The Obama Admin's Efforts to Increase Unemployment
I thought the goal of the Obama Administration was to bring unemployment numbers down, not add to the problem. Why is President Obama trying to urge Governor Paterson not to run for election? DId they not learn from the whole crown Princess Caroline as Senator movement that David Paterson is not likely to submit to out of state pressure to curry favor with the Democratic establishment? David Paterson is deeply unpopular already but has more than a year left in office. You don't think these calls will further weaken Paterson for the time he has left in office?
What have New Yorkers done that Obama feels it's his business to butt in to who represents our state in the Senate and as Governor? Seriously, try focusing on health care reform, cap and trade, regulating the out of control fiance industry, figure out where our effing TARP money went, a plan for Afghanistan, solve the problems of the Middle East, etc etc etc. New Yorkers are more than capable of making these decisions on our own. We got this. MYFB.
What have New Yorkers done that Obama feels it's his business to butt in to who represents our state in the Senate and as Governor? Seriously, try focusing on health care reform, cap and trade, regulating the out of control fiance industry, figure out where our effing TARP money went, a plan for Afghanistan, solve the problems of the Middle East, etc etc etc. New Yorkers are more than capable of making these decisions on our own. We got this. MYFB.
Advertisement
















Above all... regulating the out of control fiance industry. Hmmm...... ;-)
September 20, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say fiances are out of control in NY. I see those garish wedding announcements in the Times and can hardly contain my disgust.
September 20, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Wall Street fat cats will continue their fat ways. I am not holding my breath for any true reform.
September 20, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I had tooooooooo many fiances and the problem was I never welshed. You know the Welsh. Gopn back on promises for a couple thousand years...but I digress.
It has become an industry. My last one demanded a seven thousand dollar ring when I had picked out one for four thousand.
Somebody has to regulate all this.
September 21, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm Welch (not like those thievin' Welsh).
September 21, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fiance industry is way out of control, but I meant to type finance which is even more true. Smartass :oP
September 20, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not have any idea what the hell they are doing. Probably the gov's numbers are way down--SNL did their handicapped jokes and made the poor guy seem like an incompetent.
They figure they do better with a dem governor I spose.
I would never defend it.
Good to see ya Dija.
Q comes and makes fun of me once a month or so, of course he does so more often at other blogs. hahahaha
September 21, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama has offered sound advice. Here are two compelling reasons for Governor Paterson to withdraw,
http://www.thealbanyproject.com/diary/7303/nygov-president-obama-is-right-governor-paterson-should-not-run
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/governor/election_2010_governor_races.html
September 21, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever the politics of encouraging Paterson not to run, it was unnecessary to handle it the obnoxious and public way Ovama's Admin did. New York can handle our own business and we don't need Obama to state the obvious. And it makes no sense for Obama to further weaken an already weak Gov. who's going to be in office for a while.
September 21, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Guiliani v. Paterson numbers were terrifying.
Still it doesn't seem to me Paterson could beat Cuomo in the primaries. Or maybe I'm wrong there. Cuomo's been doing penance and I know I've forgiven him, but his reputation as a hothead prick may be a little harder than that to live down.
Dunno. And I don't think any of us do. This has the scent of a rather more involved story than we're getting. Unless it's simply payback for Paterson sending Gilibrand on along to Congress after expressly promising that's not what he was going to do. She managed to carry a very Republican district and that's a Hoise seat that's probably going to be lost now.
September 21, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with the idea that Paterson really shouldn't bother running for re-election. And, yes, it would be nice for NY Dems if he'd just announce he's not running. He has as much chance of being elected as Mark Sanford (actually, probably even less, as NY does have a recent history of electing governors from both parties).
However, I thoroughly agree with the premise of this post. This is not the sort of thing the President should be doing. And the timing couldn't be more awkward, with Obama coming to the Empire State.
I'd like to think this is either a saboteur or incompetent in the administration who leaked this information. If this was done with Obama's OK, it seems pretty inane to me. Rec'd.
September 21, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't fathom why the Admin wanted to
make this public, but apparently they did. Sounds like the heavy hammer of Rahm to me.
September 21, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like it to me too.
September 21, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had the same reaction, that I would rather the president not be playing a role as the head of the democrat party for some reason. The whole kingmaker energy of the Arlen Specter switch has me pulling for Sestak.
However, having said that, it's probably best that he has his eye on the ball as long as he keeps his eye on the other balls as well.
Apparently getting Arlen to switch was worth a lot to the president... and having a democrat governor in NY is clearly very important to him as well or he wouldn't have made the comments.
September 21, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I'd love to see Obama play a role as head of the Democratic party. I'd just prefer it was over the Blue Dogs of Congress. In that case he's all hands off, but he's not above kicking a guy when he's down even when it is way out of his zone of authority. No one wants Paterson to run for reelection. The difference is most folks have the discretion not to splash it on the front page of the NYT. This us unheard of interference for a president. And an unnecessary distraction for both Obama and Paterson. Grrr.
September 21, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Paterson can do bad all by himself - and he has. Obama's comment won't make his numbers get any lower or make him a weaker candidate in the eyes of New Yorkers.
September 21, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a mystery to me, dija, and I haven't had time to do much digging to learn more. I find it hard to believe it has to do with the polls, which can turn on a dime in New York. Maybe it has to do with an ACORN skeleton we don't yet know about.
But I agree that this is no Roland Burris situation that warrants such bull-in-a-china-shop intervention.
On the other hand, Giuliani as governor gives me cold sweats.
September 21, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, I doubt there's any Paterson or ACORN scandal. But I fear Governor Giuliani too. Even if Cuomo is our nominee it will be a tough race. I am sure Paterson has been looking at his numbers and questioning whether he will run. I am sure back channel convos have been had by the Gov & prominent NYS & national Dems. I have no problems with the Admin making a suggestion behind the scenes that Paterson is unlikely to win and asking that he strongly consider not running. I just can't believe they were politically dense enough to think airing the party's dirty laundry in public would benefit anybody.
September 21, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. That was totally class-free on Obama's part. He should just STFU and stay the hell out of local races until the primaries are done. This type of behavior represents the very worst features of a partisan system IMO.
Oh that he would take such an aggressive stance in dealing with his Blue Dogs!
September 21, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG. We agree? My expression very closely resembles your avatar :)
September 21, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama did step in, it seems to have backfired. I say "if", because I'm fed up with stories that are based on consultants who were "briefed" on something, and then go on to discuss that something. As in:
If this went down as just described, it does sound like Emanuel. And what has it gained? The media twittering over the meeting between Obama and Paterson, Pataki (blech) lecturing Obama, Michael Steele re-introducing race into the discussion, and so forth.
And Paterson, perhaps, obstinately deciding to do just the opposite. Heckuva job, Rahm and Barack!
September 21, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who knew a vote for Barrack was a vote for Rahm.
September 21, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT: I am surprised that you are being so naive. Bloomberg needs Paterson out of his way in more ways than one. Remember that Bloomberg is in some ways more powerful than the Governor of NY. Bloomberg cannot work with or tolerate Paterson. Paterson and his staff are incompetent and dangerous. There's more here than meets the eye. Rudy Tooty is working the crowd in the background. And BTW, for the Hillary fan club, if you don't think the President has discussed this with her, then you are as dumb as you act.
Paterson is toast and the WH needs to make sure of it. Thems politics babies.
September 21, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your answer doesn't make a whole lot of sense, frankly.
I was posting about the practice of "consultants" or "aides" or whatever finding something out second hand, and then blabbing about it. If you think Bloomberg was behind this, well, alrighty then.
As for the crack about the Hillary fan club? Saying that something was handled badly = member of the Hillary fan club?
Thanks for the illumination into your thought processes.
September 22, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi CT & Pete :) Like I said above, I think encouraging Paterson not to run is a good thing. I just don't think the President should be leading making that argument. And I totally see the Rahm influence on this going public. Subtlety is not his strong suit.
September 21, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
ZOMG! First president in the history of the Republic to act like he's the head of his party or something and weigh in on an important gubenetorial race. Oh the outrage.
September 21, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, you're a history buff right? So try scrounging up some evidence of other presidents publicly advising a sitting governor not to run for election. I'd bet anything if it has happened before, it was due to political scandal, criminal charges ala Blago etc. David Paterson isn't criminal, he's just unpopular. It is beneath the office of the Presidency to insert himself here.
September 21, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of "Mr. Science" - "He knows more than you do - he's got a Masters Degree...in Science".
It was just a couple of months ago he knew more about cars than Detroit. Why shouldn't he know more about New York - he even lived there a couple of years.
September 21, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean you think it would be good for New York (and/or the Democrats) if Paterson were to run?
Just wondering if the know more that you know is the same or different.
September 21, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny Desi :) I don't necessarily disagree with the message, just the messenger and the method of delivery.
That said, I see some parallels between the hyperventilating of the Obama admin about a primary for the Gov of NY and the calls for Hillary to exit the race before Obama won the nomination. Last time I checked this was a democracy and the voters should make their own choices for who represents them, not have those decisions made by the party machine.
September 21, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for God's sake, come off it. Paterson is a disaster. Bloomberg and his staff can't deal with him. There's nothing good to say about him. And all of a sudden, a sitting President cannot weigh in on significant state politics?? Where the fuck have you been, honey? I guarantee that Bloomberg wants Paterson out. There's more here than your sweet Hillary lovin' eyes can see. Funny, that you tell Obama to leave NY alone given that Hillary was the biggest carpet bagger of all time.
September 21, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
3...2...1...
September 21, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where do I begin? Your blathering has no basis in reality:
1. Paterson is unpopular. No duh. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. He faces pressure already within the NY Democratic arty. If he is still unpopular and he decides to take a kamikaze run, he will lose a primary badly.
2. Paterson just endorsed the Democratic candidate for mayor, Bill Thompson against the sitting Republican mayor Bloomberg. Even after that, Bloomberg's response to Obama's public pressure for Paterson to step aside was supportive of Paterson and also Cuomo.
3. Find me an example of another president who publicly pressured a sitting Governor of his party not to run for election not due to criminal investigation or scandal. My sweet Hillary loving eyes found nada. And I actually looked. Obama's using the bully pulpit to be a bully, not a leader here. If he wants to try to be a leader of the dem party he might start with health care and EFCA and cap and trade and civil liberties. The Gov of NYS is pretty small potatoes in comparison.
4. New Yorkers asked Hillary to run, not the other way around. So she didn't insert herself into NYS politics, she was invited. And thanks to her, we didn't have a Senator Giuliani. Who asked Obama for his opinion about our Senator or Governor? NYers like making their own decisions and don't like being told what to do.
5. Where the fuck have I been? I've been in New York and I don't take kindly to ignorant asshats like you presuming that you (or the President) know what is better for my state than New Yorkers do.
September 21, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Obama, as President, not considered to a large extent, to be the head of the Democratic party? I honestly thought this was the standard for the party in power.
Does a governor's race generally involve support from other politicans at all levels and the support of their respective national parties or are local politics narrowly fueled by the locals?
September 21, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink