Campaign Diaries

Did David Paterson finally find a way to get his footing back?

Ridiculed for months for his lack of leadership and his inability to keep Albany in a functional state, the New York Governor put his foot down today and asserted his authority through what is probably an illegal move: He appointed 76-year old Richard Ravitch as the Empire State’s new Lieutenant Governor.

The state has had no Lieutenant Governor ever since Paterson replaced Elliot Spitzer in March 2008. While most states allow for a replacement LG to be named, New York’s Constitution has no provision for such an appointment though Paterson’s office points to a clause in the Public Officers Law to defend their action. I will not delve on this legal dispute since this is clearly not my area of expertise, but Paterson’s argument does seem to be quite a stretch. After all, that New York’s Lieutenant Governors cannot be replaced has been a long-held view (why else would Paterson have allowed the office to go unfilled for more than a year?).

Given that Paterson’s appointment looks to be unconstitutional, it is amusing to see so many celebrate his show of leadership. “Extraordinary times call for extraordinary action,” quipped the Senate’s Democratic leadership, thus testifying to Carl Schmitt’s immortal appeal. This unusual situation is a testament to the mess Albany is in ever since the June 8th coup. With legislators stuck in endless negotiations to broker some sort of deal, today’s development is Paterson’s attempt to step in and resolve the stalemate: A Lieutenant Governor who would have the authority to break a tie and provide Democrats a 32rd vote.

The glaring flaw in Paterson’s plan is that his move is unlikely to resolve anything whatsoever, and this for a very simple reason: Republicans and their ally Pedro Espada have made it clear that they will challenge the legality of his Ravitch’s nomination. “We will be in court,” said Espada, while Assemblyman Brian Kolb blasted Paterson’s action as “wholly unconstitutional.” Whatever the merits of each side’s arguments, it could take months for all of this to be resolved in court. In the meantime, it’s hard to see how Ravitch’s tie-breaking vote can get the state Senate to function again.

And yet, Paterson’s decision is a brilliant strategic move that puts Democrats in a stronger position than they were 24 hours ago. For the past month, Albany’s warfare has pitted Senate Democrats versus Senate Republicans; everyone has come out looking clownish and responsible for the stalemate. To the extent that Paterson got involved, he was attracting the animosity of all legislators and thus further endangering his 2010 prospects.

But we now have a new narrative: David Paterson versus Senate Republicans.

That’s no longer a partisan fight; rather, it’s a divide between those who will argue that a little legal tweak is fine if it gets government back on its feet and those who refuse the one solution that anyone has found so far. Just 24 hours ago, Democrats were seen as desperately trying to hold on to power; today they are presenting themselves as first and foremost committed to getting the chamber to function again. By contrast, Republicans are more than ever in danger of being labeled obstructionists; whatever the legal merits of the GOP’s arguments, are voters not bound to agree that it just makes common sense to appoint a Lieutenant Governor to find a way out of this mess? What do Republicans intend to propose as an alternative?

For Paterson, this is a dream opportunity. For months, he has been weighed down by accusations of ineffectiveness and indecisiveness; now, he gets to showcase himself as a proactive executive who takes responsibility and thinks creatively. The downside is that he is taking ownership of a crisis he has little to do with, and this could all blow up in his face if the confrontation goes on. But his involvement could also allow him to deflect blame on Republicans if the stalemate is not resolved - not to mention reap immense benefits if it does work out thanks to his suggestion.

In fact, Paterson wasted no time before seeking to exploit his involvement in the mess: Within hours of his press conference, New Yorkers started receiving robocalls paid by Paterson’s re-election committee in which he touted his attempt to use his authority: “Together with Lt. Gov. Ravitch, I am determined to end the Senate gridlock and clear the issue of succession — it’s time for them to get back to work,” Paterson said in the call.

It has surely not escaped Paterson that his attempt to install a new Lieutenant Governor has awoken the hostility not only of state Republicans but also of his potential 2010 rival, Andrew Cuomo. Earlier this month, the Attorney General’s office released an opinion finding the Governor does not have the authority to appoint a Lieutenant Governor should a vacancy arise; today, prominent Republicans like Dean Skelos approvingly quoted Cuomo in blasting Paterson’s move.

Albany’s new power dynamic thus opposes Paterson and Senate Democrats to Cuomo and Senate Republicans - not necessarily the camp in which the Attorney General would want to find himself in, especially as he is finding that his loudest ally in the anti-LG cause is the controversial Pedro Espada. Given that Cuomo has not said much about the state Senate dilemma, his position could make voters frustrated that he is only blocking the finding of a solution.

If Paterson’s move backfires and becomes the fodder for yet more ridicule, it will reflect well on Cuomo’s prudence. But if voters give the Governor points for taking a decisive - albeit extralegal - step to resolve Albany’s stalemate, Paterson will have scored his first clear political victory in many months. Given how low he is in the poll, he’ll need many many just to be competitive next year.