Obama Leveled Playing Field for a Cuomo Run

Last week began with Charlie Rangel berating President Obama for pressuring Governor Paterson not to seek a full term next year, telling the Daily News that “anyone who has been involved in this has to be embarrassed.”

But you don’t have to agree with what Mr. Obama, through his own political staff and some influential New York legislators with ties to the Governor, tried to do to regard it as a welcome antidote to a more toxic message previously sent by Congressman Rangel and former State Comptroller Carl McCall.

They had warned that State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would face a backlash among black voters if he challenged Mr. Paterson for the Democratic nomination next year.

It’s unlikely that Mr. Obama was motivated by their race-based woofing to practice his own bit of strong-arming; he seemed to merely be responding to concerns expressed by some local officials about the impact on the Democratic ticket in next year’s elections if Mr. Paterson was its headliner.

RESHUFFLING A STACKED DECK: By making clear that he didn’t believe Governor Paterson (left) was the Democrats’ best hope of prevailing in next year’s New York elections, President Obama minimized the likelihood of a racial backlash if State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo challenges him.

Winning Knows No Color

But however undemocratic the President’s action was, it reflected the fundamental concern of politicians, which is winning. Mr. Rangel and Mr. McCall were engaging in something else, which might amount to assisted political suicide for some of their colleagues.

To understand the lunacy of trying to drive off a very popular Attorney General for the benefit of a Governor whose approval ratings are currently circling the drain, consider Abe Beame and the 1977 race for Mayor. Imagine prominent Jewish officials warning that those Democrats who dared to challenge the city’s first Jewish Mayor would incur the wrath of an entire ethnic group, no matter that his standing had plummeted when the city teetered on the lip of bankruptcy and he essentially abdicated key powers to then-Gov. Hugh Carey.

No such predictions were made, however, and Mr. Beame—who unlike Mr. Paterson had been elected by the voters—faced six challengers from various ethnic and racial groups in the 1977 Democratic primary. He finished a close third, a point behind Mario Cuomo and two points behind Ed Koch, who subsequently won the runoff with Mr. Cuomo. Nobody thought Mr. Beame had been victimized.

It could be argued, notwithstanding indications that the state’s budget deficit may be drastically worse than the $3-billion gap the Governor announced exists for the final six months of its fiscal year, that today’s money woes pale before what the city encountered at a comparable point in Mr. Beame’s tenure. It has also been pointed out that the increased state spending that drew so much criticism of the Governor because it accompanied an increase in taxes on the wealthy almost entirely reflected Federal stimulus money placed at Albany’s disposal.

But the negative perceptions of Mr. Paterson are rooted in a more-general sense that he is out of his depth, and that when he is floundering, he is self-destructively impulsive.

When aides sought to tarnish Caroline Kennedy’s reputation in what was viewed as a pre-emptive strike against possible criticism after he passed over her for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton in January, it shattered the image Mr. Paterson had cultivated of a funny, self-effacing man who was the antithesis of Eliot Spitzer’s arrogant persona.

One friendly acquaintance said at the time, however, “Most of the world is astounded and dismayed by his behavior. Those of us who know him are not.”

Shares Blame for Albany Mess

Mr. Paterson doesn’t deserve all the blame for the problems that plagued the legislative process four months ago after two Democratic Senators jumped to the Republican side of the aisle. He was, however, present when the dubious deal was made by Senate Democratic leaders last winter that fell apart in June after its primary and undeserving beneficiary, Pedro Espada, decided he was being shortchanged. And Mr. Paterson’s inability over the course of the next month to put the pieces back together, as well as the blatant disrespect he was publicly shown by some Democratic Senators during the stalemate, also reflected poorly on him as the leader of his party in New York.

Public-employee unions that wound up being left high and dry when the Legislature adjourned with little to show for its session are not thrilled with the Governor for this and other reasons. The police and fire unions are furious that he vetoed a bill that would have extended Tier 2 pension benefits to their newest members, part of his attempt to impose a Tier 5 plan championed by Mayor Bloomberg. The state’s two largest unions signed on under duress, with mass layoffs hanging over them if they hadn’t, but the rest of the public-employee contingent has resisted (the United Federation of Teachers agreed to a watered-down version of the bill that would preserve the right of new members to retire at 55, rather than 62, as would be the case for future state workers once the Governor’s bill is enacted.)

And most of those unions—including the ones that are more-hospitable to Republican candidates—would be leery of the prospect of dealing with a Governor Giuliani, who managed to alienate many of his former supporters in the police and fire ranks during his eight years as Mayor.

The Governor’s silence to this point on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s court appeal of an arbitration award involving Transport Workers Union Local 100 also has to be more than a bit disconcerting to unions statewide. Arbitration was the carrot dangled before them to live with the Taylor Law’s prohibition against public employee strikes; if an award can be challenged by the employer for specious reasons that seem rooted more in the pique of tabloid editorial boards than the merits of the decision, that’s bad for labor even if the court rejects the challenge. Mr. Paterson in the past has made clear he identifies with the concerns of public workers and their families; for him to let the MTA —whose Executive Director he appoints and whose board he heavily influences— pursue a frivolous lawsuit that could delay employee raises for another year or more suggests a certain, to put it kindly, passivity.

Brought Obama Into Race Rap

When the Governor tried to blame his struggles on racism in the media, then dragged Mr. Obama into the conversation in late August by telling Daily News columnist Errol Louis during a WWRL radio interview that the President could be the next victim, it prompted the White House to icily distance itself from Mr. Paterson. Coupled with his earlier treatment of Ms. Kennedy, whom the President had championed for the Senate seat that the Governor instead gave to Kirsten Gillibrand, it seemed to have established him in Mr. Obama’s eyes as a loose cannon liable to explode when exposed to heat.

And more than a few New York Democrats are casting a wary eye on next year’s elections, when several Washington as well as Albany representathe tives face tight contests and retaining a majority in the State Senate is particularly crucial because of the task the following year of redrafting district lines based on the upcoming U.S. Census.

Democracy’s Political Downside

Both here and nationally, Republicans have shown a greater tendency to discourage closely contested primaries, believing they can soften up candidates for the general election. Democrats, in New York especially, have proven the wisdom of that theory with some internecine battles that illustrated the debilitating effects robust democracy can sometimes have.

Mr. Obama, who came of age politically in Chicago, the city of big shoulders and sharp elbows, appears to prefer the Republican model, having already done what he could to clear the primary decks for Ms. Gillibrand when she seeks a full term next year. In letting Mr. Paterson know that he would not have the administration’s support should he run, he seemed to be looking to anoint Mr. Cuomo, who clearly looms as the party’s strongest candidate for the governorship.

Only Mr. Paterson isn’t going quietly. Maybe he’s convinced that Rudy Giuliani isn’t going to run, reducing the possibility of a formidable Republican challenger; maybe he’s convinced himself that he could defeat former Mayor, which would be a distinctly minority opinion—at least until Bernie Kerik’s trial gets rolling.

It’s also possible, however, that Mr. Paterson, who recently has stressed his background as someone who has struggled with a disability virtually his entire life, is unwilling to bow out because his spirit tells him he has come too far to yield to what others view as his limitations. Of course, that kind of stubbornness was also seen by many as George W. Bush’s greatest flaw.

A Big Hurdle to Clear

Mr. Obama’s inserting himself into the process may not make Mr. Paterson’s decision for him, although it certainly will make it harder for him to mount a credible campaign when it comes to raising money and getting endorsements.

But it means the previously unchallenged statements by Mr. Rangel and Mr. McCall about a black backlash if Mr. Cuomo takes on the Governor will no longer have much political traction. There is something particularly grating about Mr. McCall’s stance, since the race card was used by his supporters to run Mr. Cuomo out of the contest shortly before the 2002 primary vote for Governor, only to see Mr. McCall mount an uninspired campaign against a vulnerable Governor Pataki and lose by 16 points.

Politics, like football, is a bruising sport in which you play to win rather than to keep the score close. That means going with the players who give you the best chance of success. However unintentional it may have been, Mr. Obama’s intrusion into the race improves the chances that if Mr. Paterson stays in the race for his party’s nomination, it will be conducted on a dry, level field rather than a muddy one.