pLet me say up front that I think Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York has been an excellent mayor. He   has led the city back from some difficult times. Of course, anyone after Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be an improvement! New York City is functioning remarkably smoothly and seamlessly and Bloomberg has taken some daring and notable stands like the no smoking ban and attempting to control traffic in downtown Manhattan. The mayor has been a leader who has not been afraid to lead even when a large number of us might disagree with him. That is a rare commodity. And he is to be commended for it.

However, I am against him seeking a third term.

No person should have the right to change the laws for his or her personal political agenda. To create a new body of law so one person can run for re-election is a horribly misguided precident. Yes, I agree New York City is going through a very difficult time (what city isn't?) and we are at the center of the international economic crisis. Thousands are being laid off, businesses are failing and the real estate market is taking a huge hit. But to believe that New York City is so bereft of leadership that no one else can possibly tackle this moment is to underestimate the greatness of the city. There are many who can lead us into a new age of prosperity and hold the different elements together in these tough times. Remember, the attacks of 9/11 happened on an election day -- and at the time, Rudy Guilani petitioned to remain the leader of the city due to the horrifying circumstances that befelled the city. We were wise enough to dismiss that argument. We need to be wise enough to dismiss Bloomberg's current argument.

There is even a discussion to create a deal where the mayor is the only one that can benefit from a third term and once enacted, the city can duly return to term limits. In their questionable generosity, those arguing such a platform might even allow the voters to vote on term limits again after the mayor is granted his special and extraordinary exception. Can you imagine the precedent that this would set? Anytime a politician didn't like an election law and his party holds power, then they would just change the law to benefit their machine.

Term Limits is good law. It allows fresh faces to emerge into the political process. Budding minorities will get a chance to work their way up the ladder quicker and give voice to their constituents. There is no question in my mind but that many LGBT office holders would have had to wait much longer if it weren't for term limits. If the voters chose to overturn term limits, then let them do it in an orderly process and not at the beck and call of one man. That is not how democracy is supposed to work.

We love ya, Mike, but this proposal is a non-starter. And a deal ender.