NY-Gov: If Obama Didn't, Who Else Would?

Let New Yorkers figure it out (0.00 / 0)

Obama is entitled to his opinion but I wish he would keep it to himself on state level issues.  Too often he is getting himself involved in state domestic politics when he should really be focused on governing.  In PA he endorsed Specter, in Colorado he endorsed Bennett, and here in NY he helped clear the field for Gillibrand and is now trying to push out Paterson.  These are not the sort of things he should be doing right now, it only leaves him open to embarrassment if things don't turn out they way he likes (i.e. Bennett and/or Specter lose their primaries) and it takes attention away from the important work in Washington (i.e. getting healthcare reform).

Although I still don't like it, at least there is a defensible reason for Obama to get involved in senate races.  At least Senators work in Washington and they will be involved in getting Obama's agenda enacted into law.  Here, this is a purely state based issue.  Paterson is not elected to federal office and he will have nothing to do with Obama's agenda.  There is no reason why Obama should be meddling in state politics.  Let us New Yorkers figure out who should be our governor.  Robert asks who would step up and ask Paterson to step aside.  My answer is any potential primary opponent.  Yes, NY primaries are obscenely late but that is the system we have.  Let us deal with our own mess, we don't need Obama issuing marching orders from Washington.  As of right now Paterson is the governor and he should have the party's full support in trying to get good legislation passed.  But once it is primary time and legislative agendas take a back seat, it is a whole new ball game.

---

by: sabachi @ Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 21:53:48 PM UTC

The Democrats of New York (0.00 / 0)

The state party is firmly behind Paterson -- until they aren't.  If that change were to occur sometime next year, the switch would happen with a speed and thoroughness that would impress George Orwell.

But let's suppose that Governor Paterson doesn't take President Obama's suggestion, and runs.  Let's also suppose that his numbers remain low, and Andrew Cuomo runs against him.  Then the choice would be made by the people who are supposed to be the ones to make that choice.  If Cuomo is all that strong, he'll win and win big -- and the party will be all the stronger for it.

Let's suppose instead that Governor Paterson turns things around, pushes through a budget for next year that is the first budget in decades that is fiscally responsible, in a process that is truly transparent.  Let's suppose he consolidates his power around true reformers and proves himself to be the kind of governor we want after all (perhaps he just needed some on-the-job training).  In that case, we would want to keep him, and it's highly probable that Cuomo will remain as Attorney General.  Again, we'll be stronger for it.

The only scenario that hurts us is if Paterson's numbers rise enough for him to withstand a challenge, and he is challenged anyway.  The odds of that happening are slim and none, particularly as Andrew Cuomo has already dropped out of one gubernatorial race in the past -- he's not likely to enter unless he is almost certain to win.

Finally, if, as you say, "We need a real leader and a strong candidate," and I agree that we do, then the best way to get one is by not having (or letting) anyone rely on an outsider, even the President, for that leadership and strength.

So my message is, "Thank you, Mr. President, but we can settle our own affairs.  You have enough to deal with, what with Harry Reid being incapable of managing the U.S. Senate any more than Malcolm Smith could handle the state Senate.  You have Afghanistan, healthcare, the economy, and racist Republican right-wing nuts to handle; may I suggest you don't overfill your plate?"

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 22:22:29 PM UTC

I don't see how that would work (0.00 / 0)

If Cuomo enters a gubernatorial primary, there is no way he could qualify for the ballot to remain AG.  The timing would make it impossible.

---

by: Historical Pessimist @ Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 22:37:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hate to keep repeating myself, (0.00 / 0)

but everybody here seems to be politely avoiding the 800 pound gorilla in the room: A Dem primary with Cuomo challenging Paterson will be be a racial minefield, what with our unpopular governor already demonstrating that he's got a penchant for lobbing the "racist" grenade at critics and opponents.  A cornered Paterson could well decide to smear Cuomo, unleashing a racial firestorm downstate that could cost us the election and possibly rend the state Party asunder. Who's to say Cuomo even wants to wade into that?

This is a smart, necessary intervention on Obama's part.  

---

by: JohnS @ Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 22:26:53 PM UTC

Paterson doesn't have to launch the (0.00 / 0)

'racist' grenade against Cuomo.  Blacks remember how he challenged Carl McCall for the Democratic nomination and then dropped out just a few days before the primary.  We feel this cost McCall the election.

Not only is 9 weeks too short a time to turn from the primary to the general election, but primaries also divide party activists.  

I saw this in the 2002 race - where I volunteered in Columbia County about 60% favored McCall, 40% favored Cuomo, so instead of working together we were at cross purposes.

Thats where the real bleeding happens in NY with such a short run from the primary to the GE.

HylasBrook

---

by: HylasBrook @ Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 22:48:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I volunteered for McCall, too (0.00 / 0)

Cuomo's primary challenge didn't cost him the election, his low to no-key campaign style did.

---

by: JohnS @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:25:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm still a little suspicious of the info leaked (0.00 / 0)

to the New York Times.  If Obama felt Paterson shouldn't run, why didn't he call him up instead of using a go-between that caused leakage.

I find it hard to believe Obama would be that ham-handed, and so early in the election cycle - its 14 months to the election and 12 months to the primary.

A one on one approach allows Paterson to bow out gracefully, instead of appearing to be forced out.  If anything, this leak will have the opposite effect - Paterson vows to stay in.

As for Obama to get himself involved in state affairs, he is the head of the party.  Bush campaigned for Spector back in 2004 when Toomey was breathing down his neck because Bush didn't like sitting senators to be primaried.  He did this even though Spector hadn't been a strong supporter of Bush.

I would be interested to hear what Obama has to say since he'll be in Troy tomorrow.  

HylasBrook

---

by: HylasBrook @ Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 22:37:29 PM UTC

Its a brushback pitch (0.00 / 0)

They tried talking behind closed doors, and Paterson decided to go forward anyway and run for a full term. Going public and then cutting off funding is a great way to push somebody out. It worked fantastically for the GOP in Kentucky, and I think it will have the same effect here. The major fundraisers in NY will get the message that anybody who backs Paterson will be persona non grata in Obama circles. Eventually Paterson will have to bow to the combined public, private and financial pressures that Obama, Cuomo and the Unions will put on him. I'm sure then Obama will appoint him to a commission of some kind, and that will be the end of that.

Cuomo will be the nominee, but for now we have to endure some Kabuki theater.

Reality has a well known liberal Bias-Stephen Colbert

---

by: pierredude @ Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 23:57:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Me-- I was planning to tell him next Saturday (0.00 / 0)

Paterson is (maybe, still won't confirm for sure...) speaking at our annual Meet the Candidates BBQ next weekend, and I had planned to say something similar to what the Prez did (but would probably not have been quoted in the NYT).

Obama starting this discussion at this time is a great way to bring it up without as much racial overtone as might otherwise be the case.

I like David Paterson a lot-- he is a smart and funny man, and he used to be a progressive.  But, he just has not cut it as governor, and he ought to see it.

---

by: robinia @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 02:13:27 AM UTC

Totally Inappropriate (0.00 / 0)

Obama should be less interested in setting the political landscape for the 2010 and 2012 elections and more focused on the serious challenges facing the country.  It is a pathetic example of political posturing and beneath the office of president.

---

by: libertymama @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 02:47:25 AM UTC

Two words: (0.00 / 0)

Karl Rove.

I don't want to hear anything from Republicans and conservatives about a president being "less interested in setting the political landscape" for future years "pathetic example(s) of political posturing." Not after the last eight years of partisanship we have seen.

I do not believe our party - the Democratic Party - should engage in the same tactics. But what Obama is doing here is what any elected official in that role would do. It is no different than Paterson picking the state party chair or some other political decision.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 03:09:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Understand the stakes... (4.00 / 1)

If Paterson runs next year, he will lose.  If he loses, that means we'll have a Lazio or Giuliani influencing the next round of redistricting.  And we can't risk that.

Not to mention the fact that Hall, Murphy, Arcuri, Massa, and Maffei will all be facing tough re-elections, and having Paterson on the ballot hurts all of their chances.

If we actually had a functional Democratic party in this state, then we might not be in this situation.  But as it is Obama did the right thing.

---

by: GallatinDan @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 14:22:02 PM UTC