Replies

1) The fact the NYGOP is "moderate" at the state level doesn't explain the huge differences in power when you compare their state senate delegation to their U.S. Congressional delegation - since the Republicans they run for national office are "moderate" as well. Congressman John McHugh is retiring now, and when some freeper claimed he was "very conservative", I replied that he had an lifetime conservative rating of 71%, and had voted only 60% conservative in 2007 and a pathetic 40% in 2008. She replied that such a record is "very conservative" by New York standards. In any case, the only three good reliable conservatives they've sent to Congress since 1994 are Vito Fossella (lifetime ACU 85%), Tom Renyolds (lifetime ACU 87%), and Randy Kuhl (lifetime ACU 83%). The remaining Republican U.S. Congressmen from New York ALL range from moderate squish to Democrat clone, including all the big name heavyweights in office like Bill Paxon, Susan Molianari, Peter King, Benjamin Gilman, Jim Walsh, Susan Kelly, etc., etc., so clearly being "moderate" never got them close to the majority they enjoyed at the state level...even when they had a decent number of Republicans in federal office.

2) I wouldn't say all Republicans within New York are basically "moderate Democrats". They tend to be less conservative than the GOP as a whole is nationally, but just as there were a handful of good conservatives in their national officials, so it must be true in their state officials. Rudy Giuliani is basically a "moderate Democrat" who is conservative only on law-and-order issues, but he was elected mayor of a large city metropolis and was elected on the Liberal Party line. It's probably quite different for upstate Republicans. Since this is United States and they have to fit into a political party with a national identity. Dean Skelos certainly seems considerably more conservative to me than Malcolm Smith, and I am optimistic the NY GOP will stop tax hikes and move to block gay marriage from going to a floor vote. Freepers are comparing this to the defeat of the left in Europe. Well, this is definitely better than what we get out of European "conservative" parties. Personally the only reason I think the "Socialists" can't win in France is that the "conservative" President Sarkozy has simply co-opted their agenda so you don't have to vote Socialist anymore to get socialism. They should make him head of the Socialist Party, he can impliment their agenda better than they can.

3) The Conservative and Right-to-Life parties exist precisely because the NYGOP at the state level got too liberal, and in some ways they've had a success since it's almost impossible to win statewide as a "Republican" unless they're on a fusion ticket with those parties. Of course the Conservative Party itself has now gone squishy, but even so a state Senator from New York who was elected on "Republican/Conservative/Right-to-Life" ticket is likely to be much more conservative than one simply elected on the "Republican" ticket

4) I don't know if the national GOP having a large number of southern Evangelical protestants is hurting the NYGOP's efforts to win elections, since nationwide the amount of big name Catholic officials in the party is considerably large as well. It's funny, before Bush was elected President, the RATs accused him of being secretly anti-Catholic because he visited Bob Jones University and all that, after he became President they flipped 180 degrees and accused him of being a puppet of Catholics because of all his Supreme Court appointments and opposition to embryonic stem cell research and so on. Although you might have a point that some of the more vocal "fundamentalists". We have freepers who refer to anyone who believes in evolution ("evil-ution" as they call it) as being "non-Christian", those that insist the civil war ("war of northern aggression" as they call it) having "nothing whatsoever to do with slavery", etc. My guess is they probably wouldn't find too many New Yorkers (regardless of party) who share their views.