To recap, Chuck Nasty churned out a letter intended to help, of all people, a troubled Massachusetts Democratic senatorial campaign.  Polls indicate Republican candidate Scott Brown is doing remarkably wellin a navy blue state. Ironically, Schumer’s reaction was to work blue:

Martha Coakley is running to fill the rest of Ted Kennedy’s term, and her opponent is a far-right tea-bagger Republican.

That’s nice, Senator Sugarmouth.  At least he makes Coakley’s reporter-shoving rented henchman look good by comparison.  But it doesn’t forgive his juvenile working.

How many New York residents did he insult?  An even better question: when will he grow up?  He probably giggles at the limericks written on the walls in the Hart Building’s men’s room.  Fittingly in this case, many were undoubtedly written by the late Ted Kennedy.

Basically, a second-term senator employed language that one would expect from Janeane Garofalo.  Of course, one shouldn’t anticipate that a member of the Upper Chamber would use the same raunchy language as the “lady” “comedienne” anymore than we’d expect him to have prison tattoos.

Schumer unfortunately gets away with being a malicious little partisan in his particularly one-sided state for the same reason that a dog licks his, to use the left’s phrasing, tea bag: because he can.  At the same time, Schumer might not at present even be able to pull of a victory in a notorious Democratic hive like Massachusetts if he had to face the candidate he slurred.

Even if Brown loses narrowly, it will provoke panic attacks among the left; if he actually pulls it off, as some interesting sources think he will, we’ll get to enjoy the glorious sight of Harry Reid weeping in front of a white flag on C-SPAN.  Consider the way Big Daddy Chuck himself put it:

But it would be even worse for the decisive “no” vote to come from Ted Kennedy’s old seat.

That’s true, if by “even worse” he means “totally awesome and hilarious.”  Irritating Schumer is reason enough to support Brown.

As for Brown’s potential future coworker in Schumer, we shouldn’t expect such nastiness from a senator in general.  But we’ve come to expect it from this senator in particular.  In a Weekly Standard blog’s headline,Mary Katharine Ham used the perfectly accurate phrase “Schumer Goes Gutter.”  Experience says that he’ll stay there.  If we’ve learned anything, it’s that he’s a 59-year-old with a 12-year-old’s sense of humor.  Oh, that’s real mature, Charles.

The authors make contentions across the spectrum, provoking denials from Sarah Palin’s camp and apologies from Harry Reid, who’s quite a few decades behind when it comes to both racial terminology and his patronizing view of the electorate.  At least he looks tolerant compared to Bill Clinton, who also apparently proved the notion that people never, never change.

Importantly, there’s telling New York dirt, too: we’ve also allegedly learned thanks to the book that there’s nothing more dangerous than a smiling Chuck Schumer.  The parties involved have dismissed the accounts.  But the authors want us to believe that, if the senator tells you he’s on your side, back away while maintaining eye contact (h/t Carmen McCormick):

Sen. Charles Schumer “betrayed” Hillary Rodham Clinton by working with other senators to make sure a Democrat would win the White House in 2008 — actively recruiting Barack Obama to run as an alternative to his New York colleague, an explosive new book claims.

At least he has a good reason to sink his coworker.  Namely, he thought she would be crushed due to her obvious shortcomings.  For the record, “good” is not necessarily a synonym for “pleasant:”

Schumer and the others were concerned about Clinton’s political vulnerabilities — and New York’s senior senator hedged his bets to have the strongest possible Democratic ticket for the fierce general election, the book claims.

A couple not precisely known for fidelity on any level was appalled to feel what it was like to be the victim of duplicity: 

Clinton and husband Bill Clinton learned of the wily party leader’s move months later — and the “incipient betrayal of Hillary by her colleagues in the Senate . . . would hit them like a ton of bricks in their psychic solar plexus,” according to the book on the 2008 presidential race by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

On top of that, Schumer purportedly didn’t think Hillary needed to know that he thought she’d be a rotten candidate:

“Although Schumer was careful to signal that home-state decorum would prohibit him from opposing Clinton publicly — ‘You understand my position,’ he would say — he left no doubt as to where his head and heart were on the question,” the authors write.

It’ll be our secret.  The authors also claim he indulged in some metaphorical tough talk regarding how the other candidates should have treated his New York senatorial counterpart.  In another life, Chuck Nasty might have been the WWE’s Intercontinental Champion:

The book’s authors also write that during the heat of the primaries, “Chuck Schumer was up in arms, telling fellow senators that Obama needed to take a two-by-four to Hillary.”

Why all the scheming?  It supposedly came down to how he envied her showing up later than him before catapulting to fame over him.  Poor, poor Chuck:

According to “Game Change” Schumer had a deep rivalry with Clinton, who started overshadowing him the second she ran for her Senate seat in 2000.

 

“Schumer’s relationship with Hillary had always been fraught with rivalry and tinged with jealousy; though she was technically the junior member of the New York team in the Senate, she had eclipsed him in terms of celebrity and influence from the moment she arrived on the Hill,” Halperin and Heilemann write.

So, he didn’t like being the Ralph Malph to her Chachi.  To be fair, Hillary doesn’t believe the charges, and Schumer “vehemently denied the account over the weekend.”  Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, there’s no spiteful political SWAT team attempting to discredit every single charge made against the Clintons anymore.

The reporters use unnamed sources extensively throughout the book.  Consequently, one’s belief in each account’s veracity may come down to how one views the respective politicians.  It’s crucial to think about whether the individual in question has worked on behalf of the citizenry or tended to wallow in partisanship.  Observers should take into account an officeholder’s demeanor and established pattern of behavior.  And we should consider if the person comes across as calculating by nature and hungry for both power and camera time.  So, with the book out this week and his career in mind, who trusts Chuck Schumer?

That brings us to Gentleman Chuck Schumer. Conservatives of course find the New York senator’s excessively leftist politics distasteful. But those of all political beliefs should find him personally repugnant, too. His recent airplane hissy fit over his refusal to terminate a cell phone conversation at the attendant’s request shows why:

Schumer asked if he could finish his conversation. When the flight attendant said “no,” Schumer ended his call but continued to argue his case.

Just dropping it and politely complying apparently wasn’t an option for Mister Big Shot Second-Term Senator:

He said he was entitled to keep his phone on until the cabin door was closed. The flight attendant said he was obliged to turn it off whenever a flight attendant asked.”He argued with her about the rule,” the source said. “She said she doesn’t make the rules, she just follows them.”

But Schumer wasn’t finished embarrassing himself even after losing an argument with a lady doing her job. He just had to get catty while dragging his traveling companion into the morass:

When the flight attendant walked away, the witness says Schumer turned to (fellow New York Senator Kirsten) Gillibrand and uttered the B-word.

What a badass! Chuck Nasty failed his real-world personality trial by passively smearing a lady whose primary job is to accommodate travelers. Life seems disheartening when one ponders what, and whom, poor customer service representatives must tolerate to earn a check.

Further, the airline worker has bigger worries. Red State’s Moe Lane astutely points out that the airline employee “was merely a woman who wakes up every day wondering Is today the day that they try to use my workspace as a bomb again?” Schumer, whose job responsibilities include preserving our security, should know better than to exacerbate the staffer’s anxiety with confrontation and insults.

But the way he treated Gillibrand is just as appalling. It’s hard to imagine anyone with male plumbing so casually and offhandedly using the B-bomb to refer to a woman while talking to another woman. Actually, such imagining is only hard if one doesn’t know who Schumer is. The most disagreeable politician displayed remarkably nonchalant contempt for someone who happens to hold the same job title as him.

Out of politeness or protocol, Gillibrand found herself politely stewing after an elder politician acted spinelessly. Did she realize that forcing herself to not tell off someone like Schumer when he’s sorely asking for it would come with her appointment?

The unelected official already has numerous reasons to feel uncomfortable. For one, she may lose her job next year depending on what path Rudy chooses. Even worse, she has to work with her uncouth airplane buddy in the meantime.

Schumer is impressive in a perverse way: he treated two ladies like dirt by uttering only a single word. The genuine phony can brag all he wants about his dedication to women’s rights. But that commitment apparently doesn’t extend to actual individual women. There’s one thing better than apologizing after being caught: don’t be a boorish doofus in the first place.

Meanwhile, how would classy Charles react if someone made a similarly nasty comment about his wife or two daughters? He doesn’t seem like the type who would possess the nerve confront the offender. Instead, he’d call for legislation that would classify using the word “bitch” as a hate crime. Of course, he’d find a way to simultaneously exempt himself from prosecution. How else would he be able to talk about or converse with those whom he sees as beneath him?

But New Jersey’s demonstrated willingness to vote counter to their reputation should inspire conservative hope in an adjacent state.  Specifically, one winner from Election Day 2009 isn’t running until 2010.  Rick Lazio has to feel optimistic about his chances to become New York’s next executive now that Chris Christie is the new New Jersey Governor.  Can Lazio reproduce Christie’s success next November?

Based solely upon the state’s last major election, a Republican winning New York’s governorship in 2010 would be as shocking as Chuck Schumer switching parties or Chuck Rangel resigning with quiet dignity.  This state was even more in the tank for Obama than its next-door buddy: the Hoper and Changer won New York’s electoral votes thanks to receiving 62 percent of the tally, compared to the meager 37 percent obtained by John McCain.

New Jersey looked practically moderate with its 57-42 Obama victory, although that was still a considerably higher percentage than the rest of the nation.  Still, Christie’s triumph may provide the first indication that even the ramparts guarding Democratic strongholds are buckling.

Importantly, both are obviously renowned as immensely blue states.  Perhaps not coincidentally, both are also similarly rotten when it comes to economic and personal freedoms.  Consequently, liberal states’ residents may finally be tiring of liberal policies’ results.  New Yorkers might find themselves in the same situation; all they need now is a genuine conservative alternative.

Will they get one?  Most notably, Lazio was antagonistic toward gun rights while in Congress; Christie is likewise soft on the traditional conservative issue.  Analysts can debate whether Christie’s stance cost him votes or actually helped him win in a liberal-heavy state.  Either way, Lazio should only indulge in so many exceptions: he ought to generally act like an elephant and not a RINO.

Instead of running as a feckless moderate, Lazio should seize upon rightward momentum and campaign to reverse the state government’s eternally creeping domination.  It’s more than simply being a principled candidate who actually takes stances: it’s pragmatic, too.  He should wager that, as in other states, voters here would be sympathetic to a new course that involves less of their money being taken and used to buy whatever junk Albany wants.

Lazio would further have to prove he’s not like most other politicians who are changed by the capital.  Again, he can use New Jersey’s winner as a model: Christie’s anti-corruption stance and reputation undoubtedly aided his efforts to topple a greasy weasel like Jon Corzine.

Fortuitously, opposing huge budgets while fighting smoky room shenanigans are tasks that complement each other like Guinness layered over Harp.  Lazio just has to stand up and then hold his ground.

There’s at least one issue where New York’s GOP candidate is in the clear: the relatively svelte Lazio won’t have to deal with cheap, lame weight jokes.  Still, Republicans can hope Andrew Cuomo brings on Corzine as a consultant.  Creigh Deeds is looking for work, too.

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) is giving up his job running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee after two successful campaign cycles which saw his party go from minority status under a newly re-elected President Bush to its biggest Senate majority in three decades.

Of course, there is nothing about the DSCC scandal involving two of Schumer’s staffers… but then again, it didn’t get the coverage it deserved when it happened either.