Obama Asks Paterson to Quit New York Governor's Race

[lord_feldon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/ny...0paterson.html

President Obama has sent a request to Gov. David A. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation.

[lord_feldon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/ny...1paterson.html

Gov. 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.

[Ana Ng]

Thanks, dude- don't worry about *us*, worry about *you*- we'll be fine with all the overstrapped state agencies and skyrocketing unemployment.

[BamaRainbow]

So, Ana, aren't you just a touch more concerned that people who, quite frankly, have no effin' business getting involved in the matter are putting in their two cents? What the hell business is it for the President of the United States to "ask" any seated governor to not run for re-election? Do you honestly believe that Obama would listen to any Democratic governor's request that he not run for re-election in 2012? I sure as hell don't. (I can also imagine that Obama would, at least in private, tell someone making such a "request" exactly where the person can stuff that suggestion.) It's up to you New Yorkers to determine who ultimately runs for the position but, at the same time, Gov Paterson is MORE than well within his rights to decide what is best for HIM. Most politicians choose to run for their own purposes and what's best for them rather than their constituents. (Incidentally, from the article, there's nothing to suggest that Paterson is NOT concerned about the people, especially not in the way that I inferred from your criticism.)
Maybe the White House should be a bit more concerned about some of the House districts that were very close in last year's election but voted Democrat because of the top of the ticket. Also, I'd say the White House should be a bit more concerned about the overall Senate elections more than whether Paterson decides to run again.

[woodness03]

I honestly do not know what past presidents have done WRT to state politics, but it seems that this administration has its hands in too many cookie jars of which they don't belong.

The two that stick out is this instance and filling Sen Kennedy's seat. While I can see the argument that Sen. Kennedy's seat is a federal position, the federal government (Obama administration) has no business is telling (pressuring in my opinion) the state of Mass to change its laws to allow the Gov to pick a temporary replacement.

Here again, the federal government (Obama administration) has no business in pressuring the local politics.

Now, the administration can back certain candidates or throw its support behind them, but these two things go beyond that IMO and starts to cross the line of the Federal Government intervening in State politics.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by BamaRainbow

So, Ana, aren't you just a touch more concerned that people who, quite frankly, have no effin' business getting involved in the matter are putting in their two cents? What the hell business is it for the President of the United States to "ask" any seated governor to not run for re-election?

POTUS is the de facto head of whichever party he represents. It is in that capacity that Obama has asked Paterson not to run, because other Democratic candidates are stronger.

And honestly, what do you have against paragraph breaks?

[woodness03]

Originally Posted by Lainie

POTUS is the de facto head of whichever party he represents. It is in that capacity that Obama has asked Paterson not to run, because other Democratic candidates are stronger.

I would actually consider the Republican or Democratic Chairperson to be the leader of the respective party, not the President.

It would be one thing if NY representatives (House or Senate) had asked Paterson not to run, or even the Democratic Chairperson, (hell, I would even consider Hillary Clinton fine because she is a former NYS Senator) but the President IMO has no business asking a seated Governor not to run. It gives the impression of the Federal Government interfering with State politics. I don't like it one bit.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by woodness03

I would actually consider the Republican or Democratic Chairperson to be the leader of the respective party, not the President.

That's why I said "de facto."

It would be one thing if NY representatives (House or Senate) had asked Paterson not to run, or even the Democratic Chairperson, (hell, I would even consider Hillary Clinton fine because she is a former NYS Senator) but the President IMO has no business asking a seated Governor not to run. It gives the impression of the Federal Government interfering with State politics. I don't like it one bit.

Fine with me, so long as your objection to it extends to every president. I don't believe for a minute that Obama is the first president to have done such a thing, nor do I believe he'll be the last.

[Lainie]

Here's C-SPAN's take on the President as party leader (PDF file):

Here's a whole book on the topic.

ETA: The reason it's his business is that he, and other Democratcs, have to run for re-election. A weak Democractic governor candidate -- or a Republican governor -- in a state as densely populated and politically important as NY could negatively affect their chances at re-election.

[woodness03]

Originally Posted by Lainie

That's why I said "de facto."

But even then, I disagree to an extent. When the President speaks like this, it comes across as the President, not the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. Probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

Fine with me, so long as your objection to it extends to every president. I don't believe for a minute that Obama is the first president to have done such a thing, nor do I believe he'll be the last.

It does - and as I stated above, I am not aware (through my own ignorance) of previous presidents doing something similar but if they did, I would have the same feeling. Again, campaigning/supporting a candidate is different from what occurred in these two instances.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by woodness03

But even then, I disagree to an extent. When the President speaks like this, it comes across as the President, not the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

Only if you're ignorant of his role as party leader.

It does - and as I stated above, I am not aware (through my own ignorance) of previous presidents doing something similar but if they did, I would have the same feeling. Again, campaigning/supporting a candidate is different from what occurred in these two instances.

What two instances?

And what's the difference? Either way, POTUS is trying to influence the election. Either you object to that, or you don't.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Lainie

And what's the difference? Either way, POTUS is trying to influence the election. Either you object to that, or you don't.

I'll answer my own question: the difference is that ensuring there's a strong candidate in the election is a smarter strategy than campaigning for a weak candidate.

[woodness03]

Originally Posted by Lainie

What two instances? And what's the difference? Either way, POTUS is trying to influence the election. Either you object to that, or you don't.

Gov Paterson and Sen Kennedy's seat.

Gov Paterson - asking him not to run I think is much different then throwing support behind a different candidate. I may feel differently if it was for a Senate or House seat, but the Governor's seat is specific to the state and the President (Federal Govt) should not be telling a sitting Governor to not run again. Just my opinion.

Sen Kennedy's seat - It is a state law that was passed in 2004 that took away the power of the sitting Governor to appoint a temporary replacement in the instance of a vacant Senate seat. So for the State of Massachussets to reverse that law reeks of hypocrisy and is plain dirty politics. That's number 1. Number 2 is the Federal Government should not be pressuring the State to change its laws, especially the laws which are not in conflict with Federal Law.

[woodness03]

Originally Posted by Lainie

I'll answer my own question: the difference is that ensuring there's a strong candidate in the election is a smarter strategy than campaigning for a weak candidate.

But there is nothing stopping another Candidate to run or for Obama to throw his support behind another Candidate. I think asking him not to run again crosses a line.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by woodness03

Gov Paterson - asking him not to run I think is much different then throwing support behind a different candidate.

A different Democratic candidate? To run against an incumbent? That's a recipe for party disunity, not for electoral success.

I may feel differently if it was for a Senate or House seat, but the Governor's seat is specific to the state and the President (Federal Govt) should not be telling a sitting Governor to not run again. Just my opinion.

Senate and House seats are specific to the state, too. And the Federal Government isn't telling anybody anything. He's not acting in his capacity as POTUS, he's acting in his capacity as party leader. And this weekend, when he plays Monopoly with Michelle and the girls, he'll be acting in his capacity as husband and father.

Sen Kennedy's seat - It is a state law that was passed in 2004 that took away the power of the sitting Governor to appoint a temporary replacement in the instance of a vacant Senate seat. So for the State of Massachussets to reverse that law reeks of hypocrisy and is plain dirty politics. That's number 1. Number 2 is the Federal Government should not be pressuring the State to change its laws, especially the laws which are not in conflict with Federal Law.

I don't necessarily agree with changing MA lkaw, but again, the Federal Government is not pressuring the Commonwealth of MA to change its laws. Barack Obama is encouraging other Democrats to vote for the change. Yes, that's politics.

[AnglRdr]

Uhm. Obama did not ask MA to change the law regarding filling Kennedy's seat. That was Senator Kennedy before he died.

And also, Lainie is precisely right about the role of the President as de facto head of his party. Here is a textbook that describes the several roles of the President.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by woodness03

But there is nothing stopping another Candidate to run or for Obama to throw his support behind another Candidate. I think asking him not to run again crosses a line.

Maybe we cross-posted, but as I said above, asking another candidate to run against an incumbent Democrat is a recipe for party disunity, and party disunity is a bad thing (well, not for the opposing party, of course, but he's not meant to be helping the Republicans).

[woodness03]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Uhm. Obama did not ask MA to change the law regarding filling Kennedy's seat. That was Senator Kennedy before he died.

While true, after Kennedy passed away, pressure has been put on the MA legislature to fulfill Sen Kennedy's request by the White House. Senator Kennedy was a huge hypocrit on this matter as well, as he was instrumental in changing the law in 2004.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5328386.shtml

Patrick said Friday that President Barack Obama had personally talked to him about changing the law, and that White House aides were pushing for him to gain the appointment power

Obama presidential counselor David Axelrod has also contacted Massachusetts officials and the Massachusetts branch of Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, has sent out e-mails advocating the change.

What I haven't been able to find online yet are the online stories which explain that initially, the MA legislature was against changing the law. Only after pressure from the White House (after Kennedy died), did the MA legislature change their minds. This was on the local television news so I am not sure how much exposure it nationally got.

[woodness03]

Originally Posted by Lainie

Maybe we cross-posted, but as I said above, asking another candidate to run against an incumbent Democrat is a recipe for party disunity, and party disunity is a bad thing (well, not for the opposing party, of course, but he's not meant to be helping the Republicans).

True. I guess the fact its public is what crosses the line for me. I am a Libertarian at heart so this is why I have a problem with it. I just don't like seeing the Federal Government influence State politics in this manner.

I don't know if I can explain it in words, but campaigning to me is different than asking someone not to run.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by woodness03

What I haven't been able to find online yet are the online stories which explain that initially, the MA legislature was against changing the law. Only after pressure from the White House (after Kennedy died), did the MA legislature change their minds. This was on the local television news so I am not sure how much exposure it nationally got.

Did the whole legislature change its minds, or the Democrats? Because if it was the latter, then yes, when the most powerful member of your party calls you and suggests he'd rather you vote the other way, that might just change your mind.