RAGGED THOTS

WASHINGTON (AP), March 10, 2010 -- With a fervor that some observers found surprising, Democratic Party leaders uniformly applauded New York Rep. Eric Massa's stunning all-out media blitz in the wake of his decision to resign from Congress Monday.  Even the sordid nature of Massa's interviews and the apparent sex scandal from which they sprung couldn't restrain Democrats' glee. One doesn't have to grope too far to find  multiple reasons for why they're simply tickled to death. It's not just another sneaky way to lower the number of votes needed to pass health care reform (while simultaneously changing the topic); it's not just a move to effectively get the "apparent hanky-panky with male staffers" storylines, uh, behind the party. 


Nope, most important of all, Massa's resignation finally takes attention away from the problems of Gov. David Paterson, now-former House Ways & Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and Rep. Gregory Meeks.  "It was a real mensch move on the part of that ole white Massa to take away some attention from all the New York black politicians who've gotten into so much trouble over the last month," said fellow Caucasian Democratic New Yorker Rep. Jerry Nadler.
Read more »

Labels: Charlie Rangel, David Paterson, Eric Massa, Gregory Meeks, satire

David Paterson's days as chief executive of New York state are numbered.  The salient point: 

Gov. David A. Paterson personally directed two state employees to contact the woman who had accused his close aide of assaulting her, according to two people with direct knowledge of the governor’s actions.

Mr. Paterson instructed his press secretary, Marissa Shorenstein, to ask the woman to publicly describe the episode as nonviolent, according to a third person, who was briefed on the matter. That description would contradict the woman’s accounts to the police and in court.

Mr. Paterson also enlisted another state employee, Deneane Brown, a friend of both the governor and the accuser, to make contact with the woman before she was due in court to finalize an order of protection against the aide, David W. Johnson, the two people with direct knowledge said. Ms. Brown, an employee of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, reached out to the woman on more than one occasion over a period of several days and arranged a phone call between the governor and the woman, Mr. Johnson’s companion.

As The Post says today, it's one more nail.  Despite his hand-raised declaration last week, David Paterson actually "abused [his] office" by using people under his direct control -- his press secretary, for God's sake to try to get a victim of domestic abuse to change her tale.  


Don't let the door hit you on the way out, governor.  

Labels: David Paterson

Tough two months for the once-vaunted Harlem political machine:  Founding member Percy Sutton dies; Ways & Means Chairman Charlie Rangel cited for House ethics violations; accidental Governor David Paterson chooses not to run for election in wake of scandal.

Two extra notes: 1) Class guy that he is, Rangel helped make the trashing of congressional staff a bipartisan affair. After Newt complained about "nice young staffers who have never had a real job" getting to write difficult legislation, Rangel blamed his ethics problems on, well, his staff.

2) Well, it looks like everything that was said about The New York Times'  Paterson story was true. It's just that, instead of one haymaker that blew Paterson away, the Times essentially did a three-part takeout. The basics of all those rumors have turned out to be accurate: The NYT was working on a story, the publication of which would eventually lead to David Paterson's resignation. That part hasn't happened just yet; but the writing is most definitely on the wall.

Labels: Charlie Rangel, David Paterson

The insanity of New York politics -- which began with Eliot Spitzer's resignation over prostitution two years ago, continued with the bumpy administration of David Paterson, and reached one peak last summer with a state Senate coup -- entered a new phase in the last few days.

Labels: David Paterson

Who would ever think that South Carolina and New York would have so much in common? Liberal northern urban center vs. conservative southern rural area?

Yeah, that's what it looks like on the outside --and that's the way it is most of the time. Not this year though: They are both fortunate (?) enough to have governors who are suffering emotional breakdowns in public.

The soap opera of South Carolina's Mark Sanford has been examined over and over. The Appalachian Trail, the affair, the Argentine lover, the press conference that wouldn't end, the TMI e-mails, etc. etc. His wife's moved out and taken the kids with her; Republican members of the legislature have demanded his resignation; he's still hanging on; they're talking impeachment, etc. etc.

The drama of New York's David Paterson has been almost overwhelmed in the larger psychodrama of New York politics over the last two years: Eliot Spitzer's prostitution scandal and subsequent resignation; Paterson's taking office -- and immediately confessing to multiple affairs and drug use; this summer's legislative gridlock created by two state senate Democrats briefly switching over to the Republicans. But everything broke into the open last weekend with The New York Times' front page story that President Obama and the White House were urging the stunningly unpopular Paterson not to run for a full term next year.

This week, it became clear how much of a toll this has taken on Paterson. On Wednesday, he publicly groused that rival Andrew Cuomo, the vastly popular attorney general and likely gubernatorial nominee, was behind the leak to the Times. He also started revealing a bit too much about his once-hoped-for political future:

“I did not sign up for this,” Mr. Paterson said. “I wanted to be lieutenant governor. I had this grand plan that Hillary Clinton was going to become president. Maybe the governor would appoint me to the Senate.”

Prior to being selected lieutenant governor, Paterson had been the minority leader in the state senate, a second generation member of the Harlem political machine that helped elevate his father Basil to Manhattan Borough President. But, as he basically admits, David Paterson never really wanted to be governor. A shocking admission. Chief executive -- mayor, governor, president -- is what most politicians usually aspire to, precisely because that's the Top Dog. But perhaps Paterson, learning from his time in the state senate, hoped and longed for the relative anonymity that a senator can take. Instead, he's stuck in the spotlight and he's not happy with it.

He sounds petulant that he didn't get his way, yet he's angry, frustrated and, of course, embarrassed that the president is pushing him out -- ironically, of a job that Paterson never wanted. (To further confuse the issue, a poll shows that New Yorkers want Paterson out -- but don't want the president forcing him out.) Well, he does have options. Now that New York's highest court has determined that Paterson had the legal authority to appoint a lieutenant governor, he could resign and allow that man, Richard Ravitch to take over. Let him solve the $3 billion budget the state faces.

Ravitch is well-respected across the state. At 76 years of age, he has no interest in running for the office himself next year, so maybe he can be the old grey eminence who can force serious budget cuts out of a legislature that is already voicing impassioned opposition to the idea of more spending cuts.

Will that happen? Tuthfully, one knows. New York's governor seems distraught at what has become of his office. With the White House set against him, he most likely won't run next year -- but the decisions a most unhappy man makes between now and the official end of his term in January 2011 could well make his successor's job even more difficult. If that happens, New Yorkers could literally end up paying a heavy price as its governor goes through a major mid-life crisis on the public stage.

Labels: David Paterson

Given everything on his plate as president of the United States, why does Barack Obama feel the need to take on a second job -- chairman of the Democratic National Committee? Officially speaking, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine chairs the DNC. But, as is customary when a party controls the White House, its true head is the president. But there should be a certain amount of delicacy in how the White House exerts its explicit partisan political power.

President Obama is choosing not to be delicate in tossing his elbows within the Democratic Party: America woke up Sunday morning to a New York Times headline saying that Obama and the White House political team had decided that unpopular New York Gov. David Paterson should step aside -- not run for a full term next year.

The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.

“Is there concern about the situation in New York? Absolutely,” the second administration official said Saturday evening. “Has that concern been conveyed to the governor? Yes.”

The administration officials and the Democratic operative spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions with the governor were intended to be confidential.

The president’s request was conveyed to the Mr. Paterson by Representative Gregory W. Meeks, a Queens Democrat, who has developed a strong relationship with the Obama administration, they said.

The move against a sitting Democratic governor represents an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president, and is a delicate one, given that Mr. Paterson is one of only two African-American governors in the nation.

But Mr. Obama’s political team and other party leaders have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election.

Well, the Times story isn't "extraordinary" really: This is actually Obama's fourth intervention in a state race and he hasn't even been president a full year! In fact, his first intervention was also in New York. Obama chose to "clear the field" for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed by Paterson earlier this year to replace Hillary Clinton. Obama reportedly personally called Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island and asked him to not challenge Gillibrand in a primary. Similar pressure (though not necessarily an Obama phone call) was brought to bear against Rep. Carolyn Maloney.

The president has also taken sides in contested primaries in both Colorado and Pennsylvania. The latter one is somewhat understandable in that it involves Arlen Specter who switched parties. In these situations, the party usually stands behind the switcher.

But getting involved in all of these races isn't exactly smart for a sitting president who needs to keep his party united when he's trying to push through controversial legislation. This creates a no-win situation: Even if Obama is successful, he creates a certain amount of ill-will in the party -- and expends precious political capital within the party. On the other hand, if his preferred candidates lose, he ends up looking weaker within his own party.

There's another danger in being this explicitly political: It gives the GOP another line of attack against Obama and the White House. On CBS' Face The Nation, RNC Chairman Michael Steele adroitly (or shamelessly, depending on your perspective), introduced the race card in assessing Obama's attempt to force Paterson out:

MICHAEL STEELE: I found that to be stunning that the White House would send word to one of
only two black governors in the country not to run for re-election. And it just raised a curious point for me.
I think Paterson-- Governor Paterson's numbers are about the same as Governor Corzine's numbers, yet
the President was with Governor Corzine, and I don’t know if there’s been a request made of Governor
Corzine to step down in New Jersey. So I-- I just find it to be stunning and also rather bold.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you don’t think he's asked him not to run because he's black?

MICHAEL STEELE: Oh, I don’t think that, but I just find-- I mean look, you-- you have so few-- if you're
looking-- if you’re saying it's the numbers, then why isn't there a call for those other Democrat governors
who have low numbers who are in trouble as well? So I just think that it's-- it’s just a curiosity for me that
the President would inject, or the White House would inject itself into that debate when it’s-- I don't think
it's appropriate nor necessary, because it's a primary. If he's going to be challenged he'll be challenged.
And he’ll survive it or not survive it.

BOB SCHIEFFER: How do you think it will play in the African-American community?

MICHAEL STEELE: That will be very interesting to see what the response from black leadership around
the country will be by the President calling for Governor Paterson to step down or-- or not run for election.
Very curious. I-- I’ll be waiting to hear the responses.

Amazingly, Steele said this barely one minute after commending Obama for pushing back against charges that racism was behind criticism of the administration! Now, that's a deft piroutte. In fact, Paterson's numbers are actually far worse than Corzine. And Steele didn't mention that Obama didn't do the same to the other black governor -- Deval Patrick -- who also has poor approval numbers. One big difference between Corzine and Paterson (besides race) is that Corzine is up for this year, and there's hardly time to get somebody else to run in his place (though not unheard of in New Jersey). But the big difference between Corzine and Patrick, on the one hand, and Paterson on the other? The former two are elected governors who have the ability to recapture 51 percent of the support of the people.

Paterson, on the other hand, was never elected governor. He succeeded to the office in the wake of the Eliot Spitzer scandal and resignation. There is no built-in "trust" factor for him to appeal to the public. Besides, while Corzine and Patrick might point to the overall economy as the main source of their problems, Paterson has compounded that same situation with multiple public errors -- including the bungled selection of Gillibrand. He assuredly didn't gain himself much cred with the White House when he helped launch the whole criticism-of-black-politicians-is-racist with a bizarre series of interviews last month.

Ultimately though, Paterson is doomed as much by a shadow looming over him that isn't extant in either New Jersey or Massachusetts -- a viable consensus candidate to run in Paterson's place. Attorney General Andrew match-upsbsp;is overwhelmingly popular in his own right, crushes Paterson in head-to-head matchups and handily defeats the strongest Republican potential opponent, Rudy Giuliani.

So, it's no surprise why Obama would want Paterson out -- but doing so publicly actually makes the situation more problematic. Even if he is a poor candidate, there's no reason to humiliate Paterson -- which the leaking of this story does. Paterson is already sounding quite defiant. Even though Obama will eventually win this fight, he's arguably undermined his above-the-fray moral authority in favor of playing raw political hardball.

Labels: Barack Obama, David Paterson, Michael Steele

It's because you're blind!

Labels: David Paterson, New York state politics

llinois, you had all your "fun" last fall. It was bad at the time, but then, like a rotten tooth, your corrupt governor was impeached, removed from office and subsequently indicted. The worst you have to worry about now is watching the state's former first lady appear on a cheesy summer reality show.

Speaking of which, there are probably quite a residents of what is nick-named "the Empire State" wishing they could be on a reality series called, "I'm A New Yorker, Get Me Out of Here!!!"

After having lost one governor to sex scandal, having him succeeded by another who has become a national joke on "Saturday Night Live" as he incompetently runs the state -- hiking both taxes and spending -- New Yorkers today had to deal with a parliamentary overthrow which flipped the state Senate, nominally, back into the hands of the Republican Party. While this was a big surprise; it wasn't a total shock. It didn't occur in a vacuum.

The Democrats had taken control of the Senate after the 2008 elections -- by a slender 32-30 margin -- for the first time in 40 years. But even that had not occurred without controversy. Four Democrats -- Pedro Espada and Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, Hiram Monserrate of Queens and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn -- all withheld immediate support from the man who was to majority leader, Malcolm Smith of Queens.

The group -- nicknamed the "Gang of Four" -- tried holding out for various committee chairmanships and other leadership positions. Diaz, a fiercely socially conservative Democrat, insisted that he wouldn't support Smith unless he got a commitment that the chamber wouldn't bring up same-sex marriage. Eventually, Monserrate dropped out of the dissident group and pledged allegiance to Smith. The remaining three -- when they couldn't cut a deal with the Republicans and facing increasing pressure from their fellow Democrats -- eventually relented and also voted for Smith. That was back in December.

Keep these characters in mind.

Since that time, Gov. David Paterson has been suffering historically low poll numbers and has had to face rampant speculation that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo will be the Democratic nominee in his place in 2010. His herky-jerky leadership of the budget process (that included ridiculously high spending hikes, even in the middle of a recession) helped him not at all. (Prior to that his chaotic selection of Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate (and parallel trashing of Caroline Kennedy) process endeared him to neither the public or the press.

Last week, New York Post columnist Fred Dicker reported that a virtual "civil war" was brewing within the Democratic Party over next year's governor's race:

The battle lines are pitting Paterson, Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, a Paterson appointee, and several party functionaries against Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic leaders of the Legislature, and state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, who had a serious and unexpected public clash with the governor on Friday.

Cuomo, the highly popular son of former governor Mario Cuomo, is gearing up to run for governor next year and is seen by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and other senior legislative Democrats as their party's strongest standard-bearer.

As if to confirm that volatility, the senior member of the New York delegation -- Rep. Charlie Rangel -- declared last Friday that a Cuomo challenge to the sitting black governor would split the party on racial lines. The statement was seen as a clear shot across the bow of Cuomo -- who lost an embarrassing gubernatorial primary fight several years ago to then-Comptroller Carl McCall, another African-American.

It seems that wasn't the "civil war" that people should have been looking at -- at least not right now.

Instead, two members of the previously mentioned "Gang of Four" -- Espada and Monserrate -- apparently worked behind the scenes over the last several weeks and restarted their conspiracy with the GOP minority. Both men will remain Democrats but include themselves in a "bipartisan majority" that ousts former Majority Leader Smith. The top Republican in the state Senate, Dean Skelos, will take that title, while Espada is now Senate President Pro Tem (in recent times in New York, both positions have been held by one individual).

Perhaps most appalling is that this situation could, conceivably, abruptly change because of the legal and ethical woes of both Monserrate and Espada.. Monserrate was arrested for slashing his girlfriend's face in a pre-New Year's domestic altercation. The girlfriend declared that it was a mistake and that Monserrate "tripped" with a glass in his hand. There is, reportedly, a hallway camera that tells a rather different story. The trial is pending. Espada has also been fined thousands of dollars over campaign irregularities going back years.

As a result, look for the Republicans to work on getting both the aforementioned Kruger and Diaz (and perhaps one or two others) to also caucus with them -- to give a measure of insurance in case either Monserrate, Espada or both possibly lose their seats to legal issues. If that is the case, New York can forget about getting same-sex marriage this session. At the very least, Diaz wouldn't switch without a guarantee that the legislation won't be brought up by the Republican pseudo-majority.

What will be the result of this insanity? Who knows? In 1994, a savvy politician had to deal with the loss of the legislative majority in both chambers. President Bill Clinton eventually used that to his advantage and managed to turn split government into a successful bid for re-election. Gov. Paterson has yet to demonstrate that he has that level of skills to try to triangulate between an Assembly still strongly in Democratic hands and a Senate controlled by Republicans. The governor has been strongly pushing what he calls the "marriage-equality" bill as a major priority that he thought could help repair his image with part of the Democratic Party base. Again, that is likely to become the most notable victim of the shake-up.

Alas, for New Yorkers, they can be forgiven that they are trapped in a nightmarish "reality" series from which they can neither escape nor awaken.

UPDATE: Some more background on the Albany overthrow -- with some historical perspective. And a clinical "anataomy of a coup."

Labels: David Paterson, New York state politics

ABC tried its hand this television season with an American version of BBC's "Life On Mars": A New York City detective gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973. Bizarre hi-jinks ensue: He can't understand what he's doing there and must figure out how do his job as a cop without a cellphone, internet or any other modern conveniences. Anyway, the opening of LOM includes the line, "It's as if I've woken up on another planet." Hence, the title. Alas, it never quite caught fire in the ratings. The series finale is tomorrow evening (when Sam may or may not get home).

Labels: David Paterson, New York state politics, Sheldon Silver

Thought I was done for the year, but I couldn't let this pass. While the possibly-illegal shenanigans involving the filling of Barack Obama's US Senate seat can't be topped, New York's trying to hold its with All-Star names like Kennedy, Cuomo and others all vying for Gov. David Paterson's nod to fill Hillary Clinton's about-to-be-vacant Senate seat.

Labels: Caroline Kennedy, David Paterson, New York state politics

New York's Gov. David Paterson unveiled his 2009 budget proposal, which The New York Times calls "austere." Paterson, himself, invoked doomsday imagery over the huge fiscal challenges facing the country and the state. However, looking at what Paterson actually proposed, one realizes that only in New York could a $121 billion budget -- that increases spending by $1.3 billion -- be considered "austere."

Cutbacks to help close a $15.4 billion deficit? Hah! As the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center project points out, New York state added more than 8,000 jobs to the public payroll over the last two years (the bulk of those hires were by disgraced former Gov. Eliot Spitzer). Yet, of that number Paterson is only laying off 521 (he expects to find other savings through 2,500 attritions -- right).

Where's the austerity? Well that's something that residents have to practice. Because, New Yorkers are facing some 137 hikes in taxes and fees. That includes proposed increases in taxes on tobacco, wine, beer and non-diet soda (seriously!). And, something that will undoubtedly endear New York to Apple, Amazon and other online retailers -- a tax on music downloads. Well, this is predictable, but appropriate given the circumstances:



Well, not that "Apple," but you get the idea.

This is interesting. New York is essentially run by Democrats right now (though there is bargaining over the state Senate, because of three smarmy Democratic senators who are trying to cut a deal to decide whom they support for majority control). The question rises: Can Democrats actually put together a sane budget without taxing everyone to death? Paterson's first stab at the budget suggests "no." And this is before many of the usual interest groups -- particularly unions -- get their hand into the pie. Indeed, they are already screaming about the unfairness of the situation just in reaction to one of Paterson's few good ideas -- trying to place some restraints on public-sector employees pensions.

Painful times in the Empire State.

Labels: budget, David Paterson, New York state politics