Poor Andrew Cuomo just can't catch a break.
After months of joy, glee, happiness, and abysmal approval ratings for Gov. David Paterson, Attorney General Cuomo surely must have believed he'd end up a virtual shoo-in for the Democratic nod in New York's upcoming Gubernatorial race. Poll after poll not only showed Paterson scoring the most pathetic of an approval rating (numbers which made Jon Corzine's look mammoth), but more importantly, Cuomo trouncing Paterson in a hypothetical primary. Heck, things looked so devastating for the incumbent that Paterson had no choice but to invest millions into a TV ad buy, reintroducing himself to New York voters. Things sure looked promising for New York's Attorney General.
Now? Not so much.
What Cuomo perhaps overlooked/underestimated was the chance that Paterson's massive TV buy might actually improve the incumbent's favorability. And, just like that, Paterson, who consistently hovered around a 20% approval for the better part of the year, is now clocking in at a dramatic improvement.
A new Quinnipiac poll, conducted from December 7-13, showed Paterson garnering a 40% approval rating - his highest mark in any poll since February. The poll's internal details tell an even more interesting story: Paterson has the approval of about 50% of Democrats, 30% of Republicans, and 40% of Independents, citing unusual bipartisan support for a New York Democrat. My suspicion in regard to these rather wacky numbers is that Paterson's cool relations with labor and the uber-liberal Working Families Party have won him as many conservatives fans and they have alienated many on the left.
The bad news for Paterson? In a hypothetical primary against Cuomo, he still loses 23-60; a slight improvement over most recent polling on the race, but still pretty abysmal.
The bad news for Cuomo? While the Attorney General trounces Paterson overall, he's locked in a dead heat with the incumbent among African-American voters, and although in reality, this probably isn't that massive a problem for Cuomo, it's still perhaps his greatest nightmare of all. Why?
In 2002, State Comptroller Carl McCall was considered the overwhelming favorite to garner the Dem Gubernatorial nod against incumbent Gov. George Pataki, who was seeking a third term. McCall was also an African-American and made little secret of the excitement in potentially being New York's first elected black governor. His candidacy seemed a surefire bet until Cuomo, then best-known for his work as a Secretary in the Clinton administration, opted to jump in the race and bring forth a primary challenge.
Suddenly, the Democratic Party went into disarray. Racial polarization tore the party apart, and despite Cuomo dropping out of the race before the primary, McCall went into the general election badly wounded - so wounded that despite the state's overwhelming Democratic registation, Pataki managed to completely trounce McCall in the general, winning over a solid chunk of Cuomo supporters, disillusioned by the horrors of the primary.
Fast-forward eight years, and look where we are now. Paterson wants to be New York's first elected black governor, and Cuomo wants to challenge him. Paterson also has no intention but to bring forth a run for election to the seat, putting Cuomo in the most testy position of all - run for re-election as Attorney General, or run the risk of once again going down racial nightmare road in pursuing his dreams of New York Governor?
I suspect if the incumbent really is at 40% approval, the idea of an Attorney General campaign may strike Cuomo as the lesser of two evils.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Could Meg Whitman Save California?
I think so.
Granted, I'm a registered Democrat who wasn't particularly moved by the former eBay CEO's enthusastic support of John McCain in '08 (although she would've been a far more appealing VP candidate than youknowwho). Yet, looking at California's ongoing financial trauma, I cannot deny that a strong, successful, Republican businesswoman serves as a more appealing alternative to the Democrat running for the state's Gubernatorial nod in 2010. Just who is that Dem?
Jerry Brown. Yes, THAT Jerry Brown. And yeah, he's still alive.
No offense to Brown, CA's current Attorney General and former every-political-title-in-the-book, who shares a decent deal of my left-leaning values and who certainly knows how to run an effective political race. The truth is, I find the man more than a tad washed-up; perhaps the state's least fresh and exciting politician. Brown isn't bringing any new or innovative ideas to the table, instead banking on name recognition and the state's overwhelming Dem registration to save the day. Plus, he survived a potential hailstorm when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a fresh and exciting liberal, opted to drop his bid for the nomination.
Some Californians must feel stuck with Jerry Brown; that sure, he's a trustworthy, left-leaning man, who's been around state politics for about a century and who knows the various interworkings of the CA political establishment and so on. But, on the other hand, he's kind of a walking corpse.
The truth is, even California Dems shouldn't feel obliged to vote Brown no matter what. Why? Because Meg Whitman is no ordinary Republican.
Whitman doesn't cater to the zany, "Obama = Hitler/Stalin/Satan," Tea Party crowd. She also doesn't encompass radically-conservative social views which don't align with those held by most Californians. In fact, Whitman is the kind of old-school, moderate, business-focused Republican you rarely see these days. She's an articulate, charasmastic figure who could easily translate her proven skills as a businesswoman into the skills necessary to be a strong political force.
A new poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, a non-partisan organization, shows that Whitman not only holds a strong lead in the GOP primary (32%-12%-8% over Fmr. Congressman Tom Campbell and State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner) but also performs noticeably stronger against Brown than her fellow Republican colleagues:
Jerry Brown - 43%
Meg Whitman - 37%
Jerry Brown - 46%
Tom Campbell - 34%
Jerry Brown - 47%
Steve Poizner - 31%
Clearly, I'm not the only moderate thinker impressed with Whitman. Granted, I wouldn't cry myself to sleep should Brown win yet another term as a California politician, but in all sincerity, I don't believe there's a political newcomer with more promise in next year's midterms than Whitman. She's just what the Republican Party needs.
Granted, I'm a registered Democrat who wasn't particularly moved by the former eBay CEO's enthusastic support of John McCain in '08 (although she would've been a far more appealing VP candidate than youknowwho). Yet, looking at California's ongoing financial trauma, I cannot deny that a strong, successful, Republican businesswoman serves as a more appealing alternative to the Democrat running for the state's Gubernatorial nod in 2010. Just who is that Dem?
Jerry Brown. Yes, THAT Jerry Brown. And yeah, he's still alive.
No offense to Brown, CA's current Attorney General and former every-political-title-in-the-book, who shares a decent deal of my left-leaning values and who certainly knows how to run an effective political race. The truth is, I find the man more than a tad washed-up; perhaps the state's least fresh and exciting politician. Brown isn't bringing any new or innovative ideas to the table, instead banking on name recognition and the state's overwhelming Dem registration to save the day. Plus, he survived a potential hailstorm when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a fresh and exciting liberal, opted to drop his bid for the nomination.
Some Californians must feel stuck with Jerry Brown; that sure, he's a trustworthy, left-leaning man, who's been around state politics for about a century and who knows the various interworkings of the CA political establishment and so on. But, on the other hand, he's kind of a walking corpse.
The truth is, even California Dems shouldn't feel obliged to vote Brown no matter what. Why? Because Meg Whitman is no ordinary Republican.
Whitman doesn't cater to the zany, "Obama = Hitler/Stalin/Satan," Tea Party crowd. She also doesn't encompass radically-conservative social views which don't align with those held by most Californians. In fact, Whitman is the kind of old-school, moderate, business-focused Republican you rarely see these days. She's an articulate, charasmastic figure who could easily translate her proven skills as a businesswoman into the skills necessary to be a strong political force.
A new poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, a non-partisan organization, shows that Whitman not only holds a strong lead in the GOP primary (32%-12%-8% over Fmr. Congressman Tom Campbell and State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner) but also performs noticeably stronger against Brown than her fellow Republican colleagues:
Jerry Brown - 43%
Meg Whitman - 37%
Jerry Brown - 46%
Tom Campbell - 34%
Jerry Brown - 47%
Steve Poizner - 31%
Clearly, I'm not the only moderate thinker impressed with Whitman. Granted, I wouldn't cry myself to sleep should Brown win yet another term as a California politician, but in all sincerity, I don't believe there's a political newcomer with more promise in next year's midterms than Whitman. She's just what the Republican Party needs.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
How Joe Lieberman Wins in 2012
With the liberal blogosphere only now beginning to recover from Joe Lieberman's headache-inducing (and now former) opposition to health care reform, general sentiment appears to be that there ain't a shot in hell Lieberman could ever win re-election to a state as left-leaning as Connecticut. Right?
Wrong.
The truth is, while Lieberman will have a tricky path to navigate should he choose to run for re-election (keep in mind that at the top of the '12 ticket will be a fella named Barack Obama, who carried CT by a 2-to-1 margin), there is absolutely a way for Lieberman to secure another term.
So, how does he do it?
Well, the political scene must play out in a near-identical fashion as the '06 race. That is, the Republican Party would have to prop up a lower-tier candidate for their ballot line (similar to Alan Scheslinger, who garnered roughly 10% in the '06 race), thus ensuring Lieberman garners the vast majority of Republicans and self-described conservatives. If Gov. Jodi Rell, a high-profile candidate who could conceivably win this race, opts to make a run for the GOP nod, Lieberman wouldn't have a prayer.
Next, Lieberman would have to convince non-affiliated voters and self-described moderates that the Dem nominee (let's assume it's long-time CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who's already hinted at making this run), like '06's Ned Lamont, is basically a liberal hack, who unlike Lieberman, doesn't vote his conscience and sticks to a straight party line. What's potentially problematic for Lieberman here is that Blumenthal would almost surely be a far stronger candidate that Lamont; that's almost undeniable. What provides hope for Lieberman, and what liberals seem to be glossing over, is that Lieberman can win this race by straight math.
CT party registration is roughly 40/30/30 Democrat/Republican/Independent. If Lieberman can hold Blumenthal to garnering 85% of Democrats and 40% of Independents, that means Blumenthal is at 45% of the vote - in theory, enough to win in a three-way battle. Alas, if the GOP nominee garners the same 10% as Schlesinger, that means Lieberman is at 45% and...ta-da! It's a complete dead heat.
I guess there's just no stopping Joe-mentum.
Wrong.
The truth is, while Lieberman will have a tricky path to navigate should he choose to run for re-election (keep in mind that at the top of the '12 ticket will be a fella named Barack Obama, who carried CT by a 2-to-1 margin), there is absolutely a way for Lieberman to secure another term.
So, how does he do it?
Well, the political scene must play out in a near-identical fashion as the '06 race. That is, the Republican Party would have to prop up a lower-tier candidate for their ballot line (similar to Alan Scheslinger, who garnered roughly 10% in the '06 race), thus ensuring Lieberman garners the vast majority of Republicans and self-described conservatives. If Gov. Jodi Rell, a high-profile candidate who could conceivably win this race, opts to make a run for the GOP nod, Lieberman wouldn't have a prayer.
Next, Lieberman would have to convince non-affiliated voters and self-described moderates that the Dem nominee (let's assume it's long-time CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who's already hinted at making this run), like '06's Ned Lamont, is basically a liberal hack, who unlike Lieberman, doesn't vote his conscience and sticks to a straight party line. What's potentially problematic for Lieberman here is that Blumenthal would almost surely be a far stronger candidate that Lamont; that's almost undeniable. What provides hope for Lieberman, and what liberals seem to be glossing over, is that Lieberman can win this race by straight math.
CT party registration is roughly 40/30/30 Democrat/Republican/Independent. If Lieberman can hold Blumenthal to garnering 85% of Democrats and 40% of Independents, that means Blumenthal is at 45% of the vote - in theory, enough to win in a three-way battle. Alas, if the GOP nominee garners the same 10% as Schlesinger, that means Lieberman is at 45% and...ta-da! It's a complete dead heat.
I guess there's just no stopping Joe-mentum.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Wrath of Joe Lieberman
Health care reform sure has lost Joe-mentum as of late.
While Olympia Snowe, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, among others, wait cautiously in the wings, mulling over whether or not to support health care reform, Joe Lieberman has propped himself up as the official punching bag for dissastified liberals.
Of course, no one is more satisfied right now than Sen. Lieberman. Why?
These are the same liberals who nearly cost Lieberman his job three years ago. Amid growing unrest over the Connecticut Senator's uneqivocal support of the Iraq War, the liberal blogosphere got its' grasp around an unknown businessman by the name of Ned Lamont and in the process, forced Lieberman to form his own third political party. The man nominated to represent the Democratic Party on a national scale in 2000 suddenly found himself at the mercy of his own colleagues.
Now, it's time for revenge.
The truth is, despite my support for health care reform (I'm fond of a public option, if admittedly perhaps weary about a full-scale single-payer system), I kind of admire Lieberman and always have. Even during the Iraq catastrophe. I think he's a very old-school Democrat, in the vein of Scoop Jackson, Ed Koch, and yes, John F. Kennedy. I myself am not as much a foreign policy hawk as any of the four men, but nor am I onboard with the Kucinich/Lee wing of the Democratic Party.
What's perhaps odd about this whole Lieberman situation is unlike myself, he has actually proven to be quite an economic liberal in his Senate tenure (I consider myself of a more fiscally-conseravtive mindset, and would vote against a health care bill which doesn't encompass serious cost containment outlines). Now, he's suddenly a fiscal conservative, and I'm not sure I entirely buy this. He seems to defend his current position by claiming our current economic crisis makes it implausible to pursue such an aggressive and potentially-costy reform strategy. Perhaps, but I suspect the Lieberman of '00 wouldn't necessarily agree with the Lieberman of '08.
In essence, however, Lieberman really does have this health care debate under his grasp, and his decision may very well influence the votes of a handful of other Senators. In the end, I believe Harry Reid will water the bill down enough to garner his vote. The question then remains - do liberals bolt if the bill does diddly-squat?
After all, Roland Burris hasn't got a darn thing to lose.
While Olympia Snowe, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, among others, wait cautiously in the wings, mulling over whether or not to support health care reform, Joe Lieberman has propped himself up as the official punching bag for dissastified liberals.
Of course, no one is more satisfied right now than Sen. Lieberman. Why?
These are the same liberals who nearly cost Lieberman his job three years ago. Amid growing unrest over the Connecticut Senator's uneqivocal support of the Iraq War, the liberal blogosphere got its' grasp around an unknown businessman by the name of Ned Lamont and in the process, forced Lieberman to form his own third political party. The man nominated to represent the Democratic Party on a national scale in 2000 suddenly found himself at the mercy of his own colleagues.
Now, it's time for revenge.
The truth is, despite my support for health care reform (I'm fond of a public option, if admittedly perhaps weary about a full-scale single-payer system), I kind of admire Lieberman and always have. Even during the Iraq catastrophe. I think he's a very old-school Democrat, in the vein of Scoop Jackson, Ed Koch, and yes, John F. Kennedy. I myself am not as much a foreign policy hawk as any of the four men, but nor am I onboard with the Kucinich/Lee wing of the Democratic Party.
What's perhaps odd about this whole Lieberman situation is unlike myself, he has actually proven to be quite an economic liberal in his Senate tenure (I consider myself of a more fiscally-conseravtive mindset, and would vote against a health care bill which doesn't encompass serious cost containment outlines). Now, he's suddenly a fiscal conservative, and I'm not sure I entirely buy this. He seems to defend his current position by claiming our current economic crisis makes it implausible to pursue such an aggressive and potentially-costy reform strategy. Perhaps, but I suspect the Lieberman of '00 wouldn't necessarily agree with the Lieberman of '08.
In essence, however, Lieberman really does have this health care debate under his grasp, and his decision may very well influence the votes of a handful of other Senators. In the end, I believe Harry Reid will water the bill down enough to garner his vote. The question then remains - do liberals bolt if the bill does diddly-squat?
After all, Roland Burris hasn't got a darn thing to lose.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
11/3 - Vote Christie, Deeds, Owens
Alright, so I don't live in Virginia. Or New Jersey. Or in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Then again, as a resident of New York, I also don't reside in the 49 other states which nevertheless garner my commentary on this blog.
I have followed the three most prominent races of '09 with great intent. I can recall all the way back to my commentary regarding the New Jersey and Virginia Primaries, where I endorsed Chris Christie and Creigh Deeds for their party's respective nods. Heck, I can also recall a time when the name "Doug Hoffman" was either an afterthought or virtually non-existent against a race which looked sure to be taken by Dede Scozzafava.
Ah, how the times have changed.
I'm briefly peeking my head back into the blog to bring forth a trio of endorsements - for Republican Chris Christie and Democrats Creigh Deeds and Bill Owens.
In regard to the New Jersey race, I must admit to having long been attracted to the concept of a Chris Daggett. After all, Jon Corzine has been an incomptent Governor and Chris Christie, while encompassing an impressive breadth of experience, has run a pretty miserable campaign. Daggett came onto the scene a breath of fresh air, and yet, at this late stage in the game, I believe he serves as a potentially-dangerous distraction to the proceedings.
The truth is a vote for Chris Daggett is a vote for Jon Corzine. New Jersey residents can not allow that to happen.
Chris Christie, while not a particularly exciting or stellar candidate, has at least proven himself a competent public servant. He chose a strong Lieutenant Governor candidate in Kim Guadango, and the unfair, negative attacks toward him from the Corzine camp have only made me sympathetic toward Christie. I believe this race could very well be decided by a point or two, and thus, strong GOTV is key.
In Virginia, we have a race between the polished, charasmatic, articulate Republican Bob McDonnell, and the flaky, awkward, not-so-politically-savvy Democrat Creigh Deeds. Nevertheless, I am supporting the flake.
My analysis of the Virginia race is not that Deeds is a strong candidate by any means. I supported him during the Primary, because I felt his main competitor, Terry McAuliffe, was ultimately too liberal and too divisive for Independents to veer toward. Alas, I thought rather wrong. The thing is, while McAuliffe probably wouldn't have won this race, he at least would have sured up the Democratic base. Not only is Deeds failing to draw Independents, but even Democrats aren't moving fast enough in his direction.
Still, despite the flaws of Deeds, my problems with McDonnell are far more significant. McDonnell, while a talented politician, is a Pat Robertson-style conservative dressed up as a John Thune-style Republican. He encompasses dangerous views on social issues and wrote a thesis in the late-'80s that is discriminatory, sexist, and homophobic. His managing to trick Virginians into believing he's a moderate is all the more a testament to his political savvy.
Deeds, while not perfect, at least encompasses views that aren't suck in the 1950s.
Finally, we have the race in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Truth be told - I head into this posting still flip-flopping between Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava. The thing is, Scozzafava is truly the most qualified person for this seat. She's a local figure with an impressive breadth of experience, and even better, one of those Collins/Snowe-type Republicans who holds liberal views on the social issues. Owens isn't quite as impressive on paper, but he is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and he also seems like a pretty down-to-earth man.
My heart says vote Scozzafava. My head says Owens, because the truth is, a vote for Scozzafava is a vote for the other guy.
Who is the other guy? Doug Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party line, is a right-wing, teabagging, ultra-conservative nutjob in the vein of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Fred Thompson. He does not encompass this district's sensibly right-of-center values, and is instead attempting to capitalize on a wildly-strong GOTV effort by the far-right crowd in the district. These folks will get out the vote, and with Scozzafava's numbers tanking amid Hoffman's rising among registered Republicans in the district, Owens needs as much enthusasiam as possible.
Christie, Deeds, Owens. There you have it.
I have followed the three most prominent races of '09 with great intent. I can recall all the way back to my commentary regarding the New Jersey and Virginia Primaries, where I endorsed Chris Christie and Creigh Deeds for their party's respective nods. Heck, I can also recall a time when the name "Doug Hoffman" was either an afterthought or virtually non-existent against a race which looked sure to be taken by Dede Scozzafava.
Ah, how the times have changed.
I'm briefly peeking my head back into the blog to bring forth a trio of endorsements - for Republican Chris Christie and Democrats Creigh Deeds and Bill Owens.
In regard to the New Jersey race, I must admit to having long been attracted to the concept of a Chris Daggett. After all, Jon Corzine has been an incomptent Governor and Chris Christie, while encompassing an impressive breadth of experience, has run a pretty miserable campaign. Daggett came onto the scene a breath of fresh air, and yet, at this late stage in the game, I believe he serves as a potentially-dangerous distraction to the proceedings.
The truth is a vote for Chris Daggett is a vote for Jon Corzine. New Jersey residents can not allow that to happen.
Chris Christie, while not a particularly exciting or stellar candidate, has at least proven himself a competent public servant. He chose a strong Lieutenant Governor candidate in Kim Guadango, and the unfair, negative attacks toward him from the Corzine camp have only made me sympathetic toward Christie. I believe this race could very well be decided by a point or two, and thus, strong GOTV is key.
In Virginia, we have a race between the polished, charasmatic, articulate Republican Bob McDonnell, and the flaky, awkward, not-so-politically-savvy Democrat Creigh Deeds. Nevertheless, I am supporting the flake.
My analysis of the Virginia race is not that Deeds is a strong candidate by any means. I supported him during the Primary, because I felt his main competitor, Terry McAuliffe, was ultimately too liberal and too divisive for Independents to veer toward. Alas, I thought rather wrong. The thing is, while McAuliffe probably wouldn't have won this race, he at least would have sured up the Democratic base. Not only is Deeds failing to draw Independents, but even Democrats aren't moving fast enough in his direction.
Still, despite the flaws of Deeds, my problems with McDonnell are far more significant. McDonnell, while a talented politician, is a Pat Robertson-style conservative dressed up as a John Thune-style Republican. He encompasses dangerous views on social issues and wrote a thesis in the late-'80s that is discriminatory, sexist, and homophobic. His managing to trick Virginians into believing he's a moderate is all the more a testament to his political savvy.
Deeds, while not perfect, at least encompasses views that aren't suck in the 1950s.
Finally, we have the race in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Truth be told - I head into this posting still flip-flopping between Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava. The thing is, Scozzafava is truly the most qualified person for this seat. She's a local figure with an impressive breadth of experience, and even better, one of those Collins/Snowe-type Republicans who holds liberal views on the social issues. Owens isn't quite as impressive on paper, but he is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and he also seems like a pretty down-to-earth man.
My heart says vote Scozzafava. My head says Owens, because the truth is, a vote for Scozzafava is a vote for the other guy.
Who is the other guy? Doug Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party line, is a right-wing, teabagging, ultra-conservative nutjob in the vein of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Fred Thompson. He does not encompass this district's sensibly right-of-center values, and is instead attempting to capitalize on a wildly-strong GOTV effort by the far-right crowd in the district. These folks will get out the vote, and with Scozzafava's numbers tanking amid Hoffman's rising among registered Republicans in the district, Owens needs as much enthusasiam as possible.
Christie, Deeds, Owens. There you have it.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Why David Paterson Must Go
I'm back.
After over a month's break from blogging, I've opted to peek my head back in for a quick moment, and all at the grand expense of a certain incompetent New York Governor.
That's right, Gov. David Paterson, a man who's hardly been the subject of much praise on my blog, has inspired me to vent a little. As you may well know, Paterson has been in the news as of late, both on a state and national level, due to a few choice words President Obama reportedly has in regard to Paterson's re-elections aspirations in 2010.
In essence, those choice words can be summed up to "get the hell out, or let your party suffer the devastating consequences."
Now, frankly, I don't care whether or not this was a "smart" move by President Obama. In all honesty, it perhaps wasn't; I criticized Obama big time for his butting-in on the 2010 Senate race in New York, and I suppose one could argue I should do the same for the Gubernatorial race.
But, I believe there is a difference.
In regard to the Senate race, I criticized Obama for aggressively kicking to the curb any potential Primary challengers to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand because I believed Rep. Carolyn Maloney ultimately would have been a far stronger nominee. Lo and behold, Gillibrand is currently sitting at an abysmal approval rating, and hypothetical polling shows her defeated at the polls by Fmr. Gov. George Pataki.
This time around, President Obama happens to be right.
Gov. Paterson has been a complete and total failure, and Obama is correct in his assessment of Paterson's re-election hopes; that is, Paterson cannot possibly win. Worse, not only would he be trounced by Rudy Giulaini, but Paterson at the top of the ticket would serve as nothing but a devastating drag for the rest of the Democratic ticket. Sen. Gillibrand would likely lose, and the Dems would lose House seats to boot. Worst of all, a Republican Governor would hardly do the Dems any favors when it comes time to bring forth redistricting after the upcoming census.
Now, that's hardly to say I'm over-the-moon about the Democratic alternative to Paterson either.
Or, perhaps I should clarify that. In all fairness, at least Andrew Cuomo has been a competent Attorney General, and he was an equally-respectable HUD Secretary under the Clinton administration. He would handily trounce Fmr. GOP Rep. Rick Lazio (who has already announced his intention to run), and probably scare Giuliani away from even running in the first place.
My problem with Cuomo? I hate to be so blunt, but he is a complete and total pussy.
In the 2002 Gubernatorial Primary, he allowed racial politics to scare him away from bringing forth a legitimate challenge to State Comptroller Carl McCall (the first African-American nominee for Governor), a candidate who few believed could actually beat incumbent Gov. George Pataki, even before McCall came under later controversies which would effectively derail his entire political career.
Now, here we are with the state's first black Governor, and Cuomo once again is see-sawing on the idea of actually going full-force into a Primary. It certainly doesn't help matters when Paterson blames "racism in the New York media" for his polling woes, nor when African-American Rep. Charlie Rangel comes out against the idea of a Cuomo/Paterson Primary race, citing potential "racial division."
I happen to believe Paterson will not back down from seeking the Party's nod, and thus, Cuomo has a real decision to make. He can either be a weasal and allow Paterson to flush the New York Democratic Party down the toilet, or he can actually bring forth a substantive challenge against an incredibly-unpopular Governor, and in the process, save the careers of Kirsten Gillibrand and many scared House Democrats.
President Obama may be a marvelous orator, but his words ain't scaring Paterson off. For New York Dems in 2010, it's Cuomo or bust. And by bust, I mean "Giuliani Time."
After over a month's break from blogging, I've opted to peek my head back in for a quick moment, and all at the grand expense of a certain incompetent New York Governor.
That's right, Gov. David Paterson, a man who's hardly been the subject of much praise on my blog, has inspired me to vent a little. As you may well know, Paterson has been in the news as of late, both on a state and national level, due to a few choice words President Obama reportedly has in regard to Paterson's re-elections aspirations in 2010.
In essence, those choice words can be summed up to "get the hell out, or let your party suffer the devastating consequences."
Now, frankly, I don't care whether or not this was a "smart" move by President Obama. In all honesty, it perhaps wasn't; I criticized Obama big time for his butting-in on the 2010 Senate race in New York, and I suppose one could argue I should do the same for the Gubernatorial race.
But, I believe there is a difference.
In regard to the Senate race, I criticized Obama for aggressively kicking to the curb any potential Primary challengers to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand because I believed Rep. Carolyn Maloney ultimately would have been a far stronger nominee. Lo and behold, Gillibrand is currently sitting at an abysmal approval rating, and hypothetical polling shows her defeated at the polls by Fmr. Gov. George Pataki.
This time around, President Obama happens to be right.
Gov. Paterson has been a complete and total failure, and Obama is correct in his assessment of Paterson's re-election hopes; that is, Paterson cannot possibly win. Worse, not only would he be trounced by Rudy Giulaini, but Paterson at the top of the ticket would serve as nothing but a devastating drag for the rest of the Democratic ticket. Sen. Gillibrand would likely lose, and the Dems would lose House seats to boot. Worst of all, a Republican Governor would hardly do the Dems any favors when it comes time to bring forth redistricting after the upcoming census.
Now, that's hardly to say I'm over-the-moon about the Democratic alternative to Paterson either.
Or, perhaps I should clarify that. In all fairness, at least Andrew Cuomo has been a competent Attorney General, and he was an equally-respectable HUD Secretary under the Clinton administration. He would handily trounce Fmr. GOP Rep. Rick Lazio (who has already announced his intention to run), and probably scare Giuliani away from even running in the first place.
My problem with Cuomo? I hate to be so blunt, but he is a complete and total pussy.
In the 2002 Gubernatorial Primary, he allowed racial politics to scare him away from bringing forth a legitimate challenge to State Comptroller Carl McCall (the first African-American nominee for Governor), a candidate who few believed could actually beat incumbent Gov. George Pataki, even before McCall came under later controversies which would effectively derail his entire political career.
Now, here we are with the state's first black Governor, and Cuomo once again is see-sawing on the idea of actually going full-force into a Primary. It certainly doesn't help matters when Paterson blames "racism in the New York media" for his polling woes, nor when African-American Rep. Charlie Rangel comes out against the idea of a Cuomo/Paterson Primary race, citing potential "racial division."
I happen to believe Paterson will not back down from seeking the Party's nod, and thus, Cuomo has a real decision to make. He can either be a weasal and allow Paterson to flush the New York Democratic Party down the toilet, or he can actually bring forth a substantive challenge against an incredibly-unpopular Governor, and in the process, save the careers of Kirsten Gillibrand and many scared House Democrats.
President Obama may be a marvelous orator, but his words ain't scaring Paterson off. For New York Dems in 2010, it's Cuomo or bust. And by bust, I mean "Giuliani Time."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
