As Governor George Pataki’s last legislative session draws to a close, we kicked around an idea at empirepage.com to see how New Yorkers viewed Pataki’s 12 years as Governor.

In addition to the previously reported question regarding which U.S. Senator is more effective, Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton, we also asked our polling partner, Siena, to check out the following question: “How would you rank George Pataki’s twelve years as Governor?”

The four choices provided were, mostly successful, somewhat successful, somewhat unsuccessful and mostly unsuccessful.

The results of the 6/12-14 Empirepage/Siena poll (623 RV’s; +/- 3.9%) are quite interesting in that 66% say Pataki has been mostly/somewhat successful while 32% say mostly/somewhat unsuccessful.

Specifically, 19% said mostly successful, 47% said somewhat successful, 17% said somewhat unsuccessful and 15% said mostly unsuccessful. 3% didn’t know, or expressed no opinion.

Among Republicans, the results were (in same order as above) 25/54/10/10.

Among Dems, the results were 14/42/20/22.

Among Independents/Other, the results were 19/51/20/8.

In NYC, the results were 16/40/23/17.

In NYC suburbs, the results were 25/51/9/12.

Upstate, it was 17/50/16/15.

Among whites: 19/48/18/14.

Among African-Americans: 15/43/9/32.

Among Latinos: 18/18/36/27.

According to a new poll of NYS registered voters conducted for the Empire Page by Siena Research Institute (6/12-14, 623 RV’s, +/- 3.9%) U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, by a 44% to 22% margin, is viewed as more effective for New York State than U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton.

When asked,”Who is a more effective senator for New York State, Charles Schumer or Hillary Clinton?” 44% chose Schumer, 22 percent chose Clinton, 22% said both are equally effective, and 12 percent had no opinion.

In a poll conducted for the Empire Page in June 2004 by Zogby asking a similar question (700 NYS LVs, +/- 3.8%), Schumer was deemed more effective by 36 % versus 30% for Clinton.

“The results reflect the fact that Senator Schumer spends an enormous amount of time and effort
tending to New York State and its many needs and local concerns, while the news spotlight surrounding Senator Clinton’s national ambitions fair or unfair may be responsible for her diminished standing vis-a-vis Schumer regarding overall effectiveness,” stated Peter G. Pollak, Empire Page editor.

Pollak said that while all evidence points to the fact Clinton remains a very popular figure in New York State, “Chuck Schumer is well on his way to acquiring the political persona of former Senator Al D’Amato as the go-to-guy in Washington to ensure local concerns throughout the state are addressed,” he continued.

Crosstabs available to Empire Page subscribers.

Later This Week: New Empirepage/Siena numbers show how New Yorkers are assessing Governor George Pataki’s 12 years as Governor.

After months of taking unanswered hits, there’s a palpable sense among Republicans in DC today that a corner is being turned, and that the cyclical news tide is turning.

Besides showing some welcome spunk, energy and good-natured ribbing of ABC’s Jake Tapper and NBC’s David Gregory, President Bush’s news conference this morning demonstrated the White House’s determination to turn the tables on Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of that whacked out, whiny and weak Daily Kos, Howard Dean, Moveon.org crowd.

Out of the mist of political despair comes the emerging GOP campaign message for the 2006 election:

In Iraq and in the fight against terror, the Dems have no plan other than to cut and run – as they always have; and as the economy is strong and getting stronger, the Dems will do what they always do: raise taxes.

While GOP morale was at a low point last week, Bush’s numbers are inching back up as Republicans drift home — but a sustained message of Dems cutting and running in Iraq and raising taxes on working families is just what’s needed.

It’s simple, true, and must be repeated a zillion times.

Let the GOP counterattack begin.

The Columbia Journalism Review’s “CJR Daily” reports today that “Reporters Tire of Bad Political Reporting,” and that what’s needed is “big-picture changes that could improve news coverage in the upcoming campaign season.”

The question posed to several journalists: “Some veteran American journalists see the 2006 elections as offering the press a momentous opportunity to revolt against the status quo of spoon-fed sound bites and he said/she said coverage… What would such a revolt look like?”

The answers, generally vapid, focus on the need for “better investigative units,” avoiding the “journalistic pile on,” and the need to talk with “a diverse group of people: the shop clerk, the cab driver, the admitting nurse at the doctor’s office.” Well, OK.

One recommendation was especially disturbing: “Instead of spending time getting reaction quotes, test the veracity and authenticity of the original statement,” wrote Valerie Hyman, a 1987 fellow. “Journalists are under no legal obligation to provide equal space and/or time to opposing candidates.”

In the charge-countercharge campaign environment — which will never change, and never should change — “spending time getting reaction quotes” is essential. To say journalists are under “no legal obligation” to provide equal space or time to opposing candidates, while true, is simply classroom idealism.

Charges and countercharges are the coin of the realm in the daily reporting of campaigns — as is the horse race reporting of various polls. It’s news — always was, always will be.

For those who dislike what most of us consider to be the de riguer reporting of charges, countercharges, allegations, reacts, polls, tv spots, process pieces and the like, perhaps the answer is simply a broader ratio of so-called “news analysis” pieces to place things in a broader, more objective context, to the exteny that’s possible.

No one cranks out higher quality, more frequent big picture analysis pieces that Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times. Brownstein’s the best — but there are plenty of other must-read sharpies out there capable of cranking out this genre; Dan Balz, for example, or Rick Berke, when he was on tour.

What’s really needed: more latitude from editors enabling their smartest, best reporters to show their “news analysis” stuff, in addition to the daily hit and run pieces. Both are essential.

Tom Reynolds’ quote is superb, and the analysis shows why “The Note” from ABC News rules:

“Ordinarily, there is nothing more annoying than reading press releases from the congressional campaign committees of both parties.

They tend to be filled with over-the-top spin, dumb jokes, macho indirection, and juvenile taunts.

These releases are so dumb, in fact, that we stopped reading them long ago.

However, a team of curfew-violating Googling monkeys in need of punishment are regularly assigned to read them, filtering through for ones we need to see.

So regarding last night’s victory by Republican surfer/lobbyist Brian Bilbray over Democrat Francine Busby in a special election for the U.S. House seat formerly held by convicted Republican Duke Cunningham, we believe that National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Reynolds has the best summary of the Higher Meaning of a 1/435th-sized tea leaf.

Before recognizing the Gentleman from New York for 5.8 seconds, recall that:

1. The only storyline that matters in politics the rest of the year is whether Republicans keep control of both the House and the Senate.

2. The Democrats still don’t actually have enough Senate seats in play to take control of the Senate (or a national message).

3. Most of all, the question is: in the close races will the Republicans institutional advantages trump what all agree will be a sour national climate for the party?

So, Chairman Reynolds, tell us what Message the people of one San Diego-area congressional district wanted to make sure that the lunchtime crowd at the Palm all heard:

“National Democrats must come to terms with the fact that momentum for the midterm elections will not materialize simply because they preordain it in the media or because they ask their special interest friends to buy it for them.

“The results in San Diego show that nothing has happened to alter the notion (sic) that House elections are about a choice between local personalities focused on local issues.”

The Democratic on-the-record and not-so-on-the-record responses (the Republicans were forced to put a lot of resources in the race, Bilbray underperformed Bush 2004, Busby’s last-minute gaffe was costly and she wasn’t such a great candidate, it’s a very conservative district and Democrats will pick up our seats in Bluer quarters, look at how Busby performed with independents, etc…) are, trust us, not worth a warm bucket of anything.

Bottom line: Bilbray’s victory shows that although Republican incumbents are running in a nasty national environment and although they are expected to lose some seats in November, the GOP is still favored to hold onto its majorities in both chambers because of several baked-in-the-cake advantages, including money, few retirements, safely-drawn seats, and a party apparatus that is adept at turning campaigns to local issues and turning out voters through micro targeting and hard work.

With all the action in New York today with Weld, it’s easy to overlook the CA-50 special election to replace Rep. Duke Cunningham – which is huge deal in DC tonight as the sun goes down and local California polls close shortly.

And no one has as much at stake as New York GOP Congressman Tom Reynolds, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and prime benefactor of the GOP candidate Brian Bilbray, a former member of Congress.

The good news is that it appears from the general buzz on the ground that Bilbray is going to defeat the Democrat candidate, Francine Busby, by 3 to 5%.

A third party candidate complicates matters, but some of the folks on the ground from both sides think Bilbray will pull this one out, and a last minute Busby gaffe on immigration (you know the deal if you’re reading this) was beautifully exploited by the NRCC and Bilbray campaign. Closing in the last several days under heavy fire on a volatile issue is a bad place to be.

Out on a limb: Busby’s going down.

For Tom Reynolds, already getting notice for being an excellent successor to U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), one of the best NRCC Chairs, ever, a win tonight will further advance his street cred in DC.

Even if Reynolds, Bilbray and the NRCC take this one tonite, the backspin will be tough to deal with. The lede will still mostly point to this just being a finger in the dike of a bigger coming wave. We’ll see – not yet sold on a GOP House debacle as the GOP sits in a cyclical public opinion trough.

Regardless of a win, Reynolds has his hands full dealing with the D triple-c’s hardcore Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) – also getting an excellent reputation, much as Tony Coelho did — as a guy who really understands the nuance and ebb and flow of campaigns.

If Reynolds can hold the House, his future is huge.

With the AP’s Marc Humbert leading the unfolding coverage of the Bill Weld-Steve Minarick dance, it’s becoming clear, unfortunately, that Weld will pull out of the race in the next 24-48 hours. Several emails from reliable individuals indicate this will be the case.

One Albany-based Republican also said this was simply Minarik’s attempt to save his job, but who knows until we see some more reporting.

If this occurs, and Bill Weld bolts, U.S. Senate candidate KT McFarland — far less viable and legitimate than Bill Weld in her respective primary contest with John Spencer — should also hit the road. She’s a cypher if there ever was one.

If Weld withdraws, his political career must still be respected and lauded. His 1996 Senate race with John Kerry was a classic, as was his 1990 race for Governor against John Silber. His legacy will be one of tax cuts and a refreshing air of non self-importance. It was both shocking and amusing to see Weld at a 1992 Grateful Dead concert at Boston Garden.

Weld never seemed to get his sea legs in this GOP primary race, his problem with Mike Long was a hindrance, and he would have been a far stronger, more sure-footed candidate in a general election environment — which is more free-wheeling.

Developing…

Same sex marriages? Nope — don’t support it. A truly terrible idea.

But President Bush’s expected “major policy announcement” today calling for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages is a big yawn.

Frankly, it should be insulting to the influential swath of GOP voters who care about this issue.

It’s as if, like automatons, socially conservative Republicans are expected to fall in line and become “energized” to vote GOP this fall — despite the fact the President has totally ignored the issue until now, when his numbers and those of most of our candidates need a base boost.

The reason it’s so lame, though, is that it’s just a political tactic — rooted in electoral expediency, not consistent conviction.

Most Republicans would rather see major cuts in federal spending, more tax cuts and more regulatory relief. But that won’t happen — we don’t have the juice to get it done, much less survive the attacks of gutting key programs for seniors and children in favor of “tax cuts for the rich.”

Next up on the DC GOP legislative agenda? A flag burning amendment — another pressing national issue.

The political necessity of playing these GOP political base cards is obvious and valid; we’ll get a few points’ bump in the data from Republicans coming home, but it just shows how pathetically weak we as Republicans are this year. And who’s to say if these voters will even turn out on election day.

The President has framed the issue as best he can: “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts.”

But still… what a snoozer.