‘America’s Mayor’ apparently is going to bypass a run for the NY governorship and turn his sights toward ousting Kirsten Gillibrand (who was appointed to the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton).

Here’s the story from the WaPo:

After months of relative quiet regarding the political future of former mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), the New York newspapers have exploded this afternoon with reports that not only has he decided not to run for governor in 2010 but that he plans to enter the Senate race against Kirsten Gillibrand instead.

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Giuliani, released a statement insisting that no decisions — about the Senate or governors races — have been made; “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own,” added Comella.

According to conversations with several Giuliani insiders, the Mayor has not made up his mind yet although a run for either governor or Senate is not likely. Interestingly, a Senate bid appears to be the more likely choice if Giuliani decides to get back into the political game, note the sources.

This is definitely an interesting turn of events. It looked like a Giuliani-Cuomo match-up was developing in New York (notwithstanding Cuomo having to challenge incumbent David Patterson). But from the sound of it, Rudy is opting to go for the presumably easier seat to win.

Honestly, for Republicans this is probably the preferable choice. The Senate seat is needed far more than the governor’s mansion considering what this administration and the Democrats in Congress are trying to foist upon us.

One thing is for certain – a Rudy senate run only makes 2010 that much more interesting.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

In the New Jersey governor’s race, Independent candidate Chris Daggett remains the unknown factor. Some polls have shown Daggett with as much as 15% of the vote. But my intuition tells me Christie’s recent attacks on Daggett have hurt him and with Corzine and Christie within the margin of error, many voters will not waste their vote on him upon entering that voting booth. As such I don’t see Daggett getting more than double digits – and I see long-suffering New Jersey taxpayers breaking toward Christie in what will be a squeaker. Final result: Christie 48%, Corzine 46%, Daggett 6%.

In Virginia, a swing state that turned Obama blue last year, we will witness a 180 degree turn. Republican Bob McDonnell will win in a landslide over Democrat Creigh Deeds. Prediction: McDonnell 56%, Deeds 44% 

Well, in NY-23, Dede Scozzafava was forced out of this race by conservatives who said she was too liberal. Now, she has proven us quite right with her endorsement of the liberal Bill Owens over conservative Doug Hoffman (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?). In any case, with Scozzafava remaining on the ballot one would expect her to still receive some votes. So my prediction for this race is for a Hoffman victory, albeit much closer than recent races in this district. Final results: Hoffmann 51%, Owens 45%, Scozzafava 4%.

Great news today for conservatives. Dede Scozzafava is suspending her campaign.

Scozzafava suspends campaign
By Tony Romm – 10/31/09 10:37 AM ET
State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) announced on Saturday she would suspend her campaign to fill former Rep. John McHugh’s open House seat, citing dismal poll numbers just days before the much-hyped special election.
Her exit from the race offers serious momentum to Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who has stolen from Scozzafava a slew of important GOP endorsements and donations in recent weeks.

“Today, I again seek to act for the good of our community,” Scozzafava wrote in a letter to supporters, obtained by the Watertown Daily Times. “It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so.”

“I am and have always been a proud Republican,” Scozzafava added. “It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.”

This is also a victory of the conservative blogosphere which exposed Scozzafava and put the pressure on for her to step aside..

Michael Illions was one of many bloggers today across the right-wing spectrum to call for Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the NY District 23 House race. The movement to call for Scozzafava’s withdrawal, though, started brewing earlier this week.  Here’s a little background.

Over at NRO, Jim Geraghty did a piece on the NY-23 House race on Monday in the Campaign Spot. In that piece, Geraghty contended that conservatives ought not fault the NRCC and RNC for supporting a Republican chosen by the local party.

This is not a defense of Scozzafava. I’m just saying it’s a contradiction if a conservative denounces the National Republican Senatorial Committee, when it backs Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio and Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey (yeah, that one went well), for not letting Republican grassroots have their say, and then denounces the NRCC and RNC when they try to help Scozzafava win. In this case, the NRCC and RNC are backing the choice of the local party, after the choice has been finalized. It may be a lousy choice, but you rarely if ever see national parties overruling the selection of local parties; once you open that door, you face the question of how often these national committees get to exercise a veto over the local parties’ selection.

Two days later, though, Geraghty changed his tune after Scozzafava had a run-in with Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack. Geraghty explains:

Earlier this week, I was noting that it was unrealistic for conservatives to expect national Republican committees, like the RNC and National Republican Congressional Committee, to do anything but back the Republican in New York’s special congressional election.

But the situation has changed.

It’s not just the inanity of Dede Scozzafava’s campaign calling the cops on a reporter; it’s doubling down and calling McCormack a liar. With audiotape now exposing the Scozzafava campaign as the liar in their account of the candidate’s interaction with John McCormack, it’s a different ballgame. I’m actually finding myself driven to a position beyond the editors.

It’s time for the NRCC and RNC to cut their ties, and more. It’s embarrassing enough when a candidate won’t answer reasonable questions from reasonable press and her campaign attempts to smear them in order to cover up their mess. Forwarding McCormack’s e-mails to Talking Points Memo just shows how upside-down the Scozzafava campaign is.

The time has come for the RNC and NRCC to ask for their money back. This goes well beyond any reasonable difference on policy. There’s room in the party for pro-choice Republicans and pro-gay-marriage Republicans and maybe even the odd pro-card-check Republican. But not this kind of arrogance, this kind of clumsy dishonesty, this kind of reckless hostility to a reporter and a publication that need not be an enemy.

The RNC and NRCC are better than the Scozzafava campaign. It’s time for them to demonstrate that they know how a candidate and her staff are supposed to react when asked a question, and to show that Scozzafava’s team’s behavior is just not acceptable.

Well, this represented the last straw for many in the right-wing blogosphere, prompting several sites this morning, starting with Red County, Red State and the American Spectator (Quinn Hilyer), to call for Scozzafava to withdraw. Red County, in particular, led the way on this starting with a post this morning from Joshua Sharf. A flurry of posts followed on Red County including here, here, here and here.

Red State and the American Spectator were also among the first to call for Scozzafava’s withdrawal. From there, the calls for withdrawal spread quickly. As Michael mentioned, all of the following outlets also joined the bandwagon: RightWingNews.com. Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com. The Washington Examiner. The Washington Times. Michelle Malkin also got on board.

All of this goes to show just how powerful this medium called blogging has become; and how bloggers, when working in concert, can affect change. In the past, a candidate like Scozzafava would have flown well under the radar. Her views not known to the rest of us until well after the horse was out of the barn. Now, we have the power to fight back when our party puts forth wholly unworthy candidates who do not uphold any of the core values the party stands for.

One can only hope that Mrs. Scozzafava now does the right thing and steps aside. In fact, that would be the only way to show any last bit of true allegiance to the party whose banner she now is running under.

So, what say you Lib media? Bill Cosby? Maureen Dowd? JIMMY CARTER? Are the Democrats all racists for opposing David Paterson and telling him to get the heck out of the way? Or can only Republicans who oppose a black man be racist?

ALBANY, N.Y. – Gov. David Paterson isn’t scrapping his plans to run for the office he inherited 18 months ago despite growing pressure from Washington and intervention by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has contacted the governor and the White House over his concern.

A senior Democratic adviser close to Paterson said Sunday that the state’s first black governor is still planning to run and is focusing on the state’s fiscal crisis. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak for Paterson.

The governor’s office has refused to comment since reports Saturday night revealed the Washington-based effort to persuade the governor to drop out of the 2010 race. That would pave the way for the far more popular Andrew Cuomo, the state’s first-term attorney general.

The Rev. Al Sharpton said Sunday on his radio show that he has spoken to the White House and Paterson about his concern that Democrats do what is best for the people of New York. He wouldn’t say whether he was advising Paterson to drop out.

Obama has not spoken to Paterson about the race, said a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive political matter. But it’s no secret that Democrats — in New York, in Washington and at the White House — are very concerned about Paterson’s re-election bid.

The White House has not ordered Paterson to leave the race and would not do so, the official continued, saying only the governor can make the decision about what’s right for him, the party and the state. But Obama’s concern of losing the governor’s office in such a key state has been communicated to Paterson and his advisers, the White Office official said.

Another senior Democratic adviser in New York said those seeking Paterson’s withdrawal are suggesting he could land a Washington job in the administration. The adviser spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official wasn’t authorized to speak for Paterson or the New York congressional delegation.

Read the rest HERE.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY MEMBERS ASK NEW YORK TO

RESCIND DISCRIMINATORY TOLL HIKE ON NEW JERSEY

 

NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SET TO

DISCONTINUE E-ZPASS DISCOUNTS FOR NEW JERSEY DRIVERS

 

            Five Assembly Republicans sent a letter to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, asking the New York agency to rescind a policy that will discriminate against New Jersey motorists.

 

            Beginning July 12, E-ZPass users who did not purchase accounts through New York agencies will be charged the same rate as cash-paying customers. That means New Jersey E-ZPass users will face a 30 percent toll hike this month while those with New York accounts will have a 10 percent increase.

 

            “Although anyone may register for E-ZPass in New York , this decision discriminates against the multitude of New Jersey residents who already have registered for accounts in their home state,” the letter states.

 

            A copy of the letter – signed by several Republican northern New Jersey Assemblymen including Assembly Transportation committee member Scott T. Rumana, Republican Leader Alex DeCroce, Assemblyman Jay Webber, Assemblyman John Rooney and Assemblyman David C. Russo – is attached.

Meanwhile, where is our Dear Governor on this issue? Is he standing up for New Jersey drivers, particularly those who have to commute into New York for their livelihood? As usual, he’s nowhere to be found.

Cross-posted at Red County and Conservatives with Attitude!

Rep. Charles Rangel Friday warned of “racial polarization” if Attorney General Andrew Cuomo challenges Gov. Paterson in a primary next year.

Rangel, who is close to the poll-challenged Paterson, ripped Cuomo on New York 1 last night for flatly not ruling out a run for governor next year.

“You cannot support the governor, prepare for reelection and at the same time say that you’re keeping your options open for a primary,” Rangel said.

Cuomo has repeatedly said he expects to run for reelection, but has noted that next year is a long way off.

Should Cuomo run, Rangel said, it would create a divide that could be “devastating” to New York Democrats.

“I think that there might be an inclination for racial polarization in a primary in the state of New York,” Rangel said.

“Since we have most African-Americans registered as Democrats, and since you would be making an appeal for Democrats, it would be devastating in my opinion.”

Paterson, of course, was appointed to the governorship after Elliot Spitzer’s sex scandal led him to resign. However, since taking over, Paterson has grown increasingly unpopular. His budget proposals, laden with increases in taxes and fees, have not been well-received.

So, according to Rangel, a Cuomo challenge would be racially polarizing. How this is not dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck, I don’t know. Just what is the meaning behind Rangel’s statement?

• Is Rangel saying an incompetent governor, or any governor for that matter, is above a challenge merely because he is black?
• Is he saying that black voters within his own party would not understand the reasons for Paterson being challenged?
• Is he saying black voters are all drones who vote in lock step?
• Is he saying black voters in the Democratic Party will revolt because a white man challenged a black incumbent?

It’s hard not to read at least some of the above into Rangel’s comments, none of which can be viewed as anything but race baiting.

However, it’s also quite ironic to witness this kind of politics play out within the Democratic Party. After all, this is how Democrats like use race to attack Republicans. In fact, it’s not really any different than the warnings from Democrats or liberals in the media for Republicans not to oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court now, is it?

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

And just who happend to be the first tenant once the name was changed? The Chinese government.

First to sign on

The change came after board members voted to sign a 21-year lease deal with Vantone Industrial Co., a Chinese real estate giant, which will become the first commercial tenant at Ground Zero. It plans to create the China Center, a trade and cultural facility, in 191,000 square feet on floors 64 through 69.

The negotiations with Vantone, which is closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist government, had nothing to do with the name change, PA officials insisted, but was based primarily on bottom-line marketing considerations.

Despite a five-year global hunt and millions of dollars plowed into marketing efforts, until the Chinese deal was inked, the PA had failed to snag a single private-sector tenant at Ground Zero. It has tentatively lined up a number of state and federal agencies to take big chunks of space.

The Daily News editorialized on this a few weeks back. Here is their commentary:

When you’ve broken your promises on everything else to do with redeveloping Ground Zero, it’s no big deal to discard the name by which the public has come to know the iconic skyscraper at the heart of the plan.

When you’ve engaged in massive schemes to lie about costs and when you have failed to meet every solemnly pledged construction deadline, tossing a name like Freedom Tower is child’s play.

You just do it. Because there’s no need to consult the public. Because you’re the mighty Port Authority – and you damn well say and do what you please.

So, when your marketing team says it prefers to sell the building to prospective tenants as 1 World Trade Center rather than as the Freedom Tower, you give them the green light.

Apparently, “Freedom” doesn’t test-market very well when you’re trying to draw tenants from all parts of the globe. Including from Communist China, an arm of which has just leased more than five floors of the building to house a “China Center.” This is planned as a locus of Sino-American commerce.

The name Freedom Tower came into popular use on April 24, 2003, when then-Gov. George Pataki and the Port Authority established a timetable for Ground Zero construction.

The Freedom Tower would soar its full 1,776 feet by Sept. 11, 2005, and be ready for tenants by early 2008.

A permanent PATH train station would be open in 2006.

A new Fulton St. subway complex would be done by 2007.

There would be direct rail service from downtown to Long Island and JFK Airport by 2013.

None of that came true. None of that will be done for years, if ever. The Port Authority made a liar out of Pataki on every project it was responsible for. And now the imperious, unaccountable agency has dropped the last vestige of the past, as if erasing history.

It and its new tenant should be quite comfortable with each other.

To say this is a disgusting, outrageous insult to every person who died on 9/11 and, really, to every American citizen doesn’t even go far enough.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Mayor Bloomberg is threatening to lay off up to 7,000 city workers, saying municipal unions and state officials haven’t done enough to help New York balance its budget.

Budget Director Mark Page told agency heads Wednesday to cut $350 million from their budgets, saying previous cuts of $3.1 billion starting July 1 weren’t enough.

“This next step would most likely rely heavily on additional head count reductions, whether through attrition or, as is more likely, through layoffs,” Page wrote.

“It is expected that these savings could result in a reduction of as many as 7,000 positions citywide.”

Bloomberg’s press team refused to discuss the letter.

“While it’s a letter addressed to the agency heads, it’s a message being sent to the union leaders,” said Charles Brecher of the Citizens Budget Commission, “and to a certain extent the state Legislature.”

The mayor has asked municipal unions to pay for 10% of their health care costs and find additional health cost reductions to save $557 million and avoid layoffs.

A massive budget backlash came to lower Manhattan on Thursday. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers marched on City Hall, rallying to stop proposed funding cuts.

The rally cries of labor unions, community groups and families outside City Hall could be heard throughout lower Manhattan. Desperation for an economic lifeline brought out more than 50,000 people along several blocks of Broadway in a self-described “Rally For New York.”

Their message for Gov. David Paterson came in the form of booming chants:

“No more cuts! No more cuts!”

Everyday New Yorkers had their own personal messages for the governor as well.

“Governor Paterson, I wish you could have an open heart that we are going to suffer if this budget cut goes through,” said China Lankford of Jamaica.

Paterson has proposed closing a $15 billion state budget gap by making cuts across the board,
including $2.5 billion in education, $3.2 billion in health care and billions more in cuts to vital programs such as senior services, disability services, housing assistance and crisis intervention programs.

Protestors insisted Thursday that there’s a better way. They’re asking for what they call “fair tax reform” — raising state taxes for New Yorkers making $250,000 or more on top of the president’s proposed hikes.

“For those of you who prosper during boom time, we ask them pay a little bit more. Pay a little more so New York can avoid cutting the services that our most vulnerable need,” United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said.

To me, this is almost the equivalent of people who have been laid off marching in protest of the corporation who let them go. This is what happens when times are bad economically. People get laid off. Budgets get cut. It’s called “real life.”

Yet, at a time when unemployment has reached 8.1%, “50,000″ people who feed off of the government’s largesse take to the streets in protest over budget cuts? Sorry, it’s just hard to have sympathy when so many people are losing their jobs. Just where do these people think the money comes from anyway?

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!