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.

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 several commenters have noted, Brown’s once-unimaginable triumph suggests the GOP could wage competitive races this November in fellow sapphire state New York.  Not only could Republicans pull off notable surprises and win senatorial, gubernatorial, or House races: a conservative could, too, in a place where the terms aren’t necessarily synonyms.

Notably, Brown’s party affiliation doesn’t have to be followed by the phrase “in name only.”  The Massachusetts Miracle perpetrator might not be a Jim DeMint clone, but he’s more to the right than, say, John McCain despite his supportive robocall on the Arizonan’s behalf. While he’s occasionally wavered from the right, most notably on Mitt Romney’s state health plan and abortion, he still didn’t run as a Scozzafava-style Republican.

In addition to offering the deciding health care vote, Brown established that he’s a prototypical conservative on security while being big on smaller government. If Brown, who’s ultimately replacing Ted Kennedy, working alongside John Kerry, and driving to Washington in his pickup truck with Barney Frank riding shotgun (possibly in theory), can win, a similar candidate could pull off the same feat in New York without divine intervention.

Unfortunately, residents of the state where Rockefeller Republicans were born may not get that choice.  If the past offers any indication, conservatives could instead end up supporting by default a Patakiesque candidate in many races or, even worse, George Pataki. In New York, the Republican is frustratingly often the one who wants government to grow at a slightly more sluggish pace above inflation than the opponent.

Even someone like Pataki himself, who ended his governorship more identifiable with Albany than his party, would make conservatives happy in some regards.  Any GOP senator would likely oppose Democraticare while supporting judges with restrained tendencies.  But those on the right would obviously prefer casting votes for a Republican they agree with more than intermittently.

Conservative Republican officeholders have been as rare in the Empire State as a sales tax decrease.  But those of a center-right/sympathetic independent mindset should make it known what kind of Republicans they want to support.  Any Tea Party sympathizer who has ever had the urge to represent his or her fellow New Yorkers on either the state or federal level should elbow into the arena posthaste.   Brown has proved that victory is possible anywhere if one offers a genuine alternative to the progressive syllabus.

Martha Coakley may have been a bad candidate.  But even a slick campaigner would have trouble overcoming being aligned with Obama: as a result of seeing his policies on the table or in action, many are cheering for the exact opposite course.

That’s true even in states the president won with ease.  In other words, New York could be the next Massachusetts, which was itself the next New Jersey. Conservatives running at any level could run strong here even without having Kirsten Gillibrand, Andrew Cuomo, or your local Democratic congresspersonsurmise that Jim Kelly is a Patriots fan.

Well, today, there is plenty of reason for the left to have fear of a Pataki run for the U.S. Senate. A new Marist poll from last week found the former governor of the Empire State would beat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 48% to 44% in a hypothetical match-up. Her own approval rating is at 26 percent. With 2010 looking more like it’s going to be a particularly devastating election year for Democrats, it isn’t hard to imagine that Pataki will break 50 percent in a future poll. Which will hopefully send him the message that he needs to run.

And, let’s be honest here, in a match-up between Kirsten Gillibrand and George Pataki, it is David Paterson’s appointee that is the damaged goods.

Regardless, the nation’s head is in agreement with most New Yorkers: Barack Obama disapproves of Paterson. The problem is whether any other candidate will improve on Paterson’s pathetic, distressing, shameful, and risible tenure.  Is there anyone who could 1) transform business as usual in the capital after 2) winning first?

In this state, the troublemakers aren’t limited to one particular affiliation: former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno became part of the problem as he abandoned Republicans for the Albany Party.  Plus, George Pataki may as well have been a fifth- or sixth-generation Rockefeller considering how willingly he spent tax receipts.

Of course, Democrats aren’t in the clear, especially considering their leading non-Paterson gubernatorial contender.  Most notably, Andrew Cuomo may attempt to continue father Mario’s horrific legacy of making New York like East Berlin: he could be another leader who favors taxing and regulating people until they feel hopping over the border is the only option.

Or, this could all be an extraordinary Obama ploy to discard his marginalized secretary of state.  That’s if there’s any traction to the so-far unconfirmed rumors that Hillary Clinton is heading back to try to win the governorship of her not-really home state.

As for her 2000 opponent, Rick Lazio could angle for a rematch.  The problem is that he mostly got votes from conservatives when he ran for the Senate because he wasn’t the former First Lady, not because he agreed with them on everything.

So, wow, could Rudy Giuliani be the best hope for change?  He may not run, and he might make Lazio look like a right-winger by comparison on some social issues.  But he would be more than a governor: Giuliani would be in charge.

It’s more about personal style than partisanship.  This state has been ruined by closed-room shenanigans throughout recent history, but the dodgy shenanigans would end if the erstwhile mayor got promoted.  Giuliani isn’t going to let someone like Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver bully him into compromising on anything, especially pertaining to how much of our money to waste.

Giuliani’s just-maybe potential run might be perfectly timed: it would coincide with an election that’s looking to represent voters’ collective breaking point.  As with national-level politics, New Yorkers could finally demonstrate that they’re sick of a government that tells them what to do when it’s not spending much of their money.

They may have a reasonable chance to alter the gloomy landscape next year, but it depends on the candidate.  The right may be repulsed by numerous Giuliani positions.  But he’s, mildly, a law-and-order type who’s also big on slicing taxes.  Most importantly, he’d run the state instead of letting Albany run him.  If not Giuliani, then yay, go Lazio, although he must show his credentials go beyond being a New York State Republican.

The head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee approached former Gov. George Pataki this week about running for the U.S. Senate in 2010, according to a person who spoke to Pataki about the private meeting.

The person confirmed Tuesday’s meeting in New York City between Pataki and Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who heads the party’s national senate campaign committee. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because he isn’t authorized to comment. Pataki, now in private law practice, hasn’t yet accepted or rejected the idea, the person said. The race would be against Kirsten Gillibrand, who was recently appointed to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton when she became Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

Pataki didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment at his law office. Cornyn’s office referred questions to the committee, which didn’t immediately comment.

Rep. Peter King has already expressed interest in running.

On the surface, Pataki seems like a viable candidate.

The 63-year-old Pataki is a Republican who won three terms in the blue state, beating Democratic icon Mario Cuomo in 1994, still considered one of the nation’s biggest GOP upsets. Pataki served as a moderate Republican, strong on environmental policy and who was credited early in his tenure for turning around state finances and the economy.

He grew up in the lower Hudson Valley, lived in Manhattan as a young lawyer, and bought a home in the Adirondacks.

He never lost a race for elected office and was skilled at beating incumbents.

“You’re talking about a Republican who has won statewide in New York three times and in the last 30 years, only (Sen.) Al D’Amato and George Pataki can say that,” said Steven Greenberg of the Siena College poll “Given that there are so many statewide offices up next year, and not a lot of Republicans who have the stature, the fundraising ability and the prominence statewide, certainly George Pataki would be a formidable candidate.”

Assuming Gillibrand remains the Democrat nominee, and, as the political climate in 2010 appears on the verge of being a very good one for the GOP, Pataki may very well be able to win.

UPDATE: Buffalo Pundit mocks the idea as a sign of desperation of the state GOP…

I cannot stress how apt it is for the state Republicans to be so rudderless that they can only look backward to 90s-era glory days. Gotta run someone for Governor? How about damaged goods Rudy Giuliani? Gotta run someone for Senator? How about damaged goods George Pataki.

Sounds more like veiled fear to me. Pataki is hardly a 90′s era retread. He left office only a couple years ago. This isn’t like back in 2002 when the Democrats ran Walter Mondale for the US Senate in Minnesota after Paul Wellstone’s death. And then there is Frank Lautenberg, being brought out of a 2-year retirement, to run for the US Senate after Robert Torricelli withdrew.

If the object is to win, then putting up a candidate who has won statewide office before is actually nat a bad idea. Pataki may not be an ideal Republican, but he’s worlds better than any Democrat beholden to the Democrat leadership.