"It is a function of government and politicians to invent philosophies to explain the demands of its own convenience." - Murray Kempton

A couple of weeks ago New York City’s term limits law was extended legislatively by the New York City Council and Mayor Bloomberg based upon the rationale that the City needs consistent leadership to get us through the coming economic crisis. The editorial boards of all the city’s daily newspapers made this exact case to their readers and our elected officials echoed their argument. Council Speaker Quinn said “given the level of economic tumult that exists, I have decided to change my position [opposing the extension of term limits] because I believe the potential of consistent leadership by this council and this mayor would be in the best interest of the city during these hard economic times."

Just came across a Facebook site dedicated to defeating Tsar Bloomberg and the Bloomberg 29 (his trained surrender monkeys). So far it is just a sattement of purpose and a list of possible challengers to the 29 City Council members who voted to overturn the will of the people on term limits.

Here is their statement of purpose:

On October 23, 2008 the New York City Council passed Mayor Bloomberg's proposal that extended term limits from 2 terms to 3 terms for the Mayor, City Council, and other city officials without a voter referendum even though New Yorkers voted in 1993 and 1996 to keep term limits at 2 terms. The final vote was 29 YES and 22 NO.

According to a Quinnipiac poll, 89% of New Yorkers believe that the issue of term limits should be decided by voters in a referendum, not by an act by the City Council.

This was not an issue about whether you supported term limits or not. This was not an issue about whether you believed Mayor Bloomberg was a good mayor or not. This was an issue about whether the New York City Council had the right to overturn the will of the people.

You would never know it from the media that Councilmember Lewis Fiddler funds one of the city’s largest non-profit patronage operations in the city. Coming in with the third highest amount of member items in the council, with just over $700,000, Lewis Fidler, assistant majority leader and Chairman of the Youth Services Committee, said he is proud to be considered the third "biggest pig" in the council. The Councilman uses the city’s budget to provide jobs for his friends, campaign workers and to continue the illusion that a once-powerful club is still going strong.

I assume from this statement that Ken Diamondstone plans to challenge Yassky for the 33rd City Council seat. Here is Ken's statement:

Brooklyn Council Candidate Ken Diamondstone's Statement on David Yassky's "Yes" Vote on a Legislative Change to Term Limits

COUNCILMAN DAVID YASSKY BETRAYS VOTERS

On October 23rd, David Yassky finally revealed what many who live in the 33rd Council District suspected all along. By voting "yes" on a legislative change to the term limits law, Yassky has once again demonstrated that while he plays at being a progressive working for the people, the real reason he is in office is to serve his own self-interest.

These past few weeks have been the most disgraceful chapter in Yassky's seven years in office. His alleged indecision on extending term limits made it clear that David Yassky lacks both courage and conviction. He didn't have the guts to stand before the residents of the 33rd Council District to admit his plan to sell them out, so he could treat himself to four more years of the same at City Hall.

People are now lining up candidates to oppose the "Bloomberg 29." (Side note: I presume that I don't need to explain that term. I've been told that the monicker came out of a CBID meeting shortly after the vote; if someone knows the original source I'd love to know.)

I'd also love to hear comments on the Bronx and Brooklyn races, as I'm less familiar with the politics involved. My initial views on the Manhattan/Queens folks:

Comrie -- Probably not vulnerable, unless someone can raise a bundle.
Dickens -- Got 28% in an eight-way race in 2005. Coalescing behind one opponent, funded with upper west side money, and she's vulnerable.
Gerson -- Margaret Chin might give him a run, especially since she's already gearing up for next year anyway.
Jackson -- Probably not vulnerable (of course, this leaves Denny Farrell stuck in Albany for another four years).
Katz -- Probably not vulnerable.
Martinez -- Just lost a bid for Assembly against his mentor, and Ydonis Rodriguez has already raised $30K.
Quinn -- If the potential candidates for next year can coalesce around one strong candidate, they probably still can't beat her, but it will be a helluva fight.

Just for fun (because I enjoy doing this kind of thing), let's say that Gerson, Brewer & Yassky end up voting "yes." So do Dickens, Felder, Katz and White.

James Sanders, still smarting from having his committee stripped from him by Chris Quinn, votes "no." Maria del Carmen Arroyo, who had been a "yes" until she slid away from that, also votes "no."

The vote is now 25-25, with Helen Foster to go. Unfortunately, she's stuck in Las Vegas again.

That leaves it up to the Public Advocate, and Betsy Gotbaum is on record opposing this power grab.

It could happen. Bob Barr could also be elected President.

According to NY1, James Oddo has announced he opposes the mayor's power grab, giving the Republicans a clean sweep. Unfortunately, Peter Vallone has gone the wrong (excuse me, the "other") way.

We still need five votes. The 13 officially "undecided" are:
Arroyo
Brewer
Dickens
Felder
Foster
Gerson
Gonzalez
Katz
Lappin
McMahon
Sanders
White
Yassky

It seems to me that there are five or six among this list who could very easily vote against the mayor -- but we need to keep the pressure up. If you haven't called your Council member (find your rep. here), now is the time to act. If you have, call and e-mail your friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. Let them know that their right to choose is at stake.

After sitting in the Council chamber for five hours on Thursday, I had to leave, and missed when my name was called (two and a half hours later). I returned on Friday, and sat for another five hours before, lo and behold! my name was called.

By then, I had discarded my prepared text in favor of a few talking points. One (for now) was particularly important to the general argument, because I believe I'm the only one who has made this point.

Mayor Bloomberg's #1 talking point is "choice." He claims that term limits deprive voters of choice. He's wrong, and nobody else is challenging him on that fact.

First of all, voters made a choice in 1996. We chose two terms over three terms. If the Council switches to three terms, they are overriding the voters' choice.

Second, and closer to Bloomberg's real claim, is that adding a third term will not add to our choices, but subtract from them. More incumbents will run for reelection, and there will be fewer open seats. Everyone in politics knows that an open seat attracts more candidates than an incumbent running for reelection. The more open seats there are, therefore, the more choices the voters will have.

Councilman Domenic M. Recchia told the New York Times on October 7th that he favors the extension of term limits, “A lot of us Council members feel that passing it through legislation is giving ample opportunity to the voters of the city to voice their opinions.” He added: “If the voters don’t like their council member, they can vote him out of office. And if they don’t like the mayor, they can get rid of him too.”

This Sunday, at noon, on the steps of City Hall, there will be a rally to oppose the Mayor's plan to extend term limits by a City Council vote.

You can make a difference! Come to the rally and make your voice heard.

Arrive early (plan to get there at 11:30), so that you can get through security in time.