I love coming up with these crazy theories, because every once in a [long] while one of them proves correct (see my blog on the Bloomberg/Lauder deal, entitled "Money Laudering," -- posted the day before the mainstream media got hold of it). So here's my latest:

There has been speculation as to which line Michael Bloomberg will run on in the 2009 mayor's race. What if he tries to run as a Democrat?

29 Council members voted for the mayor's bill, and with a slim possibility of one or two exceptions every one of them will run for Council next year. That's a majority of the Council -- several of whom are now very vulnerable.

Suppose that Bloomberg re-registers as a Democrat (he would have to do so before submitting petitions), and goes into those districts stumping for those 29 (and himself). He just might win the nomination, and be all set eight weeks before election day. Of course, as a backup, he could also petition to get on the ballot as an independent.

It appears that by striking a deal with Ron Lauder, Mayor Bloomberg may have broken the law.

Common Cause and NYPIRG have filed a joint complaint, charging that giving Lauder a seat on a Charter Revision Commission in exchange for Lauder's support for extending [his] term limits is a violation of the Conflicts of Interest Code.

Details are available on the Common Cause website.

(Yup, this too is on my website.)

Is there a rift between uber-wealthy Michael Bloomberg and Ron Lauder? Reports are all over the place, and rumors are flying. Let's try to make some sense out of it, bearing in mind that I have no access to either of the principals.

First, we have term limits in place, and in their current two-term limit, because Ron Lauder spent millions of dollars to create a referendum and shepherd it through, and then turn back an attempt to extend them. If it weren't for Lauder's money, we probably wouldn't have term limits in place, and Michael Bloomberg might not have run, much less been elected mayor.

In both cases, it was Lauder's money that funded the effort, but the voters decided.

Now that billionaire Bloomberg, who has spent a lot of his own money on several campaigns and political fights aside from his own, doesn't want to leave at the end of his two-term limit. He also, apparently, doesn't want to put the question before the voters, fearing, perhaps, that even by spending millions of dollars he wouldn't be able to win.

(Note: Once again, cross-posted on my website)

March 4, 1801 was one of the greatest days in American history.

After serving four years, President John Adams had been defeated in his attempt at reelection - defeated by Thomas Jefferson, Adams' political enemy. The campaign was probably the most vicious, brutal and disgusting this country has ever seen. By contrast, Karl Rove's worst tactics still render him a pantywaist. Certainly, Adams had no desire to turn the keys to the Executive Mansion over to someone as venomous and hateful (to Adams) as Jefferson.

But on March 4, 1801, as Adams' term of office ended, he left town. Adams gave way to the still fairly new "American way" of doing things.

Today, Michael Bloomberg faces the end of his two-term limit, just over a year away. But instead of following the shining example of John Adams, Mayor Bloomberg has decided to change the law so that he can run again.

Apparently, Mayor (or should that be "dictator"?) Bloomberg's plan to extend term limits would only apply to him, and his current cronies. This according to the NY Times.

In addition, he vetoed the 2002 bill that extended term limits (LA Times story), saying that "the proposed law was wrong because elected officials shouldn't be changing rules to benefit themselves politically."

And he apparently has some lap dogs at the NY Times editorial board.

I thought this image was appropriate.

The NY Times reports that Michael Bloomberg will announce Thursday his intention to run for a third term next year.

My view: I voted against term limits -- twice -- and still oppose them, but am more firmly opposed to overturning, by legislative fiat, the twice-expressed will of the people.

It's never too early to let your City Council member know how you feel.

Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg addressed a conference in Nevada, saying he wanted NYC to get 10% of its electricity from wind power in ten years. It's a great idea, and we should support the effort -- but what will it take?

Currently, NYC's peak electricity demand is about 13,000 megawatts (MW). (Note: Some reports say 34,000MW, but on July 19, 2005, Con Ed issued a press release saying they had reached a new peak at 12,365MW, and four years earlier they said there was a record at just over 12,000MW so I'm guessing the 34,000MW reports are wrong). Average use in NYC seems to be about 8,000-8,500MW. Assuming growth in demand, let's say we want to get 1,000MW from wind power in a decade.

Oh boy.

As the end of his term nears, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his senior advisers have been exploring strategies that would allow him to remain in political life, including undertaking a campaign to overturn the city’s term limits law or making a bid for governor, according to two people who have been briefed on the deliberations.

Mr. Bloomberg, as part of that effort, commissioned a poll recently to determine whether city voters would be open to lifting the term limits law, which forces him and other elected city officials from office after two four-year terms. The poll found that even as voters approved of his performance as mayor, they would strongly oppose any attempt to undo the limits. Voters were receptive to the idea of a Bloomberg candidacy for governor, however.

Either move by the mayor would dramatically shake up the political world in New York and beyond, given his national profile and previous pledge to try to shape the presidential campaign this fall, perhaps by establishing an independent political organization. [Emph. added]

Two things: first, you really have to wonder what the outcome would be if there were a statewide referendum on term limits. Such as, say, term limits applicable to the state legislature. The rock-solid support for such limits in the City most likely is not confined to the five boroughs. If two terms and eight years were good enough for George Washington, why aren't they sufficient for Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno, in office for thirty-two years, or Joe Lentol, at thirty-six?