The “Why Lie? I Need A Beer” Method Of Campaigning
30 Democratic City Councilmembers revealed some of what they are thinking regarding the mayor’s plan to permanently raise the number of terms via a Council vote. Time for a roll call:
At the meeting, many council members expressed support for changing term limits, which would force dozens of them from office next year, but said they were deeply uncomfortable doing so themselves because New Yorkers had voted for it twice.
Several lashed out at Mr. Bloomberg, saying that the mayor and his wealthy friends had orchestrated a campaign to rewrite the law without consulting with council members, according to those in attendance, who described the meeting on condition on anonymity for fear of offending colleagues.
“This one billionaire is now controlling our government, like a dictator,” Councilwoman Darlene Mealy, who represents Brooklyn, said during the meeting, colleagues said. Ms. Mealy did not return phone calls after the meeting.
Normally, “like a dictator” is an offensive rhetorical overreach. Not in this context!
Roll call — Lewis Fidler comes out in favor of self-serving legislation to extend his Council career:
But several members argued that even if the method of changing the law was unsavory, they remained philosophically opposed to a two-term limit and would act to change it.
Lewis A. Fidler, a councilman from Brooklyn, said he told the group that “this is about whether term limits are good government or bad government. I think it’s bad government.”
Roll call — John Liu, finally understanding the difference between good grandstanding and bad:
According to those in the room, roughly eight members spoke in favor of the legislation revising the law to three terms; eight spoke against it; and four asked questions that did not reveal their position.
Queens Councilman John C. Liu, who has emerged as a leader in the effort to stop the mayor’s plan, gave what many considered the most moving speech. As he recounted after the meeting, he told his colleagues, “I came into government with a pretty cynical attitude, but over the last six years I came to believe in the system. But in one fell swoop, what has happened here has decimated my belief in that system.”
Roll call — Robert Jackson, expanding on his personal philosophy of representative government and principles:
Robert Jackson, a Manhattan councilman, offered a rousing defense of the legislation under consideration, saying he has always opposed term limits and would not let public opinion sway him. “Even if 80 percent of my constituents are in favor of the death penalty, I wouldn’t vote for it,” he said. “The same is true for term limits. It’s a matter of principle.”
The issue of the back-door referendum:
A few members, like David I. Weprin, of Queens, questioned why Mr. Bloomberg did not attempt to change term limits through a public referendum.
But Peter F. Vallone Jr., of Queens, said that a referendum would cost millions of dollars to organize, a cost the city should not bear while the economy is faltering.
Solution — have the mayor bankroll a special election. It would be “altruistic” . . .
Roll call — Domenic Recchia, on the subject of “ample opportunity” to voice opinions:
After the meeting, Councilman Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn, who said he favors the extension, explained: “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.”
And, finally, contra Joyce Purnick, evidence that billionaire term limit-hater Ronald S. Lauder may not be in on the plan after all:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 | Filed under: Grrr!, Political, Smells Fishy, Smells Not Right, That's An Outrage!, Things That Make You Go "Oy"As the Council debated, Mr. Bloomberg’s aides scrambled to shore up the support of Mr. Lauder, the term limits advocate and cosmetics heir.
After agreeing last week to support a third term for Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Lauder vowed on Sunday night to fight the mayor’s plan to permanently change the limits to three terms from two, calling it a “terrible mistake.”
Last week, Mr. Lauder privately agreed to support a one-time change of the law to three terms, to allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek re-election in the middle of an economic crisis. But he was angry to learn that the mayor was pushing for a permanent change of the law.
Mr. Bloomberg’s staff argued that there were two reasons a permanent change was preferable: It was less likely to face legal challenge and would appeal to more City Council members. When Mr. Bloomberg learned of Mr. Lauder’s frustration, he and his aides suggested a deal in which Mr. Lauder would sit on a 2010 charter commission committee, which would have the authority to change the law back to a two-term limit. In return, Mr. Lauder would agree to not fight the mayor’s plans to alter the law.
But Mr. Lauder, after appearing to back such a deal, balked on Sunday night, people familiar with the matter said. His reversal left City Hall staff members confused, as one said, and flustered.
