G.O.P. Senate Bid May Take the Fall, for Bush's Sake

ov. George E. Pataki and the Republican machinery he controls are determined to rally a huge voter turnout for President Bush next year, in a bid meant to bring New York Republicans the sort of national stature that has eluded them since the days of Nelson A. Rockefeller.

But in an intriguing subplot, Mr. Pataki and his advisers appear to have all but abandoned plans to seriously challenge Senator Charles E. Schumer, a popular Democrat, mindful that it would mobilize the opposition and thus undermine Mr. Bush's prospects in New York.

Publicly, Republicans are still talking about waging a tough fight against Mr. Schumer in 2004. But privately, people in Mr. Pataki's inner circle say the party has begun shifting its priorities, determined to make Mr. Bush's campaign competitive in New York, even if that means writing off the Senate race.

"Schumer is going to get a pass," said one high-ranking Pataki official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "I'm not saying the party won't find a candidate to run against Schumer. But they're really not serious."

A senior Pataki adviser said, "For New York to be competitive in the presidential contest, it's important not to rile up the core Democratic base, effectively giving Schumer a pass on a race we probably can't win anyway."

These and other Republicans say the sudden shift in the party's priorities reflects the surprising level of support that Mr. Bush has picked up in New York, a heavily Democratic state that no Republican presidential candidate has won since Ronald Reagan swept it in 1984.

A poll recently released by Marist College, for example, showed that 58 percent of voters who were surveyed in New York rated Mr. Bush's job performance as good or excellent.

But as much as anything else, the strategy also underscores another hard political reality that New York Republicans have been forced to reckon with: the early electoral strength of Mr. Schumer, who has already amassed nearly $15 million in his war chest and whose job-approval rating is at an impressive 58 percent in recent polls.

At the same time, Republican Party officials in New York have had a difficult time recruiting strong candidates to run against the senator.

Not only has Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a titan of the state party, apparently decided not to enter the 2004 Senate race. But also, Republican officials say that one other rising star in the party — Randy A. Daniels, the secretary of state in the Pataki administration — has rebuffed repeated invitations from the party to try unseating Mr. Schumer.

Mr. Daniels declined to comment last week. But people close to him said his decision to stay out of the race stemmed partly from his belief that the party had no interest in spending the money and campaign resources it would take to beat Mr. Schumer. Mr. Daniels has also made it clear that he would prefer to run for governor in 2006, according to leading party officials.

"I think it's safe to say that we've thrown in the towel on the Schumer race," said one senior Republican strategist with close ties to the New York party leadership.

The Schumer camp, for its part, is playing down any suggestion that Republicans plan to mount only a nominal challenge, perhaps out of concern that that would lead to complacency among his own supporters.

At the same time, Democrats close to Mr. Schumer are arguing — it is difficult to tell how seriously — that a wealthy candidate may emerge from the shadows at any point and use his or her own money to bankroll a campaign against the senator.

Indeed, Georgette Mosbacher, a prominent Republican fund-raiser and the former wife of Robert Mosbacher, the secretary of commerce under George H. W. Bush, has approached state party officials expressing an interest in running against Mr. Schumer, according to a high-ranking state Republican official. A guest who answered the phone at Ms. Mosbacher's home yesterday said that she was not at home and could not be reached for comment.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer, would not comment on the matter beyond saying: "Chuck is doing what he always does, working hard for the people of New York. Chuck always says, `Work hard and everything works out all right.' "

As for helping Mr. Bush win New York in 2004, state Republicans acknowledge that the odds are against them in a state where registered Democrats far outnumber Republicans. But if nothing else, these Republicans say, the party wants to begin an all-out drive to make Mr. Bush appear competitive in the state.

That alone would be a major victory for New York Republicans, potentially unnerving national Democrats and forcing them to spend money and time in a state that Democratic presidential candidates usually win with ease.

"The test of the Republican Party in New York is how well we are able to organize ourselves and make New York competitive in the presidential race next year," said State Senator Nicholas A. Spano, an influential Republican from Westchester County.

One major factor working in the state party's favor is that President Bush's advisers have put together a re-election strategy built around holding the national party's nominating convention in New York City, just in time for the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"If the convention goes well, it could give Bush a big bump in New York," one Republican official said.

Republicans say the best way to bolster Mr. Bush's prospects in New York is to rally support in the heavily Republican precincts of upstate New York and in the suburbs of New York City, while trying not to rile the city's predominantly Democratic voters.

Republican leaders in New York are in no way discounting the likelihood that no matter what they do, Democrats will turn out in large numbers in 2004 because it is, after all, a presidential election year.

But the strategic thrust of the Republican effort boils down to this: Why pick a fight with Mr. Schumer, a tough and well-financed political brawler? Republicans are concerned that Mr. Schumer could, in turn, rally his supporters, particularly labor unions and minority voters, with an aggressive campaign of his own.

"What you don't want to do is stir up their base," said the Pataki adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The high-ranking Pataki official acknowledged that the strategy did have a drawback. "You would think this would give Democrats less reason to ramp up," the official said. "But the theory may not hold, because turnout automatically goes up in a presidential election year."

What a win-win philosophy, the NY Pubbies (R) have: GWB win; Schumer win.

I'm from NYC, my message to you, stop using logic, we make no sense. Its impossible to figure this city or state out. We elected a republican who ran to the left of an ultra liberal democrat, this city though Rudy was a conservative, and Pataki is also supposed to be a conservative, there's no way to explain this,

That said, Bush is not going to win New York, but if he can make the dems spend money here, and make them have to campaign in New York and if they even think this state might be competitive, in the words of James Carville "they are doomed".

Sounds like it. Kinda like the Arizona Pubbies giving up on the idea of fielding a candidate to take on McCommie in the primaries. When were the Pubbies neutered? When did they lose all interest in fighting for what's right? Such inspiring "leadership"!

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

Think of it this way: What is the likelihood that NY would have both Senators members of the GOP? A bit far fetched, considering how many independent/moderate voters take the view that it is better to have one from each party. You may not like their logic, but a suprising number of people(and not just in NY) hold tht view. So a Republican beating Schumer increases the odds that Hillary would be re-elected. The thinking is it would be better to bring her down in defeat or an embarrassing decision not to run(which would also force her to tip her '08 hand earlier than she wants, and not be able to run for pres on the power of incumbency). Not saying I agree with the strategy, but there is definitely logic to it.

While her highness won in liberal New York, the chances of her winning the precidency (I know she would win the dem nonination) without a Perrot and a Buchanan or someone like them is nonexsistant. And we know that the chances of her running a losing campaign are also nonexistant.

What a huge surprise that the Times does not even mention the pro-Second Amendment, almost completely pro-life, fiscally conservative Michael Benjamin, who has a full-scale campaign going and has been to all 62 counties.

This is a very good sign for Michael! The Times is pointedly ignoring him! They must be getting just a little nervous.

No one can win against Nadler, or practically any Democrat, in that district. That's why Michael chose to run for the Senate.

And has the tentative support of the party, if not the actual endorsements. They are waiting to see how hard he is willing to work and how much money he can raise.

Remember, Lou Wein had no money, but he had the 2A supporters, the pro-lifers, and the evangelicals. A campaign of ideas instead of vested interests--how refreshing that would be.

28 posted on 06/30/2003 5:18:41 PM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)

What about Benjamin's poor showing against Nadler several years ago. I understand that Nadler has a hard time campaigning because of his size...but I have also heard that he lost a bunch of weight with surgury. I haven't seen/heard much about it since.

Jerry the MOAB is my congresscritter, and the fact is that this district includes some of THE most left-wing/commie neighborhoods in the nation, if not the world: Greenwich Village, West Village, Chelsea, Soho, Upper West Side.

The 'rats could run the fat that was suctioned out of his ass, and it would beat the snot out of any GOP candidate in this district.

Could an sleeper Irish or Italian Catholic from Upstate pull off a win against SCUMer?

Upstate likes their own. Swing/slightly Long Island is heavily Irish, and there's still a lot of them in the City.

New York Times Propaganda Wing hit piece.
How typical.
New York is almost entirely Socilaist/Communist/Democrat, so to stir up the largely shell shocked left here in New York they need to fire them up and show them a foo-fighter enemy to attack gangland style.
This is their chosen path and method.
How typical of the NYT liar's brigade.

I have no idea. But I think that for a Repub to win here has less to do with ethnic and religious considerations and more to do with not being seen as "too conservative."

We're vastly outnumbered in terms of voter registration, yet we have a Republican governor in his third consecutive term and for the third time in a row, the city has elected a mayor with "R" after his name. But they're to the left of many midwest and southern 'rats on more than a few issues.

I think the state GOP is holding its fire until 2006, when we can put our (alleged) best and brightest against the Enemy of All that is Decent and Good.

I assume you mean Rudy (best and brightest) who reportedly said he intends to run again. Pundits are now saying he may run and easily defeat Hillary in 2006 however I also heard he's still entertaining thoughts of running for Governor.

no republican candidate can win as ny framework has been destroyed. maybe rudy could beat chuckie but i don't think anyone serious will try. someone like rep john sweeney would be a great senator but doesn't stand a chance in statewide run due to lack of statewide party.

This would only make sense if Bush needed New York in order to win re-election. He doesn't.

He might win it anyway, but the senate race has nothing to do with it.

In reading this article I came away with NOT that Bush needs NY to win, but that by winning NY it would shore up the NY republican base (putting some life back into the NY republican party)which would benefit NY republican canidates in future elections.

Oh yeah, and The Yankees Suck. :)

My sentiments exactly! (from a current NYC resident!) Go METS...my team win or lose!

1) I think the state GOP is holding its fire until 2006, when we can put our (alleged) best and brightest against the Enemy of All that is Decent and Good.

2) Schumer has far greater Jewish support than she does, and that matters a lot in this state. Going to back to Point #1, she's more vulnerable on that.

I think you have hit the nail on the head!

I think that the conservative, member of 3 minority groups, Michael Benjamin is a good candidate.:)

I was wondering why his name wasn't mentioned in the article. That is because I thought he was running as a republican but if he is running on the conservative ticket I see now why he was not mentioned. No one in the conservative party ever wins in NY.

Normally I would be highly critical and in a very vocal, profane way about tanking an election like this.

But, then I saw the source...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.