Then there’s Brian Biggie, the Republican-endorsed candidate in the race. It is somewhat comforting the Republican Party is taking more of an interest in this race than the Buffalo  mayoral race, so at least there is that. Biggie sees the three-way race as a sign of promise for his campaign.

“Contrary to what some may believe, we have the advantage. Voters are clamoring for something different than the same old political games of hollow promises and paybacks. My campaign has the benefit of a unified call for change and I can honestly say my primary devotion is to the residents of the 144th Assembly District and not my ambition to get re-elected, or settle a score.”

Biggie has  point, but it will be no easy contest. But, he has some things going for him. There’s an anti-incumbancy sentiment sweeping the nation, and here in New York State, people are getting fed up with the rampant corruption in Albany. Sharing a ballot with Hoyt and Golombek helps, but he’ll need support from Democrats as well, and that will be the toughest part of his battle to oust Sam Hoyt.

The former Congressman Rick A. Lazio emerged as the Republican Party’s preferred candidate for governor at an often raucous convention in Manhattan on Wednesday, dealing a fatal blow to the efforts of Steve Levy,the Suffolk County executive, to become the nominee of a party he joined only in March.

The outcome left the state party’s leadership in disarray at a time when many believe Republicans should be poised for their best showing at the polls in more than a decade. The party’s relatively new chairman, Edward F. Cox, had largely staked his job on courting Mr. Levy to join the Republican ranks and then endorsed his candidacy, claiming he had the best chances against the Democratic nominee, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo.

This was hardly unexpected. Even though the GOP race getting closer to looking a lot like the 2003 California recall election, I’d like to believe that the New York GOP can now unite behind RIck Lazio and try to win this race.

Sadly, I don’t see it happening. Carl Paladino will still try to get on the ballot. I know he’s the favorite son of Western New York Republicans, but I am not seeing him do well outside this area.

Then there’s the Ed Cox issue. Sorry Ed, but after the Steve Levy mess, they best thing you can do for the party is not be the chairman. Nothing personal. But there were other races for him to be focusing on getting good, viable candidates for. Kirsten Gillibrand is vulnerable, but with no formidable opponent, she’s got little to worry about in November.

The NY GOP has a lot of problems, the missed opportunities this year are a reflection of that. This party needs to shape up.

Solidly leading all match-ups, the race is his to lose. And, call me crazy, he could still lose it. If you think it’s impossible, just ask Martha Coakley.

The biggest problem for the Republican candidates and for Steve Levy is complete lack of party unity behind their potential canditate. In a Cuomo/Lazio match-up, 39% of Republicans choose Cuomo. In a Cuomo/Paladino match-up, 45% of Republicans choose Cuomo.

Yeah, so, New York Republicans are helping give Cuomo a free ride to the governorship.

Of course, Cuomo’s late entry into the race reveals his biggest weakness.

When Fred Thompson was rumored to be interested in running for president in 2008, he was instantly a contender… Polls showed him on top, and many saw him (for reasons I still don’t understand) as the next Reagan. Well, by the time he actually got into the race, his best days were behind him. His candidacy fell flat. Why? Because Republicans had canonized him so much that the idea of him as a candidate could never be matched by his actual being a candidate. I suspect something similar to happen with Cuomo.

Now that he’s in, answering question and going on the campaign trail, he is pretty much at a point where he can’t go anywhere but down. Though a slight bump after his announcement is likely, the microscope will now be turned on him, and I suspect (and hope) those 40-45 percent of Republicans who see him as a better alternative to Lazio or Paladino will think better of it, and Independents who have seen how the Democratic party has failed the leadership test that momentum will shift in the favor of either Republican candidate.

“The president is on shaky ground with the hard right and is using this questionably legal and politically shabby technique to bolster himself. Regularly circumventing the advise and consent process is not the way to change the tone in Washington. The only solace we have is that Mr. Pryor will be off the bench in 10 months.”

One of the 15 recess appointments made by Obama was that of Craig Becker, the highly controversial nominee to the National Labor Relations Board. We know that Schumer won’t condemn Obama’s “questionably legal and politically shabby technique” because Schumer has previous stated that Obama would have little choice but to make the recess appointment.

If appointments are blocked by filibuster, Mr. Obama has little choice “but to make a recess appointment,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), a member of the Senate Democratic leadership team.

So, how does this fit with his past statement that “circumventing the advise and consent process is not the way to change the tone in Washington,” something Obama claimed was his purpose? The only thing Obama has succeeded in changing the tone of Washington is by making it more partisan than it ever was.

Looking ahead to the election for Governor, If the Republican primary for Governor were held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were:

Rick Lazio: 45%

Steve Levy: 16%

To be clear, Rick Lazio is a former Republican Congressman, and Steve Levy is the current Democratic Suffolk County Executive. Knowing that, who would you vote for if the Republican primary for Governor were held today?

Rick Lazio: 60%

Steve Levy: 19%

What this poll does not have, unfortunately, is any data on Carl Paladino, who is close to entering the race.

Another interesting thing about the poll is that George Pataki is still beating Kirsten Gillibrand in a hypothetical matchup for her Senate seat.  Let’s hope he runs and wins. That will make repealing Obama’s government-run health care that much easier.

For one, he did bring plenty of attention to the area as he exited the office, although it may not quite have been the kind the Chamber of Commerce prefers.  Also, he at least didn’t spend his abbreviated term engaging in the deplorably shady legerdemain being attempted by his used-dentures-opposing former House colleague from a nearby district.

But we’ll end up remembering the bad things he did for some reason.  While it’s marvelous that he’s no longer representing Western New Yorkers in Washington, the downside is that he might return home.  If you see him and he offers a hug, politely refuse.

As for his personal goals, what will he do now for work?  Maybe I could help in the spirit of bipartisanship and compassion.  Specifically, I’ve scanned the want ads to help the former public servant find a post-congressional created and/or saved job suited to his interests and skills.  And I found one if he’s willing to make his way a little bit away from his congressional jurisdiction to Buffalo.  He might do so anyway on account of the city’s nightlife and such.

It’s naturally from Craigslist, everyone’s favorite site for finding employment listings and/or opportunities to acquire social diseases.  From his perspective, it’d be perfect, as long as he’s fine with acquiring the title “Men’s Locker Room Attendant.”

If you think slinging towels at a health club might be a step down for someone who just left the House of Representatives, you don’t follow politics in general or Massa’s career arc in particular.  And, while eight dollars per hour might not be enough to rent another townhouse, the fringe benefits for someone of his proclivities would be tremendous.  That said, they’d also be tremendously deviant, revolting, and illegal.

Come to think of it, he’d thankfully never get hired.  Of course, he wouldn’t pass a background check, especially if the potential employer has read a newspaper, watched cable news, or accessed the internet in the past few days.  The company in question will instead undoubtedly find a responsible, hard-working, non-sleazy applicant to fill the position as opposed to an utter creep.

But that won’t deter Massa from hanging out on Craigslist, as he’ll find numerous uses for the communal site.  For one, watch out for his posts in Missed Connections, especially if you’re male and notice a creepy, middle-aged man scoping you out in public.  And skip his smug, obnoxious, boring Rants and Raves based on his past video tirades. Maybe he’ll use the venue to change his story yet once more.

And, for heaven’s sake, don’t answer any housing ad he posts.   Avoid any temptation of signing up to be his roomie: it’s not worth the cost regardless of how relatively cheap rent is.  In the meantime, Western New York males have a legitimate excuse for not working out, namely that they’re concerned Massa might join the same gym.  That’s true even if he doesn’t apply for the aforementioned vocation opportunity.

No matter his respective work, housing, and physical training situations, Massa’s icky transgressions serve as the latest example of how we’re living through transitionally momentous times.  By acting in an unbelievably repulsive manner, the disgraced less-than-one-term representative inadvertently helped to frame history.  Licentious sleazes from both parties have provided an endless string of benchmarks for our lives.

We’ve seen the shameful politician sexcapade euphemism du jour shift from “Pizza in the Oval Office” to “Wide stance” to “Instant messaging the page” to “Hiking the Appalachian trail” to today’s “Tickle fight.”  Oh, the times, they are a-changin’.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year’s Eve — and that he’s the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he’s a “no” vote on health care reform.

“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill,” Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. “And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots.”

Do I think Massa’s claim could be true? Sure, we are seeing Democrats trying to force David Paterson to resign, so, at this point, it’s hard put anything past the Democratic Party when it comes to getting what they want. I totally believe Massa description of Rahm Emanuel.

“Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil’s spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. “He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.”

Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: “I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me.”

Let’s face it. Obama is desperate to get his government takeover of health care passed. He has said that he’d rather pass the bill then get reelected…  Whether or not you believe him is irrelevant, he is trying to appear selfless in this battle, as if he’ll take one for the team ot do the right thing for the country. The problem is, it is the wrong thing for the country, and members of Congres will support the bill at serious risk. Polls show the people don’t want it, and members of Congress are being bribed or strong-armed  into submission because that’s the only way to get them to go along. Well, Obama is going to have a hard time doing anything if he gets this thing pased because most of the suckers who vote for it will get voted out in November. Plain and simple.

So many of the Empire State’s leaders show up in stories on ethical violations that the articles double as a prize selection guide.  But there are other worthy entrants for varying reasons.  Here’s a more comprehensive listing for the most prestigious award I’ve ever invented with each candidate’s attributes:

The Fake-Teeth Recycling Opponent: I’d like to go on record being anti-having-to-wear-your-dead-sister’s-dentures.  But I’m still not voting for Louise Slaughter.  Using tales of woe as manipulation is a common bleeding-heart tactic, as it’s easier to trot out an alleged victim than lay out a reasonable case.  But the Rochester import’s disgraceful attempt to sell Democraticare by exploiting a poor elderly woman at the D.C. Kabuki Theater went beyond parody.

The good news is that such brazenly cloying tactics reek of desperation: when government health proponents realize they can’t win on economic, quality, or liberty-based appeals, they trot out sob stories of vile Republicans forcing victimized citizens to degrade themselves.  If Slaughter cares so much about the lady in question that she had to shamelessly use the story in a pathetic attempt to win support, she should dip into her personal fortune, offer an example of private charity, and buy a set of dentures for the lady.  Then the congresswoman can go back to being one of the House’s biggest extremists, especially as a proponent of incessant abortions.

King Charles of Upper Manhattan: Rod Blagojevich has nicer hair, barely.  But he and Charles Rangel are still mutual corruption role models in style terms.  It’s not bad enough that Rangel is a bully who thinks taking care of his district means throwing federal money at it: simply, he also stinks horridly, especially as evidence one-party rule’s byproduct.  The only issue with his so-called temporary leave from the Ways and Means Committee is what took so long.

But his career arc could get much more amusing.  Thankfully, in Scott Brown’s America and with Rangel’s unbearably scummy behavior in mind, there’s also a possibility he might lose more than his chairmanship and be banished to the private sector. He’d have to learn to act utterly corruptly on a private employer’s time, although he’d presumably continue to cheat on his taxes.

Congressman One-and-Done: Did Eric Massa really do what they say he did?  Ew. One-term wonder Massa is the congressional equivalent of Kajagoogoo.  At least we didn’t have to cope with him for long.

Chuck Nasty: The only thing worse than Charles Schumer’s policies may be his personality.  Whether he’s calling his now-coworker something classy or dismissing a peasant with oh so courteous language, the utterly arrogant senator personally embodies his government-knows-best policies.  There’s no better way to punish him than to get him out of the Senate.  For notorious attention junkie Schumer, the only thing worse than losing power would be losing appearances in front of cameras.  Please, Larry, please. . .

The gubernatorial incumbent for now: Is he gone?  Do a Yahoo! news search for “David Paterson,” and reload every few minutes to see if he remains in charge.  The fact he’s a Yankees fan is bad enough for some people, but free tickets for a baseball game are a trifling benefit compared to the governor’s other troubles.  For one, maybe he should have spent less time having state workers making ominous phone calls to his aide’s alleged domestic abuse victim and more time running the state.

What’s really sad is that he could have governed in a novel style by resisting fiscal perfidy and/or ruin.  Every now and then he has seemingly advocated halting the insane spending levels that plague the state.  Of course, he already demonstrated how limp he was as a leader before he started acting shiftily.  That’s not to mention his fetish-level desire to tax soda pop.  Maybe it was for the best that he got scandalous: it has distracted him from conjuring new, frightening ideas for messing with our lives.

The last governor who resigned: The only thing that makes a sanctimonious lecture worse is when it emanates from a steaming pile of human hypocrisy.  Eliot Spitzer is a repulsive troll who coincidentally also wants the government meddling in every aspect of commerce possible. Getting hassled and burdened by officious twerps who think they can run industries and lives efficiently is a tedious folly, especially as the onerous view gets exposed as counterproductive nonsense every day in both this nation and state.

The White House and its congressional allies constantly prove why heavy manners don’t work when it comes to giving the government limitless jurisdiction.  Namely, the economy ends up sucking, and every entrepreneur is afraid to start new businesses, hire new people, or earn too much.  Spitzer will hopefully be relegated to moaning in theory and never again get to sanctimoniously browbeat free enterprise in actuality.  Someone please distract this man with a hooker.

Mario Cuomo’s kid: Set aside the ethical questions of investigating the aforementioned man he’s presumably out to replace. The real trouble is that Andrew will pursue the identical policies as his father.  If the present ruinous taxes and regulations aren’t enough, then please vote for the man whose dad’s reign epitomized everything noxious about trying to get by in New York.

Tracy Flick: Almost as equally well-known by her given name, Kirsten Gillibrand has been largely indistinct at job she was handed.  That’s true except for her strange willingness to stick with ACORN. That move offered proof that she’s the most obvious redundancy, namely a boringly liberal New York politician.  As with Paterson, Gillibrand wasn’t elected to her current seat; based on her similarly unmemorable stint, she hopefully will also never win her current office.  Compared to such an utter mediocrity, even the lukewarm George Pataki looks worthwhile to New Yorkers.

What’s-his-name from around South Buffalo: I checked- his name is Brian Higgins, and he in fact holds a federal office.  The most generic Democrat possible is notable for nothing notable.  Worst, if he’s going to be just another blandly meddling liberal, he could at least figure out how to knock down the damn Skyway.  Yes, it would involve federal spending, but only so the government can rectify the headaches caused by their obsolete monstrosity.  Higgins can’t even waste money correctly.

It’s considerably tough choosing the lot’s standout.  The contest for top New York Democrat is like picking the best beer or Ramones song: every time you think you’ve picked a definitive favorite, another worthy candidate pops into mind.  The politicians in question repulse with what they support, how they frame it, and in some cases through the way they act the rest of the time.

It’s up to voters to reduce the field for next year’s Democraties by casting out the leftists, scoundrels, and leftist scoundrels.  Meanwhile, I’m going to apply for a government grant to create a trophy.  We’ll naturally model the statuette on Hillary Clinton.

As evidence, the fun police have banned tobacco consumers from indulging while frequenting wide open spaces.  Specifically, The Buffalo News notes that smokers in Orchard Park’s parks have had jonesing imposed upon them:

About the only places smokers can light up are at home and outside, since the state’s indoor smoking ban took effect in 2003.

But now they can strike the outdoors — at least the parts owned by the Town of Orchard Park — from that list.

The town has become the first in Erie and Niagara counties to ban tobacco in its parks, beach and recreation areas.

Nicotine users should also kindly refrain from taking breaths even if they’re not partaking in their hobby, as their exhalations may still contain hyper-toxic residue that could spread emphysema while provoking asthma attacks.  Hold your breath or go home, please: our respiratory systems thank you.

That’s unless the dangers of passive smoking have been exaggerated and won’t wreck others’ health.  In that case, at least the pathetic little tyrant responsible for the freedom grab is honest about wanting to gobble up your rights:

We’re looking for more opportunities to restrict smoking,” said (Erie-Niagara Tobacco-Free Coalition) coordinator Anthony Billoni.

Billoni is undoubtedly frustrated that he can’t confiscate the french fries off your McDonald’s tray or pour out your alcohol.  That said, he seems like the type who spends much of his day scheming about how to help you by restricting you. 

As sadly expected, nobody pointed out the absurd lifestyle infringement in the paper’s account.  In perfect Buffalo News style, reporter Barbara O’Brien couldn’t be troubled to gather and include criticism from a conservative or libertarian who finds the policy to be an unconscionable rights grab that takes away individual choice for dubious societal health benefits.  Naturally, she was more than willing to let the anti-smoking mob shamelessly drag The Children into the argument:

Billoni said the coalition is seeking more areas that will be smoke-free to help make smoking less prevalent in the community. It’s also trying to help the parks stay clean from dropped cigarette butts, while creating a better space for children.

The space is now better for orphaned puppies, too.  Plus, seeing tobacco being used hurts children’s eyes and scars their minds:

“We’d just like there to be one more place where they don’t see people smoking,” Billoni said, adding that the less often children see others smoke, the smaller chance they have of taking it up.

To clarify: adults should think twice about engaging in a legal activity they enjoy because someone else’s kid might see it.  The passing moment would then somehow compel the brat to reflexively smoke at a later date.  I didn’t realize today’s children are so impressionable, and I of course blame the public schools for churning out kids unable to make their own decisions and mentally resist.  At least children have an excuse.

The government-funded educational system is undoubtedly also responsible for promoting the view that exhaling smokers are slowly yet steadily murdering us all:

The issue of secondhand smoke exposure remains, (Billoni) said, but is less of a problem outside.

You mean walking past a smoker may not wreck your lungs?  They should’ve just claimed the science is settled, just as with anthropogenic global warming.  Spewing such a boast might allow health fascists to get everything they want without science, individual rights, or democratic procedures getting in the way.  As of now, they’re sadly not permitted to sentence tobacco users to summary execution, or any other punishment, for that matter:

While the signs will go up in Orchard Park, there are no penalties for smoking in the parks, beach and recreation areas.

The signs sound useful, as they’d be a perfect surface upon which to extinguish a cigarette or cigar.  Yes, that’s a joke: it’s not to encourage vandalism, of course, especially among the same suggestible children who turn to smoking because they once saw a grown-up do it.  But it’s symbolically what the rule deserves.

Regardless, the pipe-and-butt corps can’t be defeated, as they’re having exponentially more fun than the intolerantly healthy.  They will be fine despite the irritating Orchard Park ban: smokers will continue to get to take pleasure in consumption even if they’re ultimately only permitted to do so in dwellings.

Contrast them with Rob Reiner disciples who want to ban sitting on a bench or walking past trees while puffing, and it’s no contest.  Those with Cajun-style lungs are living far more worthwhile lives than joy-hating, officious twerps with charcoal souls.

In particular, their January 31 take on the subject, helpfully titled “Earned Income Tax Credit can be a bonanza,” points out everything fantastic about the program, namely, well, everything about it.  Remarkably, it also seems as if there are no drawbacks to blessing particular citizens with financial gifts:

“The EITC is one of the largest and most effective anti-poverty programs in the government,” David R. Williams, the IRS’ director of electronic tax administration and refundable credits, said on a media call last week. “It can make a significant difference in the lives of lower-income taxpayers, basically because it’s a credit that’s there for people who work but don’t make a lot of money.”

In other words, your government has decided that people who don’t earn much deserve more.  As a result, they’re essentially donating other people’s money to charity.  Oh, and they don’t bother to put the gift in anyone’s name, either.

The story points out that recipients get a credit even though they haven’t technically earned one.  For the beneficiary, that’s even better than finding a bursting sack adorned with a dollar sign on the sidewalk:

The EITC is a refundable credit for working individuals and families who do not earn high incomes. Like other tax credits, it is applied against taxes first, but can result in a refund.

And it helps the economy, at least in a theoretical, stimulus-didn’t-actually-cause-more-unemployment sort of way:

That allows qualifying taxpayers to keep more of what they earn, so they can save money or spend it locally in their communities. In turn, that not only helps lift recipients, but provides an economic development benefit. It has no effect on certain welfare benefits, and usually won’t affect eligibility for other government programs.

Wow: David Axelrod could have written that paragraph.  Hell, it sounds uncannily similar to the usual empty leftist schlock our president reads off his magical scrolling-word screen.  Reporter Jonathan D. Epstein should apply for White House work if the newspaper business ever gets boring.

On a related note, the article devotes exactly, whoops, zero space to dissent.  Markedly, the correspondent devotes ample paragraphs to an appreciative recipient of the policy’s cash.  He shamelessly notes that the subject plans to use the money to start a college fund for his daughter.  Even you diabolical conservatives couldn’t be against a child’s education, could you?  That’s quite heartless, and probably bigoted for some reason, too.

That said, perhaps those on the right could calmly point out the argument for the currency shift comes down to “getting a check is good.”  Oh yeah, and conservatives will also note that the bonus money is taken from others.  Class warfare is in session, but only those who skip off deserve credit.

Yet the rag’s editorial staff neglected to find anyone who thinks the wealth transfer is detrimental to both the economy on the whole and ultimately to its recipients.  After all, the reallocated money would assuredly have been spent or invested by those from whom it was seized; that would be good news for retailers or other companies, respectively.  But the present administration and its dwindling army of sycophants quite obviously are loath to acknowledge that we all profit when greedy fat cats buy things with the ample money they’ve made.

In fact, many hold that this form of mandatory wealth sharing is at worst rife with fraud and at best a tax refund for people who don’t pay taxes.  Somehow, none of them were contacted by a News reporter or editor looking for even cursory balance.

The EITC is an entitlement that demonstrates why getting free money is always a bad deal.  Every word of the name is fraudulent: the cash doled out is not earned, income, or a tax credit.  Those who want to redistribute income should at least be upfront about it.

Additionally, the reporter could have taken the time to let readers know the price of these currency gifts.  Specifically, the EITC will cost nearly $50 freaking billion this year.  Of course, noting the onerous price wouldn’t fit with the paper’s cheery social democratic narrative.

It goes without saying that everyone is entitled to disagree that the checks from Washington in question amount to a welfare payment.  What’s not okay is to forget that there might actually be opponents of the Robin Hood approach to taxation.  By willfully or obliviously overlooking them, the city’s newspaper has once again disgracefully tried to pass off opinion as reporting.  The numerous left-minded columnists at The News should revolt: they don’t need in-house competition.