Mark this one done under the title: Rock’s Long Range Predictions. I predict that after he signs the term limit extension bill next week, Michael Bloomberg will find his approval ratings dropping like a heavy load. They will drop all the way to his political demise. Recently, his approval was in the high sixties percentile, having been as high as the seventies before that. By the end of next January, I predict that his approval ratings will come in be under fifty percent.

Furthermore, I expect that when the issues around the economic crisis sinks in, and when they begin to affect the city’s budget and attendant services in extreme ways; Bloomberg’s ratings will sink even lower. He will have little time to prevent the freefall, since the election is one year away. It is evident that the mayor will have to raise taxes and fees to increase revenue flow in the coming months; these won’t be popular measures. Like Senator John McCain in this presidential cycle, Mayor Michael Bloomberg will be negatively affected by the country’s current economic woes. They will both suffer similar election-fates.

A majority of the two-decade span between my first and last service on the payroll of a New York elected official was spent in service to leaders of the NY State Senate Democrats, and though I’ve long been out of that business, like a junkie, I’ve never lost the taste. The need for the Democrats to take the Senate Majority is something I’ve written about quite passionately (for example here and here) through my years as a blogger. And now it looks like it is in sight.

But, as my friend Roscoe Conway likes to say (channeling Ben Franklin) "a Majority, if you can keep it."

Newspapers are dying because they continue to produce papers, but are reducing the extent to which they produce news, and continue to produce news that is only fair and relevant to those still buying paper. A recent article demonstrates the first half of this statement. According to the New York Times, which has problems of its own, “The Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest newspaper, will cut its newsroom staff about 40 percent by year’s end, one of the largest reductions in a single move by a major American paper.” According to this source, however, the newsroom staff only accounted for 330 of 750 non-union jobs with the paper. Presumably there are at least that many unionized workers printing and distributing the papers in addition, so workers producing “news” are a small and shrinking share of the staff. In contrast at the research company I work for, one that publishes by subscription on the internet, those producing information account for well more than half of those employed. Clearly no one informed The Star Ledger that the most recent industry classification system moved the newspaper industry out of “manufacturing” and into “information.” Some newspapers have devolved into nothing more than distribution channels for the Associated Press, while others are considering dropping the AP to save money. Those still trying are losing more and more money.

I am often asked by potential long shot candidates whether they should run if they don’t have much of a chance at winning. My answer is that there’s nothing wrong with running and losing as long as you can afford it both financially and emotionally.

I feel that way because while people in politics and the media often say that a losing race hurts a candidate’s chances for future success, I don’t think many voters feel that way. And running any political race, even a losing one, usually makes you a better candidate in any future campaigns.

Just look at the three most powerful elected officials in New York State government; Governor David Paterson, State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. All have lost elections before assuming their present jobs – Paterson for Public Advocate, Skelos for State Senate and Silver for City Council.

Sometimes I wonder about the honesty of some columnists in mainstream media; and sometimes the same applies for those in the unconventional alternatives like the blogs. They never cease to amaze me with their deliberate attempts to convey stupidity; especially when I know they know better. So the question is this: why are people seemingly missing the point in this debate on term limits? Is this deliberate? What part of democracy don’t they understand? 

Look, I have come to accept that most elected officials are self-serving, and I have come to accept that a few of them are just ethically challenged. I have even come to accept that some of them are simply corrupt. Recently I have even started to accept this awareness without disgust. Now I just see it as the customary disappointments of life for a political idealist. You don’t let it jade you and you don’t curtail your activism. You just plug on; pushing for a better community, town, city, state, country and world: in your own little way(s). And you do it without much fanfare, pomp and pageantry; you just do it because you believe it’s the right thing(s) to do. You do it without looking for monetary reward. You do it while making great sacrifices.

Liberal Democrat turned conservative Republican turned moderate Democrat turned professional Hillary hater turned Fox New pundit Dick Morris has a column explaining why & how McCain can win.

For Harry Truman in 1948, the presidential race shifted dramatically in the final week, and it's happened three more times in the past 30 years. In 1980, Reagan came from eight points behind to a solid victory by winning his sole debate with Carter in the last week of October. In 1992, Clinton, who had fallen behind in the polls because of the pounding he was taking over his liberalism and propensity to raise taxes, surged ahead of Bush when Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh announced that he was indicting Defense Secretary Casper (Cap) Weinberger, an indication of Bush's possible complicity in the Iran-Contra scandal. And in 2000, Bush's three-to-four point lead in the polls was erased over the final weekend when reports surfaced that he had been cited for DWI 20 years before and had not revealed the fact to the public. Bush still won the election, of course, but Gore won the popular vote by half a point.

Last Thursday evening, the New York City Council shat on democracy’s face. I am mad. I am real angry. I am angry enough to run for public office again. I am pissed. I am steaming. I am so pissed and steaming that I have to make this announcement: I have activated a twelve-member formal exploratory committee to consider a run for the council next year. We must throw these bums out. I am willing to lay my body in front of the oncoming train, once my committee deems victory as feasible.

I understand that my announcement here is an upgrade on my earlier position, whereby I have been semi-quietly contemplating another run for public office. I had the year 2014 as being the latest possible year for any run. After that year I was willing to go into retirement like Maurice Gumbs. I was even willing to wait out the 2010 census, and the resultant redistricting process, but I am now ready to move my schedule forward, more so since I was keeping my eye on next year’s council races anyway. We need new leadership in the council. We need people who are willing to fight for the public interest, not only for their self-interest. We need members with spines. We need members with backbones. We need change. We now have the executive and legislative branches of this city morphed into one: “the Bloomberg branch”. This is not constitutional. This is adverse to the spirit of the city charter.

At the risk of driving the entire NYC Blog world, whether Left Centric (Mole, Bouldin, Anderson, Jacoby) Center Centric (Maverick Wing: Littlefield; Hack Wing: Yoda) or Afrocentric & Egocentric (Hackshaw) out of their minds (although in some cases, they don‘t have far to go), I am going to declare that the City Council's recent vote to modify the City term limits law is unlikely to affect my vote in next year’s elections, although it may (arguably) somewhat curtail my opportunity to actually use it.

The blogocracy has made good sport of the Olympic level backflips and summersaults of politicians and editorial boards who said they supported terms limits, or, as was usually the case, said a term limit law twice supported by the voters in two referenda should not be overturned without another visit to the public. And even those who support an overturn by any means necessary had to be nonplused by the pretense that this was really a one-time-only measure enacted because if we let the bus stop the bombs might explode.

Larry Littlefield: Let's Hear From You On Something Else. That national election is over.

When Mayor Bloomberg and his billionaire buddies announced their decision to extend term limits, they said they were still in support of limits but simply wanted to extend them from two terms to three. In fact, taxpayer subsidized billionaire Mort Zuckerman’s Daily News insists that there is no argument about the concept of term limits.

However, reading what Mike and those he recruited to support term limits extension are now saying, they are making arguments against any term limits.

Here’s a sample of what was said after the vote and at the Council’s public hearings.

I challenge anyone to explain how any of these statements can be seen as supporting term limits any at any time.