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.

To fellow jaded New Yorkers who think they’ve heard it all, I humbly offer this: Rick Lazio is the new Scott Brown.

I say this not in a “gray is the new black” kind of way, but to suggest that if he wants to, and if New Yorkers care about who fills David Paterson’s seat, Lazio has the potential to run as a Scott Brown and, yes, win as a Scott Brown.

Allow me to refresh your snow- and scandal-addled memory: Brown was the overlooked Republican dark horse who delivered to Massachusetts Democrats the political equivalent of the Boston Massacre, unexpectedly defeating Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

Don’t believe that Lazio could do the same? Get in line. Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein told me only a rare kind of Republican can get elected governor of New York right now, and “Lazio’s not that guy.” Indeed, the idea that New Yorkers would vote for a right-winger like Lazio when there’s potentially (gasp!) a Cuomo heir to the throne is more than anathema – it’s absurd.

But Paterson’s long string of bizarre scandals, would-be scandals and nonscandals may keep Andrew Cuomo tied up in the attorney general’s office for the next couple of months, possibly precluding a run. To this, Gerstein scoffed, “There’s less of a chance of Eliot Spitzer being the next governor than of Andrew Cuomo not running.”

According to S.E.. it doesn’t matter who is running, Rick Lazio has a chance to win, and Lazio has a chance, “and Scott Brown is the reason why.”

I had faith in Rick Lazio before Scott Brown. I was impressed when I interviewed him last year, and I definitely agree that Scott Brown’s victory underscores the point that this year all Democrats are vulnerable. As Cuomo lingers on as a non-candidate, Lazio is out their alone campaigning for the job Cuomo is apparently not interested enough in to pursue right now. Cuomo, if he runs, may not make the same mistakes that Martha Coakley did, but he’s making other mistakes now, by not jumping in, and giving Lazio more press time for being the only declared candidate.

In the past couple weeks, I have heard Lazio’s name on the radio a lot more than usual. He’s been vocal about the ethical cloud over Albany, and was calling on Paterson to quit days ago. His name is getting out there much quicker, and the longer Cuomo hides behind this investigation the more likely voters will be put off by his avoidance.

Time will tell what will happen. New York is definitely not GOP territory, but even Scott Brown didn’t surge until the last month of the campaign. Rick Lazio is only candidate in the race, and is the only person who has shown the leadership necessary to fix this state. I agree with S.E..

It is amusing that the left refuses to take any lessons from from Scott Brown’s victory two weeks ago. They foolishly see his victory as a reason to reasses their strategy for getting health care passed, not a reason to reasses the legistation.

Hey, fine by me. If they choose to ignore the implications of the Massachusetts Miracle, that’s fine, they’ll just lose more seats in November.

Liman, sees fit to ignore to implications.

What we know about Taxachusetts is that fewer than 15 percent of its state legislators are Republicans, all their Representatives to Congress are Democrats, they haven’t elected a Republican to the US Senate since 1967, and they provide near-universal healthcare coverage for their own population. So what gives here?

Easy. The health care system in Massachusetts, signed into law by Mitt Romney (which I was very unhappy about when it happened), is only a few years old, cost way more than originally estimated and hasn’t increased access to or the quality of healthcare.

Yes, the economy was a major issue in the campaign, and Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly made a big mess out of it. But, Scott Brown specifically campaigned as the anti-Obamacare candidate — the 41st vote, if you will — and that message won over independents, and nearly a quarter of Democrats. It the final days of the campaign, voters were being told that if Scott Brown won, Obamacare would be dead. 

And of course, while Liman is willing to trust a poll commissioned by the AFL-CIO and done by a Democrat polling company, an election night Rasmussen poll found that indeed, health care was a top issue.

Health care has been a huge issue in this election. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Brown voters say it was the most important issue in determining their vote. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Coakley voters say health care was the top issue: 

But maybe Liman is right, it wasn’t a referendum on just health care… but Obama’s entire agenda. Polls regularly showed voters opposed to government intervention in the economy, opposed to trying terrorists in the country, etc, etc. There was an undeniable resounding rejection of the key aspects of Obama’s agenda.

Yes, Obama’s personal approval rating in Massachusetts, is pretty good, but one thing  worth noting is that his approval ratings have a noticeable disconnect between support for his agenda, which is a lot lower. Though the two are getting closer together as his personal approval numbers plummet…

The left can pretend that there is widespread support for Obamacare, but that will only contribute to them losing more seats in November. If Liman and the rest of the Obamabots want to pretend Scott Brown’s victory wasn’t a referendum on Obamacare and Obama, they do so at their own peril.

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.

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.

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who famously hammered then-Sen. Alfonse D’Amato for calling him a “putz-head” in their hot 1998 campaign, was accused Thursday of stepping into the gutter himself after he sent out a fundraising e-mail in which he called Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown a “far-right tea-bagger.”  

The two-term Democrat, in accusing Brown of being aligned with the conservative “tea party” movement, used a term that every tea party critic knows refers to a sexual act. 

“Chuck has a way of saying things that I don’t think he really understands or means, and it’s unfortunate,” Brown told Fox News Thursday when asked about the e-mail. “I’m not into name-calling. … so shame on Chuck.”

Liberal television hosts had a field day with the “tea bag” term last year when the tea party movement gained steam. It seemed to lose its luster after the joke got old, but Schumer brought it back as he urged supporters to vote for Democrat Martha Coakley in next Tuesday’s high-stakes special election. 

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

Looks like Democrats are stooping to new lows out of desperation, as a new poll show Scott Brown 4 points ahead in that race.

As much as I agree that Chris Collins should have known better with his recent remarks, I find his comments far less objectionable (because they were made in jest) than the deliberate and derogatory comments made by Senator Schumer toward the female flight attendant or Scott Brown.

Sadly, far left-wing bloggers and media pundits have incessantly used the pornographic term “tea-baggers” to the point that Schumer’s comment will likely be defended by the same people who are ripping Chris Collins for some poor taste in jokes. Of course, the term in inappropriate for pundits, and even worse to be used by a U.S. Senator about someone who is on the verge of becoming one of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate.