Paterson should go now ...
I'm not a big fan of the federal government telling the states what they may or may not do.
I'm a fairly large proponent, in fact, of the nearly-forgotten 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, unless the Constitution specifically says it's the job of the feds, it's up to the states to make their own decisions.
See, in the rest of the world, the word “state” and “nation” are synonyms. We were designed as a group of countries with a common goal, but each being allowed to act in its own best interest by its own group of elected officials.
Sometimes, though, the elected officials are absolutely horrible. As is the case in the governor of this fair state of ours, David Paterson.
So when I learned over the weekend that President Barack Obama was pushing Paterson not to run for governor next year, I was a bit dismayed. Let the president worry about his own problems and let us worry about ours.
And then I got to thinking. I like the idea of Paterson not being elected to a full term as governor. After all, his idea of making tough decisions is raising taxes and fees. Cause it's really tough to ask people to shell out more money, right?
So while Obama may be overstepping his bounds, I like the goal – getting rid of Paterson – so I'll support the move.
After all, its not like Obama is asking him to step aside as president. He's asking him as the chief figurehead of the Democratic Party. See he wants as many Democratic governors in office as possible. And he thinks Paterson would lose the election next year, so he wants him to step aside so a stronger candidate can run.
Which, of course, then makes me think that maybe Paterson should run – and lose - allowing a Republican to take the governor's mansion, which would split up the monopoly the Democrats have on New York's government.
Not that the GOP is any better than the Democrats, frankly. Actually the Republicans taxed and spent just as heavily as the Democrats are when they were in charge of the State Senate and had George Pataki as governor.
But gridlock is good, no matter what H. Ross Perot said. Gridlock is the only thing that prevents us from more taxes, fees and regulations.
I look at it this way, if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I'm friends with both the Democrats and the Republicans … but only when they're fighting each other. It's sort of like when the Red Sox play the Yankees. Or that horrible movie Jason vs. Freddy. Who do you root for? I root for injuries.
So we need a bigger Republican presence in state government. But only to keep the Democrats as bay.
In the end, I hope Paterson does run for a full term, despite the president asking him not to. And I hope he gets crushed by the GOP candidate. As long as it's not Rudy Guiliani.
I'm a fairly large proponent, in fact, of the nearly-forgotten 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, unless the Constitution specifically says it's the job of the feds, it's up to the states to make their own decisions.
See, in the rest of the world, the word “state” and “nation” are synonyms. We were designed as a group of countries with a common goal, but each being allowed to act in its own best interest by its own group of elected officials.
Sometimes, though, the elected officials are absolutely horrible. As is the case in the governor of this fair state of ours, David Paterson.
So when I learned over the weekend that President Barack Obama was pushing Paterson not to run for governor next year, I was a bit dismayed. Let the president worry about his own problems and let us worry about ours.
And then I got to thinking. I like the idea of Paterson not being elected to a full term as governor. After all, his idea of making tough decisions is raising taxes and fees. Cause it's really tough to ask people to shell out more money, right?
So while Obama may be overstepping his bounds, I like the goal – getting rid of Paterson – so I'll support the move.
After all, its not like Obama is asking him to step aside as president. He's asking him as the chief figurehead of the Democratic Party. See he wants as many Democratic governors in office as possible. And he thinks Paterson would lose the election next year, so he wants him to step aside so a stronger candidate can run.
Which, of course, then makes me think that maybe Paterson should run – and lose - allowing a Republican to take the governor's mansion, which would split up the monopoly the Democrats have on New York's government.
Not that the GOP is any better than the Democrats, frankly. Actually the Republicans taxed and spent just as heavily as the Democrats are when they were in charge of the State Senate and had George Pataki as governor.
But gridlock is good, no matter what H. Ross Perot said. Gridlock is the only thing that prevents us from more taxes, fees and regulations.
I look at it this way, if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I'm friends with both the Democrats and the Republicans … but only when they're fighting each other. It's sort of like when the Red Sox play the Yankees. Or that horrible movie Jason vs. Freddy. Who do you root for? I root for injuries.
So we need a bigger Republican presence in state government. But only to keep the Democrats as bay.
In the end, I hope Paterson does run for a full term, despite the president asking him not to. And I hope he gets crushed by the GOP candidate. As long as it's not Rudy Guiliani.
