Why Obama cut off Paterson at the knees
In his September 21
column, the New York Post’s veteran Albany correspondent Fredric Dicker explains why he thinks Obama took the unprecedented presidential step of publicly pushing New York governor David Paterson out of the 2010 gubernatorial election:
[M]ost importantly, Obama realizes that the only thing that could stand between his own re-election in 2012 and a direct challenge from former mayor and potential Republican gubernatorial and presidential contender Rudy Giuliani—the man who defeated New York City’s first black mayor—is Attorney General Cuomo, the state’s most popular politician and one who unfailingly beats Giuliani in the polls.
The unelected Paterson, who polls show is easy prey to a Giuliani candidacy, is, of course, a very different story…
[Paterson’s extreme unpopularity] in itself wouldn’t produce White House intervention, however worrisome it may be to a Democratic president concerned about GOP victories next year.
But when the nation’s first black president comes to realize that the first black governor of New York has set the stage for the return of a Republican presidential contender whose claim to fame is based in part on having defeated David Dinkins in a racially polarizing New York election, that’s another matter entirely.
I sent Dicker this e-mail:
Dear Mr. Dicker:
In your September 21 column, you argue that Obama’s reason for pushing Paterson out of the 2010 governor election is that Obama fears that Giuliani would defeat Paterson for the governorship in 2010, which Obama fears in turn would lead to a Giuliani presidential candidacy in 2012, which he fears would defeat him.
This theory makes no sense.
Here are my reasons.
1. Have you forgotten that Giuliani was the biggest bust in presidential primaries EVER? After having been touted for years as the Inevitable One, he ended up winning a grand total of One delegate. There’s never been a collapse of this scale in presidential primaries. The notion that Giuliani could come back from such total rejection and win the GOP nomination is absurd. Further, his personal history and social liberalism, which Republicans nationwide are now familiar with (many of them were not familiar with it in 2006-2007 when he was being touted as the Inevitable One), make it impossible for him to win the GOP nomination.
2. Your scenario assumes that the moment Giuliani was elected governor he would start running for president. Presidential candidacies nowadays begin almost two years before the election. Thus Obama declared his candidacy in January 2007, almost two years before the November 2008 election. This is typical of modern candidacies. In order to be competitive, candidates need a full year of fundraising and campaigning before the first primary, in January of the election year. If Giuliani were elected governor in November 2010, he would be sworn into office in January 2011, and would have to declare his presidential candidacy in or around January 2011, at the very moment his term as governor was beginning. Obviously this is absurd.
Therefore your theory that Obama cut off Paterson at the knees because he fears Giuliani is wrong. The reason Obama destroyed Paterson is the obvious reason that you yourself have mentioned elsewhere: he fears that Paterson would drag down New York Democratic congressmen running for re-election and reduce the Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
I think you’re one of the best reporters in the country.
Best regards,
Lawrence Auster
Here is Dicker’s column:
Dave’s ejection is Andy’s election
By FREDRIC U. DICKER
September 21, 2009
All hail Andrew Cuomo, the de facto governor-elect of New York.
And all pity David Paterson, now the state’s de facto lame-duck governor.
This sudden and breathtaking transformation of the New York political scene comes compliments of President Obama and/or his political operatives—and no effort by the White House yesterday to backpedal on what was said will change that.
The notion that the nation’s first black president would be responsible for destroying the candidacy of New York’s first black governor left some of the state’s normally voluble Democratic officials speechless—but not surprised.
That’s because Obama, unlike Gov. Paterson, was elected to his job, and thus is sensitive to the implications of a chief executive having no prospect of being elected to his, especially in a key Democratic state.
Obama knows that Paterson is the most unpopular governor in the United States, and—given the problems that are racking so many states—that’s saying a lot.
And Obama, concerned with his own declining poll numbers, knows Paterson is so inept that virtually every Democratic elected official is holding his/her breath fearing the governor will cost the party key elective offices next year—as well as the crucial control (from a redistricting point of view) of the state Senate.
But most importantly, Obama realizes that the only thing that could stand between his own re-election in 2012 and a direct challenge from former mayor and potential Republican gubernatorial and presidential contender Rudy Giuliani—the man who defeated New York City’s first black mayor—is Attorney General Cuomo, the state’s most popular politician and one who unfailingly beats Giuliani in the polls.
The unelected Paterson, who polls show is easy prey to a Giuliani candidacy, is, of course, a very different story.
Whether it was his massive state spending and tax increases in the face of a deteriorating economy, his favoritism toward friends and cronies in hiring and handing out raises, his cruel smearing of Caroline Kennedy during the botched Senate-selection fiasco, or, most recently, his bizarre claim that he—along with Obama—were or soon would be victims of a white-controlled media conspiracy, Paterson has single-handedly turned what was initially an overwhelmingly supportive and sympathetic New York electorate against him.
That in itself wouldn’t produce White House intervention, however worrisome it may be to a Democratic president concerned about GOP victories next year.
But when the nation’s first black president comes to realize that the first black governor of New York has set the stage for the return of a Republican presidential contender whose claim to fame is based in part on having defeated David Dinkins in a racially polarizing New York election, that’s another matter entirely.
fredric.dicker@nypost.com
- end of initial entry -
LA writes:
Fred Dicker wrote back thanking me for the compliment. I asked him what he thought about my argument, but he hasn’t replied.
Tim W. writes:
I think you are correct about why Obama wants Paterson out of the race, but there’s an additional reason for dumping Paterson so publicly. Obama is trying to create a Sister Souljah moment. Last week he called Kanye West a “jackass” for his behavior toward Taylor Swift at that music awards show. It was one of those cases where he was speaking to a reporter off-the-record, as if such a thing is possible these days. Now he makes a big public deal out of discouraging a sure loser black candidate from running.
I think Obama realizes he’s lost a lot of the independent white voters who stupidly thought he was a post-racial candidate. So he’s taken a couple of public shots against prominent blacks, one a vulgar rapper, another a candidate who’s sure to lose anyway, and hoping it will reassure the swooning whites who elected him last year.
LA writes:
Here’s a first: I’ve been referenced (in positive terms) at libertarian/neocon American Spectator.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 22, 2009 08:05 AM | Send