It will be interesting to see if former New York Gov. George Pataki’s (very) long shot bid for the GOP presidential nomination gets any traction in New Hampshire or elsewhere. As governor, he was a fiscal conservative who believed in limiting the growth of government and holding taxes in check. He is also probably the most pro-gay inclusion of the serious candidates, at least in terms of his support for anti-discrimination statutes (he has said he opposes gay marriage).
Pataki is staking out a position as a fiscal conservative and social liberal. As the Wall Street Journal reported, as governor he supported “some of the strictest gun-control laws in the U.S. at the time.” He also is moderately pro choice on abortion, and serious about extending business regulation to combat climate change.
Those are all positions that can be debated, but it would be good to see a candidate who was pro gay marriage and pro Second Amendment, and reasonably pro life (at least as concerns late-term partial birth terminations, as, in fact, Pataki seems to be) and skeptical about our ability to effectively regulate climate change and the value of attempting to do so versus the impact on economic vitality. Such as candidate might have brighter prospects among Republicans than Pataki will.
12 Comments for “Pataki’s Run”
posted by Doug on
The phrase ‘Snowball’s chance in hell’ comes to mind. As with most of the clown car GOP candidates their ego overshadows their common sense.
posted by Jorge on
As with most of the clown car GOP candidates their ego overshadows their common sense.
I didn’t think there’d be anything more desperate than the last neoconservative on earth running for president, and perhaps there isn’t. But there’s something even more pathetic: the last dead Rockefeller Republican running for president.
Those are all positions that can be debated, but it would be good to see a candidate who was. . . .
I much prefer the social conservative-as-an-afterthought who wants to fight climate change.
Besides, you don’t think Pataki (in his own time) woke up one day and decided to become a gay rights supporter, do you? He was able to see the need for it because it was brought to his attention. How exactly that happened is before my time, but we might be seeing it happen again.
I don’t want to give him too much credit for gay rights causes for the purpose of this election. Many Republicans have come after him to try to move this country in a good direction. What has he done? What will he do? This is an unpleasant time. What is he offering that will help us through it?
posted by Houndentenor on
The NY gay rights bill had been stalled in the Republican controlled state senate for years. Pataki didn’t sign it, he made the calls, line up the votes, and got it passed. Whatever his reasons, he deserves credit for that. I’m passed caring why people did things, when I like the things that were done. Pretty much everyone has complicated motivations for everything they do. Why does it matter if the results are positive?
posted by Jorge on
It matters if Pataki is a follower rather than a leader because the social conditions at this time are very different. He should be given credit for the past and he should be given credit for the present. There is nothing in the present.
posted by Mike in Houston on
If you’re going to use accounting as a standard, then let’s talk about depreciation. Pataki can’t possibly get full credit for half-ass efforts from a decade or more.
LGBT inclusion has a higher standard.
posted by Mr Bill on
Of course, when you use language like “late term partial birth terminations” for a medical procedure, you adopt the propaganda pose of the AntiAbortion movement. Let a woman and her doctor decide what treatments and procedures are necessary, instead of ratifying legislative intrusions into privacy and bodily integrity.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Interesting read on Politico:
We Republicans Lost On Gay Rights. That’s A Good Thing.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gop-gay-rights-big-business-118515.html#ixzz3brmGr7oB
Money quote (emphasis mine):
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, Giuliani put it bluntly in a recent interview with Fox:
Not that there aren’t a million other reasons why Giuliani would be a hopeless case this time around, but still.
None of the current (or likely) Republican candidates support marriage equality (or will during this election cycle). And all of the candidates can be expected to support the so-called “religious freedom” nonsense. Those are givens.
What will be interesting to see is how the candidates handle a pro-equality Supreme Court decision, if that is what the Supreme Court decides in the next few weeks, as expected. I think the candidates’ reactions, and the Republican voters’ response to those reactions, will be a harbinger for this election cycle and beyond.
posted by Jorge on
Not that there aren’t a million other reasons why Giuliani would be a hopeless case this time around, but still.
……
I’m sorry but I don’t agree, in fact I don’t follow your reasoning. I think for every other strike Giuliani has against him, there’s another candidate with those same traits who doesn’t carry the same ideological disqualifiers.
If there weren’t, I believe Giuliani wouldn’t be so unequivocal about not running. He is satisfied with the state of the Republican party today.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
When I say that there are a “million other reasons why Giuliani would be a hopeless case this time around”, all I am saying is that his time as a viable candidate with a reasonable shot at the nomination has come and gone. Long gone.
He’d be a single-digit primary candidate no matter what he thought about marriage equality. I suppose that we could waste a lot of time with back and forth about why or why not, but I think that’s the reality.
It is too bad that he — or someone like him — won’t run.
Primary candidates fall into three rough categories — vanity candidates (think Donald Trump), ideological candidates (think Bernie Sanders) and viable candidates (think Scott Walker). The ideological candidates are the most interesting, offering a counter to the party’s mainstream thinking, attempting to push the party in a direction.
If Guiliani would run as an ideological candidate, he could (if he would go full throat) challenge the anti-equality uniformity of the other candidates. He’s a good debater, and he could take on the mindless, pandering uniformity that characterizes the other candidates, helping to set the ideological stage for a change in the party’s direction on equality for 2020. That would be useful.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Pataki candidacy could be a very positive campaign — if we just focus on the issue of gay rights and GOP internal party politics. It also could be a cynical gimmick to increase his speaking engagement fees or help a more successful (probably) anti-gay conservative GOP nominee appear by “moderate” by getting a Pataki endorsement.
I believe that their may be a female candidate in the GOP presidential primary who tried to stake out a ‘moderate’ position on social issues. I only heard a wee bit of media coverage about her campaign and I guess she opposes gay marriage, but backs civil unions.
So, none of the GOP presidential candidates back marriage equality, but two of of the moderate candidates have actually found a gay rights issue that they can, maybe, support at the federal level.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
When Mr. G ran in the presidential primary he backtracked — to be polite about it — on his “moderate” viewpoints to court social conservatives.
Granted, I am not familiar enough with New York politics to know just what he accomplished or backed — in terms of gay rights. I heard (from supporters) that as mayor he, Guiliani, backed domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples, and support some civil rights protections in employment and housing. I also heard (from opponents) that cut funding for AIDS/HIV programs, and basically finished up gay rights legislation that previous Democratic administrations had already started.
Frankly, I was more impressed to see the openly gay Fred Karger (sic?) run in the GOP primary. I wonder what he has been up to recently?
I doubt that Guiliani would run this time around, now that Patakis is in the (growing) field of primary candidates. I certainly think that both men could certainly help move their own party forward on gay rights issues, but it remains to be seen if they will actually choose to to do so.