Bloomberg 29 Member Gonzalez Gets A Challenger

In a little over ten months, New Yorkers will be going back to the polls, this time to decide on city-wide elections. As you may know, twenty-nine Councilmembers voted for the Mayor's bid to extend term limits for him and themselves. They got away with it despite considerable protest from citizens, but alas, greed comes before the will of the voters for these "representatives" of the people.

So unless we a lawsuit stops this Council vote from becoming law, we'll have to throw the bums out ourselves. There are already a multiple amount of challengers to Members who sided with the Mayor. Now we have another, David Galarza, running against one of the shadier politicians at City Hall, Sara Gonzalez.

From The Daily Gotham:

I know David Galarza somewhat from local politics and consider him a good, honest candidate. Formerly a journalist, David Galarza, has been a member of community board 7 and was a communications specialist for the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), Local 1000. Galarza worked in the public affairs departments of Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger, NYC Comptroller Alan Hevesi, the NYC Board of Education, and the Children's Aid Society. In 2005, :

Justice Committee, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Greater NY Labor Religion Coalition, International Labor Communications Association, endorsed by Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, Lambda Independent Democrats, Independent Neighborhood Democrats

I am glad Galarza is running. We need to challenge the city council members who have shown such disregard for the voters and for accountability. Gonzalez is among the worst and Galarza strikes me as a genuinely good guy.

"Genuine" is something we are in desperate need of in New York City. With all of the domestic abusers, slush fund enthusiasts and Bloomberg apologists, the city definitely needs a change. I am looking forward to hearing more about Mr. Galarza and his vision for the City Council that currently can't see past Mayor Bloomberg's behind.

How Christine Quinn Got Me Angry All Over Again

For the last two weeks or so Speaker Christine Quinn has been out trying to mend the fences she burned down by forcing the term limits extension bill to pass. What she did with the Mayor and twenty-eight other Council members was an atrocious act that spit on the voters of this city that approved term limits twice. The way they treated democracy was absolutely unforgivable and simply sending her opponents a "lets work together beyond this" message that was photcopied on her letterhead will not do the trick to heal the wound.

Here's her letter in full (with my thoughts in bold):

Dear Joshing:

Recently you contacted me to express your thoughts and views on term limits.

As I'm sure you now know, on October 23rd the Council voted to extend term limits for city elected officials from two to three four-year terms.

Despite widespread disapproval of going around the voters who enacted the limits.

I understand how strongly you and others feel about this issue. The decision wasn't one that the Council and I took lightly, and it came with a great deal of deliberation, dialogue and debate, including two days and nights of public hearings.

Hearings that Quinn didn't take the time to show up for, because really, she could care less what the public thinks since she did not take part in the deliberation, dialogue and debate. If she really wanted deliberation, the hearings would have been brought out to all the boroughs and we would have at least taken two weeks, not rushed through in two days.

I realize there's very little I can say at this point to convince you that my support for extending term limits was based solely on what I absolutely believed in my heart was best for our City: that in these extraordinarily difficult times, New Yorkers should have the choice to keep their current leadership or vote us out at the polls.

Absolutely nothing will convince me that you didn't do this simply out of your own self-interest, since the Mayor was offering you a deal to be Deputy Mayor among other things. Your heart had nothing to do with this, unless you truly love to be greedy.

I would like to promise you this, though. As Speaker, I will continue to work as hard as I can each and every day to earn your trust and respect and to help make city government more responsive and effective for all New Yorkers.

How can I have respect for someone that makes backroom deals with the Mayor and her fellow Council Members? Christine, the only person you are responsive to is Mike Bloomberg.

Next November, you and other voters will have the opportunity to vote for me, any of my colleagues, or Mike Bloomberg for another four years - or to make a change. The decision will ultimately be yours. That, to me, is the essence of democracy.

Actually I can't vote you out, since I'm not in your district but I'll certainly support someone that wants to challenge you. I will without a doubt not vote for Bloomberg. As for the essence of democracy....is that a brand of perfume, because I can smell your stench of slush funds from here.

Thank you for hearing me out. As difficult as this decision was, I appreciate and respect your views and hope we can continue to work together during these tough economic times.

You appreciate and respect my views? Now that'll be a cold day in hell.

Sincerely,
Or insincerely,

Christine C. Quinn
Speaker

Quinn obviously did not listen to Mayor Bloomberg about this. He's hoping that people will forget all about term limits by the time election day rolls around. It isn't very bright to go around using taxpayer money and time to send a letter reminding New Yorkers how you screwed them over to enrich yourself.

I'm relishing your defeat next November even more now, along with the rest the Bloomberg 29 and the Mayor King himself.

Councilwoman Darlene Mealy Must Go

Twenty-nine Councilmembers voted to allow themselves and the Mayor a chance to run for re-election despite two referendum in favor of term limits in New York City. It was a disgraceful day for democracy and a shame to see these people vote for a bill that was only for their own self-interest. All of them are top targets to be voted out of office next year, particularly such turncoats as David Yassky and the ringleader of this crap, Speaker Christine Quinn. Now I must add another one to the top of the list, Darlene Mealy. If anything, her response to switching her vote for the Mayor added a new definition to the word "weak" as well as "spineless."

From The NY Times:

In an interview over the weekend, Ms. Mealy spoke for the first time about her decision, insisting that her change of heart was based on a sincere desire to establish better relationships with the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to benefit the constituents of her district in Brownsville.

“This was the best way to build my relationship with the speaker and the mayor,” Ms. Mealy said. “And truthfully, I had no relationship with them. I think my district will benefit from my changing my position.”

Because the mayor and the speaker had the votes to pass the bill, she said, it served no purpose for her to be a dissenting vote and fracture relationships with the city’s two powerful leaders. After all, she reasoned, they might take revenge by cutting programs for her constituents.

“It didn’t make sense for my district to be hurt,” Ms. Mealy said. “I need to get resources for my district. We’re already so low on the totem pole. It’s actually pathetic. I felt I was acting in the best interest of my district.”

What is pathetic Ms. Mealy is your decision to cave to Quinn and the Mayor for political favors. The people in your district voted for you because they thought you had principles that you stuck to, obviously they were wrong about that. Then you added other large heapings of bull turds to the already lame excuse, such as:

“Larry Seabrook told me about the history of referendums, where they came from and how they had often been used against black leaders,” Ms. Mealy, referring to Mr. Brown.

“There were rich people who wanted to change the law, just to get Willie Brown out,” she said. “And here in New York we had Ron Lauder who was behind changing the law,” she added, in a reference to Ronald S. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir who financed campaigns to get voters to approve New York City’s term limit laws in the 1990s.

And finally:

On her turnabout, she added: “I felt I was looking out for my district. I did what I thought was right. My heart is right.”

It sounds like you were looking out for yourself, not your district. As for the correctness of your bodily organs, perhaps you should check your spine and your conscience (neither are organs obviously) as well. The referendum were not simply Lauder's idea and this had nothing to do with putting black people down. Installing term limits was a reaction by the city to combat corruption, pure and simple.

I'm glad that Mealy wants challengers to take their best shot at her seat. They certainly will, starting possibly with former Councilmember Tracy Boyland. Whomever is running against you, they already start with my support compared to your unprincipled behavior.