Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
Senate Report: Bush Missed Chance To Catch Bin Laden
Dogs Rescued From Puppy Mills And Shelters Arrive In L.I.
State Dinner Party Crashers Want Money For Interview
Tiger Woods Says "Embarrassing" Accident Was His Fault
Not surprisingly after two months of buildup and a tumultuous road to get to its finish line, the conclusion of selecting a replacement for Senator Hillary Clinton did not go out with a whimper. Instead, many of the storylines that had manifested themselves culminated this week with Governor Paterson's ultimate selection of Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand.
Paterson looks like the number one goat coming out of all this. Over the weekend, criticism towards the governor's role in the process were lobbed at him from every angle. People close to the Kennedys claim that the governor pressured Caroline into the "personal reason" excuse and then allowed leaks to get out where he called her "nasty" and showing "disrespect." One source tells the Post that the family is "furious" and that Paterson "is going to pay."
Even prominent Democrats were at the forefront of putting down Paterson's behavior drawing out and teasing about his selection process throughout. As a result of it, some Dems see his governorship as "reeling and troublingly disorganized." One consultant said, “He’s managed to anger, in one fell swoop, the Kennedys, the Cuomos and the Clintons.” The Times even questions whether the governor's poor showing is related to the recent resignation of his top adviser, Charles O'Byrne.
So who came out a winner as a result of Hillary Clinton's leaving the state to become Secretary of State? Obviously, Gillibrand did, as she quickly makes her presence felt around the state—today meeting with Paterson, Clinton and her new colleague Senator Schumer. But all of the positive attention showered on Andrew Cuomo has increased his reputation as a major player in state politics and beyond, especially as he is seen as taking the high road with his hands-off approach throughout the process, a stark contrast from Paterson's public wavering.
Last (and maybe least), dare we say that SNL's Fred Armisen may have scored a minor victory. Armisen had come under quite a bit of fire for his portrayal of the "accidental governor" last month. After a weekend that has seen more and more quotes questioning things like "David's reputation among those who know him for liking to party more than he likes to work," does Armisen's slapstick of a bumbling Paterson possibly come across as a case of truth in comedy?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
“He’s managed to anger, in one fell swoop, the Kennedys, the Cuomos and the Clintons.”
He must be doing something right then. Screw them.
If Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg had a name like Caroline McCaffrey Greenberg, would anyone really recognize her as a potential candidate for anything? Perhaps a seat on the local community board because she lived there long enough and donated some time to the boro presidents election campaign. Otherwise no!
Cuomo would have been good but he should save himself for a run at the governorship.
Kennedy can suck it, you know. Cuomo will probably flog Paterson when his term is up, or perhaps Gillibrand if he she doesn't do a stellar job in the senate.
I have nothing against Kennedy, but what was he frickin' supposed to do, kiss her ring? The Kennedys were expecting us to accept her before she'd done a single bloody thing to earn this appointment, and she proceeded to conclusively demonstrate that she didn't deserve it.
As far as I can tell, there has been zero negative impact to this "fiasco," except the displeasure of people who owe their influence to their families. Go, Paterson and Gillibrand!
Caroline Kennedy is as qualified to be Senator as Paterson is to be governor.
Neither would ever win in a general election. Kennedy lacks charisma and generates practically no excitement from the electorate. Paterson is just not at the level of competency needed to be a governor of a state like New York.
I don't understand the complaint about Paterson. Had Kennedy and the celebrity-sucking media not made a circus out of it, there would be absolutely nothing to carry on about. No doubt they are hopping made that they don't control Paterson, but that doesn't make Paterson's choice or his way of reaching it a fiasco.
Paterson made it into a media circus when he dragged the whole process out for too long, seemingly savoring every tidbit of speculation and intrigue while asserting his privilege. No wonder Kennedy's numbers began falling and no wonder the public is now thoroughly fed up with this spectacle. Paterson won't be elected and he might as well start writing his 12 page memoirs.
BTW, #3 FTW due to the awesome moniker.
Some Dems might want to exact revenge, but remember - Paterson IS handicapped and IS also an African-American...
He still made the right choice. New York State is not New York City.
Since when is the NRA an organization that requires the venomous attacks every time the initials come up? The NRA is one of the first to want to lock up those slack ass pieces of shit thugs that walk around with stolen firearms. It's the liberal pieces of shit that let them walk away from what they really should get.
Go outside of New York City and the suburbs surrounding same, and you will see that a lot of law abiding citizens have firearms. And they don't go out and shoot up their neighborhood every night after three in the morning.
One reason the rural areas are safe is because the thugs from the hood know they will be shot if they fug around a persons property. There are a lot of fields and streams out there and no one is going to reporting them missing.
Hahahahaha...oh wait you're serious.
Couldn't agree with you more.
I absolutely despise the liberals who are so closed minded on the issue. To them it's zero tolerance and guns are icky--that's it. That's the same thinking that liberals bemoan with certain Republicans on gay marriage.
Look, NYC has the toughest gun laws in the nation. Does that make us any safer? Of course not. The thugs will get their guns one way or another. These types of laws just create a black market. They're called Pigouvian laws and we need look no further than prohibition. Look at our drug prohibition, too. Jails are loaded with drugs, and they should be some of the most secure places in the US.
Face it. You can't prohibit guns. All it does is takes them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and makes it easier for thugs to obtain them (black market grows) and incentivizes their usage (as law abiding people won't have them to defend themselves).
It's an absolute shame that Senator Chucky goes on TV and treats this woman like she's a child. "Oh she'll come around and see the ways. She's just not living in reality."
Fuck you, Schumer. The Constitution and logic is reality.
", NYC has the toughest gun laws in the nation. Does that make us any safer?"
A resounding YES! Texas has the loosest gun laws in the nation (as well as a death penalty) and the highest murder rate in the country. Guns don't make Texans safe.
By rate I assume you mean per capita. If so, ummm no. How ironic that your username is "thefacts," though.
One in every 17,000 Texans was killed last year. One in every 10,000 Maryland residents was killed last year. Hmm.
And Washington DC, which arguably has tougher gun laws than NYC---one in every 3250 residents were killed last year.
But this is beside the point---I never claimed that gun laws correlate to murder counts. I believe my claim was: They don't work. You can't stop guns just as we haven't stopped drugs and didn't stop alcohol from entering cities.
And, lastly, the Constitution EXPLICITLY denies government from regulating arms. But liberals like to say that we can interpret it to mean some loose regulation. Oh, really? Let's loosely regulate free speech, too.
As long as you're not infringing on other's rights (yelling Fire! or shooting at people without cause) there should be NO RESTRICTIONS. Yet, we have the $500 permit in NYC and $350 renewal---plus the red tape.
Paterson couldn't name Cuomo because Shelly Silver, whom Paterson hates, would get to name his replacement.
In the end, he chose not to give in to Kennedy and media pressure, and select Caroline.
As someone said above, change her last name and she's a nobody. Thats all she has to offer.
So she'll get some federal appointment for her help to the Obama campaign, and have a better resume the next time an election that she's interested in comes up.
You know the Kennedys must be furious over this --- Ted Kennedy just offered Paterson a lift home.
People of New York are winners in this. They dodged a bullet for having an unqualified socialite shoved down their throats by an entitled family. I am also happy Paterson curtailed Bloomberg's power play somewhat.
So, the Kennedys will use their media to make some nasty comments for a while. After all, we know Ted can't lose gracefully ever since 1980. But like then, life will go on over his protestations, Gillibrand will be senator and New Yorkers will appreciate and respect their Governor who wasn't bullied by those outsiders.
Go, Paterson!
A few people here don't get it. These are very powerful family political dynasties that Dem pols would be wise not to cross. Ask Obama about the importance of dynasties. The Daly dynasty in Chicago had a lot to do with getting him where he is today. BTW, the Kennedy's were an important ally during his campaign, going as he was up against the Clinton dynasty/machine (So you can also probably add in the Obama machine to the mix here too). The Kennedys are still a huge force because of Ted's very close relationship with Labor, which is still a big force in the Dem party. I believe Ted wanted to keep that force corralled, and having a big name like Caroline in a major state like NY seemed like the obvious way to do it.
Paterson treated everyone like poo here, and by nominating an upstate newcomer (and a moderate to boot!) with all of two years experience in the House, he's pretty much guaranteed primary challenges for himself (Cuomo's in the wings) and Gillibrand in 2010. What a chump.
Challenging powerful dynasties is what this country was founded on. That's why we don't have the Queen of England or any other ruling monarch on our money.
You're living in the airy-fairy world of what-oughta-be, ides_of_march. Paterson will find out he's living in the world of what-is soon enough.
I think I'm gonna walk back my comment about Gillibrand being primaried in 2010. She had a powerful backer in Chuck Schumer for the appointment. Unless she's a total screw up (fat chance), Chuck'll use a little of his substantial political juice to ensure that won't happen.
Pessimist much?
Actually, I'm an optimist. But in the case of NY state politics, I tend to be a realist.
I think the Caroline Kennedy thing was mostly a media, rather than a Kennedy circus. I noticed that even after Gillibrand had been named, all the pictures in the news stories were still of Kennedy. The media don't care about politics or the economy, they care about celebrity, because that's what sells papers, television programs, and web views. Kennedy would have been a media bonanza. But she would have been a very poor choice for Senator, because her number one job would be to hold on to the Senate seat. Electoral politics, in the U.S., is nothing like being a New York City socialite. The media, by and large, don't understand this because the majority of the people who work in media are not very bright outside their own realm (celebrity and circuses).
...probably Paterson (and the Democratic Party) wanted a worker bee for the 2010 Senate campaign...not a rich debutante who knows nothing about a backstabing political race..
Hopefully this will mark the end of the annoying, booze/drugs/Oldsmobile fueled reign of terror of the Kennedys.
Here here.
Teddy will be in the ground soon. Caroline is well, you know, done.
Who's left?
RFK jr. for one. It's a big family and they will not go away in the near future.