me back from voting for Mr. Bloomberg. I'm happy with his record, and I honestly (embarrassingly) don't know as much as I should about Mr. Thompson. But I think that overturning the term limits IS a seminal issue, particularly given Mr. Bloomberg's personal wealth and power. It almost frightens me that this has been allowed to happen, what's to keep it from happening again and again?

Oct. 30 2009 10:31 AM
hjs from 11211

next time we'll have to have an iron clad referendum instead of one that can be changed by the politicians on a whim.

Oct. 30 2009 10:31 AM
JK from Midtown

Two reasons I am not voting for Bloomberg. First reason: Term limits is the bloodline of democracy. It was important to our founding fathers then, it is just as important now.

Second reason: all the paper Bloomberg has wasted on daily mailings.

Oct. 30 2009 10:30 AM
Robert from NYC

TWICE-TWICE the voters voted for term limits which means the voter want term limits. For anyone, ANYONE in government to just write that off and go against the voters wishes is arrogance and bloated ego. He had his 2 terms and they weren't that bad but he did what he did now move on, As Koch, whom we all adored at first, proved that the third term was a disaster and destroyed his reputation as a good leader to a bloated egotistical puffy headed individual. WE VOTED FOR TERM LIMITS, WE WANT TERM LIMITS. YES it trumps the record. Besides he often goes against what the voters want. This is just another arrogant move by him.

Oct. 30 2009 10:27 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.