Don’t You Have Your Own Job to Do? Pt 2

Posted by on . 10 comments.

Obama jumps into Senate battle before it even starts – The Denver Post (9/19/09)

Only 24 hours after former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff launched his campaign, the president bigfooted his way into the primary, issuing a glowing endorsement of current U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, who was appointed by Ritter in January to fill the seat. We were somewhat surprised to see the president of the United States jump into the intra-party fray so soon. He barely had time to bone up on Romanoff’s accomplishments (we say a bit sarcastically).
[...]
Obama has jumped into other primaries, as well. He endorsed Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican-turned-Democrat, in his bid against a more liberal opponent. The president also gave a quick thumbs up to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand when there was a chance she might be challenged by another Democrat for Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s old New York Senate seat.

I’ll be patiently awaiting The DCeiver’s letter to the Denver Post suggesting they suffer a drug addiction relapse for their crime of questioning Dear Leader. Everyone else is left to ponder once again why it is that the supposedly liberal Obama is crowding out liberals in favor of ex-Republicans and conservadems.

Comments

  1. DCeiver says:
    September 21, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    Much as I’d love another substance-free reply to a comment of mine, my only point is that pressuring Paterson to get out of the race is a thing apart from promoting Gillibrand, Specter, et al. In those cases, especially Specter, the cause Obama’s taken up isn’t going to advance a solid progressive agenda. I could honestly take or leave Gillibrand, but she’s an appointed Senator and New York Democrats deserve to have a voice in the matter. In the case of Colorado, it looks like a bigfooting, pure and simple.

    But as far as Paterson goes, whatever pressure that could be brought to bear to get him out of the race is welcome. The NY Gov position is right at ground zero of the financial crisis, no one can afford to have a candidate as weak as Paterson pointlessly roughing up more effective competitors or — God forbid — winning the nomination.

    So, Paterson is a thing apart if you look at it sensibly. Obama wants to press him out, good on him. Your objections to that don’t really take the playing field or progressivism very seriously. It’s just part and parcel of unified Matt Theory, and in this particular and thankfully rare case, yes, you look pretty fucking stupid.

  2. matt says:
    September 21, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    >The NY Gov position is right at ground zero of the financial crisis

    no it isn’t. very clearly NY Attorney General is, and Obama appears to have made a deal to get cuomo a better shot at a different job. NY Gov doesn’t have a whole lot of sway over businesses who are federally regulated and in most cases have their legal headquarters in other states. NY AG can prosecute crimes that took place in the state. please tell me you understand the difference.

    i also find it funny that patterson was doing fine until the caroline kennedy debacle, and kennedy was…obama’s hand picked candidate.

    >It’s just part and parcel of unified Matt Theory

    which has a higher correlation with reality than all but a very very few. the only thing i’ve really been wrong about was my call that obama was finished in approximately Sept 07, and that was the mistake of thinking people were’t totally fucking stupid enough to buy the nonsense he was and is selling.

    and john edwards, but that had fuck all to do with politics.

    all this responding and the additional post i just had to write for tomorrow on this is taking precious time away from procuring drugs.

  3. DCeiver says:
    September 21, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    Uhm, the difference between the offices of Governor or Attorney General is not the issue here. The issue here is what sort of oversight and what sort of reform do you imagine you get with a Republican governor versus a Democratic one. An attempt from Paterson to retain that seat vastly improves the chances of the former outcome. And…well…t’would be bad.

    Governor Paterson scored a big win in my eyes pardoning Slick Rick, but that was just about it as far as “doing fine” went. While Caroline Kennedy’s brief foray into wanting more people to do some more political favors for her left a stink on everybody’s palms, Paterson was already hard at work being the absent and disinterested figure at the forefront of a complete governing shitshow. The best thing you can say for Paterson is that he’s not Hiram Monserrate.

    “all this responding and the additional post i just had to write for tomorrow on this is taking precious time away from procuring drugs.”

    Yes, well…it would seem that would be a better and more productive use of your time, than to oddly prop up David Paterson. You and Michael Steele make for an odd running crew.

  4. matt says:
    September 22, 2009 at 7:42 am

    >Uhm, the difference between the offices of Governor or Attorney General is not the issue here.

    you really can’t be this dense.

    i’m sure we can all agree that the president asking a sitting governor of his party to quit is next to unheard of. you will grant me that, right?

    we also have a ton of chicanery on wall street that is starting to seep out of the virtual vault in which is was stuffed with maximum secrecy for the last year. we have a very capable AG in Spitzer who was taken out because he was too aggressive toward wall street, and now another in Cuomo who it turns out is just as aggressive and less of an egomaniac than Spitzer.

    none of the above should be disputable, but go ahead and try, you seem to like it.

    anyway, aside from the pleasure he no doubt is getting from sista soljah-ing paterson (kicking an actual Democrat, not to mention a black man in the middle of a debate about race -> look at me, i’m color blind!) obama has shown bush-level secrecy on a number of fronts, including the fed balance sheet, TARP info, BofA/Merrill criminal acts etc.

    is it unreasonable to look at this and say hmmm, Cuomo is good at his job, and the wall street criminals left a fair bit of damming evidence, and no one in DC wants another crisis? Cuomo’s also ambitious, wants to be governor, and moving Paterson – when you consider how rare it is – out looks quite a bit like the front half of a deal. after all, corzine has simply awful numbers in NJ, and i don’t remember hearing anything about pressuring him to get out.

    >While Caroline Kennedy’s brief foray into wanting more people to do some more political favors for her

    do you not get that she was CALLING IN favors she “earned” by being an obama supporter? is it that hard to remember that Paterson wasn’t exactly leading her defense, and that might have pissed obama off?

    look man, i don’t give a fuck about Paterson or who is the governor of NY. I can’t get my own Democratic representatives in Sacramento or DC to do the right thing. but what obama is doing is out of line, and rare enough that if you aren’t asking questions about exactly why, huffpo is paying you far too much.

    and isn’t pardoning The Ruler enough to get you another term?

  5. DCeiver says:
    September 22, 2009 at 11:58 am

    Presidents and party officials exert considerable willpower over local races and do a good bit of picking winners. In certain cases, I object: for example, I’d rather have Sestak than Specter. At the same time, I’d love it if Obama would couple his effort to discourage the wounded Paterson from running with even a modicum of pressure on the Baucuses and Conrads and Landrieus of the world.

    However unprecedented you find the pressure being put on Paterson, it glosses over the fact that the need for the unprecedented pressure is Paterson’s fault.

    As I’ve said before, this is merely an example where absolutist adherence to things you have a personal stake in is detracting from your macro point. The only difference between us is that you would place positive political outcomes at risk for the sake of political decorum. By contrast, I am happy to risk being thought a dick when the result is a wholly better set of policy outcomes.

    Hey, David Paterson seems really cuddly and nice, and I’m sorry that things didn’t work out, but bish pls.

  6. matt says:
    September 22, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    >Presidents and party officials exert considerable willpower over local races and do a good bit of picking winners.

    behind closed doors, which is a lot of my point. obama is doing this to gain sista souljah cred.

    it’s funny that you think i value decorum. i value consistency, and smart politics in service of good policy.

    as i have said, paterson can get aired out in a primary, and probably will. obama going public with this wreaks of a deal with cuomo. it’s stunning that you don’t know/don’t care that this is/might be the case.

    and why the fuck do you think i carry a brief for paterson? i don’t care about him, and this isn’t about him. we have primaries to sort things like this out, but obama is trying to shut down primaries in at least 4 races. and it’s MY point that’s suffering?

  7. DCeiver says:
    September 22, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Oh! So this is the great master plan to get that Sister Souljah moment that every cliche-driven blogger hack is obsessed with? BRILLIANT ANALYSIS. To think you came up with that all by yourself! Here I was thinking that repeatedly shafting the progressive caucus on the health care reform bill had ably earned Obama that notch! Ha! I’ve obviously been looking at the Big Picture through the wrong pinhole!

    YES. I NOW SEE THE (TEENY PINPRICK (NULLUS) OF) LIGHT. IT BE BLINDIN MA RETINAZ!

  8. matt says:
    September 22, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    just because he did it on health care doesn’t mean that it was his only time? or is there a quota?

    what is it exactly about primaries that you don’t understand. because it’s puzzling at this point.

  9. DCeiver says:
    September 22, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    “just because he did it on health care doesn’t mean that it was his only time?”

    Uhm, did I say that? Are you even capable of following a conversation? Is reading a sentence and then extrapolating the wrong conclusion and then pretending you’ve landed a zinger your version of “arguing?”

    Anyway, if you haven’t caught on that you are dwelling on a microscopic point, and one in which Obama’s action will yield positive political outcomes while sparing Paterson needless humiliation…well–horsie…water…damn, son, YA LOOKIN’ THIRSTY.

    Anyway, I get it, YOU LOVE PRIMARIES. I love the idea Paterson quitting ahead of the primary.

  10. matt says:
    September 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    >Uhm, did I say that?

    explain #7. wtf was the point of bringing health care into it? i’ll be waiting.

    >Obama’s action will yield positive political outcomes while sparing Paterson needless humiliation…well–horsie…water…damn, son, YA LOOKIN’ THIRSTY.

    primaries provide exposure to the candidates involved. need i really run down the list of people in office who benefitted massively from primaries? and what republican has you so shook? rudy? because they don’t have anyone credible. and again, why do you feel the need to save paterson FROM HIMSELF?