Paterson Blames Weak Obama Record for Friction

0
>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

obama-patersonWell, this is going to make David Paterson a lot of friends in the White House, as he tries to put himself in the president’s shoes:

If you look at it from their perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration in the way that other administrations have, where you would have, theoretically, a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass the needed pieces of legislation.

One of the things that has made the White House angriest at Paterson is his linking his woes to the president’s. The last time was about race, of course, which made it worse.

A White House official notes that Obama’s record of passing legislation for which he’s personally fought is, so far, perfect.

Paterson aide Peter Kaufman emailed Politico that Paterson wasn’t demeaning Obama’s record — though the quote seems to indicate otherwise — but rather explaining why Obama would be so focused on having Democratic governors participate in congressional redistricting processes.

Paterson had noted that Obama had not found Republican support, then said, “From their perspective, losing any executive seats, losing any congressional seats, losing any seats in the State Senate is very important. I think that you see in order to accomplish their healthcare plan, their energy plan, the other ideas that they have for America that really are transformative – they’ve had to look at who is going to be voting, who can help them. So I don’t have a problem with the fact that they would look to different states to try to get that assistance.”

Paterson’s remarks:

I understand the president’s concern, but I understand the concern of staff members at the White House. If you look at it from their perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration the way other administrations have, where you would theoretically have a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass some of the needed legislation.

Every state accepted stimulus money – some said they weren’t, but all accepted stimulus money – it was shocking that the vote on the stimulus money for the ARRA went along party lines. Here, with the healthcare legislation, they’re talking about negotiating to get one Republican senator to vote with them – they can’t get one Republican?

It’s not them, it just seems to be the point of view that: what we’re gonna do, in the middle of a recession – and it’s a good thing that neither of the political parties were thinking of doing this in the Great Depression – but in the middle of the recession is: ‘we’re going to leave off, sit around, and blame the other side.’ See, it’s all “their fault.”

So – from their perspective, losing any exec seats, losing any Cong. Seats, losing any seats in the State Senate is very important. I think that you see in order to accomplish their healthcare plan, their energy plan, the other ideas that they have for America that really are transformative – they’ve had to look at who is going to be voting, who can help them. So I don’t have a problem with the fact that they would look to different states to try to get that assistance.

{Politico/Noam Amdurski-Matzav.com Newscenter}


LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here