Hi,
I have been thinking anew about what you said, how
Pataki's too liberal to survive the Republican Primaries and
Romney doesn't have enough experience in office to make it work, and I think I disagree. Of course, I would vote against both, but I think that they may have a better shot that we thought. As noted in the
NY Times,
Albany Times Union, and
Boston Globe, both of these guys have been all over Iowa, and already have big name recognition in New Hampshire.
Supposed inexperience didn't stop our current president, and probably wouldn't stop Romney. Bush's resume in 1999 was a two-term Texas Governor, owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and worked in the energy business; Romney is a one-term Governor of Massachusetts, was the clean-up man for the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, founded a venture capital firm, and worked as a management consultant. Romney's vita looks good in that context. The parallels continue. Both men failed in previous runs at Washington; Bush losing a Texas congressional race in 1978, Romney losing a 1994 challenge to Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. What else do Mitt and Dubya have in common? Politically successful fathers - Romney's dad was a three-term governor of Michigan. There seems to be some confusion about his
stance on abortion, but it seems managable. The guy looks good on a podium, I can tell you that. He looks like a blue-blood POTUS from central casting.
Pataki's presumed problem with conservatives - "Pro-choice, and pro-gay" said the Times' article - may be overstated, and could even be an advantage with liberals, which puts blue states in play should he win the nomination. Maybe even places like California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and of course, New York, depending on who his opponent is. Pataki is not a polarizing figure. People don't hate him, they think he's boring, which is kind of working off of a blank slate. Percieved as bland, he can surprise people by appearing at all interesting and human. He can also appearto be above the fray in a contentious primary, making the more zealous of the right-wing candidates seem too fierce in comparison. One of the aforementioned articles hinted at this being part of his strategy: Let the hard-line conservatives splinter that constituency amongst themselves, and make an appeal to the center. It is a theory with holes, but it makes sense. Among the legitimate candidates, any strategy is contingent on many unforeseen things. The respective merits of McCain versus Pataki are germane today, but I would bet that McCain doesn't even run and Giuliani would flame out. How would the field look then? Pataki and Romney compare favorably against the rest of the field, at least in my eyes.
Yeah, and I know how you'll respond: McCain and Giuliani have more appeal than Pataki, and that someone off the radar now, like Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, or Kansas Senator Sam Brownback could make an end run around any Northeastern moderates. I know that people like George Allen, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, and Bill Frist could be in the scrum. My point is not that Pataki or Romney are front runners, just that there is a solid case to be made for each.
I would love to see a coalition government, like the rumored Kerry-McCain, or Kerry-Hagel tickets, rather than McCain versus Hilary, or Jeb Bush (please god no) versus John Edwards. All I know is that primaries and general elections aren't decided by logic, good ideas, proven ability, or even money. The
2008 campaign is what your boy Rumsfeld calls a known unknown. You know?
Anyway, say hi to the wife.
Regards - jmc
© 2005 by justin michael cresswell
