The Times and E.J. McMahon, along with many others, have been musing usefully on what, exactly, George Pataki’s legacy will be. Somewhat lower taxes, clearly. Conservation. But what’s the big picture?
Part of the problem is the difficulty in stating what he stands for. The word “Pataki” doesn’t have a meaning in the vocabulary of politics. We know what Clintonite means, what it means to call someone Bush-lite or Giuliani-plus.
So who’s a Patakiite? What’s Patakiism? What would somebody have to do to be called Pataki-lite?