Given the verbal disembowelment that we directed at Council Member David Yassky last week for what we saw as a revolting betrayal of the public trust by calling for a public referendum on extending terms limits, but ultimately voting with the Mayor, we found it fascinating that the Council Member has been sending out email defending his standing. (It doesn’t change our opinion that his conduct was scandalous at best and spineless, yet predictable at best, because the brilliant, yet tragically ambitious Mr. Yassky would sign a contract in blood with the guy with horns and a tail if it would get him elected to citywide office or–gasp–Congress), but here’s what he has to say for himself in an email that’s being widely circulated. (We are strongly avoiding the desire to annotate Mr. Yassky’s defense of his wretched conduct, but foll it with some analysis after the jump we hope you’ll read):

I am sure you know by now that the City Council voted last week to approve Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to lengthen the term limit for City officeholders from eight years to 12 years. I want you to know that after a great deal of thought, I chose to support the Mayor’s proposal. This was the most difficult decision I have faced in the City Council – more than congestion pricing, the garbage plan, or the post-9/11 tax increase – and I want to explain why I believe it was the right choice.

Like many people, my initial reaction to the Mayor’s proposal was outrage. While I have always held that the eight-year term limit was bad policy, it was a policy put in place by referendum and the fairest way to change it was by a subsequent referendum. I was saddened by the Mayor’s eagerness to bypass the voters, and I strongly disagreed with his assertion that a referendum was not feasible. Most important, I knew that a Council vote to change term limits would confirm many people’s most cynical suspicions about politics and politicians.

Following the Mayor’s announcement, I advocated both publicly and privately, to the Mayor, the Speaker and my colleagues in the Council, that we should put the term limits question before the voters. I argued to the Mayor directly that he was making a mistake, and that he and the Council could not afford to undermine our moral legitimacy at precisely the time when we will be asking New Yorkers to sacrifice for the greater good.

As the vote neared, it became increasingly clear to me that the Mayor would not relent, and I focused intently on the choice before me. I had dozens – probably hundreds – of conversations with friends and constituents, and heard very strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Many people were appalled that the Council would even consider overturning a referendum, and many – I was surprised by how many – said simply: “I want to keep Mayor Bloomberg.”

These conversations had a deep impact on my thinking. While I have worked well with the Mayor and I hold his Administration in high regard, I certainly don’t believe he is the only person capable of leading the City over the coming years. But I do know that we are in a period of extraordinary challenge, and that voters may well value stability and experience in the City government. I became convinced that the right choice at this point in time was to leave open for voters the option of choosing to continue the Bloomberg Administration next November.

Even so, I pressed the referendum argument to the very end. Over the Mayor’s objections, I introduced an amendment to the term limits bill that would have put the issue before the voters in a special election early next year. Many of my colleagues supported the amendment, and it was vigorously debated on the floor – but it lost narrowly. That left the stark choice: As much as I was loath to override the expressed will of the voters, I was unwilling to leave in place a term limits policy which I believe is bad in general and especially at this time.

Finally, I know that some on the other side of this debate have accused Council Members of acting out of self-interest in voting to change term limits. For my part, I can say unequivocally that I saw no personal benefit in the Mayor’s proposal. As you know, I have been planning to run for City Comptroller next year, and have felt confident about my prospects for success. That campaign may now be foreclosed, as the current Comptroller is eligible to run for reelection.

I knew that many supporters would disagree with this vote. In making my final decision, one particular conversation stuck with me. In the supermarket, a few days before the vote, an older man approached me, told me he had voted for me, and told me he didn’t like the term limits extension. But then he said: “Whatever you do, I trust you to do the right thing.” I do believe that my constituents want me to look diligently at the issues before me and follow my best judgment about what is right for our City and for our community.

As difficult as this vote was, I know that still more wrenching choices lie ahead: closing hospitals versus fewer teachers, raising taxes versus cutting cops. On all of these issues, as with the term limits vote, I will take my responsibilities as a City Council Member with the utmost seriousness, and will work as hard as I possibly can to serve in the best interests of the people I represent.

And there you have it.

GL Analysis
Our original description of Mr. Yassky’s conduct as gutless, spineless and reprehensible stands. In an odd way, his pained justification of his Have-Your-Cake-And-Eat-It-Too Vote, only confirms the vile nature of the decision he made. He wants to us to believe that he fought the Putin Putsch until the very end but then decided to support Mayor Vladimir when Vassily the Electrician approached him at Key Foods near the spinach and told him to do the right thing. The “right thing” in Mr. Yassky’s case was to reject the very democratic approach he claims to have fought so hard to protect because it became clear so many people feel so strongly we need Mayor Bloomberg to save our city. In other words, it hurt him a lot more to do it, then it hurt us, because Vassily was telling him to use the whip on us.

Sorry, Mr. Yassky, no one is questioning your intellect. The tragic thing is you may be one of the brightest people in New York City politics. What we’re questioning are your ethics and your unbridled ambition and your willingness to sacrifice your most deeply held positions for your own sad self-interest. But, please sir, if the stuff sitting on plate has come out of the business end of a chicken and is what is otherwise known in vulgar terms as chicken shit, do not try to convince that us that you tired to reason with the chicken not to evacuate its bowels, but having failed to do so, you were left no choice but to turn it into a yummy dish of chicken salad. You can add mayo, onions, eggs, some Sazón to give it a bit of that sabor we all love, put it on sourdough, but Mr. Yassky, we hate to be bearers of bad news: it’s still a chicken shit sandwich and not chicken salad.

We still wish you a future that does not involve a career in public life, living on the taxpayer’s tab, making ethically bad decisions and trying to justify them to people you think are gullible enough to buy into your sad explanations. Yes, it’s politics and we expect nothing different in the end. We’ve been around the profession longer than we care to say and we’ve seen it up close. Maybe we’re holding you to a higher standard because it’s all the more painful to watch someone as smart as you sell his soul for reasons that have nothing to do with what you know are right and wrong. Perhaps, traffic enforcement would be a good next career*? (*Again, we apologize to city employees. Even the traffic enforcement people. We realize it’s a crappy job.)