Saturday, September 6, 2008

Proponents of term limits release ad

The mayor may be mum on his feelings about term limits, but the father of the movement that gave birth to the law is about to start wailing in defense of his baby.

Politicians, like babies, 'need to be changed regularly,' says biz man who helped enact term limits

Millionaire Ronald Lauder — who spent a fortune bringing about the referendum that created term limits in 1993 - is unleashing a TV spot likening politicians to diapered babies "who need to be changed regularly."

The 30-second spot is set to air Sunday on the major network TV news shows: Face the Nation, This Week, Meet the Press, and Fox News Sunday. It will also air next week on the local New York 1 cable news station.

The buy is only $50,000, but it’s intended to signal to city leaders and politicians that Lauder is still very protective of the law he brought about and is ready to dip into his deep pockets to keep the "two terms and out" provision that generally limits elected municipal officials to eight consecutive years in office.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Right on Ron!

Politics stinks!

And politicians are full-o-shit just like babies' diapers!

Just one look at the Queens
club (shit) house is more than proof of the chocolate pudding (make that poop....it's the same color) that crawls into the political arena.

For example:
Joe Crowley, former C.M./rapist Gallagher, John Liu, etc.

Then we have the likes of
Toby Stavisky who inherited her seat to continue a legacy of crap.

We need term limits in the legislature too!

Anonymous said...

Why cant you just VOTE people out?.. Thats what the vote is for.

Anonymous said...

You can't just vote people out because they get so entrenched in their office a new face has little chance of being elected. The deck is stacked against the new guy. I think fresh blood does a lot of good. Eight years is plenty. (maybe too long)

Anonymous said...

The Problem is you are not letting the voter decide. I am for getting rid of many of our pols but let the voters decide who they want or don't want. The Problem is not term limits its voters that dont educate themselves about the issues or worse dont vote.

Anonymous said...

Isn't this what elections are for?

Why do we need to try to idiot proof everything?

If people are dissatisfied with the representation they will vote for new blood.

Taking away choice is a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

Hey jerk they spend millions of your money on member items and senior centers. The poor senior feel if they vote against Stavisky they senior center will close.

That is why incumbents always win the money the money the money our money

Anonymous said...

It's not a question of taking away choice. In fact, it's about ensuring more choice. There is no choice in an uncontested election, and there is no choice in an entrenched incumbent, (in Queens, it's usually a Dem, and Reps, elsewhere)who can't be beat no matter how hard the underdog tries.

All legislative offices should be for one five year term and then go back to the real world. It's supposed to a a form of public service. We should be "begging" for people to serve, not the other way around. George Washington didn't want to be president.

Schmuck Meter said...

Why cant you just VOTE people out?.. Thats what the vote is for.

What a naive statement! The incumbent has a tremendous advantage over challengers. They can send taxpayer funded literature that's really campaign shit all year long and throw money around to buy support.

Term limits is a much needed courtesy flush, especially for corrupt Queens.

Anonymous said...

So change the rules and eliminate the advantage of the incumbent.

I fear a day when the only people who will run for office are transients, people who are out for a short term influence peddle and the Chuck Apelians of the world.

Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Anonymous said...

Chuck Apelian has been on CB7 for waaaay to many years.

Your argument holds no water. The council is beholden to developer money now, especially around re-election time. Let them only serve 1 term, reduce the problem. The state senate and assembly have no term limits and there'll be no room for them to move up. They'll have to become lobbyists themselves.

Anonymous said...

What part of democracy are you unclear on?

Term limits are in effect BECAUSE THEY WERE VOTED ON you jackass!

In the entire history of the United States (my country , God knows what craphole you came from) the only president to serve more than two terms was FDR and that was in the middle of a world war.

After that war this country enacted Presidential term limits and that works.

So it's good enough for the President but not ok for these turds like poo-on-my-shoe-liu?

Flush the thought.

Anonymous said...

THE VOTERS HAVE ALREADY DECIDED
VIA A PUBLIC REFERENDUM ON THE BALLOT
THAT THEY WANT TERM LIMITS!

What part of this democratic process do you not understand you doofus? !!!

Anonymous said...

Yeah....
it's not up to some
city council thugs to subvert the will of the voting public by introducing an ILLEGAL bill to extend the terms
of employment of some of our worst "representatives"!

Now go and f--k off
you lazy political lifers!

You've been fired!

Try getting a real job earning your living off the sweat of your brows instead of sucking off the teats of us taxpayers!

Anonymous said...

City Council member said "Democracy, We Don't Need Your Stinking Democrcy"

Anonymous said...

And what happens when the gene pool of qualified candidates is expired or people dont want to bother to run for an elected office?

you wind up with even more incompetent people in office looking to build up gred and favors for their golden parachute after their public service ends

fix the problem. Its not the people.

Anonymous said...

The class of 2001 was the beneficiary of term limits. Now that they face their own removal, they want to change it. Sorry, doesn't work that way. The people want term limits.

Anonymous said...

The same people that keep voting the people back in office??