Former New York governor George Pataki personifies almost everything I dislike in politicians. He’s not corrupt — as far as I know — in the criminal sense, but he’s entirely corrupt politically and intellectually. He goes along to get along, with his colleagues and donors, with liberal pieties and the editorial boards that spew them. He was a lazy governor who often worked no more than 15 hours a week, and over his twelve years in office he held at most three cabinet meetings.
He “broke virtually every political promise he ever made,” according the New York Post’s legendary state editor Fred Dicker, and was so shameless in his lack of principles, integrity, and loyalty that former senator Al D’Amato — the sort of man best pictured swimming a moat at night with a knife in his teeth — said of his protégé: “What he did broke my heart.”
Advertisement
He left New York on the precipice of economic ruin and the state Republican party a shambles.
Oh, and Pataki is also the author of what I have long considered the single dumbest prepared statement in modern political history.
“It is conceivable,” Pataki said in 2000 when he signed a hate-crimes bill into law, “that if this law had been in effect 100 years ago, the greatest hate crime of all, the Holocaust, could have been avoided.”
You could write several Ph.D. dissertations on why that is idiotic. Though I do like the image of Hitler having his hands tied by a hate-crimes law, because, you know, there were no laws against genocidal murder when he came into power. “Meine Herren,” Hitler would have to tell his comrades in the Eagle’s Nest, “I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do.”
At this point you might think that this is a column about George Pataki. You might even suspect that I’m launching a preemptive strike on him in response to rumors that he’s pondering a presidential run.
Nope. The truth is, I want him to run, and not just because I enjoy watching baloney charge the grinder.
There’s a lot of grumbling and moping on the Right about how the Republican base doesn’t like the current field of candidates. I’m not wholly unsympathetic. I’d like to see several other names touted as top contenders, starting with Rep. Paul Ryan. I fear many of the candidates have significant flaws in terms of experience, temperament, skills, electability, or ideology. In fact, there’s not one declared candidate I’m completely comfortable with.
And you know what? That’s okay. That’s what primaries are for. Let ’em all duke it out, steel-cage style. Let Pataki get in and explain why any non-glue-sniffer should want him to be president. He might serve as a useful foil.
I suspect that the main reason many conservatives are so dismayed by the field is not that they find the current crop so unacceptable. It’s the sense that the contenders aren’t up to beating Obama, or, if they are now, that they wouldn’t be after a bruising primary battle.
But I think that’s wrong. In 2007, the idea that Barack Obama could beat Hillary Clinton, never mind be the next president, was laughable. The 2008 Democratic primary was the most bruising primary contest in years. And guess what? The Democrats emerged stronger from it. Not only did the fight make Obama a better candidate, his ultimate victory over Hillary actually became one of his biggest selling points. Whenever Obama was asked if he’d ever run anything of significance, he’d point to his presidential campaign. (What else could he point to?)
In fact, my worry is not that the GOP will have a bruising primary fight that almost goes to the convention; my worry is that it won’t have one. It would generate massive resentment on the right if we have the same old coronation ritual for the next Republican in line. But if everyone’s allowed to have their say and take their best shot, only to lose in the end, odds are the party will be in better shape.
Also, Obama wants an opponent as soon as possible. He’s never had to run on a record, and he’s desperate to make the election a choice between him and someone he can demonize. The longer it is before an opponent emerges, the more the election becomes a referendum on Obama.
So take your time, Republicans. Hash it all out. Even let Pataki join the discussion. Just make sure you have hand puppets and some shiny blocks to help explain the tougher concepts to him.
Try having Arnold Schwarzenegger as your governor. A Republican governor day dreaming about working in the Obama administration as some kind of green czar.....sigh.
RINOs to the left of me, RINOs to the right of me, Obama in front of me, somebody needs to lead this charge.
The only chance of no GOP candidate arriving in Tampa with a majority (my preferred result, as it reflects the original purpose of Presidential nominating conventions and would be very interesting, very grass-roots empowering and very good for our party) is for the large states to change their winner-take-all GOP rules. (The Democrat Party rules are more proportional).
It would also help if Tier 2 candidates would form temporary tactical alliances with each other in certain states and if folks like Christie and Perry would run as favorite sons.
What will happen if no GOP candidate arrives in Tampa with a majority?
Here is one very possible scenario:
1.Tens of millions of extra television viewers will watch the convention and will be exposed to conservative ideas and speeches.
2. Independents will see the 'big tent' aspect of the GOP, with strong women candidates, respected libertarians, a serious black candidate, Christian conservatives and traditional economic conservatives all welcome.
3. The contest will in all likelihood be seen to be fair: No coronation, all views heard.
4. Whoever emerges from the excitement will have already been well-tested and well-vetted.
5. The media excitement will be with the GOP, not Obama.
6. If either Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin is a finalist (or better still, the nominee), we will get a bigger slice of the younger women's vote, a GOP weak spot.
7. A candidate farm team will be prepared for future elections.
A marathon contest may well be desirable, but getting one requires fewer candidates, not more.
As long as there are more than two viable candidates, the front-runner will be able to pile up delegates by running nationally while the opposition vote is split between multiple candidates. A big field is fine for now, but if three or more survive the first few contests, that probably ensures the front-runner will lock things up not long after.
With the huge amount of money it takes to run a modern competive campaign, it seems likely that field of candidates will rapidly narrow to the few who can engender significant primary voter support.
The "smart money" will then rapidly flow to the primary winners (and perhaps, runners up) making it even more difficult for the "also-rans" to compete.
Whether this scenerio is more or less likely to produce a candidate capable of beating Obama, I leave to others to judge.
The other thing to keep in mind is that presidents don't necessarily appear presidential this early, and I don't think that has much to do with the size of the field. In fact, the 100% presidential look doesn't actually kick in until just before the inauguration. IMHO it's partly subjective on our part, and partly what the campaign does to turn them into someone fit for office. But the contenders are all accomplished people who have experience making tough decisions. So if none of them seems to you to be a president yet, well, hop in your time machine and go take a look, and you may be quite relieved. If you can't do that, then just pay attention and do your homework and choose as best you can, because that's how actual presidents come to be.
C C Writer has a good point about looking presidential being a late thing. In fact, in 2008 it was crucial to Obama's win. He very early on worked to establish that image (as many on the right, including me, made fun of much he did to do it). Helping was the fact McCain always reminded me of what he still is at heart: a jet jock. The culmination of those dual processes was McCain's suspended campaign over the financial crisis and Obama's ability (aided by the press) to appear to dominate the WH conference on the topic.
One wonders if that aspect of the campaign will repeat 1980. One of Reagan's weak points, that Carter tried to exploit, was that Reagan didn't seem to have the temperament to be president (the whole "he'll start WW3" belief) but it imploded at the debate). In fact, the ability of a debate to show someone as presidential is what the Kennedy/Nixon debate story is about.
The calculus is simple. Go with the guy who inspired health care reform and have a shot at winning. Go with the psychos who would rather kill grandma than end an oil subsidy and write yourselves out of contention. The country is simply not as far right as NRO thinks it is. Bite off something you can chew or suffer the embarrassment of watching your candidate explain that they are not a witch on the eve of the election.
Mr. Goldberg,
Sir, the insinuation that only glue-sniffers would vote for Gov. Pataki grossly underestimates the intelligence of the average glue-sniffer.
I think the author is forgetting about fundraising issues that result from a long contest. Short or long term, Romney holds ground in this category. I'd rather him start getting bruised now while he racks up loot.
Follow
