when its time, its time. No exceptions.

Yep, agreed.

My thoughts exactly. This is a move geared towards self-promotion, rather than running for the benefit of others. Selfish politics.

"Michael Bloomberg announced yesterday that he would seek a third term as mayor, thanks to unprecedented challenges and the economic crisis facing New York City."

He's pretty much saying that in the entire state of NY, he is the only one qualified to handle the problems. Big ego. Huge.

I don't think an exception should be made for him. But I completely disagree with term limits, so in my little world it wouldn't be an issue.

Term limits are in place for a reason. They help to prevent the dynastic mentality that often plagues tyrannies and dictatorships. Just because Bloomberg thinks he's something special doesn't mean an exception to such a fundamental rule should be made for him.

i like bloomberg a lot (actually i wish he'd run for president), but i think he should step down and let the next person have a chance.

So basically you can't end term limits because the people may vote in a tyrannical dynasty over and over again? I think Bloomberg is great, and far from tyrannical. That's why he wants an end of term limits only extended for himself. Also, assuming term limits are ended, if the people of NYC are dumb enough to keep voting for an idiot, then they should get what they deserve.

Bloomberg may be great. Others may not be. If you bend the rules for him, who's to say that someone else down the line, who isn't as great, won't also demand the rules be bent for him? Rules like these aren't in place for one person. They're in place for all, and to bend them for one person invites a slippery slope at the end of which the rules don't matter at all.

It's not about Bloomberg. It's about making sure that the laws and regulations that are in place are enforced equally for everyone.

I'm not in favor of strict term limits, and if there was a unified group of independent citizens begging for an exception to be made in his case I'd think it should be considered. But he's asking, so meh.

Anyway he knew there was a limit to his time, so why not groom a brilliant successor?

I understand the reasoning behind term limits, I think that elections are sufficient. And if bad leaders keep getting elected, well the American people know what they want and they deserve to get it good.

I absolutely do not think the rules should change for him though. He may very well be a good guy, but it sets a precedent and then it makes the rules of your democracy fluid which can lead to bad things down the line.

"He may very well be a good guy, but it sets a precedent and then it makes the rules of your democracy fluid which can lead to bad things down the line."

I wish I had put it that well!

going back through the records, there were instances in history when there wasn't a term limit imposed and i think that if that were the case over the last 20 years, there would have been many mayors who would have stayed on to keep the job. being a new yorker, i don't know how i feel about this one. i think that he's doing an ok job, but i don't really hear of how his decisions will impact my life for the better. all i hear about are how the MTA isn't happy and how the unions aren't happy and that's not something that i see Bloomberg being able to change, but then again i don't see a new guy doing it either.

Sorry Bloomberg time is up.

I agree this sets a bad precedence if this 3rd term is allowed. I also think that he knew he could only get 2 terms when he ran so he should have had a comprehensive plan for the time he was in office to address what he thinks needed to be addressed. Who knows the next Mayor may be better than him, and the people deserve to vote for that "new" person and he needs to step aside.

Why doesn't he try running for Gov. or Senator.

Or City Council if he's so important to the city?

Agreed with the City Council!!

I'd give a shout out to my City Council, but they're not really worthy of one.

But they get extra credit if they're readin this!

I feel conflicted about term limits. I can see why they would be a good idea in some cases, but also they seem unnecessary. That's why we have elections. (Also, how great would it be if Clinton could have had a third term?

I'm going to go old school and say Truman, but I don't think he's wife wanted to do it anymore.

No special treatment! Why stop there, why not change other laws too?

"No special treatment! Why stop there, why not change other laws too?"

I know! This is such a huge slippery slope. If we let Bloomberg be the mayor of New York City for a third term, nothing would be certain anymore.