New York Voters Want Gov. Paterson to Stay in Office

Despite recent ethical controversies, New York voters want David Paterson to remain in office. According to a Siena poll, Paterson's approval ratings have fallen below their already terrible levels, but voters do not want him to resign, nor do they want the legislature to impeach him:

Fifty-five percent of voters polled said Paterson should serve through the end of December, while 37 percent would prefer to see him step down and let LG Richard Ravitch lead.

An even larger majority - 71 percent - said Paterson shouldn't be impeached by the Legislature if he makes good on his pledge to stick around.

If the polls remain at this level, I suspect that Paterson will stay on the job through December.

Governor David Paterson: Indefensible

I have defended New York Governor David Paterson in the past, and I stand by my defense of him. Today, however, I cannot defend Paterson.

When President Obama called Paterson to persuade him to pick the highly inexperienced -- yet very privileged -- Caroline Kennedy to replace Senator Hillary Clinton, I defended Paterson's option not to comply with the White House. Ironically, most New York residents did not prefer Kennedy until after Paterson rejected her, and this decision contributed to a plunge in his approval ratings.

Furthermore, when Obama publicly and awkwardly tried to convince Paterson not to run for office, I defended him -- and the vast majority of New York residents agreed. The issue was one of democracy. New York voters, not the White House, should determine Paterson's fate.

Finally, when rumors recently emerged implying that the New York Times was poised to run stories regarding infidelity by Paterson, I defended him against what would have constituted tabloid journalism. The NYT ran two stories on Paterson that did not raise an eyebrow and which convinced many observers that the paper was simply running in the direction of muck. The final NYT "bombshell," however, prevents me from defending Paterson.

It appears that Paterson directed state officials to contact a woman who had filed an abuse claim against David Johnson -- an aide to the governor. Paterson's conduct is reprehensible. Rather than conducting an investigation and suspending Johnson, he apparently sought to "silence" the matter. According to the latest news, he may have even directed the woman to lie about the situation. This behavior by Paterson could, in fact, violate the law. At the least, it is highly unethical, which is why Paterson is now no longer seeking office and why I cannot defend him this time.

Oy Vey: Michael Steele Says Obama Should Have Had Healthcare Summit Last Year. He Did!

Apparently, Dissenting Justice has a soft spot for underdogs. While other Democrats rushed to condemn Sarah Palin (even before she imploded on the national stage), I argued that they should treat her seriously and hear what she had to say. When Michael Steele was chosen to head the RNC, I also parted from liberals who raced to skewer him. After President Obama and the New York Times went after New York Governor David Paterson, I supported him (until the latest news emerged about possible undue influence in an assault case). I even pleaded with liberals to extend due process to Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich, who absolutely deserved the benefit of a rational process like any other accused individual. And I argued, rightfully, that in the absence of a showing of improper conduct, Roland Burriss deserved his Senate seat.

Supporting the underdogs, however, comes with risks. Palin turned out to be an intellectual lightweight. Burriss might have actually purchased his Senate seat. Paterson might have used the weight of his name to convince a complainant to withdraw charges against an aide.

Meanwhile, Michael Steele has certainly failed to bring a sophisticated voice to the RNC. Instead, he has provided much comic relief. In the latest round, Steele argues that President Obama should have held a healthcare summit last year. Great -- but there is a major problem with this argument: President Obama held a healthcare summit last year! Caught in the embarrassing moment, Steele says that last year's summit "didn't count." Interesting.

This is not the first time that Steele has been caught in the headlights. Last August, for example, Steele stuttered while trying to defend his blatantly contradictory positions supporting Medicare and demonizing public-sponsored health plans as "socialized medicine."

Nevertheless, I will continue supporting underdogs -- when it is the right thing to do!

Here is video footage of Steele on the healthcare summit.

NY Governor David Paterson Pushes Back Against Rumors

Blogs and mainstream media have been buzzing with a flurry of rumors regarding New York Governor David Paterson. Many of the rumors have centered on a supposed article regarding Paterson that the New York Times will allegedly publish. Several commentators have stated that the article will focus on allegations of infidelity.

Paterson is not going down without a fight. Last year, President Obama sought to embarrass Paterson by demanding that he step aside and not run in the 2012 gubernatorial election. But Paterson basically told Obama to step aside. At the time, the New York Times ran a set of White House talking points masquerading as an article that sought to justify the White House effort to push Paterson out of the New York governor's race. Now, the New York Times is apparently trying to isolate Paterson once again.

Paterson, however, offered tough words in response to the rumors during an interview with the Associated Press. Here is a clip from an article describing the interview:

[Paterson] said he hasn't been involved sexually with another woman since he and his wife separated more than a decade ago, an admission he made upon taking office 23 months ago. He also said he hasn't used drugs since his early 20s.

Paterson said the rumors have portrayed him as a fan of frequent partying, but he said that aside from fundraisers and official functions, he doesn't go out much - and noted that he has eaten away from home or outside the executive mansion in Albany only five times in his tenure.

"For the last couple of weeks I have been the subject of what, even by Albany standards, has been a spate of outrageous rumors about me" . . . .

[Paterson] said the rumors had been stirred up by an as-yet unpublished New York Times investigation "that spawned a bunch of speculations that are so way out that it's shocking" . . . . He said he now fears that all reporters are "stretching the bounds of journalism" in a race to get anyone to confirm a vicious rumor about him.

Paterson sounds like a rare breed of Democrat who is willing to fight. Also, Obama's preferred candidates have not performed well in recent months. Paterson, by contrast, has chutzpah, and he has been quite liberal on important social issues like gay rights. If I were a New York voter, I would think twice before tossing Paterson aside.

The New York Times Channels Its Inner National Enquirer: To Run Story on Gov. Paterson Adultery

The New York Times, masquerading as the National Enquirer, is supposedly waiting to run a story describing alleged adultery by Governor David Paterson. At least one member of Paterson's staff has already launched a preemptive strike against the yet unpublished story.

The fact that these types of stories are newsworthy and potentially career-ending astonishes me. Paterson and his wife have already stated that they both have had sex with other people during the course of their marriage. So what is the big deal?

Adultery is illegal in New York, but this law is rarely enforced, and it is likely unconstitutional. It is only a Class B misdemeanor, along with "crimes" like fortune telling and loitering. "Consensual sodomy" was on the list until 2000 when the Supreme Court held that these types of laws violate the Constitution. The same logic imperils adultery and (definitely) fornication laws. This law does not make Paterson's alleged adultery newsworthy.

After John McCain secured the Republican presidential nomination, the New York Times revived smutty stories from the distant past regarding rumors of infidelity and ethical violations concerning McCain. After receiving so many complaints, the paper published a notice to readers denying that the article ever stated that McCain had in fact committed adultery or engaged in any ethical misconduct -- even though the article focused solely upon "rumors" that he had. The New York Times also made Elliot Spitzer's sexual conduct a cottage industry -- competing with Nancy Grace for sensationalism and prurience. Apparently, the paper is at it again.