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.

I hate to even give attention to someone who most people hoped would enjoy even less post-scandal success than his loathsomely untalented call girl.  But public disgust wasn’t enough to stop him from climbing out of the sewer in order to discuss his potential aspirations.

To be specific, a recent New York Post story about an interview the classy trick conducted with Fortune reveals that he is itching to, sigh, again win election in the Empire State:

For the first time, Eliot Spitzer is acknowledging in an interview with Fortune what The Post first reported last year – that he is itching for a way back into politics and, even at this late date, hasn’t totally closed the door on a race this year.

I’ve never appreciated David Paterson so much before.  Of course, the incumbent can only seem appealing by comparison to a somehow more disagreeable leader, such as, oh, his predecessor.  While Paterson can be thankful for his atrocious opening act, the rest of the state can be fearful of possibly seeing Spitzer’s name on a ballot:

The excerpt adds, “Spitzer muses with friends and advisers about political targets. He views New York’s U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand as a lightweight.

Well, get in line, although I’d prefer Tracy Flick if forced to take sides.  Still, that’s like choosing between fighting on the pirate ship or jumping overboard and dealing with scuba ninjas.  Spitzer might attempt to remain instate if he doesn’t aim for the Senate, which is bad news for those at least hoping he would leave New York more frequently:

In the office of New York state comptroller, he sees a chance to become a national force, wielding the billions held in public pension funds to force corporate reform in a way that even lawsuits and regulation cannot. (‘It is the great underutilized position in government right now,’ says Spitzer.)”

Yep, the one thing we need at present is a politician who wants to order around businesses.  Maybe he can team with fellow prostitute enthusiast Barney Frank to once again bring ruin to the economy via governmental pushiness; of course, they’ll hold a joint press conference afterward where they blame the ensuing financial collapse on Wall Street.

By pretending that this most irritating of recessions was provoked by corporate greed, corporate fat cats, and the like instead of the feds actively hawking subprime mortgages, Spitzer demonstrates that he hasn’t learned a thing during his time between jobs.

As for his time in Albany, the constant, boring crusade against typical left-wing antagonists demonstrated why he was unpleasant far before his taste for pricey hookers came to the public’s attention.

Will that public even think of voting for him?  Given the present distaste for national-level politicians representing Spitzer’s party, Democrats can’t be excited about supporting a committed ultra-liberal weighed down with baggage. 

That astoundingly scummy personal behavior still peaks through.  Spitzer treats the woman who tried to melt his brains with heat ray vision as she stood beside him on Resignation Day in the same condescending manner as he does the public:

Sources have told The Post that Spitzer months ago discussed with his wife, Silda, the possibility of running this year, and she was not up for the idea so soon after the national scandal that proved very difficult on their family.

Spitzer himself seems to acknowledge that in the interview, regardless of how difficult it may be, telling [interviewer Peter] Elkind, “Right now, I can tell you I have a family that is in one piece … That’s a measure of success after what we went through.”

There’s one crucial word in his quote: what’s this “We” nonsense?  There was a single driving force behind what your household “went through,” Mister Ex-Governor: it was all you.  The bystanders he refers to as family were dragged through a sordid crisis through absolutely zero fault of their own, and it all took place in public thanks to his career choice.

But nothing is ever Spitzer’s fault.  His gratuitous self-righteousness was reflected by his overbearing political style while residing in the state capital: portraying corporations as villainously greedy hordes, planning to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses,  and trying to push gay marriage on the state were simply the most prominent reflections of his willingness to further his radical agenda by swinging political power like a club.

Meanwhile, he wants you to trust him despite his utter inability to control himself.  Forcing his activist views upon the public is his life’s pursuit.  That whole act-the-way-he-did-and-resign bit was apparently merely meant to serve as a bad example to the corporations he wants to again intimidate.

Spitzer’s desire to boss around other people while exempting himself from any ethical codes is the purest form of overcompensation, particularly as a representative of a political movement that spends its free time searching for examples of Republican hypocrisy.  He’s the worst kind of political creep, and he wants your vote.  I’m already irritated by the revival of Client Number Nine jokes.

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.

So, what does this race mean for us in New York? Well, for starters, Obamacare is pretty much dead. Regardless of whether Scott Brown is the 41st vote or not, Democrats across the country have been sent a clear message: Support this plan at your own risk. When the people expect their leaders to represent their interests, and they ignore them, the people revolt.

Was it even conceivable even a month ago that the seat long held by Ted Kennedy would be filled by a Republican? Ted Kennedy was the head cheerleader for government-run healthcare, and even his hometown voted for the man who promised to stop government-run healthcare.

I see potential for Republican takeovers in two statewide races:

The Governor’s Race. This makes Cuomo’s currently lead in the poll almost meaningless. Don’t believe me, it only took about a month for Martha Coakley to go from 30 points up to losing by 5 points. In a midterm election in a year looking to be very big for Republicans, I think once Cuomo enters the race, his best days will be behind him.

The U.S. Senate. Kirsten Gillibrand was vulnerable before Tuesday and is even more vulnerable now. The right Republican candidate can take the seat back from the moderate Democrat who came to Washington only to become another left-winger in lockstep with Harry Reid. I don’t know if Bruce Blakeman is the man to defeat her, but any Republican who will vote against the unpopular agenda being pushed by Reid, Obama, and Pelosi has a chance to win.

Obama Is Lame Duck. Virginia. New Jersey. Massachusetts. Obama’s star power has disappeared. His political capital is spent. Martha Coakley and Barack Obama tried to tie Scott Brown to Bush/Cheney and the people of Massaschesetts rejected Coakley, who tied herself to Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy. What more evidence do you need that

The Left-Wing Hate Machine. Paying close attention to the special election in Massachusetts, it was clear to me that the Democratic Party is fueled by hate. It was illuminating to see how much disdain they have for the voters, and for those who have the audacity to oppose their agenda. The left smeared Scott Brown mercilessly. For them, that was easier than being positive about Coakley. Coakley herself showed disdain for voters by not campaigning early on and lying through her teeth when she did. She went negative when she saw the polls shift. Brown kept things positive and the people responded. If campaigns were more civil, and not all about gotcha politics, things would be so much better.

So, the Massachusetts Miracle is a warning to Democrats that their left-wing agenda will be their downfall. Independents who elected Obama nationally have turned their backs on him in favor of commonsense policies of smaller government. They are finding the solutions to today’s problems in the policies proposed by the Republican Party.

Tuesday was just the tip of the iceberg. There’s a red wave on the horizon, and it’s moving across the country.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is expected to announce Tuesday he is not running for U.S. Senate or anything else in 2010, effectively ending his storied – and often stormy – electoral career, The Daily News has learned.

The announcement, at which he’ll also endorse Republican Rick Lazio for governor, marks the end of a year-long political dance by Giuliani, who mulled bids for governor and then Senate before backing away from both.

He had reason to weigh each run: surveys showed him a clear favorite to win primaries for either office, and as recently as last week a poll showed Giuliani crushing freshman Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand by 10 points.

So, the GOP’s best hope to take a vital seat in the U.S. Senate is gone.

Kirsten Gillibrand must be thrilled.

Now, I suspect this is partially due to his ill-advised intention to run for president again.

I don’t know what Rudy is thinking. Next year is looking to be as good a year for Republicans as 1994 was.  The public is souring rapidly on both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. This is a very winnable seat for him… but, he has no chance at the GOP Presidential nomination,

UPDATE: I know there are some who believe that since Rudy is “a RINO,” or “not a true conservative” then this news is good news. While I totally agree that it is important and vital to support conservative candidates, if people in the Tea Party movement would rather have Kirsten Gillibrand in the U.S. Senate than Rudy Giuliani, then the Tea Party movement is doing more harm than good. While I would fully support Rudy for the U.S. Senate, I would not (and did not) support him running for president.

Not all victories have to look the same. Every election doesn’t have to be about electing 100% conservative candidates. Some victories must mean booting out the pawns of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, If electing Rudy Giuliani would mean Harry Reid would have one less vote to support the radical left-wing agenda of Barack Obama, that’s still a victory for liberty.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has decided against running for governor, but is strongly considering running for U.S. Senate instead, sources told the Daily News.

The Republican heavyweight was considered the GOP’s best shot at reclaiming the governor’s mansion.

The only declared candidate on the Republican side is little-known former Long Island Rep. Rick Lazio.

One source said Giuliani is prepared to run for U.S. Senate against Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010 to fill out the remaining two years of Hillary’s Clinton’s term.

But a number of sources close to the former mayor said no decision has been made and a Giuliani spokeswoman downplayed the reports.

This is good for a number of reasons. For one thing, polls showed he can beat Gillibrand. So, at the very least, his running for the U.S. Senate will force Democrats no invest time, money, and energy on what would normally be a safe seat.

The next reason is that if Giuliani runs for the U.S. Senate, this help Rick Lazio’s gubernatorial campaign… just by having both names on the general election ballot. With Barack Obama reminding voters daily why the GOP needs to be back in power, and certainly with New York Democrats running the state into the ground, the opportunities to make gains in the Empire State are very much real.

One rumor is that Giuliani is to run for Senate with the goal of using that as a springboard for running for president again in 2012 rather than run for reelection. This, I have to say, bothers me. If Rudy is gonna run for Senate, I want him to promise to run for and serve at least one full term.

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.

It all has to do with the Senate voting to cut off housing funding for ACORN, an enterprise that has shifted from merely sleazily corrupt to comically insane. Following the Andrew Breitbart-led ACORN smacking, 83 senators voted to slash the depraved community group’s allowance. Alas, Gillibrand was one of seven senators who thought the hooker enablers still deserve the government’s money. It’s not precisely the best example of her bravely standing up against the majority.

What’s most frustrating is that she made her name as an occasionally centrist-minded representativebeloved by the National Rifle Association. She was one Democrat whom the right could find marginally agreeable, especially considering she filled Hillary Clinton’s place. In fact, conservatives may have even considered backing her when she actually ran for statewide office depending on how liberal of a candidate the Republicans field. If nothing else, it seemed that she would have been intermittently on their side.

Instead, she’s irritating conservatives while probably not doing enough to appease members of the left outraged over her rebellious ways. Maybe she deserves a little slack. After all, she’s trying to figure out how to win her first election for the seat she’s currently holding; it’s a situation that she of course shares with David Paterson, the governor who appointed her.

Either way, Gillibrand has chosen her course: she obviously thinks tilting quite heavily to the left will help her win the 2010 primary. If that’s her strategy, all she’ll have to do until then is continue to discard her old ideals. It’s tough to surmise another reason why she would support an organization that keeps getting caught helping pimps and hos avoid paying taxes. Oh, and they were also willing to facilitate importing underage El Salvadoran sex slaves. Political observers will be keen to ascertain if her “alienate basically every voter in the state” policy pays off.