Pataki done as Gov; POTUS run likely

Revealing a secret either poorly kept or easily guessed, New York Governor George Pataki announced today that he will not seek a fourth term in office. Pataki was seen as a long shot to defeat State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for re-election, and the Governor has taken numerous out-of-state trips, incluiding to Iowa last week, in an apparent effort to raise his profile as a presidential candidate. Reportage has focused on those assumed ambitions; whether or not he is a good candidate for the White House, a topic I wrote about last week; and who the State party is likely to run against Spitzer for the Governorship. It won't be Rudy Giulani or Michael Bloomberg, both of whom said so recently, and I don't think New York republican voters are excited about Tom Golisano or William Weld. What's Al D'Amato doing these days?

Would Pataki have run for re-election if there weren't such a strong opponent waiting for him? Maybe, but I think Pataki's decison has more to do with this question: Would he have made the same decision if he didn't have presidential ambitions? Early polls give Spitzer a massive lead to go with his sizable fund-raising advantage, and voters seem to regard Pataki with a sort of malaise. It is hard to imagine Pataki overcoming this scenario, but it would be possible if he didn't have to worry about draining the energy and money he will need to win a Republican presidential primary. Put another way, Pataki, as it stands now, actually has a better chance of winning the top job in Washington that he would have had to keep his current job.