Pataki couldn't win an election for dog catcher, right now, and he wouldn't lay a glove in Hillary, if he ran against her.
Ruddy isn't going to run against her...again. He's now making pits of money in the private sector and being one of 50, instead of THE one ( mayor, governor, president ) won't seduce him away from his lucrative businesses.
If everyone and his uncle hadn't gone after Pirro, the minute she announced, she might not have beaten Hillary, but she would have wounded her quite badly and she's the ONLY one who could have done that. Pirro is being offered the AG spot, because she CAN win it hands down and the N.Y.GOP has nobody else to run. But, she doesn't want that job. So, would YOU run hard for a job you really don't want and were coerced into running for?
As far as Pirro and the AG is concerned, I see it this way.....she either won't run for it, or she runs 1/2 heartedly and loses.
"Pataki couldn't win an election for dog catcher, right now, and he wouldn't lay a glove in Hillary, if he ran against her."
The election isn't right now, it's in 2006. While I agree that Pataki is not very popular right now, he has come back from worse and won landslide reelections. Pataki has the profile for a statewide winner in NY, right down to the incompetence, and I think he'd make it a close race against Hillary---and if Hillary wins by less than 10%, she'll be deemed an unelectable presidential candidate even by those idiot Democrats. As for your prediction that Pataki wouldn't lay a glove on Hillary (at least I hope you meant "on" and not "in"), you may be right that Pataki is not an aggressive campaigner, but he was aggressive enough to whip Mario Cuomo, who was pretty much Hillary with testicles and the ability to be a "made man."
"If everyone and his uncle hadn't gone after Pirro, the minute she announced, she might not have beaten Hillary, but she would have wounded her quite badly and she's the ONLY one who could have done that."
You're wrong on both counts. Having a second liberal extremist from Westchester with a criminal for a husband might make for a good Jerry Springer episode, but it wouldn't be a close race. Pirro is just Hillary with a better figure and an R next to her name. That R may be an advantage in a race for AG or for NYC mayor, but it sure won't help Pirro if she runs for the Senate. And even if you're correct that Pirro could "wound Hillary" in the race, there are dozens of other New York Republicans who could run better against Hillary than Pirro, and nothing would hurt a future Hillary presidential candidacy like not being able to win a landslide reelection in New York State.
And are you really going to blame those "bad people" who wouldn't give Pirro a chance? Pirro is a nobody who jumped into the race, started messing up, proved to have issue positions that are diametrically opposed to those of most Republicans, and then blames who, conservatives, when she can't raise any money? Cry me a river. I've seen candidates who have failed because of what the media did to them, and Pirro ain't one of them.
"Pirro is being offered the AG spot, because she CAN win it hands down and the N.Y.GOP has nobody else to run."
Well, that's part of the reason, since she's the district attorney for a large jurisdiction at the chokepoint of NY and could be a strong AG candidate. But another part of the reason is that she's a terrible Senate candidate and they're finally showing her the door. Heck, her husband was part of the cabal that worked overtime to get her to stop embarrassing herself and the NY GOP (it takes quite a lot to embarrass such an embarrassment as the NY GOP, by the way) and quit the race. So blame her husband, not conservatives.
"As far as Pirro and the AG is concerned, I see it this way.....she either won't run for it, or she runs 1/2 heartedly and loses."
That's convenient; you already have a ready excuse in case Pirro proves to be as bad a statewide candidate as she already appears to be. I do hope you're wrong and she runs a strong campaign and wins.