Choosing A Second

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 13:06


The New York Times now claims that Eliot Spitzer will soon resign as Governor of New York. Matt is right that something about Spitzer becoming a target of a justice department investigation does not smell right, but nonetheless what Spitzer actually did can't be defended. And I still feel like we lost a future President.

However, while looking through information on New York Lt. Governor David Paterson, the following passage really caught my eye:

In 2002, however, Mr. Paterson shot to unusual prominence for a Senate Democrat. With two other Manhattan legislators, Eric Schneiderman and Liz Krueger, he staged a coup that ousted the sitting Senate Minority Leader, Martin Connor. The Manhattanites saw Mr. Connor, of Brooklyn, as overly resigned to Republican control of the body. They wanted to fight more actively to retake it.

Ah, so Paterson has been one of the driving forces behind Democratic Senate gains in New York. Also, he seems to have good friends, like Eric Schneiderman, who recently wrote an excellent piece about transforming the liberal checklist for the Nation. (Check out Digby's write up of the piece here.) Those are a couple of whistles about Patterson that ring loud and clear to me that there are reasons to be hopeful that another transformative progressive is taking Spitzer's place.

Paterson would certainly break new ground, joing Barack Obama and Deval Patrick as the only sitting, African-American Governors or U.S. Senators:

David A. Paterson (born May 20, 1954) is an American politician and the current Lieutenant Governor of New York. He is the first African American and legally blind person to hold this position. He was selected as running mate by New York Attorney General and Democratic Party nominee Eliot Spitzer in the 2006 New York gubernatorial election.

On a more superficial note, he also has a beard. This may sound stupid, but as a DFH who frequently sports facial hair myself, I am prone to trust male politicians with beards. Maybe he could form a caucus at the DGA with Jon Corzine.

I think there are some real signs here that David Paterson has real potential as the next Governor from New York. That should not be too surprising, since he was chosen by Eliot Spitzer in an election where Spitzer could have chosen really anyone and still won. This is another reason by choosing a reinforcing choice and / or a progressive choice as Vice-President is key for the Democratic presidential nominee this year. Let's just say, hypothetically, that Republicans attempt to tar and feather the next Democratic President with everything they can find. You know, like what they did to Bill Clinton. and let's just say, hypothetically, that the Democratic nominee is not a perfect person. You know, like everyone. As such, doesn't it make a lot of political sense to have someone like David Paterson in reserve, where in the horrifying event that the Vice-President needs to take over, that such a shift does not cause progressive policy moves to be halted? Having a second in line who will continue a progressive project is an unfortunate, but necessary, guarantee against an effective coup d'ete by the Republican Noise Machine. In fact, an overtly progressive choice for Vice-President like Sherrod Brown might even make Republicans think twice about getting rid of the next President. With Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, choosing a progressive as Vice-President could even potentially cause Republicans to back off a little bit (not likely, but also not impossible). A reinforcing and / or progressive second in line is a good guarantee for effective governance in the next Democratic administration.  

Chris Bowers :: Choosing A Second

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Choosing A Second | 49 comments
In terms of my special interest-- gay rights (0.00 / 0)
he is also very good as I just discovered:

http://www.advocate.com/exclus...

covers his record with regard to gay rights issues. he was for gay marriage back in the early 1990s. I am hard pressed to think of anyone who was for gay rights in the early 1990s.  


Yes, 1994 Is Pretty Early (4.00 / 2)
I was in an LA-Area coalition with a lot of GLBT groups in that time period, and I vividly remember that it was 1995 when gay marriage suddenly became a big issue for them, forced by the Hawaii case.  (I remember the year precisely, because this was an intense period of organizing in response to the 1994 elections, which left the California Assembly teetering between the two parties, and all sorts of craziness in the air.)

It actually took several months for all the groups to come to a consensus, as the first reaction from some was simply that it was politically unrealistic, and would only set them back on other fronts.  But eventually, everyone realized it had deep resonance in the gay community, and there was no way they could not support it.

So, bottom line, he was ahead of the national GLBT political organizations as a whole.

Not too shabby.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Well, the national gay orgs were always much more conservative (0.00 / 0)
than what may have been happening in local major city activism such as in NY state. Just wanted to point that out.

[ Parent ]
Not Conservative So Much, More Institutionally Defined (0.00 / 0)
The group I was part of wasn't exclusively GLBT, but the majority of active participants were, and they were primarily a mix of local/regional and with chapters or maybe one or two West Coast HQs of national orgs.

The primary dynamic seemed to be around those that were more involved in complex legislative strategies, or initiative battles, as opposed to those that were more connected with local service providers as the two extremes.  And no one was really hardline.  In short, it seemed to be much more a reflection of people's functions, than it was of political philosophy.

But even so, it was not like the service providers were "Oh, of course, we've been hearing this for years."  I really don't think it was on the radar for many folks at all in the SoCal gay community in 1994.  They were ripe for it, once it was raised, of course, but that's a different story.

Now, of course, there's a long-time rivalry between NY and LA.  So maybe at that point NY was more in the vanguard on gay marriage.  And, while I had other contacts with LA's gay community, it's so far-flung and diverse that I really couldn't pretend to know if there weren't activists out there I knew nothing about.  It's just that this one particular place generally served as a clearinghouse, among other things, and folks genuinely seemed taken by surprise.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
florida (0.00 / 0)
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield...

Off-topic, but it looks like the law says that Florida cannot hold an election by mail-in ballot.  That might make things difficult for the prospect of a new primary in that state.


Can't be defended? (4.00 / 1)
Who the hell cares if Spitzer needs a hooker now and then? That's between him and his family, not anybody else. It's interesting but not surprising to watch the "left" tripping all over itself to line up against "sin". I've seen nothing that says Spitzer committed perjury or any other crime that would exist in a sane country. I was sorry to see him apologize, when the real issue is why the FBI is spending its (our) resources on a victimless "crime" when we're told every day that terrorism is a greater threat than ever. Saying the whole episode stinks of political setup is to sound naive -- there is no other explanation.

Of course Dems and liberals were so eager to kick Larry Craig, who was also the victim of an authoritarian political crime, that now we'd look hypocritical if we didn't expend equal venom on Spitzer. Maybe we could tatoo a red letter A on his forehead as our special contribution. What a country.


Is hypocrisy a "victimless crime"? (0.00 / 0)
Spitzer was participating in an illegal activity that he had previously been prosecuting, and those successful prosecutions were one part of his ability to become Governor.

While I agree with you that his sex life is an issue between he and his wife - hypocrisy is an issue with his constituents.

Is that an offense worthy of resignation?  Not in my book.  Its an issue for the voters in his next campaign.  Now, I hear talk that the GOP is gonna impeach him - well, time to talk about David Vitter, eh?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Surely not (0.00 / 0)
A hypocritical politician? Surely not -- boy, that must have taken some hard investigating. If hypocrisy is a crime, 99.5 percent of our elected officials, plus all the wannabes, belong in the slammer. Spitzer did his job of enforcing laws, most of which are asinine. Which is no excuse for his breaking them, but no huge deal, either. I doubt that his constituents really give a damn, but they have to pose and posture along with the press and the pols of both parties, because that's  the thing to do, according to the hypocrites who decide what the thing to do is.

We should be focusing on why the FBI is wasting time and resources being a vice squad, and why they even get a warrant -- of they did to wiretap something this trivial. Or was this a "terrorism" investigation? How did it happen that out of the thousands of NYers who bang hookers, the FBI just happened to randomly come up with Spitzer? And what business did they have leaking the name?

Damn, I wish I lived in some other country.


[ Parent ]
All good questions (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps I'm a bit less accommodating to hypocrisy, but I thought I had made it rather clear that in the grand scheme of things - I see this "crime" as pretty minor.

But, doesn't it also demonstrate some piss-poor judgement on Spitzer's part?  He knew he was engaging in an illegal activity, he knew he had prosecuted others for that very same crime, and he knew that his political enemies are trolling around for some way to take him down.

Is it too much to ask that he forego the prostitutes for a while?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
It does go to poor judgement. But everybody has poor judgement. The Piety Squad is wringing its disinfected hands about whether he could still govern with such a scandal on his back, conveniently forgetting about the likes of FDR, JFK, Clinton, Tom Jefferson, probably Lincoln, and on and on and on.

Again, the real issue is that the FBI was used for political purposes, whether at the behest of Bushies or Wall Street or both, to a degree that would have made Nixon ashamed of himself. That's where the investigation should be pointed. As Dershowitz pointed out just now on the radio, the FBI story is preposterous -- some bank didn't alert them because of some "suspicious" few-thousand dollar payment. And nobody knows who leaked the name to the NYT or why.

He also reminded us of Stalin's henchman Beria's promise to the boss: "Give me the man and I will find the crime." We have vastly bigger problems in this country than some pol sticking it to high-priced hooker.


[ Parent ]
The issue is not about whether prostitution should be legal. (0.00 / 0)
As far as I'm concerned it should be legal and unionized with a health plan and a pension.

The issue is Spitzer, through his use of the prostitutes, financed an illegal enterprise.  The issue is that he is a self righteous, arrogant, prick who alienated every player, Democrat and Republican, in the state.  As a result there is joy in Mudville over his downfall.

One unintended consequence is that the Wall Street sharks he prosecuted now have a sympathetic press corp to complain about how hard Spitzer made it for them to scam money from their clients.

It is mind boggling that he was such a moron.  It is mind blowing that he engaged in money shenanigans that were thisclose to illegal.  He knew this, he prosecuted people who engaged in the same behavior.  

Really, what the fuck?

Stop minimizing what he did.  He deserves to be hoisted on his own petard.  enough already.  

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November


[ Parent ]
No doubt (0.00 / 0)
that the role and motivations of the FBI are an issue - likely deeper than Spitzer's hypocracy.  I'm not certain of the best way to delve into that issue, however.  If Spitzer fights to stay in office and tries to bring all that out at an impeachment trial, it may work - but it seems like a huge distraction from leading NY state. It seems likely that the M$M will follow recent precedent and focus all reporting on the sordid details of the sex, and ignore the "FBI being used for political purposes" angle.  

If he resigns, I figure the story will die.  If I were him, I'd sit tight and see if this whole thing has any real legs.  If the story fades, so much the better - but that won't get into the FBI issue, will it?  Keeping the FBI angle alive, will serve to extend the scandal.

Its a mess - a mess that could have been avoided with a little bit of self control and better judgement.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
I Myself Don't Care But (0.00 / 0)
the problem Spitzer has is he has portrayed himself as Mr. Clean and a crusader against corruption throughout his career.  I tend to agree prostitution should be legal but it isn't so like it or not Spitzer broke the law.

The other problem Spitzer has is first year was largely a disaster so he has little public good will built up.  I know a lot of people who are fed up with the guy and want him to go.  In many ways this may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.  My guess is if he had been successful in his first year and was popular he could ride it out.  Unfortunately for him, he isn't and probably won't be able to do so.

NY is lucky that Spitzer chose someone like David Patterson to be Lt Gov.  He can easily step into the job and my guess is he will be very good.


[ Parent ]
Eager Dems and liberals (4.00 / 2)
What exactly did these two groups do to Larry Craig?  Was there a vote on evicting Craig from the Senate?  Is there a Dem sponsored recall effort happening in Idaho?

Lots of liberals expressed disapproval of busting gay men in bathrooms for merely suggestive behaviour.

Yes, there was much scheudenfreude over an anti-gay bigot bein outed as gay and chortling over his denials, but there was no serious left sponsored effort to get Craig out of the senate.

Put down that roller and try one of the finer brushes to paint with.  


[ Parent ]
Point me to examples (0.00 / 0)
of any liberal effort to investigate the police use of entrapment to catch a gay guy seeking sex. The general tone was one of celebration, not condemnation of the cops. There was no need for a lefty effort to get Craig out of the Senate because the Republicans were taking care of that. There was no serious left-sponsored effort to defend Craig's civil liberties, either.

[ Parent ]
Um... (4.00 / 2)
if you claim there are "eager" Dems and Liberals, you are the one who needs examples.  Now, Republicans demanded that Craig (because he was a F----t), Clinton and Spitzer resign (because they are D----rats), but said nothing about Vitter. Democrats... didn't demand any of them resign.

The personal is personal. Everyone enjoys seeing moralistic assholes get caught in sex scandals, but that's a far cry from forcing them to resign, which the Republicans often try to do.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
How about the ACLU? (0.00 / 0)
Which backed Craig with an amicus brief.

[ Parent ]
The ACLU (0.00 / 0)
is essential precisely because it's about civil liberty, not politics. I don't call it a liberal organization. Unless you consider Bob Barr a liberal, and support of the "money is speech" meme a liberal position.

[ Parent ]
Would you care if (0.00 / 0)
Some Senator had voted for the authorization of force in Iraq because he needs a hooker now and then and certain warmongering groups found out about it and blackmailed him into voting?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Wow. (4.00 / 1)
Haven't heard that one since the Cold War days, when it was used to keep gays out of the State Department.

[ Parent ]
There's a reason why (0.00 / 0)
The CIA requires any homosexual to be out of the closet to friends and family (or so I've read).  Anytime anyone does something they want to hide from close friends and family, they are susceptible to blackmail.  It could be drug use, it could be infidelity, it could be past secrets.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
That logic works for security clearances (0.00 / 0)
Never had to get one myself - but a number of my friends from college have gone through the process.  That was their advice - "don't lie about my past, I've told them the truth, they don't really care that I smoked pot, or experimented with acid - they just don't want me to cover it up because it makes me a black-mail risk."

I was always honest and every single one of them got the clearance.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Prostitution: not a victimless crime (0.00 / 0)
at least in the way it's proacticed in this country.  There are exploited prostitutes, and non-exploited ones, bu tthere is no way that a john can tell whehter or not a particular prostitute is working of her own free will, before we even introduce issues of race and class into this equation.

[ Parent ]
Somehow I doubt (0.00 / 0)
that $4000 hookers are the exploited kind. Of course dumping the victimless crime laws and enforcing individual rights would pretty much wipe out the exploitation.

[ Parent ]
It's never black and white (0.00 / 0)
these things happen even to the 'best off' amongst them.  Some are happy in the sex industry, others have sever, severe issues that they never get a chance to recover from.

[ Parent ]
nothing is going to stop the GOP if they smell blood (0.00 / 0)
I highly doubt having a progressive veep would stop the GOP from attacking the president in the slightest. If an issue arose where they thought they could take down the Democratic president, they would jump on it. The resulting public humiliation for the entire administration would tar the promoted veep (see also: Gerald Ford) and severely limit his ability to do anything progressive until after the next presidential election.

Disagree (0.00 / 0)
Of course there has always been timidity on the part of Dems, but didn't the need to remove Cheney first make GW Bush's seat a little more secure?  Or at least make impeachment more daunting, since it would have to be done twice to get any improvement?  It had to have done.

A strong VP (I know it's crazy, but I still like Al Gore for the job) would make Obama's job that much more secure.  And the possibility of succession (as well as the trust factor) is why I don't think Hillary would really take Obama--they are just tyring to get him in the position of refusing it in advance.  She wants someone like Evan Bayh.

And did you know Paterson is legally blind from birth, with only partial sight in one eye?

At least it appears he is more clear sighted than Eliot Spitzer.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
This isn't all that bad, is it? (0.00 / 0)
Patterson looks like he's going to be an excellent governor for New York. One of my favorite moments from Spitzer's campaign was when he pledged to get legislation passed legalizing same-sex marriage in NY. It looks like Patterson will also work to get that done (as soon as we have Democratic majorities in both chambers and Bruno stops gumming up the senate).

Plus, this scandal happened so soon into their first term that Patterson can easily distance himself from Spitzer's corruption and run for re-election in 2010 and win easily.  


paterson has the potential (4.00 / 1)
to be an excellent governor, but he's got much work to do before we can start talking about 2010. chances are he will face a primary and whoever wins will most likely be facing bloomberg. the chaos of the last 24 hours is emboldening all sorts of folks with their eyes on the governor's mansion.

It's time:the albany project.

[ Parent ]
True but (0.00 / 0)
Patterson is going to have 2 yrs to solidify his position as Gov.  What happens in 2010 will largely be dependent on how Patterson performs.  Once Spitzer resigns, things will calm down.  

If Patterson does a good job and the public likes him, he will not get a primary even if Andrew Cuomo is salivating for the job.  


[ Parent ]
And how he performs (0.00 / 0)
depends in part on whether Democrats take the Senate, and what happens when they do.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
paterson is the real deal (4.00 / 4)
and a genuine progressive and reformer. as a new yorker looking for silver linings, i have to say that getting a governor paterson is pretty damned good.  

It's time:the albany project.

My thoughts (4.00 / 1)
almost exactly.

I was pretty upset yesterday, but after the past year, maybe what we need is just a do-over with someone else.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Patterson and netroots (4.00 / 1)
Phillip you can help my memory here, Patterson not only is a great progressive but he also appreciated the netroots in NY.  He attended one of our blograisers at Prey down in NYC that was organized and attended almost entirely of NYC Kossacks and bloggers.  I forget if this was for NYBri or the Craig Johnson race, nonetheless he was in attendance for a good portion of the night and wasn't even speaking, just participating.  He will do great things no matter where he ends up.

[ Parent ]
yup (4.00 / 1)
in fact, i'm pretty sure he was at both of hose events. paterson is very well regarded by those i know in the NY netroots.

It's time:the albany project.

[ Parent ]
Facial Hair (0.00 / 0)
Although facial hair should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (I can't support the skinny mustache, for instance), it's good to see a bearded politician. Maybe one day, our president will look like one of these guys: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/200...

The porn-stache (also sported by John Oates) would be political suicide, though. The senior partner at a law firm where I use to work once insisted that another attorney shave his mustache before trial because he thought the jury would react negatively and hold it against our client.


haha. I've been to focus groups (to help with trial strategy) and that (0.00 / 0)
moustache IS the kiss of death.  It's far too distracting for the average juror.  Funny how things so seemingly trivial affect something so unrelated to the matter.  Beards, unfortunately, fare little better in a courtroom in front of a jury...or even a judge.  Long hair is out, too.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Long Hair (0.00 / 0)
One obvious exception to the long-hair rule is Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, of course.

[ Parent ]
"coup d'ete" ? (4.00 / 3)
The repugs are going after SUMMER, now???

sort of (4.00 / 1)
They're going to privitize summer and sell it on the open market.  Why should the poor get to enjoy summer for free?  Loafers should have bootstrapped themselves up the ladder if they wanted warm sunny days.

[ Parent ]
So Global Warming Is A SOCIALIST Plot? (0.00 / 0)
I knew it!  I knew it all along!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It's pretty cool that he's legally blind, too. (0.00 / 0)
Pioneering!

Letterman last night (0.00 / 0)
Looks like Spitzer will resign to spend less time with his family.

I hear that Charlie Crist has a beard (4.00 / 2)
Oh, that's not the kind of beard you meant?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

All this furor about yet another Pol who can't keep his dick in his pants? (0.00 / 0)


Lost of future President? (4.00 / 1)
If we "lost" a President (I would argue we didn't lose anything; rather, he revealed that he wasn't Presidential material),  we lost him inside the shadow material of Eliot Spitzer. I thought his actions of the past fourteen months showed him to be completely ill-adept at the kind of personal relationships necessary to lead and get things done as a governor or President...probably as a senator as well. - No surprise that people hell-bent on power often have secret demons, but it sure would be nice to see a little less self-loathing and self-destruction. Such a waste of everyone's energy!


Wow (0.00 / 0)
If he is linked at all with Eric Schneiderman then he shoots up a lot in my book. Eric Schneiderman is THE model for a great progressive.

If Paterson becomes governor does he get to pick his Lt. Governor? I hope it is Schneiderman. That would be a great combo. And Schneiderman would make a AMAZING governor once the time comes.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


Not a future President (0.00 / 0)
In case it got lost yesterday, I'll repeat my "gossip" from November from a long-time, close, high-up former aide of Spitzer, who is now a lobbyist:

This person actually blew me away when they said they thought Spitzer wouldn't even run for re-election.   Said he "hated" politics.

So how could this be a future President?  


Doubts about Sherrod Brown (0.00 / 0)
Sherrod Brown voted for the Military Commissions Act in one of his last acts as a member of the House.  He may not be as progressive as you think.

Choosing A Second | 49 comments
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search