Former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, personifies almost everything I dislike in politicians. He’s not criminally corrupt (as far as I know), 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. Over his 12 years in office, he held, at most, three cabinet meetings.
He “broke virtually every political promise he ever made,” wrote The Post’s legendary state editor Fred Dicker. He left New York on the precipice of economic ruin and the state GOP a shambles.
Oh, and Pataki is also the author of what may be the single dumbest prepared statement in modern political history.
“It is conceivable,” Pataki said in 2000, when he signed a hate-crimes bill, “that if this law had been in effect 100 years ago, the greatest hate crime of all, the Holocaust, could have been avoided.”
At this point, you might think that this is a column about George Pataki. You might even suspect that I’m launching a pre-emptive 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 much grumbling and moping on the right about how the GOP 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 OK. That’s what primaries are for. Let ’em all duke it out, 16-man (and -woman) 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 President Obama or that if they are now, they won’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. Guess what? The Democrats emerged stronger from it.
Not only did the fight make Obama a better candidate, but his victory over Hillary 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.
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 huge resentment on the right if we have the same old coronation ritual for the next Republican in line. But if everyone can have his say and take his best shot, 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 a rival emerges, the more the election becomes a referendum on him.
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. JonahsColumn@aol.com