On a sunny September afternoon, the five borough presidents met at the venerable Brooklyn eatery Junior’s for their bi-annual meeting. On the table, among the onion rolls and bowls of pickles, was a typed agenda provided for each president by host Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz (D). Number three: “a discussion about term limits.”
Markowitz ripped into term limits, calling them unnecessary and undemocratic. That is perhaps an understandable sentiment from a man who will be forced out of his job next year if the current term limits stay in place. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer (D), who has the option of running for re-election next year, took a more measured approach, calling for an open debate.

Both men are thought to be considering a run for different offices next year— Markowitz for mayor, Stringer for public advocate. Both have yet to make a commitment.

Their tablemates, Queens Borough President Helen Marshall (D) and Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro (Con.), both seem content to serve out the rest of their terms and ride off into the sunset. Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión (D), meanwhile, is running hard, after surprising many late last year by starting a run for comptroller instead of mayor.

Most term-limited officials have already made a commitment or hinted at one, coalescing behind one of the three citywide races, the borough president races or a stab at state office.

Stringer and Markowitz, together with Council Member John Liu (D-Queens), who has been vigorously raising money for an as-of-yet-unannounced race next year, are the stragglers of city politics—the three elected officials who could run for any citywide office next year, but have so far kept everyone guessing.

Whether they are simply undecided or are just waiting for the maximum possible impact for an announcement, Markowitz, Stringer and Liu are each taking their time, which is having far-reaching implications for all three citywide races—mayor, comptroller and public advocate—as well as for dozens of other elected officials who are waiting before making their own moves.

“These people represent difficulties for everybody else,” said veteran Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. “Term limits, it appears, will remain in place. Therefore, the musical chairs will not go to their ultimate end until those three people make some decisions.”

Liu has both the comptroller and public advocate candidates fairly nervous. As the city’s first Asian-American elected official, he has a large base of supporters with a proven willingness to bankroll his next career move, though the loss of close ally Ellen Young in the Sept. 9 Assembly primary raises some questions about his clout. He reported having raised over $3 million last July, making him one of the better funded candidates in 2009.

“Anyone who discounts him is a fool,” Sheinkopf said of Liu. “He has money, he’s fresh, he’s new, he’s Asian in a city with an increasing Asian face. So when he makes his decision, it will set off a different kind of scramble.”
Scott Levenson, a Democratic political consultant, predicted that despite Liu’s silence, the announced candidates for those races should already be moving forward with their plans.

“They’ll keep their mind’s eye on significant players entering the field,” Levenson said, “but they just cannot proceed on these hypotheticals.”

With two fellow Queens Council members—Melinda Katz and David Weprin—already in the comptroller’s race, Liu may decide to run for public advocate, pitting him against civil rights attorney Norman Siegel and another Queens Democrat, Eric Gioia. He might also decide to drop down to the Queens borough president race, which would force him to return some of the contributions he has received at the higher citywide limit. Whichever race he enters, if he chooses one, Liu will have a serious impact, most political observers agree.

Markowitz has a very different set of possibilities to consider. He has not been actively raising money and his “Markowitz for New York” committee shows this, having only half a million dollars in July, significantly less than most other citywide candidates. While he has consistently polled ahead of all the other mayoral candidates, some observers say his flirtations with running appear to be just that.

“This has more the hallmarks of a candidate who’s in to stop other candidates from rising,” said Joseph Mercurio, a political consultant for both Republicans and Democrats.

At Junior’s, Markowitz described his hesitancy to jump into the mayor’s race as the result of some serious soul searching.

“It’s a decision that impacts me personally, health-wise and professionally,” Markowitz said as the other borough presidents looked on. “I want to make sure I’m in excellent health and excellent spirits.”

According to some political experts, the real wild card in 2009 is Stringer, who was sitting to Markowitz’s right at Junior’s. The Manhattan borough president is “off cycle,” meaning he will complete his first term next year and can run for re-election if he so chooses. And yet Stringer continues to raise money for 2009, and has spoken privately about his interest in the public advocate’s race. In July, Stringer reported over $1.2 million in donations, collecting them at the borough-wide limit. If he runs citywide, he will immediately be able to call on his donor base to contribute up to $1,100 more each, which could be an important and fast boost.

Mercurio said there is no downside to Stringer’s approach. He could run for re-election, but if the polling shows he is in good shape citywide, he could run for public advocate. The real downside is for the other candidates in the race looking for support from the city’s big-dollar donors, Mercurio added.

“Some of the bigger donors might hold off on making donations to a candidate because they think someone they’re closer to might be running for the same office,” Mercurio said.

While Stringer weighs his options, other Manhattan Democrats, like Council members Dan Garodnick, Jessica Lappin and Robert Jackson and state officials like Sen. Tom Duane, are left wondering whether there will be a race for borough president next year. Some privately grumble about Stringer’s hesitancy. They are loosing precious fundraising minutes and running out of time to put together campaign apparatuses. For Garodnick and Lappin, who have been mentioned as potential candidates for Council speaker next year, the window to decide what to focus on is closing.

Evan Stavisky, a consultant for the Parkside Group who has worked with Stringer in the past, had a somewhat elaborate metaphor to describe the situation of those elected officials who are waiting for Stringer’s move.

“People are out there, working hard, trying to run for borough president. But in the end they may not have a clear shot at it. It’s kind of like you’re playing pool and the 8-ball is between you and the hole,” Stavisky said. “You have to bank it off the bumper. Scott Stringer’s candidacy for public advocate is the bumper that you have to hit.”

At Junior’s, Stringer gave his stock answer about having the best job in city government already.

“I am more concerned right now with doing the job I have than a potential job I want,” he said.

Asked whether that means he is having his Junior’s cheesecake and eating it too, Stringer was more direct in his reply.

“No comment,” he said.