Sometimes spin is so ridiculous — so obviously wrong that political reporters have to laugh. Or blog about it.

So here’s a great press release sent out Wednesday regarding the New York City Comptroller runoff election results from Tuesday night. Remember this is from an organization based in upstate Troy that probably had never heard of John Liu or David Yassky until today.

News from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.

New York City Primary Voters Reject Gun Grabber

TROY, NY (09/30/2009)(readMedia)– For the second time in two weeks, the citizens of New York City have delivered an unambiguous rebuke to the gun control movement by rejecting David Yassky’s bid for Comptroller. Yassky based his campaign largely upon his gun control record. As a staffer to then Congressman Charles Schumer he worked on both the Brady Act and Clinton Gun Ban. His campaign was endorsed by Senator Schumer, the Daily News and the New York Times because of this. Yassky’s double-digit loss in the runoff election demonstrates just how far outside the mainstream of society gun control advocates are. A solid majority of Democrat voters in all five boroughs have soundly rejected this candidate and his ideas.

Where to start? Oh wait let me pull my jaw off the floor and then stop howling. For those (few) people who were actually following this runoff election the only issue that got any resonance at all was about the Working Families Party’s backing of Liu and how that might make him beholden to the union-backed mini-party. Guns? No mention in the papers or on TV.

And follow the logic: If “the citizens of New York City have delivered an unambiguous rebuke to the gun control movement” then Sen. Chuck Schumer should be in deep doo-doo. He’s up for reelection in 2010. So how are his poll numbers holding up? According to the Marist Poll last month 6 in 10 New Yorkers think he’s doing an excellent or good job — just 13% think he’s doing a poor job.

So here’s some advice to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association: It’s fine to try and look on the bright side but leave the production of fantasy to Hollywood.

Back up to this past winter when Paterson’s amateur-hour handling of his pick to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate left just about everyone slack-jawed. He managed to piss of anyone connected to the Kennedys (not an insignificant body of people especially in the Democratic Party) by publicly dissing and embarrassing Caroline Kennedy before doing precisely what the White House didn’t want him to do — pluck newly-reelected Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand from her very Republican district thereby allowing the GOP to score a quick victory just months after Obama’s sweeping win. Fortunately for Dems the GOP in New York is even more dysfunctional than they are and managed to lose what should have been a sure win.

That gave New Yorkers a taste of the Governor’s incompetence. He then inexplicably fed that perception over the next couple of months by failing to exert any leadership over the Legislature as it’s members descended into chaos. Ever since Paterson’s poll numbers have been in the dumps and we’ve talked a lot about it here, here, and here. In fact all along we’ve said despite his disasterous ratings — even among African-Americans — Paterson was probably safe from a primary challenge unless a major African-American politician broke from supporting him.

Enter Barack Obama.

But why? Why would Obama care enough at this stage to get involved in New York’s local politics? He’s not from here. He doesn’t need help from a New York Governor. The election isn’t until 2010 when Congresssional elections will surely dominate the political storyline. So why?

Enter Chuck Schumer.

Several people close to Paterson and Schumer say this has Chuck’s fingerprints all over it. Schumer was the one who first mentioned Gillibrand and eventually got his way. Chuck is the one who in two terms heading the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee brought his party first into the majority and then made it filibuster-proof. Chuck is the (not so) hidden power center in the Senate. And Chuck doesn’t want to deal with a Governor heading the ticket in 2010 that could bring it all crashing down.

You see Senator Gillibrand is up for election in 2010 too and her poll numbers are only so-so despite her spreading a heavy dose of Chuck’s media magic across the Empire State. If Paterson is in trouble on top — especially if Rudy Giuliani were to run as he has been threatening — Gillibrand could be collateral damage. Meaning Chuck’s choice — Chuck’s bluest of blue states — could be the one that yields the filibuster-proof majority.

And so he called in the big gun to try and ease Paterson out. Unfortunately the Governor has other ideas and our sources say he is the one who leaked the story creating blowback on Obama and Schumer (neither of whom he is all that fond of anyway). So now Paterson can say he’s running and he’s standing up to pressure from his own party because he puts the people of New York first. Blah blah blah.

Michael Steele’s unchecked inanity aside (the Times lets the RNC Chairman get away with this: “I think Governor Paterson’s numbers are about the same as Governor Corzine’s numbers, and yet the president was with Governor Corzine and I don’t know whether there’s been a request for Governor Corzine to step down in New Jersey….” Corzine is down by 8, Paterson is down by 20), Obama should not have let himself be drawn into this mess this early. Worse, he got smacked by the woefully undertalented Paterson.

Nonetheless Paterson and the Democrats have real problems. Watch Charlie Rangel. If he starts spending private time with Paterson the feckless Governor may yet find himself with an ambassadorship to Fiji.

Pennsylvania

Is there an echo in Pennsylvania? You better you bet.

Republicans and especially hard-core conservatives are foaming at the mouth over the defection of Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter, decrying him as another Benedict Arnold. One of the most fevered cries is that Specter put politics ahead of principle. Whether you believe that or not (if the principle Specter is upholding is to win then I guess he’s being principled…) it has brought the battle for the soul of the GOP to the forefront. And the front page of the New York Times.

The question, which to be fair has been central to the Republican conversation at least since Rudy Giuliani first started talking about running for President, is whether Republicans need to become more purely conservative or need to do a Reagan and open up the tent. For the Republicans in charge of the effort to reclaim some of the 15 Senate seats lost in the last two years, the answer is clear:

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he would seek to recruit candidates who he thought could win in Democratic or swing states, even if it meant supporting candidates who might disagree with his own conservative views.

Mr. Cornyn said he was taking a page from Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the last head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who led his party to big gains by embracing candidates who, for example, opposed abortion rights or gun control.

“If you think about it, Schumer has been very good at this; I complimented him this morning in the gym,” Mr. Cornyn said, adding, “Some conservatives would rather lose than be seen as compromising on what they regard as inviolable principles.”

That is, of course, not how everyone sees it. Here was Rush Limbaugh’s take on Wednesday:

The Republican Party is moving left and that is why it is in trouble, and there is certainly a greater diversity of viewpoint in the Republican Party. For crying out loud, I guarantee you the Democrat (sic) Party would never, ever nominate their equivalent of John McCain. 

I guarantee you The Democrat (sic) Party would never, ever nominate somebody who rips, and has made his name by ripping and criticizing, his own party and his own presidents. That would never happen. Democrats throw those people out of the party or they bury them. We nominated a guy whose claim to fame is criticizing his own president and criticizing his own party, and they say we’re monolithic. The monolith is the Democrat (sic) Party. 

But as usual, Rush either has amnesia, is lying, or is simply entertaining his gullible audience. But he’s missing something crazy obvious. Rush is just like Kos (in one respect anyway). Really! Let me explain.

Democrats were once a pretty ideologically pure party while Republicans (under Nixon and the Reagan) made less of ideology and more of winning.

That changed a bit when Bill Clinton was elected but soon the party was in what seemed to be a downward spiral of alleged liberal thinking and hidebound candidates. After the drubbing in 2004, things changed. Howard Dean took over at the DNC pushing the 50-state strategy and embracing the netroots. And New York Senator Chuck Schumer (the hardest-working man in politics) took over the reigns at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Schumer lined up candidates he thought could win even if that meant pissing off the liberal version of the conservative blogosphere — the netroots.

In Ohio Schumer forced a progressive Iraq war vet out of the Senate race in 2006 to clear the way for a veteran Ohio politician named Sherrod Brown. That’s Senator Brown to you.

In North Carolina Schumer encouraged a progressive gay candidate to step aside (and was slammed by a blog named “down with Tyranny” — ring any bells, conservatives?) so that a woman named Kay Hagen could run against Libby Dole. That’s Senator Hagen to you.

And in Pennsylvania Schumer encouraged Bob Casey Jr. to run despite being anti-abortion rights. Liberals — especially women’s groups were enraged — but Casey won the primary against pro-choice candidates and wiped Republican Senator Rick Santorum from office.

Republicans should linger in Pennsylvania a bit longer because the echo there is even stronger: Casey’s pro-life father was refused a spot at the Democratic National Convention in 1992 when he wanted to speak about abortion. The tent wasn’t big enough for that. At the convention in Denver last year, his son got a prime speaking spot where he spoke about his disagreement with Obama (and much of the party) on abortion.

And the change didn’t only come from Schumer. The netroots actually fought for a few candidates that did not follow the pure Democratic line. Gun-toting Montana Senator Jon Tester was not the choice of the establishment but won his primary in 2006 thanks to support from liberal activists. 

So when “pure” conservatives say Specter’s defection is welcome because it cleanses the party, they ought to consider what the Democrats learned in Pennsylvania about ideology. There’s a reason there are only 40 Republican Senators right now and it’s not because they’re all too liberal.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York)

From the moment she was appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been discounted. The papers — especially the New York Post but others as well — have consistently called into question her election prospects in 2010. But this morning’s New York Times has a piece that inadvertently makes the case that Gillibrand is on her way to winning in 2010 as the next Chuck Schumer.

The Times notes that many of Hillary Clinton’s inner and not-so-inner circle of advisers, fundraisers, and hangers-on have gone to work for Senator Gillibrand. The paper also takes the conventional wisdom route on her prospects:

Ms. Gillibrand, who was twice elected to Congress from a mostly white and rural district stretching from Hudson to the Adirondacks, still faces significant obstacles as she seeks to be elected in her own right. She is not well known downstate, where Democratic primaries are lost and won. In a recent Marist College poll, only 18 percent of Democrats rated Ms. Gillibrand as doing an excellent or good job, while more than half were unsure. And she must quell suspicions among some black and Latino leaders over positions she has taken on gun rights, immigration and other issues.

All true but also historically nonsensical. Hillary, like Gillibrand, had some major obstacles when she began her quest for the Senate in 1999 (or was it her quest for the White House…). Her poll numbers were pretty lousy considering she was the First Lady (43%-43% in the Marist Poll of April 1999 against Rudy Giuliani after her “listening tour”) and she was doing poorly with the very constituency she would need to win (suburban voters, especially women, favored Giuliani by double digits in a June 1999 Quinnipiac Poll). Note that both of those polls were closer to election day than Kirsten Gillibrand is right now and her poll numbers are arguably much better.

The latest Marist Poll on Gillibrand (March 3) shows her beating two hypothetical opponents Peter King and George Pataki (Really?!? Pataki? That seems pretty unlikely). And that’s with only 18% of voters giving her an excellent or good rating (the equation often called an “approval rating”). The key is to look a little father right on the chart to the “unsure” category where 50% of voters reside. Gillibrand is basically unknown and for a candidate with strong fundraising and a strong bench of political operatives that’s more of an opportunity than a problem.

Clinton had the uphill battle of convincing New Yorkers who had an opinion about her to change it. Political operatives will tell you that’s one of the trickier things to do in campaigns especially when your opponent is well-funded. Remember Giuliani and his replacement on the Republican line Rick Lazio raised and spent twice as much money as Hillary did by election day.

In contrast Gillibrand has the much easier task of selling herself to undecided, uninformed voters. Mike Bloomberg will tell you that’s a winnable position with the right message and enough money to sell it. So will Chuck Schumer.

In June 1998 — just three months before the Democratic primary between Geraldine Ferraro, Mark Green, and Chuck Schumer, Schumer who was running in third place with 59% of voters having “No Opinion” on him according to a poll at the time. Three months — and a lot of advertising later — Schumer beat the other two on his way to famously unseating Republican incumbent Al D’Amato (the putzhead election).

Which brings us to the other speed bump Gillibrand faces according to the local pundits is a primary. Democrats, we are told, don’t like her positions on guns and Latinos in particular don’t like her immigration record. That’s true at this moment but primary election day (if there is one) is almost 18 months away. The Carolyns (McCarthy and Maloney) have no track records of running big-time campaigns and have shown relatively little ability to raise the tens of millions that will be needed to win in 2010 and then run again in 2012. Neither is another Ferraro.

So while Gillibrand may be seen as Governor Paterson’s choice and be predicted to suffer for it, she was actually Senator Chuck Schumer’s choice and as we have argued repeatedly here, that makes her the odds-on favorite to have a free and clear run in 2010. Schumer is clearly now the leader of the state party and one of the two or three most powerful members of the Senate. If he wants Gillibrand to be the Democratic candidate for New York’s other Senate seat she will have all the help Schumer’s imprimatur can deliver. And if anybody knows what it takes to win a Senate seat in New York, it’s Chuck.

New York City Subway

Even with the Feds potentially spending about $15 billion on mass transit in the next 18 months, the MTA’s proposed big fare hikes and service cuts would still have to happen according to MTA insiders.

That’s because while the amount of money in the stimulus bill for mass transit seems to grow every day, the money is for capital programs — building stuff — not operating systems already up and running.

Last week transit money in the stimulus jumped from $9 billion to $12 billion just before the House passed it’s version. Now Sen. Chuck Schumer wants the Senate version to spend even more — roughly $15 billion if he has his way. Schumer is proposing spending $10.4 billion on capital  programs, $2 billion on rail modifications (improvements to existing systems), and $2.5 billion on so-called “New Starts”.

Note that none of that money would go to pay for the actual costs of running current transit systems (the Feds don’t generally pay operating costs) so all that money would do almost nothing to help the MTA right now. If approved, several billion could be transferred to the MTA but only to be used on current projects like the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access (LIRR into Grand Central), and the Fulton Transit hub. These are the kind of “shovel-ready” projects the stimulus is designed to tap in order to put the money to use immediately.

To be sure these are important and expensive projects and any increase in Federal dollars will help the MTA in crafting it’s next capital program later this year. But $100 monthly Metrocards and disappearing bus lines are still on track to be implemented because the MTA’s operating budget (passed in December) needs a different kind of help. Operating aid.

Saving the fare and the service depends on actions not in Washington but in Albany where the state legislature (under the guidance of then-Governor George Pataki) forced the MTA to borrow every red cent it spent on buying new trains, rehabbing stations, and rebuilding tracks over the last ten years. The cost of repaying those loans is now staggering and impossible to do with the MTA’s current funding stream.

So forget about DC saving us, it’s up to the often hapless crew in Albany to figure out a new “revenue source” (taxes or tolls) for the MTA that will keep the agancy’s doomsday budget from becoming reality.

New York State Capitol

While we all wait to see exactly what the US Senate comes up with for it’s version of the stimulus package it seems certain that the total amount will easily blow way past the $819 billion House plan which passed Wednesday. So what will it mean for New York? Especially the state government which is facing a $15.4 billion budget gap?And what about New York City where Mayor Bloomberg is unveiling his doomsday budget today?

Monetarily Sen. Chuck Schumer calculates the state and cities will get roughly $15 billion over the next two-plus years.The biggest chunk of help will come in Medicaid funding which happens to be the largest part of the state budget. But whatever portion of that $15 billion the state gets it assuredly will not be enough to close the deficit. That means all of Governor David Paterson’s doomsday talk and his resulting doomsday budget is still relevant.

Paterson’s budget, filled with fees and cuts, has met with pretty much total silence from Legislative leaders in Albany who have said it made no sense to even talk about what might need to be cut or what taxes and fees might need to be raised until the size of the Federal “donation” was understood. Well we’re pretty close to understanding now.

Paterson’s budget proposed roughly $9.5 billion in cuts — the lion’s share out of the two biggest areas of the budget, education and health care. Since the state can expect about $10 billion in Medicaid help over the next two years and roughly $5 billion in education assistance during the same period (not all of which goes to Albany — $11B is what one analyst said is likely to be Albany’s take), a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that if lawmakers only wanted to use the Federal cash to offset budget cuts (as opposed to making the cuts and using the cash to reduce the tax and fee hikes) the number to cut comes down to a more manageable $4 billion.

While budget watchdogs and even the Governor may scream that the current crisis should be used to reform health care and education funding in NYS (which are generally far above what almost any other state spends with no benefit to show for it) we’ve all seen this scene before.

Under Republicans and Democrats New York’s government has almost always taken the easy way out, using one-shot asset sales, windfalls, and various accounting tricks to avoid facing the hard truth: New York State spends too much and New York citizens get too little for it.

You’d think the prospect of a second Great Depression coupled with a 15 billion dollar Federal gift might persuade the Legislature to fix the chronic budget mess under the cover of crisis. But you’d probably think wrong.

As for the city, Schumer says Gotham should get around $3.4 billion in health and education funding or about $1.7 billion this year and the same next year. The Independent Budget Office just estimated the city’s budget gap for 2009 has grown to $4.3 billion. The Mayor’s budget will count on that Federal cash but he will propose a sales tax increase, service cuts, and worker benefit changes to close the $2.6 billion gap that will remain.

Of course the politics at City Hall will be somewhat different because while the Mayor and most of the council members are running for reelection this November they don’t have the luxury Albany has of “creative budgeting”. That’s because back in the 70′s Albany made New York City adhere to very strict balanced budget rules. Too bad Albany won’t live by the very effective rules it sets for others….

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY

Marist asked New York voters if they thought she was the right choice — remember this is after voters were led to believe top-shelf names like Caroline Kennedy or maybe Andrew Cuomo would get the nod. Marist says 46% say ‘yes’ to 24% who say ‘no.’ Note that 30% are ‘unsure.’

Next the poll asked about her favorability — 41% like her, 11% don’t, and 48% are either unsure or didn’t know who she was. Then there’s the hypothetical match-ups — she easily beats another relative unknown, Long Island Republican Congressman Peter King but ties former Governor George Pataki.

What all this shows is that Gillibrand is effectively a new product the public isn’t very familiar with. Any new politician would love these numbers provided they have the time and money to turn those “unsure/unfamiliars” into “I like Kirstens” and that is something she has.

Gillibrand raised more than $4 million bucks for her House race in November (and beat a Republican who spent $7 million in the most Republican district in NYS) and will hold the seat for a full year before any campaign really begins. Plus she’s got Chuck “King of All Fundraising” Schumer on her side.

Some Democrats have been going on and on about Gillibrand’s big problems with the liberal base of primary voters she would have to win if some Dem chose to challenge her. While that’s incredibly unlikely ( “Keep Your Skeptical Eye on the Ball”), the Marist Poll provides a pretty strong reason to believe she’s better set with the base than ambitious/jealous Dems like to admit.

Her supposed Achilles Heal is her Poster Girl status with the National Rifle Association. Bad news to largely urban downstate liberal anti-gun voters, no? No, says Marist. They asked if Gillibrand’s support from the NRA would dissuade them from voting for her. Statewide 51% of Dems said it wouldn’t make a difference while 35% said it would make them “less likely” to support her. What really stands out though is how New York City Dems answered — 52% said it would make no difference while just 32% said they would be less likely to vote for her.

Gillibrand’s main problem is not with urban liberal Dems but with suburban voters who are the most negative about her. When suburbanites were asked if she was the right choice they split 36% yes, 35% no, and 29% undecided. To be sure suburban voters — especially women — could be the key in 2010 as they were in Hillary Clinton’s first Senate race.

Clinton didn’t cement their support until Rick Lazio reached across the lectern in their infamous Buffalo debate and yelled “sign this, sign this!” at her as he shoved a piece of paper into her face. Gillibrand is unlikely to get that kind of gift but if she wants to know where to start her “listening tour” she could do worse than someplace out in Nassau County.

Gov. David Paterson

Oh how quickly the news has moved on from Kirsten Gillibrand the “accidental Senator” to David Paterson the “doomed Governor.” Newspapers across the state from Buffalo to Gotham wrote up Paterson’s big problems this morning after the botched selection process to replace Hillary Clinton.

Now two new polls, one from Quinnipiac and the other from Siena, make several things abundantly clear:

1. Pundits be damned, the public is NOT blaming Paterson for the Caroline Kennedy fiasco (despite Liz Benjamin’s excellent report this morning indicating the public might want to think again).

2. Paterson is still widely popular, and all things being equal (which they are not but chill — I’m getting there), he is not in a particularly tough position for a campaign that will begin a year from now.

3. Kirsten Gillibrand will be elected Senator in 2010.

First, the Q poll shows voters are giving Paterson a pass on the Caroline mess blaming Kennedy and her people by huge margin (49% say it was Caroline’s fault, 15% say it was Dave’s). Furthermore his approval rating is down pretty significantly from it’s high last August (64% then, 50% now) but considering all the bad news about the budget, his State of the State, and Caroline he can’t be too unhappy that only 30% disapprove of the way he’s doing (that’s roughly the percentage of Republicans in the state so whaddya expect?) Finally there’s great news for Gillibrand here.

Voters who say they have an opinion like her 25% to 10%. Nice, but focus on the 63% who don’t have an opinion. For an aggressive campaigner and fundraiser who’s taken classes at the Chuck Schumer School of Politics, 63% undecided is pure gold. Gillibrand skillfully went to work moments after she was announced last Friday and hasn’t stopped. The poll shows she has great appeal upstate and among Republicans — even among NYC Dems who critics say will abandon her over her support for gun rights she has positive ratings and a vast pool of undecideds. Combine that with the support of her mentor and macher Senator Schumer and Gillibrand is the closest thing to a sure bet you’re gonna get in politics.

So back to Paterson’s polls and his problems. While his approval rating is still pretty good the Siena poll put him into a head to head match-up with Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and found it to be thisclose in a hypothetical primary (35% Paterson to 33% Cuomo). Oooo delicious, right? Not so fast.

Andrew Cuomo has clawed his way back to respectability after primarying Carl McCall in 2002 thus earning what looked to be the everlasting enmity of African-American (and plenty of other) Dems who thought it mighty uncool for the brash young scion to try and keep New York from possibly electing it’s first black Governor. So what’s he gonna do now that he’s in (almost) everyone’s good graces? Take on New York’s actual first black Governor? Not on your life unless top African American politicos like Rangel, Sharpton, and some guy named Obama throw Dave over the transom. If that happens there won’t be a primary because Paterson will resign or find himself Ambassador of [insert obscure country here].

Finally remember who now rules the Democratic Party of the State of New York. King Charles. Schumer no more wants Andrew Cuomo in the Governor’s Office than he wanted the ambitious competitor in the Senate. If Paterson can muddle through this budget year (and I’m betting he can with the help of some big $$ help from Schumer and Obama) Schumer will do whatever it takes to make sure he stays in office and the politial pecking order stays the same. With Schumer firmly on top.

UPDATE 1/27/09

A third poll from Marist may give Paterson more pause. Marist has his “How am I doin’?” numbers at 46% Excellent/Good versus 48% Fair/Poor and shows him losing to either Rudy Giuliani or Bloomberg (who almost certainly would never run) albeit by narrow margins.

Sen. Chuck Schumer and his pick for Hillary's replacement, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand

All the huffing and puffing about New York’s newest (almost) Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is as amusing as it is beside the point.

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand in Albany

While it’s a relief that the month-long drama over who New York Governor David Paterson would pick to fill Hillary Clinton’s US Senate seat, at lease one of his claims at a news conference in Albany Friday was absurd and impossible on it’s face.