This is what I posted on my Facebook page.

I was severely disappointed watching former Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, completely strike out in his attempt to summarize the rationale for term limits while speaking at the New York City Council public hearing on term limits.

Not once did he mention protecting the right of the minority to have an fair opportunity to see someone else elected against a popular incumbent heading into a third term. Studies show that challengers face tremendous obstacles in probability if they hope to defeat an incumbent, as Councilman Charles Barron outlined.

Popularity is not the only measure of success for a politician. This is not even taking into consideration the tremendously deep pockets that Mayor Bloomberg, or any other future incumbent could possess, which does not guarantee victory, but surely provides them with an advantage over any candidate without access to such capital.

Mr. Barron may have used an ad hominem attack on Councilman Felder with his comments about the man's humor skills, yet his critiques of Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Felder in other areas, while populist, represent the view of many frustrated New Yorkers, including this author. I am flabbergasted by what is transpiring, finding it a tremendous shame to hear such dismissal of, or lack of understanding of key factors for maintaining term limits.

Democracy should not merely be about conventionalism as hegemony. Have we not learned anything from the dangers of such practice in leading to the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the passing of the Patriot Act? All were apparently allowed to exist because of an incumbent's popularity, yet were in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution, internationally accepted human rights standards, and long held American views on foreign-policy that has allowed the U.S. to be held with some esteem. So, as a result of majority rule we undermined our own democracy.

Protecting the rights of the minority is also vital to a healthy democracy because for those who do not support an incumbent, some semblance of hope for seeing change allows for buy in to our political system. One can see how extending or eliminating term limits could lead to increased disinterest in the political process from marginalized groups, particularly people of color, and those in low-income brackets who are have struggled for a voice in Bloomberg's New York on key issues.

If you do not support the incumbent, there has always been some small comfort in knowing that 8 years is the maximum amount of time they will remain in office.

Cuomo also said he would never be against term limits because he wants the voters to decide?

While I could go on why this is flawed, even by his own standard if citizens vote against changing term limits (which they already have, twice) then how does that fall in line with his view that the power of voting is the only valuable instrument of measurement?

I fear that increasing the silence of dissent, as I see extending term limits or eliminating them will likely lead to, is extraordinarily dangerous for maintaining a democracy that allows for all its citizens to participate in its process and have a say in the direction it takes.

Is the tyranny of the majority now the standard for American democracy?

I certainly hope not.

Bloomy should honor the eight years and move on.

But who would you rather he be replaced by?

I'm sure you could sum all that up in like...5 sentences, PresIke; so please do, and I'll grant you an opinion.

I guess martin, LOL. but I'm not usually so, it's just been a rough day; is it too much to ask for a summary once in a while??

Sure beats having Anthony Weiner as mayor.