"Pataki hasn't got the strength or the dynamism (or the aforementioned not-so-stellar record) to challenge Hillary. He wouldn't even get 40% of the vote."
DJ, I disagree with you on this one. Pataki may be less popular than the measles right now, but he has bounced back from worse in the past. He is conservative enough to get the Conservative Party endorsement and get conservatives ot vote for him (albeit grudgingly in many cases, such as would be my own if I lived in NY), yet is moderate enough to get RINO votes in the NYC suburbs and Democrat votes Upstate and in NYC. He also has 100% name ID and could concentrate his media spending on the issues and on attacking Hillary's record.
While I think Pataki would be an underdog against Hillary, he would have an excellent chance of making it a single-digit race and harming Hillary in her 2008 presidential run. And I think it makes sense for Pataki to run for the Senate because if he kept Hillary under 55% in New York it would increase exponentially his currently non-existent chances of being the GOP's presidential or VP candidate.
From the beginning, I have said that I would like Giuliani to run for Governor, Pataki for the Senate and Pirro for AG. I still think that would give the GOP the best chance of winning those races in New York in 2006.
But if Giuliani and Pataki don't run, I think I can get behind Daniels for Governor and Spencer for the Senate.
Where Pataki is concerned, I just picture him in a debate with Hillary and it painfully reminds me of the scene between Matt Fong and Barbara Boxer in '98. She'd have him on the defensive, forcing him to apologize for everything he'd ever done in his life. With evil women like these, you've got to have people unafraid to go for the jugular. Pataki simply doesn't have that killer instinct.