Search
Spitzer's good judgment
Seriously, who would have thought, a couple of years ago, that Eliot Spitzer's determined decision to name his running mate would make any real difference?
At this point, if there is anyone we would choose right now to put in the position of having to step in and become one of the "three men in the room," facing off opposite Sheldon Silver and Joseph Bruno just two weeks before the end of the fiscal year, rebuild confidence in our state government's ability to get things done, and do it all with a recession on the horizon and special interest groups licking their chops, it's David Paterson.
Sure, there were good people mounting a run for Lieutenant Governor (or, as it says in our state constitution, "lieutenant-governor"). But I for one am relieved that Spitzer brought then-Senator Paterson on board. I met the other candidates, and it's possible that they could have done the job. But I wouldn't want to bet a $120 billion budget on it, not with everything the new Governor will be up against.
In theory, when someone running for chief executive, whether of a city, a state or the country, picks a running mate, the choice is supposed to be based on who would be the best person to step in and take over on short notice. Fortunately, Eliot Spitzer made the right choice.
Was Spitzer really grooming Paterson to be governor?
At least one or two stories I have read suggest that Eliot Spitzer actually picked Paterson as Lt. Governor for two reasons, none of which had anything to do with him being the most qualified to succeed him:
1. He was looking for a record number of votes/percentage of votes, to show the strongest mandate possible for his governorship and reform agenda. To do this, to set the vote record, somebody in his camp convinced him he could use a minority runningmate to shore up demographic vote bases where he was weak. Let's face it, if David Paterson was a white state senator from Westchester he'd never have been picked. He was the Senate minority leader from Harlem.
2. The state democratic party leadership wanted to groom a new star, and if Hillary Clinton got elected President, a U.S. Senate seat would be open and Spitzer would get to fill that seat. The scuttlebutt is that Paterson was talked into giving up his powerful state senate leadership position to take the thankless/powerless position of lt. governor, not so he could one day be governor. Spitzer was a young man who could have served three or four terms. But rather to be groomed as the party's new star, the one who Spitzer could name to Hillary's Senate seat once it came open.
So was Spitzer in fact picking someone he thought would be a great governor, or rather someone he thought could in time be a great U.S. Senator? I'm sure Paterson is in shellshock right now that he's about to become Governor. I don't think he thought that would happen in a million years. Nor do I think Spitzer thought that. Paterson's future was supposed to be in D.C., not Albany. Maybe he'll make a great Governor now, I really hope so, but let's not give Spitzer too much credit here. Paterson's being on the ticket was a political decision as much as anything.
2. At the time the considerations were being made,