What! Chuckie, Hillary Pick Judges?

Get a firm grip on the Web monitor and try to follow.

In his campaign for the presidency, Republican George W. Bush lost the Empire State, big time. Loser, right?

Bush won the White House, which lets him nominate federal judges and United States attorneys in all states, of which New York is arguably one. Winner, right?

In most states, U.S. senators of the same political party as the president get to submit a short list of names – a very short list – from which he makes his nominations for those positions. Winners, right?

New York's two senators – Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton – are Democrats, which puts them in a different party from Bush. They both did everything under the sun to cost him not just New York's electoral votes but also to try to defeat him in the election nationwide. Losers, right?

Gov. George Pataki, a longtime personal friend, worked his tail off to try to carry his state for Bush and even went to Florida to help him get those 25 electoral votes that gave him the presidency. As New York's only major Republican official elected statewide, he is in position to recommend federal judges and prosecutors. Winner, right?

Pataki certainly sees it that way, and he has his lists all prepared and ready to submit to the White House.

That's not the way Schumer and his junior senatorial colleague see it. In their view of the world, it's Pataki who's the loser. Remember? He's the one who couldn't carry New York for Bush. Loser, right?

Their Democratic candidate, Al Gore, carried New York, big time, thanks – Schumer and Clinton can argue – to their considerable help. Winners, right?

So what you get, other than a headache, is this:

Pataki is saying that even though the Democratic senators can make a case that he's a loser, he still should get to pick New York's federal judges and prosecutors.

And Schumer and Clinton are saying that even though Pataki can make a case that they're losers, they still should do the picking.

Spoils to the losers. Right?

Schumer and Clinton also maintain they have an additional argument on their side: New York senators, not governors, whether winners or losers, have traditionally been the ones to pick federal judges and prosecutors.

Well, sort of but not exactly, not even in New York.

An article in the Feb. 19 issue of the New York Observer delves more deeply yet into this mare's nest of political patronage as practiced in New York:

The way it's worked for the past quarter of a century, there was a gentlemen's agreement, initiated by Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

If one of the senators was a Democrat and the other was a Republican and the president was a Republican – that would be Sens. Moynihan and Alfonse D’Amato and Presidents Ronald Reagan and George (the elder) Bush – Moynihan got to pick one-fourth and D’Amato, the Republican, the other three-fourths.

When Democratic President Bill Clinton came to office, the balance shifted. Moynihan got to pick three-fourths and D'Amato, one-fourth.

But that was then, and this is now and now is different. Now there's a GOP president and two Democratic senators.

Time for a new tradition, a new gentlemen's agreement. Right?

Maybe not. No agreement looms on the horizon. The two gentlemen involved – Pataki and Schumer – are worse than at odds. Nor has the former first lady weighed in. Yet.

Pataki wants to be the sole picker. Schumer, and presumably herself, want to pick – if not the entire litter – at least a goodly number of federal judges and prosecutors.

In this skirmish, Pataki got the jump on Schumer and Clinton by giving the White House the name of his former lead counsel, James McGuire, to replace U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White in the Southern District of New York.

That's right, she's the same Mary Jo White, although appointed by President Clinton, who is purported to be in high dudgeon that he ignored her office when he pardoned billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.

Odds are Pataki's candidate will be confirmed by the Senate as soon as White concludes the office’s unfinished business, which includes a grand jury investigation of the circumstances surrounding that pardon.

Bowing to that, Schumer is trying to ward off any further Pataki-recommended appointments. He's written to Bush, neglecting to mention how unsupportive he's been even after Bush won but nonetheless arguing that the rest of the U.S. attorneys in New York – heavily loaded with President Clinton's appointees – should be left in place until they finish their terms.

How does that sit with Pataki? As the Observer puts it:

"Pataki’s supporters find the idea of an accommodation between the president and New York’s Democratic senators to be laughable. Schumer’s junior colleague, after all, is one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"As one Pataki ally put it, 'They’re nuts if they think they’re going to have anything to say about Bush’s appointments after they worked so hard to defeat him.'"

Things get even more curious for Pataki, as the Observer continues:

The governor isn't the only big-game elephant on the Republican preserve. There's Rep. Ben Gilman, who has spent the past 28 of his 78 years representing Rockland and Orange counties.

So long as Gilman endures, it's unlikely the Democrats will capture his seat. Pataki doesn't want to jostle that apple cart.

Gilman – a winner, right? – knows how to play the winner-loser game, too. He has already announced as dean of the New York congressional delegation (that means Senate as well as House of Representatives) he is taking over responsibility for coordinating all the state’s federal appointments.

Not exactly welcome news to the two senators or the governor.

One of Gilman's minions assured Pataki he would be consulted in the process, as a courtesy.

Although the Observer doesn't say so, as a courtesy to New Yorkers, all this may be why losers in presidential races sometimes consider themselves winners. Right?