Three Republicans Running for US Senate

There are three Republican candidates who can be considered top challengers for the Republican Party nomination to take on incumbent Democratic US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand this fall.

Joe DioGuardi was a Congressman from downstate and his daughter was an American Idol judge. He's got almost a million dollars in the bank to challenge Gillibrand, but it's going to take a lot more than that to even make it out of the Republican primary. He's got some solid conservative backing though. Below is a nice 2-minute video of Joe made by a grassroots supporter.

Former Wall Street hand David Malpass just got into the race. He has the endorsement of former Presidential candidate and flat-tax proponent Steve Forbes. Malpass also worked for the Joint Economic Committee in Congress, for President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. Malpass announced he has raised over a million dollars for the seat.

Bruce Blakeman has been in the race for a few months now and has the most name ID because of his run for State Comptroller in 1998. Blakeman was also a former Nassau County Legislator and former commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He has former Senator Al D'Amato and he has hired some top tier fundraising consultants earlier this month.

Will Bill Owens Distance Himself from a Radical Group Called J Street?

Jude Seymour did a little post recently on J Street's endorsement of Congressman Bill Owens. The coverage was innocently reported, but not incredibly informative or well researched. Let me tell you why this endorsement is a major problem for Bill Owens, who describes himself as a moderate, and why Owens is making a big mistake by so closely associating himself with this particularly dangerous organization.

Mostly what we got out of Seymour's post report is that Owens, "will look to the leadership and principles of JStreetPAC to help inform his opinion on the Middle East conflict" and that Owens took money from the organization, which touts itself as a pro-Israel political action committee. However, you don't have to scratch much beneath the surface to see that J Street has created some serious controversy in the last several months that has been well reported and documented in the national press.

J Street is a very radical organization that is funded by Arabs who have a vested interest in keeping the US dependent on Middle Eastern oil and by Hollywood liberals with dangerous agendas. J Street has supported multiple federal candidates who are hostile to a peaceful US-Israeli relationship and has deep ties to George Soros, a liberal billionaire with anti-Semitic views. Furthermore, new reports were released that J Street has financial connections to Saudi Arabian oil interests and the National Iranian American Council, a group operating as a foreign lobby in violation of federal law and whose president has been called "the Iranian regime's man in Washington" and a man who "did a lot of leg-work for the Iranian regime."

When I looked at the leadership, the staff, and the donors of J Street I was shocked! J Street's leadership and principles are clearly at odds with mainstream thinking on US foreign policy. Ed Lasky at the American Thinker blog put it best when he said in a column that, "some officials note that this may be a smart way for Arab activists to try to influence American policy, because they can do so wrapped up in the shell of a group that can project an image of being a pro-Israel organization to Congressman less familiar with the reputation of J Street and who do not realize the Arab and Muslim backing J Street."

Even Michael Bronstein, a president of a prestigious Democratic political strategy firm in Pennsylvania, wrote that:

"I believe that J Street's public relations have misled the public by marketing the organization as something that it isn't. Many of my friends who were initially attracted to the group have left, disappointed because they felt that it was more anti-Israel than pro-peace. The situation has gotten so significant, in fact, that Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has weighted in, calling J Street a "unique problem." I don't have political sympathies for the right, nor do I want to forward a leftist agenda on this issue. Some in the media are too eager to frame this as a left vs. right issue... With such fierce opposition to the Jewish state, coupled with relentless external threats to the country's security, we don't have the luxury to divide ourselves into factions, and there is certainly no room for grandstanding. The group seems not to understand this point. In my opinion, it should stop being so pro-J Street and start being a little more pro-Israel."

The point is that J Street is not really a pro-Israel lobby group it portends to be. My initial reaction to NIAC and J Street would be who cares, except for that fact that the agendas being pushed by these two organizations undermines our foreign policy and threatens the stability of the entire Middle East. They promote the Iranian regime, a despotic theocrazy that is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and whose leader has denied the Holocaust and called for the Israeli state to be annihilated. J Street and NIAC even took very a public position in opposing increased US sanctions against Iran, a vote that passed the U.S. House with 412 votes less than two months ago.

Does Bill Owens have any clue what J Street stands for or who supports them? Does he know that J Street takes money from attorneys who represented the Saudi Embassy? Does Bill Owens really want to take advice from an organization that has seen dozens of elected officials, including Senators Gillibrand and Schumer, publicly distance themselves from J Street's radical ideology? Will Bill Owens distance himself and return the blood money he accepted from J Street? And will Jude Seymour do a little more research before he writes such a ridiculous puff piece in his sorry attempt to pull the wool over our eyes?

It's Groundhogs Day

Rise and shine little campers. Because today is Groundhog's Day! Please welcome my animal friend Marmota Monax, otherwise known as Phil the groundhog, as he comes out today to potentially see his shadow, which will determine whether spring comes early or later? The question today on when winter will end reminds me of the political atmosphere we are in.

Will Republican candidates for NY-23 announce their real candidacies in 6 weeks or in 10? Will Andrew Cuomo get into the Governors race sooner or later? Will Ford be getting into a primary fight today or tomorrow? While I love the winters up here and I hope that it stay cold and snowy for a bit longer, I can't wait for the political storms to start brewing.

We will find out soon enough, but don't forget your booties though because it's gonna be cold out there today!

Matt Doheny's Special Ties to Wall Street Money is a Double-Edged Sword

The Politico has an interesting top page story about New York Insurgents Standing up for Wall Street. It's an interesting read and needless to say, there are clear political advantages and disadvantages to being on the side of Wall Street in 2010. If you are on the side of big bankers and powerful Wall Street attorney's you can pretty much count on some $2,400 checks to your campaign committee. Ben Smith of the Politico goes to say that, "The warm words for Wall Street have one clear political benefit: Money." Conversely, if you are against the big banks you can use that message to fight for the middle class and win populist support.

And in the race for NY-23 there has certainly been some discussion about campaign contributions coming in from Wall Street to candidate Matthew Doheny, who announced his 600K war chest on NewzJunky.com this week. In fairness, I can't say how much of that 600K is from Wall Street because it has been written that Doheny loaned his campaign at least 650K so far. But it is true that Doheny has only listed only three reportable donors on his FEC report with an address within the boundaries of NY-23 -- all of them were from Jefferson County.

What I do know is that in the summer of 2009 Dohey raised about $190,000 from individuals for the Republican primary. However, he returned all the donations he sought in July of 2009 after Dede Scozzafava won the nod from the GOP county chairs. Now having spent $175,000, Doheny has garnered roughly 2% name recognition across the district and is going through an incredible financial burn-rate that is usually reserved for the final weeks of a campaign.

A Doheny insider who is close to the action and asked not to be named for this report wrote to me that the campaign's goal is to intimidate Assemblyman Will Barclay out of the race with big name consultants, endorsements, and heavy financial backing out of New York City. But the aide said that some within the campaign are worried that Barclay won't fold if he sees Doheny's cash on hand number dwindle before the race even starts, ruining Doheny's strategy to take Barclay out of the race by mid-to-late spring. Hence the reason for Doheny's statement last week on funding. The source stated that Doheny hopes to have his cash-on-hand number above $1 million by the end of June in time for the second FEC report of 2010. And the campaign is working under the assumption that Doheny will have to loan himself another 400-600K to get there, putting his total personal investment in the race at over $1 million. In other words, he is trying to force Barclay out by buying the race early.

The unnamed source said that Doheny's willingness to loan more money to his campaign is dependent on how much Barclay raises next quarter. The source also said that many on the campaign were excited at the prospect of bringing on Cary Brick, Congressman McHugh's former Chief of Staff, but were also nervous that his high price tag might hurt their chances of keeping the cash-on-hand high enough to scare away young Mr. Barclay. But the all-in strategy is what Doheny is banking on because he recognizes his weak support among the grassroots across NY-23, even in his own backyard. Rumor has it that a dozen plus prominent Jefferson County Republican Committee members are set to announce their endorsement for Barclay in the next few weeks.

But still Doheny's communications team is pushing their candidate's image as a young man who pulled himself up from his bootstraps to make something of himself in the big city and who returned home because of his desire to enter public service. They frequently cite that the young attorney/finance guru drives a old beat up 94 Ford Explorer named "Bessie." It's a strategy meant to distract voters from his connection to Wall Street, an image the campaign is fearful may hurt at the polls. The Doheny source mentioned a Quinnipiac University poll from 2009 that found 79% of all New York voters backed taxes against those who earn more than $1 million a year. Worried that in 2010 voter sentiment against Wall Street is even higher now as people on main street remain frustrated with the current recession and double digit unemployment numbers, Doheny's team has sought to distance their candidate from his past.

However, Doheny's Wall Street connects will likely bring him some easy campaign cash, which will help in catching up in the name ID game. A quick glance at the FEC website shows that Doheny collected over 20K from Deutsche Bank last summer. Of the 120 individuals who have given to Doheny, over a quarter were finance lawyers, half of Doheny's donors listed addresses among the richest zip codes of New York City and an overwhelming majority were involved in the financial sector and private investments. But one of the most interesting highlights is that most of the donors on Doheny's report were consistent donors for Democrat backed organizations and powerful liberal members of the Democratic Party.

For example, Raj Bhattacharyya, who gave the maximum contribution allowed by law to Doheny also gave to Senators Gillibrand, Casey, Obama, Clinton, Specter, Feingold, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and several liberal Democratic house members from New York. Another donor, Michael Curreri gave to Representative Maffei and Senate Banking Committee Chairman, Chris Dodd. Josh Easterly of Goldman Sachs who donated to the DNC and President Obama also gave to Doheny. Doheny donor Mayar Lakhani, another Deutsche Bank employee, gave to Obama, Clinton, Menendez, Gillibrand, Specter, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recruiter, Representative Steve Israel. Doheny even took money from two employees at the Blackstone Group whose CEO, Steven Schwarzman, recently lashed out at US Government officials and threatened to tie up credit and loans unless they get their way politically.

In addition, Doheny found almost 10% of his donors from the law firm, Quinn Emmanuel Urquhard LLP. That law firm happens to represent funds and fund managers before the US Security and Exchange Commission, as well as other government bodies in the US and abroad. According to their website, "Quinn Emanuel's White Collar Criminal Defense and Internal Investigations Practice Group represents prominent domestic and foreign corporations, special committees and boards of directors, as well as individuals, in high profile criminal investigations, administrative enforcement hearings, trials and appeals... attorneys in this practice group are regularly retained to represent witnesses, subjects and targets of grand jury investigations, enforcement actions and criminal proceedings in industries ranging from securities, defense, and banking, to health care, entertainment, pharmaceuticals, and technology." Some might question after getting almost $16,000 from the law firm's attorneys that should Doheny win a seat in Congress, he might use his political influence to help QEU's clients as they come before the SEC. Other notable donors listed TARP recipients, and big financial firms like Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Bank of America as their employers. The list of big money makers from the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut goes on and on.

The real question for Doheny then becomes two-fold. First, is Doheny beholden to Wall Street interests and will he use his political influence, if elected, to benefit his donors and their clients? Second, why are so many of Doheny's close friends, associates and campaign donors so fond of the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, Obama, Feingold, Clinton, Gillibrand, Dodd, Specter, Israel, Richardson, Perriello, Menendez, Kerry, Casey, Arcuri, Maffei and others of the same ilk? Is it because Doheny has promised to be a strong voice for Wall Street over Main Street interests?

Can Doheny continue to file FEC reports without donors from NY-23 and remain relevant in a district that is suffering from the excesses of big bankers on Wall Street using TARP money to pay mega-bonuses to their corporate and financial heads? Will Doheny make a statement on his position on earmarks, the stimulus, TARP, bonuses on Wall Street and Obama's TARP tax proposal?

Why doesn't Doheny have a campaign website that lists his position on critical issues of importance to people across NY-23? Will Doheny continue to self-finance his race in an effort to scare Will Barclay back into his assembly seat? Will anyone in the mainstream media look at where Doheny's money is coming from and ask the tough questions?

The only answer we do know right now is that Doheny's Wall Street connections are a double-edged sword in his bid to become the Repubilcan nominee for NY-23.

Kudlow v. Schumer 2010?

There is lots of action in New York State politics since the Brown victory in Massachusetts on Tuesday.

The biggest, I think, is what appears to be a draft movement by some tea-party folks and fiscal conservatives to line up support for CNBC economic commentator, Larry Kudlow, to challenge Senator Chuck Schumer. Schumer has always been incredibly popular throughout New York and is a long-time and well-established national Democrat. He won re-election in 2004 with just over 64% of the vote. Rumors are abound that Schumer could even be next in line for the Senate Majority Leader perch.

Kudlow has a personal history, but he has lots of media and money contacts. He also holds some pretty solid credentials having worked in the Reagan White House. I think a Schumer-Kudlow matchup would draw intense national attention and it would certainly be an incredible race to witness in 2010. But the question is -- would Kudlow really give up his job and make a run at it? He was quoted in Newsmax today saying, "I am honored by the talk and the consideration." You can see the Draft Kudlow site by going to www.DraftKudlow.com. He also has been writing on his own blog for a long time. You can read it here.

Bruce Blakeman is getting traction in his bid for the Republican nomination. It looks like Pataki is still AWOL on making a run. But even if Blakeman coasts to victory in the primary is it enough? Blakeman might have an opportunity to further capitalize on Senator-elect Scott Brown's victory on Tuesday, but right now all of the focus remains on the Gillibrand-Ford primary. Yesterday, the New York Times quoted Blakeman in what appears to be a populist rhetoric appealing to voters who are angry and frustrated. He asked, "You are angry? I will fight for you. You are worried? I will work to protect you. You are frustrated, and your voice will be heard..."

Maybe anything is possible after Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts. However, we saw over the last year how politics can be incredibly volatile. If the White House and Congressional Democrats can rebound and put forth a credible jobs proposal they might not be as vulnerable as conventional wisdom portrays. For now the momentum clearly seems to be with the GOP, but that momentum can evaporate quickly for any number of reasons. There is lots of time and lots of issues ahead that will play a factor. The 2010 elections are shaping up quickly to be a referendum on the Obama White House. The ball is in the President's court to a large extend and he can be a pretty good shooter when he is focused.

Here is a breakdown of how President Obama did in 2008 and how President Bush did in 2004. The numbers in both states are pretty similar.

	Massachusetts	New York
Obama 2008	61.36%	62.22%
McCain 2008	35.73%	35.65%
Kerry 2004	61.94%	56.13%
Bush 2004	36.78%	37.69%
Brown 2010	51.94%	NA
Coakley 2010	47.07%	NA

How a Scott Brown Victory on Tuesday Might Affect NY Politics

Consider the fact that Massachusetts is as blue a state as they come, bluer than New York I would argue. If Scott Brown wins tomorrow against Martha Coakley I think it is a victory for a few people here in New York, and it could set off a chain reaction across the state (and the country).

First, I think a Brown victory forces George Pataki to take a second look at a US Senate run against Gillibrand/Ford. A new Sienna Poll out today shows Pataki beating Gillibrand handily 51% to 38%. If Pataki gets into the race I think Harold Ford has a better shot at winning the Democratic primary. He has pushed one talking point and one talking point only the last two weeks -- that he is an independent Democrat who will not be beholden to anybody else but the people of New York. That message will soon resonate with Democratic primary voters if Scott Brown pulls out a victory.

I would also venture to say that a Scott Brown victory helps Doug Hoffman in NY-23 since both of their candidacies have drawn similar parallels in the media and have been compared extensively. The key difference between Brown and Hoffman is that Brown is running on a major party line in 2010 which gives him the support of both moderate and conservative Republicans alike. In 2009 Hoffman did not have that advantage, and thus he had to reach out to the far right and outside national interest groups for help. Brown has national interests playing a role in his campaign as well, but they are not as prominent as they were in the NY-23 special election last year. At the end of the day though I think a Brown victory helps Hoffman in NY-23 should he decide to run.

Bad Timing for Bruce Blakeman to Announce for US Senate

The big political news today is the US Senate race in Massachusetts between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown. It seems like everyone is talking about Brown's surprising momentum in the polls and President Obama's visit to Boston today. On top of that story is news out in New York that Governor Paterson was allegedly seen kissing a much, much younger woman at a New Jersey restaurant.

The Paterson controversy may create a bigger opening for Andrew Cuomo's inevitable decision to run for Governor, but that controversy, combined with all eyes focused on the Massachusetts Senate race, the tragedy in Haiti and the ongoing NFL playoffs, certainly made for bad timing on Bruce Blakeman's announcement to run for US Senate. With everything going on today not many people were paying much attention to a long shot Republican named Blakeman, who was a former Nassau County Legislator, former candidate for State Comptroller and candidate for New York City Mayor last year.

For those of you unfamiliar with Blakeman, he was beaten badly by Carl McCall in 1998 for Comptroller and just last year dropped out of the mayoral race against Michael Bloomberg, who he later endorsed. At Blakeman's announcement today was Former US Senator Al D'Amato who was a prominent supporter of current US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. His remarks I am told were focused on security, cutting spending, creating jobs and promoting middle class values.

The good news for Blakeman, however, is that it appears he could have a clear run at the Republican nomination. Rudy is out, Liz Feld has taken her name out of consideration, Pataki has been MIA, Congressman King has stated publicly he is not interested in the promotion and Susan Molinari recently announced she would not make a run. If the field is totally clear it could help rally Republicans and be a shot in the arm for Blakeman's bare bones, upstart campaign.

On the Democratic side Gillibrand, in a sign of possible desperation, mixed things up late last week by coming out against the President's new proposal to tax the financial services industry. In her effort to flank Harold Ford's credibility among Wall Street executives, she may have put herself at odds with the sitting President who is doubling down on a populist approach to recover TARP money spent on freeing up credit, buying off toxic assets and bolstering support of the automotive and real estate industries. Just recently the President's spokesman announced the White House's opposition to Harold Ford's primary challenge, but with Gillibrand's public opposition to a key Obama policy decision, national support may dwindle considerably, especially in light of a new poll that came out last week showing Kirsten Gillibrand in a vulnerable position.

Gillibrand still leads Ford in a head to head match-up, but only by 19 points. More troubling, however, was Gillibrand's pitifully low 24% voter approval rating. A quarter of those polled had no opinion of Gillibrand at all. The image of Gillibrand is that she is a mediocre politician who lacks the charisma and gravitas New York Democrats are used to. According to a New York Post article today Gillibrand has, "failed to capture the hearts and minds of New Yorkers the way her outsized forbears - Bobby Kennedy, Pat Moynihan and Hilliary Clinton - did." It's going to be hard to keep up with everything in New York State politics in the next few months. I expect we will see a lot more horse-trading, posturing and positioning among politicos on both sides of the aisle as we move into February. It looks like Blakeman and Gillibrand will both have their work cut out for them in the next several months.

Ford Counting on Independence and Passion to Beat Gillibrand

I'm not saying I do or do not support Harold Ford's primary challenge against US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010, but I do think it is fun and worth speculating how Ford is trying to get a leg up on his competition. If Ford asked for political advice, most any political operative would advise him to find another state to run in or switch parties because the Republicans can't find a candidate.

But since Ford isn't willing to do either of those two things I would have to suggest to Ford that he prove to the Democratic Party that he is more than just serious about his challenge, and then I would also have him immediately start playing off of Gillibrand’s key vulnerabilities on important issues. But Ford didn't need my advice. He got a head start on that project today.

Re-introducing himself as a shrewd politician, with confidence, an attitude and a strong willingness to lead New Yorkers on an energized political crusade against the moderate Democratic establishment, Ford puts himself in the center of the New York media kitchen table with an op-ed in the New York Post. And in a move that would make a sandal blush, Ford quickly flipped-flopped on a string of social conservative positions from his Tennessee days in the US House.

Yesterday, Ford was a Republican dressed up as a Democrat – a rare breed among national Democratic Party politicos. But today, Ford showed New Yorkers that he really wants to represent the concord of liberalism on all of the key litmus test issues: abortion, gay marriage, labor unions and gun control.

What makes Ford almost sound convincing though is that he didn’t change the tune of his music one page at a time, week by week. Instead, he flanked Gillibrand on the left instantaneously, in just one 426-word op-ed. The reason for the sudden conversion is simple – New York’s demographics and the Democratic Party’s ideology dictate a strict adherence to social liberalism.

Beyond that, Ford’s willingness to run as a liberal strikes at the heart of Gillibrand's core vulnerabilities – mainly that she is too moderate for New York City, too slow to lead a progressive agenda, too friendly to gun owners, to unfriendly to immigrants and people of color and maybe – in a phrase – a little too upstate for the rest of New York.

That's why Ford uses politically charged, yet simple and subtle language, to make his introduction,

I know New York is unique... In my three years here, I've learned that New York does not go along to get along. New York does not follow… New Yorkers deserve a free election… expect a politics where politicians do what's right based on independent judgment, free of political bosses trying to dictate.

If you can read between the lines Ford is simply saying: I am one of you and I have learned from you. Let’s not let a small cadre of establishment Democrats tell us who is going to run this unique state we both love. I am a leader, not a follower like Gillibrand, and I will rally the team.

Ford’s introduction to New York voters also includes a disclaimer to the Democratic establishment – keep an open mind. Ford’s candidacy is reminiscent of the Obama campaign in terms of style and substance. And if the politics of Obama taught us anything, it is that no one has to “pay their dues” to rise to the top. In 2010 the establishment doesn’t determine political succession – voters do. In NY-23 voters ultimately rejected the candidate who had “paid her dues,” worked hard to curry favor with the establishment but failed to offer inspiration and passion for the base.

When a political candidate declares their independence and freedom from the political elites, as Ford did today, it often leads to a critical mass of populist support. Maybe Ford is tapping into something that the mainstream media and the political establishment have never fully understood all along – that passion and energy drives politics.

Fielding Statewide Candidates for Senate & Governor

Here's a brief update of the statewide political news from yesterday that we didn't get a chance to really cover. Races are heating up so you better buckle your seat belt for some bumpy political roads ahead.

It looks like lobbyist Susan Molinari won't be running for US Senate after all. Neither will Congressman Peter King. Molinari conveniently cited family reasons, as did King. But in King's defense he does have a pretty good job. What Republican would honestly give up a key post on the Homeland Security Committee for a chance to meet Gillibrand/Ford in round 2? And Lazio made it crystal clear that he just isn't interested in US Senate race either. Love him or hate him, Lazio's response to former Senator Alfonse D'Amato's appeal to switch races yesterday was simply funny to read. Lazio basically gave Al an upper-cut to the chin with the statement below, even though according to the New York Post it looks like Ed Cox favors Chris Collins for Governor. Here is Team Lazio's response to D'Amato,

Today's story only proves how nervous Andrew Cuomo is about Rick Lazio. His camp knows that Rick Lazio represents something new and fresh while Andrew Cuomo is part of the same old Albany gang that has failed us. To be clear, Rick Lazio is running for Governor, and under no circumstances will he switch to run for Senate. End of story.

I would believe him, except his press aide didn't put an exclamation point at the end of the statement!!! But really, it does now looks like the winner of the Lazio/Collins match-up will face the winner of the Paterson/Cuomo/Levy brawl.

And for the record, we here at What's Up NY-23 don't believe that the Levy criticism, that he is a "stalking horse" for Cuomo, is fair or warranted at this early juncture of the race. Everyone is entitled to run for public office. Whether Steve Levy's candidacy is or is not really a "stalking horse" for another candidate is a debatable point, yes. But in the end it is really Levy's choice. Besides you can never tell what might happen in those three-way races. Stranger things have happened -- remember the history of NY-23! With that said, I conclude that this is truly What's Up in NY-23. It's what I live for -- it really is New York politics at its best.

Political IV Comes Out from Hiding

We thought that Political IV may have fallen off the map, but we got him for this exclusive interview. Here is a Republican insider's view of NY-23 and local politics in Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties. Enjoy!

Buggs Buddy Question: Thank you for taking the time to participate in our interview and thanks also for the insight you have offered for so long on your site, www.politicaliv.blogspot.com. Your site was obviously one of the first around the North Country to cover local politics and culture. Because of that I am sure our readers would be very interested in learning about your thoughts on NY-23, local politics and the direction of the Republican Party. Please share with us when you first started your site and how it has progressed since its inception. Why did you initially decide to start your site?

Political IV Response: I began the site as an alternate forum and viewpoint to then blog Danger Democrat and I believed at the time that there needed to be balance to the online forum and exchange of ideas. It was a nice online exchange between Danger Democrat and Political IV which played off each other as the only two sites out for a long time, competition is healthy! As far as NY-23, it is obvious that incumbents are difficult to beat due to a variety of reasons; the power of the office and the ability to deliver solidifies a base of support and people are reluctant to oppose an incumbent, especially a first term incumbent who has yet to really endanger him or herself. That being said, the possibility that is being created is the ideological shift. The people primarily prefer centrist governing and tend resist being pushed too far left as with Barack Obama or too far right as with George W. Bush. You have to give Congressman Owens at least as many points as he had in the last race and he gains a couple with incumbency, which makes it a difficult road for a challenger.

BB: We have asked this question to multiple people because it is an interesting one. It seems like the Republican Party in NY-23 has some real problems it needs to work out if it wants to be successful in 2010. What direction do you think the local Republican establishment and the county chairs should take in managing the competing interests between moderates and conservatives? Can the Scozzafava's and the Hoffman's of the GOP coexist? And if you want to answer this -- which Republican opponent do you think would be the hardest and easiest for Owens to go up against in 2010?

PIV: I believe moderates and conservatives can coexist in the Republican party. Except for the far far radical right, I believe a reasonable person has respect for someone's social views. The issue that solidified people's view of the Republican candidate for NY-23 in the last election was her position on "card check" and her general (albeit quiet) pursuit of the Working Families line. She often referred to her position and John McHugh's position on card check as equal, while she failed to recognize that former Congressman McHugh had earned much more political capital and was able to expend it from time to time. I would say Barclay or Doheny are likely the fronts runners and have what it takes to win, both intelligent people. Hoffman is the easiest for Owens to defeat, it will be difficult, if not improbable for him to recreate the atmosphere in the last election.

BB: We asked Mayor Graham this question and his answer was "Deficit!" But what do you think are the main issues that Republicans should focus on in 2010 at the state and national level?

PIV: Basic - managing spending and the size of government and spending. The first one to figure how to prevent government from running deficits without taxing people out of the means - wins! It is the basic job of an elected official to manage finances and it amazes me the legislators of New York state get away with such mismanagement.

BB: Are you supporting any particular candidate for Governor in 2010? Do you think that Congressman Peter King could make a credible challenge against Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate? Are there any other candidates you are looking at who are considering a statewide bid?

PIV: I like Collins from Erie County for the Governor's race and I like what he is doing there. Gillibrand beats King. Gillibrand is extremely vulnerable in NYC and had to shift her ideology in order to build her support there, so it needs to be someone who can win there and that person just declined to run.

BB: I assume you mean Rudy. So what candidates or local leaders are you most excited about and who do you see as rising stars of the Republican Party in Upstate New York?

PIV: I think Josh Lynch has a future in politics in this area, there is a lot of youth out there that needs to be nurtured to be future leaders. It is difficult to get people involved, people have more structured activities and attracting good people is a challenge for both parties, we need to do a better job of involving youth and listening to them.

BB: What is your prediction on candidates that might emerge for State Senator Darrel Aubertine's 48th state senate district? Who do you think can mount a credible challenge to Addie Russell's state assembly seat and will Dede Scozzafava see a primary challenge for her state assembly seat?

PIV: I think we will see Patty Ritchie give it serious thought, but I am not sure she can win. I still like Barclay for state senate, I think Will Barclay is a very intelligent individual and if the electorate were to view this as if they were hiring the most qualified and capable person then Will Barclay would be State Senator. Darrel Aubertine is a nice enough person, but he is not qualified and he does not demonstrate leadership in the region as he should as State Senator. For the record I like Darrel as a person. There are a number of people who could challenge Addie Russell and win, but we are talking Assembly Republicans versus Assembly Democrats, there is a significant money advantage in the majority.

BB: PIV, thank you for your time. Is there anything else you would like our readers to know about you, local politics or the Republican Party in NY-23 that might be of interest to our readers?

PIV: The process of designating election districts and apportionment is seriously flawed and that is why there are very few competitive elections, the redistricting process needs to be reform and I am a firm believer in term limits for state leadership positions such as Assembly Speaker, Senate Majority Leader and such. The system breeds dysfunction and New York State lives up to its potential of dysfunction.

BB: Well said. Thanks for your thoughts and analysis. I thought for a few days there we might have lost you for awhile, but I'm glad you are alive and well. With that, I hope that your blog will become more active again so we can provide additional information to the voters in NY-23. I look forward to future exchanges with you and everyone else in this important election year.

The Republican Hangover?

We aren't taking sides in the GOP knife fight that is about to ensue all across New York State and NY-23. But 2010 will be a tremendously important year for political parties all across the state and it will have a dramatic impact on the next round of political redistricting and the policies that come out of Albany and Washington for decades to come. With that in mind it is safe to say that Republicans are still suffering from "a major Scozzafava Hangover" that we aren't sure they will soon recover from anytime soon. Lets review!

US Senate:

First, there is no serious Republican candidate for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's US Senate seat. And it is starting to get late in the game for former Governor George Pataki to get into the mix. Senator Gillibrand is locking down endorsements and support from all corners of the district, while Republicans wonder into the wilderness. And if Former Tennessee Congressman Hank Ford were to win a long-shot Democratic primary attempt it would likely be even more difficult for the Republicans to pick up the US Senate seat left by Hillary Clinton.

NYS Governor:

Regarding the Governors race we have to be fair in saying Democrats have their own in-fighting between Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Governor David Paterson supporters, but it happens behind-closed-doors. Paterson is the first black Governor of the state and Cuomo is eyeing to take him out -- in my analysis, for right or wrong, that is a dicey move in statewide politics in New York. The Republican Party has an "okay" candidate in failed US Senate candidate Rick Lazio, and an unknown quantity in Chris Collins, an Erie County Executive, as Plan B. Rudy Giuliani and John Faso have already run away from the offer. For Lazio, it doesn't help with a major New York headline reads,"Even in G.O.P., Lazio's Bid for Governor is a Hard Sell." For Collins, it doesn't help that he is way behind in organization and fundraising. Some NY-23 chairs had fallen over themselves so much so that they set up a secret meeting with Collins that ordinary constituents weren't allowed to participate in. It sounds like NY-23 all over again. But on a positive note, even though Collins has yet to announce his candidacy, it appears as though the executive has garnered the signatures of at least 15 county chairs on a letter of endorsement including two GOP County Chairs from NY-23, Donald Coon of Jefferson County and James Ellis of Franklin County. But is that a wise move for the county chairmen after what just happened in NY-23? Voters in Upstate New York don't even know who Chris Collins is, anything about his record or what his uniting message will be. "Anyone but the Democrats?" Someone please remind the GOP that Democrats outnumber Republicans by something of a 2 to 1 margin statewide. The county chairs that make up in NY-23 may want to be careful when they are playing with fire.

More on the Collins Letter & NY-23:

Jude Seymour of the Watertown Paper highlighted this week how Nancy Martin, the St. Lawrence County GOP boss, declined to sign the Collins letter because she hasn't addressed the issue with her local committee and because the letter sounded like an endorsement.

Sounds like a good enough reason on the surface, but if Martin's logic is to first consult with her committee before making this type of decision so as not to alienate the local party faithful then why is she actively trashing Doug Hoffman, a potential Republican candidate for the NY-23 race, without first also consulting her caucus to see if they have her back? We got two angry e-mails this week from county leaders who were none to pleased with the contents of the Ogdensburg paper that Sunday.

Here is the skinny. It appears that in December Martin pushed a top-of-the-fold, front page, full-frontal attack on Doug Hoffman, just out of spite. Martin's name was littered in the text of the article with quotes like, "During the past congressional election Mr. Hoffman broke with the party," and "I don't think the Republican party has forgiven Mr. Hoffman. A lot of DeDe's supporters are still angry." She continued, "We need to have a broad-based party," then dug in a little more by pointing out that Mr. Hoffman lost in the general election to Mr. Owens, who won with only 48 percent of the vote.

And as if she hadn't made her point clear enough, Mrs. Martin dropped her opposition language and revealed her true vindictive character by stating that while the 11 county Republicans party chairs in the 23rd District drew sharp criticism from outside the district for not supporting Mr. Hoffman's candidacy, the reality is that Mr. Hoffman was among the bottom of the nine candidates who were questioned by party leaders during four public interviews held across Northern New York. "Republicans aren't going to embrace him. Republicans are looking for a more electable candidate." We were thinking that maybe Martin was referring to an incumbent Assemblywoman from Gouvernor, but we were actually referred to another story in the same paper on that same day, in which Martin was quoted as saying favorable things about another potential NY-23 candidate, Matthew Doheny. Doheny, another top-tier candidate with an ability to raise money, was able to draw nearly 100 supporters to a small-dollar fundraiser for his election campaign in Watertown last month.

Conclusion:

The problems at the state level with recruitment are one problem. Local disenfranchisement is another. Infighting and throwing fellow Republicans under the bus in the local press is yet another. And dissatisfaction with the direction of the Republican Party is a whole different animal, too. But this hangover is not likely to go away in NY-23 when activists are complaining that they are fed up with the local Republican party chairs' complete intolerance, systematic dysfunction and strong-arm tactics. Maybe post-Scozzafava, Republican leaders don't have enough confidence in themselves to find a good candidate to challenge Addie Russell and Darrel Aubertine. Or maybe it is the potential candidates who don't have enough confidence in their county leaders to put their name and reputation on the ballot.

As we see the dynamics unfold in Clinton and St. Lawrence Counties we can be sure controversy will begin to brew in the others. And there are real undertones of a Republican grassroots rebellion like we have never seen before. For NY-23, some in the GOP camp fear that the Scozzafava hangover might be here to stay past election day 2010. There is a pill Republican leaders can take to cure their hangover, but it is an awful tough one to swallow.