Tag Archives: New York democrats

White House Addresses “The David Paterson Problem” And Braces For Midterm Election Losses

Bookmark and Share    As the White House wraps up a summer that saw the luster taken off their image, the administration is beginning to brace itself for a beating.

demsin distressIn what can only be interpreted as an attempt to stop what the President’s strategists see as troubling mid-term election results, members of the administration have addressed what the call “The David Paterson Problem” and asked New York Governor David Paterson to pull out of next year’s race for Governor and on Monday the President’s chief strategist will meet privately meet with the Governor.

According to the New York Times “The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself”

The Times confirmed that the President is concerned with Governor Paterson’s standing in the state and quote one source as saying “The president’s request (for Paterson to not run) was conveyed to the Mr. Paterson by Representative Gregory W. Meeks, a Queens Democrat, who has developed a strong relationship with the Obama administration”.

In a WCBS radio interview, Governor Paterson did confirm that he has had private conversations with the administration but he stated that he will not discuss the content of any private conversations.

The request for Paterson to step aside and not run is an extraordinary one. Normally, Presidents do not make such requests. On the rare occasion that they have, the reasoning was due to the involvement of criminal conduct. The drama involving impeached former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is such an example. However; in this case, although Paterson came into office because of the criminal conduct of his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, such is not the reason the administration is urging Paterson to drop out. The reasons are purely political and a sign of a White House that is preparing for a bruising in 2010.

Paterson’s poll number are horrific. A Siena Research Institute poll found 55 percent of registered voters had an unfavorable opinion of the governor while only 32 percent viewed him favorably. The same poll also makes it clear that Paterson’s likely opponent for the job, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, trounces the Governor in a head to head match up.

These numbers do not concern the White House in so far as how they pertain to Paterson personally.

They concern the White House because these numbers scare the hell out of them in regards to how poorly Paterson’s presence effect will  congressional races, down ticket from the race for governor next year, during mid-term elections.

In addition to all members of the House of Representatives being up for relection, New York has two races for U.S. Senate being held. One is for the expired term of New York state’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer and the other is to fill out the unexpired term of former Senator and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In that race, Democrats will be trying to keep Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in office. Giilibrand was the hand picked choice who Paterson appointed to the fill the vacancy.

Clearly if the President hopes to at least keep some of his parties congressional and senate seats from New York, a strong top of their ticket will be crucial. It is also clear to him and his political strategists that having David Paterson at the top of the ballot will not make for a “strong” ticket, it will make for a disastrous one.

Given all the facts, fear can be the only reason for the almost unprecedented White House request for a sitting Governor of their own party to step aside. The administration is apparently fearful of a repeat of the 1994 mid-term elections which brought Republicans in control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. Much of the reasoning for that occurrence was do in large part to the then Clinton administration’s attempt to, much like this administration, adopt partisan health management and care reform.

As the President’s own numbers become wobbly and as Democrats tie HR 3200 to their hip, the political wing of the President’s staff is apparently trying to avoid a repeat of history in next year’s elections. The request for Paterson to step aside is just the first sign of that.

Under normal circumstances a sitting President would not ask one of the only two African-American governors in the country to step aside. And under normal circumstances even bad poll numbers would not prompt such a request. Case in point: New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has poll numbers that almost parallel David Paterson’s. Yet despite those poor polling numbers, President Obama has been steadfast behind Governor Corzine as he runs for reelection this year. The President has even shown up for a rally in support of Corzine. But the Governor of New Jersey is not running for reelection next year when congressional seats are up for grabs. That means Corzine’s lagging candidacy is not a threat to the balance of power in Washington. Not yet anyway.

These facts demonstrate that the White House is scared and that strategists for the President are trying to stop the hemorrhaging of support and popularity that could punish Democrats next November. If such was not the case President Obama would be cheering Governor Paterson on and urging him to keep up the good work, even without there being much good work to speak of.

Of course, in light of the arguments of the left, President Obama’s request for Governor Paterson to step aside could be blamed on racism. If President Carter is right about the reason for people disagreeing with President Obama being because Obama is black, than clearly the reason President Obama disagrees with Paterson is because he is black. Or maybe the President has prejudices against the blind and disagrees with David Paterson because he is legally blind.

Personally I will give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not asking the incumbent New York Governor to give up attempts to run again because of his color or disability. That would leave the fear factor as the reason for the unusual actions of the White House.

For his part, Governor Paterson told WCBS Radio News, that he is running for Governor and has no plans on pulling out. That will make for an interesting New York primary.

Former Governor Mario Cuomo’s son Andrew Cuomo, the state’s Attorney General, is likely to defeat Paterson and secure the Democrat nomination for Governor. But such a primary will create a divide that will form along lines of race. It could also effect Kristen Gillibrand’s election. Some Democrats are looking at a challenging her for the Democrat nomination. If that challenge were to materialize, as David Paterson’s candidate, Kristen Gillibrand could have some trouble of her own on her hands.

Strategically, the implications of Paterson’s refusal to step aside and to continue with an inevitable primary, are problematic. The unorthodox steps that President Obama has taken by interjecting himself into the New York gubernatorial primary is proof of just how problematic. It is also a sign that the President and Democrat strategists are beginning to sweat.     Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

U.S. Senate Employment- ABILITY NOT REQUIRED

CAROLINE KENNEDY - The Most Qualified New Yorker forthe Job?

CAROLINE KENNEDY - The Most Qualified New Yorker forthe Job?

Does anyone really believe that Caroline Kennedy is the most qualified person in New York to represent the interests of New Yorkers in the United States Senate?

Assuming, for a moment, that she was not a Kennedy, would the replacement Governor of New York, David Paterson, be considering her for the position?

I think not.

But politics is a strange and twisted business.

Take for example David Paterson’s ascension to the Governor’s office.

Paterson was the son of a locally well known New York State Senator, Basil Paterson. Before Basil resigned from his senate seat, he pulled some strings and positioned his son David in the District Attorney’s office in Manhattan.

In 1985 David resigned from the D.A.’s office to work on the campaign of David Dinkins for Manhattan Borough President. Dinkins later became one of the city’s worst Mayors ever, served one term and was ultimately defeated for re-election by Rudy Giuliani.

After Dinkins’ campaign for Borough President, Leon Bogues who succeeded Basil Paterson in the state senate died. Subsequently a hastily prepared special election to fill the vacant seat was held.

With fifty eight percent of the districts Democrat County Committee behind him, David Paterson received the nomination for his fathers senate seat.

This senate district covers parts of Manhattan including Harlem, so it is staunchly liberal.  As such,  the Democrat nomination is tantamount to winning the election and David did.

In 2006, the state’s Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer sought the Democrat party’s nomination for Governor. With many high profile, Wall street crimes successfully prosecuted by Spitzer, he was the party’s rising star. In fact many saw him as a future national leader for Democrats. His race for the nomination was anything but a race. With one opponent Spitzer won the nomination in a landslide and with a Republican of little recognition and even less money, Spitzer was assured of winning the Governor’s race.

That in mind, he selected David Paterson to be his running mate. The selection of Paterson helped to win favor with minorities and the liberal wing of the party. As an African -American who established an ultra liberal following, the addition of Paterson to the ticket allowed Elliot the freedom to not have to campaign too far to the left. Thereby allowing him to speak to those in the middle without turning them off  by publicly addressing liberal concerns.

With Paterson on the ticket, Spitzer knew liberals would be behind him.

And they were. As expected Elliot Spitzer won in a landslide election.

But that landslide victory quickly turned into a even quicker and more dramatic fall from grace as the earth shifted again and Spitzer was forced to resign from office after it was discovered that he was hiring call girls for, shall we say,  nongovernmental business.

And that is how David Paterson became Governor.

Now as Governor, David Paterson finds himself in the position of appointing  someone to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.

That situation, in and of itself, is another stroke of luck for David Paterson.

After losing the nomination for President, New York Democrats wanted assurances that Hillary would not challenge David Paterson for the nomination for Governor of New York in 2010.

They never got that assurance until Barack Obama took care of that for them and nominated Hillary for Secretary of State.

Of course Paterson could  feel that a challenge to his nomination for re-election is not yet resolved with Clinton out of the picture.  Andrew Cuomo’s desire for the job could pose a threat but if Paterson appointed Cuomo to the U.S. Senate, he too would be taken out of the picture thereby assuring Paterson the nomination.

So what of her replacement?

Well a look at David Paterson’s rise to power would indicate the rationale behind choosing Caroline Kennedy.

Paterson did little to get the job that he now has.

He entered politics through the political strings pulled by his father and came to political office through his fathers name. And ultimately he became a governor because of a vacancy in the seat.

So why not select Caroline Kennedy?  She has the Kennedy name and there is a vacancy.

So putting qualifications aside, there is absolutely no reason not to select her but quite a few reasons for Paterson to do so.

The first being, by appointing Caroline Kennedy to the U.S. Senate, Paterson will be winning the favor of Kennedy’s allover the country. That means plenty of money in his bid for re-election.

The second reason is perception. As a Kennedy, Caroline is adored. Regardless of issues or her positions on the issues, the public perceives her as a symbol. As the last surviving child of an adored, martyred President, Caroline Kennedy is a figure few want to oppose. So she is a safe choice that spares Paterson a great deal of criticism.

 Additionally, after choosing Caroline for the senate seat, a race against Andrew Cuomo probably would not be a much of race. Paterson would have the backing of both U.S. Senators form New York, Chuck Schumer and Caroline Kennedy. He would also have their organizational and financial support as well as that of all the Kennedy’s.

So given the logic of politics, whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified or not, really doesn’t matter. Qualifications are not a factor. If they were David Paterson might be considering New Yorkers with expertise in areas that need leadership like our economy. Why not consider New Yorker Donald Trump? If Mike Bloomberg is such a great Mayor of New York City, why not appoint him to the senate? Why not replace one Clinton with another?  Bill is available.  It is not unprecedented for a former President to serve in congress and if he is so great, why not him?

I am not saying I want any of those characters in the U.S. Senate but why not consider them?

The answer simply is that qualifications are not a factor.

As Peter King, a New York congressman from Long Island said “ if name identification is a qualification, why not pick J-lo?”. Jennifer Lopez has plenty of name recognition.

He’s right.

I do not know where Caroline Kennedy stands on the issues. I do know that of all the Kennedy’s she is my favorite. There is nothing to dislike about her. So she comes to the table with a clean slate with me. But is her name really a reason to suggest that she is the most qualified New Yorker to help shape the future of our nation?

Realistically, no, but politics has little to do with the reality of national concerns. Politics is personal and it revolves around the personal ambitions of individuals in government, not the people who are effected by government.

So why not Caroline Kennedy? It could be worse. MoveOn.org founder and liberal lunatic, George Soros is a New York resident.

Considered the 55th richest person in the world and one of the three wealthiest in New York, with a net worth of 7.2 billion dollars he could certainly finance the success of a political careers including David Paterson. But who will assure the success of our nation?

While some play name games and others try to auction off elected offices, who will assure us that the best people represent us?  Certainly not those who are already in office.


At the height of a political corruption trial, the prosecuting attorney attacked
a witness.

“Isn’t it true,” he bellowed, “that you accepted five thousand dollars to compromise this case?”

The witness stared out the window as though he hadn’t heard the question.

“Isn’t it true that you accepted five thousand dollars to compromise this case?” the lawyer repeated.

The witness still did not respond.

Finally, the judge leaned over and said, “Sir, please answer the question.”

“Oh,” the startled witness said, “I thought he was talking to you.”

1 Comment

Filed under politics