Should he run for Senate?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Pataki In or Out?
You have all heard or read about the possibility of George Pataki running for the US Senate seat now being held by Kirsten Gillibrand. Pataki met with the head of the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee, Senator John Cornyn, but he has given no indication of even a slight intention.
Should he run for Senate?
Should he run for Senate?
12 comments:
Whether Pataki does or does not seek the senate seat is of course his choice, but one issue stands out: Why do we tolerate or accept really recycled former this or that elected office holders all the time to a higher office?
People run and lose and keep trying to win an elected office, [I know that for a fact] for one reason I believe: they think they can make a difference and do better than the incumbents or they'd like to see an end to the power players who seem to always have the name, fame and fortune to stay out front ... run, win and then do squat (usually) while in office, except one thing: stay manage to stay in office or get "promoted" to the next level.
I say no to those who have served 2-3-4 or more terms in elected office -- move aside and let fresh people who have new fresh ideas have a whack at it.... that's what "We, the People" also means, right?
Absolutely, Democrats need all the Republican senators they can get. He's pro choice and for the environment, how cool is that.
Pataki should run only if he is honest and runs as a Democrat.
He was a lazy, pandering governor, who decimated the ranks of the GOP by running to the left in a cynical attempt to protect his incumbency.
He abandoned upstate republicans, believing that they had nowhere else to go. Of course he was wrong, and the Independence party gained many of those former GOP members, and many of the votes.
He has no belief structure, and ran his administration on polls, short-term political expediency, and that which he and his handful of insiders believed would further Pataki's power. What was good for the people of this state was secondary.
Pataki is an ideological and intellectual lightweight who should not represent us anywhere, or anytime. He had his run.
Danny Francis is right that re-running old worn-out politicians because they have name recognition is foolish.
It's time to get back to our roots as a party. The party of incumbency has done enough damage to the state GOP, and the state as a whole.
It's really pathetic that Pataki is the best the GOP has been able to come up with.
Who the heck is 9:48. He is exactly right. Pataki didn't really believe in anything. He talked a great game, but we spent like idiots. He never met a special interest he didn't like. His time is done. I don't hate the guy, I just wish he'd fade away.
Great post, 9:48.
He, is the reason the State of New York is in the shape it is.
It's hard to believe, but two years after leaving office Pataki actually looks good when compared with the reign of Spitzer/Paterson.
Pataki was a good governor in my opinion. Contrary to other postings I also disagree that he is an intellectual light-weight. Look at Gillibrand! I think being the Governor of NYS is probably the most difficult job next to POTUS. Our legislature is overran by special interest groups who have every legislator in their pocket. The real problem is the legislature. There should be term-limits for all of them. Silver is the reincarnation of Boss Tweed. He has been in the legislature for 33 years. Unless the people of this state start getting serious about change and reform it will never happen and it will be corruption as usual. Whether it is Cuomo, Patterson, Giuliani or Superman the next Governor of this state is destined to fail. How dare you cut all of these wonderful state programs when you can just take more money from the honest hard-working people of this state.
This is an interesting thread. I don't agree with 12:28 at all, blaming Pataki for all ills. WE are the reason for the shape we're in. Education spending up double digits year after year, welfare bums from all over the world love us, a state government that can't be blamed on the Gov alone. We just love to tax and spend, and when special interests bs us, we listen. We can't blame Pataki for all that. We're the ones who have stayed stupid for two generations.
5:54- Yours is the kind of attitude that lets the bums get away with it. I did not say the senate and assembly are good, and Pataki is bad. The senate and assembly are just as much to blame- but Pataki never bothered to even propose spending cuts,(except for the first two years). Once Patricia Woodworth left, he became a RINO of the worst kind. We can't just say "it's not Pataki's fault because the senate did it" or "it's not the senate's fault because the assembly did it"= they are all culpable.
He (Pataki)with hardly a whimper gave into the Dems, the unions, and the special interests.
By the way- the senate republicans were willing helpers in the Pataki years, which saw percentage budget increases that were greater than those of Mario Cuomo's.
Isn't that special?
Uhh, 5:54, are you confused? I don't disagree with anything you've said. I blame the entire bunch as well, as you seem to do. But I have to put the blame mostly on us. While we do the us/them/donky/elephant blame game the leaders of both parties throw money at the bums, teacher unions, and every other special interest. We can't single out or defend Pataki in this. We did it. And we continue to do it. Now we have Obama money that came from who knows where, and we don't have to cut a single thing. We won't. So next year we will be in worse shape and will have done nothing to prepare.
And the donkeys will blame elephants and elephants will blame the donkeys.
5:33:
You are right- we let the incumbocrats buy our votes with our own money, and then wonder why we get what we get.
As my father used to say- "the people get the government they deserve".
On it goes.
Post a Comment