|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 20, 2009 14:23:26 GMT -5
Summed up well in this article about Patterson running for governor,
instead of (excuse me while I find a barf bag) Andrew Cuomo.[/i]  MORE AT: Paterson Says He Will Run Despite White House PressureGov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race. Appearing tired and agitated as reporters crowded him at a parade in Harlem on Sunday, the governor said that he would not abandon his campaign to seek a full term. In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor’s selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official.www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/nyregion/21paterson.html?hp
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 20, 2009 17:50:56 GMT -5
well I'm glad he didn't select Caroline but picking Kirsten was no big choice either. I guess when you have money and connections anything is possible. And since she is for Acorn I dislike her even more.
Who is Obama to be dictating if someone can or can't run for office. Wonder who is pulling his strings. I thought this was a free country....didn't stop him from running for President.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 20, 2009 20:04:15 GMT -5
In a party sense, Obama is higher up than Patterson and therefore controls money and help. He's worried about losing the congress in the mid-term. If Guiliani runs, the Democrats will need someone stronger than Patterson (that could be anyone) to pull Democrats voters to the polls. Many would stay home, rather than vote for Patterson. Guilani will bring Republican voters into the polls who might not have gotten out of their easy chairs, each one nulling the pull of Democratic a lever. Democratic congressional seats could be lost, especially those won when Republicans stayed home last time. There goes the Dem majority in Congress and there goes Obama's legislative program. There goes Obama.
New York may be dysfunctional, but we're still a big state and have a lot of seats in Congress. 29, actually. California has 53, which explains our national political scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 20, 2009 20:05:48 GMT -5
By the way, Patterson's "dissing" of Obama is telling, I think. Obama is losing steam. And clout.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 21, 2009 8:15:04 GMT -5
NY Daily NewsDead man walking: President Obama's request turns Gov. Paterson into lame duckElizabeth Benjamin daily news staff writer September 21st 2009, 8:44 AMGov. Paterson is a dead man walking. The governor may insist he intends to buck the White House and run in 2010, but President Obama has fixed it so Paterson is the lamest of lame ducks and virtually unable to accomplish anything that might resurrect his poll numbers. In doing so, the Obama administration has done the seemingly impossible by making Albany even more dysfunctional than it already was - at least in the short term."We're going to have to go back for a special session sometime this fall, and this is going to be a cloud over the governor's head. It could be problematic," said state Sen. Jose Serrano, a Bronx Democrat. The Senate, still trying to recover from the 31-day stalemate after the June 8 coup, was already reluctant to help the unpopular governor close the $2.1 billion budget gap. The President's no-confidence vote is an even greater disincentive: Why make cuts constituents will hate to help a guy who's toast? Paterson can't even gracefully quit because the question of whether it was legal for him to appoint former Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman Richard Ravitch lieutenant governor has yet to be decided by the state's highest court.Continued at: www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/09/21/2009-09-21_bam_makes_a_bad_state_of_affairs_worse.html
|
|
|
|
Post by snickers on Sept 21, 2009 9:25:24 GMT -5
Gotta disagree with the NY Daily News. Patterson doesn't need any help from Prez BO in tanking his poll numbers or wrecking any chance of being reelected. He's doing those things just fine all by himself!
It is vastly amusing to watch the Chicago thuggery machine in operation, especially watching it misfire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Sept 21, 2009 11:27:53 GMT -5
A friend of mine here in Tennessee passed along a pretty humorous anology of life under the democrats and their proposed "change".
There is an old sea story in the Navy that tells of a ship's captain who inspected his sailors and afterwards told his chief bosun's mate that the troops smelled bad.
the captain suggested that perhaps it would help if the men changed underwear occasionally. The chief said "aye aye sir, I will take care of it immediately."
The chief went straight to the sailor's berthing compartment and announced, "The captain thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear. Pittman, you change with Jones; McCarthy, you change with Witkowski; and Schultz, you change with Brown. Now get to it!"
THE MORAL IS:
Although they may be promising change in Washington DC and Albany NY, don't count on things smelling any better!
I think history will show that Obama is not the messiah that folks thought he was, and that his personal agenda is going to harm our country more than it helps it. Pelosi has managed to bring her father's brand of Balitmore backroom politics to the halls of congress, and Paterson has turned out to be a turncoat and not the friend of the taxpayer that he originally portrayed himself to be.
I think that Paterson will be gone next election, as will Obama in 2012. We can only hope that by then the country has not been conquered by terrorists or bankrupted by ongoing stimulus deals for industries that have gone boobies up due to mismanagement and poor planning.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 21, 2009 19:47:13 GMT -5
Gotta disagree with the NY Daily News. Patterson doesn't need any help from Prez BO in tanking his poll numbers or wrecking any chance of being reelected. He's doing those things just fine all by himself! It is vastly amusing to watch the Chicago thuggery machine in operation, especially watching it misfire. Snickers, I'd agree with you if you'd said "doesn't need Obama's MORAL support." But I'll bet Patterson finds it difficult to running without funds from the party. Gee ... could it be the American people are getting tired of "the man with a plan?" I am simply amazed at the comments I'm hearing from a few friends who are still-liberal-but-now-former-Obama-supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Sept 22, 2009 21:42:06 GMT -5
Would anyone like to make book on this scenario?
Jan 2010: Gov David Patterson announced his withdrawal from the race for gevernor citing personal reasons.
Jan 2011: the White House announces the appointment of former Gov. David Patterson to the newly created post of Liason Czar tasked with coordinating the efforts of various unspecified govenment agencies to promote the Obama Health Care Plan expected to pass in the Senate before Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 22, 2009 21:49:33 GMT -5
Yup, then Andrew can become governor and start pushing his father for President. Except that Andrew divorced a Kennedy, I think, so in our terribly senseless political burlesque, that would matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 23, 2009 2:33:53 GMT -5
This year I have decided to use a new strategy.
I will not vote anyone directly into office, but instead I will make the effort to vote those that are already there OUT!
|
|
|
|
Post by snickers on Sept 23, 2009 17:38:01 GMT -5
Gotta disagree with the NY Daily News. Patterson doesn't need any help from Prez BO in tanking his poll numbers or wrecking any chance of being reelected. He's doing those things just fine all by himself! It is vastly amusing to watch the Chicago thuggery machine in operation, especially watching it misfire. Snickers, I'd agree with you if you'd said "doesn't need Obama's MORAL support." But I'll bet Patterson finds it difficult to running without funds from the party. Gee ... could it be the American people are getting tired of "the man with a plan?" I am simply amazed at the comments I'm hearing from a few friends who are still-liberal-but-now-former-Obama-supporters. Umm....read my post again. I said that Patterson doesn't need Prez BO's help in tanking himself and his chances. Really, morality doesn't even apply here! |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 23, 2009 23:42:02 GMT -5
Hahaha! I said MORAL SUPPORT, not morality. Or you were kidding.
Moral support: a way of giving support to a person or cause, or to one side in a conflict, without making any contribution beyond the emotional or psychological value of the encouragement.
|
|
|
|
Post by gski on Sept 25, 2009 6:14:44 GMT -5
I'm on board with Ralph. If they're in government right now, I'm not voting for them.
I'm real curious to hear what they've done to "help" in the past year or two, for that fact, 3 , or 4.
If I was in politics right now the last thing I'd want would be an endorsement from Obama, especially with the items which keep coming up.
It's still amazing to me how the Patterson stuff hit the news, but until Congress voted to investigate Acorn, it was basically only on Fox.
|
|
