It
was either optimistic (albeit empty) rhetoric or a coded pitch to Republicans
outside New York.

Depending
on your point of view, those were two of the most popular interpretations of Governor
George Pataki’s final State of the State address on January 4. Predicting
Pataki’s political future has become a popular pastime, and there was plenty in
the speech to fuel that, though perhaps less than many pundits had expected.

For
a presidential hopeful, the speech contained surprisingly little substance. If
Pataki plans to run for the White House, it will need to be on the strength of
his politics, not his policies. With his tepid State of the State address —
matched in its soporific quality only by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s
response — Pataki threw away one of his last big chances to use his bully
pulpit to push for real change.

New York’s seen better
days. Job growth in the state is stagnant, as is population. Debt is soaring,
while year-to-year finances are perched precariously on the edge of deficit.
Our state government has been labeled the “most dysfunctional” in the nation,
lacking even in some basic democratic reforms.

A
bold agenda from the governor’s office could be the first step to reverse a
decline that began decades ago. And since he’s not
seeking reelection this November, Pataki’s running out of time to spend any
remaining political capital. But anyone naรฏve enough to expect Pataki’s final
address to include such a bold agenda went away disappointed.

The
three-term governor dwelt on his political philosophy and talked up what he
sees as his legacy in terms that were anything but specific. Sample quote: “The
totality of our achievements over the past 11 years, the new course for New
York that we charted back in 1995, has made New York a stronger, safer,
cleaner, more prosperous state than it’s been in generations.”

Reform
— the Albany buzzword of
last year — apparently wasn’t important enough to be worth discussing.

Of
the few concrete proposals Pataki did offered, tax cuts topped the list. The
estate tax and the “marriage penalty” would see their demise under his plan —
ending both is a cause cรฉlรจbre among many national conservatives — and
property taxes would decrease. The AlbanyTimes-Union puts the price tag of those
cuts at about $1 billion per year (with an estimated $700-800 million of that
from the estate tax alone).

Pataki
also spent significant time outlining an energy plan for the state that eschewed
reliance on “expensive, polluting, terror-promoting foreign oil” in favor of
ethanol and other renewable energy sources. Sounds great, but the plan’s
details left environmentalist less than thrilled, since they include the
construction of power plants fueled by what the governor dubbed “clean coal.”

Just
a few hours after the address, Environmental Advocates of New York released a
statement largely praising Pataki’s environmental credentials, but condemning
the coal plan.

“We’re
very disappointed that he’s looking to build new coal plants in New York, and we’ll
fight any state or ratepayer money going to make that happen,” wrote EANY’s Christine Vanderlan in a
follow-up email to City Newspaper.

And
even the plan’s architecture seems more political than practical; to accomplish
his clean-energy goals, the governor’s principal tools will be tax cuts for
businesses that produce green-energy products.

Those
cuts, along with the persistent speculation that Pataki plans to run for
president in 2008, provided the political backdrop for the best pundit quote
the speech generated.

“Pataki
might think ethanol will win him farm votes in Iowa,” GOP
strategist Nelson Warfield told the Associated Press. “But when he’s carrying
the weight of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights, a boutique tax cut
for alternative fuels won’t put much in Pataki’s tank for a presidential race.”

Trying to
divine Pataki’s intentions as the Republican presidential primary approaches
constituted the bulk of news coverage about the address. And perhaps that was
by design. With little substantive material in the speech to analyze, reporters
and pundits were forced to play the part of tealeaf readers, generating a buzz
for a potential Pataki campaign in the process.

Reams
have been written about the moderate governor’s uphill battle in a primary
supposedly dominated by party’s conservative base (see McCain, John). Clearly
Pataki’s a long shot. But before writing him off, consider a couple of factors.

For
starters, five years of a Bush administration haven’t left the national
Republican Party unscathed. Only the editorial page of the Gannett-owned Journal-News in Westchester seemed to
notice a simultaneous event that may be good news for a Pataki campaign: the
Jack Abramoff guilty plea.

While
Pataki was deftly avoiding saying anything, the unscrupulous lobbyist was
agreeing as part of a plea bargain to say all kinds of things about the power
brokers he allegedly dealt with. That could spell serious problems for some
among the party’s conservative wing. Powerful players like Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed are rumored to be among the most
worried about Abramoff’s agreement to testify. Bill Frist isn’t, but the presumptive early frontrunner has his
own ethical problems.

Plus
some Bush administration policies have alienated more moderate Republicans. If
— and this is a big if — the Beltway GOP’s travails are enough to seriously
rend the party going into the primary campaign season, a moderate like Pataki
could stand to benefit.

That
seemed to be the opening the governor was aiming for when he opened his address
outlining his belief in “active, but limited government.” The quote got
prominent play in a press release Pataki’s office sent out later that day. The
strategy seemed to work: the phrase made it into the lead of veteran AP
political reporter Marc Humbert’s State of the State
article. Perhaps, with his socially moderate stances Pataki believes he can use
the “active, but limited” formula to split the difference between hard-line
conservatives — whose support he’ll need to win a primary — and swing
voters.

There’s
also another, probably better, explanation of Pataki’s actions: He’s really
running for vice president, or a high-level administration position.
Comparisons with Dick Cheney aside (the comb over, the crooked smile), Pataki
has been considered veep material in the past. A good
run in New Hampshire and Iowa (two states
he’s been visiting a lot lately) could propel him well into the media
spotlight. Or at least far enough to be a serious choice for running mate,
especially for a Southern or Western conservative looking to appeal to moderate
swing voters in the Northeast.

Failing
that, Pataki’s relative popularity with environmentalists might land him a spot
heading up an agency like the EPA (following in the footsteps of Christine Todd
Whitman, another moderate Republican governor from a Northeast state: New Jersey). Or he might
seek a cabinet appointment or diplomatic post: Paul Cellucci,
yet another moderate Republican governor of a Northeast state (Massachusetts) became
ambassador to Canada. If that’s
not a cushy patronage job, then such a thing doesn’t exist.

Regardless
of his intentions, don’t count Pataki out of the presidential race yet, his
tepid State of the State notwithstanding. With a 3-0 record against incumbents,
the former Peekskill mayor turned
obscure assemblyman and state senator turned upset winner of the 1994
governor’s race has made a career out of being underestimated.

This article appears in Jan 11-17, 2006.