Putin Pulls a Bloomberg

From the Moscow Times:

Putin's Constitutional Junta

What is most interesting about the term increases for State Duma deputies to five years and for the president to six years is the reaction to these changes. We heard hearty, prolonged applause by the Kremlin lackeys in the audience when President Dmitry Medvedev made his announcement in the state-of-the-nation address on Nov. 5. On the other hand, ordinary Russians are strangely silent on the issue...

There are two reasons why Putin rushed to change the Constitution only six months after stepping down as president. First, he sees the political and economic dangers of falling oil prices. The house of cards built on an eight-year oil boom is crumbling. Second, Putin understands that as the crisis develops, there could easily be a fierce battle among opportunistic politicians and businessmen to seize troubled assets.

Putin must act now before it is too late. In only six months, a rival group could be formed as an alternative to his siloviki to take advantage of the public discontent and power vacuum caused by the crisis. If this group becomes powerful enough, it could even rally around Medvedev and convince him to dismiss the prime minister based on the government's failures in handling the crisis.

This threat may seem farfetched, but Putin cannot completely dismiss it. When oil was more than $100 per barrel, the Medvedev-Putin duo could get away with its ersatz, or "sovereign," democracy. But during a financial crisis, it will be much more difficult to keep pulling the wool over the people's eyes.

Putin believes that during troubled times, the government and the Kremlin must be in the hands of a benign autocrat who is totally immune from critics and an opposition. Amid a state of emergency, the nation's leader needs to have a full mandate for six -- or, even better, 12 -- years.

This looks as if Putin is carrying out a constitutional junta. The only difference between his junta and the one in Latin American is that Putin is taking pre-emptive steps now to avoid a military coup later. This way he can maintain a semblance of democracy by packaging the coup in constitutional trappings...

Only difference is the people in New York have by no means been silent.

Why Is Bill de Blasio Running for Public Advocate?

Why Is Bill de Blasio running for Public Advocate, rather than for a third Council term or for the Borough President seat he had been running for prior to the Mayor's power grab? We don't know.

We understand that he is afraid of Marty's war chest and popularity, though if Bill de Blasio thought he was the right man for that job prior to the power grab, presumably he'd think so now regardless of Marty's love in parts in of the borough.

If he was the man for the Public Advocate job prior to the term limits fight, then why wasn't he running for that office then? And if he wasn't the man for that open seat then, why is he the man for that open seat now? He's not.

His explanation sheds little light on the question. He told the Courier Life chain of papers (not on line yet):

"The reasons (for running or public advocate) are straightforward and a lot of it is the experience I just went through in my leading the efforts against Mike Bloomberg extending term limits. It points out we need elected officials who stand up and express viewpoints of the people."
...

"The safe thing would have been to stay in the Council, but I think I have something to offer in the public advocate job, and we need people who can stand up to the mayor and I've proven I can do it. That's how I look at the world. To organize the people to defend their interest."

Well, we don't remember Bill standing with the people, or organizing the people other than his leadership on the term limits fight (and even that can be considered self-serving and political gamesmanship.) Standing with the people, we think, would mean challenging the obnoxious Markowitz despite the risk of defeat.

Sure, de Blasio has at times expressed tepid criticism of Atlantic Yards, but overall through the years he has been an unconditional supporter, and while he has meekly questioned the project at times he has never "organized the people."

We'll see how he approaches Atlantic Yards on the Public Advocate campaign trail.

He says he can stand up to the Mayor, as the term limits fight proved, but when else has he stood up to the Mayor and how can he stand up to the Mayor when he's afraid to even stand up to Markowitz?

We'll stick with Norman Siegel for Public Advocate, as he has been the shadow Public Advocate for at least the past five years, during which time he has made it clear why he's the right person for the job. De Blasio, on the other hand, just decided he is the right man for the job because he is afraid of Markowitz and because Gotbaum won't run again. Those aren't good reasons.

Disgraceful, Disgraceful, Disgraceful: Bloomberg Meets YouTube

The NY Times links to a video from 2005 (mashed up) where Bloomberg calls a legislative override of term limits "disgraceful":

YouTube Clip Uses Bloomberg’s Words Against Him
By SEWELL CHAN

“The public wants term limits and while there may be — it may be that the City Council has a right to override them, deliberately saying to the public ‘we don’t care what you think’ is, I would use the word ‘disgraceful.’ “ — Michael R. Bloomberg, Nov. 22, 2005.

These words, uttered shortly after the mayor’s resounding re-election victory in 2005, may be coming back to haunt Mr. Bloomberg.

Opponents of the plan by Mr. Bloomberg and members of the City Council to extend term limits for the city’s elected officials through legislation — nullifying the outcome of two voter referendums — unveiled an ad on YouTube on Monday that assails the mayor as a hypocrite.

The video shows the mayor making the above remarks, and then homes in on the mayor’s mouth as the words “‘we don’t care what you think’” and “disgraceful” are repeated, again and again.

“Who’s disgraceful now?” the closing shot of the ad asks. “Demand a public vote on term limits.”

The ad was created by itsourdecision.org, a Web site set up to oppose the term limits plan...

The Mayor's spokesman declined to comment to the Times.

Putins on the Hudson: Mike, Mort, Rupert, Arthur and Christine

The Putins on the Hudson "rear their heads":

Mike Bloomberg says, "I'm doing this for the people of New York City who cannot live without me. It is a sacrifice I must make, my pals at the dailies, and Christine, said I should!"

Mort Zuckerman says, "Go for it, pal."

Rupert Murdoch says, "Run, Mike buddy, Run!"

Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says, "Hey Mike, like you, we love the idea of abolishing term limits—the will of the people be damned, they can vote later after your $200 million campaign."

Christine Quinn says, "Hey Mikey, no worries, we know there is no time to waste. We'll introduce the bill on Tuesday! Whatever you want. Rah rah rah YAY!"

Mayor Bloomberg: Disgrace

Mayor Bloomberg thinks that some things are a disgrace:

Disgrace - Overriding the voters on term limits (Aug. 2005):
"I think it would be an absolute disgrace to go around the public will," he said on Aug. 30, 2005.

The City Council, over his veto, changed the law once to allow its speaker, Gifford Miller, an extra two years in office.

Bloomberg said four years ago: "They already did, I thought, monkey around with it to extend the definition of two terms to two and a half. Enough!"


Disgrace - Real Estate Money (Feb. 2008):
Responding to a question on campaign finance, he told reporters that he thinks it’s “a disgrace” that some real estate developers are giving to all the viable candidates, as “pay to play” is too prevalent in the city.


He knows a disgrace when he sees one, except when it's in the mirror.

13 Reasons Bloomberg Shouldn't Be Re-elected

Concluding "Term limits were made for this man," Lost City
summarizes "13 Reasons Bloomber Shouldn't Be Re-elected," and starts with....Atlantic Yards:

I'm not sure why a great chunk of the metropolitan population, when thinking about Michael Bloomberg, don't remember his many mayoral failings, but only that they kinda like him for some reason. So, as Mayor "I-know-you-need-me" Mike jockeys for a third term, I thought I'd jog some memories with 13 reasons why he doesn't deserve one more single day.

1. Atlantic Yards. That gaping hole in downtown Brooklyn is as much his fault as Ratner's. He allowed it to happen, funneling money from the City coffers to the developer and looking the other way as Ratner twisted every law in the book,including that of Eminent Domain, in his favor.

Lost City's list continues with (go to the blog for the explanations) :

2. The West Side Stadium.

3. Every Ugly Condo Tower and Every Dangerous Construction Site You See. 
4. Unaccountability.

5. He's Too Charitable for the City's Good.

6. Every Chain Store You See.


7. Amanda Burden.



8. Big Vision Projects.


9. Wall Street Melted Down on his Watch.


10. He Buys Elections.


11. He Changes Stripes. Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat, became a Republican in order to win City Hall. He then became an Independent when he hoped to run for President. THE MAN HAS NO CONVICTIONS EXCEPT PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT!



12. He's a Fake Subway Rider.



13. He Allowed This Picture to Be Taken of Him.

Associated Press: Bloomberg says he'll seek 3rd term

Article

NEW YORK (AP) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg is almost certain to face a legal challenge if he tries to alter the city's term-limits law and seek four more years in office.

Several lawyers and government watchdog groups said Wednesday they are mulling legal action to block any changes without the approval of voters, who passed a two-term cap by referendum in 1993.

Bloomberg was expected to announce Thursday that he will ask the City Council to pass a bill giving him and other officeholders the option of running for a third consecutive term.

Even before the specifics of the mayor's plan have been revealed, the idea has already inflamed some critics who are promising a fight.

Public advocacy lawyer Norman Siegel said he has received calls from several people urging him to file a lawsuit, including a political candidate whose campaign plans would be disrupted by a change in term limits.

"The legal question is, can you undo a public referendum by legislative fiat?" Siegel said.

He promised "a hard look" at a legal challenge, a vow repeated Wednesday by other attorneys.

"Lawyers all around the city are going over this with a fine-toothed comb," said Gene Russianoff, a senior attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group.

...

"It sounds to me like they would have a really, really tough time," he said, though he added that because the stakes were so high, an attempt to get the courts to intervene might be worth the long-shot odds.

One possibility, some lawyers suggested, would be to try to persuade the courts to change their thinking on whether any change to term limits requires a voter referendum.

State law currently requires a referendum in cases where someone has proposed changing the length of an officeholder's term, but the courts have interpreted that provision to apply only to changes in the number of years in a single term, not how many terms someone is allowed to serve.

Siegel said there are other possible grounds for a lawsuit, including the argument that it is too late in the election cycle to make changes without infringing on the rights of candidates who have already begun to campaign.

"I think there will be litigation, one way or another," Siegel said. He urged any member of the public opposed to term limit changes to make his or her voice heard now.

"Any change would be undoing the people's will," he said.

His Power Grab and the Myth of Mayor Mike

Put aside his hypocritical rhetoric and the effort to override twice-voted term limits is nothing more than a cutthroat power grab. How dare he say that New York can’t survive this crisis unless this one man can override the voice of the voters.

He says we need to override the voice of the voters because only can save New York the fiscal crisis. And he calls that democracy.

Putting aside how undemocratic that is, let’s look at Mike’s record on development and speculation. Every large scale “economic development” project he has backed has failed, is failing or is mired in controversy. Here are the big ones:

Atlantic Yards
The Olympics
Jets West Side Stadium
Willets Point redevelopment
Downtown Brooklyn rezoning
Greenpoint/Williamsburg rezoning
Columbia expansion
Javits Center
Moynihan Station
NASCAR in Staten Island

All speculative, all top down, all failures or mired in the stench of failure. His laser beam focus on the megaproject has wasted time and taxpayer dollars, and has been an opportunity cost of mammoth proportions.

That record of failed economic development policy is reason enough not to re-elect him, let alone allow his power grab to overturn the people’s vote.

How is he going to lead us out of the financial problems facing the city and nation with that track record? Is he going to overdevelop us out of this mess?

We don’t think so.

The power grab is based on a myth of Mayor Mike as a shrewd businessman, a steady hand on the city’s economy.

Myths shouldn’t be allowed to override the will of the people. His disingenuous rhetoric about democracy and choice doesn’t make his power grab right.

Vote Bill Saunders for Male District Leader in the 57th

There is an important primary tomorrow for male district leader in the 57th Assembly District. Machine candidate Walter Moseley is trying to unseat incumbent Bill Saunders. Moseley is part of the Towns machind and, like Towns supports, Atlantic
Yards.

Saunders has been a consistently outspoken Atlantic Yards opponent.

Brownstoner has more:

...There's a lower profile but important race in the 57th Assembly District (which encompasses Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Prospect Heights and parts of Bed Stuy). Bill Saunders, a fixture in the area for decades, is being challenged for the position of District Leader by Walter Moseley, a former employee of Clarence Norman, supporter of Atlantic Yards and part of the Ed Towns machine. As for Saunders, he's taken firm positions on two issues that may interest Brownstoner readers: He's been a critic of the Atlantic Yards process and, along with State Senator Velmanette Montgomery and Councilmember Tish James, spoke up in defense of The Flea this summer when it was briefly under fire; Saunders has been endorsed by the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats...

Vote Saunders on September 9th.

Normal Bedfellows: Lupe Todd, Ed Towns and Bruce Ratner

Lupe Todd is Ed Towns' campaign spokeswoman. Ring a bell?

Lupe Todd was Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards flack. Here she is defending Ratner's sweetheart deal with the MTA back in 2005. She eventually left the Ratner team, then signed on as Newark Mayor Cory Booker's spokeswoman only to be fired in her first year. (We don't know why.)

Returning to Brooklyn she switched from the corporate side of Brooklyn's entrenched political machine, to the political side of Towns' machine campaign.

Today, The Brooklyn Paper reports that upon 10th congressional district challenger Kevin Powell's release of a detailed 58-page policy guide ("A New Way for the 21st Century"), Lupe Todd came out swinging for her candidate Towns:

...But plans aren’t worth much if they aren’t put to action, said Towns spokeswoman Lupe Todd, who considered Powell’s policy guide naïve...

Todd should know about action: her candidate Towns has spent 25 inactive years on Congress. But that is the special skill of a flack who can work for Bruce Ratner and Ed Towns: defending the machine, defending indefensible track records.

Primary day is September 9th. Come out and vote for Powell. It's high time for new blood in the 10th congressional district.