What Giuliani Means for Paterson

One thing that disappears along with Rudy Giuliani’s threats to run for governor: an excuse for Democrats to get rid of David Paterson.

Paterson’s poll numbers are low, and his fund-raising is anemic, but much of the talk about getting Paterson out of the race was, at least publicly, premised on the notion that a credible Republican candidate in the general election–that would be Rudy Giuliani–could snatch the governorship away from Democrats. And if Paterson went down, he could bring with him Senate Democrats, flipping control of that house into Republican hands right as lawmakers prepare to redraw legislative lines.

As one Paterson partisan put it, the anti-Patersons “have been holding up Rudy as a poster boy.” Without that poster boy, they will no longer be able to affect an air of regret about having to push the governor aside for the sake of the party. No, those same critics will only be able to contend (not unreasonably, but more harshly) that Paterson has been such a failure as governor that he must give way to Andrew Cuomo. Either that, or they’ll have to make the (somewhat tougher) case that New York will elect Rick Lazio.

Which doesn’t necessarily change any outcomes, but will certainly serve to make things somewhat more awkward.

Paterson, in a scrum with Albany reporters after the reports came out about Giuliani not running, was reserved.

“I won’t minimize that Rudy Giuliani served well as the mayor of the city of New York; he has a national reputation and he would be, obviously, an opponent that would have a lot of support,” he said. “I don’t know who’s running. I don’t even know why we’re talking about this.”

But what may have scared Giuliani out of the race is the same thing that may yet derail Paterson: Andrew Cuomo.

He’s popular, has lots of money, and has refused to stamp out chatter about his ambitions for that office.

Cuomo even sent a private – and subsequently leaked – signal to Giuliani that he’s prepared to run.

“Andrew’s positioning is so strong, I don’t think anything can happen to him,” said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf.

Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President