The big news this week is that the long-awaited and art-film teased Jon Huntsman campaign finally got off the ground, with the newly-declared candidate making an appearance in New Jersey, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, because, well... because Reagan once did it? Most of the reviews features descriptors that ranged from tepid to anti-climactic (perhaps motorcycle stunts were anticipated?) to confused. Here's Walter Shapiro at The New Republic:

While the pyrotechnics accompanying the presidential rollout were impressive (two dozen TV cameras chronicled a GOP candidate hovering at 1 percent in the national polls), Huntsman's words themselves were flickering sparklers rather than skyrocketing Roman candles. The former two-term Utah governor repeatedly resorted to the well-crafted banalities that speechwriters use in place of original thought. Calling for "leadership that knows we need answers," Huntsman boldly declared, "We can and will own the future." In an era of persistent 9-percent unemployment, Huntsman confided a revelation that came to him only because he held elective office: "I learned something very important as governor. For most American families, there is nothing more important than a job."

The reason for dwelling on Huntsman's anodyne rhetoric is because his presidential campaign remains curiously inchoate. I am perplexed whether there is more -- or less -- to Huntsman's political persona than meets the eye.

Lots of questions remain with Huntsman, and a lot center on style. Did the Huntsman campaign realize how hackneyed a roll-out in front of the Statue of Liberty looks? What we know of this campaign so far is, there's no way of knowing if they intend to be conventional or if they're offering some kind of meta-commentary on conventionality. Surely this campaign exists, at least in part, as a rebuke to the conventional wisdom that says he can't win in the 2012 environment.

Should he maybe declare himself as an independent? Is he running for vice-president? Is he credible? Is he even conservative?

Right out of the gates, he's considered a media darling, but the media tends to love a candidate who's nice to them while not posing much of a serious threat to win the nomination. Speaking of, the trendy thing to say about Huntsman is that he's running in John McCain's footsteps. (I guess that means he'll win New Hampshire, get victimized by racially-coded dirty tricks in South Carolina and be positioned for a shot at redemption in another election cycle?)

There's also a specter of religious prejudice that hangs over Huntsman's campaign. Like Mitt Romney, Huntsman is a Mormon, and this week, a Gallup poll found that one-in-five Americans were uncomfortable voting for a Mormon in a presidential election. There's plenty to lament in those results, if you've a mind for being fair.

But Huntsman and Romney aren't really in the race for Mormon votes -- they're actually both in a larger race for the votes of people who prefer a "sane and reasonable" candidate to a red-meat scorching conservative firebrand. They're both on the hunt for those voters who like their candidates "electable."

To that end, Huntsman has made a promise to be a Boy Scout during this race. In large part, it's how he's going to deal with the fact that he worked in the Obama administration and seemed to enjoy it. But that promise will also govern how he copes with the field.

"I don't think you need to run down somebody's reputation in order to run for the office of president," Huntsman said. And in a fine example of where our insane standard for credibility is at the moment, his pledge was declared a dead letter after Huntsman offered some painfully mild criticism of Mitt Romney: "If you're talking about free market health care -- the kind we did in Utah and the kind that is needed in this country -- then [Romney] has little credibility."

Oh, dear! Call out the scolds!

Meanwhile, others have decided to take up the "Get Mitt" cause. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum both went after Romney for refusing to sign a pro-life pledge -- Santorum managed to catch Huntsman up in his critique as well, despite Huntsman's generally standard-issue pro-life legislative record. And even Tim Pawlenty -- recognizing that he made a terrible mistake by passing on the chance to criticize Romney to his face -- found the courage to renew his attacks on the frontrunner during times he wasn't standing nearby.

Outside of that, there was plenty to chew on from another week on the campaign trail. Matt Taibbi may have inadvertently boosted Bachmann's stock with a Rolling Stone story that was sloppily sourced. Herman Cain indulged himself in some "blame the media" hissy fits. Ron Paul came out for marijuana legalization. Buddy Roemer bit the hands that feed his party. President Barack Obama punted away an opportunity to make a difference to some of his core constituents -- twice. And Newt Gingrich? After hitting rock bottom, the master of denial has decided he's going to grab a shovel.

For all of this and more, please feel free to enter the Speculatron for the week of June 24, 2011.

Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.

The big news this week is that the long-awaited and art-film teased Jon Huntsman campaign finally got off the ground, with the newly-declared candidate making an appearance in New Jersey, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, because, well... because Reagan once did it? Most of the reviews features descriptors that ranged from tepid to anti-climactic (perhaps motorcycle stunts were anticipated?) to confused. Here's Walter Shapiro at The New Republic:

While the pyrotechnics accompanying the presidential rollout were impressive (two dozen TV cameras chronicled a GOP candidate hovering at 1 percent in the national polls), Huntsman's words themselves were flickering sparklers rather than skyrocketing Roman candles. The former two-term Utah governor repeatedly resorted to the well-crafted banalities that speechwriters use in place of original thought. Calling for "leadership that knows we need answers," Huntsman boldly declared, "We can and will own the future." In an era of persistent 9-percent unemployment, Huntsman confided a revelation that came to him only because he held elective office: "I learned something very important as governor. For most American families, there is nothing more important than a job."

The reason for dwelling on Huntsman's anodyne rhetoric is because his presidential campaign remains curiously inchoate. I am perplexed whether there is more -- or less -- to Huntsman's political persona than meets the eye.

Lots of questions remain with Huntsman, and a lot center on style. Did the Huntsman campaign realize how hackneyed a roll-out in front of the Statue of Liberty looks? What we know of this campaign so far is, there's no way of knowing if they intend to be conventional or if they're offering some kind of meta-commentary on conventionality. Surely this campaign exists, at least in part, as a rebuke to the conventional wisdom that says he can't win in the 2012 environment.

Should he maybe declare himself as an independent? Is he running for vice-president? Is he credible? Is he even conservative?

Right out of the gates, he's considered a media darling, but the media tends to love a candidate who's nice to them while not posing much of a serious threat to win the nomination. Speaking of, the trendy thing to say about Huntsman is that he's running in John McCain's footsteps. (I guess that means he'll win New Hampshire, get victimized by racially-coded dirty tricks in South Carolina and be positioned for a shot at redemption in another election cycle?)

There's also a specter of religious prejudice that hangs over Huntsman's campaign. Like Mitt Romney, Huntsman is a Mormon, and this week, a Gallup poll found that one-in-five Americans were uncomfortable voting for a Mormon in a presidential election. There's plenty to lament in those results, if you've a mind for being fair.

But Huntsman and Romney aren't really in the race for Mormon votes -- they're actually both in a larger race for the votes of people who prefer a "sane and reasonable" candidate to a red-meat scorching conservative firebrand. They're both on the hunt for those voters who like their candidates "electable."

To that end, Huntsman has made a promise to be a Boy Scout during this race. In large part, it's how he's going to deal with the fact that he worked in the Obama administration and seemed to enjoy it. But that promise will also govern how he copes with the field.

"I don't think you need to run down somebody's reputation in order to run for the office of president," Huntsman said. And in a fine example of where our insane standard for credibility is at the moment, his pledge was declared a dead letter after Huntsman offered some painfully mild criticism of Mitt Romney: "If you're talking about free market health care -- the kind we did in Utah and the kind that is needed in this country -- then [Romney] has little credibility."

Oh, dear! Call out the scolds!

Meanwhile, others have decided to take up the "Get Mitt" cause. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum both went after Romney for refusing to sign a pro-life pledge -- Santorum managed to catch Huntsman up in his critique as well, despite Huntsman's generally standard-issue pro-life legislative record. And even Tim Pawlenty -- recognizing that he made a terrible mistake by passing on the chance to criticize Romney to his face -- found the courage to renew his attacks on the frontrunner during times he wasn't standing nearby.

Outside of that, there was plenty to chew on from another week on the campaign trail. Matt Taibbi may have inadvertently boosted Bachmann's stock with a Rolling Stone story that was sloppily sourced. Herman Cain indulged himself in some "blame the media" hissy fits. Ron Paul came out for marijuana legalization. Buddy Roemer bit the hands that feed his party. President Barack Obama punted away an opportunity to make a difference to some of his core constituents -- twice. And Newt Gingrich? After hitting rock bottom, the master of denial has decided he's going to grab a shovel.

For all of this and more, please feel free to enter the Speculatron for the week of June 24, 2011.

Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to her Facebook page, Sarah Palin has been called for jury duty. Circumventing the obvious intelligence level jokes that could be applied to the former governor of Alaska and her inability to get out of jury duty or get a "jury extension" until her schedule was a bit more flexible (or another leg of the "One Nation" bus tour complete), it should be noted that 1) she might not be selected from the pool of prospective jurors and 2) one or both legal teams could not afford the distraction of Sarah Palin being in the jury. There are other reasons why Palin would likely be blocked from sitting in the jury box:

Public Policy Polling (D)
6/16-19/11; 819 likely voters, 3.4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
PPP release

Montana

2012 Governor
40% Bohlinger (D), 33% Essmann (R)
40% Hill (R), 39% Bohlinger (D)
39% Bohlinger(D), 33% Miller (R)
38% Bullock (D), 33% Essmann (R)
39% Hill (R), 37% Bullock (D)
38% Bullock (D), 34% Miller (R)
33% Essmann (R), 31% Wanzenried (D)
40% Hill (R), 30% Wanzenried (D)
35% Miller (R), 30% Wanzenried (D)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Schweitzer: 52 / 38

Favorable / Unfavorable
John Bohlinger: 31 / 21
Steve Bullock: 28 / 18
Jeff Essmann: 6 / 22
Rick Hill: 20 / 25
Ken Miller: 8 / 16
Dave Wanzenried: 11 / 17

WASHINGTON -- Though a close adviser says otherwise, Texas Gov. Rick Perry may soon have another reason to jump into the Republican presidential primary: a woeful fundraising report from Tim Pawlenty.

Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, is expected to show a haul of somewhere around $5 million for the period from April to June. That won't come close to matching the $10 million that front-runner Mitt Romney raised over the course of just one day in May. There is talk among campaign aides that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, may hit as high as $40 million for the year's second quarter, though Romney aides downplayed that figure as "not a real number."

But Perry's top political adviser, Dave Carney, said in an interview with The Huffington Post Friday that he is "flabbergasted" by the flippant conversation about whether or not Perry will run.

"This is all a figment of people's imaginations," Carney said of recent reports that Perry is certain to run. "We haven't had a serious sit-down conversation about it yet."

"All this talk is crazy, to think that you would do this and run your family and your reputation through this Cuisinart blender, just because a few people are cheering you on," he said.

Carney, a New Hampshire-based consultant, was part of this month's mass exodus of top advisers from Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. He has worked for Perry since 1998. He said a decision on whether the Texas governor will run is still "weeks" away.

Carney said he is currently making preparations for serious talks with the governor that will begin next week, after the state legislature's special session is scheduled to conclude.

"It's going to take a while and we're not going to be able to tell you some mysterious date of announcing. We don't even have a clue whether this is going to be feasible or not," he said. "This is the equivalent of taking a billion dollar corporation from zero to a billion in something like 18 months. You don't just do that by just chatting about it. You have to know what the temperature of the water is."

Carney has said that Perry's ability to raise money is a key part of the calculus. But he expanded on that Friday, explaining that much of the fundraising determination is based on how many events will require Perry's physical presence.

"Do we have enough enthusiasm that we can raise money without the candidate being there for five events a day?" he asked. "Even a Texan can only be at one place at a time."

Perry has been able to raise large amounts of money for gubernatorial campaigns, but presidential politics is a more difficult playing field. While there are no contribution limits for Texas gubernatorial candidates, individuals are limited to $2,500 in donations to presidential campaigns each election, though there are multiple ways around that restriction.

Carney said Perry is willing to miss the boat, preferring to go through the process the right way, rather than rushing in unprepared.

"It may be that we run out of time," he said. "It may be a process that we squander all these days working on it and thinking about it and the voters move on. But that's preferable to getting in and finding out there's not the resources to do it."

Carney said Pawlenty's fundraising troubles are not a factor in Perry's calculations.

"This has nothing to do with any of the other republican candidates," he said. "This is whether or not we are able to put together the political and financial infrastructure within a very short time period ... [and] raise millions of dollars necessary to be competitive and have time left over to campaign and get your message out there."

Yet Pawlenty's travails are another sign that many on the right have yet to settle on a horse in this race. Romney has been firming up his lead over the rest of the field with a disciplined and focused early campaign. His debate performance in New Hampshire last week helped him, and the fundraising numbers will widen his lead.

One Romney adviser told HuffPost that "Perry's going to find, like Haley Barbour found, that it's harder than it looks" to launch a campaign for president.

But serious reservations and doubts about Romney remain among some in the Republican establishment, and even more among the conservative grassroots.

Pawlenty has been considered the candidate with the best chance to challenge Romney. But he performed badly during the New Hampshire debate. A poor fundraising total will only increase the perception that he is a weak candidate.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is gaining steam but has yet to prove she can organize a serious ground campaign or tap big-money donors. Former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman is well connected to wealthy political givers, but is not competing for Tea Party voters.

Perry could raise a lot of money, would appeal to the Tea Party in a way Huntsman does not, is charismatic and dynamic in a way that Pawlenty is not, and has the executive appearance that Bachmann lacks.

"He's tea party, second amendment, right to life, and he's a great performer with a real economic growth and job creation story out of Texas," said Scott Reed, a veteran Republican consultant who was set to manage Haley Barbour's presidential campaign before the Mississippi governor decided not to run. "[Perry]'s got all the ingredients to consolidate the right."

"[Perry advisers] say they're worried about their ability to raise the money, but the fact is it's a pretty wide open race on the right," Reed said.

Ed Kilgore, New Republic
As the 2012 Republican presidential field began to take shape earlier this year, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty looked like the perfect on-paper candidate: a former blue-state, blue-collar governor from the Midwest who was cozy with both social conservatives and Tea Party folk, and who didn't have Mitt Romney's problem of heretical past positions. Nobody, to be sure, was going to confuse him with the fire-breathing orators whose rhetoric he purloined, but at a time when a generic Republican was consistently running more strongly against Barack Obama than any actual...

AP - Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev says he supports the St. Petersburg regional governor for the job of upper house speaker.

Former New York governor George Pataki personifies almost everything I dislike in politicians. He’s not corrupt — as far as I know — in the criminal sense, but he’s entirely corrupt politically and intellectually. He goes along to get along, with his colleagues and donors, with liberal pieties and the editorial boards that spew them. He was a lazy governor who often worked no more than 15 hours a week, and over his twelve years in office he held at most three cabinet meetings.

He “broke virtually every political promise he ever made,” according the New York Post’s legendary state editor Fred Dicker, and was so shameless in his lack of principles, integrity, and loyalty that former senator Al D’Amato — the sort of man best pictured swimming a moat at night with a knife in his teeth — said of his protégé: “What he did broke my heart.”

He left New York on the precipice of economic ruin and the state Republican party a shambles.

Oh, and Pataki is also the author of what I have long considered the single dumbest prepared statement in modern political history.

“It is conceivable,” Pataki said in 2000 when he signed a hate-crimes bill into law, “that if this law had been in effect 100 years ago, the greatest hate crime of all, the Holocaust, could have been avoided.”

You could write several Ph.D. dissertations on why that is idiotic. Though I do like the image of Hitler having his hands tied by a hate-crimes law, because, you know, there were no laws against genocidal murder when he came into power. “Meine Herren,” Hitler would have to tell his comrades in the Eagle’s Nest, “I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do.”

At this point you might think that this is a column about George Pataki. You might even suspect that I’m launching a preemptive strike on him in response to rumors that he’s pondering a presidential run.

Nope. The truth is, I want him to run, and not just because I enjoy watching baloney charge the grinder.

There’s a lot of grumbling and moping on the Right about how the Republican base doesn’t like the current field of candidates. I’m not wholly unsympathetic. I’d like to see several other names touted as top contenders, starting with Rep. Paul Ryan. I fear many of the candidates have significant flaws in terms of experience, temperament, skills, electability, or ideology. In fact, there’s not one declared candidate I’m completely comfortable with.

And you know what? That’s okay. That’s what primaries are for. Let ’em all duke it out, steel-cage style. Let Pataki get in and explain why any non-glue-sniffer should want him to be president. He might serve as a useful foil.

I suspect that the main reason many conservatives are so dismayed by the field is not that they find the current crop so unacceptable. It’s the sense that the contenders aren’t up to beating Obama, or, if they are now, that they wouldn’t be after a bruising primary battle.

But I think that’s wrong. In 2007, the idea that Barack Obama could beat Hillary Clinton, never mind be the next president, was laughable. The 2008 Democratic primary was the most bruising primary contest in years. And guess what? The Democrats emerged stronger from it. Not only did the fight make Obama a better candidate, his ultimate victory over Hillary actually became one of his biggest selling points. Whenever Obama was asked if he’d ever run anything of significance, he’d point to his presidential campaign. (What else could he point to?)

In fact, my worry is not that the GOP will have a bruising primary fight that almost goes to the convention; my worry is that it won’t have one. It would generate massive resentment on the right if we have the same old coronation ritual for the next Republican in line. But if everyone’s allowed to have their say and take their best shot, only to lose in the end, odds are the party will be in better shape.

Also, Obama wants an opponent as soon as possible. He’s never had to run on a record, and he’s desperate to make the election a choice between him and someone he can demonize. The longer it is before an opponent emerges, the more the election becomes a referendum on Obama.

So take your time, Republicans. Hash it all out. Even let Pataki join the discussion. Just make sure you have hand puppets and some shiny blocks to help explain the tougher concepts to him.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter@JonahNRO. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Former New York governor George Pataki personifies almost everything I dislike in politicians. He’s not corrupt — as far as I know — in the criminal sense, but he’s entirely corrupt politically and intellectually. He goes along to get along, with his colleagues and donors, with liberal pieties and the editorial boards that spew them. He was a lazy governor who often worked no more than 15 hours a week, and over his twelve years in office he held at most three cabinet meetings.

He “broke virtually every political promise he ever made,” according the New York Post’s legendary state editor Fred Dicker, and was so shameless in his lack of principles, integrity, and loyalty that former senator Al D’Amato — the sort of man best pictured swimming a moat at night with a knife in his teeth — said of his protégé: “What he did broke my heart.”

He left New York on the precipice of economic ruin and the state Republican party a shambles.

Oh, and Pataki is also the author of what I have long considered the single dumbest prepared statement in modern political history.

“It is conceivable,” Pataki said in 2000 when he signed a hate-crimes bill into law, “that if this law had been in effect 100 years ago, the greatest hate crime of all, the Holocaust, could have been avoided.”

You could write several Ph.D. dissertations on why that is idiotic. Though I do like the image of Hitler having his hands tied by a hate-crimes law, because, you know, there were no laws against genocidal murder when he came into power. “Meine Herren,” Hitler would have to tell his comrades in the Eagle’s Nest, “I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do.”

At this point you might think that this is a column about George Pataki. You might even suspect that I’m launching a preemptive strike on him in response to rumors that he’s pondering a presidential run.

Nope. The truth is, I want him to run, and not just because I enjoy watching baloney charge the grinder.

There’s a lot of grumbling and moping on the Right about how the Republican base doesn’t like the current field of candidates. I’m not wholly unsympathetic. I’d like to see several other names touted as top contenders, starting with Rep. Paul Ryan. I fear many of the candidates have significant flaws in terms of experience, temperament, skills, electability, or ideology. In fact, there’s not one declared candidate I’m completely comfortable with.

And you know what? That’s okay. That’s what primaries are for. Let ’em all duke it out, steel-cage style. Let Pataki get in and explain why any non-glue-sniffer should want him to be president. He might serve as a useful foil.

I suspect that the main reason many conservatives are so dismayed by the field is not that they find the current crop so unacceptable. It’s the sense that the contenders aren’t up to beating Obama, or, if they are now, that they wouldn’t be after a bruising primary battle.

But I think that’s wrong. In 2007, the idea that Barack Obama could beat Hillary Clinton, never mind be the next president, was laughable. The 2008 Democratic primary was the most bruising primary contest in years. And guess what? The Democrats emerged stronger from it. Not only did the fight make Obama a better candidate, his ultimate victory over Hillary actually became one of his biggest selling points. Whenever Obama was asked if he’d ever run anything of significance, he’d point to his presidential campaign. (What else could he point to?)

In fact, my worry is not that the GOP will have a bruising primary fight that almost goes to the convention; my worry is that it won’t have one. It would generate massive resentment on the right if we have the same old coronation ritual for the next Republican in line. But if everyone’s allowed to have their say and take their best shot, only to lose in the end, odds are the party will be in better shape.

Also, Obama wants an opponent as soon as possible. He’s never had to run on a record, and he’s desperate to make the election a choice between him and someone he can demonize. The longer it is before an opponent emerges, the more the election becomes a referendum on Obama.

So take your time, Republicans. Hash it all out. Even let Pataki join the discussion. Just make sure you have hand puppets and some shiny blocks to help explain the tougher concepts to him.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter@JonahNRO. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Former New York governor George Pataki personifies almost everything I dislike in politicians. He’s not corrupt — as far as I know — in the criminal sense, but he’s entirely corrupt politically and intellectually. He goes along to get along, with his colleagues and donors, with liberal pieties and the editorial boards that spew them. He was a lazy governor who often worked no more than 15 hours a week, and over his twelve years in office he held at most three cabinet meetings.

He “broke virtually every political promise he ever made,” according the New York Post’s legendary state editor Fred Dicker, and was so shameless in his lack of principles, integrity, and loyalty that former senator Al D’Amato — the sort of man best pictured swimming a moat at night with a knife in his teeth — said of his protégé: “What he did broke my heart.”

He left New York on the precipice of economic ruin and the state Republican party a shambles.

Oh, and Pataki is also the author of what I have long considered the single dumbest prepared statement in modern political history.

“It is conceivable,” Pataki said in 2000 when he signed a hate-crimes bill into law, “that if this law had been in effect 100 years ago, the greatest hate crime of all, the Holocaust, could have been avoided.”

You could write several Ph.D. dissertations on why that is idiotic. Though I do like the image of Hitler having his hands tied by a hate-crimes law, because, you know, there were no laws against genocidal murder when he came into power. “Meine Herren,” Hitler would have to tell his comrades in the Eagle’s Nest, “I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do.”

At this point you might think that this is a column about George Pataki. You might even suspect that I’m launching a preemptive strike on him in response to rumors that he’s pondering a presidential run.

Nope. The truth is, I want him to run, and not just because I enjoy watching baloney charge the grinder.

There’s a lot of grumbling and moping on the Right about how the Republican base doesn’t like the current field of candidates. I’m not wholly unsympathetic. I’d like to see several other names touted as top contenders, starting with Rep. Paul Ryan. I fear many of the candidates have significant flaws in terms of experience, temperament, skills, electability, or ideology. In fact, there’s not one declared candidate I’m completely comfortable with.

And you know what? That’s okay. That’s what primaries are for. Let ’em all duke it out, steel-cage style. Let Pataki get in and explain why any non-glue-sniffer should want him to be president. He might serve as a useful foil.

I suspect that the main reason many conservatives are so dismayed by the field is not that they find the current crop so unacceptable. It’s the sense that the contenders aren’t up to beating Obama, or, if they are now, that they wouldn’t be after a bruising primary battle.

But I think that’s wrong. In 2007, the idea that Barack Obama could beat Hillary Clinton, never mind be the next president, was laughable. The 2008 Democratic primary was the most bruising primary contest in years. And guess what? The Democrats emerged stronger from it. Not only did the fight make Obama a better candidate, his ultimate victory over Hillary actually became one of his biggest selling points. Whenever Obama was asked if he’d ever run anything of significance, he’d point to his presidential campaign. (What else could he point to?)

In fact, my worry is not that the GOP will have a bruising primary fight that almost goes to the convention; my worry is that it won’t have one. It would generate massive resentment on the right if we have the same old coronation ritual for the next Republican in line. But if everyone’s allowed to have their say and take their best shot, only to lose in the end, odds are the party will be in better shape.

Also, Obama wants an opponent as soon as possible. He’s never had to run on a record, and he’s desperate to make the election a choice between him and someone he can demonize. The longer it is before an opponent emerges, the more the election becomes a referendum on Obama.

So take your time, Republicans. Hash it all out. Even let Pataki join the discussion. Just make sure you have hand puppets and some shiny blocks to help explain the tougher concepts to him.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter@JonahNRO. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Former New York governor George Pataki personifies almost everything I dislike in politicians. He’s not corrupt — as far as I know — in the criminal sense, but he’s entirely corrupt politically and intellectually. He goes along to get along, with his colleagues and donors, with liberal pieties and the editorial boards that spew them. He was a lazy governor who often worked no more than 15 hours a week, and over his twelve years in office he held at most three cabinet meetings.

He “broke virtually every political promise he ever made,” according the New York Post’s legendary state editor Fred Dicker, and was so shameless in his lack of principles, integrity, and loyalty that former senator Al D’Amato — the sort of man best pictured swimming a moat at night with a knife in his teeth — said of his protégé: “What he did broke my heart.”

He left New York on the precipice of economic ruin and the state Republican party a shambles.

Oh, and Pataki is also the author of what I have long considered the single dumbest prepared statement in modern political history.

“It is conceivable,” Pataki said in 2000 when he signed a hate-crimes bill into law, “that if this law had been in effect 100 years ago, the greatest hate crime of all, the Holocaust, could have been avoided.”

You could write several Ph.D. dissertations on why that is idiotic. Though I do like the image of Hitler having his hands tied by a hate-crimes law, because, you know, there were no laws against genocidal murder when he came into power. “Meine Herren,” Hitler would have to tell his comrades in the Eagle’s Nest, “I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do.”

At this point you might think that this is a column about George Pataki. You might even suspect that I’m launching a preemptive strike on him in response to rumors that he’s pondering a presidential run.

Nope. The truth is, I want him to run, and not just because I enjoy watching baloney charge the grinder.

There’s a lot of grumbling and moping on the Right about how the Republican base doesn’t like the current field of candidates. I’m not wholly unsympathetic. I’d like to see several other names touted as top contenders, starting with Rep. Paul Ryan. I fear many of the candidates have significant flaws in terms of experience, temperament, skills, electability, or ideology. In fact, there’s not one declared candidate I’m completely comfortable with.

And you know what? That’s okay. That’s what primaries are for. Let ’em all duke it out, steel-cage style. Let Pataki get in and explain why any non-glue-sniffer should want him to be president. He might serve as a useful foil.

I suspect that the main reason many conservatives are so dismayed by the field is not that they find the current crop so unacceptable. It’s the sense that the contenders aren’t up to beating Obama, or, if they are now, that they wouldn’t be after a bruising primary battle.

But I think that’s wrong. In 2007, the idea that Barack Obama could beat Hillary Clinton, never mind be the next president, was laughable. The 2008 Democratic primary was the most bruising primary contest in years. And guess what? The Democrats emerged stronger from it. Not only did the fight make Obama a better candidate, his ultimate victory over Hillary actually became one of his biggest selling points. Whenever Obama was asked if he’d ever run anything of significance, he’d point to his presidential campaign. (What else could he point to?)

In fact, my worry is not that the GOP will have a bruising primary fight that almost goes to the convention; my worry is that it won’t have one. It would generate massive resentment on the right if we have the same old coronation ritual for the next Republican in line. But if everyone’s allowed to have their say and take their best shot, only to lose in the end, odds are the party will be in better shape.

Also, Obama wants an opponent as soon as possible. He’s never had to run on a record, and he’s desperate to make the election a choice between him and someone he can demonize. The longer it is before an opponent emerges, the more the election becomes a referendum on Obama.

So take your time, Republicans. Hash it all out. Even let Pataki join the discussion. Just make sure you have hand puppets and some shiny blocks to help explain the tougher concepts to him.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter@JonahNRO. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Former New York governor George Pataki personifies almost everything I dislike in politicians. He’s not corrupt — as far as I know — in the criminal sense, but he’s entirely corrupt politically and intellectually. He goes along to get along, with his colleagues and donors, with liberal pieties and the editorial boards that spew them. He was a lazy governor who often worked no more than 15 hours a week, and over his twelve years in office he held at most three cabinet meetings.

He “broke virtually every political promise he ever made,” according the New York Post’s legendary state editor Fred Dicker, and was so shameless in his lack of principles, integrity, and loyalty that former senator Al D’Amato — the sort of man best pictured swimming a moat at night with a knife in his teeth — said of his protégé: “What he did broke my heart.”

He left New York on the precipice of economic ruin and the state Republican party a shambles.

Oh, and Pataki is also the author of what I have long considered the single dumbest prepared statement in modern political history.

“It is conceivable,” Pataki said in 2000 when he signed a hate-crimes bill into law, “that if this law had been in effect 100 years ago, the greatest hate crime of all, the Holocaust, could have been avoided.”

You could write several Ph.D. dissertations on why that is idiotic. Though I do like the image of Hitler having his hands tied by a hate-crimes law, because, you know, there were no laws against genocidal murder when he came into power. “Meine Herren,” Hitler would have to tell his comrades in the Eagle’s Nest, “I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do.”

At this point you might think that this is a column about George Pataki. You might even suspect that I’m launching a preemptive strike on him in response to rumors that he’s pondering a presidential run.

Nope. The truth is, I want him to run, and not just because I enjoy watching baloney charge the grinder.

There’s a lot of grumbling and moping on the Right about how the Republican base doesn’t like the current field of candidates. I’m not wholly unsympathetic. I’d like to see several other names touted as top contenders, starting with Rep. Paul Ryan. I fear many of the candidates have significant flaws in terms of experience, temperament, skills, electability, or ideology. In fact, there’s not one declared candidate I’m completely comfortable with.

And you know what? That’s okay. That’s what primaries are for. Let ’em all duke it out, steel-cage style. Let Pataki get in and explain why any non-glue-sniffer should want him to be president. He might serve as a useful foil.

I suspect that the main reason many conservatives are so dismayed by the field is not that they find the current crop so unacceptable. It’s the sense that the contenders aren’t up to beating Obama, or, if they are now, that they wouldn’t be after a bruising primary battle.

But I think that’s wrong. In 2007, the idea that Barack Obama could beat Hillary Clinton, never mind be the next president, was laughable. The 2008 Democratic primary was the most bruising primary contest in years. And guess what? The Democrats emerged stronger from it. Not only did the fight make Obama a better candidate, his ultimate victory over Hillary actually became one of his biggest selling points. Whenever Obama was asked if he’d ever run anything of significance, he’d point to his presidential campaign. (What else could he point to?)

In fact, my worry is not that the GOP will have a bruising primary fight that almost goes to the convention; my worry is that it won’t have one. It would generate massive resentment on the right if we have the same old coronation ritual for the next Republican in line. But if everyone’s allowed to have their say and take their best shot, only to lose in the end, odds are the party will be in better shape.

Also, Obama wants an opponent as soon as possible. He’s never had to run on a record, and he’s desperate to make the election a choice between him and someone he can demonize. The longer it is before an opponent emerges, the more the election becomes a referendum on Obama.

So take your time, Republicans. Hash it all out. Even let Pataki join the discussion. Just make sure you have hand puppets and some shiny blocks to help explain the tougher concepts to him.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter@JonahNRO. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

SAN ANTONIO -- Gov. Rick Perry received a tepid response when he addressed the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on Thursday, joking about the pronunciation of a Hispanic appointee's last name and frequently staring blankly at the audience when they failed to respond to his conservative applause lines.

Reuters reports that the Lone Star State governor arrived at the event only to be greeted by noisy protesters outside.

In his defense, Hispanic politicians had earlier spoken passionately against his policies, deriding them as hurtful to Hispanics. Perry chose to ignore those topics and instead touted his appointments of the first Hispanic women to serve as secretary of state and to both of the state's highest courts.

But a joke about how perfect it was to appoint Jose Cuevas to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission because his name sounds like Jose Cuervo -- a brand of tequila -- fell flat. Perry struggled to regain his confidence as he described Texas as a land of opportunity.

"You have a role model you can look up to, someone who proves that any obstacle can be overcome," Perry said. "That is especially true for a Hispanic child in Texas."

Perry is considering a run for president and has made an effort in recent months to attend national Hispanic events, such as the convention that opened Thursday in San Antonio. But there was no mention of any national aspirations during his speech here, which focused on Texas' low taxes, limited regulations and restrictions on lawsuits.

"We do what we can to maintain an economic climate that attracts businesses and industries looking to expand, that need to relocate," he said.

Democratic Mayor Julian Castro derided the latest legislative session and Perry's emergency bills, as "the most anti-Latino agenda we've seen in more than a generation, without shame."

The state's longest-serving governor has tried to walk a fine line between appealing to Texas' growing Hispanic population - now 48 percent - and rightwing groups that have demanded tougher stances on immigration and voter identification laws. Perry declared bills requiring a photo ID to vote and mandating that local police to enforce federal immigration laws as emergency items for the Legislature.

Both measures have provoked angry reactions from Hispanic groups. Police chiefs and sheriffs overwhelmingly objected to the immigration enforcement measure. Hispanic groups say both laws will lead to greater voter intimidation and racial profiling against Hispanics.

The politicians and public policy professionals were unimpressed with his stock-speech touting the state's business-friendly climate. Perry often stopped for applause and heard only the clink of forks on plates as he stared out at the crowd, a stark contrast to the jubilant reception he's received at recent Republican events. Many in the audience had never heard of him before.

The organization released a study Thursday predicting that 12.2 million Latinos will cast a ballot in the 2012 presidential election, representing a 26 percent increase from 2008. Latinos will account for 8.7 percent of the national electorate, the group's study predicted.

"Latinos will continue to reshape the nation's political map, and the Latino electorate will play a decisive role in Election 2012," said Arturo Vargas, the executive director of the group's educational fund. The predictions are extrapolations based on trends in past voter turnout and new census results.

Latino voters would represent at least 20 percent of the electorate in California, New Mexico and Texas, and more than 10 percent in Arizona, Florida, New Jersey and New York, the study found.

"This electorate has shown it cannot be taken for granted by either party," Vargas said. "Campaigns must enhance their strategies to reach all Latino voters, both native-born and naturalized."