Republican Party

[SezMe]

This (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/nyregion/01upstate.html?_r=1&hp) is a disturbing turn of events. While I don't usually subscribe to Newt's views, his analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6rNDBXl0nY) seems to be spot on.

Two wings of the Republican party are at loggerheads. One, the big tent wing, wants to broaden party appeal by including moderate conservatives. The other, call it the litmus wing, believes that Republicans have lost recently because they weren't conservative enough. The rise of Hoffman would seem to signal that the latter are ascendent.

I say disturbing because I think the Palin/Pawlenty/Army/etc wing of the party is wrong and is likely to doom to Republicans more losses. And while not a Republican, I do not want it to become the party of only the South and Mormonlandia.

Discuss.

[applecorped]

Mormonlandia?

[Magyar]

I will read the article, but the problem I see with the analysis is that the real difference between the 2 segments of the republican party

is that the one side Palin et al is that they are just plain bat**** loony, totally ignorant fundy biggoted, pro big business at all cost to the middle class party

the other side is just fundy biggoted, pro big business at all cost to the middle class party.

The reality is that both sides are totally out of touch with or simply don't give a sh8 about reality and it's long term effects on this country as long as they can get theirs.


This is not to say the dems are all that much better it's just that the reps are rushing to the front seats of the bus going over the cliff.

[GreNME]

Mormonlandia?

See politics in Utah, and you'll get the reference.

[McHrozni]

I say disturbing because I think the Palin/Pawlenty/Army/etc wing of the party is wrong and is likely to doom to Republicans more losses. And while not a Republican, I do not want it to become the party of only the South and Mormonlandia.

Don't worry. They will resurge, if only because the Democrats will become too corrupt to contemplate. Another Republican defeat is possible, two are unlikely, three next to impossible.

McHrozni

[EireEngineer]

On whether or not you define a "moderate Republican" as one that votes almost exclusively with the Democrats. Certainly the Democrats don't allow such derision. Look at what they did with Joe Lieberman. There really is no opposition party at the moment, specifically because of the big tent politics in the GOP. What we have now is progressive on one hand, and progressive lite on the other.

[willhaven]

The other, call it the litmus wing, believes that Republicans have lost recently because they weren't conservative enough.If they think that, they're insane. McCain is more centrist than other popular republicans. He pandered to the right and picked an insane running mate and probably lost the election as a result.

If they want to go further right, they can go right ahead. It'll lead them right off a cliff.

[DavidJames]

On whether or not you define a "moderate Republican" as one that votes almost exclusively with the Democrats. Certainly the Democrats don't allow such derision.Do you actually follow politics? Have you followed the health care debate? Tell me again about no such derision.

And what exactly have the done with Joe, please be specific.

[SezMe]

Mormonlandia?
GreNME is right: Greater Utah.

[SezMe]

... specifically because of the big tent politics in the GOP.
The event I cited in the OP demonstrates just exactly the opposite. I'd like to see your evidence that the GOP is a big tent party.

[SezMe]

Don't worry. They will resurge, if only because the Democrats will become too corrupt to contemplate. Another Republican defeat is possible, two are unlikely, three next to impossible.
100% agreement.

[EireEngineer]

The event I cited in the OP demonstrates just exactly the opposite. I'd like to see your evidence that the GOP is a big test party.

Olympia Snow for one.

[Dr Adequate]

On whether or not you define a "moderate Republican" as one that votes almost exclusively with the Democrats. Certainly the Democrats don't allow such derision. Look at what they did with Joe Lieberman. There really is no opposition party at the moment, specifically because of the big tent politics in the GOP. What we have now is progressive on one hand, and progressive lite on the other. Wow.

[Brainster]

As one of the moderate Republicans who supported McCain for the GOP nomination, I can tell you that Scozzafava's fate doesn't bother me at all. She's just plain too liberal for her district, and the party bosses who nominated her should have known that.

[Tricky]

On whether or not you define a "moderate Republican" as one that votes almost exclusively with the Democrats. Certainly the Democrats don't allow such derision. Look at what they did with Joe Lieberman.
I don't understand this example at all. This shows, as much as anything else, that Democrats are very tolerant not only of variations within the party, but with former members of the party that stab them in the back. After all, Lieberman did not get elected without a whole lot of Democrats voting for him. Even after he was elected, he could have been stripped of his prestegious committee charmanship of Homeland Security, but he wasn't. Indeed, even though the democrats hold fairly large majorities in both houses, legislation is not being railroaded through, principally because of objections by some Democrats who disagree with other Democrats.

Compare and contrast to the first years of Bush II rule, where Republican disuinty was virtually unheard of and some Democrats crossed the aisle to pass tax cuts and such. Right now, Olympia Snowe is remarkable because she is practically alone a Republican willing to act in a bipartisan manner.

Whether it is admirable or damnable that Republicans are able to control their rank and file and get them to vote party line, one must admit that they are much better at it than Democrats.

[SezMe]

She's just plain too liberal for her district, and the party bosses who nominated her should have known that.
Newt says the Reps had four local meetings and Scozzafava came in first in all four. That doesn't sound like a party bosses did the nominating. And she is a state representative so she has won elections in the past. So, on what basis do you make your assertion?

More importantly (in this thread) what do you think of her "ouster" by outsiders - especially the Club for Growth?

[SezMe]

Wow.
Yeah. Maybe he's BAC's brother.

[leftysergeant]

I love it when dingbats go straight for the ad hominem, so I give it right back to them lol.

You don't get away with it that easily. What did the Democrats do to the snivelling little twit Liebermann?

[Brainster]

Newt says the Reps had four local meetings and Scozzafava came in first in all four. That doesn't sound like a party bosses did the nominating. And she is a state representative so she has won elections in the past. So, on what basis do you make your assertion?

More importantly (in this thread) what do you think of her "ouster" by outsiders - especially the Club for Growth?

Scozzafava's "ouster" seems mostly due to the polls. I have no trouble spotting her moderate credentials; it's the conservative credentials that are not apparent. On another thread she was described as a fiscal conservative. If that were the case, would the CfG have opposed her? Note the endorsement (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/an-acorn-friendly-big-labor-backing-tax-and-spend-radical-in-gop-clothing/) from the Daily Kos:

He enthused that Scozzafava has “been willing to raise taxes when budgets require it, and is to the left of most Democrats on social issues.”

She seems a classic case of someone getting the nod because it was her turn. Yes, she was elected as a state rep; I assume but don't know that the districts are not identical. Hoffman is a relative neophyte to politics; is it really surprising that the County Chairmen selected her?

If this were a liberal year, or if this were a liberal district I'd feel different. But neither of those conditions apply here. The district has gone Republican since 1871.

[leftysergeant]

On another thread she was described as a fiscal conservative. If that were the case, would the CfG have opposed her?

Because they are hard-core partisan morons who see the survival of their version of America dependant on party unity under the same old discredited banner that Reagan gave them.

[SezMe]

Note the endorsement (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/an-acorn-friendly-big-labor-backing-tax-and-spend-radical-in-gop-clothing/) from the Daily Kos:
The link is to Malkin. :confused:

...is it really surprising that the County Chairmen selected her?
No. And it's not surprising that they didn't select Hoffman because he doesn't even live in the the 23rd.

[Brainster]

The link is to Malkin. :confused:

She quotes from Kos. Unfortunately as it's one of her columns, it doesn't have the link to the original Kos post, but I assume she's quoted him correctly.

No. And it's not surprising that they didn't select Hoffman because he doesn't even live in the the 23rd.

Discussed here by Stacy McCain (http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/10/ny23-newt-does-dedes-dirty-work.html):

OK, this is a non-issue, and has been explained several times. Doug Hoffman's hometown, Saranac Lake, is in the 23rd District. Hoffman's current residence is about a 15-minute drive away in Lake Placid, which was also in the 23rd District -- until the (then) GOP-controlled New York legislature gerrymandered the district!

And:

Hoffman has been up-front about this all along, and has promised to move into the re-drawn 23rd if he wins on Nov. 3.

[leftysergeant]

Wow. Hoffman will move back into the district AFTER the election? If I were the Democrat running against him, I would already have a full bandolier of ammo just handed to me.

[SezMe]

She quotes from Kos. Unfortunately as it's one of her columns, it doesn't have the link to the original Kos post, but I assume she's quoted him correctly.
Geeze, Brainster, you trust Malkin?

From Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/29/11162/989)

I have no love for the Democrat, Owens, and I clearly have no love for Scozzafava in that post, so only an idiot would construe that as an "endorsement"

[gtc]

Wow. Hoffman will move back into the district AFTER the election? If I were the Democrat running against him, I would already have a full bandolier of ammo just handed to me.

Is this so unusual in the US?

I don't think either party would get much mileage from this in Australia. The only exception I can think of was the politician who appeared to live in a salubrious beach side suburb while representing a struggling working class district 45 minutes drive away.

[SezMe]

Discussed here by Stacy McCain (http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/10/ny23-newt-does-dedes-dirty-work.html):
BTW, Brainster, the comments in that link demonstrate exactly the divide I mentioned in the OP. The Litmus Wing wants to hew to a strict conservative line while the moderates want a big tent. I'm not sure how much the 23rd election is a bellwether but post-election commentary on both sides next week should be most interesting.

[Dr Adequate]

She quotes from Kos. Unfortunately as it's one of her columns, it doesn't have the link to the original Kos post ... Yeah, that's life.

[Brainster]

Geeze, Brainster, you trust Malkin?

From Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/29/11162/989)

Jeez, SezMe, you trust Kos? He's inventing his own definition of endorsement, there, saying that it's not an endorsement unless you love the candidate. But people give half-hearted, lesser of two weasels endorsements all the time. Note the reason he prefers Scozzafava:

If the Democrat loses the race, we lose nothing -- it was previously held by a Republican. If he wins the seat, we gain another obnoxious Blue Dog, undermining our caucus from within while adding just a single vote to our already dominant House majorities. Furthermore, the typical DC wankers will take this as "proof" that you need to run Lieberdems in such districts to win them, while ignoring the fragmented conservative opposition. Not much of an advantage at all. More than likely, a net disadvantage.

Sounds like Kos is the one not interested in a big tent party, and wants to kick out the moderates. Imagine that!

[Darth Rotor]

Because they are hard-core partisan morons . . .
Take off the morons, and you get irony.

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't understand this example at all. This shows, as much as anything else, that Democrats are very tolerant not only of variations within the party, but with former members of the party that stab them in the back.
Some of the top democrats are also a little too tolerant of dingbats in their own party. Pelosi railed against antagonizing the debate recently within the last couple of months, and she's apparently not stepping her foot down on politicians like Grayson. Obama apparently didn't care much for that one either... Nothing personal but based on examples like that I have to respectfully disagree with you.

As far as the republican party is concerned they still need to get their priorities straight. They have an opportunity to gain ground in the mid-term elections but my concern is they'll lose sight of important issues in the same way they did before the democrats retook the house a couple years back. They're apparently still splitting after losing even more ground last year wiith the presidential elections.

[Brainster]

Rick Moran has a good take (http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/11/01/unruly-conservatives-shock-the-gop-in-ny23/) on the whole NY-23 situation. Rick acknowledges the danger:

I have written extensively about the dangers of this populist wave, and how it could easily become, if not as radical as Rich believes in his overactive imagination, then certainly a detriment to conservatism and GOP hopes in 2010. But the race in NY23 shows that there’s nothing for it now, the base has been empowered and the wave is on the move. My fear is that all this enthusiasm and resentment, and fear will be channeled into unproductive avenues and result in a lost opportunity in 2010.

But notes that this is a special case:

But as I point out in my PJM piece, Andrew is wrong to conclude that this presages some kind of mass takeover by the far right. The circumstances in NY23 created a perfect storm for the base that is very unlikely to be repeated in other congressional districts. If the base puts up primary challengers to those they consider insufficiently pure, the normal equilibrium of politics will take over and incumbency, money, and name recognition will overwhelm just about any challenge to the supremacy of the party establishment. In other words, if the conservative base thinks that NY23 is some kind of harbinger for the future, they will be royally disappointed.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t cheer them on in NY23. An establishment that gets too comfortable is no good to anyone. And the message I like being sent from this race is that putting up good, reasonable conservatives like Hoffman for office is usually better than the alternative.

I agree. I don't want the Glenn Beck fruitloops taking over the party. But I don't want the GOP to become "Democrats-lite" either.

[SezMe]

Sounds like Kos is the one not interested in a big tent party, and wants to kick out the moderates. Imagine that!
Of course! He's pretty far left and wants to push his party in that direction. He's also advocated for running candidates in primaries against Blue Dogs. So he is, in fact, the Dem's equivalent of the Tea Party crowd.

But, again, that's no news bulletin.

ETA in response to your post just above. I don't think the threat that the Reps face is running Litmus Wing candidates in primaries. Rather, it is the possibility of pushing established candidates further to the right than they otherwise would go making them more vulnerable in November.

[Unabogie]

Of course! He's pretty far left and wants to push his party in that direction. He's also advocated for running candidates in primaries against Blue Dogs. So he is, in fact, the Dem's equivalent of the Tea Party crowd.

But, again, that's no news bulletin.


Actually, that's not entirely accurate. What Kos advocates is that in districts which are safely blue, that Blue Dogs should be challenged in primaries to create "more and better Democrats" (better being more liberal). I'm not sure Teabaggers are making the same distinction, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. In this case, the district went 52-47 for Obama, so foisting a certified Teabagger into the mix doesn't follow Kos' model and is therefore not analogous.

[SezMe]

As Brainster pointed out, the 23rd has been red since Jesus was in swaddling clothes so the analogy might be extended there. Or not. I did not mean to draw a strict parallel between Kos and the Tea Baggers; politics is not (or, should not) be amenable to such simplistic analysis.

[MikeMangum]

Proving her critics right, Scozzafava endorses the Democrat (http://watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091101/NEWS09/911019992).

[MattusMaximus]

This (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/nyregion/01upstate.html?_r=1&hp) is a disturbing turn of events. While I don't usually subscribe to Newt's views, his analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6rNDBXl0nY) seems to be spot on.

Agreed. Say what you will about Newt Gingrich, he's always struck me as quite the pragmatist - which is something I respect in a politician, even if I wouldn't vote for him. For example, I think his point about the hypocrisy of the Tea Party types concerning their disdain for "local control of politics" when it doesn't suit their ideology is particularly worthy of note.

I, too, think Newt is spot on in his analysis, especially the part where he says this kind of thing can set a dangerous precedent in driving the GOP into more extreme & less defensible positions. Unfortunately, with this "success" the Tea Party crowd is only going to be more emboldened and they will dial up the crazy level in next spring's GOP primaries and beyond. I think we could very well see a lot of third-party candidates on the Tea Party ticket next year.

For example, here in Illinois, a moderate Republican Congressman, Mark Kirk, is going for the 2010 Senate seat. I know he tends to be a moderate (I live in his district), because he has always been pro-choice & pro-environmental in his policy positions. But now the hardcore conservative Tea Party bunch is trying to take him down in the primary (they even started to "Town Hall" his recent public meetings).

Before this NY fiasco, the hardcore Tea Party types here in Illinois were already slinging some nasty stuff at Kirk. Now I think it'll get even worse for him. I'm certain they'll now start to turn the dial all the way up to 11, which will be very revealing for the rest of us in Illinois. I almost feel bad for Kirk (don't plan on voting for him anyway), because I think that even if he wins in the GOP primary, he could very well be facing a Tea Party candidate in the general election, which would guarantee a Democratic win. Kind of a crappy way to finish your political career, I think.

Ah well, it should be entertaining to watch :popcorn1

[MattusMaximus]

Proving her critics right, Scozzafava endorses the Democrat (http://watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091101/NEWS09/911019992).

That's simple. It's because he's the saner candidate, from what I've seen.

It'll be interesting to see whether or not her endorsement sinks the Tea Party guy.

[Dr Adequate]

Proving her critics right, Scozzafava endorses the Democrat (http://watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091101/NEWS09/911019992). Apparently her critics said that she wasn't insane. That may be the only thing they'll ever be right about, so they should treasure this moment.

[MikeMangum]

That's simple. It's because he's the saner candidate, from what I've seen.

Objectively saner, of course. That's why the conservative (term is synonamous with insane, apparently) currently has the polling lead.

In counterpoint to Newt, here is Jonah Goldberg (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmMwYjhjNWJjY2ZjZjJhYzM0YzZmNDljZThhNjAwNWQ=):
I'm writing about this for my USA Today column, but the Frank Rich hissy fit is a perfect example of the real story of the election. The story is not that the GOP is self-destructing, it is that the conventional wisdom is being shown to be ludicrous. For some time now Frank Rich, Sam Tanenhaus and countless others (including David Frum) have been arguing that the GOP is a rump party and the only way for it to survive is for it to embrace me-too Republicanism of one flavor or another. The story of all three major races (VA, NJ, and NY-23) is that this conventional wisdom was incandescently wrong and ill-advised. Hoffman and McDonnell owe their success to the support of independents (the independents all of these people said wanted moderate, Democrat-lite policies) and to Republicans determined to stay true to conservative principles. Not only was the conventional wisdom wrong, the idea that there's a "civil war" within the GOP revolving around this argument is nonsense. The GOP is an unapologetically conservative party, providing a choice not an echo, and — horror of horrors — it's working.

[Dr Adequate]

Ooh, did Jonah Goldberg say that?

Really?

Let's quote it again.

I'm writing about this for my USA Today column, but the Frank Rich hissy fit is a perfect example of the real story of the election. The story is not that the GOP is self-destructing, it is that the conventional wisdom is being shown to be ludicrous. For some time now Frank Rich, Sam Tanenhaus and countless others (including David Frum) have been arguing that the GOP is a rump party and the only way for it to survive is for it to embrace me-too Republicanism of one flavor or another. The story of all three major races (VA, NJ, and NY-23) is that this conventional wisdom was incandescently wrong and ill-advised. Hoffman and McDonnell owe their success to the support of independents (the independents all of these people said wanted moderate, Democrat-lite policies) and to Republicans determined to stay true to conservative principles. Not only was the conventional wisdom wrong, the idea that there's a "civil war" within the GOP revolving around this argument is nonsense. The GOP is an unapologetically conservative party, providing a choice not an echo, and — horror of horrors — it's working. Yeah, it's working so well that the Republican candidate just dropped out of the race.

If this is success, one wonders what failure must look like.

[leftysergeant]

Some of the top democrats are also a little too tolerant of dingbats in their own party. Pelosi railed against antagonizing the debate recently within the last couple of months, and she's apparently not stepping her foot down on politicians like Grayson.

Are you calling Grayson a dingbat? The only thing I have seen him do wrong so far is to make one appearance on Alex Jones to plug his position on health care and to zing the republicans. Aside from that, I like the sound of those big brass ones clanging. We need more like him to stand up to the neoclowns and the Blue Cross Dems.

As far as the republican party is concerned they still need to get their priorities straight.

Yeah. Time to go back to defending constitutional rights instead of corporate profits. Until they do that, they are useless in the loyal opposition role, and they were, as far as I can see, never good for much of anything else.

[MattusMaximus]

Objectively saner, of course. That's why the conservative (term is synonamous with insane, apparently) currently has the polling lead.

Care to cite some polls for me? I haven't seen any yet on this race since the Republican dropped out.

In counterpoint to Newt, here is Jonah Goldberg (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmMwYjhjNWJjY2ZjZjJhYzM0YzZmNDljZThhNjAwNWQ=):

Yup, the GOP sure is unified! :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

In counterpoint to Newt, here is Jonah Goldberg (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmMwYjhjNWJjY2ZjZjJhYzM0YzZmNDljZThhNjAwNWQ=): Arguing that "the idea that there's a "civil war" within the GOP" is "nonsense".

As a "counterpoint" to Newt Gingrich.

Commenting on a race where Sarah Palin endorsed the third-party candidate.

No, no civil war here. Nothing to see here ...

[Unabogie]

As Brainster pointed out, the 23rd has been red since Jesus was in swaddling clothes so the analogy might be extended there. Or not. I did not mean to draw a strict parallel between Kos and the Tea Baggers; politics is not (or, should not) be amenable to such simplistic analysis.

From what I've read, the district is not so much red as it is "purple", and the Republicans there have always steered clear of the hot-button social issues. To quote from the blog Balloon-Juice, "they're not wingers". In that tradition, they've been fielding candidates like Scozzafava and those candidates get elected. I think that she was actually quite in line with the community and the national Teabaggers decided to flex some muscle. I'd be horrified if folks on my side of the aisle engaged in purity purges like this.

It's just bad political strategy and it only results in polarized caucuses on both sides.

I actually like that there's such a wide debate in the Democratic Party on health care, for instance. It's not a weakness to be forced to defend your bill. I hope Hoffman loses this thing, not because I want to score points but because Scozzafava would have been a decent Republican and perhaps I wouldn't agree with her on much, but she'd be willing to work together on the stuff we do agree on.

Hoffman sounds like BAC would if he ran for Congress.

<shudder>

[Brainster]

Ooh, did Jonah Goldberg say that?

Really?

Let's quote it again.

Yeah, it's working so well that the Republican candidate just dropped out of the race.

If this is success, one wonders what failure must look like.

Well, I can see you haven't been paying attention. Hoffman has already said he will caucus with the GOP, and will run on both the Republican and Conservative party lines in 2010 (assuming he is elected). That Obama took the district in 2008 means very little; Obama also took Virginia last year, and yet the Democrat is getting clobbered in that race.

Somebody said this is a purple district and that the GOP has somehow won every race there since Reconstruction by nominating social liberals. That is not true. McHugh, the former representative had a lifetime 71.55 rating from the American Conservative Union. Much more conservative than, say, Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, let alone any of the Democrats from NY.

[Unabogie]

Govtrack.us says:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400264

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/111/repstats/images/people/spectrum-400264.png (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd)McHugh is a moderate Republican according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd).

[Dr Adequate]

Well, I can see you haven't been paying attention. Hoffman has already said he will caucus with the GOP, and will run on both the Republican and Conservative party lines in 2010 (assuming he is elected). So, basically, hooray that the Republicans can't even keep their dog in the fight. Zipadeedoodah, Zipadee-A!

Success!

[Brainster]

Govtrack.us says:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400264

Moderate Republican, which makes him one of the most conservative members of Congress in the Northeast. He was also reliably anti-abortion, unlike Scozzafava.

And let me say that nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that Hoffman is some wild-eyed right-winger. This seems to be assumed by everybody; after all he did get the conservative line on the ballot. But is it wild-eyed to be anti-abortion? I'm pro-choice, but it's one of the compromises I accept, especially since I see little chance that abortion will be severely restricted in the US even if Roe is overturned (as it should be).

Aside from that I would love to hear the awful positions Doug Hoffman supports that I should be concerned about.

[Grizzly Bear]

[QUOTE=leftysergeant;5265836]Are you calling Grayson a dingbat? The only thing I have seen him do wrong so far is to make one appearance on Alex Jones to plug his position on health care and to zing the republicans. Aside from that, I like the sound of those big brass ones clanging. We need more like him to stand up to the neoclowns and the Blue Cross Dems.
I don't know about you, but I personally prefer politicians who can layout their concerns without calling people "K Street whores," and screaming Republicans want sick people to "die quickly." You know; the sort of polarization that Pelosi was discouraging from the republican party but has said nothing about such activity coming from their own party lines... Just a point of disagreement I was getting at w/Tricky... not entirely part of the thread...


Yeah. Time to go back to defending constitutional rights instead of corporate profits. Until they do that, they are useless in the loyal opposition role, and they were, as far as I can see, never good for much of anything else.
Everything about the party to you has some connection to class warfare... :\
No... I actually agree with Brainster on this one. The party is split between groups that are complete radical dingbats, and those getting a little too monotonous with the democratic party.

[gtc]

o/t but Grayson seems to be doing it for the campaign contributions. I would be surprised if he actually believes his rhetoric.

[Unabogie]

Moderate Republican, which makes him one of the most conservative members of Congress in the Northeast. He was also reliably anti-abortion, unlike Scozzafava.

And let me say that nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that Hoffman is some wild-eyed right-winger. This seems to be assumed by everybody; after all he did get the conservative line on the ballot. But is it wild-eyed to be anti-abortion? I'm pro-choice, but it's one of the compromises I accept, especially since I see little chance that abortion will be severely restricted in the US even if Roe is overturned (as it should be).

Aside from that I would love to hear the awful positions Doug Hoffman supports that I should be concerned about.

Well, I don't know you, so I'm not sure what you mean when you ask what you should be concerned about. I don't know how moderate you are in your own views, so you may think Hoffman is as sane as Michelle Bachmann. But on his website, the only issues he discusses are ACORN, gay marriage, abortion, bank bailouts, guns, and taxes. Aside from that, he has nothing else to say apparently. He just hits all the boilerplate wingnut talking points. If you are running for office and you think ACORN deserves an official "issue" bulletpoint, you're a teabagging ideologue, which explains why the fringe of the party flocked to his campaign.

[Unabogie]

o/t but Grayson seems to be doing it for the campaign contributions. I would be surprised if he actually believes his rhetoric.

I feel the same way about Glen Beck, but I still think this is a dangerous trend towards such binary thinking.

[Cleon]

Moderate Republican, which makes him one of the most conservative members of Congress in the Northeast. He was also reliably anti-abortion, unlike Scozzafava.

And let me say that nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that Hoffman is some wild-eyed right-winger. This seems to be assumed by everybody; after all he did get the conservative line on the ballot. But is it wild-eyed to be anti-abortion? I'm pro-choice, but it's one of the compromises I accept, especially since I see little chance that abortion will be severely restricted in the US even if Roe is overturned (as it should be).

Aside from that I would love to hear the awful positions Doug Hoffman supports that I should be concerned about.

*sigh*. Intellectual laziness.

From the Conservative Party's web site (http://www.cpnys.netboots.net/domestic-policy):


We support efforts by President Bush to involve faith-based organizations in the delivery of social services. We support profiling in the screening for potential terrorists. We oppose affirmative action, support the right to life, and oppose gay rights. We believe that we must fight to maintain the Judeo-Christian values that have been the basis of our Republic. We oppose the campaign to enshrine multi-culturalism as the foundation of our nation.


More:


Even though this campaign is contrary to the will of the people and the United States Constitution the anti-religious forces have won significant victories because of federal judges who have decided to ignore and misinterpret the law of the land.

This has forced local communities to accept homosexual marriages, abortion, the elimination of prayer in public schools, and the banning of religious displays on public property. In the 2004 elections many voters had the opportunity to express their views on homosexual marriages. Post-election analysis agrees that people from all ethnic, economic, and racial groups resoundingly expressed their support for traditional man and woman marriages. This confirmation of our religious moral system is consistent with what our Founders believed.


But I'm sure he's one of the "moderate" CPers. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

We support efforts by President Bush to involve faith-based organizations in the delivery of social services. We support profiling in the screening for potential terrorists. We oppose affirmative action, support the right to life, and oppose gay rights. We believe that we must fight to maintain the Judeo-Christian values that have been the basis of our Republic. We oppose the campaign to enshrine multi-culturalism as the foundation of our nation.

If that is moderate, then just cripes.

[Brainster]

Oh, my goodness, he supports faith-based initiatives? The horror! Let's all agree here and now that we will not support any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who supports faith-based initiatives! Are you with me?

I thought not (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/06/obamas-faith-based-office-launch-delays-key-decision-on-faith-based-hiring.html):

1. Under Obama, the faith-based initiatives office will be significantly expanded in scope from the Bush years. Its portfolio will include abortion reduction, promoting responsible fathering, and engaging in global interfaith dialogue, particularly with the Muslim world.

The guy must be a fundie!

ETA: Somebody asked for a poll (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/hoffman-leads-big.html):

In a three way contest with Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava Hoffman leads with 51% to 34% for Owens and 13% for Scozzafava. In a head to head contest with Owens Hoffman holds a 54-38 advantage.

[Cleon]

Oh, my goodness, he supports faith-based initiatives? The horror! Let's all agree here and now that we will not support any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who supports faith-based initiatives! Are you with me?

*sigh* Pathetic. You single this out, and just ignore the inconvenient parts that do make the CP look like fundamentalist lunatics.

Did you simply not read beyond the first sentence, or do you really think people wouldn't notice?

[Brainster]

*sigh* Pathetic. You single this out, and just ignore the inconvenient parts that do make the CP look like fundamentalist lunatics.

Did you simply not read beyond the first sentence, or do you really think people wouldn't notice?

Let's look at the other ones then. I oppose affirmative action, at least as it's practiced today. I support old-style affirmative action, which involved looking harder for qualified candidates, rather than lowering standards to ensure proportionality. I am (reluctantly) pro-choice, but that's an issue where I understand I disagree with most conservatives, and Hoffman being pro-life is hardly a controversial stand within the GOP. Gay rights is a loose term; I support some sort of civil union short of marriage for gay couples. I see nothing wrong with Judeo-Christian values, and am not big on the multi-culti BS.

I also note that you assume Hoffman agrees entirely with the CP's positions; but we know that Scozzafava does not agree entirely with the GOP's positions, and from the grumbling from Kos and others I think we can assume that Owens does not toe the line on the Democratic Party platform either.

[SezMe]

... I think we can assume that Owens does not toe the line on the Democratic Party platform either.
That part is true based on the reading I've done. He'd be a Blue Dog if he was in the Senate. All he does is keep the Dems in the majority but he does not appear to be a guy pushing hard for the Dem platform.

[SezMe]

I don't know about you, but I personally prefer politicians who can layout their concerns without calling people "K Street whores," and screaming Republicans want sick people to "die quickly." You know; the sort of polarization that Pelosi was discouraging from the republican party but has said nothing about such activity coming from their own party lines... Just a point of disagreement I was getting at w/Tricky... not entirely part of the thread...
I generally agree with Grayson's positions but have to agree with Grizzly that he too often reaches into the leftysergeant Grab Bag of Euphemisms for his rhetorical flourishes.

[Thunder]

I just don't like the idea of any party believing that there cannot be regional differences in how party members should believe. Yes, there should be a few core issues that all or most Republicans agree on, such as dealing with taxes, less government, regulations, etc etc. But to demand that ALL Republicans, from Texas to Maine to New Jersey to Oregon, all follow lock step on all issues, is asking for trouble. If they keep this up, they will end up forcing a mass defection to the Democrats, or the creation of a third party made up of socially moderate/liberal fiscal conservatives.

And that could cut the current Republican party in half.

[GreyICE]

Ooh, did Jonah Goldberg say that?

Really?

Let's quote it again.

Yeah, it's working so well that the Republican candidate just dropped out of the race.

If this is success, one wonders what failure must look like.

I looked up 'failure' in the dictionary, and it was just a picture of William 'wrong about everything' Kristol.

[Brainster]

I generally agree with Grayson's positions but have to agree with Grizzly that he too often reaches into the leftysergeant Grab Bag of Euphemisms for his rhetorical flourishes.

I don't think that word means what (http://cheetah.eb.com/dictionary/euphemism) you think it does:

the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant;

In fact, LS and Grayson do the exact opposite.:D

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, my goodness, he supports faith-based initiatives? The horror! Let's all agree here and now that we will not support any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who supports faith-based initiatives! Are you with me?

I am with you. "Faith based initiatives" funding by the Feds is, IMO, one of the dumber ideas to ever cross the political bow.

I don't want the government messing about in the exercise of religion. Gov't funding of activities by church run charitable organizations, like any government program, inevitably comes with that annoying string attached. Analogy: used tampon. Follow that string and you run across yet another bloody mess.

Thin end of the wedge. Keep them out.

DR

[SezMe]

I don't think that word means what (http://cheetah.eb.com/dictionary/euphemism) you think it does:
Putting the E in JREF. My mistake.

[gtc]

Putting the E in JREF. My mistake.

You were just using an euphemism.

[MikeMangum]

The "purge" meme might make more sense if the politics were different. From Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/new_york/what_ny_23_says_about_the_gop_and_its_voters)
There are more conservatives than Democrats in America, and there are more Democrats than Republicans.

One reason for this is that while Republican voters overwhelmingly consider themselves conservative, only 56% of conservative voters consider themselves to be Republicans. In other words, nearly half of all conservatives nationwide reject the Republican Party label.

This means that Republicans looking to broaden their party’s outreach cannot ignore the need to attract a large number of conservative voters along with some political moderates. Of all the non-Republicans in the nation, 31% consider themselves at least somewhat conservative while 37% say they’re political moderates.

...

It should be noted that Democratic Party dynamics are entirely different.

While a plurality (44%) of Democrats are politically liberal, nearly as many (35%) are moderate. So Democrats must make compromises within their party before reaching out. Also, the pool of available non-Democrats is very heavily on the moderate side.

Just nine percent (9%) of non-Democrats are even somewhat liberal while 29% are politically moderate. These non-Democratic political moderates are absolutely essential to Democratic candidates. That’s why Democrats are eager to suggest that situations such as NY-23 indicate a GOP rejection of moderates in favor of extremists.

[leftysergeant]

I think that Rassmussen makes a mistake by accepting too readily voters' self-identification. "Liberal" has taken on some menaings that it should not have because rightwing lunatics have been using the radio to re-shape the language.

[MattusMaximus]

I just don't like the idea of any party believing that there cannot be regional differences in how party members should believe. Yes, there should be a few core issues that all or most Republicans agree on, such as dealing with taxes, less government, regulations, etc etc. But to demand that ALL Republicans, from Texas to Maine to New Jersey to Oregon, all follow lock step on all issues, is asking for trouble. If they keep this up, they will end up forcing a mass defection to the Democrats, or the creation of a third party made up of socially moderate/liberal fiscal conservatives.

And that could cut the current Republican party in half.

Yup, and here's even more evidence that the GOP is heading down this very road...

Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29057.html)
In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.

Conservatives and tea party activists had already set their sights on some of the GOP’s top Senate recruits — a list that includes Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois, among others.

But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.

Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.

Yup, the GOP sure is unified! :rolleyes:

More likely they are imploding, and it's a self-inflicted wound.

[AlBell]

Conversely, what is a "nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials" may be a blessing for people who actually would like to vote for a conservative candidate.

[Upchurch]

Conversely, what is a "nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials" may be a blessing for people who actually would like to vote for a conservative candidate.

and for those who don't, for that matter.

[tyr_13]

Didn't the Republican now former candidate back the Democrat when she dropped out?

[AlBell]

@Upchurch

The results in NY23 will be the first data point.

RINO McCain provided an earlier one that was to Democrat liking.

[SezMe]

Didn't the Republican now former candidate back the Democrat when she dropped out?
Yes.

[leftysergeant]

A few years ago the GOP in Washington State nearly split into two camps along rightwing/secular and ultra/right religious lines, partly under the "leadership" of Linda Smith. The result was that we got Brian Baird to represent that district. Bloody good riddance to Smith.

I would be THRILLED to see the ranting righties take their ball home.

[Upchurch]

The results in NY23 will be the first data point.

RINO McCain provided an earlier one that was to Democrat liking.

er...McCain was the zeroth data point, then?




At what point can we finally refer to "RINO" as the "No True Republican" fallacy?

[MattusMaximus]

Conversely, what is a "nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials" may be a blessing for people who actually would like to vote for a conservative candidate.

True enough, but then there are the other 80-85% of us who just consider the general Tea Party/Constitution Party platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php) to be batsh8t crazy :boggled:

The establishment Republicans are right for wishing to distance themselves from the likes of the CP. Were they to cave-in to those loonies, they'd be looking at life in the political wilderness for a loooooong time.

[AlBell]

You may be right. Or, conservatives may eventually notice "establishment Republicans" and Democrats seem to want the same things.

@Upchurch

Two data points, different election cycles.

And you can refer to RINO any way you like.

[leftysergeant]

You may be right. Or, conservatives may eventually notice "establishment Republicans" and Democrats seem to want the same things.

Of course they do. They want rational debate and government based on reality.

[Whiplash]

I think that Rassmussen makes a mistake by accepting too readily voters' self-identification. "Liberal" has taken on some menaings that it should not have because rightwing lunatics have been using the radio to re-shape the language.


You are rationalizing. "Conservative" has taken a hell of a beating as well the last 8 years.

[dudalb]

You may be right. Or, conservatives may eventually notice "establishment Republicans" and Democrats seem to want the same things.

@Upchurch

Two data points, different election cycles.

And you can refer to RINO any way you like.


What reality are you living in?

[leftysergeant]

You are rationalizing. "Conservative" has taken a hell of a beating as well the last 8 years.

Deservedly so. Tax cuts and deregulation and privatization are the heart and soul of the movement, as it now exists.

Classic FAIL.

[AlBell]

@dudalb

That's my question for most posting here.

[leftysergeant]

@dudalb

That's my question for most posting here.

We are living in the reality in which the conservative dream of dismantling the New Deal has proceded at warp speed and run us right into the latrine pit.

[dudalb]

@dudalb

That's my question for most posting here.

I have a question:what do you think about the seperation of Chuch and State?
That the wing of the GOP you support does not like that idea..or the freedom of choice when it comes to abortion..is a major reason why a number of us who have some sympathy for the GOP when it comes to fiscal policies will never, ever,vote GOP if you wing takes over the edge.

[dudalb]

I just checked AlBell posting history, and in a discussion of the high crime rate in the ghetto he suggests it is because of "epigenic" (ie,genetics) reasons.
In other words, Blacks are genetically criminals.
Your credibility here just went to about zero.

[AlBell]

We are living in the reality in which the conservative dream of dismantling the New Deal has proceded at warp speed and run us right into the latrine pit.
We can agree you and several other posters here appear to believe so.

[AlBell]

I just checked AlBell posting history, and in a discussion of the high crime rate in the ghetto he suggests it is because of "epigenic" (ie,genetics) reasons.
In other words, Blacks are genetically criminals.
Your credibility here just went to about zero.
As I understand the concept epigenetics does not equal "genetically criminal".

[leftysergeant]

We can agree you and several other posters here appear to believe so.

The effective head of the GOP, that fat deaf eunuch on the AM radio, has stated flat-out that Roosevelt is dead. His policies may live on, but we are in the process of doing something about that."

That is the whole GOP platform in a nutshell.

God bless and keep the GOP...FAR FROM WASHINGTON D.C.

[MattusMaximus]

Deservedly so. Tax cuts and deregulation and privatization are the heart and soul of the movement, as it now exists.

Classic FAIL.

Well, not quite. If that's all there was to the modern "conservative" movement (read: the Tea Party movement, I'm not going to paint all conservatives with that brush), then I wouldn't have such a big problem with them. I'm perfectly willing to slug out the bread-and-butter issues with the opposition, because when you're arguing dollars & cents there are at least some real numbers to discuss.

What grinds my molars is the hardcore social & religious conservatives who are all over the Tea Party movement. These are what I refer to as the "Sarah Palin" types, and they are damned scary, imo. They take their cue from a frakked up ideology that they, and they alone, have some kind of line directly to God telling them to force their religion on the rest of us through the power of the government.

More than anything, it is that aspect of the GOP base that has driven me screaming away from the Republican party. How I long for the days of the "old GOP" from the 70s and 80s before the religious & social conservative whackjobs hijacked it.

[Brainster]

@Upchurch

The results in NY23 will be the first data point.

RINO McCain provided an earlier one that was to Democrat liking.

You know who the real RINOs are? The people who think John McCain isn't a real Republican and supported him tepidly and only after griping all through January, February and March about how they might sit this one out. We might call them the "Ann Colter Republicans". I hope they are happy because they are as responsible for Obama's victory as David Plouffe.

[MattusMaximus]

I have a question:what do you think about the seperation of Chuch and State?
That the wing of the GOP you support does not like that idea..or the freedom of choice when it comes to abortion..is a major reason why a number of us who have some sympathy for the GOP when it comes to fiscal policies will never, ever,vote GOP if you wing takes over the edge.

Yup, that's it in a nutshell.

The GOP may make a few gains in playing on people's concerns regarding fiscal issues and the economy, but the social conservatives are really the ones running the show. And, to them, using fiscal issues is simply their way of getting their foot in the door to push their real agenda... think Terri Schiavo and you're on the right track, folks.

[MattusMaximus]

You know who the real RINOs are? The people who think John McCain isn't a real Republican and supported him tepidly and only after griping all through January, February and March about how they might sit this one out. We might call them the "Ann Colter Republicans". I hope they are happy because they are as responsible for Obama's victory as David Plouffe.

True enough. Good on you for recognizing the folly of your fellow Republicans for not supporting McCain. I strongly supported Obama over McCain, but believe me I breathed a big sigh of relief when McCain won the GOP nod. I thought to myself: "Hey, this is cool. It looks like the GOP may have turned a corner."

And then he, under pressure from the socially conservative Tea Party wingnut types, selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Then I knew the handwriting was on the wall: the socially conservative nuts were going to do everything they could to either run the GOP or run it into the ground.

[MattusMaximus]

Btw all...

The spat we're seeing here between Brainster and AlBell is an example of what's to come: a very big & nasty feud for the heart and soul of the Republican party. And it is only going to get worse. I think that the GOP primaries next spring are going to be particularly nasty, and in some cases I believe there will be Tea Party/CP types actually running as independents just to stick their finger in the eye of the GOP establishment. Just as what has happened in NY23.

2010 is going to be one interesting year, politically speaking. It certainly won't be boring, that's for damn sure.

[Tricky]

You know who the real RINOs are? The people who think John McCain isn't a real Republican and supported him tepidly and only after griping all through January, February and March about how they might sit this one out. We might call them the "Ann Colter Republicans". I hope they are happy because they are as responsible for Obama's victory as David Plouffe.

You're right to some extent, though I think that McCain still had a chance until the economy tanked. But I wouldn't call anyone a RINO. Republicans are going through a split. Traditional fiscal conservative Republicans who might be fairly moderate on social issues, are on one side of the wedge and religious and social conservatives, who may be fine with tax and spend if it wipes out our "enemies" are on the other. I've said for years that Reagan made a deal with the devil when he invited the Moral Majority to help him win. Those chickens are coming home to roost.

With people like Coulter and Beck pounding on the wedge, something has to give. The good news for the "traditional" Republican Party is that if they manage to break from the Social Conservatives, they will win over one hell of a lot of converts from disaffected Democrats. The SC's will dwindle in importance because without the rest of the Republicans, they aren't big enought to win much. They can only play spoiler. THe bad news for the GOP is that if the the SC's spoil anything, it will probably be the hopes of the GOP. The 23rd District Congressional race in New York may be the first of many such imbroglios.

[Brainster]

Btw all...

The spat we're seeing here between Brainster and AlBell is an example of what's to come: a very big & nasty feud for the heart and soul of the Republican party. And it is only going to get worse. I think that the GOP primaries next spring are going to be particularly nasty, and in some cases I believe there will be Tea Party/CP types actually running as independents just to stick their finger in the eye of the GOP establishment. Just as what has happened in NY23.

2010 is going to be one interesting year, politically speaking. It certainly won't be boring, that's for damn sure.

Tonight's results (assuming Hoffman loses) are looking pretty good to me. I remember 2007 when everybody was assuming McCain was dead in the water (and I was at one point). But in the end, the adults decided things.

It sure does ruin the meme that the nutbars have taken over the party, which was one of the things that I think the Democrats were hoping would last until 2010. Yeah, it won't be boring.

[GreNME]

@Upchurch

The results in NY23 will be the first data point.

RINO McCain provided an earlier one that was to Democrat liking.

How's that data working out for you?

[MattusMaximus]

How's that data working out for you?

Indeed, let the special pleading begin :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Tonight's results (assuming Hoffman loses) are looking pretty good to me. I remember 2007 when everybody was assuming McCain was dead in the water (and I was at one point). But in the end, the adults decided things.

It sure does ruin the meme that the nutbars have taken over the party, which was one of the things that I think the Democrats were hoping would last until 2010. Yeah, it won't be boring.

Oh, you can count on it lasting until at least the primaries in the spring, likely longer... all the way to the general election in 2010. These TP folks are not going to go away quietly, and if you think they will, you're wrong. They have their sights set on the GOP establishment, Brainster, and for you to so easily dismiss them is a big mistake.

If anything, tonight's defeat for them in NY23 will only strengthen their resolve. Just wait and see.

[Brainster]

Oh, you can count on it lasting until at least the primaries in the spring, likely longer... all the way to the general election in 2010. These TP folks are not going to go away quietly, and if you think they will, you're wrong. They have their sights set on the GOP establishment, Brainster, and for you to so easily dismiss them is a big mistake.

If anything, tonight's defeat for them in NY23 will only strengthen their resolve. Just wait and see.

Yes, but it weakens their argument. The GOP, unlike the Democratic Party, has relatively few starry-eyed idealists. We're the party of bean-counters and half-a-loafers. McCain, who was opposed by the TP brigade quite hostilely, proves that.

[leftysergeant]

Talk radio made the current GOP and, I am hoping, will break it into teeny-tiny shards that cut like glass when you try to pick them up. The radio blathermeisters have driven the aggenda since McCain went down in flames, shrieking that the party had to go back to the right to stay viable.

Cngressman Owen thanks you, ya rightwing schmucks!

[MattusMaximus]

Yes, but it weakens their argument. The GOP, unlike the Democratic Party, has relatively few starry-eyed idealists. We're the party of bean-counters and half-a-loafers. McCain, who was opposed by the TP brigade quite hostilely, proves that.

I think you are being overly optimistic about the screaming lunatics (read: Tea Party nutters) going away quietly. They won't.

They didn't go away after McCain won the GOP nod. They didn't go away after McCain/Palin lost the general election. And they won't go away now. The movement has only grown and become harder for the pragmatists in the GOP to control. Now, if anything, they'll point the finger at the GOP establishment and blame them for "not supporting the True ConservativeTM".

This is more than just speculation on my part. Check out this recent article from Politico about how the Tea Party nuts are planning on copying & pasting the NY23 strategy all over the country...

Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29057.html)

You are projecting reason & reality upon people to whom these concepts seem not to apply. They have God on their side, and that means they can do no wrong :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Talk radio made the current GOP and, I am hoping, will break it into teeny-tiny shards that cut like glass when you try to pick them up. The radio blathermeisters have driven the aggenda since McCain went down in flames, shrieking that the party had to go back to the right to stay viable.

Well, yeah. That's because the move even further to the right by the likes of Fox News, Limbaugh, and Beck is selling very well with the hardcore rightwingers' current bunker mentality. And that is why Limbaugh et al are going to keep pushing & pushing. This defeat in NY23 will mean nothing to them; but the GOP establishment can see the handwriting on the wall regarding this race and what it can mean next year.

One side is being reasonable, the other could care less. The GOP is not unified, at all, and I predict we'll see plenty more fireworks like NY23 next year.

[MattusMaximus]

More data pointing to the inevitable march of the Tea Party nuts to take down the GOP establishment (from Michelle Malkin):

The GOP elite’s $1 million object lesson — and the message of NY-23 (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/04/the-gop-elites-1-million-object-lesson-and-the-message-of-ny-23/)
Conservatives owe NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman immeasurable gratitude. He overcame impossible odds (single digits just a month ago) to come within two points of defeating Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman had zero name recognition. National Republican Party officials dumped nearly $1 million into the race on behalf of radical leftist GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who then turned around, endorsed Owens and siphoned off 5 percent of the vote with her name still on the ballot after she dropped out. ...

... Hoffman may have lost narrowly, but NY-23 is a much broader victory for conservatives who believe the Republican Party should stand for core limited government principles. Scozzafava, who was endorsed by far Left blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and backed by Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association, and card-check-promoting trade unions, was denied the congressional seat because movement conservatives refused to support Arlen Specter in a skirt. This is a victory of principle.

Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in elephant’s clothing making a complete ass of the GOP. ...

... The GOP leadership knows it cannot afford to rest on its laurels, continue business as usual, and bask in yesterday’s electoral victories without confronting its abysmal abdication of principled conservative leadership in NY-23.

As Hoffman said in his concession speech, “This is only one fight in the battle.”

Onward. Upward. Rightward.

Expect these same talking points to be repeated, continually & loudly, in the days to come by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the TP crowd both online and offline. They aren't going away just because they lost NY23, folks. These loons are going to be around for a long time to come.

Brainster, your party has got a BIG problem here. And you need to deal with it.

[Unabogie]

Yes, but it weakens their argument. The GOP, unlike the Democratic Party, has relatively few starry-eyed idealists. We're the party of bean-counters and half-a-loafers. McCain, who was opposed by the TP brigade quite hostilely, proves that.

This is an example of confirmation bias at its finest. The GOP has been dominated for ten years by the starry eyed idealists who had grand visions of being greeted as liberators and a Pax Americana through more and better bombs. They had dreams of a regulation free utopia where tax cuts for the wealthy and a repeal of burdensome regulations would lead to economic nirvana. And they are still, to this day, impervious to facts and challenged assumptions.

Brainster, here is the truth. Both sides are made up of human beings and therefore are prone to logical fallacies and nuttiness. The trick is to challenge your own premises often enough to pop your own balloon. And to be able to sometimes say, "you know, you're right on this point".

The funny thing is that I had the same argument you're having with the Teabagger here, only with a lefty purity troll on another board. Same disease, different set of "truths".

[GreNME]

@Upchurch

The results in NY23 will be the first data point.

RINO McCain provided an earlier one that was to Democrat liking.

How's that data working out for you?

Indeed, let the special pleading begin :rolleyes:

No, I'd really like AlBell to come back here and tell us what the NY23 "data point" means now that the race is done.

[GreNME]

Yes, but it weakens their argument. The GOP, unlike the Democratic Party, has relatively few starry-eyed idealists. We're the party of bean-counters and half-a-loafers. McCain, who was opposed by the TP brigade quite hostilely, proves that.

This is an example of confirmation bias at its finest. The GOP has been dominated for ten years by the starry eyed idealists who had grand visions of being greeted as liberators and a Pax Americana through more and better bombs. They had dreams of a regulation free utopia where tax cuts for the wealthy and a repeal of burdensome regulations would lead to economic nirvana. And they are still, to this day, impervious to facts and challenged assumptions.

No, while I may have agreed that Brainster was playing a bit of selection bias with his "relatively few" remark, his comments really aren't confirmation bias as you seem to describe it, though you do engage in a bit with your description beginning with the "dreams of a regulation free utopia" statements.

One of my earliest comments about Obama to a friend back in 2004 was that he was an astute political speaker and presenter, but his ideas rang a great deal like idealism to me. And while I eventually came to vote for him last year, I made it a point to buy both books he wrote and followed his policy points on the campaign trail fairly closely to get a better idea of whom I might vote for. There is a common theme in Democratic front-runners to couch a lot of their policies and ideas in very idealistic speech, and that can backfire and put off centrists like myself who could go one way or the other in an election.

[Unabogie]

No, while I may have agreed that Brainster was playing a bit of selection bias with his "relatively few" remark, his comments really aren't confirmation bias as you seem to describe it, though you do engage in a bit with your description beginning with the "dreams of a regulation free utopia" statements.

One of my earliest comments about Obama to a friend back in 2004 was that he was an astute political speaker and presenter, but his ideas rang a great deal like idealism to me. And while I eventually came to vote for him last year, I made it a point to buy both books he wrote and followed his policy points on the campaign trail fairly closely to get a better idea of whom I might vote for. There is a common theme in Democratic front-runners to couch a lot of their policies and ideas in very idealistic speech, and that can backfire and put off centrists like myself who could go one way or the other in an election.

The confirmation bias is in his assertion that the GOP is made up of bean counters while the Dems are the dreamers. He started with that assumption and then proceeds to ignore evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure how supply side economics and "Pax Americana" do not count as "dreams" not supported by objective reality.

My larger point is that once you accept that this kind of lazy thinking is party neutral, you're better armed to fend off the BS, even if you are left leaning like me, right leaning like Brainster, or anywhere in between.

[Brainster]

I think you are being overly optimistic about the screaming lunatics (read: Tea Party nutters) going away quietly. They won't.

They didn't go away after McCain won the GOP nod. They didn't go away after McCain/Palin lost the general election. And they won't go away now. The movement has only grown and become harder for the pragmatists in the GOP to control. Now, if anything, they'll point the finger at the GOP establishment and blame them for "not supporting the True ConservativeTM".

This is more than just speculation on my part. Check out this recent article from Politico about how the Tea Party nuts are planning on copying & pasting the NY23 strategy all over the country...

Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29057.html)

You are projecting reason & reality upon people to whom these concepts seem not to apply. They have God on their side, and that means they can do no wrong :rolleyes:

To which I can only reply, look at 2008. During the primaries, it seemed like nobody was on John McCain's side--not the bloggers and certainly not the radio talk show hosts (aside from the sensible Michael Medved). I was one of the biggest right of center bloggers to support McCain, and that is a measure of how paltry the support was for him, because my blog even then was barely a blip on the radar screen compared to (say) Malkin or Red State or Protein Wisdom or Power Line.

And yet the votes poured in for him because the party is not the base. And I'll admit that the Democrats for the most part are much more sensible than the netroots and the Airhead America crowd; look at 2004, when Howard Dean, the darling of those folks, crashed and burned.

[AlBell]

No, I'd really like AlBell to come back here and tell us what the NY23 "data point" means now that the race is done.
I'd have preferred a win, but

Owens 49.4%
Hoffman 45.0
Lallapaluza(so to speak) 5.6

got a Democrat in congress when 50.6 voted "not Democrat".

How Hoffman might have fared as the Republican nominee will be a subject the Republican powers-that-be will be pondering over the next months as 2010 approaches and nominees are selected.

I don't see it as an obvious major setback for conservatives.

[tyr_13]

I'd have preferred a win, but

Owens 49.4%
Hoffman 45.0
Lallapaluza(so to speak) 5.6

got a Democrat in congress when 50.6 voted "not Democrat".

How Hoffman might have fared as the Republican nominee will be a subject the Republican powers-that-be will be pondering over the next months as 2010 approaches and nominees are selected.

I don't see it as an obvious major setback for conservatives.

You can't vote 'not Democrat'. In our system, you can only vote for someone.

I had a history teacher in high school who like to point out some stupid crap like, 'more people voted against Clinton' or some other such nonsense.

[dudalb]

I think you are being overly optimistic about the screaming lunatics (read: Tea Party nutters) going away quietly. They won't.

They didn't go away after McCain won the GOP nod. They didn't go away after McCain/Palin lost the general election. And they won't go away now. The movement has only grown and become harder for the pragmatists in the GOP to control. Now, if anything, they'll point the finger at the GOP establishment and blame them for "not supporting the True ConservativeTM".

This is more than just speculation on my part. Check out this recent article from Politico about how the Tea Party nuts are planning on copying & pasting the NY23 strategy all over the country...

Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29057.html)

You are projecting reason & reality upon people to whom these concepts seem not to apply. They have God on their side, and that means they can do no wrong :rolleyes:

If I were a Democratic campaign chairman, I pumping my fist and going "YES! YES!" at this news.
Hopefully, the Dems will be smart enough to run a Blue Dog in these districts.

[dudalb]

IMHO mixed singnals from last night.
The Virginia win was expected;the Democratic candidate apparently ran one of the worst campaigns we have seen in a while, ignoring advice and at times common sense in order to "be himself" which, as the old joke goes, is the worst advice you can give some people, allowing a very flawed GOP candidate to win. A buddy of mine who now lived in Fall Church says the general opinion of people in both parties is that it was a "Is this the best my party can come up with/Hold your nose and vote" type of election.

[SezMe]

And yet the votes poured in for him because the party is not the base.
I'm not sure what that means. I think McCain made his remarkable come back because every other candidate had one or more fatal flaws that prevented him from becoming the candidate. Huckabee was to religious/nutty for the corporate wing; Mitt was unacceptable to the christian base and laid an egg with his speech on the matter, etc. McCain wonby attrition, not by the power of his candidacy.

[Dr Adequate]

It sure does ruin the meme that the nutbars have taken over the party ... It's worse than that. They've left it.

[tyr_13]

I'm not sure what that means. I think McCain made his remarkable come back because every other candidate had one or more fatal flaws that prevented him from becoming the candidate. Huckabee was to religious/nutty for the corporate wing; Mitt was unacceptable to the christian base and laid an egg with his speech on the matter, etc. McCain wonby attrition, not by the power of his candidacy.

I agree, which is a shame sadly. In my opinion, McCain was by far the best candidate in the field and it still took every other candidate being fatally flawed for the Republicans to put him up.

[GreNME]

I'd have preferred a win, but

Owens 49.4%
Hoffman 45.0
Lallapaluza(so to speak) 5.6

got a Democrat in congress when 50.6 voted "not Democrat".

How Hoffman might have fared as the Republican nominee will be a subject the Republican powers-that-be will be pondering over the next months as 2010 approaches and nominees are selected.

I don't see it as an obvious major setback for conservatives.

I don't dispute how you seem to see things, but I do dispute that you're making any kind of cogent point on the data. The fact is that the majority voted for a Democrat in a district where they would have voted for the Republican candidate otherwise. Bringing in the false dichotomy of "conservative" or "Democrat" is mostly irrelevant, because despite how the partisan nonsense would have people believe the ballots are based on party affiliation or policy decision, not on ideology.

So, by the same token where you "don't see it as an obvious major setback for conservatives," it can also be said that the center-right parties got mired with in-party bickering at the cost of the election. The greatest enemy to a Republican win wasn't the Democratic Party this time, it was GOP and traditionally-pro-Republican luminaries abandoning the Republican candidate for someone else at the cost of both losing the race.

But please, tell us how a loss actually equals a win in Bizarro World arithmetic.

[MattusMaximus]

If I were a Democratic campaign chairman, I pumping my fist and going "YES! YES!" at this news.
Hopefully, the Dems will be smart enough to run a Blue Dog in these districts.

Yes, I think the Dems will be that smart, because that's exactly how they took back and expanded upon their majorities in Congress in 2006 and 2008. And that's how they got help taking back the White House.

The question is whether or not the GOP can learn the same lesson. Rather, it is whether or not the Tea Party wingnuts will allow the GOP to move to the center.

My guess is the TP types won't. Their attitude seems to be that either they'll run the GOP or run it into the ground.

[Brainster]

My guess is the TP types won't. Their attitude seems to be that either they'll run the GOP or run it into the ground.

There does seem to be a tendency among those people to feel that they'd rather be a majority in a minority party than a minority in a majority party. Still, that impulse is not limited to the right; remember that Kos was saying that he'd rather have Scozzafava than Owens.

[MattusMaximus]

There does seem to be a tendency among those people to feel that they'd rather be a majority in a minority party than a minority in a majority party. Still, that impulse is not limited to the right; remember that Kos was saying that he'd rather have Scozzafava than Owens.

But the difference is that Kos and his ilk aren't running the Democratic party. It seems that the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, and the Tea Party goons have a huge and frightening amount of clout within the GOP.

[leftysergeant]

This defeat in NY23 will mean nothing to them; but the GOP establishment can see the handwriting on the wall regarding this race and what it can mean next year.

Not a bit of it. I heard some sound bites of that dimwit Steele on the Bill Press Show this morning.

He calls the wins in this election part of a "Republican Renaissance."

Plant cala lilies. There may be a big demand for them in November 2010.

[MattusMaximus]

Newt Gingrich (that damn flaming liberal! :mad:) is weighing in again on the implications of the GOP eating its own with the whackadoodle Tea Party nuts pushing to purge the party of moderates...

Newt Gingrich warns of 'destructive' GOP primaries (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29496.html)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted disaster for his party if the conservative wing of the GOP continues to field independent candidates to the right of the party’s nominee.

“If we get into a cycle where there are tea parties and there are conservative third-party candidates, we will make [Nancy] Pelosi speaker for life,” Gingrich told POLITICO in an interview Thursday, calling the practice “totally destructive.” ...

... Gingrich recounted that he became speaker after the 1994 GOP sweep, thanks to a bloc of support from a moderate wing of the party that is now nearly extinct.

But do you think the TPers are going to listen to reason? Nope. They've got God on their side and in their minds they can do no wrong. Just look at all the amazing rationalizations by the TPers on this thread regarding the embarrassing loss in NY23 - it shows they've learned nothing.

These days, it seems the GOP is its own worst enemy. These TP nuts have decided they're either going to run the party or run it into the ground.

:popcorn1

[BenBurch]

Isn't "Republican Party" an oxymoron?

Like "Good Death" or "Bankrupt Millionaire?"

I mean, can you think of a bunch of dour old farts less like a party if you tried?

[Policenaut]

My guess is the TP's and R's take votes from one another if they are on the same ballot thus ensuring a D win. We'll see though. Plus they will have ads against each other which will only help D's who will also have ads against both of them. I would have rather a libertarian who was only in reality semi-libertarian party be the new party that people were worried about but that isn't going to happen. Oh well.