Suozzi would be my first pic, except I'm a Conservative in my Republican sentiments.
I don't believe the present political establishment will ever allow a pro-life Democrat to ascend, let alone a good-looking guy from Long Island.
Would he join the GOP? Nothing doing. And I've asked him (the day he announced his candidacy for governor in 2006). He's too loyal to his party -- and I like that.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza makes the case for Suozzi (and Kirsten Gillibrand):
"Suozzi is known nationally (to the extent he is known at all) as the guy who ran a quixotic primary challenge against Spitzer in 2006. With two years of hindsight, however, Suozzi, the Nassau County executive, looks better and better. Suozzi's geographic base (Long Island) is appealing for Democrats looking for a statewide winner, and Bill Cunningham, the top political aide to Paterson, is also extremely close to Suozzi."
Cillizza is correct. Also, Paterson would dominate the suburbs with such a proven fiscal reform on the statewide ticket. Suozzi is not just talk. He is New York's fiscal conservative voice.
Republicans should be ashamed of themselves that they haven't come close to cultivating their GOP version of Suozzi, or even Suozzi-lite.
Suozzi won't be chosen because he is pro-life, though he ranks extremely high on the "remove from Albany" list -- and his media-savvy good looks and cult of reform Fix Albany mind-melds well with national reformers. This guy's a winner and will only get better.
Cillizza says Gillibrand comes next, at 5-1 odds:
"Gillibrand, who knocked off embattled Rep. John Sweeney (R) in 2006, is a political dynamo who received the most votes of any New York incumbent (177,667) earlier this month. Gillibrand's geographic positioning in Upstate, coupled with her fundraising prowess ($4.6 million raised in the past two years) and the idea of replacing Clinton with another woman, makes her a top prospect."
Everything News Copy said this weekend.
I don't agree anymore that Nita Lowey is under consideration. I agree with Cillizza on Andrew Cuomo:
"Cuomo, the son of the former New York governor, is the biggest name (outside of the Kennedys) in the potential field. And, with Paterson on course to run for a full term in 2010, the Senate could be a nice landing spot for Cuomo. And yet, few party insiders take the prospect of a Sen. Cuomo seriously -- and we don't know why."
Embattled at times in his political career, I find that Andrew Cuomo is not the Hamlet on the Hudson his father played. I dealt closely with Andrew as reporter at WVOX in the late 1980's during his time with Westhelp housing initiative for homeless women and children. Before HUD, before statewide aspirations, Cuomo's tenacious personality made him many friends and enemies in the shadow of his father.
Andrew's only flaw now with people is his advantage; he's not his father. And some political observers would measure that as a reason to take New York's Attorney General more seriously.
Two I don't take seriously are Gregory Meeks (who should be thrown out of Congress for defending Franklin Raines) and Nydia Velasquez (who anywhere else other than New York City couldn't be elected).
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a distraction. Left off Cillizza's list is Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown. On his list are Long Island's Steve Israel and Western New York's Brian Higgins. Higgins would be long-shot dark house but not an implausible pick from New York's Congressional delegation. Neither can light a candle to Gillibrand.
Suozzi would be a pleasant surprise, a dramatic reversal of fortune for conservatives, and proof that David Paterson is the reform Governor of New York State he wishes to be.
It sounds good but it won't be Suozzi.
Comments