NY to Rudy: Help!

While most New Yorkers spent the Fourth of July holiday with family and friends, every member of the state Senate was hauled back into the Capitol for yet another special session to figure out yet another solution to the ongoing Senate leadership crisis. While dysfunction continues, upstate New York suffers disproportionally.

My home district’s state senator, Roy McDonald (R-Saratoga Springs), published an excellent piece in the area’s Saratogian newspaper yesterday, laying out the ramifications of the Senate power-struggle for upstate New Yorkers in particular:

A good place to start would be the day the standstill began. Downstate Senate leadership was prepared to send $90 million into New York City, while rationing a meager $8 million to the communities across upstate New York.

…

At a time when transparency and accountability were key, downstate leadership allowed for the most secretive and closed door budget process that anybody has ever seen. What they passed directly hurt our communities, from health care to school funding and much more. Upstate was left out, plain and simple.

…

The real tragedy is that it has turned into a conflict of upstate versus downstate — we have become David and they have become Goliath. We’re realizing that it’s difficult to survive in the shadow of Goliath, and in the current system, nearly impossible to coexist. Star tax rebate checks have been eliminated, hurting upstate. But at the same time, downstate representatives forced the legislature to pass a Mass Transit Authority (MTA) bailout, sending billions downstate to prevent minimal fee increases for those traveling on the subway system.

In Saratoga Springs and Saratoga County, they stole right out of our pockets, taking $3.3 million and $1.1 million from city and county VLT funding, respectively. In Rensselaer County, the budget slashed funding for the Van Rensselaer Manor nursing home in the amount of $1.5 million. These amounts are only the tip of the iceberg. Tax and fee increases, coupled with funding cuts for programs, came at the worst time for upstate New York taxpayers, while property taxes were not addressed at all.

Senator McDonald, it should be noted, is merely being diplomatic when he refers to “downstate Senate leadership.” This, of course, is but a euphemism for “the Democrats.” And he is right to call them out. His allegations, shared by many upstaters, against the pre-June 8 coup Democrat-controlled state government are legitimate, and include but are not limited to:

• Imposing $2,350 in new taxes on middle class families
• Eliminating STAR Rebate Checks Averaging $200-400 per home
• Taxing upstaters’ Electric and Utility Bills
• Increasing spending by $12 billion
• Passing a disastrous MTA Subway System bailout
• Reneging on their promises to reform the operation of the Legislature
• Refusing to allow a public budget process
• Hurting New York businesses by imposing new fees and taxes
• Failing to act on the Power for Jobs program
• Ignoring the Agricultural Community
• Refusing to provide openness and transparency within the legislative process
• Allocating approximately $8 billion in discretionary spending for 3 New York City leaders

The ongoing New York Senate crisis has produced more than the superficial side-effect of an embarrassing circus facade to the rest of the country; it’s also driving a wedge (as if it was needed) between upstate and downstate (mainly New York City).

There’s a lot going on in upstate New York right now: a special election for the 23rd district’s congressional seat, an imminent visit by Vice President Biden to tout the economic stimulus package, a major address by Governor Paterson this evening (probably to appoint a Lt. Governor, further disturbing the Senate), and even reports from the Democratic gang of four (or sometimes five) that the entire Senate power struggle will resolved this Thursday.

Beneath it all, the entire Empire State has been severely demoralized by a stagnant legislature, a clumsy and ineffective governor, and persistent economic hardship exacerbated, according to The Wall Street Journal, by “progressive ideas” and leadership. It’s not surprising that they’re comparing Albany to Sacramento and Trenton—it’s that bad.

Bottom line: New York, especially upstate, is holding out for a hero. Paging Rudy Giuliani.

-tom

Democracy in Albany 2

The past week and a half in Albany has been one for the history books. Not because of any major legislation the Republicans would’ve introduced after their surprise Senate takeover; quite the contrary. As a result of the June 8th Senate floor coup, New York’s government has come to a complete and total standstill.

To begin, the bipartisan “Senate Reform Coalition” established last Monday is no longer the majority caucus (or even all that bipartisan). One of the two Democrats that had defected to the GOP’s coalition, Queens Senator Hiram Monserrate (the one who slashed his girlfriend), has been wooed back home. The sides are now evenly split, 31-31, without a lieutenant governor to break a tie.

In other words: because of one man’s frantic indecision, the New York State Senate is now suffering worse gridlock than Times Square at rush hour. However, it’s worth keeping in mind that this week’s public enemy was last week’s celebrity.

Between Monday 6/8 and Monday 6/15, Sen. Monserrate was arguably the most important man in New York. The other Democratic defector, Pedro Espada, Jr. of the Bronx, was openly appreciative of his new role as Senate Pro Tempore and clearly had no ambition of undoing his switch. Monserrate was different. Thus, the Democrats and the GOP were forced to spend an entire week sucking up to one of the sleaziest men in the Empire State. After all the panic-driven lobbying, personal phone calls, private meetings and Lord-knows-what-else, Monserrate jumped ship for the second time in seven days.

Monserrate’s reason for re-defection is twofold. First, the main source of his personal aggravation with the Democrats, Senator Malcolm Smith, is no longer their conference leader. Smith has been replaced by Senator John Sampson from Brooklyn, who publicly called Monserrate “my brother” earlier this week. (Last week, Smith’s spokesman called him “a thug.”) Second, it’s widely assumed that the Democrats convinced Monserrate that even if he escapes his felony charge, his career wouldn’t live past 2010 after siding with the Republicans. Only with the Democrats’ full support could Monserrate defeat or deter a primary challenge. It was an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Nevertheless, the remarriage of Senator Monserrate and the Democratic caucus is one of convenience and nothing more, mostly on the part of the latter. The Politcker’s Jimmy Vielkind sums up the Democrats’ attitude perfectly: “We’ll take your vote, Hiram, but don’t look for a hug.” Senator Liz Krueger went on the record to state, “We basically were trapped in our need to get to 31-31 at this point in time.” The coup had handed them sour lemons, Kruger implied, “I think we’re making lemonade.”

But even with an equal number of members as the Senate Reform Coalition, the Democrats are still confined to minority party status after the events of 6/8. After all, the vote to install new leadership can’t be erased from history or simply undone by enough loud protests or empty legal challenges, which the Democrats seemed to be relying upon. Remember, this is the same caucus that, on the day of the coup, adjourned without a vote, sprinted out of the Senate chamber, turned off the lights, and cut the live internet feed in hopes of thwarting the imminent reality of their overthrow. The law, however, has thus far thwarted them.

This past Tuesday, state Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara finally dismissed a ridiculous lawsuit desperately filed by Malcolm Smith seeking to retain his Majority Leader status. Smith had hoped to re-empower himself and his party with the stroke of a judge’s pen. In truth, McNamara’s decision deserves two cheers.

On the one hand, McNamara exercised remarkable judicial restraint by refusing to intrude into what he called “the inner workings of a coequal branch of government.” Thus, the 32-30 vote for new leadership that took place on 6/8 was left unscathed and Smith was denied a title-by-decree. Republican Sen. Dean Skelos, the newly elected Majority Leader, rightly retains his claim to the title, for now, and so does Espada as Senate Pro Tem.

On the other hand, McNamara’s decision puts the entire matter back into the hands of the dueling Senate conferences whose debate has regressed to a junior high ruckus over who gets to sit on student council. The Democrats are stubbornly refusing to even recognize the legitimacy of Skelos or Espada’s leadership roles, which are historically held by the same individual. The Republicans have been trying to hold session, but haven’t been able to attract more than 31 Senators to do so.

In an effort to end the stalemate that moderate Democratic Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. recently called “worse than ever,” each side has produced its own “power-sharing agreement” to bring the crisis to an end. See the Republican and Democratic proposals for yourself.

Capitol Confidential covers the Democrats’ idea:

Senate Democrats proposed a power-sharing plan to Senate Republicans that would include the following provisions:

1. On session days, rotate the position of temporary president between two the parties on a daily basis.
2. The floor leader from the opposition party would preside with opposing temporary president “to provide better balance.”
3. A bipartisan committee of 6 senators, three from each party, to set the session agenda.

PolitickerNY sums the GOP plan:

The Republican proposal would last until 2011. It would leave Republican leader Dean Skelos in the majority leader post and State Senator Pedro Espada Jr., a Democrat, as president pro tempore.

The two would jointly publish an active list of bills, but any member could move to have a bill they sponsored put on the next active list if “a majority of members present and voting agree.”

Further, “any bill on the calendar may be considered on the net active list upon the presentation of a petition signed by the majority of the members elected to the Senate.

(For Sen. Sampson’s plan, see here. He may be alright after all!)

Predictably, neither side has acquiesced. Instead, tensions are rising sharply, especially as the Democrats focus their animosity at Espada, who they seriously, vengefully wish to keep from serving as Senate president.

Yesterday, at 12:29 p.m, GOP and Democratic Senators headed to a meeting in the Capitol. What negotiations, if any, would have come of it remained to be seen. As Majority Leader Skelos put it, “We’re going to have a conversation. That’s it.”

At 1:13 p.m., according to Capitol Confidential, the meeting came to an end after the Democrats walked out:

The Democrats said little as they pushed past reporters.
Klein said there was “no agreement.”
Sampson said, “We’re still negotiating.”

Stay tuned. But get comfortable. The return of the New York Senate may take a while.

Democracy In Albany

Sheer drama took center stage in Albany yesterday. The elements of surprise, betrayal, insurrection and resurrection were in full play as the Republicans retook control of the New York State Senate in what can only be described as a Hollywoodesque coup.

The Democrats were just about to approve (or so they thought) the state’s annual pork barrel spending resolution, according to the Albany Times Union, “in which they took the lions share of money.” Just then, Sen. Tom Libous (R-Binghamton) stood up to demand a vote on a measure that will affect the course of New York politics for some time to come. The motion at hand was simple but stunning: the immediate election of new Senate leadership to reflect the startling new majority caucus, including now-“independent Democrats” Hiram Monserrate of Queens and Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx.

Then the chaos ensued. Presiding Senator Neil Breslin (D-Albany) awkwardly tried his best to stop the motion from being passed and a roll call from even being cast. He even attempted to adjourn the Senate without concurrence from the floor. Eventually, Libous threatened to have Breslin removed from the dais by security lest he refuse to relinquish the chair that would no longer be his. See the drama unfold here and here.

As flustered Democrats stormed out of the Chamber, hoping (assumingly) to invalidate the impending vote for new leadership by their absence, one of the Democratic Senators pulled the light switch. It wasn’t the Republicans, however, that were left in the dark. The New York Times reports:

Asked by a reporter what was occurring, Senator Malcolm A. Smith, leader of the Senate Democrats who was huddled in the hall with his staff, responded, “I’m trying to find out right now.”

A spokesman for Mr. Smith, who lost the titles of majority leader and Senate president in the shakeup, issued a statement later saying that Democrats would challenge the vote, but it was not clear that they had grounds to do so.

There was no ground to stand on. Sen Smith arguably already knew this, since he was visibly playing nice before the evening news cameras as he kept referring to Espada and Monserrate as “my friends and colleagues.” Perhaps Smith should have said something to his spokesman Austin Shafran, who referred to Espada and Monserrate as “a thug and a thief” just a little while earlier in the evening. Whoops!

Smith’s office also released a statement that he in fact was still Majority Leader. But that was just nonsense on the part of the Democrats. Yes, they were outraged. Yes, they were deeply offended and downright embarrassed. But all the talk of legal challenges to the Republicans’ parliamentary coup d’état yesterday honestly has made them look just plain ridiculous. The Times sums David Paterson’s juvenile reaction in a sentence:

The governor also said “I will not allow this,” but then conceded that there was nothing he could do to stop it.

Indeed. In perhaps the wildest day in Albany since former Gov. Eliot Spitzer was outed as “client no. 9,” the New York Democratic Party was once again badly burned. Last time, at least they could say that an unpopular governor has been hoisted off their shoulders. This silver lining is harder to find this time around. After barely five months in charge, the NY Senate Democrats are back in the Minority ranks where, before January, they spent the past 40 years.

By the end of the exciting episode, Senator Dean Skelos (R-Long Island) was once again sworn in as new Senate Majority Leader while Espada was officially made President Pro Tem, just a heartbeat away from the Governorship.

The events that transpired yesterday will beget serious consequences and inquiries:

* Who was the mastermind behind the revolt? That would be Tom Golisano, billionaire political activist from Rochester and three-time candidate for governor, who has taken up the cause of “making Albany more open” and curtailing Democratic legislation that he considers anti-business. Shortly after the power switch, Skelos appeared before the press with Golisano and thanked him publicly for his organizational efforts. According to the Times Union, “he began the process of pushing for change two months ago.”
* Why did Espada and Monserrate defect? They were already part of the moderate “gang of four” (with Sens. Carl Kruger and Ruben Diaz Sr.) that had grown quite disgruntled with Sen. Smith’s leadership and behavior in the budget process, and deplored both Smith and Paterson’s push for gay marriage. Both downstate Democrats were ripe for the picking, and according to one Republican staffer in the Capitol, “Golisano got to them, and they seized the opportunity.”
* What is the future of gay marriage in New York? According to several Democrats I’ve spoken with: “It’s dead.”
* What does the future hold for Espada and Monserrate? Nothing promising. Both come from districts where elections are generally decided in the Democratic primary. They’ll most likely lose their seats in 2010—if they make it that far. Monserrate is currently facing battery charges for slashing his girlfriend with a broken bottle last year. According to another report, “Espada is being investigated by the attorney general’s office for his role in a health care agency.” If either is convicted, they’ll be removed from office instantly.
* What does the revolt mean for Albany? In the short term, there is going to be a return to massive gridlock, especially in light of the current huge budgetary fiscal situation. In the long run, it might strengthen Paterson’s hand in dealing with the State Assembly and the unions for a more moderate fiscal approach. According to one Democrat, this means “more job cuts, less taxes, which is what I think he wants, but can’t get.”
* What does the revolt mean for 2010? One Republican staffer told me about an expected “domino effect” that will directly affect the imminent special election in NY-23. Now that Senate Democrats are in the minority, upstate Democratic Senator Darrel Aubertine may very well go ahead and run for the McHugh’s old congressional seat. He’s been reportedly mixed about running, but now that he’s in minority rule and likely to face cuts in his budget and staff, there’s a good chance that he’ll take the plunge for Congress. Aubertine won his Senate seat in a super-tight election and has already been placed in the GOP’s crosshairs.
* What about the 2010 census? As one Democratic source told me, “If the Dems control both branches, the NY GOP is royally ****** because the demographic chickens will come home to roost with the loss of population upstate and growth downstate. The GOP base in the Senate and upstate will be gone.” I’m told every Republican office is extremely mindful of this. A worst case scenario could destroy the GOP in New York.
* Any more surprises on the way? Many on both sides of the aisle are wondering whether we’ve seen the last of the party swaps or if more moderates are in the wings and thinking about switching. One Democrat from the Capitol Region told me that “there were 6 other moderates who weren’t there for the vote and who might switch if the incentives are right.” We’ll have to wait and see.

I know that New York City is the city that never sleeps. But Albany, for good and ill, never ceases to amaze.

-tom

NY Governor’s Race – Winnable, but Not by Lazio

The 2010 race for Governor of New York has begun. Its participants are still being sorted out.

Now that former New York Rep. Rick Lazio is seeking to run for Governor of New York, the question is not whom he’ll face in the general—unless something seismic occurs this year, that’s going to be Andrew Cuomo. The real question is who may stop him in a potential GOP primary. Thus, countless New Yorkers from both parties have been asking themselves, “Will Rudy run?”

At the New York GOP’s Annual State Dinner last month, Newt Gingrich admonished the Republicans in attendance to “start running against Cuomo.” The reason is obvious and well known. With a dismal 19% approval rating, Governor David Paterson is increasingly irrelevant and intensely unlikely to remain in office past January 1, 2011. The recent Marist poll explains New Yorkers’ icy feelings: 68% disapprove of his “handling of the economic crisis,” 71% disagree that he’s “changing Albany for the better,” and only 34% believe he “represents all regions of the state.”

In many ways, David Paterson is now in worse shape with his state than George W. Bush was with his country in the final months of his presidency. But unlike for Bush, Paterson’s party and its other members in New York don’t seem to be taking a hit. Despite the Governor’s unpopularity on Election Day, the Democrats still took over the state Senate for the first time in 40 years. Just last month, now-Rep. Scott Murphy trumped Jim Tedisco for now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s old congressional seat. And most recently, a Siena poll revealed that Cuomo, the state’s popular Attorney General who crushes Paterson in a hypothetic primary match-up by 53 points, would potentially beat Rudy Giuliani by 53 to 39 percent.

A lot can change between now and 2010, but a lot can stay the same too. If another year of taxes and budget cuts is what awaits New York, then the state’s voters may end up coming around to hate the whole currently unchecked Democratic Party and not just its SNL-prone messenger. More angry unions, jilted party allies, and divisive votes in the legislature would only put the party’s retentive power in greater jeopardy.

Looking to such a future, Rick Lazio, currently a JPMorgan Chase lobbyist best known for his run against Hillary Clinton for Senator in 2000, has again stepped up to the plate. The New York Daily News reports that he will launch a fundraising committee to begin raising much-needed money as early as next week.

I remember hearing Lazio speak in a relatively close-knit setting last April. He charmed an entire room of young Republican activists who had flocked to upstate New York to dine with him at a conference in Saratoga Springs. He’s likable, energetic, and conservative — very conservative. He’s a great voice for the GOP and even the conservative movement, but as a candidate for statewide office in New York during the Age of Obama, I have my concerns. As Professor Robert Turner (a common source for state/local political analysis at Skidmore College) put it, “I know conservatives really like him… [but] he doesn’t seem like the kind of candidate who can attract independents or moderates. Maybe he’s changed.” We’ll have to see.

So far, Lazio has the vocal support of Mike Long, Chairman of the New York State Conservative Party. Meanwhile, however, many Republicans throughout the state are still waiting for a candidate who can better match Cuomo’s name recognition, political resources, and fundraising capability. That candidate, of course, is Rudy Giuliani. New York State GOP Chairman Joe Mondello has given him until this fall to decide whether he wants to run or not. The sooner the Democrats are faced with a single party-backed opponent, the better.

Almost ten years ago, Lazio replaced a cancer-stricken Giuliani in a bid for higher office — and lost. Nearly a decade later, many on the New York right are hoping to see Rudy step up and take Rick’s place — and score a severely needed win. The only question now is: Will Rudy run?

-tom

After Ny-20, No Excuses For The Gop

The dust in NY-20 has finally, officially settled and state Assemblyman Jim Tedisco has lost the first election of his 26-year career.

By virtually all accounts, this special Congressional race had all the ingredients for a decisive GOP victory. The district had more Republicans than Democrats—70,632 more. Tedisco was a popular conservative commodity, while Democrat Scott Murphy was unknown, flawed, and liberal, unlike his Blue Dog predecessor Kirsten Gillibrand. Furthermore, by the start of the race a slew of liberal legislation had been signed by President Obama and was wholly embraced by Murphy—a surefire blunder in the eyes of conservative upstate New Yorkers, right? Wrong.

To begin, voters in NY-20 actually like Barack Obama, who enjoyed 65% of their approval at the time of last month’s special election. In fact, they supported Obama over John McCain (not to mention Gillibrand over well-known Republican challenger Sandy Treadwell) last November. This is not an excuse for the GOP’s recent loss. In fact, it is yet another layer to a distressful truth that the party must still face.

Furthermore, despite his new status as Congressman-elect, Scott Murphy was not a very impressive candidate, and least in the traditional perspective. And unlike for many races in New York, this Democrat wasn’t “destined to win” anything. It’s worth recalling that upon being introduced to his future constituents less than three months ago, only 25% of voters preferred him over Jim Tedisco.

This was not shocking. Against a challenger with household name status and a record of public service to his fellow upstate New Yorkers, Murphy had neither. In a time of populist resurgence in close-knit rural American settings exactly like NY-20, Murphy debuted as a rich businessman who made his fortunes elsewhere. Right out of the gate, Republicans exposed him as a tax delinquent ala Geithner, Daschle and Rangel. Later on, his anti-ROTC activism at Harvard was revealed while a radio host got him to publicly oppose the death penalty for al Qaeda terrorists. How could this guy ever win?

By far, the better question is actually: How could Jim Tedisco possibly lose? As the Albany Times Union accurately put it last week,

Tedisco had cultivated a public persona that people could relate to: an ordinary guy proud of saying he would never be a millionaire, a scrappy fighter who nevertheless cried at the memory of his hard-working, blue-collar dad.

For voters, if you weren’t one of the thousands that have been reelecting Jim to the Assembly since 1983, you were probably proud to watch him stand up to Eliot Spitzer on everything from “Dirty Tricks” to driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. It’s a testament to Jim’ values and priorities that, unlike Murphy, the only capitalist venture he’s ever embarked upon was when he authored his own book in 1996. On missing children. The only thing that could be considered remotely scandalous in Jim’s past? As rare and implausible as it sounds: Absolutely nothing.

So the question remains: How did Jim Tedisco go from leading his opponent by 21 points to losing the election by at least 400 votes? There are two reasons, and one leads to the other.

If “all politics is local,” as Tip O’Neil famously admonished, then the first half of the blame must be placed on the shoulders of the Tedisco campaign. Having grown up in upstate New York and having worked with members of Jim’s inner circle on many past campaigns, I regret to admit that it was generally painful to watch their decided strategy unfold from here in Washington.

To get a better idea of the Jim Tedisco that I (and thousands of others) knew, watch this quick clip of Jim responding, completely unmanaged and off the cuff, to Governor Paterson’s state of the state address. To get a good idea of the candidate that ultimately ran for Congress, see here. The difference is in substance and style, tenor and tone, and above all else, confidence and authenticity.

While a hefty back-and-forth is currently going on right now throughout the ten counties of NY-20, there are clearly a lot of negative feelings toward the RNC and NRCC. A friend of mine from Warren County was appointed a ward chairman and reports being told by an NRCC strategist from Kentucky (most came from out of state) that his ward “was all taken care off” and implored him not to arrange for any more mailers to be sent to voters. By one week before the election, not a single resident had received a single piece of pro-Tedisco/anti-Murphy literature. Others are still reeling over the embarrassingly awful TV ad the NRCC initially put out, insisting it’s what began repelling voters towards Murphy.

Meanwhile, those who crafted Tedisco’s general message deserve particular criticism. Waiting two weeks to take a stand on the $787 billion stimulus was cowardly and naïve. Trying to depict Scott Murphy as more of a Republican than Jim by labeling him a Wall Street millionaire and attacking his business credentials was weak and ineffective. While constantly shifting gears, Republicans allowed Jim to be absurdly portrayed as “an Albany career politician,” a stale tactic that could’ve been easily countered. But instead of turning the tables and declaring Jim a “lifelong public servant” and attacking Murphy as, perhaps, a “limousine liberal trying to buy an election from a district of voters he’s never served,” the Republicans did nothing.

Overall, Jim’s narrative in this race was inconsistent and constantly lacking enough meat on its bones. To the regret of many, a genuinely conservative citizen politician and noble street brawler unafraid to defend upstate needs against any liberal Goliath was turned into a plastic action figure with an artificial new pose for each passing week. In short, far too many strategists and competing ideas spoiled Jim Tedisco’s broth.

On the other hand, Scott Murphy’s almost-robotic and overplayed message of “jobs, jobs, jobs” actually, to the surprise of many, ended up catching fire. As one lifelong Democrat told me, Murphy was “ruthlessly on message to the point of annoyance.” He said that after attending several Murphy rallies, he actually worried whether the Democrat would last until Election Day on such a tired campaign theme. In the end of course, he didn’t have to worry. Endorsements from every imaginable Democrat, especially Barack Obama, coupled with a super-impressive support network left behind by Kirsten Gillibrand, was more than enough to carry him past the finish line.

But even if, as Skidmore College government professor Bob Turner put it, “300 Manhattan liberals with summer homes up here voted absentee and put Scott Murphy over the top,” why was this race even close to begin with? Why was this congressional seat already in Democratic hands for two terms? 2006 may be explained as a bad year with a heavily flawed Republican incumbent, but why didn’t the GOP win it back two years later with a much cleaner candidate at the top of the ticket? Better yet, why did this district—one of the most conservative in the country—turn its back on well-known and well-liked men such as Jim Tedisco and John McCain and elect liberal Democrats like Scott Murphy and Barack Obama?

The answer is that the Republican Party has lost its once-loyal majority to the Democrats in NY-20, as well as in many other parts of America. Voters who are still registered Republican have simply stopped voting with their party in recent years and cannot even be convinced to come home for strongly assumed “safe candidates” like McCain and Tedisco. In fact, 25% of registered Republicans in NY-20 voted for Barack Obama while 26% claim they would support Andrew Cuomo over Rudy Giuliani for Governor in 2010.

It is because of these lapsed Republicans, in New York and elsewhere, that Washington looks the way it does right now. Yes, these “Obamacans” (or whatever we call them) should be focus-grouped and their reasoning thoroughly analyzed. And yes, the Bush-to-Obama transition has breathed vibrant new vitality into the Democratic Party that has not yet subsided. But beyond NY-20 and George Bush and Barack Obama lays a party and a movement in a coma, dying on life support, in emergency need of new doctors and new treatments.

While we hold therapeutic tea parties and keep looking to the past for inspiration and much-needed energy, liberal Democrats are winning once-unthinkable elections. In Washington, the left is succeeding at turning our country into a drastically more liberal state than the one that made us a global superpower and economic envy of the world. Through it all, the right is barely mounting a credible challenge. It doesn’t have to be like this.

Almost 100 days into this new liberal era, modern conservatism and the movement behind it is still tossing and turning in its sleep, still suffering from a new kind of nightmare. Here’s to NY-20 being the cold splash of water that finally wakes it.

-tom