Today Paterson announced that he is quitting his campaign. The final straw in his beleaguered gubernatorial career came from a New York Times story that revealed Paterson got involved in a domestic violence case with David Johnson, a close Paterson confidant who stands accused of beating up his longtime companion. Paterson has had all sorts of ugly accusations thrown at him, many of which have not been disputed, but this particular incident involves him speaking to the accuser on the phone and deploying his security detail to influence the situation.

We noted back on February 10 that the Times was working on a story that could potentially bury the governor, but it turned out that the story did not surface and Paterson was given yet another reprieve. But now we know what that story was about, and it turns out that the scuttlebutt was right in determining that this item would be the final nail in Paterson’s political coffin.

There is no need to get into the sordid details of this latest episode on this site. The dailies and other blogs will no doubt address all that. What is most important is the speculation of what will happen to the State of New York now that its second consecutive chief executive has succumbed to extra-political hijinks in as little as three years.

It is unlikely that Paterson will step down outright, even though the New York Daily News has called for exactly that.

So now with Paterson out of the race, State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination, and, at this point, the governorship. Republican candidate Rick Lazio, who spent a bit of time actually praising Paterson’s fortitude with the moribund and corrupt state legislature, is so far silent on this issue. That’s a good move. Lazio still trails Cuomo in all polls, but he is gaining in recognition, mostly because he represents a change.

Politically, change is what 2010 is all about. Cuomo is golden for Democrats, but he may have to step in as AG if/when it is determined that Paterson used his office to influence private affairs. If that is truly the case, then Lazio may have a short stairway to the top of the heap. And New York State right now is a heap. But fresh faces can do fresh things. We’ll have to see how this unfolds.

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer has also publicly come out against the trials. “My advice to the President is, with a great deal of respect, take New York off your radar screen,” Schumer told reporters.

Even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has changed his mind and come out against holding the trials in Manhattan. Bloomberg originally supported the plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other accused 9/11 plotters in civilian court in New York City, just blocks from the World Trade Center site. He did not initially seem swayed by concerns that the trial would make New York an even riper terrorist target, or by the argument that war criminals should be tried in a military, not civilian setting. He was ultimately swayed by the $1 billion price tag for the trials. The federal government has not guaranteed that this cost would not be passed on to New York City in some fashion, so Bloomberg reversed course.

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was never even consulted when Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department made its decision to bring the trials to Manhattan. As the city’s top cop, you’d think his opinion would count for something when it comes to security.

If all this weren’t enough to dash plans to hold the trials in Manhattan, legislation drafted by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to prevent federal funds from being spent on civilian trials for Guantanamo detainees is picking up steam. Two Democrats have joined 17 Republicans in sponsoring the legislation. King believes that Democratic support for Obama’s detainee policy has eroded, giving his bill a better than average chance for success if it is brought to the floor.

There is no indication from the White House if they will go the military route or pick another civilian location for the 9/11 trials, but it is becoming increasingly unlikely that Manhattan will remain on their list of options.

Paterson admitted sitting down with reporters from the New York Times, the paper rumored to have been working on a scandalous story that was to prompt Paterson’s resignation. The Governor was quick to add that the interview touched only on political and governing issues, not the topics “that have been the source of the mass speculation and feeding frenzy and circus that we have witnessed the last couple of weeks.”

Paterson deserves credit for his moxie if nothing else. He soldiers on in the face of dismal approval ratings, an obstinate if not wholly hostile state legislature, and even a Democratic White House that just wishes he would go away. This latest rumor about Paterson’s early exit only compounds the issue. The Governor himself openly mused about its source, and one can’t help but wonder if political enemies are trying to hasten his exit from the public stage.

It is ironic that Paterson’s only ally these days seems to be his one confirmed challenger for governor, Republican Rick Lazio. In an open letter to Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, Lazio called upon the Gray Lady to either confirm or deny whether it was working on the rumored story and bring an end to “over a week of innuendo and nasty speculation.”

Lazio’s letter provided an interesting twist to the unfolding drama, or tragedy, that has become David Paterson’s administration. The letter could be written off as a shrewd political move on Lazio’s part, but more likely it was a sincere statement about the depths to which politics and media have sunk. It surely stands in stark contrast to the actions we have witnessed in Albany this past week.

The New York Times is rumored to be putting a major scoop together that confirms all this, and many believe it will be the final blow for the embattled Paterson. Naturally, no one at the Times is talking. Not yet, anyway.

Paterson spent much of this past weekend in consultation with a number of state Democratic leaders. His office stated that these were “routine re-election campaign calls” as he prepares his formal campaign announcement. Those who believe the rumors think these are calls to warn of the coming storm.

Yet another possibility is that Paterson will fill out his term, but simply announce that he is not going to run for re-election.

If Paterson were to resign, Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch would fill out the remainder of his term. Ravitch was appointed to his current post last year by Paterson in a move that was considered controversial by many.

Either way, considering how Paterson got the job of New York State Governor in the first place, and what we can expect from him in the coming months if he sticks around, this cannot bode well for the state. In less than a generation, New York has slid from the Empire State to fiscal basket case to tawdry soap opera. The only direction from here must be up.

Beleaguered Governor David Paterson has not backed off from his intention to run for reelection, and he may be buoyed by his recent though slight rise in the polls. He has taken a tough line on spending in the past few weeks, and New Yorkers have embraced him for it, but it may not be enough to help him. He is still seen largely as an ineffective leader, and with the more popular Cuomo now entering the picture, the public’s tolerance of him is likely to drop again. A bruising Democratic primary is inevitable at this point.

Cuomo’s $16 million war chest is five times what Paterson has on hand. That amount also dwarfs Republican candidate Rick Lazio’s current funds. Lazio has wasted no time taking the fight to Cuomo, however, and he has continued to criticize the AG for dancing around making a decision about his run. In a recent Rasmussen poll, Lazio leads Paterson 45 percent to 38. He has closed the gap with Cuomo, but the AG still leads the Republican candidate by a 19-point margin. But there is a long way to go, and that gap is sure to narrow over time. No politician remains that popular forever. Just ask former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, and current Governor Paterson.

If people want to attribute Giuliani’s decision to reject running for office in 2010 as being selfish, then so be it. It doesn’t really change things. No political party should put itself in a position in which it has to rely entirely on one person to save it from oblivion. Being in that position speaks more about the party than the candidate. And frankly, now that Giuliani has said publicly that he is not going to run, it is too late to change his mind. If he were to do a one-eighty at this point and say that he is going to run, it would signal confusion and lack of direction. Those aren’t good qualities for a candidate for public office.

One major point that John made that stuck with me was with regard to Hillary Clinton. He’s right about this much: I do in fact think that it was relatively easy for her to win the 2000 Senate race after Giuliani withdrew. With all due respect to Rick Lazio, who was and is a dedicated campaigner and a good man in general, Clinton ran a superior race. She had access to a stellar national fundraising network that her husband and Terry McAuliffe spent years putting together. And sure, the political right didn’t like her, but by 2000 New York State was already well on its way to drifting into the solidly Democratic column, so the carpetbagger issue and the various scandals that she was attached to did not really resonate with a lot of New York voters, particularly in New York City. And politically, whatever direction the Big Apple goes, so goes the state. It wasn’t so much that Clinton was not “deterred” from running as she was determined to win the seat because it was a major stepping stone for her presidential run, which was her ultimate goal from day one. For these reasons, I think comparing her fortitude in running for the Senate to Giuliani’s refusal to run is comparing apples to oranges.

With the exception of Lazio, much of New York’s Republican Party was holding its breath to see just what Giuliani was planning to do in 2010. Initially, he was considered an easy win over Democratic incumbent David Paterson in the gubernatorial contest. Then, there was speculation that Giuliani would take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who will be defending the seat for the first time after a less than stellar appointed term. It was widely considered that Giuliani would have won that race as well.

Why pass up two chances that seem to be in the bag? Well, for starters, the gubernatorial race may not have been the easy stride that many anticipated. Paterson is so politically weak he may not even survive a primary, leaving it to State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to defend the Democrats’ hold on the governorship. A Cuomo-Giuliani match-up would, by all accounts, have been a hard-fought race whose outcome in a solidly democratic state does not necessarily favor “America’s Mayor.”

As far as the Senate race is concerned, does someone of Rudy Giuliani’s stature want to be a junior senator at age 65? Let’s face it, the U.S. Senate was once considered the pinnacle of civil politics and an august body, but lately it has little more class and decorum than a rugby scrum. It’s not hard to imagine Giuliani not wanting to be a part of it.

Then there’s Rudy himself. He exhibited great leadership after the 9/11 attacks, but there are other points against him that opponents in any future campaigns would exploit—his combative governing style, his personal relations, Bernard Kerik. Giuliani supporters dismiss these items as baseless or just old news, but they would have to be dealt with regardless.

Rudy Giuliani leaves a lot of New York Republicans broken-hearted, but he’s not walking away from politics or from the GOP. He believes that he will be more effective to the broader Republican cause by helping out various races around the country through his campaigning and fundraising efforts, and he may be right. He was a public servant for much of his life. Maybe it is as simple as the fact that he just wants to enjoy life now.

The theme of the event may have been best captured in a moving letter from Judea and Ruth Pearl, parents of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. The letter was read to the crowd by actor Brian Dennehy, who opened his remarks with a little light humor. “I hope you all remembered to wear your sunblock.”

The Pearls made a cogent argument against the Obama administration’s stance on the trial venue.  ”The international community has given America a moral mandate to fight the new epidemic with all the necessary instruments, including a new court system and new legal regimes. The decision to try the arch-symbols of terror in ordinary criminal court, using traditional legal instruments, constitutes a betrayal of that mandate.”

The two-hour program was led by radio personality Steve Malzberg. War veterans, parents of war veterans, New York City firefighters, and survivors of the September 11th attacks all presented passionate, yet reasoned arguments against the trial venue decision. The crowd broke into spontaneous chants of “U.S.A.” and “Holder Must Go” at various points. The cheers were loud, but applause was somewhat muted. It’s difficult to clap when one hand is holding an umbrella.

Founder of the Guardian Angels and quintessential New Yorker Curtis Sliwa whipped up the crowd’s anger with a vivid reminder that by trying Khalid and his co-conspirators in federal court, the government is affording them the rights they denied to nearly 3,000 people and allowing them the opportunity to grandstand for their twisted ideology.

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, pointed out that war criminals belong in military courts and should be subject to military justice. A montage of moments from Holder’s recent painful appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was played to the crowd on a JumboTron screen, and it was a sad reminder of the fact that the Obama administration’s plan to deal with terrorists is fundamentally flawed.

The crowd was encouraged to contact their congressional representatives at the earliest opportunity to reverse the trial venue decision. It would be a good start toward getting back on track with fighting the war against radical Islamic fundamentalism.

It seems that since Democrats and Republicans can’t even agree on just how big the deficit really is, perhaps they should worry a little more about the budget situation and leave gay marriage and some of these other issues for a later date. This lack of ability to prioritize is but one reason why Albany’s lawmakers got into this mess in the first place. Another reason is that state Democrats are beholden to public sector unions that have done a fine job of squeezing higher wages and benefits for government employees while the state’s private sector continues to disintegrate.

Paterson’s well-meaning attempts at correcting New York’s budget woes have likely come too late to save his job. His poor leadership up to this point means that he has virtually no political capital left to spend. Legislative leaders in his own party have thumbed their noses at his ideas but have not offered any viable alternatives to address the problem. A voter backlash similar to what took place last week in several downstate counties may very well be in store for him and several incumbents next year. Albany could sure use a new perspective. Unfortunately, the state literally cannot afford to wait that long.

To show just how petty things have gotten in Albany, take the case over this week’s activities. Paterson desired to address the legislature in a joint session set for today in order to outline a strategy to cut the deficit. Senate Democrats threatened to boycott the joint session because Paterson has no constitutional authority to call it, though they begrudgingly agreed to the special session on Tuesday, because he does hold authority to call that. Not exactly an attitude conducive to mitigating a crisis.

This complete lack of respect for the state’s top elected official by members of his own party does not bode well for Paterson’s efforts. His best hope for cooperation at this point may lay with the GOP, which holds a slim Senate majority and whose leader, Dean Skelos, has called a state spending cap a priority.

The events that transpire in Albany in the coming days could set the fiscal course for the state for years to come. Paterson has not been an ideal leader, but he has at least expressed a grasp for the gravity of the situation. The big question now is will Senate Democrats join the debate in a constructive fashion or will they scuttle a sincere attempt to make a course correction for the state with petty politics?