Tuesday, September 22, 2009
I don't know what David Paterson did to Obama, but it sure is weird seeing the President of the United States pushing to have him step away. What could be motivating this? A possible clue is in this NYTimes piece-- I have a hunch Rahm Emanuel is settling a lot of scores: "The intense involvement reflects the tactics and style of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who helped Democrats win the House three years ago as chairman of the Congressional campaign committee." Who can tell me what's wrong in that sentence? It seems to me that the individual most responsible for winning the House was actually Howard Dean? Howard Dean who is presently on the outside looking in?
If Rahm Emanuel wants to throw his weight around, fine, but perhaps he should be picking on some of these Blue Dogs that are actually screwing up the Obama agenda, and laying off the liberal Democrats.
In a story that is not entirely unrelated, the Court of Appeals has just held that Paterson's appointment of Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor was constitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and it turned on party lines, with Judge Pigott writing the dissent, but they don't ask by how much, just who won. I didn't read Public Officers Law §§ 41 and 42 that way, but I didn't think it was all that clear-cut a question either.
If Rahm Emanuel wants to throw his weight around, fine, but perhaps he should be picking on some of these Blue Dogs that are actually screwing up the Obama agenda, and laying off the liberal Democrats.
In a story that is not entirely unrelated, the Court of Appeals has just held that Paterson's appointment of Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor was constitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and it turned on party lines, with Judge Pigott writing the dissent, but they don't ask by how much, just who won. I didn't read Public Officers Law §§ 41 and 42 that way, but I didn't think it was all that clear-cut a question either.
// posted by Bill @ 10:49 AM 
Post a Comment