I should have been more clear in my post. The underlying assumption here was that both people were equally qualified. I'm really going out on a limb to give Giuliani the benefit of the doubt here -- since back in 1994 there was no way in hell Cuomo and Pataki were "equally qualified" to serve in elected office. Pataki may have been no better than Cuomo, but at the time he had the distinct advantage of NOT being the guy who ran New York State's finances into the toilet over the previous 12 years.
Perhaps the Giuliani-endorsing-Cuomo bit was a gamble on Rudy's part, and one that didn't work (but you can see the logic in it, if you honestly try), but you do have to give him credit for having the guts to put it on the record and then to stand by it. Particularly when it wasn't a popular statement to make. Not many politicians would do this. I think this is far more illuminating with reagrds to character than anything else.
Why was it "not a popular statement to make?" Cuomo carried New York City by pretty wide margins over Pataki in 1994.
"Why was it "not a popular statement to make?"
Because the Upstate GOP wanted Rudy's head on a platter for it.
Naturally, they forgot all about it when it came to running Rudy against Hillary for Senate, but I guess their change of heart then was a principled stand rather than a matter of convenience (beat Hillary at all costs), huh?