Luckily for the Governor, he is no longer a State Senator.

Despite this embarrassment of riches, I’m pretty sure I’m missing something. The Post says there are now seven probes of Paterson, while the News counts only five; and none have anything to do with adultery or cola products.

Although little noted elsewhere, it is perhaps most significant of all that even before the first whiffs of major and minor scandal, the State was going to hell in a handbasket while the Governor himself barely made an impression on its operations  

It is clear that it is time to exhume my old draft and take it to the present.

As such, I am today announcing that my book on the Spitzer/Paterson Era (eros? error?) is nearly complete.

I am calling it “Why Jesus Wasn’t Born in Albany.”

[Because they couldn’t find three wise men and a virgin.]

OK, I am relieved.

Like Kirsten Gillibrand, Ford tried to alter his positions for a new audience. Under different circumstances, I might regard this as victory, since if, for instance, same sex marriage is ever to become law, it would help to welcome converts to the cause rather than to try to bury them alive. However, Ford tried to travel a bridge too far. Prior to her appointment, Gillibrand had merely refused to support same-sex marriage; Ford had voted to ban it in every State of the Union in a manner which was virtually unrepeatable.

But getting such an indictment right takes a lot of time and effort, and other things, including more interesting topics, kept intervening.

And now, thankfully, it is no longer worth the time and effort.

Rock Hackshaw has proven himself a New York political figure of far more lasting importance.

Not necessarily coincidentally, McGreevey soon found another reason to leave office.

I make no suggestions of what actually occurred here, but only suggest that we have yet to wake up from this particular nightmare.  

Of course, I may be speaking prematurely on that one. Has anyone had a peek yet at the Times’ part five?

Still, I keep coming back to Jimmy Buffett:

“I don't know the reason
I stayed here all season
Nothin to show but this brand new tattoo
But it's a real beauty
A Mexican cutie
How it got here I haven't a clue”

Likewise, Paterson seems to be without a clue how he got where he was (or how he subsequently managed to blow out his flip-flop, step on a pop-top, and cut his heel and have to cruise on back home).

But it has always been thus.

Thrown out of the Queens DA’s office after continued failure to pass the bar exam, Paterson was handed the nomination for the Senate seat once held by his father at a County Committee meeting controlled by Harlem’s Gang of Four (one of whose members was his dad).

One wonders why he had so little empathy for Caroline.

As a Senator, Paterson did not particularly stick out from the ranks. During the 2006 race, Republicans tried to put some focus on controversial bill Paterson had introduced, including one which decriminalized resisting arrest, This was surely unfair; they should only have focused on those bills Paterson actually passed.

Of course, then they would have had nothing to talk about

In 2002, the three Senators (Schniederman, Liz Krueger and Duane) flailing about trying to engineer a coup against Marty Connor realized that the absence of a statewide black Democrat (the result of Carl McCall giving up the Comptroller’s job and being defeated for Governor) opened the door for a route to victory.

Paterson was always a reluctant player in the scenario, sending out a letter of support for Connor during the ensuing events. In the end, Duane regretted his victory almost immediately; I suspect Krueger eventually did the same, while Schniederman must by now at least understand that he picked the wrong dark horse for both his own benefit and the State’s.

Then, Eliot Spitzer pulled a rabbit out of his hat, picking Paterson for LG when the Harlem Gang of Four, once again including Paterson’s dad, preferred Leecia Eve. In response, Charlie Rangel derisively and sarcastically referred to Spitzer as “the world’s smartest man.” While this seems to be the wrong week to sing hosannas to the good judgment of Charlie Rangel, it seems clear that he knew Paterson a lot better than did Spitzer, and that perhaps Spitzer should have listened.

Perhaps Dick Ravitch can now right this wrong and make Leecia his new LG.

This was all so avoidable. Unfortunately, back when the White House was manuvering to get the Governor out, Paterson made clear he would not let his name be put forth for any Federal position requiring either Senate confirmation or an FBI vetting.

Perhaps he could have been offered his own newstand in a Federal Court House; now it is too late even for that.  

Even if he could manage to pass the bar, the Queens DA is unlikely to rehire him, given the character and fitness issues.  

Before I go one, I should disclose that, back in 2002, when Paterson pulled his coup (or rather, let the coup be pulled in his behalf) and became Senate Minority Leader, his people put together a list of 13 names to be sacked on day one: I was among them. At the time, Domestic Partner was seven months pregnant.

So naturally, I shed few tears when I learned that the Governor had blinked (perhaps a poor choice of words).

It brings to mind Psalms (a book I quote from for the second time this week) 3:7:

Ironically, this verse was written by a King named David who also had trouble keeping his slingshot in his tunic.

But this David, while small in political stature, is no triumphant warrior. His administration is over in all but name. It has become a Flying Circus which cannot get up off the ground; the Governor, barely qualified to serve as the Minister of Silly Walks, has become a Monty Python in Albany's den of poisonous snakes, The only reason that David Paterson is still sitting on his perch is that he has constitutionally been NAILED there.

The Governor look like he is pining for better days.

But 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrothead is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If the laws of the State of New York hadn't nailed 'im to his perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are of interest only to historians! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off this mortal coil, rung down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-GOVERNOR!!    

Memo to Dick Ravitch: Call the Governor, NOW!. Tell him "If you need me, I'm here for you." If he still does not get it, promise him the damned pardon outright.

It is surely justified as an act of mercy...

...towards the State.  

But, please, get him out of here!

Everyone knows Israel is Dov Hikind’s passion.

The Jewish Star once said the following while reporting from an interview with Simcha Felder:

As I later learned, Hikind funded the ads with the cooperation of Igud’s Gershon Tannenbaum, with the money being laundered through Tannenbaum’s tax exempt “charity,” Yad Moshe, even though donations on behalf of political causes are not even tax deductible if the campaigns take place in America.

I bring this up only as context. In actuality, even though my views about Olmert’s policies are as different from Hikind’s as Purim is from Tish A’Bav, I could not be more pleased. Such distractions keep Hikind from spending time defending the rights of local Jewish youth to beat up Pakistanis and also serve the laudable function of making sure he does not have as much time to contribute his public policy input in places like Albany, where it might actually have an impact.

I bring it up because Joe Lazar shares Dov Hikind’s fervent Zionism, but at Dov Hikind’s request was willing to suppress it on behalf of a candidate.

Last year, probably dubious that a social conservative could win the seat in the 39^th Councilmanic, Hikind endorsed Brad Lander, some of whose allies had delivered large for Hikind. As always, Joe Lazar followed like a Siamese twin.

It is likely that Hikind’s pre-endorsement conversations with Lander avoided social issues and concentrated on questions of access and programmatic funding. Given what transpired, it seems unlikely that Hikind and Lander discussed Israel before the endorsement. Hikind probably assumed that all the race’s Jewish liberals favored the wishy washy left-Zionist, Rabinish territorial compromises and two-state solutions that both Hikind and Lazar disdained as ungodly and naïve.

TRANSLATION: “even if war ended and all the awful things attendant to war also ceased, so that no one could object to any of Israel’s actions (no matter how justified) --we think it would be great if you repudiated the idea that Jews should have their own nation.”

Hogwash.

Lander’s article did not even imply any objection to Israel’s definition of whom it considers to be Jewish. Lander practically jumped for joy at the thought that his son was ineligible to be a return Jew. His use of terms like “militaristic” and “oppressive” indicated that he took an extreme view of the Israeli enterprise, and his disdain for the “special privilege” afforded to Jews is clear.

But, while Lander was surely lying that the article was a plea for a more liberal definition of who is a Jew, the Ultra-Orthodox community actually believed him, even though they’ve largely disdained everything else he said on the topic as prevarications. Instead of killing the issue, Lander‘s remarks had the opposite effect among the ultra-Orthodox, some of whom were themselves non or anti-Zionist (although even most of them regard anti-Zionist politicians as probable anti-Semites, and have security concerns about their relatives who reside in the Zionist entity whose authority they do not themselves recognize).

Lander had not only repudiated Jewish nationalism, he had also publicly questioned the Orthodox Jewish definition of what constituted a Jew; which meant he was questioning their religious doctrines, which they considered the moral equivalent of saying “yo momma.” Lander’s mea culpa (perhaps not the best choice of words) had only thrown gasoline on the fire.

Hikind was clearly appalled: “He said some things that were really beyond the pale…It was enough to really say I cannot support someone like that.”

Though Hikind stayed put, support for Lander in Borough Park, even among Rabbis close to Hikind, including some who had earlier proffered endorsements, began to hemorrhage, especially as the sparking of their curiosity caused some to explore Mr. Lander’s stances on other issues, which did not help.

On the same broadcast, Hikind and Lazar then joined Lander in vouching that Lander was merely misunderstood. Hikind, who’s made a career of endorsing Republican presidential candidates over any Democrats’ slightest little variance from far right wing Zionist orthodoxy, and has even endorsed judicial candidates on that basis, was now vouching for a candidate whose statements on Israel put him at the furthest extreme of not merely American Jewish politics, but all American politics.

And Lazar was helping him to do it.

Speaking on Hikind‘s show about rumors that he was anti-Israel, Lander said, “it’s painful, it’s preposterous, it’s a campaign.” Meanwhile, Hikind emphasized again and again that Lander’s piece was written over a decade before, as if Lander were then a small child not responsible for his own actions. In actuality, Lander, was thirty years old at the time, and actually chose to publish it years after that.

This is most assuredly true; rather than being an issue in an election, Lander made his comments totally out of left field while his son’s foreskin was being removed. But that does not change the meaning of the words.

As to the words themselves, Lazar and Hikind never mentioned them, however Lander said, “as it was sort of published, it doesn’t well represent what I think, what I feel, it’s very one-sided, it doesn’t represent who I am or what I am. “

Well, who put the gun to Lander’s head to make him put those words inside a hardcover? If it didn’t represent what he thought, why did he let it go into print? “One sided”? Well, who wrote it that way?

Yes, if I wrote a criticism of a particular Israeli action, it might appear one-sided outside the context of my generally pro-Israel perspective. But, Lander’s words cannot be defended as a one-off dissent on a particular aspect of Israeli policy. Though some Israeli policies are mentioned in passing in Lander‘s article, the article did not merely object to Israel’s actions; it objected to Israel’s existence.

As such, Lander’s appearance on the Hikind show continued to amplify a lie of almost mountainous proportions even more than I thought possible. In amplifying that lie, Hikind served as the microphone and Lazar as Hikind’s echo chamber.

And yes, I know that Marek Edelman, the man Lander chose over all others (except Joe Lazar’s mother) to memorialize, was a hero of both the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and the Solidarity Movement. I also know that after Edelman’s death, hawkish former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens wrote of Edelman’s heroism. But, Arens had no need to prove his credentials as a supporter of Israel’s right to exist, and Lander still does.]

So I ask, one more time, if Joe Lazar is willing to prostitute even his deeply held right wing Zionism at the behest of Dov Hikind, is there any shred of independence in the man whatsoever?

But in the race for the 44^th Councilmanic, being a moderate social reactionary would practically qualify Lachman for endorsement by the Lambda Independent Democrats.

Above all things, Seymour Lachman was an old-fashioned New Deal/Great Society Democrat with an unfailing sense of party loyalty, something sadly lacking amongst the candidates remaining in the race (except for the one who admits to being a Republican).

Moreover, even on social issues, Lachman really tried to reach out as far as he thought his Orthodox Jewish beliefs permitted him, and maybe a bit more. When he told pro-choicers “I’m with you almost all the way on that one,” he wasn’t dissembling; he really meant it.

It is hard to picture Dov Hikind or even Simcha Felder making such an effort.

Unfortunately, Lachman, dropped out almost as quickly as he dropped in. Reached by reporters at his year-round “summer home” in Long Island, Lachman cited “personal and familiar reasons,” probably meaning his wife was not interested in moving their Brooklyn pied-a-terre from Bensonhurst to Borough Park. “It does not mean that in the future I will not consider running for public office; I will consider things that come up, as they come up, in the next year or two.” Perhaps the Nassau Democrats are looking for a strong candidate for the Long Beach seat in the County Legislature.

On social issues, the best one can probably hope for from this field is lack of interest, in the manner of Simcha Felder, who’d just as soon change the topic and hope it never comes up again. David Greenfield and Joe Lazar might vote “no” on issues of interest to the LGBT community, and make a little speech, but they are probably not going to expend any political capital or use such topics to inflame the passions of their constituents.

Concerning Jonathan Judge, President of the Brooklyn Young Republicans (and the only candidate who actually lived in the District before the seat became vacant), I’m not sure I can promise even that. His campaign seems mostly a matter of trying to stir up resentment against Orthodox Jews: “Not all the communities have been represented as much as some,” says Judge, “and we’re working to make sure everyone is represented in the same way,”

Who between the two civilized candidates would be more tolerant? Well, Greenfield is surely more modern and worldly, while Lazar is more black-hat, but on the other hand, Lazar seems to have a slightly larger number of liberal friends (mostly courtesy of a quid pro quo for his and Dov’s endorsement in a City Council race; excepting Jim Brennan, who has high regard for Lazar’s work in the field of Mental Health)--probably a draw.

I will say that, as someone who spent his life working for a Democratic majority in the State Senate, and would now like to see that majority become “Amigo Proof” in time for the Congressional reapportionment, this field does not offer much hope.

The one Republican office holder with an all Brooklyn seat is State Senator Marty Golden, whose seat overlaps parts of the 44^th. An “Amigo Proof” majority would be far more likely if Golden could be beaten. However, none of the candidates in this race are likely to be of any assistance in that endeavor.

Take Joe Lazar. Along with his mentor, Dov Hikind, Lazar worked in 2002 for Golden’s election against incumbent Vinnie Gentile (I had an Election Day encounter with him on a street corner). Further, Lazar’s contributed to Golden’s campaign committee as recently as 2008, and he‘s been endorsed by Assemblyman Peter Abbate, who openly brags about his successful efforts to make sure Golden’s had no Democratic opposition, and Councilman Matthieu Eugene, a Golden contributor. Moreover, Lazar’s joined Dov Hikind at the hip practically every time Dov’s jumped ship on the Democrats, which is quite frequently.

While David Greenfield has been endorsed by three Democrats who worked for Gentile in that race (Lew Fidler, Dominick Recchia and Gentile himself). He has also been endorsed by two who jumped ship for Golden (Mike Nelson and Carl Kruger), as well as by Golden himself.

Would a loyal Senate Democrat’s endorsement help clear the picture? After Lazar announced he’d been endorsed by Kevin Parker, Parker sent out a press release denying it, while, in the span of a few short weeks, Diane Savino has in rapid succession endorsed Greenfield, then Lachman, and then Lazar (it‘s a good thing the campaign is not longer).

No help there.

Given Hikind’s mercurial nature (he endorsed longtime enemy Noach Dear for Judge and tried to get him to run in this race; he was a strong supporter of Vinnie Gentile until he suddenly decided to endorse Golden against him for Senate and then immediately followed up by supporting Gentile for Golden’s old Council seat; he mentored both Felder and Greenfield, who are now his mortal enemies), and Lazar’s tendency to follow Dov Quixote like a Sancho Panza (a Sandor Pupa?) perhaps there is some chance Lazar will end up working against Golden, but I wouldn’t bet the tzedakah box on it.

Truth be told, the only result which would discomfort Marty Golden in this race would be a victory by Jonathan Judge (who is affiliated with an anti-Golden Republican faction), and he thinks Golden is too liberal.

Nor are endorsement by other reactionaries a reliable guide.

Greenfield’s been endorsed by the Executive Committee of the Kings County Conservative Party, a group traditionally more interested in a place at the trough than ideology, but still somewhat distressing.

“Igud Harabonim,” has been called a “hate group“ by “HateWatch” a branch of the prestigious South Poverty Law Center, one of America's leading tracker of hate mongers, including anti-Semites. HateWatch called Igud "an extremist organization opposed to basic human rights."

How bad is Igud? According to HateWatch, it has espoused anti-gay bigotry in the teaching of Holocaust history. In 2000, even a hardcore right winger like Dr. Laura Schlessinger found the group’s praise so embarrassing, she removed the group's letter of support from her website. Igud’s Executive director, Hikind pal Gershon Tannenbaum, has called homosexuals “deviants” and “anthropological misfits.” Igud has also organized against Jerusalem’s Gay Pride Parade, using the sort incitements that led to the stabbing of three young men.

In 1997, Igud offered testimony before Congress that it would boycott the U.S. Holocaust Museum if it referred to gay victims of the Holocaust. In testifying, an Igud spokesman said such material would be “a perversion,” adding, “Do we have a prostitutes’ exhibit?” This nicely Dovtails with Hikind’’s opposition to acknowledging homosexual victims of Nazi persecution at Brooklyn’s Holocaust Memorial.

Did I mention Igud’s crusade against “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”?

Going to Igud and talking about “family values” is like chumming shark infested waters with fresh blood.

I’m pretty sure Igud trumps the Brooklyn Conservatives (though maybe not the State Party), but in fairness, I’ll call that one a draw.

Looking at the candidates’ websites for clues on non-social issues, I found that Greenfield favored a lot of new spending, a tax cut and fiscal responsibility, while the only issues Lazar mentioned were better Holocaust education and less parking enforcement on Saturdays (Greenfield seems to favor less enforcement on the other six days as well).

So perhaps it is best to focus not on the political beliefs of these gentlemen, but what sort of legislators they would be.

Joe Lazar is a very nice man, who’s been active in the community for nearly as long as David Greenfield’s been alive, but while one could call him an “Activist,” what he really stands for is stasis.

Joe Lazar is the candidate of the Borough Park status quo, which can be summed up in two words: Dov Hikind.

But I find another, more verifiable example far more illuminating.

In the original drafts of this piece, I included an anecdote which, including the necessary introductory material, ran nearly four pages. It illustrated the willingness of Joe Lazar to serve Dov Hikind’s interests by helping Hikind to obscure the truth about the stance of a politician on an issue both Hikind and Lazar held near and dear (not Noach). Israel.

While I am not so sure many of my readers share their passion, it is without a doubt that many, if not most voters in the 44^th Councilmanic do.

More importantly, as I stated in my original drafts, if Joe Lazar is willing to prostitute even his deeply held right wing Zionism at the behest of Dov Hikind, is there any shred of independence in the man whatsoever?

My belief is that one could be Noam Chomsky and still find that behavior problematic.

Unfortunately, telling the story properly threw this piece way off balance. My initial response to this criticism from a few friends I previewed this article with was to quote the words sung by another yiddishe boy chick, “Sue me if I play too long,” but in the end, it was clear that I was going to have to publish it under separate cover under separate cover.  

The truth is that Greenfield appears to be one ballsy sun of a bitch.

The issue on which Greenfield displayed his testosterone is one in which I fervently disagree with him: Tuition Tax Credit--I oppose them, Greenfield supports them, as do Hikind and Lazar.

It is the manner in which Greenfield worked for tuition tax credits which I find positively refreshing.

Greenfield shocked and rocked Albany by breaking the rules and sending mailers into Silver’s Assembly District, asking private school parents, including Silver’s fellow Orthodox Jews, to contact Silver about the issue.

My G-d, you would have thought we were in America instead of New York!

Greenfield’s tactics, which could have come out of a grade school civics lesson, infuriated Silver, though they eventually resulted in the symbolic victory of a $330 a year tax credit to all school parents (which I also oppose). Teach NYS later went on to help win $30 million in extra funding for special-needs schools in New York City (which I favor).

Silver has gone on to make destroying David Greenfield a personal crusade, at one point intervening to prevent him from getting a top staff job with Council Speaker Christine Quinn (the fact that Greenfield came so far in the selection process for a job working for a lesbian is at least evidence of Greenfield’s personal level of tolerance for diversity).

And now Silver has made pulled out all the stops to stop Greenfield’s election.

I have it on the word of one of Heyer’s closest allies, Mark Shames, that this is a lie.

However, apparently someone did call Heyer and asked him to reconsider.

Gee, how thuggish can you get? (that was snark).

If one wants to see thuggish, I suggest one explore the role here of Shelly Silver.

A Borough Park based real estate lawyer named Nachum Caller also wanted to run for the seat and was perceived as a threat to Lazar among the ultra-Orthodox vote. Silver met with Caller, and gave him a “frank assessment” of his chances. Shortly thereafter Caller withdrew. Silver denies urging Caller to withdraw.

Caller’s son was quoted as saying his father’s candidacy was “terminated.” “Terminated with extreme prejudice” might be a more accurate description.

Sources tell me that Silver’s summoning Caller to a meeting was not a case of an intervention by a friend. Caller’s law practice is J-51 and 421-a development work, and Silver was apparently not subtle in making it clear that he would regard Caller’s candidacy as the act of an enemy. Whatever the words used, Caller got the message.

And others are getting the message as well.

It is no coincidence that every Assemblymember who’s endorsed in this race has endorsed Joe Lazar; even Felix Ortiz, whose Assembly District does not overlap this Councilmanic one block, has been dragged out to appeal to the district’s six Latinos.

Even those Assemblymembers rightfully scared by Greenfield’s tremendous following in the Sephardic community are nonetheless even more scared of Shelly Silver. Despite the real risks at home, Steve Cymbrowitz, whose late wife was Egyptian, has endorsed Lazar, while Bill Colton has somehow managed to remain neutral.

In a community where elections are almost all dominated by arguments about who can bring home the most money, that is surely a frightening promise.

All for urging some voters to contact their Assemblyman.

(By contrast, the same article’s report of a purported offer by Vito Lopez of peace to a Hasidic faction he’s been fighting with, if they support Greenfield, at least documents the use of the carrot rather than a dynamite stick.

What can I say?

I cannot find it in me to endorse either of these men. Both seem likely to be as tolerant as one can hope for under the circumstances, but they are both a repudiation of nearly everything I stand for.

It is clear that Joe Lazar will be a competent and controlled plodder perhaps making a useful contribution on mental health issues, and that David Greenfield will be an aggressive and possibly even independent go-getter, who is likely to be a really substantive player in the legislative process. .

Given the politics they both adhere to, I’m not sure that gives Greenfield the advantage.

However, if I lived in the district, I’d likely feel differently.

Seymour, where are you when we need you? [Probably in Long Beach].

AARON: We should get rid of everyone and start over...

JEFFREY TAMBOR: Lloyd, have you read Senator Bayh this morning in the NY Times? interesting--especially coming from an "insider"--

LLOYD: "Goodbye to all that"? And the burgeoning centrist party? Whatever it takes. Let's put people in office committed to getting things done, fixing the mess we're in. We should have no patience for the pointing of fingers and laying blame and partisan politics.

When rich white men, including a substantial portion of the punditocracy, start calling for a centrist third party, usually headed by Michael Bloomberg, one has to ask what they think is missing from our current line-up of choices.

We have lately been faced with populist outrage over Wall Street misbehavior followed by bailouts without consequence and no subsequent reform.

And we have two parties that looked at the bailouts as if they are root canal, because it is, and each split on then internally.

The other party expresses plenty of outrage at the bailouts their policies made necessary, but cannot muster one lousy member committed to a single reform, or to any efforts to make Wall Street share in the consequences and costs of their actions.

Bloomberg’s centrism is definitely different than the policies of either major party. Unlike the other parties, Bloomberg supported the bailouts enthusiastically.

And he splits the difference elsewhere in a perfect illustration of how bi-partisanship actually works.

Bloomberg combines Obama’s lack of outraged rhetorical with the Republican opposition to any reforms or consequences for the malefactors.

No wonder Bloomberg’s Presidential “campaign” is being spearheaded by a fast-buck scam artist like Frank McKay.

There may be room for a “centrist” party articulating unfocussed populist outrage, but it won’t attract many white millionaires, and it won’t be headed by a man who repealed term limits supported by the public in two separate referendums.

In truth, we have a centrist party; it is called the Democrats. The old liberal and centrist Republicans have been excluded from their own party by extremists desiring fewer and better Republicans, and they‘re pretty much trying to oust the moderate conservatives as well. Meanwhile, as Bill Clinton put it, we (the Democrats) have become Eisenhower Republicans.

Some on the left who understand this also think we need a new party. If we had some form of proportional representation, a system with its own ugly pitfalls, or instant run-off voting, I might say Godspeed, but with our current form of “first to gate” elections, this is just a formula for defeat.

A new party of the center, or the left, is just an invitation to divide and conquer, and a restoration of the American Phalange

As such, the outraged assertions by Monserrate, Errol Louis, Kevin Parker, Eric Adams and others that Monserrate’s removal was denying voters in the 13^th SD their democratic choice of representative were laughable.

ROTFLMFAO funny.

In 2008, the voters of the 13^th Senatorial District were denied their right to vote; it is time to give them the election they were denied.

But, it’s more than that.

In Citizen Kane, a political boss named Jim Gettys told the protagonist:

For so many reasons, Hiram Monserrate needs more than one lesson.

In would be unconscionable for us to be denied the opportunity to see it happen. It is the moral equivalency of executing Saddam Hussein without first making him answer for the genocide of the Kurds.

Hiram Monserrate should not be spared the complete and total public humiliation he will suffer only when he gets the rightful ass-kicking he so thoroughly deserves.

We demand to see the political equivalent of Hiram Monserrate being cut with a piece of broken glass.

But it’s not his face we want to see cut.

But only if there’s a contest.

Given Lazar’s almost unbroken history of support for Lopez‘s candidates, and the donations to Lopez‘s County organization by principals of the Lazar Family consulting firm, the assertions of Lazar’s independence are pretty laughable on their own terms, but it cannot be denied that Lazar is not Lopez’s preferred candidate in this race, although Lazar’s sponsors surely wish, and tried to ensure, that this was otherwise.

Let us not then say that Lazar is the anti-Lopez candidate; rather let us only say that he is among the non-Lopez candidates, and surely not the most non-Lopez among them (that would be Republican Jonathan Judge). Moreover, odds are that Lazar will remain “non-Lopez” only until such time as he either attains election, or his prime sponsor deems otherwise.

Lopez’s candidate is a smart, ambitious and aggressive young man named David Greenfield, whom Lopez is extremely fond of. Given Greenfield’s checkered personal history with at least one former mentor and Lopez‘s checkered personal history with at least one of the person’s he’s mentored (ask Councilwoman Diana Reyna), it is by no means certain that such fondness will last, but there is no doubt that this is currently a relationship in which the honeymoon stage is not yet over.

Interestingly, Lazar’s main sponsor, Dov Hikind (in the manner of most men whose arrogance is exceeded only by their ingratitude) also has an extremely checkered history with those for whom he once served as mentor. These include at least two former Hikind Chiefs of Staff with whom the Dov has fallen out badly; one of those is Greenfield, the other, the former incumbent whose seat Greenfield and Lazar are now seeking, Simcha Felder.(before term limits were repealed, a carbon copy of this race was taking place, and Felder was backing Greenfield; his new job precludes him from making public endorsements).

Despite Hikind’s history of making mortal enemies of his former friends, there seems little chance that Lazar will join Felder and Greenfield in the Hikind dog house, which is surely ironic, because though Lazar has some admirable qualities, including an excellent record as regional administrator in the NYS Department of Mental Health during the otherwise dismal Pataki administration (which Lazar and Hikind both supported), in the politics of Borough Park/Flatbush, Lazar is best known for being Hikind’s lapdog, willing to fetch and kvetch on command (a fairly astonishing example of which will be provided in part two). On Hikind’s unaccountably popular radio program, Lazar serves as Hikind’s echo chamber.

A candidate’s political ties are surely one factor to consider when evaluating how one votes. Certainly, it is fair to consider Vito Lopez’s relationship with David Greenfield in evaluating Greenfield’s candidacy. Given the proclivity of the ultra-Orthodox Jews political leadership to flock to power like moths to light, I think that Lopez’s support of a candidate in this district may prove at least as much of a plus as it is a minus, if not more so. However, Lazar‘s campaign clearly sees Lopez’s support as a minus among those voters--mostly Flatbush and Kensington yuppies--likely to frequent places like Room 8. Though this is a small vote, it may indeed prove crucial.

So, with that in mind, I pose this question:

I will admit though that my writings have been very far from the relentlessly anti-Lopez consensus one finds in the left of center NYC blogworld. In such a context, I may appear to be pro-Lopez Mole333 has actually criticized me for jumping into blog threads to correct damaging statements about Lopez which even Mole admits were proven to be demonstrably false. I will also admit that, for my own reasons, I have often supported the same candidates as Lopez.

However, the last two times Vito Lopez has seen me, he has berated me in front of rooms full of people for not supporting his candidates. Apparently, there is nothing Vito Lopez hates more than a sometime ally who defends him or supports his candidates for intellectual reasons, rather than out of blind loyalty to the Leader. It has become quite clear that if I ever was among Lopez’s favorite people, I no longer qualify as such. And as a friend once close to Lopez told me, “once you are on Vito's shit list, you are implacably on it. You may have moments when the veneer thickens, but down low it never changes.”

But despite having no particular brief for Lopez, I feel compelled to ask those who want voters to evaluate the candidates in this race on the basis of the candidates’ relationship to Lopez:

This is a race between Vito Lopez’s staunch ally and Dov Hikind’s sycophant. If one is going to make a judgment on the basis of who strongly influences or controls one candidate, one must do the same for all of the others. As such, I offer this comparison of Dov Hikind and Vito Lopez:

When I ask people what bothers them about Vito Lopez, certain issues come up again and again--anti-Lopez blogger Mole333 helpfully provided me with a list which I’ve drawn upon for this column. How does Hikind compare to Lopez on those issues? Let us look at them one by one.

HIKIND: Like Lopez, Hikind serves as both Assemblyman and as a member of the Democratic State Committee, and like Lopez, Hikind supported D’Amato, Giuliani (at first) and Pataki; he‘s supported other Republican statewide candidates as well. While Lopez may have been less than aggressive concerning the Golden seat, the same cannot be said of Hikind. Hikind has always been aggressive and active in Golden’s district--in helping to elect Golden, even supporting him against a Democratic incumbent. And unlike Lopez, Hikind’s often endorsed Republicans for President, including Reagan, Dubya and McCain (and where Hikind goes, Lazar has followed).

LOPEZ: In evaluating Lopez’s record in making judges, one must consider both those he personally elevated to the bench, often from his home Municipal Court District, and those not out of his stable who ascended the bench while he was County Leader.

Locally, Lopez was personally responsible for such outstanding Judges as Wayne Saitta, Gustin Reichbach (once the lawyer for Abbie Hoffman and the Fugs), and the late Richard Rivera. To that we can also add Jack Battaglia, the sort of brilliant professorial legal scholar who rarely ascends the Brooklyn bench without being a County Leader’s de facto brother-in-law (which he is), as well as “reform” favorite Margarita Lopez-Torres who, though they later fell out badly, first went to Civil Court as Lopez’s handpicked backfill for a seat which opened up when the incumbent Judge up for re-election was nominated after the primary for a Supreme Court slot. If there is a Judge in Brooklyn affiliated with the leftwing National Lawyers Guild, there is about a nine in ten chance he came from Lopez‘s personal stable.

On the other hand, when Lopez has a less than outstanding candidate, he’s not been shy about bypassing the party’s judicial screening panel he used to brag so much about.

As to candidates Lopez has supported in his capacity as County Leader, there’s rarely been much issue over Democratic candidates for Supreme Court or County-backed candidates for Countywide Civil Court seats, all of whom have passed through the party’s screening panel.

The biggest dispute over a Lopez Judicial endorsement outside his local bailiwick came when Lopez personally endorsed the judicial candidacy of former Councilman Noach Dear.

Dear was seen, not unreasonably, as the prohibitive favorite, and most of the local District Leaders, even some who hated him, decided to back Dear. Black District Leaders were violently opposed to any County support for Yellen because of the role she’d played as chief prosecution witness against Clarence Norman. Carefully checking the temperature, Lopez decided to join the parade he thought was unstoppable by appearing to be leading it and endorsed Dear.

There were many reason for this endorsement. Part of it was to bring out votes for Lopez’s candidate for Surrogate (though Lopez’s forces only used Dear’s name in those areas of the Municipal Court District where it was an asset, while supporters of the anti-Lopez Surrogate candidate also deployed palm cards with Dear’s name where it was helpful to them). Perhaps more importantly, Dear had twice run in primaries for State Senate trying to take advantage of a divided black vote. Another primary between two strong black candidates was looming on the horizon. If Dear won, he was almost certain to join Carl Kruger as another member of the Democratic conference actually controlled by Joe Bruno (and we‘ve now seen what that was going to entail).

The support by Lopez and his allies for Dear was all Kabuki. Those who backed Dear for cynical reasons delivered virtually nothing to him. Given the pathetic nature of the "help" Dear received from County (Dear got his clocked clean in the non-Orthodox areas, and could have handled the Orthodox without County’s help), their support did not change the results appreciably (although "clean hands" would have been nice). Orthodox Jews daven twice a day. They are easy to pull. Dear pulled them. No one else voted and Dear won, as he would have with or without Lopez and the others.

After the primary, Lopez and his allies suffered tremendous abuse in the press and blogworld, and with sweet and painful irony, were forced to deny the leading role they’d only pretended to have played. Pretty funny, actually

HIKIND: Hikind’s record on the judges out of his own personal stable is mostly OK; David Schmidt is not only an outstanding judge, but an outspoken liberal; if Eric Prus has an ideological bias, it is not apparent, as opposed to his unquestionable competence, which is quite clear; even Leon Ruchelsman, who was conservative enough to originally be a Pataki appointee, has never been an object of complaints based upon his performance.

But there is one judge who Hikind is absolutely responsible for, and that is Noach Dear. If Hikind and his followers (including Joe Lazar) had not backed Dear, neither would have Lopez.

Ironically, up to that point, Dear and Hikind had pretty much been mortal enemies; Hikind clearly regarded making Dear a judge as a form of pest control, and when asked to comment about Dear‘s lack of qualifications essentially said, “Since many qualified judges have been criminals, the solution is to elect the unqualified.”

So, if Vito Lopez’s greatest (not to say, “original”) sin was succumbing to the temptation (such that it was) of Noach Dear, then Dov Hikind was the Serpent in the Garden.

LOPEZ: Lopez has taken some heat over the years for helping (or attempting to help) to obtain positions for his daughter, her husband, his own longtime companion and his companion’s brother. As noted before, his companion’s brother is an outstanding judge, and no one has ever questioned the competence of the other persons mentioned.

LOPEZ: Lopez is personally responsible for building and obtaining funding for a multi-tentacled social service empire which seems to have an interlocking relationship with his well oiled political local political operation in Bushwick/Williamsburg and its vicinity. Most of the reason the social service agencies inure to Lopez’s benefit is that they actually and competently deliver social services to the communities they serve. What a novelty.

One of those indicted, COJO Operations Director Paul Chernick, pleaded guilty to using some of the stolen money to make illegal payoffs to Hikind in the form of a trip to Israel and school tuition for Hikind‘s daughter and niece. In the end, Hikind was acquitted, because while it was clear Hikind had accepted the gifts, the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hikind had known where the money was coming from.

LOPEZ: Lopez has been accused of showing favoritism towards the Hasidic community (though in his earlier days he was accused of undue animosity towards it).

HIKIND: Hikind is accused of showing favoritism to the Hasidic community; in fact, he brags about it.

Hikind is a strong supporter of racial and ethnic profiling.

Hikind’s political entourage is also a marvel of diversity; Satmar, Bobover, Belz, Munkatcher, and non-Hasidic black hats are all represented.

LOPEZ: Lopez favors them in some form.

HIKIND: Hikind favors them in any form.

LOPEZ: There are two bills to extend the Statute of Limitations for law suits concerning child sex abuse. Lopez’s bill on the matter doubles the current Statute of Limitations. Assemblywoman Margaret Markey‘s bill would do the same, but also create a one year window for any past victim to file a suit. The Catholic Church and several Hasidic denominations are quite fearful of the financial consequences a window may work, and while I favor the window, I must acknowledge that there is a rationale argument against it in that it may create an avalanche of litigation concerning ancient incidents (with attendant legal costs), many of which are likely to be of questionable justiciability or merit.

HIKIND: To his credit, Hikind has made it a personal crusade to persuade ultra-Orthodox Jews to report child sex abuse to authorities, something they are often reluctant to do, preferring to either keep quiet and avoid public shame, or to deal with it “within the community.”

ATLANTIC YARDS:

HIKIND: Hikind voted for the 421-a bill, but since it did not involve money for a favored group or a job for a relative, Hikind played no role in the deliberations. Hikind, who chooses not to serve on any Assembly committee, never takes a role in any Albany deliberations, although it could be argued that he helped advance the cause of Ratner by helping to elect Marty Golden.

LOPEZ: Strangely, for a political boss, Lopez has a tendency more frequent than average to cast dissenting votes where the overwhelming majority of Assemblymembers are going the other way. However, Lopez votes a consistently liberal line on both economic and social issues. He is pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro sexual orientation non-discrimination and pro-same sex marriage. Lopez’s liberal stands on social issues are often in contrast to those of a majority of his constituents.

HIKIND: Though there are sometimes occasional dissents, Hikind votes a pretty liberal line on economic issues. However, he is a social issue conservative who is anti-choice, anti-gun control, pro death penalty, anti-sexual orientation non-discrimination (though, as often happens, Hikind missed the actual vote) and anti-same sex marriage. During the debate on same sex marriage, Hikind said, "If we authorize gay marriage in the state of New York, those who want to live and love incestuously will be five steps closer to achieving their goals as well." Hikind also opposed commemorating LGTB victims of the Nazis at a local Holocaust Memorial. To his credit, Hikind did support covering LGTB persons in the bias crimes bill

CONCLUSION:

On virtually every matter where reformers, “progressives”, or liberals have a problem with Vito Lopez, Dov Hikind is at least as objectionable and often far, far worse.

There is no doubt that Vito Lopez is David Greenfield’s mentor, and no doubt that Dov Hikind is the mentor of Joe Lazar. Further, there is no doubt that, by any objective measure, Dov Hikind is far more objectionable than Vito Lopez.

But my point is here is not to urge voters who agree with me to support Greenfield because of this (though I would be hard-pressed to blame them for doing so); my point is only to urge people to look beyond the false issue of who mentored who, and instead focus upon the individual qualities of the candidates in making their difficult decision.

In part two, I will focus on exactly that topic.

A couple of personal notes:

1) In order to minimize the character assassination and harassing phone calls (don’t try it again, I’ve saved the tape from last time) that are the calling card of one particular Lazar campaign consultant, let me announce in advance that I will be critical of all the candidates and will not be making any endorsement.

Unless the comments thread on this piece gets particularly abusive.

2) In the interest of full disclosure, I feel compelled to admit that, in 1994, I had my City job terminated by the Giuliani administration after a political operative named Alan Rocoff (currently under indictment) at the behest of his close friend, then Judge Michael Garson (currently disbarred after copping a plea), asked his close friend Dov Hikind (acquitted), to get me fired, which Hikind agreed to do. I know this because Rocoff bragged about it to every politico within a ten mile radius of 16 Court Street.

“I expressed to him my extreme disappointment in the decision, and our legal advisers saw the evidence and federal jurisdiction differently,” Mr. Sharpton said. “We agreed, however, that the family and community must continue to bring a new day in how we deal with police matters and how both community residents and police are protected equally under the law.”…

…With the decision to not file civil rights charges, the Police Department is now free to move ahead on any internal disciplinary action it may consider in the case. The families can also move ahead with a planned civil lawsuit. Mr. Sharpton said those avenues would “bring some justice” to Mr. Bell’s family and to his two wounded friends…”

So, the officers were completely exonerated, but now face disciplinary action, including the possibility of losing their jobs, on the basis of a non-judicial proceeding following their acquittal.

Senator Parker, are you saying that this too would be "double jeopardy"? Or are you sane?

The last questions was, of course, a rhetorical one.  

And the Final Jeopardy question to the answer posed in the title is:

Who is a douchebag? 

Now, let me be clear. I am not questioning Ms. Quinn’s authority to fire Rock. She may or may not have such power, but it is Rock’s job to find that out, and I hope he forces the issue instead of quitting.

Further, I would have no problem if Darlene Mealy fired Rock Hackshaw for his blogging, or any other reason or no reason at all. The Federal Courts (ironically enough, in a case involving the firing of Diane Gordon as a legislative aide by the Assemblyman she would later beat) have made clear the right of a legislator to fire a staff member if he or she disapproves of their political speech.

If in Ms. Mealy’s judgment, having such a harsh in-house critic on the payroll is useful, perhaps her shrink has a right to question her, but Christine Quinn, whatever her legal rights, surely does not.

But at least Chris Quinn is being consistent. She will not countenance a mere staffer on a payroll she controls attacking any member, even one she despises. Sadly, this will probably stand her in good stead with most every one of her colleagues.

I had once thought that Charles Barron was a man of principle. I believe I once said that the problem with most politicians is that you had to worry whether they might betray their principles, while with Barron the problem was that he would probably adhere to them.

I am no longer so sure.

Chuck Barron was so deluded that he thought he could challenge a sitting Speaker’s re-election (attracting the support of only one colleague--and that one’s term expired before the vote took place) and somehow escape punishment. And Chuck Barron is so deluded that he thought the subsequent loss of his Committee Chairmanship had some racial basis.

Does anyone believe that Speaker Quinn would not have set up a similar public castration or infibulation of a white colleague who had dared to do the same? First of all, she’s Irish; second of all, to not do so would surely be taken by those she desires to control as a sign of weakness, diminishing her ability to persuade. [Given some of the other choices for chairmanships, it is clear that the fact that Barron's demotion was also justified on the merits was clearly irrelevant--in fact, the strongest basis for criticism of Quinn on this matter is the fact that Barron had a chairmanship in the first place].

But, as it turns out, Chuck Barron is apparently such a hypocrite that he has now come to THE LADY, keffiyeh in hand, and asked her to do to Rock Hackshaw what she did to Viola Plummer.

Christine Quinn is merely abusing her power. Charles barron is abusing something one would think would be far more precious to him.

As Iago once said:

When Christine Quinn demoted Barron, and when she fired Viola Plummer, she merely stole Chuck Barron’s purse (in Plummer's case, the "trash" metaphor seems especially apt). But it is Charles Barron who has filched his own good name (such that it was).

The Select Committee concludes and believes that sanctions against Senators should only be imposed in cases of serious misconduct. Expulsion should be considered only in the most egregious circumstances. Having considered the available evidence and evaluated the facts relating to the conduct that provided the basis for Senator Monserrate’s conviction, the Select Committee finds that this case is serious enough to warrant a severe sanction. In doing so, we are mindful that ultimately, the voters of Senator Monserrate’s district, where he plans to run for re-election, will decide whether or not he is returned to office…

…The Select Committee finds that the nature and seriousness of Senator Monserrate’s conduct, as demonstrated by the surveillance video and the other unrebutted evidence outlined in this Report, showed a reckless disregard for Ms. Giraldo’s well-being and for the severity of her injury. We therefore find, that under the particular facts and circumstances presented here, Senator Monserrate’s misconduct dereithut amages the integrity and the reputation of the New York State Senate and demonstrates a lack of fitness to serve in this body.

The Select Committee notes that its determinations are based on the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding Senator Monserrate’s overall conduct, not on the fact of his misdemeanor conviction. The Committee has determined that Senator Monserrate’s conduct in this case presents particular factors that support the imposition of the sanctions set forth above. Specifically, the Select Committee gave substantial weight to the following factors:

First, Senator Monserrate’s assault on Ms. Giraldo was a crime of domestic violence, and therefore in direct contravention of New York’s well-established “zero-tolerance” policy in such matters...

Second, …the Select Committee finds that Ms. Giraldo and Senator Monserrate’s statements about the events of December 18 and 19, 2008 are not credible.

Third,…Senator Monserrate has failed to accept responsibility for his misconduct, or to cooperate in any way with the work of the Select Committee.

I express no opinion on the topic of whether the New York State Senate had the power to remove Hiram Monserrate from the rolls of its membership. But, even if it has such power, I think there are serious questions about the methodology used by the Senate in dealing with this case. And even if one concedes both the power and the methodology, I think it there is nothing wrong with questioning whether the result achieved was the correct one.

As such, I think there was nothing inherently dishonorable about having voted against the Monserrate expulsion.

That being said, I have yet to hear anyone of the Senators who voted against the expulsion offer up an honorable explanation for doing so, even though there are so many available.

Let us start with Senator Eric Adams of Brooklyn.

So, Eric Adams would have us believe that the was so shocked by Monserrate’s conduct that he supported expelling Monserrate from the Senate. The record tells a somewhat different story.

In addition to begging the question how this all squares with Adams’ purported concern for victims of domestic violence, it raises a more fundamental question about Adams’ sincerity.

Adams sat through the trial, rooting for Monserrate’s acquittal, even after seeing all the evidence, but now says that the same evidence justifies Monserrate’s exclusion.

I might give Adams the benefit of the doubt, and allow that he was persuaded by the additional evidence in the Senate Report, if it was not crystal clear from Adams’ statements that he either has not read the report, or is choosing to blithely ignore its contents.

Well that argument might have some cogence, if it were not so clear that what motivated the Special Committee was not Monserrate’s conviction, but his behavior, including his repugnant, but not criminal, act of letting Ms. Giraldo bleed out of an open wound for 40 minutes rather than to call an ambulance or take her to any hospital where he might be recognized. .

Anyone reading the Committee Report would understand that its recommendations would have been the same even if Monserrate had been convicted of nothing. Moreover, the mere fact of a misdemeanor conviction for a crime other than one committed would have not necessarily yielded the same recommendation.

Unlike some of his colleagues, Adams is not a stupid man (although he is sometimes a deluded one)--either he did not read the report, or he is willfully ignoring its contents and purposefully distorting them.

Plus, Adams creates nonsense from whole clothe; take his aasertion "Rather, it was a good faith attempt to avoid a judicial merry-go-round, with its interim injunctions and lawsuits"

Does anyone really believe that if Monserrate's misdemeanor conviction is upheld on appeal, he would cease his efforts to prevent his expulsion? 

What abject nonsense.

None of Monserrate's legal arguments against expulsion are predicated upon his guilt or lack thereof. Monserrate's guilt (or lack of it) of a misdemeanor was not only irrelevant to the political case for his expulsion, it is also irrelevant to the legal case against it. Lawsuits are coming regardless; injunctions may or may not come, but not because of the ultimate resolution of the misdemeanor.  

In addition, the position advocated by Adams ignores some of the very concerns (some of them legitimate) he’s raised previously.

In my previous articles, I’ve acknowledged that is a serious argument, on paper, for the technical reason that it is a very serious thing for the Senate to substitute its will for that of the voters in Monserrate’s district.

However, I’ve also pointed out that, thanks to the manipulations of at least three different political parties, no election featuring any opposing candidates, even paper ones, actually took place in Monserrate’s district.

But, let us concede the point arguendo.

If the important thing is the will of the voters, then expelling Monserrate later is just as bad as expelling him now. By supporting the Sampson alternative, Adams proves that he does not believe his own argument.

As I’ve pointed out before, expelling Monserrate does not take away the right of these voters to choose their own Senator -- it restores to those voters that right.

Though I have long favored its abolition, I now implore the Independence Party to perform a public service and give Monserrate a line on the ballot in this election; since Monserrate pal Carl Kruger carries the party’s Vice Chair on his payroll and Monserrate pal Espada still maintains ties to the Newman/Fulani wing of the party, there is surely motivation for all concerned. I also ask that either the Dems or the WFP leave a line blank and give Montserrate a fair fight.

I can‘t wait.

My greatest concerns about the voters of the 13^th SD is that expulsion not deny them of any representation at all during the budget process.

While this was a purported concern of some of those who opposed expulsion, it should be noted that the one now exacerbating that problem is Monserrate, whose efforts to prevent such an election may work to delay it.

Again, a legitimate argument.

However, by supporting the Sampson resolution, Adams proves that he does not believe it at all. If the Senate lacks the power to expel Monserrate, it lacks the power to expel Monserrate. Before, after, or during his appeal.

Unlike Eric Adams, Ruben Diaz clearly seems to believe most of the nonsense he’s spewed about the Monserrate case, although it is frightening that he could possibly believe it all.

Then why, why, why did you sit together as a rooting section with Eric Adams during Monserrate’s trial? If Monserrate’s actions deserved to be condemned and rejected, why did you show up in support of him at the verdict?

"...They form a committee to go after the Hispanic one, to get even. Ladies and gentlemen, go ahead and get even - enjoy it,"

Diaz’s sentence is self contradictory. He makes a point, echoed by more articulate (but not necessarily more sane) voices like Henry Stern and myself, that Every Senator, regardless of party, had political reason to extract revenge against Monserrate, a man who would not stay rented, instead bouncing around like a perpetual Mexican jumping bean. It had to drive even his fellow Amigos crazy.

But, that being sufficient motivation, why would anyone care that Hiram Monserrate was a Latino? .

Finally, Diaz’s insinuation (which may be too mild a word) that the membership of the Senate decided this matter for political reasons would resonate with more sincerity if he himself were not railing so publicly about the failure of Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson to enforce behind closed doors the decision that Diaz would have preferred.

Clearly, what Diaz wanted was not justice, but enforcement by the heavy hand of leadership. Diaz’s response to the vote is a revival of his periodic elusive threats to vote with the Republicans:

If Diaz’s colleagues who voted for expulsion were motivated by base political concerns, Diaz’s statements prove that they surely were not alone.

After all, what could possibly be more basely political than sitting at a trail rooting for the acquittal of someone whose actions you felt were worthy of condemnation and rejection?

Diaz’s written statement, obviously written by someone somewhat more conversant with the English language, also takes the opportunity to bring up the embarrassment that is Senate President Pro Tempore Malcolm Smith:

On that basis, Smith is not yet a ripe matter for Senate review.

Diaz may yet be able to legitimately call his colleagues hypocrites on the matter of Malcolm Smith, but the day he is able to do so has not yet arrived.

Diaz also brings up the matter of Marty Markowitz:

But, in the same article, I also argued that the Senate was not politically bound by its own lax precedents.

A big part of the campaign which helped the Senate Dems achieve their long sought after majority status, and thereby got Diaz his committee chairmanship, was a call for a change in the Senate’s ethical climate. Though the Sen Dems actual efforts at reform have been disappointing, it is clear that the Sen Dems ran on the platform that the old rules would be re-examined and subjected to change.

The fact that the then Republican controlled Senate turned a blind eye to the misdemeanors of Markowitz (and perhaps others) should not bind a Democratically controlled Senate which has ostensibly and ostentatiously committed itself to change.

It should not even cause them to restrict the sanction of expulsion to crimes, when there exists surely non-criminal but unethical conduct which rises to a level justifying such sanction.

Ruben Diaz seems to believe that the only proper response to a history of a too lax ethical climate is its continuation into perpetuity; but there really is an alternative.

Surely, an ordained minister should be aware that there are other options besides hell.

All week while continuing to avoiding writing my Harold Ford piece, I’ve been receiving the same inquiry again and again in different forms.

A friend writes:

"What do you hear about the DP NY Times story? [unnamed Times Reporters] told me in 2008 that they had identified 17 women on gov. payroll who did DP. But, they would not write since NYT doesn't do sex lives. They were desperately searching for use of gov. or campaign money paying for hotels, etc. [Name withheld] and others would not talk since they had been promised jobs by the new Gov.

Rumors all over Albany have DP's resignation imminent. One source claims Times found DP owes big bucks to [unnamed major investor in  AEG] for gambling debts. I knew he did [unnamed cola product], screwed around with women on the payroll, drank too much and didn't like to go to work, lied freely, etc. But, I can't believe he was a gambler (still don't). Rumor says DP made [unnamed Chief of Staff] call [unnamed Times publisher] and threaten to release [unnamed Times publisher's] affair with [unnamed daughter of Dead President]. [Unnamed Chief of Staff and Counsel], etc. are looking to bail out.”

A reporter friends asks:

There once was a time when a hot story would be one about a politician coming out of the closet, rather than coming inside of one (which was old back when Warren Harding did it).

Frankly, I thought we’d already been through all the variations. It was wrong for Eliot Spitzer, because he’d seen a prostitute, engaged in legally questionable efforts to hide his extra-marital conduct and he wore socks. None of these apply to Paterson; he did not pay for it (except perhaps with your tax dollars), there are no allegations about his attire and he surely engaged in no strenuous efforts to hide who and what he had done.

Unlike McGreevey, there are as yet no allegations the Governor hired incompetents solely to facilitate his sexual pleasure. Rather, it is clear that the Governor hired incompetents for any and every number of reasons, and sometimes for no reason at all.

Unlike the Governor of South Carolina (ironically enough, once alleged to be the site of an out of State booty call for Paterson back when he was LG), Governor Paterson appears neither to have left the country (which, since September, would have at least left the state in more capable hands) or fallen in love.  

Perhaps this is an attempt at misdirection.

McGreevey ended up a best-selling author, appearing on television peddling to the public semi-pornographic stories of his affinity with the “People of Israel”, as he recounted the details of how he categorically refused to withdraw from Golan, even as his wife lay in a hospital bed recuperating from a problematic caesarian after giving birth to his child.

McGreevey’s tale of grabbing celebrity from the jaws of incarceration stands as proof that it is now less of a disgrace to admit one’s homosexuality than to be revealed to be a common grifter and grafter (who says our society is incapable of making progress).

Now, let me ask [putting aside, for a moment, the fact that the NY State Government is in total chaos both financially, and in its ability to deal with the day to problems of governance], has anyone noticed that a real scandal, involving what may actually amount to corrupt behavior beyond the scope normally tolerated as a matter of course, is in the midst of breaking?

Would it not be better to leave office as The Stud Gov and write one’s best seller, rather than to leave as "Blogo With a Natural"? Blogo had to settle for reality shows--David Paterson could end up a regular on Saturday Night Live.

Still, one needs to wonder, why is anyone surprised by this stuff?

Give or take a couple of details about location and frequency, there is virtually nothing in the rumors circulating that Paterson hasn't already been publicly accused of by members of the state legislature. And even then, they were old hat.

As I noted back then, despite competition from his nose and nether regions, the bodily organs which have so far caused the Governor the most damage are his mouth and tongue.

And, in fact, even before the beginning of his administration, there had been allegations that the Governor’s extracurricular activities had been paid for by either the taxpayers or his campaign committee.

I find the second allegation baseless---if David Paterson was really using his campaign funds to finance urges which are apparently uncontrollable, would he not be a bit more aggressive in his fundraising?

But, as I’ve noted before, it seems to this observer that such allegations also suffer from a lack of plausible scienter. Clearly, David Paterson had no intent to pay for his booty calls using state or campaign funds.

First of all, he has a Governor’s mansion.

Moreover, as was clear at the time he became Governor, David Paterson was utterly indifferent whether the card he used was his own, his campaign’s, or that of the State of New York. Charge it all now and let God or his election lawyer sort it out later.

Personally, I am not all that concerned about the illegal misuse of campaign funds, although the rules seem so elastic that it almost requires an effort in order to violate the applicable laws. And, why shouldn’t a bar tab be a legitimate campaign expense anyway? I’ve done some of my best campaign work from a bar stool.

As I’ve noted, contributions to candidates and parties buy "access" no matter what the money is spent on. The evil remains the same regardless. And since most of the donors got what they bought, they were not cheated.

The sad fact is though, that very few seem to want access to this Governor, except perhaps for some underlings of the fair sex.

I might be concerned about Paterson squandering such funds if there were any possibility he were going to be the candidate of my party in the fall, but I’m not losing any sleep over that prospect.

Of course, Public Funds are a different matter, and despite the lack of a smoking credit card back when I first wrote about this, the matter seems likely to once rear its ugly head.

However, there are gray areas.

A Governor is a busy man, and surely requires a driver. But even busy men have personal matters they must deal with, whether it be buying the milk or structuring a payment to an escort service.

If a Governor or Senate Minority Leader finds a spare hour in the middle of his day to work out at the gym or the Day’s Inn, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask the chauffeur to do the pick ups and drop offs between the legitimate business. Seems far less egregious than going to the trouble of creating legitimate business to provide cover for those trips, especially when the real reason involves an act of prostitution (like raising funds for the Republican State Senate Campaign Committee).

The question which is really begged here, is why such rumors, which were always present, killed off Spitzer, but did not initially flatten Paterson, but are in the process of doing so now?

Why is it that some politicians can survive such things, and worse, and others cannot?

As I noted then, in an unprecedented fit of ingratitude to those who had brung him, Eliot Spitzer suffered a psychotic delusion which caused him to believe he was actually obligated to fulfill the promises he had made. His vision was so distorted by the light of his own virtue that he could not comprehend that using State helicopters to travel to New York City for fundraising events was perfectly legal, while using the State’s law enforcement apparatus to expose such activities was a crime.

With Paterson’s ascension, the old order had triumphed. We once again had a Governor whose ability to see the Albany light seemed to be is 20/20. Shortly after assuming the trapping of power, our new Governor got up in front of Albany’s assembled establishment and told them "Your short local nightmare has ended”. All of New York’s political establishment then joined together in cooperation in order to foster the return of normalcy.

Normalcy in New York is a thing much misunderstood. It is not about cooperation in the sense of ending gridlock. It is about cooperation in creating and managing gridlock The pillars of the Albany bi-partisan iron triangle do not necessarily get along with each other, but they are united as one in their efforts to see that no one outside the triangle can ever disturb “this thing of ours.”

Yes, Governor Paterson has, from time to time, made some proposals that would, if implemented, discomfort nearly discomfort nearly everyone. His periodic calls for fiscal conservatism have sometimes discomforted both the tax and spend liberals, and borrow and spend “conservatives”, who inhabit Albany; the specifics of his proposals perhaps even more so.

Paterson has often shown a policy wonk’s inclination to violate the unwritten taboos of public discussion by considering expenditures through the tax code to be just as susceptible to the meat ax as expenditures through the appropriation process.

While the Governor’s fiscal conservatism does not go so far as to acknowledge that expenditures equaling revenues is a goal so important that it is time to consider a millionaire’s tax, some of his proposals, if enacted, would have had a revolutionary impact upon State Government.

But never during his tenure has the Governor shown even one iota of intent to actually expend the political capital necessary to bring such programs to fruition.

And now, he has no political capital left.

Eliot Spitzer could not survive a sex scandal because he had made everyone fear him. David Paterson cannot survive one, because nobody fears him.

The only people who fear David Paterson are the folks who may actually have to appear down-ballot from him.

Trying to destroy David Paterson with a newspaper article is as pointless as an assassination attempt upon Ariel Sharon (not that I would put that beyond Hamas).  　

The Governor says "The only way I'm not going to be governor next year is at the ballot box and the only way that I'll be leaving office before is in a box,"

Let's think outside the box.