The Rangel-Paterson Strategy

I think the other reason is that Paterson is flopping in the polls for Governor in 2010, so the Democrats want him out and somewhere else so that Andrew Cuomo can be the D-nominee.

At some point last year, I had a running debate with someone I know about which political office was most prestigious and sought after: A U.S. House seat, or a Governorship. My argument was that the political class thinks that Gov > House, because U.S. House members often try to become their state’s Governor, but I had never heard of a Governor running for a House seat, until now. (Many Governors do make a run for Senate). His argument was that in his view, a House member that is in leadership somehow, i.e. Speaker, Majority or Minority Leader or Whip, or certain Committee Chairs, are more prestigious than a state Governor, because of the presumed Federal supremacy in public affairs, and with the House in general and the Appropriations Committee in particular having the ultimate pull of the Federal purse strings, a powerful House member can yield more power than every Governor combined.

The one reason why Governorships are so esteemed is that the duties of a legislator, House or Senate, state or Federal, can be a thankless grind. Meeting after meeting, committee after committee, subcommittee over subcommittee, constituent meetings, town halls, schedule booked to the millisecond. In contrast, a state Governor, being a chief executive, can make his or her own hours, and do what he or she wants, and has the attention, good or bad, of an entire state. When Jon Corzine made a lateral move from Senate to Governor, I think that was the start of a trend. Dianne Feinstein hasn’t made it for sure yet, but if she announces for Governor, I think he’s got it in the bag.

I’m sure Paterson would go along w/this scheme since he knows he has no chance of re-election. The fly in the ointment may be Rangel.

The 80 year old Rangel likely wants to hold onto his seat for another 80 years, just like Arlen Spector, Robert Byrd, the late Strom Thurmond, etc.

This is actually a brilliant strategy on the part of the Democrats. They get to avoid any racial controversy and guarantee that they keep the governership. Despite his unpopularity, Patterson will have no problem winning in Rangel’s majority black district.

Question Diversity:

I agree on Governor > Representative. On top of the “grind” you mentioned, there’s a two year expiration date. All that work, along with constant fundraising efforts and a constant question mark at the polls.

And although I’m no student of political science, isn’t there a clearer path from the governor’s mansion to the Oval Office than there is from the House?

So the Dems will ROTATE corrupt race-baiters? Because Paterson may do better in a different high office? Lol! By that logic, they should “reward” Rangel for “magnanimously” giving up “his” sweet gig. Are New York voters really that lost?

This all hinges on Rangel’s willingness to give up his seat,

Predicts…..there is no way in hell that a black will surrender (willingly) a position of power, history and U.S. politics are rife with examples..no matter how egregious, blasphemous or outrageous the infraction, surrendering power is just not going to happen. The other SKIP predicts,…….is that once a political position gets into the hands of blacks, it is pretty much going to stay black as no White politician will be willing to make a career killing decision to vote against a black.

4 QP:

There hasn’t been a House member elevate to the Presidency since 1880, and in fact, 1880 was the only time a sitting House member won the Presidency, that being James Garfield. Before the WBTS, the House was considered more prestigious than the Senate, in fact, Henry Clay gave up his U.S. Senate seat to run for the House at one juncture.

Until last year, not even the U.S. Senate was considered a good jumping point to the Presidency anymore. Governors are considered good Presidential candidates because the Presidency is, like a Governor, a chief executive job. You have to form coalitions, bolster or dampen personalities, and you don’t have a recent voting record that opponents can pick apart, nor are you pigeonholed into a few areas of expertise, like many House (and Senate) members are.

Continuing on what I said in 7, the only reason that Barack Obama was able to make the jump from Senate to the White House is that (1) He only had not even 150 real days of work in the Senate before he officially started running for President, and (2) Obama wanted to run for President ever since he won the Senate seat, and David Axelrod advised him to take a very low profile in his Senate votes and speeches, so that there wouldn’t be much there to pick apart. And (3) It’s not like John McCain had much of a will to pick apart Obama. Methinks that there was a secret McCain-Obama deal all along, made because the outcome was pretty much a foregone conclusion, that McCain would run a lousy campaign, and in exchange, Obama would sent Janet Napolitano to the Cabinet, thereby getting out of Arizona McCain’s only real competition for another Senate term. (Simcox is a hustler, he’s got too many financial closet skeletons re the “fence.” The good news is that J.D. Hayworth wants to give it a try; he’s way more credible.)

Gov. Patterson is a real problem for his party. Because he is black, he can be unbelievably ineffectual, and still hold onto public office. He can’t be moved laterally, and he can’t be moved down, so the only way is up. If there were a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, he would probably be promoted for a seat.

QD-

Thanks for the insight. I admire your apparent expertise - the concept of McCain essentially throwing in the towel as an orchestration of Axelrod’s “Hope and Change” mumbo-jumbo is completely believable….and sickening.

Was Palin a choice made to further McCain’s taking a dive?