From the Daily News:The Citizens Union played an active role in the failed effort to block the term limits extension, but has sufficiently recovered from that disappointment to endorse Mayor Bloomberg for re-election.
CU Executive Director Dick Dadey and Chairman Peter Sherwin announced the good government group's decision via press release this afternoon and said the decision wasn't easily reached, given Bloomberg's "decision to reverse his position on the issue of term limits and seek a change to the city charter that overturned the twice voter-enacted law."
The CU also endorsed Democratic Staten Island BP candidate John Luisi, continues to support Councilwoman Diana Reyna (who faces a continued challenge from her unsuccessful primary opponent, Maritza Davila, on the WFP line), Assemblyman Mark Weprin (for the Council seat of his brother, David), GOP Councilman Eric Ulrich and nine other Council incumbents:
Daniel Garodnick and Jessica Lappin in Manhattan, Kevin Kim, Peter Vallone Jr., and Elizabeth Crowley in Queens, Vincent Gentile in Brooklyn, and Debi Rose, James Oddo and Vincent Ignizio in Staten Island.
So what the hell is the purpose of this group if they are going to denounce the extension of term limits but then endorse the very people that decided to run for a third term? That's good government?
12 comments:
A new low? Follow the money.
This group will soon be gone.
Let's see how these guys got bought off.
Well, that tells you all you need to know about the "Good Government" group, Citizen's Union.
And, you now know all you need to know about the candidates endorsed by this deceitful group.
Yes, do follow that money. It will lead right to the Commissar.
Dadey lost his credibility as a watchdog a long time ago.
CU, the fox watching the chicken coop.
The onetime good "Citizens Union" have turned into asswipes!
Anonymous: This group will soon be gone.
Well, seeing as how it's been around for well over a hundred years and has been through worse times than these, I think your prediction is a bit premature.
Why did they endorse Bloomberg after campaigning against an extension of term limits? Probably because they realized that term limits is just not the most important issue in the world.
Denying the will of the people is the most important issue in the world.
How about denying people their civil rights during the Republican National Convention?
I guess Ridgewoodian doesn't have a problem with that either.
Slush funds weren't a problem for them eh?
Anonymous: How about denying people their civil rights during the Republican National Convention?
I guess Ridgewoodian doesn't have a problem with that either.
You guess wrong, then. I had a major problem first with inviting the loathsome GOP to come run their president on the bones of the 9/11 dead and then I had a worse problem with the city's response to protesters. I was in Union Square one day and I saw with my own eyes protesters get plucked away at random, for doing nothing. We all know of about the inhumane conditions they were kept under. Which ended up costing the city plenty in settlements with the wrongly arrested. Bloomberg was ultimatly responsible for this and it was probably the main reason I didn't vote for him in 2005 and, while I'm torn now, if I end up NOT voting for him 2004 will be one of the main reasons why. So, you don't know what you're talking about.
ANONYMOUS: Denying the will of the people is the most important issue in the world.
And what if Bloomberg wins, as it seems likely that he's going to do? Wouldn't that be the will of the people? Wouldn't it have been undemocratic to have denied them the opportunity to elect the person of their choice? Provided you have honest elections term limits are an anti-democratic gimmick.
The problem with Bloomberg isn't that he's overturned term limits. The problem is that he's been able to use his vast wealth to essentially buy election. He's an object lession in the need for campaign finance reform.
"Wouldn't it have been undemocratic to have denied them the opportunity to elect the person of their choice?"
No, they voted for term limits. They want turnover of government. They are only supporting him now because of his spending. Term limits would have prevented that.
Post a Comment