GEORGE Pataki has again proved himself an adept politician – because he was able to put vanity and the supplicating words of hangers-on aside and realize that his day is done in Albany.
Running against Pataki for governor would have been a turkey shoot for Eliot Spitzer, and no rational person chooses to be a shot turkey.
But what does this all mean for Pataki going forward? Does he have a political future in electoral politics?
The answer is no – unless.
Certainly, the answer is no when it comes to the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. No, not just no. More like: No No No No No No.
I know of at least one acolyte-sycophant who says Pataki is going to run. If he does so, the governor is not as smart and canny as his decision today suggests.
It doesn’t matter whether Pataki had a good time in Iowa last week or not, whether he got a nice ovation or not. He is a pro-choice, pro-gun control liberal Republican by any reckoning, a Northeastern governor who has presided over a massive increase in the state’s budget and made common cause with public-sector unions.
That’s a major problem because public-sector unions are fast becoming for Republican primary voters what the National Rifle Association is for Democratic primary voters – an object of loathing.
He’d have to have something utterly extraordinary to offer to overcome such liabilities – the kind of extraordinary something that Rudy Giuliani does have with the crime drop, the breaking of the Mafia and the heroic conduct on and after 9/11.
So if it’s “forget the presidency” time, when and where else could Pataki get himself elected?
The answer, remarkably enough, is: Next year. In New York. His future ambitions rest entirely in the hands of another politician with presidential ambitions – and it’s not Rudy I’m talking about.
At some point in the next nine months, Sen. Hillary Clinton will have to make a decision. She is a shoo-in to win re-election for Senate in 2006. But does she really want to make a bid for the presidency in 2008 from the Senate?
There are about a hundred reasons not to. Since John F. Kennedy 45 years ago, more than 50 senators have sought the presidency, and they have all either been defeated or crushed or laughed out of town. And for good reason.
Sitting senators have to cast controversial votes at controversial times, which is something other candidates need not do. And if they are busy campaigning, they may not show up for a lot of votes, in which case they have to answer the “absentee senator not doing his job” charge.
If Hillary Clinton decides not to run for re-election to concentrate on her 2008 bid, that will be Pataki’s chance. The Democratic field to replace her is almost as pitiable as the Republican field to replace him. Could he beat Rep. Nita Lowey? Sure.
Indeed, because he would be running for a different office with different responsibilities, he could dodge some of the criticism he was going to face for his mishandling of the Ground Zero site.
George needs Hillary. Kind of fitting, somehow.
E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com