Now that the 2008 Elections is blessedly over, it's time to move forward. A good part of that move forward is the fight against Mayor Bloomberg's despotic (and probably unconstitutional) Power grab.

The attraction of a third Bloomberg term - never mind that third terms historically haven't worked out so well, cf. Mayors LaGuardia (died), John Lindsay Robert Wagner (fixed!) and Ed Koch - is assumed to lie in what is being sold as his managerial competence and wall Street background in the midst of a Wall Street crisis. Why on earth it would occur to anyone to pick a Wall Street high-flyer to fix a mess caused by other Wall Street high-flyers eludes me, but there's that trusty old sense of logic that really has no place in politics again.

In terms of managerial competence, however, there are very solid arguments to make against a third Bloomberg administration. Consider the World Trade Center.

Over seven years after the attack, there is no new World Trade Center. The new Path station is a shambles, plagued by cost overruns and design changes. It is years from completion. The overall master plan for the site has been revised more times than the mayor has hairs on his head (a shrinking number to be sure, but we're talking about revisions to the biggest urban renewal project in the country). The time tables keep on being revised, and always further out. The memorial? Non-existent, and don't expect it to be built until 2011. What has been built on the site is 7 World Trade, notable for one reason: it was the one part of the rebuilding effort that the Bloomberg administration played no role in.

Meanwhile, rescue workers at the site, the same people we all applauded as they traveled down to the pit, are the victim of, to use the proper term, Bush EPA lies, with increasing rates of sickness. Has the mayor sued? No, of course not. Adults near the site on 9/11 are twice as likely as the general population to develop asthma.

The list of failures, of lost opportunities and tragic human impact goes on and on. And apparently, we need four more years of this, according to some worthless human beings (using the term loosely) on the City Council, and a bunch of billionaires who know better than we do what we need in our government.

Update: Dan Jacoby emails that Fiorello LaGuardia didn't die in office. True enough, but it's commonly assumed that the stress of the office contributed to his death.

Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner casting his ballot before going out to campaign for fellow Democrats Addabbo, Gennaro, and Stavisky for the rest of the day.

Meanwhile, what is Weiner's putative 2009 rival, Michael Bloomberg, up to? Oh, wait:

Republicans have enlisted Michael R. Bloomberg, the New York City mayor and a top ally. Mr. Bloomberg campaigned for Senator Serphin R. Maltese of Queens on Friday and has recorded automated calls for several Republican candidates, including Liz Feld, who is challenging Senator Suzi Oppenheimer in Westchester.

I don't know, but thinking as a Democrat, I think I'd rather have a mayor who fights for Progressive Democrats instead of pawning off reactionary shitbags like Maltese, no?

Good luck trying to get a phone call returned or an email answered by any even semi-prominent Democrat today. The entire party, from the highest levels down to lowly district leaders, is doing GOTV right now.

For example, via mcjoan, here's Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Nice. So what's Mayor Mike up to?

Oh, that's right, giving half a million dollars to Dean Skelos and his Senate republicans, all the better for them to screw over you, Bloomberg's constituents.

Remember that in 2009, Democrats. Mayor Mike is not on your side.

Amidst all the back and forth over extending term limits to three from two, I haven't seen any discussion of what the proposal means for prior mayors term-limited out of office - including Rudy Giuliani. In order to be constitutionally viable, this proposal needs to apply to everyone who's held office under the City Charter - including Giuliani. Anglo-American jurisprudence does not tolerate one-person-one-time exceptions to applicable law, obviously.

It's widely assumed - and New York republicans, catching a whiff of hope amidst their desolation, certainly hope for it - that Giuliani will run for governor in 2010. If he does, he'll lose, but then what?

He's not going to run for President again after his disastrous campaign, so what does that leave? That's right, the mayoralty of New York. And if Bloomberg gets a third term, there is no way he can be stopped from running, not under a Constitution that insists the laws apply equally to everyone.

[Update]: Oh, that's why nobody's written about it: because Giuliani can already run for a third term, as Dan points out in comments. Never mind.

Some interesting numbers in today's Q-Poll about term limits, a mixed (but generally positive) bag for friends of democracy.

By a 51 - 45 percent margin, New York City voters oppose extending the eight-year term limit to 12 years so they can elect Mayor Michael Bloomberg to a third term, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a similar, but not identical, question in an October 3 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll in which New Yorkers supported 54 - 42 percent extending term limits for four more years of Mayor Bloomberg. That question was asked before the Mayor formally announced that he would ask to extend term limits and seek a third term.

That's a nine-point swing against Bloomberg's plan after its actual announcement moved the idea from speculation to legislation.

In this latest survey, Democrats oppose extending term limits 53 - 43 percent and independent voters split with 50 percent opposed and 48 percent supporting it. Republicans support the four-year extension 54 - 44 percent. Whites back the idea 56 - 41 percent while black voters oppose it 62 - 35 percent and Hispanic voters oppose it 53 - 42 percent.

Thanks, mayor. You're splitting the electorate down racial lines, good work.

New York City voters approve 75 - 20 percent of the job Bloomberg is doing, tying his record, and 59 percent say they "definitely" or "probably' would vote for him if term limits are extended and he is on the ballot next year.

Shorter: Bloomberg's available voter universe has shrunk to 59%, meaning that he has to win over 80% of people who might consider voting for him. That's actually not a good number.

"Opponents of Mayor Bloomberg's plan to extend term limits are winning - narrowly - the battle for the hearts and mind of New Yorkers," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"They love Mayor Mike and two weeks ago they were ready to give him a third term, in a hypothetical situation. But now that it's real and other voices are being heard, voters are having second thoughts."

Looking at another term limit question, 50 percent of New Yorkers say changing the rules in the middle of the game is unfair, while 46 percent say Bloomberg deserves four more years to finish his work as Mayor.

Has anyone given a thought to the fact that the term-limits extension would also allow for Giuliani to have a third term?

Voters support 62 - 29 percent the overall concept of term limits. And in a question where no person is named, they oppose 56 - 36 percent extending term limits from eight years to 12 years for all elected New York City officials.

Shorter Quinnipiac: don't argue against Bloomberg, argue for democracy. If we do that, we win.

They also oppose 60 - 31 percent extending term limits so their local City Council member can serve for more years.

Hear that, council members? Thing is, a lot of you suck.

By an 89 - 7 percent margin, New York City voters say the issue of term limits should be decided by voters in a referendum, not by an act of the City Council. Even Republican voters prefer a referendum 85 - 11 percent.

If this is decided by the Council without a referendum, expect a massive backlash and the abrupt end of a lot of promising political careers.

If there is a referendum, voters would oppose 52 - 41 percent "extending term limits for four more years for all elected New York City officials, including the Mayor." Results among Democrats, Republicans and independent voters are consistent. White voters say 50 - 44 percent they would vote to extend term limits, while black voters would vote no 60 - 32 percent and Hispanic voters would oppose the extension 56 - 37 percent.

"Voters to City Council: We voted for term limits twice and, if it's going to change, it should be us - not you - who decide it," Carroll said.

Apparently, the people still don't like the idea of three terms. Mr. Bloomberg's transient popularity, earned or otherwise, shouldn't distract from that.

Apparently, in this vast and shining City of over eight million people, there breathes only one man capable of running it: Michael Bloomberg, the incumbent mayor. In fact, the need for Mr. Bloomberg's services is so dire, so pressingly urgent, that an inconvenient law, passed twice by popular referendum, needs to and no doubt will be overturned. In the process, a bunch of otherwise unemployable members of the City Council will get a shot at a third term as well. Coincidentally, because that election is only thirteen months away, sorry, suckers, the City doesn't have the time to put it to a new referendum.

This is the kind of bullshit we used to snicker about when it happened in some colonial backwater someplace. We used to be - I don't know, back when we had a real currency, I guess - a serious country that held that laws are more important than individuals. Instead, now, like in every third-world backwater banana republic, the Council is likely going to vote to extend Caudillo Bloomberg's lease on governance, and thereby, coincidentally, its own.

You know what that means, right? Not just Bloomberg, but four more years of Betsy Gotbaum. If this happens, and it will, it should be considered as what it is, a legislative coup. It's insulting to New Yorkers, it's insulting to the fine crop of apparent candidates running for office - who apparently just can't do Maximo Lider's job, even if one of them is presently the City's Comptroller - and it should be rejected. If the council has even a glimmer of respect for the voters, as opposed to being a bunch of self-serving ass-kissers, it will be rejected.

Don't hold your breath.

The mayor's batted-eyelash flirtation with an extension of term limits imposed by voters, an extension that would allow him to serve a third term, is drawing exasperation from some in the massive field of contenders for office.

The New York Times leads the fray.

[C]andidates, who are running for positions from borough president to mayor, complain that Mr. Bloomberg’s refusal to say whether he will challenge the election laws has paralyzed the city’s political world.

As a result, the candidates say, they are being forced to rethink their next campaigns and recalibrate their fund-raising just a year before the next citywide election. Under existing law, they would be forced from their current jobs in December 2009.

The New York Sun, rightwing fishwrapper that it is, ascribes ire to the unlikely vessel that is William C. Thompson, the City's Comptroller.

"If the mayor's position has changed on term limits, then I think he needs to be honest and direct with the voters," Mr. Thompson, a candidate for mayor in 2009, said yesterday in an interview. "I think the public is owed an explanation now — and quickly."

The Daily News outlines the mayor's minuet, one step forward, another sideways, perhaps two back.

Yesterday, Bloomberg answered one reporter's question about term limits by saying, "The City Council has a right to do things. ... And if they were to pass something it could come to the mayor."

He answered a second question by changing the subject to the presidential race.

Merely with a view towards entertainment value - there are, I'd guess, about four hundred people running for various offices, give or take - the argument for term limits remains strong. Of course, there's also that pesky fact that voters passed them with large majorities, twice, a position unaltered in recent polling.

Unshocking news in the New York Post: incumbents inconvenienced by term limits, repeatedly imposed by that bunch of ingrates that is the electorate, apparently would like to extend said limits.

Mayor Bloomberg is considering extending term limits through a deal with the City Council that would allow him another four years, while also boosting lawmakers' time in office, sources told The Post.

Bloomberg has publicly said he intends to leave when his term ends on Dec. 31, 2009, but has privately expressed interest in undoing the city's cap of two four-year terms with a legislative change, not a public referendum, sources said.

Furious backpedaling has already set in.

"As the mayor has said again and again, and as recently as yesterday, he expects to serve out his second term, and then turn the office over to someone else," Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said.

Is it not enough for the mayor to be honored as the King of Kings?

In a landmark announcement Tuesday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared that all 100 city agencies that serve the general public are now required to translate key documents and provide interpretation for the city’s millions of immigrant residents in the top six languages spoken by New Yorkers.

The new policy, outlined in Executive Order 120, reflects the linguistic diversity of New York, where half of city residents speak a language other than English at home. Now communicating to residents in Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Italian, and French Creole will be given the same priority as English. The new citywide policy is expected to assist the nearly 1 in 4 New Yorkers who have a limited ability to read, write or speak English with accessing city services.

What’s more, the announcement of Executive Order 120 spins the government requirements as a matter of customer service and government accountability. The new policy mandates the creation of a new Customer Service Group, housed within the Mayor’s Office of Operations, to help city agencies figure out how to make sure their services and programs are reaching immigrant New Yorkers.

The announcement establishes New York City at the forefront of policymaking efforts to encourage immigrants to access government services. It also provides a stark contrast to the reinvigorated local initiatives that seek to declare English the sole language for signs and services. Many cities and states are also increasingly opposed to policies that help immigrants access government services, even if they are legally eligible for them.

(Read the full post by checking out Feet in 2 Worlds blog...)