From New York Times

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s re-election campaign can generate reams of statistics on how quickly the city repaired potholes in each neighborhood. It can produce memos on climate change and public health, and even translate fliers into Creole.

Just don’t ask about term limits.

Rosemary DeStefano found that out on her doorstep in the Bronx the other day when a Bloomberg volunteer showed up, asking for her vote.

When she complained about how the mayor had the law changed to stay in office, the volunteer recited details of his economic plan. When she persisted, he extolled Mr. Bloomberg’s promise to create 400,000 jobs.

“They missed the whole point,” she said.

With five weeks remaining until Election Day, little seems uncertain in the contest between the colossally advantaged incumbent, Mr. Bloomberg, and his lesser-known rival, William C. Thompson Jr.

But interviews with both campaigns and dozens of voters reveal that anger over a single issue still simmers, seemingly immune to a flood of television commercials and glossy brochures. That bedevils Bloomberg advisers and gives hope to his underfunded challenger.

Disenchantment over the change in the law helped topple four veteran City Council members this fall, the greatest repudiation of incumbents in a generation, and has catapulted two local lawmakers who opposed the measure into citywide office.

“The Bloomberg campaign can’t convince voters to not be upset about this. It won’t work,” said John H. Mollenkopf, a professor of political science at City University who has informally advised the Bloomberg campaign.

“If you ask New Yorkers what they did not like over the last eight years,” he added, “term limits is the major negative.”

Mr. Thompson is building his entire campaign around the topic, adopting the slogan “Eight Is Enough,” accusing the mayor of breaking his word and preparing commercials that portray him as a power-hungry mogul who plays by his own rules.

Mr. Thompson’s campaign aides have told undecided voters to express their outrage over term limits by supporting him, whether they like him or not. And Mr. Thompson will make it a major line of attack during two debates and turn it into a rallying cry in the days leading up to Election Day, the anniversary of the term limits change, which Mr. Bloomberg signed into law on Nov. 3, 2008. “It will be a big theme,” said Eduardo Castell, Mr. Thompson’s campaign manager.

The mayor’s political advisers privately acknowledge the public anger, but since they cannot reverse Mr. Bloomberg’s actions, they are looking for ways to deflect attention from it.

They have created a new round of commercials that play up Mr. Bloomberg’s middle-class roots, to soften his image as an imperious billionaire who defied the will of the voters.

They are leveling frequent attacks at Mr. Thompson’s record, as president of the Board of Education and comptroller, to send the message that, even if voters are still resentful about term limits, they would be foolhardy to choose an untested leader.

If voters insist on talking about term limits, volunteers are instructed to tell them the mayor “is not guaranteed” a third term and has given them “more choice” by changing the rules.

“Bill Thompson wants to make this election about one issue,” said the mayor’s campaign manager, Bradley Tusk. “And given his track record that’s understandable. But the performance of the mayor has an enormous impact on people’s lives, and because of that, voters choose their mayor based on very real tangible issues.”

No one is predicting that resentment over term limits will, by itself, be enough to cost the mayor the election. But in interviews, political analysts and pollsters said that unease over the issue helps account for a stubborn anomaly in New Yorkers’ feelings about the mayor. Polls consistently show that a large majority (roughly 70 percent) approve of his performance, but that a significantly smaller number (50 percent) plan to vote for him in November.

The 50 percent figure has not budged in months, even though the Bloomberg campaign has spent about $65 million to promote the mayor’s record. “Term limits has a lot to do with that,” said Geoff Garin, Mr. Thompson’s pollster. “It has put a ceiling on good will toward the mayor.”

Marilyn Arthold, 64, who lives in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, said she liked the mayor but was considering voting against him because of how he changed term limits.

“He did it the wrong way,” she said.

Her neighbor, Anna May, who would give only her first and middle name, agreed: “I didn’t go to college, but I know right from wrong. This was wrong.” She said she would vote for Mr. Thompson.

Those involved in the mayor’s campaign said the issue has unexpected staying power, a year after City Hall introduced the legislation allowing officials to serve three consecutive terms, not two.

“It comes up a lot with voters,” said one campaign staff member. In the fall of 2008, when Mr. Bloomberg and his aides fought to change the rule, they made two predictions: that voters would be distracted by the presidential election, and that any anger over the move would recede by Election Day 2009.

They may have been overoptimistic, pollsters and analysts said.

“The anger in the electorate remains an inconvenient truth for the Bloomberg campaign,” said Bruce N. Gyory, a political consultant.

New York voters approved a referendum limiting council members and officials elected citywide to two four-year terms in 1993, and then ratified that vote in a second referendum in 1996. Mr. Bloomberg, in overturning the law, rewrote it through legislation that was approved by the City Council; critics and good-government groups said any change should have gone before the voters.

Mr. Bloomberg was previously outspoken in his opposition to changing term limits, saying any effort to do so would be a “disgrace.”

Just how much it will hurt him on Election Day remains an open question, however. Many voters who intensely opposed the change said they planned to vote for him, citing his skills as a manager and a weak opponent.

“If it were anyone else, I would probably be against him,” said Carlo Dioguardi, who lives in Battery Park City and voted in favor of term limits. “I don’t think anyone else can do the job he’s done.”

As for those who are less forgiving?

The campaign’s strategy of changing the topic occasionally backfires. A few days after Ms. DeStefano’s confrontation with a Bloomberg campaign volunteer in the Bronx, a handwritten letter from a campaign volunteer arrived, ticking off the mayor’s plans to improve the economy in the borough. Ms. DeStefano, a 75-year-old Republican, tore it up.

“I didn’t ask about jobs,” she said. “I asked about term limits.”

From theVillage Voice

As it heads into the home stretch, the Bloomberg campaign has adopted a new slogan to sum things up and help focus voters on the big picture. The new motto was rolled out at the big Bloomberg rally held primary night on a West Side pier, a gala celebration aimed at snatching attention away from Democrats and on to Mayor Mike. The slogan was emblazoned on Bloomberg’s podium, and tattooed over and over on a TV backdrop. Which made it hard to miss. It read: “Progress. Not Politics.” The first word is a debate worth having. The next two are simply lies.

Not politics? Whatever you think of Bill Thompson’s erratic campaign, at least he was being nominated that very night by his own party in an open primary. Mike Bloomberg? His GOP endorsement came courtesy of a classic, old-school political deal in which five Republican county leaders sat down in a room and agreed to give the mayor their ballot line.

He cut the same insiders’ pact with the cultish local chapter of the Independence Party. The party’s nominating convention this spring featured all the democracy of a Chinese Politburo meeting, including a ruling clique that fawned over the visiting mayor. A few weeks later, Bloomberg sealed the deal with a $250,000 down-payment to the party’s coffers, with presumably a great deal more to come.

Not politics? Bloomberg continues to scorn the city’s campaign finance system, the hard-won reform designed to curb the influence of big money in elections. He spends as much as he wants—the same way the hacks used to do before limits were adopted.

Then there’s the bare-bones political scheming that won the mayor the very right to even appear on the ballot this year. That’s the one topic Mike Bloomberg still refuses to talk about. He gets an electric-like jolt whenever the topic is raised. Just when and why Mike Bloomberg decided to overturn the city’s term limits laws is shrouded in mystery. He’s done his best to keep it that way.

But there’s new light shed on the subject by Joyce Purnick, the veteran New York Times editor and reporter whose insightful political biography, Mike Bloomberg: Money, Power, Politics, is out this month.

Bloomberg gave Purnick unprecedented access, granting her multiple one-on-one, hour-long interviews. He also green-lighted his top aides—deputies Patti Harris, Kevin Sheekey, and Ed Skyler—to talk as well.

The book makes clear that many months before economic disaster struck in September 2008—the crisis that Bloomberg said prompted his reversal on term limits—the mayor was already pondering the move.

Purnick says that a few weeks after Bloomberg’s February 28, 2008, announcement that he would not seek the presidency, she asked the mayor about then-vague rumors that he was looking for a way to run for mayor again.

“It was clear he had given a third term some thought,” she writes. The mayor told her that “the mechanics” of such a bid were “difficult” because he would need the backing of the city’s daily papers. Bloomberg told her that he knew he could count on Post publisher Rupert Murdoch and the Daily News’ Mort Zuckerman. But he was in the midst of saying he was “uncertain about Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.” when a press aide cut him off, insisting that the rest of the conversation had to be off the record.

That spring, Bloomberg commissioned a poll on public attitudes about changing term limits. Purnick confirms that it showed that voters were likely to vote thumbs down on any move to change term limits in a new referendum.

Other hints of the mayor’s pre-crisis calculations came from her interviews with mega-millionaires who were urging Bloomberg to run again. In July, Bloomberg attended the annual tycoons’ retreat in Sun Valley, Idaho. There, Purnick writes, Bloomberg mingled with Murdoch and other pro–third term chums, including investment mogul Henry Kravis and Time Warner’s Richard Parsons. The mayor was apparently treated to a full-court press from those moguls, who were in turn consulting with real estate big Jerry Speyer and investment strategist Steven Rattner, both of whom were aggressively pushing a third term.

Purnick quotes one “business associate” saying that “they all came back from Sun Valley loaded for bear, sure he was going for it.”

Zuckerman, a key player in Bloomberg’s strategy, told Purnick that the September market crash wasn’t the reason. “No, it was not the economic crisis,” the publisher and real estate magnate said. “He wanted to run for a third term. What else was he going to do? He loves being mayor.”

Bloomberg hesitated, Purnick writes, concerned in part about the response of fellow billionaire Ronald Lauder (”Complication No. 1,” she dubs him), who spent millions to win the original term limits referendum and who successfully beat back a later challenge to the law.

That hesitation, she says, helped the mayor avoid pressure to put term limits on the ballot that fall, when it was even more likely to be defeated by the pro-Obama voters expected to swamp the polls. She said that one close friend of the mayor who was also urging him to run for a third term told her that the mayor “deliberately ran out the clock because of the poll in June.” The friend told her that Bloomberg’s “political advisers were telling him he wouldn’t win a referendum” overturning the term limits law.

It was while that clock was running down that the financial collapse struck, giving the mayor what Purnick dubs “a plausible reason” to push for a fast Council vote rather than a public referendum.

The mayor then turned to “Complication No. 1.” Lauder had already fired an opening shot, running a TV ad depicting politicians as baby diapers that need regular changing. But after what Purnick says was heavy lobbying by the pro-Bloomberg business crowd, Lauder bowed to a one-time change in the law in exchange for a small concession: that the mayor agree to name him to a new Charter Review commission panel in 2010—one that would recommend reinstituting term limits.

Bloomberg and Lauder were so excited about their agreement that they put out a press release describing it. The release was issued by Lauder’s eminent public relations adviser, Howard Rubenstein. But Bloomberg’s City Hall helped write it and approved it. “I will reluctantly support the mayor’s legislation to extend term limits to three terms,” Lauder stated in the release, “with the understanding that I will serve on a Charter-revision commission which will place the question of the number of terms before the voters in 2010.”

Lauder clearly wasn’t getting much in return: The commission doesn’t even exist, and if it is convened, he’ll be just one member. But it was also a glaring example of the city’s top executive using the perks of office to win political advantage. That is something officials are explicitly barred from doing by the City Charter. As good-government advocates Gene Russianoff of NYPIRG and Susan Lerner of Common Cause put it in a letter a few days later to the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, “We believe that Mayor Bloomberg has used his position in a prohibited manner to obtain personal advantage in a quid pro quo deal with Ronald Lauder.”

Whatever became of that complaint? “Nothing,” said Russianoff last week. “We never heard a word from the board.”

That’s the policy, a board official said when asked about the matter. When the board doesn’t find any violation, “the public never finds out,” he said. Which is just how the mayor wants to keep it until after November.

trobbins@villagevoice.com

Just about every day, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s re-election campaign unveils the latest in what has become a near-encyclopedia of endorsements, from obscure ethnic newspapers to prominent Democrats who live outside of New York.

But it is the ones that he has not gotten of late that are making his bid for a third-term, if far from imperiled, maybe something less than a slam-dunk.

On Thursday, the man regarded as Mr. Bloomberg’s likely Democratic opponent in November, City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., scored what was arguably his most significant endorsement yet, winning the fervent backing of District Council 37, the largest union of city government workers. It was surprising, too, because Mr. Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent who is now running as a Republican, had won the backing of DC 37 and most other unions in 2005, when he crushed Fernando Ferrer.

A few weeks ago, Mr. Thompson surprised the political establishment when he picked up the support of the Working Families Party, a coalition of unions known for its industrious get-out-the-vote operation. The party had stayed neutral in 2005, in what was widely seen as a coup for the mayor.

In both instances, the groups indicated that they had soured on the mayor because of what they felt were an imperfect feel for the city’s working class and his imperious move to rip up the city’s term-limits laws in order to run for another term.

“He changed,” Lillian Roberts, executive director of DC 37, said at a news conference on Thursday with Mr. Thompson.

“Thompson is in a better position — that doesn’t mean he’s in a good position — but he’s in a better position,” said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College. “This gives him a certain level of credibility that will encourage people to take a serious look at him, whereas a month ago it might have been Bill Thompson — who?”

Mr. Bloomberg still has tremendous advantages and has to be viewed as the strong favorite. He is the incumbent. He is willing to spend as much of his own money — $100 million or more — as he thinks is necessary. And his approval ratings have stayed quite high, above 50 percent, when other politicians around the country are suffering badly.

“I don’t think it’s a real cause of concern for the mayor unless it’s the start of a pattern,” said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic political consultant, who is not involved in the race but supports the mayor.

“The biggest variable in this so far is Thompson,” Mr. Gerstein said. “They’ve given people who are on the fence no compelling reason to jump. If Bill Thompson can show a compelling rationale to fire Bloomberg and hire him, then maybe things change. But there would have to be a game-changing event, or a radical political skills upgrade on the part of the challenger, to really make this a serious race.”

Mr. Thompson’s next challenge is to win the endorsements of the last two major unions with the clout to mobilize members, and perhaps influence voters: the United Federation of Teachers, which stayed neutral in 2005, and 1199 S.E.I.U.United Healthcare Workers East, which backed Mr. Ferrer.

He also hopes to tap into what political analysts sense is a more energized liberal wing of the Democratic party.

In 2005, Mr. Bloomberg managed to sway many Democrats who were impressed by his post-9/11 leadership in rebuilding New York, his against-the-grain push to ban smoking from restaurants and his insistence on raising property taxes and even income taxes on the wealthy.

But this time, there is a greater wellspring of discontent, Mr. Sherrill and others said; one colorful example is a new anti-Bloomberg newsletter called Fed Up New Yorkers.

“In ’05, there was no Bloomberg fatigue, and he was generally trusted by voters,” said Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party. “Now, there’s a lot of fatigue, and a lingering distrust because of the self-serving move on term limits and a society-wide view that Wall Street played us all for suckers.

“A lot of voters just don’t relate to him, and compared to ’05 he doesn’t look so invincible. He still has the money, but sometimes rich guys don’t win.”

For its part, the Bloomberg campaign dismissed suggestions that Mr. Thompson was gaining momentum, noting its continuing success in collecting endorsements (Colin L. Powell’s being a recent one), relying on social networking tools (Mr. Bloomberg is using Twitter this week) and articulating policies for a third term (improving community colleges was the theme on Thursday).

“We continue to take every opportunity to talk about the mayor’s record of honest, competent leadership that’s independent of the special interests,” said Bradley Tusk, Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign manager. “We’re working extremely hard, and we’re just getting started.”

If nothing else, Mr. Thompson seems much more engaged than he was just a month ago. When asked about Mr. Thompson’s mood, Eddy Castell, his campaign manager, said: “He is certainly growing more upbeat every single day. He’s ready for the next couple of months.”

By Francisco Alcuaz Jr.

July 27 (Bloomberg) — Philippine President Gloria Arroyo dismissed accusations she will attempt to cling to power when her term expires next year by changing the constitution.

“I never expressed the desire to extend myself beyond my term,” Arroyo said in her annual policy statement. “Many of those who accuse me of it tried to cling” to office themselves, she said, without elaborating.

Any attempt to extend the six-year term would risk stirring the wrath of voters suspicious that her election in 2004 was fraudulent. She may also need to tread carefully before meeting U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington this week. The U.S. backs democracies in Southeast Asia such as the Philippines and Indonesia to counter China’s influence and stem the spread of terrorist offshoots of al-Qaeda.

Arroyo plans to discuss climate change, nuclear non- proliferation and counter-terrorism with Obama, she said. “There is now a good prospect for peace talks” with local communist guerillas and Muslim separatists, she added.

The U.S. is the Philippines’ biggest export market, and the 5.5 million Filipinos working there sent home as much as $7.8 billion in remittances last year. In the 1980s, the U.S. helped push former President Ferdinand Marcos out of office on a wave of public demonstrations and then provided air cover for troops loyal to his successor Corazon Aquino to fend off a coup attempt.

If she attempts to rig the system “and people are morally outraged, they can act powerfully and instantaneously,” said Segundo Romero, a fellow at the Development Academy of the Philippines in Manila. “Whatever she says, she must be able to explain it to President Obama.”

Tax Pledges

Arroyo, 62, pledged to improve tax collection and introduce levies on liquor and cigarettes to pay for increased spending on health, education and infrastructure projects. The country’s economic fundamentals are intact, she said.

Staying in power would enable Arroyo to fend off any legal actions over allegations of vote-rigging, corruption and human rights abuses, Romero said. Her predecessor Joseph Estrada spent six years under arrest after he fell from power and before he was convicted of corruption and sentenced to life in jail in September 2007. Arroyo pardoned him a month later.

Opposition lawmakers have failed in three attempts to impeach Arroyo. She has denied all the allegations.

Supporters of former President Ramos tried to remove the single-term limit during his administration.

Constitutional Moves

Lawmakers in the Arroyo-controlled House of Representatives last month called for an unprecedented joint vote with the smaller Senate to discuss amending the constitution. Senators, outnumbered by House members 10-to-1, oppose changes before next year’s elections and without a constitutional convention elected for the purpose.

“If she steps down, she will open herself to legal challenges,” said Bong Lopez, a political science professor at University of Santo Tomas in Manila. “The opposition will file cases against her. She’s afraid because she put Estrada in prison. What assurance does she have Estrada’s supporters won’t do the same to her?”

“Those who should be in jail should not threaten it, especially if they have been there,” Arroyo said today.

Arroyo is more unpopular than Estrada was at the time of his ouster, according to Manila-based Social Weather Stations, one of the Philippines’ two biggest polling organizations.

Another option open to Arroyo is to revive a 2006 push by her supporters for a shift to a parliamentary system with a prime minister who would take over many of the president’s powers. Such a change would have to be endorsed by the Supreme Court

“It’s a long shot,” said Lopez. “She has to run for parliament” first, he said.

Failing any attempt to keep Arroyo in office, the leading candidates in next year’s election are Senators Manuel Villar, Francis Escudero and Manuel Roxas and former President Estrada, according to Social Weather Stations.

“As the campaign unfolds and the candidates take to the airwaves, I ask them to talk more about how they will build up the nation rather than tear down their opponents,” Arroyo said. “Give the electorate real choices and not just sweet talk.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Francisco Alcuaz Jr. in Manila at falcuaz@bloomberg.net