There is a diary on the front page that portrays Bloomberg as a power-hungry asshole who is circumventing the people of New York city in his quest to be emperor. As a resident of Brooklyn (who has lived here for most of the 10 years he's been in the U.S.) I feel compelled to say something about this. The diary I'm referring to is MOSTLY, though not entirely factually correct (h/t to LarryInNYC); I just disagree with the characterization of Bloomberg that the author is pushing. Follow me after the fold.
When Giuliani tried to extend his term after 9/11 I was a high school junior and I remember that everyone was pissed off at him for it. We were in a sh*t hole then, but people felt Giuliani wasn't a good enough mayor to stay on. I remember Bloomberg ran against Mark Green and possibly someone else; I wasn't remotely interested in politics then so I didn't care. When Bloomberg won, the city's economy was (unsurprisingly) in shambles. In about the first 10 months of his term, Bloomberg managed to piss off almost everyone in the city. He lengthened the school day, thereby pissing off students (yours truly included), parents (mine included, because it forced them to rearrange their schedules), and teachers. He instituted that "no smoking" rule in restaurants and other places, thereby pissing off smokers and people who relied on them for their business. He also proposed a tax hike on cigarettes for good measure. Then he reduced recycling services, pissing off environmentalists. And as liberal as NYC is we have A LOT of environmentalists. Thanks, in large part to these and other reforms, by the beginning of my senior year (less than a year into his first term) EVERYONE I knew hated Bloomberg. That's not an exaggeration. You couldn't find anyone who could say positive things about him.
But after another year or two the city had regained its footing. It turns out that his policies were planned with the cold decisiveness of a businessman running a faltering company, and he generated a lot of revenue that way. People understood that he risked pissing off everyone because he felt he had to make those unpopular decisions. The residents started to warm up to him. By the time of his reelection he was so popular that he even managed to convince some Democratic donors to avoid donating to the Democratic nominee. Bloomberg himself was running as a Republican, though everyone understood he was a RINO so it didn't really matter. He could finance his own campaign so all he had to do was cripple the fundraising effort of his opponent. Prominent Democrats who supported him could save face by simply staying neutral. And he won reelection by about 20% (I'm not sure but I believe that qualifies as a landslide).
As a progressive Democrat who supports Bloomberg, I believe that he should be allowed to run for a third term. I agree that term limits are undemocratic and potentially harmful (look at the last 8 years). I understand that the diarist sees Bloomberg's move as a power grab meant to circumvent the voters. Yes, the argument that he is staying on because of the financial crisis is bs; a reporter called him out on it during his press conference. But polls show that while NYC residents support term limits, they would vote for Bloomberg again if they could. This shows Bloomberg’s progressive credentials (this is NYC for God's sake, we're as blue as they come). And the truth is that the city council DOES have the power to extend term limits. So as the high-minded people here (most of whom aren’t even NYC residents) disparage Bloomberg (who isn’t doing anything illegal), maybe they can take a moment to consider that maybe, just maybe, NYC residents would like to have Bloomberg stay. His approval ratings are over 70% and people think he’s great so why remove him? I know I would’ve liked the chance to vote for Clinton for a third term.
UPDATE: There is a running theme in the comments below that Bloomberg running for reelection after two terms is somehow going against the will of the people of NYC. That is not the case. This poll, for example, shows that people WANT him to run again. It's true that there have been referendums in the past that upheld term limits. But that was before Bloomberg. Polls still show that NYC residents still like the idea of term limits; they just don't want to get rid of Mike yet. Wouldn't the will of the people, therefore, be better served by keeping him?