Eight months from now, New Yorkers will go to the polls and choose our next governor. While Gov. George Pataki has not officially announced his intention to run for a third term, his actions thus far lead to the inevitable conclusion he will run, violating his 1994 pledge to only serve two terms. Dovetailing reporters' questions about another run at governor are inevitable queries about his future political aspirations. Pataki refuses to answer the question of whether or not he would complete a third term if elected, hinting at higher ambitions. "Let's take things step by step," the New York Times reported Pataki said Monday.
A sitting incumbent reluctant to announce his intentions is a common occurrence in politics, but it's easy to read between the lines. If his eye weren't turned toward higher office, it would be quite simple to tell any reporter who asks, "If re-elected, I will serve a full term." Pataki's desire to advance beyond the governor's mansion is well established. He flirted briefly in New Hampshire in 1999 with presidential aspirations, and then floated word to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush of his desire to be his vice presidential nominee.
The 2004 election will give Pataki another opportunity to advance his political career. A Bush-Pataki ticket geographically and ideologically balances the GOP ticket if Vice President Dick Cheney does not run. Pataki would also be a strong candidate for New York's Senate seat up for re-election, currently occupied by Charles Schumer.
The problem is not the governor running for office. He'll be doing that until November. As strenuous as campaigning can be, it's normal in politics. The problem is a governor intending to leave prematurely a state with serious problems that need to be addressed in a focused, coherent manner. New York cannot afford to be governed by someone looking above and beyond to higher office at such a crucial time. There remain many important issues that need to be addressed: furthering recovery from the Sept. 11 attacks, filling the $7 billion shortfall resulting from the attacks and recession, turning around the Western New York economy, to name a few. Pataki's focus on New York will be diminished because he is looking beyond Albany to Washington. Why should he care if the state's oft-late annual budget is tardy yet again when he's plotting to become a senator in 2004?
If the governor is so determined to move beyond his current position, not running for re-election is just as viable an option. Pataki's popularity is at a high after the events of Sept. 11. He could start a consulting firm like former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. He could press the Bush administration for an appointed position, such as when the president made Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci ambassador to Canada, or former Montana Gov. Marc Raciot head of the Republican National Committee. Any of these options would satisfy Pataki's ambition and give New Yorkers a governor committed to the state for four years.
It's fair for Pataki to want a new job. It's fair for the voters to expect an elected official to serve the entirety of his elected term, for the sake of a continued governance to focus on pressing state issues. It's also fair for New York voters to tell the governor, "Sorry, no dice" at the polls in November.
