NYT Publishes White House "Talking Points" Justifying Paterson Move

The New York Times has published an article that seeks to justify and contextualize President Obama's request that New York Governor David Paterson not seek election in 2010. The article, written by Jeff Zeleny and Adam Nagourney, portrays Obama's move in New York as part of a national strategy of deep White House involvement in local political contests:

The president’s top strategists have recruited candidates — and nudged others to step aside — in races in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. They said they intended to continue this practice heading into the 2010 midterm elections, as well as with an eye to the redistricting fights that will go on within states early in the next decade.

The article also suggests that Rahm Emanuel orchestrated this strategy: "The intense involvement reflects the tactics and style of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. . . ."

Two Major Distinctions: Paterson Is An Incumbent; Paterson Defied Obama on Senate Appointment
The article seeks to draw parallels between Paterson's treatment and the White House endorsement of candidates in other contests. Two major distinctions, however, are Paterson's status as an incumbent and his failure to abide by Obama's "request" that he appoint Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated Senate seat.

Publicly instructing an incumbent not to run is an extraordinary tactic. Yesterday, former New York Governor George Pataki criticized the decision as dangerously weakening Paterson and thus threatening the state. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, quoted in the New York Times article, makes a similar assertion:

The president is the head of the party, and he has a right to express his opinion . . . . The only thing I would have done differently is not let it become known. This can’t be helpful to the governor.

The article fails to discuss Paterson's refusal to appoint Kennedy to the Senate. This fact, however, also distinguishes the Paterson case from the ordinary situation where a president chooses to get involved in local races. It looks more like a political "payback," rather than a legitimate political move. The fact that Obama has not acted the same way towards other embattled candidates (like Jon Corzine and Deval Patrick) undermines the involved leader narrative that the White House has evidently floated.

The Bottom Line: I have no problem with presidents trying to influence local politics behind the scenes. But even Obama's supporters should admit that this public display does not represent the "graceful" politics that he promised. Instead, it looks very messy.

Telling an incumbent to drop out of a race matters. Telling a person to drop out after he declined to deliver a huge political favor also matters. And if having "diversity" in public life matters -- as many of Obama's supporters zealously advocated in 2008 -- then telling only the fourth black governor in the nation's history to step aside matters. Saying this does not mean that Paterson must get elected or that Obama or others cannot oppose him. Instead, it means that his race is not a neutral category. Supporting Obama should not require liberals to abandon their so-called principles.


Related articles:

Republicans Making Better Arguments Regarding Obama and Paterson

Obama Is Pathetically WRONG: Paterson Should Run!

Republicans Making Better Arguments Regarding Obama and Paterson

Although they are clearly self-interested, some Republicans are making better arguments regarding President Obama's "dissing" of New York Governor David Paterson. Recently, Obama asked Paterson, who has low approval ratings, not to run for election in 2010. Paterson was previously the Lt. Governor, but he replaced Eliot Spitzer who resigned in the wake of a prostitution scandal.


Five Issues That Obama's Supporters Fail to Address
I have discussed this issue at length with many liberal-identified friends, and they have defended Obama almost exclusively. Most of them deny that race has anything to do with this issue and that Obama has the "right" to tell weak candidates not to run. Although these arguments have marginal merit, they miss more compelling issues. Here are five points Obama's supporters fail to analyze:

First, Obama strongly encouraged (warned?) Paterson to choose Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton. Paterson did not. If Paterson had followed his marching orders, I seriously doubt that Obama would have told him not to run. Obama is punishing Paterson for acting independently.

Second, other incumbents are also facing tough races, and they have poor approval numbers. Jon Corzine and Deval Patrick come to mind. Yet, Obama has not rebuked them. Instead, he recently praised Corzine, who trails his competitor. This disparate treatment suggests that Obama singled out Paterson because he did not choose Kennedy. If Paterson selected Kennedy, I suspect that Obama and Kennedy would be praising him to the high heavens. Paterson did not "pay" so he cannot "play."

Third, during the Democratic primaries, most of Obama's supporters waxed poetically about the prospect of electing "the first black president" and how this would indicate racial progress. When I suggested that his success would represent a symbolic racial victory, they disagreed. But now, some of these same people deny the presence of even symbolic racial concerns regarding Obama's demand that the fourth black governor in the country's history move aside for another political dynasty to regain control in New York.

Andrew Cuomo would likely win the nomination (whether Paterson runs or not). Ironically, Cuomo was a surrogate for Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. He provoked the wrath of Obama's supporters when he said that Obama would be unable to "shuck and jive" his way through a press conference. Now, some of the same individuals who said that Cuomo was a racial pariah and that Clinton was a racist by association are saying that removing a black governor to open the door for Cuomo has no racial meaning whatsoever. The contradictions are dizzying.

Fourth, Paterson's numbers declined dramatically after he declined to appoint Kennedy as Clinton's successor. Paterson, however, says that race motivates some of his opponents; he also predicted that race would motivate Obama's opponents.

Some of the same people who blast Obama's opponents as racists deny any racism regarding Paterson. Ironically, Obama -- unlike Paterson -- rejects efforts to unveil the racism of his opposition. Despite this fact, Obama's supporters continue to view him as a racial victim -- but deny that race has impacted Paterson. The contradictions are dizzying.

Fifth, During the Democratic primaries virtually all of Obama's surrogates and endorsers demanded that Clinton drop out of the race. The parallel is too blatant to deny. This seems to be a signature maneuver by Obama: Disparage the "opposition" by portraying him or her as unworthy of even running for office.

Republicans Are Offering Better Commentary
Unfortunately, my liberal colleagues are sounding weaker than Republicans (again). I have not been able to make that claim for several months, but the shoe definitely fits.

Former New York Governor George Pataki, for example, offered the following observation:

New York state is facing very difficult times. We're going to have an extraordinarily difficult challenge in dealing with the state's financial situation. . . .To weaken and undermine the governor beyond the weakness that already exists, at a time when he will be the governor for the next 15 months, to me just doesn't serve the interests of the state, doesn't serve the interests of our country (ellipses in original text).

Michael Steele, whom I recently described as an "idiot," also raises good points. Steele wonders why Obama did not ask Corzine not to run, given his abysmal approval numbers. Here's the Youtube video of Steele's interview with Face the Nation:




Bob Schieffer looked bewildered by Steele's insinuation that either by intent or impact race matters. Of course, liberals (myself included) have blasted Justice Thomas' racial jurisprudence since the time he first became a Supreme Court justice. Accordingly, the notion that Obama cannot treat blacks differently than whites (and in a bad way) is preposterous. I, like Steele, wonder how this will play out among black politicians.

Update: The Editorial Board of the New York Times has criticized Obama's action. See: With Friends Like These.