If nothing else, Cliff Lee’s no-earned-run complete-game mastery and brilliant fielding last night during Game One of the World Series between the Phillies and Yankees will be useful in that it may actually shut up the New York Post, which has been stupidly and relentlessly on Philadelphia’s case for some reason or other since the Yankees finally clinched the pennant.

You know the type of stories the paper is running — the ones where it takes like six reporters to go out and interview yahoos who will say stuff about how Philadelphia is “a nothing city” (I often wonder whether people outside of New York actually care about New York as much as people in New York want to believe people outside of New York care about New York) or that the Phanatic mascot isn’t even as cool as the “retarded” Mr. Met mascot (classy, printing that quote). I almost want the Yankees to lose just to chasten the Post.

As Lee continued to shut down the Yankees’ offense over the course of the game — while the Phillies’ Chase “WFC” Utley hit not one but two home runs against Yankees ace C.C. Sabathia — it was tough to resist that time-worn cliche of “that’s why they play the game.” And sometime last night — probably after Lee struck out A-Rod for the third time — it occurred to me that a Yankees World Series loss would lessen the sting of a Bloomberg victory: The Yankees could be the sacrificial lambs for the sins of Michael Bloomberg.

If Bill Thompson can’t fulfill the role of underdog, then maybe the Phillies can. It will prove that maybe you can’t just spend hundreds of millions to win. It will put the elite in their place. It will shut up the Post! And should this all transpire, I want to believe that Bloomberg sycophantically hanging around the Yankees clubhouse on Sunday night and pandering to fans in Times Square on Wednesday will be the curse that catalyzed the team’s World Series failure.

. . . .

Speaking of the Post, let’s keep picking on the Post. The paper’s noxious endorsement of the mayor hinged on three areas — education, crime and the city’s finances.

On education, the Post’s editorial board argues that “Mike Bloomberg will be remembered as the mayor who brought accountability to the system. Supervisors, principals, teachers, students — all are now expected to show results. And they have, often spectacularly.” Let’s put it into perspective. Bloomberg put the board of education under the control of the mayor, which allows voters to punish a mayor for an under-performing system. That’s nice if you’re a lazy voter, and can’t be bothered to pay attention to the machinations of the school system, much less figure out which board members to vote for when school board elections come up. But I question whether this mayor — or any mayor — can really take credit for success in the school system. Bloomberg knows this, which is why they’ve been puffing up the test scores, this despite questionable results (and I’m assuming there’s a perfectly good reason why the NAEP scores for New York City are going to be delayed two weeks). Bloomberg shouldn’t oversell mayoral control, and he shouldn’t go after Thompson for an under-performing school system during Thompson’s tenure as board president when the truth is much more complicated than that. Look at it this way — is it Bloomberg’s fault that the Department of Buildings was apparently infiltrated by the mafia? Hey, now that I think about it, maybe Bloomberg should be held accountable — goose, gander, etc. At least Board of Education incompetence didn’t cause actual deaths . . .

On crime, the Post writes “Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the ’60s. And they did so even while deploying significant resources into counterterrorism — helping to keep New York safe from another 9/11.” You don’t even have to read that closely — “a crime rate that was already declining.” Do you really think a mayor has much control over the crime rate? If so, then you’re much more idealistic than I am, though I’m guessing you probably also haven’t watched all that much of The Wire either. As for counterterrorism — well, for argument’s sake, let’s say the mayor actually does get out there, Jack Bauer-like, to keep us all safe. Actually, no, let’s not, because that is another absurd argument (though are you really impressed by the NYPD’s spurious sting operations and bungled investigations?). What’s more, it’s offensive to the many municipal and federal law enforcement officials who actually do their best to keep us safe to act like the mayor is somehow responsible for our safety. Giuliani’s recent Giuliani-like boasting about Bloomberg’s terror-fighting prowess was the quintessence of this asinine argument.

On finances, the Post writes “Eight years ago, Bloomberg took a city driven deep into recession by 9/11 and helped bring it back. Last June, he delivered a budget that cut spending by $1.5 billion — even as Albany’s budget grew by 10 percent” before acknowledging that the mayor’s deals with the unions may bankrupt the city (in so many words). I don’t buy that the city was “driven deep into recession” after September 11, 2001 because — especially compared with the current recession — the one following 9/11 wasn’t all that deep. And — let’s be crystal clear — mayors don’t fix the economy. Mayors may fix potholes and sanitation schedules, but they sure don’t do much for a worldwide economy. Even really smart businessmen like Michael Bloomberg. As for the second claim — that Bloomberg delivered a budget that cut spending — well, OK, maybe he cut spending a little. But A) I’m not convinced the budget savings weren’t merely the result of illusory accounting, since it’s easy to squirrel away or otherwise conceal $1.5 billion of a nearly $60 billion budget — and we’ll see how he manages a budget in 2010, should he make it that far; and B) you’re really comparing the city to what they do in Albany? Sounds like a backhanded compliment to me . . .

But you have to like an endorsement that starts out saying “It can be hard to warm to Bloomberg’s governing style, and we have little patience for his often arrogant nanny-state meddling in New Yorkers’ private lives.” Nice.

The Times’ Bloomberg endorsement — hidden in the Saturday paper, by the way — works similar debate-club style gymnastics to come to a conclusion. Their lede is absurdly fawning: “The real test of any mayor is how well the city works. In his eight years in office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has managed to make the unpredictable city of New York work astonishingly well.” Wow — “astonishingly”? Were you at any point “astonished” by how well the city ran during Bloomberg’s tenure?

Second paragraph: “Mr. Bloomberg has been a first-rate steady hand during unsteady times. He guided the city out of the post-9/11 recession, then tucked away money during the boom years that followed.” “Guided the city out of the post-9/11 recession” sounds familiar to what the Post wrote. Is this taken from bullet points or something? We’ll see just how much money has been “tucked away” — I question whether it will be anywhere near what is supposed to be needed to plug a 2011 budget gap — but it is interesting to note that candidate Thompson spoke out last year for an actual rainy day fund, and not just raiding random accounts.

And check out this important point: “He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency. He has chosen some of the best people in the country to work for him, and he has mostly let them do their jobs. As a result, many city services operate better than they have for years. The garbage mostly disappears on time.”

The garbage “mostly disappears on time.” Again — wow. If that’s the case, why not go for a fourth term? What else here . . . oh, “Public education is better over all” (no real data or argument to back that up) and “Crime is down under Raymond Kelly, the police commissioner” — at least they didn’t try to say that Bloomberg actually “drove crime levels down,” like the Post wrote.

Both editorials feel the need to admonish Bloomberg’s churlishness. That’s not insignificant. The Times writes, “Finally, like others who have not always agreed with the mayor, we worry about his difficulty brooking dissent.” I think they are talking about mayor’s leadership qualities, especially vis a vis building consensus, which Bloomberg is not good at and which is one of the few traits that actually matters in an executive. Take his West Side Stadium defeat and failed congestion pricing proposal — two initiatives that would have been cornerstones of his development/job creation and environmental record. Those failures can’t all be due to a recalcitrant state legislature (or even Sheldon Silver). There’s a pattern there, and that pattern shouldn’t be relegated to near the end of a lukewarm endorsement.

. . . .

You want to read something funny? Compare the Observer’s endorsement with the Times’ endorsement. First the Observer (emphasis added):

The mayor’s record speaks for itself. Critics complain that voters are being brainwashed by the mayor’s free-spending campaign, but Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity has more to do with his accomplishments than with the quality of his television commercials. His place in history was ensured the moment he took office, because on January 1, 2002, the city still was recovering from the attacks of 9/11. The city was on edge, emotionally and fiscally, on that January morning. Mr. Bloomberg helped lead the city from its despair with a combination of reassurance, compassion and financial acumen.

In the years since, Mr. Bloomberg has defied conventional wisdom, as he and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly continued to drive down crime even after the historic decreases under Rudolph Giuliani. He told us to hold him accountable for the performance of the city’s public schools, and he is now reaping the benefits of a school system that no longer is dysfunctional, unaccountable and unsafe. He returned the city to its rightful place as a leader in public health through his campaigns against smoking and trans-fats. He recruited capable deputies and let them do their jobs.

Then the Times (again, emphasis added):

What makes the mayor stand out is not his political skill, although he has come a long way since his first clumsy days in office. He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency. He has chosen some of the best people in the country to work for him, and he has mostly let them do their jobs. As a result, many city services operate better than they have for years. The garbage mostly disappears on time. The police and fire departments respond quickly. Mr. Bloomberg’s 311 phone line allows New Yorkers to complain to a live human being. Often, they even see tangible results.

Public education is better over all — although parents still need more access to their children’s teachers and schools. The mayor’s new complaint line for parents should help, as will other changes imposed by the Legislature. But in a third term, the mayor and his team should still work harder to listen to those who hand over their children each morning to his educators.

Crime is down under Raymond Kelly, the police commissioner, although there is concern again about stop-and-frisk actions, which seem to focus too heavily on Hispanics and African-Americans. Mr. Bloomberg also has been a national leader in gun control.

The mayor’s environmental efforts — stalled in Albany — show admirable concern about the city’s future. And he has worked hard to improve the city’s health — most effectively with the smoking ban.

The Post endorsement actually sounds even more similar to the Observer’s language on crime: “Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the ’60s.” The “accountability” portions in the Post and Observer endorsements sound similar as well. All three endorsements sort of lob up there the same hackneyed reasons to vote for the mayor. All three sound like stupid bullet points. None seem serious.

The largest issue for most voters is the third term nonsense — another “not insignificant” concern, but the Post brushes it off: “No doubt, some New Yorkers are angry about how Mayor Mike used his considerable resources to having them set aside to allow him to run again. It was a characteristic display of Bloombergian hubris, and we suspect that it will cost him on Election Day.” The Times doesn’t mind that the term limit issue went down the way it did because the editorial board happens to agree with the outcome (I recall similar arguments during the Iraq War and subsequent failure to uncover WMD). Instead, the Times somehow believes that allowing every city councilmember, borough president, the public advocate, comptroller and mayor to run again somehow offers voters “more choices” — and they’re right; after all is said and done, voters will get precisely one more choice. It’s Orwellian logic. The Daily News makes the same argument in its endorsement.

. . . .

But let’s move to real talk. The real problem with the third term isn’t that Bloomberg either bought off or wielded power to influence the elite — the editorial boards, the power players — to accept the proposal to ignore term limits. The most egregious thing is that Bloomberg poisoned the democratic well for those of us who aren’t in roles of power, and that will have a much longer effect on the city. When voter apathy is low everywhere, but especially in sclerotic New York (cf. eight percent turnout for last month’s runoff, a vote that actually had a significant outcome), it sends a bad message. And it doesn’t just send a bad message to educated, older voters who will participate anyway (and continue to vote in years to come) but rather to those who don’t see a reason to participate in the first place. How many youths — even people into their 30s — have come of age politically during Bloomberg’s tenure, and developed their ideas about democratic participation while he steamrolled through $200 million-plus to get himself elected? How will this third-term charade affect their ideas about democracy? Bloomberg and his supporters (Bono! Shilpa! Cherry!) haven’t answered for this or even acknowledged it. We deserve better.

. . . .

But what if the unthinkable happens? Is a Bloomberg victory really a foregone conclusion? Remember the Phillies. For one bright, shining moment last night, the Phillies reminded Yankees fans “that’s why they play the game.”

And if somehow both the Yankees and Bloomberg lose, then that would be epic. New York Magazine will craft a trend piece on the end of New York. Spike Lee could make a film about it, just like he did with 1977. Howard Wolfson will walk away looking like a huge dick. And maybe, just maybe, the rest of the country will breathe a huge sigh of relief knowing that New Yorkers are not nearly as vapid as they appear! It will be a victory for all. So go vote Tuesday. You know what to do.

See also: Bloomberg For Mayor 2009.

Inasmuch as the mayor has attempted to craft the narrative of his tenure as a triumph over politics of the past vis a vis mayoral control of schools — the results of which relying on tenuous claims of test score success — it makes sense to focus on Bill Thompson’s position as school board president. But after the Times actually investigated that role, a fool’s errand as much as anything, Thompson doesn’t come off so badly:

His was a long tenure, and Mr. Bloomberg and his aides heap scorn on it. “A true warrior speaks out and fights for mayoral control,” said Christopher Cerf, a deputy schools chancellor now working for the Bloomberg campaign. “Bill Thompson did none of that.”

Legislators suggest this criticism is not apt; they were not going to hand over control of the schools until Mr. Giuliani exited. And Mr. Thompson’s epitaph lists accomplishments, including test scores that rose for four years.

“To bring calm to the circus mattered,” said David C. Bloomfield, the Board of Education’s former general counsel. “To the degree that it was Bill’s job to be a political operative, it was to keep a lid on, and to make sure that the chancellor was able to do his job.”

See also: Bloomberg For Mayor 2009.

. . . he didn’t really say that much to DC37 about the Taylor Law, which, yes, if you spin it right, makes people remember the TWU strike, but besides, where did you get this anyway, because it has the Bloomberg campaign’s pawprints all over it?

One, unless you’re comparing Nazis to actual Nazis, refrain from using Nazi comparisons, because that’s just, as they say in Gaelic, “meshuganah.”

And two, never, ever, ever allow anyone to be able to use a headline like “REP. CAROLYN MALONEY APOLOGIZES FOR USING ‘N WORD’,” even if you are just repeating what someone else told you.

Mark Green, who is not a very good politician, is running again:

Outside the Fairway market on the Upper West Side the other day, not far from the cartons of strawberries and cases of Fiji Water, a voice pleaded for attention. “I’m Mark Green, Democrat for public advocate,” it said again and again, as shoppers headed in and out of the store. “If you sign my petition for 30 seconds, I can get on the ballot to run for office again.”

A handful of people recognized Mr. Green, the man who three years ago declared he would never again seek office.

But most did not break stride. So Mr. Green cupped his hand to his face and shouted: “If you sign, I get on the ballot. If you don’t, I’ll cry.”

. . .

The reaction of Jessica Nooney, who runs a day care center on the Upper West Side, may have been emblematic. She blurted out, with a big smile, “Are you the real Mark Green?”

He nodded. She said: “It’s the real Mark Green! We need you!”

After she left, and passed the next street corner, where a New York University student was collecting signatures for Leslie Crocker Snyder’s bid for Manhattan district attorney, Ms. Nooney acknowledged feeling torn.

“He’s a household name, and I hope he makes it,” she said. “But it’s very sad. It’s like he can’t get another job. When someone has lost so many times, it’s kind of hard to come back.”

Sly transition of the day:

Sampson said he’d like to look at his bill and the Assembly’s bill to see if there could be any compromises. When asked if there’s still time before law expires on June 30 he said that’s up to Republican Senator Dean Skelos, who insists he’s still in charge of the Senate. Albany observers believed Republicans won’t let the law sunset because they don’t want to alienate Bloomberg, who’s a generous donor. For WNYC I’m Beth Fertig.

Yeah yeah, “Poll Shows Big Bloomberg Lead Over Thompson”:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg leads City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., his chief Democratic challenger, 54 percent to 32 percent, among New York City voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Tuesday.

But look on the bright side — 1) couldn’t a lot of people get 54 percent if they had $20 million to spend before June? And 2) “June” is siginificant here, because it’s still early! See, for example, poll numbers from late July 2001, when people hadn’t really gotten to know Bloomberg yet (of course, there was that lucky post-9/11, pre-RNC Giuliani endorsement):

Republican mayoral candidate Michael Bloomberg has closed the gap against any of the four Democratic candidates, but still trails any Democrat, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

In a June 7 poll by the independent Quinnipiac University, Bloomberg trailed any of the four Democrats by margins of 2 -1 or more.

In this latest poll, possible general election matchups show:

• City Council Speaker Peter Vallone over Bloomberg 53 – 28 percent, with 16 percent undecided, down from 61 – 18 percent June 7;
• Public Advocate Mark Green over Bloomberg 54 – 28 percent, with 15 percent undecided, down from 62 – 20 percent;
• City Comptroller Alan Hevesi over Bloomberg 51 – 29 percent, with 17 percent undecided, down from 58 – 21 percent;
• Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer over Bloomberg 48 – 33 percent, with 17 percent undecided, down from 55 – 25 percent.

Steve, first, can you be a little bit less obvious — too frequently your analysis just washes over me like so much CNN — but more importantly can you also maybe just leave us a fucking teensy-weensy sliver of hope that Mayor Iceberg can possibly be stopped? Because stuff like this just makes me want to stare directly into the sun and pry off my own fingernails with a spoon:

Certainly, the roots of Mr. Clinton’s press contempt differ from Mr. Bloomberg’s. The former president, who launched his first campaign at the age of 26, was hardly a stranger to unfriendly questions by the time he became president. His resentment, it seemed, stemmed more from his desire to be seen by Americans as a policy wonk and not a political animal. (In reality, he was both.) So he’d angrily lash out at any suggestion of political motive, an effort to convince the public, and maybe himself, that there was nothing to the charge.

Until he ran for mayor at the age of 59, Mr. Bloomberg’s only relationship to the press came as the owner of a media company. He may actually see himself as being above politics, but what seems to exercise him when the press broaches the subject isn’t really fear that they might be on to something; it’s the idea that anyone would have the audacity to challenge his version of things, least of all a bunch of lowly reporters who would surely be off making real salaries if they were capable of it.

It’s not clear he really has to change that attitude, either. Mr. Clinton always won in the end. The overwhelming likelihood is that, despite himself, the mayor will, too.

Yes, sarcasm is a sickness (”We don’t have nearly enough of your campaign offices in our neighborhoods. Really, we don’t.”). Sadly, the only cure is more Weiner:

Representative Anthony D. Weiner has put himself into the maybe category for the 2009 mayor’s race.

So why is he suddenly renting a campaign office? In May, Mr. Weiner spent $8,215 for space in an S. L. Green building in Midtown.

Most leases for commercial office space are long-term (for a year, at least) — a curious commitment for a man who has called himself a “quasi candidate.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Weiner, Marie Ternes, said the lawmaker “has five employees and a multimillion-dollar organization. Of course he needs an office.”

Campaigning For A Third Term On Just $100 Million 101 teaches us that if you can either lock up or neutralize every possible interest group or constituency with massive amounts of time or money you will probably win:

Even as Bloomberg campaign aides worked to shore up GOP support, they have been quietly meeting with leaders of the [Working Families Party] and key union officials whose votes will be crucial to landing the party’s endorsement.

Or, at the very least, they aim to block a Democrat from getting it.

One labor leader said Bloomberg’s campaign has been “diligently working” the WFP’s executive committee and “relentless” in its pursuit of union support. They’ve dispatched multiple emissaries to woo labor leaders.

“They come from the school of ‘leave no stone unturned,’” said Bob Master, political director for the Communications Workers of America and a WFP co-chairman.

“These guys are relentless. [Bloomberg's] got a high-caliber team. They have a lot of time on their hands, and they have ample staff resources.

Weiner should have seen this as an opening — the snow wasn’t that bad yesterday:

When he canceled school yesterday for the first time in five years, Mayor Bloomberg had to deal with two storms: one from Mother Nature, which dumped eight inches of snow on New York, and another from schoolkids’ moms, furious the last-minute decision forced them to scramble for child care.

. . .

For Bloomberg, it was a snow-win situation. Knowing that so many parents depend on the schools to take care of their kids, the city waited until the last possible moment, 5:39 a.m., to cancel classes for the first time since Jan. 28, 2004.

For that day, Bloomberg made his announcement the night before — and it caused outrage the next day, when the storm turned out not to be as severe as had been forecast and parents groused that they had taken off work for no reason.

This time, the city wanted to make sure that the storm was not overblown, Bloomberg said, adding the thought should have occurred to most parents.

“If you got up this morning, looked outside, and the question didn’t come to you right away, ‘Hmm, I wonder whether or not school is going to be open today,’ and you didn’t know enough to call 311, I would suggest another day in school’s probably a good idea,” the mayor said at a briefing.

“I mean, come on,”[*] he added. “Looking outside, it’s a legitimate question, and you know how to get an answer.”

*Remember, Bloomberg is at his most unbecoming when he reverts to the “Come on . . .” trope.

Whatever happened to “I am not a very good politician”? That was so three years ago:

Mark Green — New York City’s public advocate from 1994 to 2001, who famously sparred with Rudolph W. Giuliani before narrowly losing the 2001 mayoral race to Michael R. Bloomberg in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — formally declared on Tuesday that he was running to get his old job back.

Mr. Green made his announcement in a four-minute video and a letter addressed to his supporters and the news media on his Web site. “In a time of crisis, the City needs leaders who combine proven experience with new ideas,” he said.

Given that special elections are so complicated and prohibitively expensive, especially in this economically fraught time, we could just go a year without a Bronx Borough President. It might prove instructive:

The Bronx borough president’s chair is still warm, and the Benjamin Franklin Reform Democratic Club is trying to figure out who’s going to sit in it next.

The Riverdale-Kingsbridge-area political club hosted beep hopefuls Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. and City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera at a meeting last week. Both men explained their qualifications for current Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión Jr.’s job and didn’t debate directly, according to people who attended the meeting.

Ever since Mr. Carrión’s slip of the tongue at a speaking engagement at Yale last year, it’s been widely rumored that he will go to Washington, D.C. to head the Office of Urban Policy under President Barack Obama.

. . .

If Mr. Carrión leaves, Mayor Michael Bloomberg would have to call a special election — but since no announcement has been made, Ben Franklin leaders have postponed any endorsement until their annual meeting at the end of this month.

I mean, it’s already the case that the Office of the Borough President has no real authority — a fact that even leads some legislators to look into the possibility of creating a sort of shadow borough presidency:

The leadership deal that resulted in the Democratic Party taking a majority in the state Senate for the first time in decades included a little discussed agreement that gave Riverdale and Kingsbridge lawmaker Pedro Espada Jr. leeway to lead a legislative coalition on Bronx economic development.

Mr. Espada describes it as “an active coordinating council that will really work to do the things that the borough president can’t do by statute.”

He says it will include the Bronx delegations to the City Council, Assembly, state Senate, and Congress, and will be funded by the state Senate’s Democratic majority. A spokesman for state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith deferred questions about the plan’s details to Mr. Espada.

“Its ultimate goal and mantra would be to remove the designation of the poorest county in the state,” Mr. Espada said.

Borough presidents have a degree of oversight over all aspects of city government in their county, but long-term strategic planning for economic development is a special part of the job description. Mr. Espada has long coveted the borough presidency.

Among the policy ideas Mr. Espada has for the post is creating an authority, similar to the city’s Industrial Development Agency, to issue bonds for public works exclusively in the Bronx. The IDA issues bonds for big capital projects like Yankee Stadium — a controversial deal itself — and is overseen by the city Economic Development Corporation.

“Simply put, a borough president should have the bully pulpit, and that will continue to be their main job description,” Mr. Espada said. “They don’t really have any legislative authority.”

Riverdale and Kingsbridge politicians familiar with the deal aren’t sure why it’s been a stealth program. Mr. Smith’s office hasn’t made any official announcements about it and it’s still unclear whether the plan will stick.

Oh, well if Helen Marshall says so, then we should be just fine. I wake up this morning, see a bright, brand new day, and suddenly my confidence is restored. One short 90-minute speech later, a strange feeling in me bubbles to the surface — an overriding conviction that we — every single one of us — must do all we can to ensure that this elected official gets her richly deserved third term in office:

By turns a campaigner, cheerleader and comforter, Queens Borough President Helen Marshall tried Tuesday to soothe fears of a crippling, close-to-home financial crisis in her annual State of the Borough address.

“In this ailing economy, we can create jobs, we can build housing and we can boost businesses,” Marshall told a crowd of 800 at Queens College’s Colden Auditorium. “Naysayers beware, we will move forward.”

. . .

[S]he sprinkled her wide-ranging, 90-minute speech with optimistic outlooks on schools and libraries she funded — and asked constituents to reelect her to a third term in November so she can “get the job done.”

The MTA already pulled the save-the-school-band card. Now everyone else wants to make sure the animals aren’t furloughed:

In yesterday’s State of the State address, Governor Paterson described New York’s economic situation as “perilous.” His proposed budget for the 2009–10 fiscal year poses huge cuts across the board — no sector is safe, from the Department of Education to the MTA. But one of the largest cuts comes at the expense of treasured cultural institutions: the city’s zoos, parks and aquariums, which face a possible 55 percent cut in their funding — and a total elimination of funding in 2010.

I buy it.

It’s no wonder people are resigned to having Caroline Kennedy as their next senator when you hear what’s going on behind the scenes on her behalf:

When a powerful labor leader picked up the phone this week, he was surprised to hear the voice of a top aide to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.

The aide, Kevin Sheekey, a deputy mayor, made it clear: Caroline Kennedy is going to be the next senator from New York, “so get on board now,” according to a person with direct knowledge of the call.

As Ms. Kennedy’s unusual campaign for the seat takes shape, the mayor’s top political strategist is pushing hard behind the scenes for her, with Mr. Bloomberg’s blessing.

The involvement has helped immediately elevate and coordinate the debut of Ms. Kennedy, who lacked an experienced political staff of her own.

But now, it is setting off a backlash among some Democrats who see in her well-orchestrated emergence the same message of inevitability and entitlement that surrounded Mr. Bloomberg’s successful bid for a third term — a campaign overseen by Mr. Sheekey.

They worry that the Bloomberg administration’s advocacy for Ms. Kennedy will only reinforce her image as a privileged Upper East Sider whose biggest base of support is from Manhattan’s exclusive social set.

“It appears to be another case of central casting by the city’s cognoscenti,” said a Democratic city councilman, John C. Liu. “It’s amazing how much it’s all about the upper crust.”

Rory I. Lancman, a state assemblyman, said that there was “a growing concern that high public office is being reserved for a better class of people — people who can buy into it like Michael Bloomberg or people who can come into it through their celebrity like Caroline Kennedy.”

. . .

Questions about Mr. Sheekey’s role prompted Mr. Bloomberg to declare on Wednesday that the mastermind of his two political campaigns was acting on behalf of Ms. Kennedy as a private citizen, not as a public employee.

“If Kevin in his private time wants to make calls for that, that’s his choice,” Mr. Bloomberg said. When asked whether he was supporting Ms. Kennedy’s bid for the Senate, the mayor said: “I am not out there campaigning for anyone.”

Although it does seem like the Reverend is lowering the bar for what passes as qualified when it comes to being a Senator:

Since the possibility of Ms. Kennedy’s candidacy for the Senate has, understandably, already generated a fair degree of debate and discussion, I feel compelled to state that I unequivocally disagree with those that say she is not qualified and could not bring needed leadership to this state and country. My knowledge of her in the area of education and on behalf of children generally, the fact that she has written several books[**], and her other civic involvement more than qualifies her to be Senator. Ms. Kennedy is an accomplished author on Constitutional Law, the Bill of Rights, and political courage. She is also a lawyer.

Elected office is not the only area of public service that establishes leadership in this country. We just elected a community organizer as President of the United States.

Harriet Miers was a lawyer, too! Oh, never mind . . .

On the one hand, it seems like it could be smart to have someone outside of politics hold the seat for a few years until an actual election happened with actual candidates who actually had to campaign for votes. But on the other hand:

In addition, a person with direct knowledge of the conversations said that Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Paterson had spoken several times in recent days and that the governor had grown increasingly fond of her. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the governor, said that Mr. Paterson also had come to see Ms. Kennedy as a strong potential candidate whose appointment would keep a woman in the seat and whose personal connections would allow her to raise the roughly $70 million required to hold on to the seat in the coming years.

Under state law, Ms. Kennedy would have to run and win in 2010, to finish out the last two years of Mrs. Clinton’s term, and again in 2012, to win a term of her own.

Another person who had advised Mr. Paterson said that Ms. Kennedy could offer political advantages to the governor, who was elevated to his position after Eliot Spitzer resigned in March and in two years must ask voters to actually elect him as governor.

“The upside of her candidacy is that the 2010 ballot will read Kennedy — Paterson,” said one of those advisers, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the governor’s thinking. “David craves national attention and money. If you connect the dots, it leads to her.”

Look at it this way — voting in New York has always been an academic exercise. At least now they’re finally getting rid of the pretense . . .

*Even creepier than it sounds.

**Which books? Glad you asked.

So if it’s just Tony Avella running against Bloomberg, maybe we should take a closer look at the Councilmember. Here’s what we know:

• He’s obsessed with animals, perhaps to the exclusion of other, uh, more pressing issues
• His public profile sometimes rises to a level of grandstanding, but perhaps not overly so . . .
• . . . in part because the grandstanding is often principled, or at least principled sounding
• That said, anyone who is against foie gras is kind of weird, and it would be stupid to have that become part of the Avella bully pulpit
• And yet . . . there’s something I like about someone who is willing to crack down on unwanted fliers and menus; that’s problem solving!
• And he does seem willing to take on the mayor when it’s appropriate . . .

OK. I’m sold. Tony Avella for Mayor. Go Tony, go! (But note that this is not a mandate! If you try to take away our foie gras, know that we may have to pull a Jesse Jackson on your ass.) (And a note to other potential candidates: following the mayor’s recent behavior, there are probably a lot of us who can become cheap dates.)

Case in point:

One of the casualties of Michael Bloomberg’s move to run for a third term, it seems, is next year’s Democratic primary.

Yes, it’s still 11 months away, and the mayor has only just finished announcing his intention to overturn term limits, but the prospect of Mr. Bloomberg — and his billions of dollars — running again may have ended the contest before it even took shape.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Bloomberg ally who was the favorite of much of the city’s business establishment, reacted immediately by announcing that she would abandon a planned run if the mayor went for reelection.

City Comptroller Bill Thompson, the only minority candidate in the prospective Democratic field, says that he’s running, but doesn’t sound incredibly convincing. For now, his game plan consists entirely of trying to block the mayor from running by casting public doubt on the idea of changing term limits without a referendum.

. . .

“No one believes Thompson stays in,” said George Arzt, a Democratic consultant. (Mr. Arzt, a former City Hall bureau chief for the New York Post and aide to Mayor Ed Koch, said that he had “spoken with” more than one potential mayoral campaign, but that he won’t work for any of them against Mr. Bloomberg if the mayor runs.)

. . .

“People do believe that, at least initially, Weiner will be in there, but if he sees he’s going to get crushed that he would back out, rather than suffer two different losses in two different elections,” said Mr. Arzt, referring to Mr. Weiner’s run for mayor in 2005 in which he narrowly missed making a runoff against the eventual Democratic nominee, Fernando Ferrer.

Consultant Jerry Skurnik was more hopeful about the chances of having some sort of primary contest, but only slightly: “The odds are two of the three will run, and that we’ll have a primary,” said Mr. Skurnik, referring to Mr. Thompson, Mr. Weiner and Mr. Avella. “But it’s possible that we won’t have a primary — that only one of them will run. I don’t know.”

Of course, there’s one more scenario — perhaps the least appealing of all for the Democrats: that Bloomberg, instead of destroying their primary, joins it.

Mr. Arzt said that an employee in his consulting firm already received a call as part of a telephone survey asking whether the employee would support Mr. Bloomberg if he ran as a Democrat in next year’s primary.

30 Democratic City Councilmembers revealed some of what they are thinking regarding the mayor’s plan to permanently raise the number of terms via a Council vote. Time for a roll call:

At the meeting, many council members expressed support for changing term limits, which would force dozens of them from office next year, but said they were deeply uncomfortable doing so themselves because New Yorkers had voted for it twice.

Several lashed out at Mr. Bloomberg, saying that the mayor and his wealthy friends had orchestrated a campaign to rewrite the law without consulting with council members, according to those in attendance, who described the meeting on condition on anonymity for fear of offending colleagues.

“This one billionaire is now controlling our government, like a dictator,” Councilwoman Darlene Mealy, who represents Brooklyn, said during the meeting, colleagues said. Ms. Mealy did not return phone calls after the meeting.

Normally, “like a dictator” is an offensive rhetorical overreach. Not in this context!

Roll call — Lewis Fidler comes out in favor of self-serving legislation to extend his Council career:

But several members argued that even if the method of changing the law was unsavory, they remained philosophically opposed to a two-term limit and would act to change it.

Lewis A. Fidler, a councilman from Brooklyn, said he told the group that “this is about whether term limits are good government or bad government. I think it’s bad government.”

Roll call — John Liu, finally understanding the difference between good grandstanding and bad:

According to those in the room, roughly eight members spoke in favor of the legislation revising the law to three terms; eight spoke against it; and four asked questions that did not reveal their position.

Queens Councilman John C. Liu, who has emerged as a leader in the effort to stop the mayor’s plan, gave what many considered the most moving speech. As he recounted after the meeting, he told his colleagues, “I came into government with a pretty cynical attitude, but over the last six years I came to believe in the system. But in one fell swoop, what has happened here has decimated my belief in that system.”

Roll call — Robert Jackson, expanding on his personal philosophy of representative government and principles:

Robert Jackson, a Manhattan councilman, offered a rousing defense of the legislation under consideration, saying he has always opposed term limits and would not let public opinion sway him. “Even if 80 percent of my constituents are in favor of the death penalty, I wouldn’t vote for it,” he said. “The same is true for term limits. It’s a matter of principle.”

The issue of the back-door referendum:

A few members, like David I. Weprin, of Queens, questioned why Mr. Bloomberg did not attempt to change term limits through a public referendum.

But Peter F. Vallone Jr., of Queens, said that a referendum would cost millions of dollars to organize, a cost the city should not bear while the economy is faltering.

Solution — have the mayor bankroll a special election. It would be “altruistic” . . .

Roll call — Domenic Recchia, on the subject of “ample opportunity” to voice opinions:

After the meeting, Councilman Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn, who said he favors the extension, explained: “A lot of us council members feel that passing it through legislation is giving ample opportunity to the voters of the city to voice their opinions.”

He added: “If the voters don’t like their council member, they can vote him out of office. And if they don’t like the mayor, they can get rid of him too.”

And, finally, contra Joyce Purnick, evidence that billionaire term limit-hater Ronald S. Lauder may not be in on the plan after all:

As the Council debated, Mr. Bloomberg’s aides scrambled to shore up the support of Mr. Lauder, the term limits advocate and cosmetics heir.

After agreeing last week to support a third term for Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Lauder vowed on Sunday night to fight the mayor’s plan to permanently change the limits to three terms from two, calling it a “terrible mistake.”

Last week, Mr. Lauder privately agreed to support a one-time change of the law to three terms, to allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek re-election in the middle of an economic crisis. But he was angry to learn that the mayor was pushing for a permanent change of the law.

Mr. Bloomberg’s staff argued that there were two reasons a permanent change was preferable: It was less likely to face legal challenge and would appeal to more City Council members. When Mr. Bloomberg learned of Mr. Lauder’s frustration, he and his aides suggested a deal in which Mr. Lauder would sit on a 2010 charter commission committee, which would have the authority to change the law back to a two-term limit. In return, Mr. Lauder would agree to not fight the mayor’s plans to alter the law.

But Mr. Lauder, after appearing to back such a deal, balked on Sunday night, people familiar with the matter said. His reversal left City Hall staff members confused, as one said, and flustered.

No, not this mayor. “The Mayor’s Dangerous Idea” was the title of a Times editorial in 2001 that argued against Giuliani’s idea to extend his term three months to deal with the aftermath of Sept. 11:

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani wants to extend his current term of office into 2002, postponing the inauguration of a new mayor for several months. This is a terrible idea. Neither New York City nor the nation has ever postponed the transfer of power because the public was convinced it could not get along without the current incumbent. The very concept goes against the most basic of American convictions, that we live in a nation governed by rule of law.

To suggest that the city would be incapable of getting along without Mr. Giuliani after the end of the year undermines New York’s sense of self-sufficiency and normality, which the mayor himself has worked so hard to restore. While Mr. Giuliani has been a great leader during this crisis, the truth is that no one is indispensable. George Washington understood that when he rejected repeated attempts to keep him in office indefinitely. Washington was followed in the presidency by a long line of successors, some of them distinctly mediocre. But the country went on, because people put their faith in the democratic process and not in the strength of any one individual.

Mr. Giuliani has asked his three possible successors to agree to postpone the next inauguration and let him stay on for a few more months to continue his work on the city’s recovery. He and his supporters are holding out the threat that if the mayor is not given his wish, they will mount an attempt to repeal the term limits law so he can run for re-election in November. They argue that he needs just a few extra months to finish the most critical work in the wake of an enormous disaster. But one critical task after another is going to crop up for the foreseeable future. And history suggests that the worst time to change the election rules is right before an election, in a time of crisis.

. . .

Mr. Giuliani already has the ability to make sure the transfer of power is smooth. The mayor should begin working immediately to bring his potential successors up to speed. When he leaves office Jan. 1, he should urge key members of his own administration to stay on to finish the work they are doing if his successor wishes them to stay. The best way for Mr. Giuliani to help New York City after Jan. 1 is not by retaining power but by giving it up in the most generous way possible.

All of which is interesting given the Times’ editorial this morning endorsing Bloomberg’s proposal to temporarily overturn term limits to allow himself and all members of the City Council a chance to run for a third term:

The bedrock of American democracy is the voters’ right to choose. Though well intentioned, New York City’s term limits law severely limits that right, which is why this page has opposed term limits from the outset. The law is particularly unappealing now because it is structured in a way that would deny New Yorkers — at a time when the city’s economy is under great stress — the right to decide for themselves whether an effective and popular mayor should stay in office.

Partly for this reason, and partly to extend their own political careers, a majority of City Council members are thinking about amending the city law to allow elected officials to serve three consecutive terms instead of two. That would permit Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run again in 2009 and could also prolong the service of council members and other senior elected officials. Mr. Bloomberg, who is expected to announce on Thursday that he will seek a third term if he can, likes the idea a lot.

We do, too. But we would go further and ask the Council to abolish term limits altogether — not to serve any individual’s political career but to serve the larger cause of democracy.

Which really is to say, we’re not serious about this at all. Think back to the large outpouring of support for Giuliani after Sept. 11 — “mayor for life” and all that. Does the Times editorial board really — no, seriously, really — think Bloomberg has more good will right now than Giuliani did after Sept. 11?

It makes a lot of people uncomfortable to legislatively rewrite a law that voters have twice approved at the ballot box — in 1993 and 1996. It makes us uncomfortable, too, and we previously took the position that any change should be left to the voters. But we have concluded now that changing the law legislatively does not make us nearly as uncomfortable as keeping it. It is within the rights of the Council, itself an elected body, to do so.

Term limits are seductive, promising relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and gridlocked legislatures. They are also profoundly undemocratic, arbitrarily denying voters the ability to choose between good politicians and bad, especially in a city like New York with a strong public campaign-financing system, while automatically removing public servants of proven ability who are at a productive point in their careers.

But again — who exactly — exactly who — is agitating for a change? Is this something families discuss over dinner, expressing fear that their elected representative who is right in the middle of a productive point in his career won’t have had enough time to fulfill his legacy? Or is this coming from the people who would truly be affected by term limits, which is to say, the mayor and the City Council?

The City Council members who want to change the law are not alone. A survey in The Times last month found that at least two dozen local governments are suffering buyer’s remorse about the term limits they adopted, mostly in the 1990s. One common complaint is that they force politicians to focus on small-bore projects that can be achieved quickly rather than visionary ideas. The constant churning also diminishes accountability in governmental institutions like the City Council.

See, elected officials in governments everywhere are unhappy that they only have a limited time in office! As much as I’m excited to let council members explore visionary ideas, I have a feeling New York City will somehow survive.

Then there’s the up-is-down argument that this is actually more democratic:

Most places that are trying to relax term limits are likely to do so via the ballot box, with several referendums due in November. There is a chance that a vote on the issue could be organized early next year in New York in conjunction with special elections to the City Council. But such elections do not attract many voters. In the end, a vote by the Council is probably the most democratic way to address the matter.

And if you don’t like it, vote the bums out:

It is worth repeating: This is a rule that needs to be abolished. If the voters don’t like the result, they can register their views at the polls.

Good idea. It almost makes you want to hope that Bloomberg, despite the millions he will spend, will go down horribly next November.

Ultimately, you have to wonder who is so excited about a third Bloomberg term? The Times’ report clarifies:

With his decision, Mr. Bloomberg is overruling the advice of his top three assistants at City Hall — Deputy Mayors Edward Skyler, Patricia E. Harris and Kevin Sheekey –who have expressed opposition to a third term.

Those aides have told the mayor — at times forcefully — that any campaign to challenge the term-limits law would look like an end run around voters, and could sully his legacy as a reform-minded outsider. Others have told the mayor that they may not remain for a full third term.

In the business community, however, the idea of a Bloomberg third term is popular. At charity balls and on golf courses, executives like the financier Steven Rattner, the developer Jerry I. Speyer and the media mogul Rupert Murdoch have encouraged him to seek a third term.

Got that? Wall Street, a developer and Rupert Murdoch. Given what has happened this past month, do you really want to trust those guys?

. . . decisive action is taken.

Pelosi, you’re killing me here . . .

I was wondering who exactly was agitating for the repeal of term limits, since it seems to be a relatively arcane argument, but now it makes sense:

The elected leaders pushing to overturn New York City’s term limits say they are motivated by principled objections to the 15-year-old law.

But should they succeed, many stand to gain a significant financial perk: lifetime retiree health insurance that costs the city up to $12,600 a year.

Those benefits could amount to millions of dollars in expenses over the next few decades, especially as health insurance costs surge, according to interviews with city officials.

Under current rules, city employees must work 10 years and pay into the pension system to become eligible for retiree health benefits. But the term limits law restricts members of the City Council, the mayor, public advocate, comptroller and borough presidents to two consecutive four-year terms — two years shy of the requirement.

Changing term limits to three consecutive terms instead of two, as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and members of the Council have hinted they might, would allow those officials — and members of their staff — to hit the 10-year mark without having to look for a new job with the city.

and one “glorious flute”:

The challengers aiming to unseat the Assembly speaker in next month’s Democratic primary are going up against the good name Sheldon Silver’s earned in Chinatown — literally.

When Chinese-language newspapers write about Mr. Silver, they use Chinese characters that approximate the sound of his name as “siu-hwa.” In Chinese, siu-hwa can be interpreted as “glorious flute.”

For the first time in 22 years, Mr. Silver is running opposed in a primary for his district, which encompasses much of Lower Manhattan. Although leaders of large community organizations in Chinatown are pronouncing his victory a foregone conclusion, the neighborhood is becoming a political battlefield in the race.

Mr. Silver’s two opponents, Luke Henry and Paul Newell, are courting residents dissatisfied with his economic policies. Meanwhile, the speaker is reaching out to community members in unprecedented ways.

Apparently Rep. Weiner can be kind of a dick:

It started as a routine conference call. But at some point during the call, Representative Anthony D. Weiner became furious, convinced that his scheduler had not given him a crucial piece of information.

His scheduler, John J. Graff, who was in the next room, suddenly heard the congressman yelling at him through the wall.

Then, Mr. Graff recalled, Mr. Weiner started pounding his fists on his desk, kicked a chair and unleashed a string of expletives.

Two weeks later, Mr. Graff, a Navy veteran, became the latest of a sizable number of staff members who have resigned after an abbreviated stint with Mr. Weiner, a Democrat who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens.

“I push people pretty hard,” said Mr. Weiner, who acknowledged getting upset at Mr. Graff. “And there are, from time to time, staffers who don’t take to it or just don’t like being pushed that hard. But I really regretted him leaving. He was a marine. I’m like, ‘How bad is this?’ It’s even worse than boot camp.”

It is rarely easy working for any member of Congress, with the low pay, long hours and endless politics. But Mr. Weiner, who is running for New York City mayor next year, is without question one of the most intense and demanding, according to interviews with more than two dozen former employees, Congressional colleagues and lobbyists.

Mr. Weiner, a technology fiend who requires little sleep and rarely takes a day off, routinely instant messages his employees on weekends, often just one-word missives: “Teeth” (as in, your answer reminds me of pulling teeth) or “weeds” (as in, you are too much in the weeds). Never shy about belting out R-rated language, he enjoys challenging staff members on issues, even at parties.

And, in a city saturated with transient career hoppers, Mr. Weiner has presided over more turnover than any other member of the New York House delegation in the last six years, according to an analysis of Congressional data. Roughly half of Mr. Weiner’s current staff has been on board for less than a year. Since early 2007, he has had three chiefs of staff.

Mr. Weiner’s actions as a boss of 20 or so employees, representing almost 700,000 people, offer clues about how he might handle perhaps 300,000 city workers, with eight million constituents.

. . .

The congressman says that his ferocity is simply reflective of his New York roots, and that he speaks at a high decibel level most of the time, so it may sound to others as if he is shouting. His district staff — perhaps more accustomed to an aggressive style — tends to be more steady than his Washington office.

“When you grow up in Brooklyn, you know, sometimes arguing is the sport,” he said.

Still, he admitted that he could occasionally be rough on office furniture, and said: “Very often people say things to me on the phone that frustrate me. I sometimes hang up phones with an excess amount of enthusiasm after a call hasn’t gone my way.”

Some former employees suggest that if he were elected to City Hall, the congressman might face a difficult transition to a job requiring executive aplomb and delegation. Do not be surprised, these former employees say, if a Weiner administration experiences a high degree of turnover.

Mayor Bloomberg figures out the art of promising big, untenable proposals and quietly dumping them when it’s obvious that they are unaffordable:

Mayor Bloomberg dropped a financial bombshell yesterday by saying he’s “not sure” the city can still afford the 7 percent property-tax cut that he had included just six weeks ago in his 2009 executive budget.

The mayor’s startling assessment came as he and the City Council were within days of wrapping up negotiations on the new $60 billion budget for fiscal 2009, which starts July 1.

Officials said a repeal of the tax cut — which would sap $1.2 billion from property owners — had never come up in those talks.

“This is the first I’m hearing of that,” said surprised Councilman David Weprin (D-Queens), chairman of the Finance Committee.

Sounding gloomier than ever, Bloomberg warned that Wall Street profits are falling off the cliff with $20 billion in losses recorded in the first three months of this year.

And he must be enjoying watching the City Council twist in the wind about it:

Judging from the initial reaction of legislators, the mayor faces an uphill fight.

“It’s a nonstarter,” said Councilman Eric Gioia (D-Queens).

“The Wall Street numbers are definitely problematic,” said Weprin. “At this point, I don’t think there’s any need to panic. We can always do a mod [budget modification] later.”

Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) said retaining the property-tax cut remains a “priority” for the council, as does restoration of budget cuts that impact classrooms.

Gioia, Weprin and Quinn: all term limited.

Annotation: For Queens in ‘09, Candidates in Spades (City Hall News, June 11, 2007)

. . . a bad case of senioritis:

They grumble behind closed doors, sick of stewing inside, dreaming of freedom. They want to stop working, throw parties, cause trouble. And waiting for the days to end is killing them.

They are the 35 term-limited members of the City Council, and they’re as restive as high school seniors.

For now, they shuffle in and out of City Hall budget meetings, trying to play nice as they divvy up the city’s money. But when July 1 rolls around and the new budget takes effect, they can stop kissing up to the people who control the purse strings — and start raising money and raising hell to promote their own careers.

“It’ll get worse,” said one of the 35, who himself is trying to figure out his future. “With each day, with each event, with each budget, there’s less and less leverage that the leadership of the Council can use to hold it together.”

To hear some of them tell it, the Council is already falling apart. Ambitious pols who know what they want to run for in November 2009 need to get noticed now — which may be why some of them have been using dry budget hearings to attack the Bloomberg administration.

“I’ve never seen grandstanding like I’ve seen in the last few weeks,” said Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., who is mulling a run for Queens Borough President. “The Council will resemble a herd of cats after July.”

The new political machine, begat by term limits, relies on nepotism:

For New Yorkers who voted to impose term limits on the City Council, the promise was to sweep clean a moldering institution and fill it with “citizen legislators” who would bring energy and fresh ideas from the private sector, where they would return after their eight-year allotments.

But as the first class of councilors elected under the term limits law in 2001 prepares to leave office next year, the very opposite is becoming reality: With lawmakers seeking new elective offices and career politicians looking to join, or rejoin, the body, the Council may well become a political revolving door.

Already, 20 of the 35 Council members who are being forced from office have filed with the city’s Campaign Finance Board to run for another position. And at least a dozen of those planning to compete for open Council seats have budding or established political careers, including state officials, relatives of Council members and even a few former councilors who collectively have decades of service under their belts.

. . .

Paul Vallone, whose father, Peter F. Vallone, represented a district in Astoria, Queens, for 27 years until his brother Peter F. Vallone Jr. took it over in 2002, is running to represent the Bayside area. Paul Washington, a former chief of staff for Councilman Charles Barron, is running for the councilor’s East New York, Brooklyn, slot, while Evan Thies, a former spokesman for Councilman David Yassky, is competing to represent Mr. Yassky’s Brooklyn district, which stretches from Park Slope to Williamsburg.

And then there is Thomas V. Ognibene, who represented Middle Village, Queens, for 10 years before leaving office in 2001 because of term limits. He recently lost a bid to replace Dennis P. Gallagher, his former chief of staff, who resigned from the Council this year after admitting to a sexual assault.

“The person who runs for the office is a relative, a chief of staff, a protégé of the person that was in there in the first place,” Mr. Ognibene said. “Insurgency is virtually impossible. You cannot generate the money or the support,” he said, adding, “So you don’t get the people in there that had been contemplated, the people with the fresh start, the new view.”

. . . just as long as it doesn’t apply to any current office holder, which is what most responsible elected bodies do:

In a sudden turnabout, Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday there’s still time to mount a ballot initiative this year to revise the City Charter – the likeliest route for altering term limits so the mayor could run for re-election in 2009.

Bloomberg has yet to name a Charter Revision Commission to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the government and recommend changes to put before the voters in a referendum.

Those changes could include extending term limits from eight to 12 years, either for all city officials or just for the legislative branch.

“I just haven’t focused on it yet,” the mayor said of the delayed appointments. “I’ll get back to you in the next few weeks.”

When he first announced plans for the commission in his State of the City Speech in January, the mayor said its work would take 18 months.

But yesterday, he changed the timetable.

“If you wanted to put something on this [year's] ballot, there’s still plenty of time to do it,” the mayor said.

OK, this is getting silly . . .