http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ring_republican_presidential_race.html?r=news Pataki's getting in. Will there be more?
It almost seems like, no matter how big the field gets, it is still judged by Republicans to be so lacking that all kinds of players or ex-players are going, "**** it. Might as well. With this field, I could actually wind up winning." Palin is actually looking like she might get in and I really don't think she'd been planning on that. Also: Huntsman was pretty good on one of the Sunday shows this morning. I wouldn't count him out yet. Kind of glad nobody took my Perry bet. I have no idea what's going to happen in any given week. Who will still join the race, even at this late date? Anything could happen. This is going to be a fun race.
Bill Bradley dull, should have run in 2000 or 2008. Hell, should have run for Senate in 2000. New York governors have ****ty timing.
I never wanted anyone to run more than Mario Cuomo, especially in 1992. I first seriously lost my faith in politics when he and Anne Richards, both enormously popular career politicians, were swept out of office by such clearly inferior candidates as Pataki and W. All on the back of Clinton's health care fail and unpopularity after two years in office. 2010 was 1994 all over again, except that though we lost Feingold no giant like Cuomo or Richards went out this time. Either of them would have made great presidents.
Huntsman fascinates me. He's - by far - the most sane and rational of the group. He'd easily be the best President of the bunch, and if made it to the general election, I'd make him a pretty decent favorite over Obama. His strategy is interesting - it's basically to call out all the crazies and hope the sane GOPers vote for him. It makes sense - he's not an attack dog, and he wouldn't be able to distinguish himself from the pack if he tried to be yet another one of those. But on the flipside, there are too many crazies in the Primary that I'm not sure where he gets his votes. His best bet might be for more crazies like Palin to join in and keep splitting that tea party vote more and more ways and hope he can built a 20% coalition of moderates that's good enough to win - or at least to get traction.
I still say it's going to be Romney. The GOP likes vetted/tested candidates that have paid their dues and he's the only one that fits either category. Romney is the guy they can be sure won't implode in the general election. Huntsman has zero chance. At this point, I believe Perry is the only one who can deny Romney. Pataki shouldn't waste his time and Palin is in the position Perry used to be in: Looks pretty standing on the sideline but won't look so good once she jumps in the water.
I was as surprised by Cuomo's downfall as you were. What surprised me more, however, was how Anne Richards lost that campaign. Going into it, she seemed a sure thing. Heck, she was convinced she was a sure thing, and perhaps that was her Achilles' heel. She was one of the finest campaigners it was my pleasure to witness in the political arena. So what happened? Something that has brought far too many politicians low, hubris. She was wildly popular before and after her election. Going for her second term, Dubya was seen as a lightweight, and he was, but he had a ruthless gang, particularly the head honcho, working to get him elected for their own ends. Who saw him as a pol ripe for maniplation, and you know who I'm talking about. So what does the person who was easily the most popular elected official in the state do? Take Bush for granted. Of all the times to run the worst campaign of her career, she picks this election as a walk, assuming that she could dial it in and beat this chump that was widely seen as his father's pain in the arse, a chump who made his living off the largess of his family and their powerful friends. While she was correct that Bush on his own had no chance against her, she completely blew off Mr. Rove and his people as a threat to her reelection. Result? Disaster. By the time she realized she was blowing it, Rove had "transformed" Bush into something he was not, and managed to paint this beloved Texan as a "disaster' for the state, with Richards waiting far too long to wake up and smell the coffee. Some of us have never forgiven her for that blunder, a blunder that led to an unmitigated disaster for the country. Oh, we still admired the rest of her career and especially her as a person, but that she could blow a sure reelection just killed Texas Democrats, and we have yet to recover. I was fortunate to have talked to her a few times at social occasions, and she was a regular at some Austin eateries, like Las Manitas on Congress, a favorite hangout for politicians. I'll never stop admiring her, but I'll also never forget what happened. Anne had charisma in spades, but lost it for that one paramount election. An election that not only led the country on a path of disaster, but affected the world and affected it badly. If there is a heaven, Anne's still having some sleepless night up there, pondering what could have been.
One Two Three Four, throw Pataki out the door! I remember folks saying this when Pataki was slashing arts funding around '96
Excellent post. Very evocative of the era. Las Manitas. Too bad it isn't there any more. I feel like eating one of their breakfasts right now.
what happened to anne richards, this is texas. it took a complete meltdown from clayton to put her in office in the first place.
I remember it well. It was either Newsweek or Time that had a chart of key races in a September issue and it gave odds of 75%/25% that Clayton Williams would beat Ann Richards. Then he imploded like few ever have. Just incredible. If someone had just locked him in a closet until November there never would have been a Governor Richards. I think he admitted to not paying any income taxes right before making the joke about rape.
