Under agreements announced in court today, former Liberal Party chairman Ray Harding pleaded guilty to a felony as well as a misdemeanor, with the understanding that Cuomo's prosecutors could recommend the felony conviction be withdrawn if Harding cooperates with investigators. Saul Meyer, the head of Aldus Equity, entered into a similar plea agreement.

"It is a major development for us, and a very positive step in the case," Cuomo told reporters on a conference call. "His cooperation is very important to us, and his full cooperation is very important to us."

Cuomo called the arrangement "typical;" it automatically disbars Harding, but would permit him to re-gain his law license if the felony plea is withdrawn. (Cuomo said this is ultimately up to the bar association.)

The agreements tighten the noose on Hank Morris and David Loglisci, two top aides to former comptroller Alan Hevesi who are accused of running the pay-to-play scheme. Their indictments in March spawned the investigation.

"Hank Morris inserted me as a placement agent on certain investment transactions with the New York state retirement fund so that I could receive hundreds of thousands in fees to reward me for my political support of Alan Hevesi," Harding said in court, as reported by Bloomberg.

Cuomo did not speculate as to whether this would make a plea deal by Morris more likely. Hevesi has not been charged with anything; Cuomo has in the past said that the investigation is ongoing when asked if he would be charged.

For New York's Democratic fund-raisers and bundlers, it was the day their rarified world fell off its axis.

"We are stunned," said one prominent Democratic donor.

Steven Rattner, the appointee in question, is not just any government bureaucrat. He is about as lofty a star as there is in the New York—and, therefore, national—Democratic fund-raising firmament.

For years, he has been among the top half-dozen names on every Democratic candidate's wish list. His apparent connection to the corruption and graft alleged by the New York attorney general's office—despite the fact that he is not alleged to have committed any crime, and is not a target of Andrew Cuomo's investigation—has astonished the inhabitants of the nation's most powerful fund-raising corridors.

As part of a successful attempt to win a lucrative contract to invest money for the state pension fund, Rattner reportedly paid a finder's fee to Democratic operative Hank Morris, a close ally of the former comptroller who is now facing a 123-count criminal indictment for "enterprise corruption" for selling access to the state's pension fund. (He has denied the charges.) Rattner also had an affiliate company invest in a low-budget comedy film made by the brother of the deputy comptroller who controlled the fund.

It may well be the way this sort of business is frequently done-it's not unheard of, or illegal, to pay multiple finder's fees on spec, and facilitating a private investment in a relative's movie project isn't a particularly extravagant means, in the grand scheme of things, of currying favor with a potential investor.

But it's not pretty.

"I was shocked when I read about it in The Wall Street Journal," said John Catsimatidis, who, like Rattner, bundled donations for Clinton. "He always seemed like a very nice guy, a smart guy and I don't know how he can get himself tied up in crap like this."

A former New York Times business reporter who left journalism to make millions as a financier, Rattner married Maureen White, a Democratic activist whose deep pockets, engaging personality and elegant looks made her the city's donor princess. Together, Rattner, a successful investor, and White, the eventual finance chair of the Democratic National Committee, were uber-brokers during the Clinton administration, holding court, and high dollar fund-raising events, at their palatial Fifth Avenue apartment. It was the preferred stomping ground and dinner destination (hors d'oeuvres specialty: caramelized bacon) for Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer and just about any national politician seeking entree to the bundlers who could provide the means to run a first-tier national campaign.

In the epic 2008 Democratic primary, Rattner's penthouse became a key forum, where supporters of Obama and Hillary got into shouting matches over superdelegates. When the primary was over, and Rattner's candidate, Clinton, was defeated, he seamlessly transitioned over to the Obama camp, even as other Clinton bundlers recoiled from the prospect of outer-ring access.

Among donors, there was a consensus that Rattner, a highly talented investor and financial expert, wanted to go to Washington, which, after some hiccups, he did, when Obama appointed him as the administration's point man to fix the ailing automobile industry.

For the time being, the Obama administration has forcefully articulated its support for Rattner, arguing that he has done nothing illegal and noting that he alerted them to the investigation during his vetting process.

But the opinions among New York's top-flight donors since Rattner's name started popping up in stories alongside the likes of backroom fixers like former New York State Liberal Party boss Ray Harding—he was actually perp-walked last week after being indicted for his role in the pension-fund scheme—have been varied.

Rattner's backers defend him as a politically idealistic star of the finance world who has sacrificed the comforts of the private sector for a chance to affect the greater good.

"Steve Rattner and Maureen White are role models as public servants and personal inspirations," said Robert Zimmerman, a public-relations executive and leading Democratic fund-raiser. "Our nation is very fortunate that Steve is prepared to make the sacrifices he's making to be in government service."

But Rattner's ambition to rise to the ranks of the Treasury Department, and his unseemly courtship of the state comptrollers' office, has also led to some mild schadenfreude.

One major fund-raiser who is not unsympathetic to Rattner said that there is some "snickering" by donors over his current predicament, which, even if it doesn't affect him in his current capacity, will not be helpful to his chances of eventually moving up into a more prominent role in the administration, perhaps at Treasury.

According to reports in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, Rattner met with the brother of David Loglisci, the deputy comptroller in charge of New York State's $122 billion pension fund, to discuss the acquisition of the DVD rights to a low-budget movie called Chooch, which starred John Sialiano (a.k.a. Goumba Johnny, the WKTU radio host and star of Bocce Balls) Carmine Famiglietti (producer of From Woodside, Queens and actor in Bagelized) and Anthony Barrile (childhood friend of Ben Stiller and actor in Kiss Me, Guido).

Under ordinary circumstances, it would not have been the sort of investment—both because of its small scale and obviously modest prospects—that Rattner would have been inclined to pursue personally. But the important thing about Chooch, as far as Rattner's involvement is concerned, is that it was produced by Loglisci and his brothers. 

Through an affiliate called GT Brands, Quadrangle agreed to pay $89,000 for the rights to Chooch. (GT Brands, which was a vehicle for investments in entertainment projects, subsequently went south.) A few weeks after the deal, Loglisci informed Rattner that Quadrangle would be receiving a $100 million from the investment fund. Rattner then paid $1.1 million to Morris, the former political consultant to Alan Hevesi, who as a so-called "placement agent," facilitated the agreement.

"Steven is an extraordinarily bright and careful and diligent guy," said one private equity investor, who expressed disbelief that Rattner made a deal "that smacked of a quid pro quo" to distribute the movie.

"It is very clear to me that that was a foolish move on Steve's part," the investor said. "One, he should never have had the discussion himself, two, he should never have made that connection because it obviously raises a question and there is an odor there."

Cohen was not a target in the indictment announced this morning by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, but the felony complaint against former Liberal Party boss Ray Harding, who is accused of orchestrating the vacancy, will probably not help his campaign for City Council.

According to Cohen’s campaign consultant and spokesman, Michael Tobman, he is staying in the race.

In a brief telephone chat, Tobman told me, “Michael Cohen has been speaking with the attorney general’s office concerning their ongoing investigation into Alan Hevesi’s tenure as state comptroller.

"And those conversations are ongoing. As everyone knows, Michael left the State Assembly to be home with his critically ill wife who sadly passed away not long after,” Tobman said.

When I asked if Cohen was still running for the City Council seat in Forest Hills, Tobman said, “Mike Cohen is still a candidate.”

The seat is being vacated by Melinda Katz, who is running for city comptroller. The other candidates in the race did not immediately return phone calls for comment.

Allegations against several people supposedly involved in the scheme were made public earlier this morning by Andrew Cuomo.

Cuomo says Cohen abruptly resigned his Assembly seat and took a six-figure job at an insurance firm with the help of Ray Harding, a Hevesi ally who was also the head of the New York State Liberal Party. Harding then arranged political support for Hevesi’s son, Andrew, to run for the seat, Cuomo said. In exchange, aides to the elder Hevesi, who was the state comptroller, allegedly steered hundreds of thousands of dollars from the state pension fund to Harding for work he was supposed to have done as a "placement agent."

Cuomo told reporters that as far as he knows, Hevesi’s son had no knowledge of the alleged wrong-doing.

Mr. Harding's Liberal Party is, in fact, a sham political party which lacks even the most rudimentary policies or recognizable structure, and there's certainly nothing "liberal" about it. But it can provide the margin of victory for politicians who know how to pucker up. Mr. Harding's support for Mr. Giuliani in 1993 allowed him to run as a Republican-Liberal, which was good for thousands of votes from Democrats who might otherwise have stayed home. You could make the argument that Ray Harding did the public a service by supporting Mr. Giuliani and having a hand in ending the Dinkins era. And you might think that Mr. Harding would have been satisfied to support a quality candidate and would expect no further reward.

It turns out that Mr. Harding wanted more than a piece of history from Mr. Giuliani; he wanted jobs for his sons. One of them, young Russell, subsequently managed to use his position as president of the New York City Housing Development Corporation to ring up a quarter-million dollars in travel, entertainment and dining expenses in about three years. Nice work, if you can get it. And Russell Harding had no trouble getting it, despite his complete lack of qualifications in the field of housing.

Russell Harding was stealing from the public, yet no one seemed interested in monitoring his behavior. This is a failing of the former Mayor. The city Department of Investigation is now looking into the matter, although the younger Harding says he's reimbursed the agency $52,000 and will pay back more, if necessary. Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau ought to have a look at the case.

Mr. Giuliani's indulgence of Ray Harding remains bewildering. The former Mayor made a name for himself prosecuting corrupt politicians, and yet he's always had the time of day for Mr. Harding. The current Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, ought to think twice before accepting Ray Harding's invitations.

Bush's War on Nature

While Americans have been preoccupied by events in the Middle East, George W. Bush has continued his appalling assault on the nation's environment. What is most striking is how profoundly out of step the President's actions are with the wishes of most Americans.

Mr. Bush pulled his latest scam early this month, when he instructed the State Department not to renominate Dr. Robert Watson as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Watson has chaired the international global-warming panel - which is composed of hundreds of scientists and operates under the auspices of the United Nations - for six years, and has won high praise from his peers.

Why does Mr. Bush want him out? Dr. Watson, an American who also serves as chief scientist of the World Bank, is an atmospheric chemist who believes that human behavior, such as the burning of coal and oil, is a major factor in global warming, and that disaster awaits if steps are not immediately taken to cut down on such emissions. Not surprisingly, car manufacturers and oil companies can't tolerate him, and when his position recently came up for renewal, Mr. Bush bowed to their demands and threw the weight of the U.S. behind an Indian engineer, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who lacks training in the panel's primary concern, atmospheric science.

The silencing of Dr. Watson is part of Mr. Bush's long-term plan to gut this country's environmental protections. A recent study by Yale and Columbia universities of the environmental health of 142 countries found that the U.S. ranked 51st, behind Cuba and Botswana. Under Mr. Bush, the ranking will only get worse. His administration rejected the Kyoto treaty, attempted to weaken the standards for arsenic in U.S. drinking water, tried to open 13,000 acres of New York's Finger Lakes National Forest to oil and gas drilling, and has refused to shut down shoddy nuclear-power plants, such as Indian Point, which are catastrophes waiting to happen. The President is pushing hard to turn the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over to the oil companies; meanwhile, it was recently reported that the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline is in disrepair and vulnerable to an oil spill that could re-create the devastation caused by the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.

Americans overwhelmingly favor protecting the environment, even if it means they have to pay higher taxes. They want their children and grandchildren to breathe clean air, drink clean water and enjoy the country's natural beauty. Which is why they will eventually make Mr. Bush pay for his reckless attack on the country's environmental well-being.

The Ziff Family: Schlocky Sleazemeisters

Gaudy wealth is nothing new, but occasionally it achieves new levels of arrogance and bad taste. William B. Ziff Jr., the publishing executive who sold the Ziff-Davis empire of computer magazines in 1994 for $1.4 billion, has given new meaning to the term "bad neighbor."

As reported by The New York Times , the tale begins in 1998. After cashing out their magazine money, Mr. Ziff and his three sons proceeded to build a 60,000-square-foot home on 1,000 acres in Pawling, N.Y. Not satisfied, they decided they needed some big boulders strewn about their land to give it a "natural" look. They had seen such boulders in the Walter G. Merritt County Park, a nature preserve owned by Putnam County, and so in 1998 and 1999 they asked permission to remove some of the rocks. The county turned them down, twice, and also refused the Ziffs' offer of $15,000.

End of story? Not if you're a Ziff. In a stunning example of sleazy behavior that could have been taken from an episode of The Sopranos , Mr. Ziff and sons sent heavy machinery into the nature preserve and ripped out the boulders they coveted, trampling trees and anything else that got in their way. "It looks like a comet went through there," said Sam Oliverio Jr., a Putnam County legislator. "He just raped that area...The damage he did can never be repaired." The county estimated the loss at $6 million, and the district attorney, Kevin Wright, began an investigation.

The Ziffs, smelling jail time, recently wired a $1 million settlement and an $8.25 million "contribution" into the county's treasury, without admitting any wrongdoing. Putnam officials seem placated, although the D.A. says his investigation is continuing. It will be unfortunate if the Ziffs succeed in buying their way clear of criminal prosecution. One can only imagine what will happen the next time they decide they like the looks of something that doesn't belong to them.

Mr. Harding has been talking quite a bit with Mr. Ickes about the Senate campaign, according to the friend. And Mr. Ickes has good reason to stay in touch with the Liberal boss, because Mr. Harding's party can deliver tens of thousands of votes in a statewide election. The Liberal Party's endorsement could decide what is expected to be an extremely close race.

"Harold touches base with [Mr. Harding] frequently," the friend said. "He asks him where things are."

And in a previous conversation with the Democratic Party's state chairman, Judith Hope, Mr. Harding apparently sought to quash yet another round of rumors, according to an associate of Ms. Hope. At the time, political insiders were confidently predicting that Mr. Harding would secretly help Mr. Giuliani by running a spoiler candidate on his party's line, intending to siphon crucial votes from Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. Harding wanted Ms. Hope to carry a clear message to Mrs. Clinton, according to the associate: He hadn't made up his mind at all. So when, he asked, would Mrs. Clinton be calling him?

Through a friend, Mr. Harding denied the conversation with Ms. Hope. But the person close to Ms. Hope insisted that he had indeed sought to convey the message to Mrs. Clinton.

These developments suggest that cracks and strains may soon develop in what has long been New York's most blissful political marriage of convenience: the relationship between Mr. Harding and Mr. Giuliani. In providing Mr. Giuliani with the Liberal line in the mayoral races of 1989, 1993 and 1997, Mr. Harding became one of the Mayor's most important political allies. Thanks to public perception of his intimacy with Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Harding's lobbying business exploded and two of his sons ascended to lofty positions in city government. Mr. Harding and Mr. Giuliani remain close and have often talked politics over late-night dinners and cognac.

But those evening bull sessions may soon become a thing of the past, as the Giuliani-Harding relationship comes under the strains of Mr. Giuliani's shifting political imperatives. In a simpler world, Mr. Harding would simply hand his endorsement to Mr. Giuliani. According to one top supporter of the Mayor, however, Mr. Giuliani has all but decided to pursue the ballot line of the Conservative Party, which is considered vital for any Republican seeking statewide office. But the Conservative Party refuses to endorse candidates who also run on the Liberal line.

That has left Mr. Harding pondering three other options, none of which is particularly appetizing. He can leave his party's line blank–but then he'll have played no role in the most-hyped statewide race in a generation. He could endorse Mrs. Clinton–the Liberals generally support Democrats in statewide races–but then his prized relationship with Mr. Giuliani presumably would come to an end.

"If he goes for Hillary, it will have to be with a wink from the Mayor," observed one close associate of Mr. Harding. "And I can't imagine the Mayor winking." Indeed, one mayoral supporter hinted ominously that an endorsement of Mrs. Clinton would mean an end to Mr. Harding's place in the Mayor's inner circle. "If he endorses Hillary, he's obviously not going to have any role with the Giuliani campaign," the Giuliani supporter said.

So the Mayor's allies are hoping that Mr. Harding will embrace a third way–running a left-of-center spoiler candidate against Mrs. Clinton. One top supporter of the Mayor told The Observer that the spoiler option would be "extraordinarily helpful."

So what to do? "I'm not worried," said Herman Badillo, who is Mr. Harding's longtime law partner and Mr. Giuliani's special adviser on education. "[Mr. Harding] likes being in what seems to be a difficult dilemma because he likes to show he can get out of it."

Mr. Harding certainly is a wily fellow. His leadership of the Liberal Party dates back to 1976, when he inherited the mantle of a party that had been formed as an alternative to Tammany Hall machine politics and the communist-leaning American Labor Party. Though the party's original base has all but vanished, Mr. Harding has managed to keep the party–and himself–relevant with a series of cunningly brokered alliances and endorsements.

A Political Throwback

Mr. Harding is almost comically perfect in his role as one of the last of the old-time political bosses. (He has been described as a "one-man smoke-filled room.") A Giuliani insider recalled that Mr. Harding would puff away on Camels during strategy sessions over antipasto in the Gracie Mansion library. He is a large man–viewed from the side, he looks as if he stuffed a cowcatcher under his suit. He speaks in a clipped, nasal tone that sounds something like a cross between a mongoose and Charlie Brown's teacher.

Here is Mr. Harding telling his life story to a reporter a few years ago: "So–thumbnail history of Ray. Born Yugoslavia, 1935. Nazis come in 1941, beat up Dad. Dad reads signals. we go to Italy. Then, 1944–Nazis tell Italians, 'No more Mr. Nice Guy.' Round up Jews, ship us to camp in Calabria. Barbed wire. Machine gun turrets. But no ovens, no work detail–not bad, given what might have happened."

Given Mr. Harding's long and extremely lucrative relationship with Mr. Giuliani, many insiders expect him to do his friend's bidding and go with the spoiler option. But others insist that Mr. Harding may have little choice but to defy the script that political insiders have written for him, an act that would be fraught with all sorts of political peril.

Mr. Harding didn't return several calls requesting an interview. But one Liberal Party member noted that it is no easy task to find a credible third-party candidate. If Mr. Harding finds one who has no effect on the outcome, he will have lost perhaps his main selling point: his ability to persuade politicos that he can make or break their electoral ambitions.

"If the spoiler makes no difference, then the party becomes irrelevant," said Martin Begun, who is on the party's policy committee. "The one thing about Ray Harding is that he doesn't like to be considered irrelevant."

He certainly doesn't. In 1993, when his line pulled enough votes for Mr. Giuliani to squeak past then-Mayor David Dinkins, Mr. Harding went around bragging about his role as "Ray 'margin-of-difference' Harding."

If Mr. Harding does, in fact, run a third-party candidate against Mrs. Clinton, he risks arousing the anger of the city's Democratic establishment, which he may need to keep his business flush and his sons gainfully employed after Mr. Giuliani leaves office. In fact, leading Democrats are so worried about the spoiler option that they are already sounding ominous threats. "If he's smart, he'll keep himself in good Democratic graces to protect his fiefdom after 2001," one top Democrat told The Observer .

Finally, observers say, sooner or later he will have to start worrying about his party's image as an ideologically bereft institution more interested in patronage than in policy. If Mr. Harding fields a candidate designed to help Mr. Giuliani at a time when the Mayor appears to be moving rightward, he risks losing members and credibility. Indeed, any Liberal Party member who believes in the party's platform might not be pleased if the party tacitly aids the Mayor. The party's web site (www.liberalparty.org) offers a range of positions that might elicit sneers from the right-tilting Mr. Giuliani.

The Liberal Party on health care: "We must … complete the design of a universal health-care program for all Americans." On juveniles: "We must … develop a community-based 'aftercare' system … to deal effectively with the thousands of damaged young people among us." On workfare recipients: "We must provide them with … literacy, education and training [and] affordable transportation to get them to work and their children to child care."

For his part, Mr. Giuliani has thrown himself behind Federal tax cuts that slash money for hospital and child care programs, and he has assailed those who oppose a strict workfare system as "apostles of dependency."

If Mr. Harding's history is any guide, he is likely to wiggle out of his strange predicament. Even his enemies marvel at his Houdini-like ability to extricate himself from impossible political quagmires. In 1998, for instance, his party suffered a near-death experience when Wilbur Ross, then the wealthy husband of Mr. Harding's candidate for governor, Betsy McCaughey Ross, suddenly pulled his formidable resources from her campaign. The insiders scripted Mr. Harding's demise, predicting the Liberal Party wouldn't pull the 50,000 votes needed in any gubernatorial election to retain its place on the ballot. He survived.

"He has a lot of skill in maneuvering around land mines, and I'm sure he hasn't lost any of those," Mr. Badillo observed. "I don't know how he'll work it yet. [But in the end], all of us will look with admiration at how he pulled it off."

overwhelms his craftiness-a peril that arises at some point in the career of

every successful demagogue. By staging a bogus and potentially costly

controversy over a single provocative canvas at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, he

has quite likely solved one of the most difficult problems of his potential

Senate candidacy. But he may also have done irreparable damage his ambition.

The sincerity of the Mayor's current crusade against what

another officeholder long ago termed "degenerate art" is difficult to assess. It

is hard to believe he hasn't realized that his machinations against the museum

are providing publicity that collector Charles Saatchi's enormous fortune could

never buy. Then again, Hizzoner may simply be unable to resist his impulse to

suppress, even when it's obviously producing a result opposite to his declared

intention.

That eye-bulging grimace

of his certainly looks real, and he does have a history of this sort of

behavior. By now his authoritarian approach to cultural criticism is as wearily

familiar as his urge to stifle speech that displeases him.

Occasionally, his

targets seem deserving, as in the case of the hateful Khallid Abdul Muhammad;

often they are more sympathetic figures, such as demonstrating cabdrivers and

AIDS protesters. Although he always loses when his victims sue to protect their

First Amendment rights, he seems to enjoy these situations.

In this instance, posing as defender of the faith against

the hellish advocates of "Catholic-bashing" gives the Mayor a thrilling shiver

of religious righteousness. Acting out this medieval melodrama probably permits

him the emotional relief of expressing hostile feelings. And yet despite all

the convincing evidence of pathology, there may also be a method to the madness

at City Hall.

As a direct result of Mr. Giuliani's artistic inquisition, a

small but very important organization has improved its opinion of him (and it's

not People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Applauding his action are the

leaders of the New York State Conservative Party, many of whom are staunch

Catholics. Until recently, they had suggested that they would prefer someone

else as a Senate candidate. Soft on abortion and gay rights and a perennial

candidate of the Liberal Party, the Mayor has never been their kind of guy.

That distaste for his

opinions wouldn't necessarily have kept the Conservative Party from endorsing

Mr. Giuliani next year. Though once fiercely independent of the G.O.P., the

Conservatives are increasingly dependent on the state's Republican officeholders

for patronage and pelf. They've already sold out their principles on social

issues  to maintain ties with Gov.

George Pataki and former Senator Alfonse D'Amato.

The Conservatives take their

cues from Albany, and ever since the Governor made his uneasy peace with the

Mayor and reluctantly endorsed his Senate candidacy, they were bound to

reconcile themselves to him. Now he has made that inevitable compromise much

easier for them. Conservative Party chairman Michael Long may even be able to

muster some enthusiasm for him among the rank and file. 

The only remaining

obstacle to a Conservative cross-endorsement of the Mayor is any possibility

that he might appear on the Liberal Party's ballot line. Everyone knows there

have been no real liberals in that organization for decades, but the

Conservative faithful still shun the Liberal heathens as a matter of principle.

Much as he might like to, the Mayor cannot run as a

Republican-Conservative-Liberal.

For Mr. Giuliani, the electoral equation has nothing to do

with ideology: In a statewide race, the Conservatives always garner many

thousands more votes than the Liberals. To insure that no rump Conservative

drains away the votes he will need to defeat likely Democratic nominee Hillary

Rodham Clinton, the Mayor must part company with the Liberal Party and its

leader and lobbyist, Ray Harding. (How will they handle this awkward

separation? The Liberals could pretend to be concerned about Mr. Giuliani's

illiberal attitude toward free speech, except that no one would believe them.)

But don't expect the

Liberal Party to endorse Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Harding is far more inclined to seek

another way to help Mr. Giuliani, his family's longtime patron-by nominating a

straw candidate to siphon away Democratic votes. The most effective tactic

might involve a Hispanic woman, who would mount the Liberal soapbox to denounce

the First Lady's flip-flop on the pardon of the F.A.L.N. prisoners.

Meanwhile, however, the Mayor's alliance with conservative

authoritarians is alienating moderate and liberal Democrats, whose support in

past elections has made him seem invincible. The New York Times ' editorial board has noticed Mr. Giuliani's

disturbing disregard for constitutional rights. Indulging himself at the

expense of the First Amendment in Brooklyn could well cost him the Times endorsement next year-and

sometimes that alone is enough to turn a close election.