One is how exceedingly unlikely it is that Mr. Lieberman will actually pull the trigger on a party switch, even if he did use an interview last week—yet again—to leave the door slightly ajar. Connecticut’s junior Senator has a well-established habit of flirting with boldness before pulling back—like when he toyed with marching to the White House to demand Bill Clinton’s resignation in 1998, only to settle for delivering a verbal wrist-slap on the Senate floor.

The other is that by simply entertaining the notion of a Lieberman defection, the Senator’s colleagues play directly into his hand, allowing him to demand—and receive—just about anything he likes from the Democratic leadership.

In other words, Mr. Lieberman—who is generally loyal to the Democratic party line, except on the issue of Iraq—has every reason to play it coy, and no incentive now to reiterate his pronouncements of last summer, when he swore up and down that upon being re-elected to the Senate as an independent, he’d return to the Democratic fold.

The Republicans, still searching for some political momentum after their drubbing last November, are understandably anxious to court the one-time Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, whose break with the Democratic mainstream on Middle Eastern policy is growing more pronounced by the day. They’ve certainly laid out the welcome mat: Nearly every Republican official in the country—with the glaring exception of war foe Chuck Hagel—has spent the last year very publicly stroking Mr. Lieberman’s ego.

And, certainly, the precedent is there for a prospective switch by Mr. Lieberman. The last time the Senate’s partisan balance was this close—Democrats now outnumber Republicans, 51-49—was six years ago, when the 2000 elections left the chamber split evenly between the parties, with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking the tie in the G.O.P.’s favor.

It was then, in the spring of 2001, that James Jeffords, a liberal Republican from Vermont, gave in to Democratic entreaties and left the G.O.P., flipping control of the Senate and delivering to the new Bush administration what was thought to be a devastating jolt.

But the Jeffords switch also serves to illustrate why the Republicans should be very careful what they wish for. Rather than serving as a harbinger of an electoral revolt against the Bush G.O.P. in 2002, the defection may actually have boosted the party’s fortunes in those midterm elections.

By giving Democrats control of the Senate for half of 2001 and all of 2002, Mr. Jeffords essentially stripped them of their best political weapon: their status as a powerless minority. Maddening as it was for them, the Democrats’ minority position served to unify their disparate elements in opposition to the majority party’s agenda.

Before Mr. Jeffords’ defection, with the G.O.P. in charge of the White House and the Congress, the Democrats’ prospects for 2002 seemed rosy. But control of the Senate put the Democrats on the spot and exposed the kinds of ugly fissures that simple, cohesive opposition would have glossed over. When the ballots were tallied that year, the Republicans had defied history by gaining two seats—and control of the chamber.

So far this year, the Republican minority in the Senate has been possessed of a unity of purpose that they lacked in the waning days of their majority. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, for instance, managed to corral almost every Republican—including some opponents of the war—behind a procedural effort to derail a vote on a resolution opposing President Bush’s troop-level increase in Iraq.

That kind of vote-herding will once again become nearly impossible if Mr. Lieberman were to put the Republicans in the majority. G.O.P. Senators would be forced back onto the defensive with an American public even more restless than it was last year, and by a Democratic-led House desperate for a partisan foil.

For the Republicans, Mr. Lieberman’s loyalty is fool’s gold. Yes, winning him over would mean committee chairmanships, better office space and some much-needed respect on the Hill. But in the Senate, the magic number to accomplish anything—as the G.O.P. itself just demonstrated in filibustering the war resolution—is 60, not 51. In that sense, the addition of Mr. Lieberman as the 50th G.O.P. vote (with Mr. Cheney adding the tie-breaking 51st) wouldn’t be as consequential as it’s cracked up to be.

Without Mr. Lieberman, it won’t be a fun 2007 for Republican Senators. But in terms of the next election, they may have him right where they want him.

The idea of Chafee changing parties is not new and in some ways makes an awful lot of sense. He's often called a moderate Republican, but he's really a liberal - to the left of many Senate Democrats - and was the lone GOP vote against the Iraq war. He also publicly refused to vote for George W. Bush's re-election in 2004 and, more recently, opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. Last week, he won the endorsement of Myrth York - a big-name Rhode Island Democrat who has thrice been her party's gubernatorial nominee. Needless to say, if had switched parties a year or two ago, Chafee would probably have had a much easier path to re-election in blue state Rhode Island.

But the timing on this is off. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has poured millions of dollars into Little Rhody this year, fortifying Chafee first from a life-and-death challenge from the right in the GOP primary and now against his Democratic foe, Sheldon Whitehouse. For Chafee now to stick it to the Republican Party - which has cheerfully brooked every one of his apostasies so that he will vote to give them control of the Senate - would take the term 'ingrate' to a new level.

Still, if Chafee hangs on tonight and the chamber ends up split at 50/50, who knows what inducements Democrats might offer Chafee? Actually, the scenario feels a little like the spring of 2001, when Democrats flipped another very liberal New England Republican, Vermonter James Jeffords, to break a 50/50 tie.

(By the way - wouldn't it have saved everyone considerable trouble if at this time last year Chafee and Joe Lieberman struck a deal to trade parties for one year?)

Once Mr. Schumer arrived, he set about decrying President George W. Bush’s efforts to roll back air-conditioning efficiency standards. This picture of the earnest, fist-pumping Chuck Schumer--clad in a stars-and-stripes tie and spending his holiday weekend in front of a bunch of cameras, surrounded by visual props (in this case, boxes of air conditioners on the sidewalk) and denouncing the latest Republican outrage in the hopes that someone was paying attention--seemed drearily familiar.

But this time, things were different. “Today, I’m calling for the President to back off from his proposal,” said Mr. Schumer, pausing as a bus roared by. “If he won’t”--at this point the Senator broke into a broad smile--“as a member of the Energy Committee, now in the majority, I’m going to call for hearings.”

Enemies of efficient air-conditioners, beware. Mr. Schumer can call hearings now.

For the last seven years, with the Republicans in charge of Congress, Mr. Schumer seemed to be battling history itself to keep his career moving forward, attracting attention for his agenda in the House through sheer force of will and shameless self-promotion, and in the Senate by transforming himself into a cross-party deal-maker bearing little resemblance to the partisan firebrand of his earlier days.

Now, with the defection of Vermont Senator James Jeffords from the G.O.P., the Democrats are the majority in the Senate, and Mr. Schumer’s life has been completely changed. He will have more real power than he has ever had. He has displaced Governor George Pataki as the kingmaker on the Bush administration’s appointments to New York judgeships and U.S. Attorney posts. His seats on the Judiciary, Energy and Banking committees make him the man to see for local politicians and Congressmen, many of whom have felt shut out of President Bush’s Washington. (Mr. Schumer said that a number of Congressmen, including three upstate Republicans, have called him since the Jeffords switch to ask for his help on various matters.) And if his media exposure in the past few days has been any indication--he’s been everywhere, crowing about the power the Democrats now have over the appointment of federal judges--the American public will be seeing a lot more of Mr. Schumer.

The prospect of all Chuck Schumer, all the time is less than thrilling for some New York politicos. “For the last 300 Sundays in a row, Chuck Schumer found some reason to stand on a pedestal at some press event,” said Jerry Kassar, the chairman of Brooklyn’s Conservative Party. “Maybe this will give him the opportunity to do two or three at a time.”

For many of the state’s representatives in Washington, however, a newly empowered Mr. Schumer is nothing but good news. After all, the state has not had a particularly powerful advocate in the Senate majority since Alfonse D’Amato was tossed out of his seat in 1998 (by Mr. Schumer), with the prospect of a further freeze-out during the Presidency of Mr. Bush. “This is great for Chuck, which means it’s great for all our constituencies in New York,” said Queens Democratic Representative Gary Ackerman. “He’s going to head a [subcommittee], and it’s a lot easier to wheel and deal when things have to go through your committee. We need his help on a lot of things, so I would say this puts us in a much better position.”

Much of Mr. Schumer’s newfound influence will come from his position on the Judiciary Committee, where he will head the subcommittee on courts, effectively giving him veto power over Mr. Bush’s judicial appointments. Since Mr. Bush took office in January, Republican Governor George Pataki and Mr. Schumer, the state’s senior U.S. Senator, have sparred over who would have the final say in advising the President on appointments in New York. That battle is over now that Mr. Schumer is part of the Senate majority. “There was a perception that because New York was such a Democratic state, Governor Pataki would be the one guy who could talk to the White House,” said Mr. Kassar. “That’s changed now--the Governor’s ability to deal with the Bush administration and to push candidates for nominations has definitely been hurt.”

On a national level, Mr. Schumer’s ability to act as guardian of the nation’s judicial benches will afford him an invaluable pulpit, especially because the committee’s chair, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, seems content to let Mr. Schumer assume the role of attack dog while he takes on the traditionally conciliatory role of committee leader. This means that Mr. Schumer will be perfectly positioned to play a starring role in the first great, divisive battle of the Bush era--when the President chooses his first Supreme Court nominee.

“The single biggest thing that scares Democratic base voters to death is Bush’s ability to pack the courts, and Chuck just happens to be at ground zero in that fight,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, a Brooklyn Democrat and close ally of Mr. Schumer. “I think that when the Supreme Court nomination comes, Chuck is going to be such a prominent opponent that he’s going to be talked about in Presidential terms. That’s how much influence he’s going to have over the whole thing.”

Worlds Apart

Politically speaking, Mr. Schumer is also benefiting from something of a power vacuum. His junior colleague from New York, Hillary Clinton, is supposed to be hogging all the attention of the local and national media. The reality is that Mrs. Clinton’s needs and priorities are a world apart from Mr. Schumer’s, at least at the moment. With a constant media contingent devoted almost exclusively to chronicling every last detail of her life in Washington, Mrs. Clinton has come to resemble one of the small plastic animals in a game of Whack-a-Mole. Under such circumstances, it is unlikely that she would adopt a higher public profile amidst the partisan, process-driven, inside-the-Beltway commotion surrounding the Jeffords defection. Mr. Schumer has had no such reservations.

For her part, Mrs. Clinton will probably benefit from the shift in the Senate by pressing legislation--like her teacher-recruitment bill, or one of her packages of economic incentives for upstate New York --without getting laughed at by the Senate leadership. “For Hillary, having the machinery of the Senate under Democratic control just means that she can translate some her broad, programmatic issues to real legislation,” said Jeff Plaut, a Democratic political consultant. “I’m also sure that she likes coming to work a whole lot better when the boss is Tom Daschle and not Trent Lott.”

For Mr. Schumer, his fate is inexorably tied to the Jeffords defection. Pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff has already condemned the pro-choice Mr. Schumer as a practitioner of “bully-boy politics” because of his threats to wield influence over the judicial selection process. And a spokeswoman for the National Abortion Rights Action League has crowned him their champion for the very same reason. Mr. Schumer’s increased prominence can be expected to trigger similar responses from a host of pundits and advocacy groups in the months to come.

Even ordinary, non-politically-obsessed New Yorkers seem to have taken an interest in Mr. Schumer’s new standing. After he finished his spiel on efficient air-conditioning, a number of passers-by on 14th Street congratulated the Senator on the turn of events. “It’s great. Keep going,” said one, grabbing Mr. Schumer by the shoulder.

“Schumer for President!” said another.

Mr. Schumer stayed around to soak it all in, shaking more hands and posing for pictures.

“I was looking the other way,” he said to one picture-taker. “Take another one.”

When the television cameramen packed up and left, Mr. Schumer strolled across the street toward his car. He stopped to talk to one more reporter. “One of the reasons I ran for Senate was that I was tired of going to the floor every day in the House and beating up on Republicans,” he said. “I wanted to get things done.” He paused as another bus rolled by. “If people think now that this is going to make the whole country the way it was under Bill Clinton, it won’t. But it’s a dramatic change.”

Equalization Tax made it clear that a fair piece of Wall Street's

investment-banking business would move offshore, Lehman Brothers decided to

prepare itself for the nascent globalization (a term not then coined) of

finance. As a firm especially well-known for its "Oil Patch" connections and

ingenuity, we figured this area was one that could be really productive for us

overseas. Accordingly, we decided that it would be a good idea if one of our

top oil partners-a brilliant engineer Texas-born, -raised and -educated-learned

French so as to be able to parler with

Total, CFP, Elf Aquitaine and so on. He was therefore sent to Berlitz to take

the famous language school's renowned "immersion" course-the linguistic

equivalent of Marine boot camp.

Berlitz hadn't reckoned with what it was up against. After

four hours, the instructor broke down and wept.

This is an extreme example of a syndrome I think of as

"Texas Tin Ear": an inability to get one's ear around the strange languages

spoken by foreigners-that is, people physically and mentally resident outside

the Lone Star State-which anyone who has spent 10 minutes in those parts, from

Wichita Falls south to Laredo, from Longview west to El Paso, will know to be

as distinctive a state of mind as it is a physical and political subdivision of

these great United States.

An inability to get one's head, ear and tongue around

foreign languages is usually accompanied by a certain insensitivity to the

sensibilities which those languages have evolved to give voice to. I fancy I

have considerable experience listening to foreign tongues, including Texan, a

language in which the Latin first-person singular, Amo -or "I love"-has come to mean "I am about to," as in "Ah'mo git

me some that barbecue right now!" There are always barriers when Frenchmen give

ear to Italians or-God help us-to Americans, but I have seldom been concerned

that my Gallic opposite number hasn't grasped my meaning. The look on his face

is simply intended to make me feel a complete fool for the way I parle français , to heap on my feckless

head that special scorn with which le Bon

Dieu enabled Gaul and its inhabitants way back when Paris was still

Lutetia. To make me feel the total inadequacy that is the due of any hapless

human unable to do that thing with his or her mouth that French people are

taught from birth to do with theirs: that unforgettable pursing of the mouth

and roll-down of the lower lip that somehow conveys an entire gestural

vocabulary, a veritable universe, of shrugs and contumely.

The French mouth is one of the great cultural instruments

ever; anyone wishing to see it at the top of its game is encouraged to tune in

to the matchless Bernard Pivot's TV gabfest, Bouillon de Culture (cable Channel 75, Sundays at 6:30-but hurry,

the season is ending!), in which a group of intellectuals so rarefied as to

make Susan Sontag look like a guest on Hee-Haw

vies to see who can speak the language of Racine and Victor Hugo the fastest.

Texas Tin Ear is different. It flows, I think, from a

different kind of arrogance and a different set of life problems. Texans know

there's no talking to an oil well, and that if another fellow's talking to you,

chances are he's lying, so best not pay too close attention and keep your own

counsel. This is what leads to Texas Tin Ear. L.B.J.'s Tin Ear was one of the

problems that most grievously beset the Man from Pedernales, in so many other

ways as subtle and devious a politician as ever occupied the White House. As

was the case back then, in 1964-68, I fear it is going to be a problem-possibly

a big one-for the Bush administration, which, as readers know, I think has to

be regarded (and understood) in Texan terms.

French is not this administration's principal besetting Tin

Ear problem, which is not to say that foreign languages aren't. They are-but

all of them. Texans are used to being envied for "Big D" and all that. They can

get pretty bumptious about the glories of their state and what a wonderful

thing it is to be a Texan, and Lord knows I agree: My daddy was born in Bowie

and grew up in Ft. Worth, and I've done business in Texas and lived in Dallas

myself, and now have a son and his family, including a grandson, living there,

and I just frankly love the hell out of the state. But Texans are more than a

wee bit prone to think they know best-the way New Yorkers are (although without

the rudeness), but seldom folks from Ohio or Oregon. This makes 'em obtuse when

it comes to seeing themselves as others see them.

It also doesn't help to

come from a place where it's been business as usual-the "awl bidness,"

naturally-generation after generation. Much has changed in Texas, as it has

elsewhere, but the basic economic and sociocultural givens of Lone Star life

have changed less over the past 30 years, I think, than in most other regions

of the country, and this kind of consistency tends to dull alertness.

Right now, I happen to think that seeing ourselves as others

see us is pretty important. The world has grown, the world has changed;

anti-Americanism now comes in more colors and flavors than ever before, which

is understandable. We have made ourselves the envy of history. For the best

part of a decade-I happen to think longer-we have supplied so disproportionate

a share of global economic demand that it's safe to say that without the U.S.,

the world would be in Year 11 or 12 of a prolonged slump. But success breeds

envy, and envy breeds dislike, then hatred.

None of this would particularly bother me if I didn't fear

that the late Timothy McVeigh mightn't have soul brethren out there: people

inclined to strap a bomb to themselves and board the F train instead of a bus

in Jerusalem or Haifa. It wouldn't be hard to smuggle the equipment needed to

unleash a shoulder-fired surface-to-surface missile into a crowd in this

country, and while I suppose I'm as willing as any right-minded citizen to

contemplate the obvious benefits to humanity of such a terrorist action being

taken against the Four Seasons at lunchtime (à la the denouement of my novel Baker's Dozen , available on remainder

tables coast to coast), the likelihood is that less deserving targets would be

chosen.

I think the Bushies need to turn less of a Tin Ear to the

world. As Donald Rumsfeld observed, the old due bills-the residual gratitude we

earned for ourselves by fighting World War II and implementing the Marshall

Plan-have been discharged. We can no longer call these in. We shouldn't run

around the world kissing ass, Bill Clinton–style, which only sells the notion

that we're guilty or weak about ourselves. There's nothing we can do about

sects that see us as the Great Satan. But we can do a better job understanding

how ordinary people feel about us. Kyoto didn't help. Tin Ears seldom grasp

that lip service must needs be paid in certain circumstances.

But help may be on the

way: I understand there's a motion on the table to appoint an Under- or Deputy

Secretary for Public Diplomacy, which is a job description new to me, and the

person whose name I've heard linked to the job is one of the smartest, most perceptive

people around, so this is a good sign.

There are two other languages to which the Texas Tin Ear has

become impenetrable. These are Beltway-speak and Media-speak, which derive from

the same Freudian stem and are spoken principally by small people in search of

self-importance. I worry less about Tin Ear with respect to these. It is said

that Tin Ear was responsible for the defection of Senator Jeffords, but he

appears on close inspection to be a dismal little shit whose chameleon colors

have been in evidence for some years (see Mark Steyn in London's The Spectator , issue of June 2).

It seems to have occurred to few Media-speakers that the

obtuse carelessness with which they're charging the Bush administration in

letting Mr. Jeffords get away may very well have been a simple case of choosing

not to throw good money-time better spent elsewhere-after bad, on a cause lost

to begin with. Texans grow up with dry holes as an ugly fact of existence. They

know when to declare a well a duster and move on. Mr. Jeffords was a duster

from Day 1. And I seriously question whether the people in the administration

who function as the equivalent of petroleum geologists find much in Senator

John McCain's seismics and core samples that is worth spending a whole bunch of

political capital on. He's a loser, too. Write him off and move on.

As for those who parlent Media-speak, why waste time

communicating with these people? The American public doesn't bother with the

media; why should the administration that is trying to govern it? The only

people that are really interested in the media are the media. All I can do is

point to the Bush commentary of Maureen Dowd, Michael Wolff, Paul Krugman and

at least one writer in this paper (whose name I have promised my editor never

to mention), and submit my view that in turning a completely deaf ear to these

and their ilk, this administration has taken an important first step in

transmuting auricular tin into gold. Midas would be envious.

That's unfortunate, because for all the hype about Mr. Allan-the legendary former editor of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph in Sydney, Australia-his Post has been a curiously misdirected, occasionally tone-deaf disappointment. Some of that, no doubt is due to Mr. Allan's recent change of scenery. A month into the job, the famously bold editor may have managed to turn up the volume at his new paper, but he hasn't begun to show a grasp of New York.

Take, for example, the big national story on May 24, when Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords fled the Republican Party, handing Democrats control of the Senate. No doubt, it was a historic moment: It's the first time the Senate ever switched party control between elections, and the Senator's move will have a deep impact on national politics and policies.

The New York Times naturally gave Mr. Jeffords' switcheroo its standard Big, Authoritative Treatment, with two front-page stories under a stern, three-column headline: "G.O.P. Senator Plans Shift, Giving Democrats Control in Setback for White House." The Daily News went another route, putting a handcuffed Reverend Al Sharpton on its front page after Mr. Sharpton was jailed in Puerto Rico. Mr. Jeffords merited a head in the top right corner: "Vt. senator bolting GOP, rocks Bush." Fine; the News isn't a national newspaper, and it's been on a roll with local news as of late.

Col Allan's revamped Post, on the other hand, was totally off its rocker. While Rupert Murdoch's paper has long been (wink, wink) cozy with the G.O.P., the paper's front page the day after Mr. Jeffords' stunning announcement-"BENEDICT JEFFORDS: Turncoat senator imperils Dubya's agenda"-seemed composed in an alternate universe. While New Yorkers do take an interest in Presidential politics, this city hardly gives a rat's tail about "Dubya's agenda," much less whether or not it's imperiled. And a Benedict Arnold pun? It seemed like the kind of American reference that only a foreigner could come up with, or maybe a fifth-grader just finishing up American History. Some readers, no doubt, saw the page and thought, "Eggs?"

More recently, Mr. Allan's Post tripped over itself with its May 27 "TORCH IS TOAST" Sunday cover story. That piece-an exclusive about an allegedly forthcoming indictment against New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli-was dubious on several fronts. First and foremost was the piece's sourcing: The entire story, it turned out, rested on a single quote-"We're going to indict him soon"-attributed to "one Justice Department investigator [who] told an associate, according to a source." It sounded as reliable as something overheard in a high school cafeteria, and immediately cast suspicion on the entire piece.

Of course, the Post has its editorial motivations for pushing Torricelli's predicament, chief among them that his ouster could lead to a reshuffling of the Senate Majority (never mind that the city is probably better off with two Senators now serving in the majority party).

But more importantly, how much do New York Post readers care about the endless travails of Robert Torricelli, colorful Senator from … New Jersey? While Mr. Torricelli has been known to pop up in the gossip columns a time or 10, he's no Hillary, no Rudy, not even a Schumer. Free cultural assimilation tip for Mr. Allan: New Yorkers don't care about New Jersey. The same day, the News stirred the pot locally (and ticked off the Mayor, too) with "RUDY'S CRUMBLING WORLD," its front page examination of Mr. Giuliani's woes.

And while Mr. Allan's paper has had its splashes on the matter, too, the Post's treatment of L'Affaire Rudy has been spotty overall. In many respects, the Gracie Mansion soap opera should have been a proving ground for the new editor: just as Rupert Murdoch got to show his mettle as a publisher during the summer blackout of 1977, Mr. Allan had an opportunity to show his vision with his treatment of the mayor's upturned life.

But too often, the paper's coverage of Mr. Giuliani's personal crisis has been half-baked, unsure of itself. That lack of clarity has heightened perceptions that the Post is downplaying the contretemps with Donna Hanover and Judi Nathan out of allegiance to the mayor, with whom the Post has long enjoyed a close, politically simpatico relationship.

The Post's in-house problem with Rudy's troubles at home was foreshadowed on the first weekend after the divorce mess began. On May 12, the paper ran a column by Andrea Peyser defending the mayor, and another by Linda Stasi strongly sticking up for Donna Hanover. Even Steven, fair enough. By the next day, however, it was clear that Ms. Peyser was writing for the paper, while Ms. Stasi was getting increasingly fewer inches to rebut.

Ms. Peyser, of course, wrote the memorable Post cover story detailing all of the selfless ways in which Mr. Giuliani was suffering through his prostate cancer. She discussed Mr. Giuliani's impotence and his nightly vomiting, all related to his cancer treatment regimen. None of it pleasant stuff, to be sure. But the way the Post played it-its wood that Sunday was, "JUDI STANDS BY RUDY: She helps mayor battle impotence and chemo woes"-seemed hopelessly off. Judi stands by Rudy? Was that devotion really in doubt?

Two days later the Post printed one of its nastiest woods in years: "CRUELLA DeHANOVER," over a photo of a startled and dazed Ms. Hanover. The miscalculation at the Post again looked like it was made by an out-of-towner. "CRUELLA DeHANOVER" no doubt made them chuckle when they were mocking it up on Sixth Avenue, but it grossly overestimated the sympathy for the mayor, and was more-than-borderline mean. For people who remembered the year-ago events when in a short week we learned that Mr. Giuliani had cancer, had a girlfriend and had decided not to run for Senate, the divorce flap is just another example of how Mayor Giuliani has a screwed-up life just like everybody else. But the "CRUELLA DeHANOVER" headline seemed as strident-not to mention as shrill as-Reefer Madness.

When Mr. Allan arrived at the Post on April 30, replacing Xana Antunes, those who had worked with him previously said he was a superb tabloid editor, one who made huge splashes Down Under with strong, emotive crusades (rather than just scoops) and by going after local politicians he and Mr. Murdoch didn't like. Almost always, Mr. Allan's papers did it with the playful, if cynical, spirit that makes a good tabloid fun to read-and fun to hate. In other words, he sounded like a great editor for the New York Post.

More than any single decision, the Senator Jeffords front page made clear that for all his attributes, Mr. Allan didn't yet understand New York. Inside his newsroom, one staffer called the Jeffords package a "real embarrassment." To date, the source said, Mr. Allan has leaned on others for the hometown's pulse, while he concentrates on packaging. "He has a sense of spin if it's presented to him by someone who can boil it all down for him," the source said.

But with editors at the Post still walking on eggshells around the new boss, it's tough to imagine them piping up when Mr. Allan offers a lame idea. Making matters more mysterious, Mr. Allan spends much of his time sequestered away from staff, stirring fears that he's typing up a layoff list. "He still hasn't come out of his office much," a source said of Mr. Allan. "He keeps his mystique longer by staying away."

Still, at some point-probably in the very near future-that mystique is going to dissipate, and the troops are going to start wanting to hear more from their new general. The thinking, the source said: "This is the guy who is supposed to do all these great things-and this is it?"

This is not to say that Mr. Allan doesn't already have his hands full. Editing the Post is a tricky business, and has been for decades. Unconcerned with comprehensively covering the city, Mr. Murdoch's Post opts to chronicle a black-and-white landscape where it bolsters its friends and blisters its enemies, offering its version of the evidence to back it up. Operating in one of the country's most liberal cities, the paper has long understood the importance of news sensibility-the art of emotional, point-of-view reporting-and also the usefulness of humor. When the Post is on its game, reading it can feel like a raucous evening out with a bunch of lovable loudmouths; some right, some wrong, some completely over-the-top, but all of them good fun.

Last year, during the extended Presidential election mess, the Post was performing beautifully. Hammering Al Gore with front-page headlines like "LIAR! LIAR!" (after the first presidential debate) and "ENOUGH ALREADY!" (two days into the Florida ballot fight), the paper regularly took the wind out of the stiff, lawyerly Gore campaign. Earlier that year, the Post's fine sports section had swung for the fences and scored with the giddy return of the Subway Series. Pepped-up business and fashion coverage scored occasionally, too.

But that Post still wasn't delivering the numbers that the Murdochs wanted, so now comes Mr. Allan … and almost from the get-go, his paper has looked like a different beast.

First there's the redesign-some of which, it should be noted, was in the works before Mr. Allan arrived on our shores. But the new guy himself is responsible for the conspicuous redesign of the Post's famous front page. On Mr. Allan's Page One, there are frequently two major stories hyped out front-and very often, the main story of the day begins on the cover. Both techniques are borrowed from Mr. Allan's Daily Telegraph.

Additionally, there are changes inside-cute new photos for writers like Neal Travis, and bigger, fatter bylines for others like Page Six's Richard Johnson. There's also smaller page size, which foreshadows a long-anticipated shrinking that will bring the Post down to the size of the Daily News. (For now, it merely gives pages an eerie inch-thick border of blank space.)

And though it doesn't exactly count as a redesign directive, one Post reporter noted a recent, curious uptick in the number of Post stories about rescued cats.

In this season of change, however, the Post is maintaining a wall of silence about its new editor and just what he's thinking. Inquiries into the new front page designs were passed on to the Post's spokesman Steven Rubenstein, who said, "Col is experimenting with some new formats. That's all we want to say."

It's only been a month, of course. Perhaps Mr. Allan will figure out the eccentricities of New York City. The Tuesday, May 29 Post, which touted a story of two gruesome murders in the projects-dismembered body parts tossed out windows!-was an encouraging sign. While the Daily News played it straight- SLAUGHTER ON 10TH AVE-the Post turned it into a parable of the absurdity of New York life: WHAT PRICE APARTMENTS? Murder, cops say, after two tenants are slain. (Still, the Post absurdly ran a Page One photo of that wacky Catholic Archbishop instead of its photo of a cop apparently carrying a victim's severed head in a brown paper bag; that shot got buried inside.)

Though it's unclear whether it was the boss' idea-it was Memorial Day weekend, after all- the "WHAT PRICE APARTMENTS?" front page was a nice comeback for the Col Allan–era Post. Maybe he's starting to get it. Word is he's looking for a place to live in New York City; by now he surely knows what apartments cost.

loudly and often about "character," Republicans have made mostly a poor display

of that quality since Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left their ranks. Certain

Republican Senators quickly sought to blame Mr. Jeffords' courageous decision

on hatchet-wielding associates of the President, while those White House

operatives just as quickly tried to place the onus on Senate Majority Leader

Trent Lott. While both factions deployed their spin, each against the other,

neither accepted responsibility or contemplated the real reasons for Mr. Jeffords'

departure from his lifelong political home.

Meanwhile, leading

commentators associated with the G.O.P. attempted to smear Mr. Jeffords as both

a liberal squish and a faithless opportunist. To them, the only plausible

explanation for his daring shift of support from the Republicans to the

Democrats was an urge to preserve a committee chairmanship for himself (in the

event that 98-year-old Strom Thurmond should expire). According to these

critics, it was foul play for Senate Democrats to guarantee that Mr. Jeffords

would not forfeit his chairmanship if he changed his affiliation-but perfectly

fair for the Republicans to offer him a position in the Senate leadership if he

didn't.

Poisonous accusations about

Mr. Jeffordshavebeen spewed up by the same pundits who routinely praiseGeorgeW.

Bush for uplifting the atmosphere of Washington. Their bile carried the usualaromaof

hypocrisy. "Changing the tone" was only a self-servingslogan, the kind of cheap

sanctimony that winners forget as soon as they sense they might be losing.

These conservatives, who in

previous years have welcomed every Democratic turncoat with glee and gloating,

didn't notice how ridiculous they sounded when they suddenly began to wail

about the treachery of the Jeffords move. Nor did they seem to realize that by

spraying him with venom, they might gradually push other moderate Republicans

toward a similar crisis.

The chorus of denunciation was

evidently orchestrated by Karl Rove, the President's top political adviser, who

tried to save face by questioning Mr. Jeffords' motives. The spectacle of a

scoundrel trying to damage the reputation of a decent man should disturb the

conscience of every fair-minded Republican. And there was once a time when it

would have.

That bygone era was evoked by

Mr. Jeffords in the brief, dignified speech he gave announcing his decision.

His statement paid tribute in passing to his mentor, Ralph Flanders, a liberal

Republican who brought honor to Vermont as the first G.O.P. Senator to

seriously oppose McCarthyism. As a young man and political neophyte, Mr.

Jeffords helped Flanders to organize such opposition nationally, preparing the

way for the Senate's censure of McCarthy in 1954. Since then, of course,

ideological leadership of the G.O.P. has fallen to admirers of the Wisconsin

demagogue.

So perhaps the real question

about Mr. Jeffords is not why he finally crossed the aisle as an independent,

but why he waited as long as he did. Nobody who knows him well, including his

moderate Republican friends and colleagues, believes that he made his choice

lightly-or selfishly. He has a long history of serving his state quietly and

effectively, minus the bombast and self-aggrandizement that is unfortunately

typical of the Senate. Having harmonized in a barbershop quartet with such

ideological foes as Trent Lott and John Ashcroft, he may be a bit stunned by

the current outpouring of hatred upon his head.

Or maybe not. Mr. Jeffords was

well aware that his decision would rupture old friendships, as he regretfully

predicted the other day. After observing how his party's enforcers treated the

Clintons and anyone else who got in their way in recent years, he may well have

anticipated the treatment he's getting now.

Before jumping the aisle, Mr.

Jeffords was roughed up merely for dissenting from the party line on taxes and

spending. Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot, among others, urged Mr.

Bush to punish the Senator for voting to trim the irresponsible tax cut. "Don't

get mad publicly, get even privately," he wrote.

Only by forcing the Vermonter

to kneel, according to Mr. Gigot, would the President prove he was tough enough

to govern. Rather stupidly, the White House acted upon this advice. The

President's aides went into Mr. Jeffords' state, brought heavy pressure down upon

him from his campaign contributors, and threatened to cut off the dairy price

supports so vital to Vermont farmers.

All the blustering and

bullying, however, only served to emphasize the disappointment Mr. Jeffords has

felt about Mr. Bush's performance so far. Like many Americans, he seems to have

believed the Texan's rhetoric about "compassionate conservatism." It was not

the first time that a liberal Republican has seen hope superseded by

experience, but for him it was the last.

What Mr. Jeffords' bold

response demonstrated was that a nice guy need not be a timid guy. His example

deserves to be emulated by those who have profited from his courage

Once Mr. Schumer arrived, he set about decrying President George W. Bush's efforts to roll back air-conditioning efficiency standards. This picture of the earnest, fist-pumping Chuck Schumer-clad in a stars-and-stripes tie and spending his holiday weekend in front of a bunch of cameras, surrounded by visual props (in this case, boxes of air conditioners on the sidewalk) and denouncing the latest Republican outrage in the hopes that someone was paying attention-seemed drearily familiar.

But this time, things were different. "Today, I'm calling for the President to back off from his proposal," said Mr. Schumer, pausing as a bus roared by. "If he won't"-at this point the Senator broke into a broad smile-"as a member of the Energy Committeae, now in the majority, I'm going to call for hearings."

Enemies of efficient air-conditioners, beware. Mr. Schumer can call hearings now.

For the last seven years, with the Republicans in charge of Congress, Mr. Schumer seemed to be battling history itself to keep his career moving forward, attracting attention for his agenda in the House through sheer force of will and shameless self-promotion, and in the Senate by transforming himself into a cross-party deal-maker bearing little resemblance to the partisan firebrand of his earlier days.

Now, with the defection of Vermont Senator James Jeffords from the G.O.P., the Democrats are the majority in the Senate, and Mr. Schumer's life has been completely changed. He will have more real power than he has ever had. He has displaced Governor George Pataki as the king-maker on the Bush administration's appointments to New York judgeships and U.S. Attorney posts. His seats on the Judiciary, Energy and Banking committees make him the man to see for local politicians and Congressmen, many of whom have felt shut out of President Bush's Washington. (Mr. Schumer said that a number of Congressmen, including three upstate Republicans, have called him since the Jeffords switch to ask for his help on various matters.) And if his media exposure in the past few days has been any indication-he's been everywhere, crowing about the power the Democrats now have over the appointment of federal judges-the American public will be seeing a lot more of Mr. Schumer.

The prospect of all Chuck Schumer, all the time is less than thrilling for some New York politicos. "For the last 300 Sundays in a row, Chuck Schumer found some reason to stand on a pedestal at some press event," said Jerry Kassar, the chairman of Brooklyn's Conservative Party. "Maybe this will give him the opportunity to do two or three at a time."

For many of the state's representatives in Washington, however, a newly empowered Mr. Schumer is nothing but good news. After all, the state has not had a particularly powerful advocate in the Senate majority since Alfonse D'Amato was tossed out of his seat in 1998 (by Mr. Schumer), with the prospect of a further freeze-out during the Presidency of Mr. Bush. "This is great for Chuck, which means it's great for all our constituencies in New York," said Queens Democratic Representative Gary Ackerman. "He's going to head a [subcommittee], and it's a lot easier to wheel and deal when things have to go through your committee. We need his help on a lot of things, so I would say this puts us in a much better position."

Much of Mr. Schumer's newfound influence will come from his position on the Judiciary Committee, where he will head the subcommittee on courts, effectively giving him veto power over Mr. Bush's judicial appointments. Since Mr. Bush took office in January, Republican Governor George Pataki and Mr. Schumer, the state's senior U.S. Senator, have sparred over who would have the final say in advising the President on appointments in New York. That battle is over now that Mr. Schumer is part of the Senate majority. "There was a perception that because New York was such a Democratic state, Governor Pataki would be the one guy who could talk to the White House," said Mr. Kassar. "That's changed now-the Governor's ability to deal with the Bush administration and to push candidates for nominations has definitely been hurt."

On a national level, Mr. Schumer's ability to act as guardian of the nation's judicial benches will afford him an invaluable pulpit, especially because the committee's chair, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, seems content to let Mr. Schumer assume the role of attack dog while he takes on the traditionally conciliatory role of committee leader. This means that Mr. Schumer will be perfectly positioned to play a starring role in the first great, divisive battle of the Bush era-when the President chooses his first Supreme Court nominee.

"The single biggest thing that scares Democratic base voters to death is Bush's ability to pack the courts, and Chuck just happens to be at ground zero in that fight," said Representative Anthony Weiner, a Brooklyn Democrat and close ally of Mr. Schumer. "I think that when the Supreme Court nomination comes, Chuck is going to be such a prominent opponent that he's going to be talked about in Presidential terms. That's how much influence he's going to have over the whole thing."

Worlds Apart

Politically speaking, Mr. Schumer is also benefiting from something of a power vacuum. His junior colleague from New York, Hillary Clinton, is supposed to be hogging all the attention of the local and national media. The reality is that Mrs. Clinton's needs and priorities are a world apart from Mr. Schumer's, at least at the moment. With a constant media contingent devoted almost exclusively to chronicling every last detail of her life in Washington, Mrs. Clinton has come to resemble one of the small plastic animals in a game of Whack-a-Mole. Under such circumstances, it is unlikely that she would adopt a higher public profile amidst the partisan, process-driven, inside-the-Beltway commotion surrounding the Jeffords defection. Mr. Schumer has had no such reservations.

For her part, Mrs. Clinton will probably benefit from the shift in the Senate by pressing legislation-like her teacher-recruitment bill, or one of her packages of economic incentives for upstate New York -without getting laughed at by the Senate leadership. "For Hillary, having the machinery of the Senate under Democratic control just means that she can translate some her broad, programmatic issues to real legislation," said Jeff Plaut, a Democratic political consultant. "I'm also sure that she likes coming to work a whole lot better when the boss is Tom Daschle and not Trent Lott."

For Mr. Schumer, his fate is inexorably tied to the Jeffords defection. Pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff has already condemned the pro-choice Mr. Schumer as a practitioner of "bully-boy politics" because of his threats to wield influence over the judicial selection process. And a spokeswoman for the National Abortion Rights Action League has crowned him their champion for the very same reason. Mr. Schumer's increased prominence can be expected to trigger similar responses from a host of pundits and advocacy groups in the months to come.

Even ordinary, non-politically-obsessed New Yorkers seem to have taken an interest in Mr. Schumer's new standing. After he finished his spiel on efficient air-conditioning, a number of passers-by on 14th Street congratulated the Senator on the turn of events. "It's great. Keep going," said one, grabbing Mr. Schumer by the shoulder.

"Schumer for President!" said another.

Mr. Schumer stayed around to soak it all in, shaking more hands and posing for pictures.

"I was looking the other way," he said to one picture-taker. "Take another one."

When the television cameramen packed up and left, Mr. Schumer strolled across the street toward his car. He stopped to talk to one more reporter. "One of the reasons I ran for Senate was that I was tired of going to the floor every day in the House and beating up on Republicans," he said. "I wanted to get things done." He paused as another bus rolled by. "If people think now that this is going to make the whole country the way it was under Bill Clinton, it won't. But it's a dramatic change."