Breaking: Palin Supports Hoffman

Hoffman is not a "Conservative Republican"! He is a member of the Conservative party. Republicanism and Conservatism are two distinctly different ideologies.

You are mistaken about Hoffman. He is indeed a Republican, and in fact this past summer announced that he would seek the GOP nomination for the special election for NY-23. Since I am from NY-23, I have insight into the real facts about NY-23 politics, so check this bit of info regarding Hoffman: Dough Hoffman to run for the GOP . Oops, I guess people from Connecticut have better inside information than Hoffman.

Announcing that 'Republicanism and Conservatism are two distinctly different ideologies' doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, so why you decide to note that here is strange and misplaced. Perhaps you like the grunting and grimacing of the eternally displeased political animal. Leave the grunting and grimacing for the latrine, man: the way to advance conservative principles in politics is to influence the GOP and win elections, not alienating yourself from the process.

We do have a two party system, and there are real differences between the two major political parties. Some people are so narrow and so shrill when it comes to their politics that they can't meaningfully distinguish between them, sometimes. True, sometimes there are too many similarities between the two major parties, but the differences are nonetheless there.

If a person can't tell the difference between Duncan Hunter and Barney Frank, for example, the problem isn't with Hunter and Frank, but with the person who can't find meaningful differences between the two.

Scozz represents the insider politics of the NY State GOP. They are not notably conservative, really, and she is the direct beneficiary of the membership in that club.

As for the formation of the Conservative party in NY, you're uninformed. Hoffman will caucus with the GOP, as he has no ideological compatriots in the Democrat party. He's a better fit aligning with the national GOP in Congress. If he doesn't, he'll undermine himself and his constituency. So that's a foolish posture.

NY-23 is a rare case, and doesn't portend to any national trend, nor Sarah Palin's national ambitions. As it stands, the democrat is likely to win. If Hoffman pulls it out, we will see what he does, and we will be able to evaluate who has a clearer understanding of what's going on in NY-23 in 2009.

I'm not a fan of the GOP anymore or the direction it's going.

It's going in a bad direction, no question about that. That's why it is necessary to reform it and that's where Sarah comes in. Third parties don't win elections in this country, that's just the way it is. So the best we can do is get strong conservatives like Sarah Palin to reform the GOP.

We need to stop the bleeding, and crafting a dynamic where we are looking from the outside isn't the way to advance a conservative agenda.

You are mistaken about Hoffman. He is indeed a Republican, and in fact this past summer announced that he would seek the GOP nomination for the special election for NY-23.

You better tell that to Hoffman. At his website doughoffmanforcongress.com/press_club4growth he declares himself as the Conservative Party candidate. "Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman at 17%". Either he changed his mind or you are quoting an erroneous article. Oops, I guess some wishful thinking OP members are blinded by their undying loyalty to an increasingly socialist party.

Announcing that 'Republicanism and Conservatism are two distinctly different ideologies' doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, so why you decide to note that here is strange and misplaced.

Then you admit the OP has been taken over by socialists!

Perhaps you like the grunting and grimacing of the eternally displeased political animal. Leave the grunting and grimacing for the latrine, man: the way to advance conservative principles in politics is to influence the GOP and win elections, not alienating yourself from the process.

There is a pattern with OP party members. They resort to insults when they lack any intellectual content for the issue at hand. Is this the OP strategy to convince Conservatives not to leave the OP and win back those who have left?

We do have a two party system, and there are real differences between the two major political parties. Some people are so narrow and so shrill when it comes to their politics that they can't meaningfully distinguish between them, sometimes. True, sometimes there are too many similarities between the two major parties, but the differences are nonetheless there.

Sometimes? That's an understatement! Between between OP leaders McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins, Bush, Gingrich, Chris Smith, David Reichart, Frank Lobiondo, Mark Steven Kirk, Mary Bono-Mack, Mike Castle, Leo Lance and John McHugh the OP has sided with their socialist Democrat counterparts on The Law of the Sea Treaty(UNCLOS) that would have ceded our national sovereignty over to the one world order UN, Amnesty for illegal aliens, the socialist bail outs, Cap and Tax and global warming just to name a few issues. Thinking that pointing out all those similarities is shrill only illustrates the the very logic that has caused the OP to lose Conservatives.

If a person can't tell the difference between Duncan Hunter and Barney Frank, for example, the problem isn't with Hunter and Frank, but with the person who can't find meaningful differences between the two.

The list above of socialists in the OP clearly show Hunter is an exception to the rule. How convenient for you to omit from your short list all those above and more who do think more like Frank and his fellow RATs each passing day.

Scozz represents the insider politics of the NY State GOP.

She is the OP.

As for the formation of the Conservative party in NY, you're uninformed. Hoffman will caucus with the GOP, as he has no ideological compatriots in the Democrat party.

You contradict yourself. Why would someone you claim is a member of the OP need to caucus with the party to whom he already belongs? Which is it? Is he a member of the OP or the Conservative party?

He's a better fit aligning with the national GOP in Congress.

That's tantamount to stating he's a better fit with socialist light than socialist heavy. That's not much of a distinction. The OP is a better fit with their fellow socialists in the RAT party.

NY-23 is a rare case, and doesn't portend to any national trend, nor Sarah Palin's national ambitions.

Wrong. NY-23 is the start of a Conservative trend.

As it stands, the democrat is likely to win.

Is that another campaign OP campaign slogan? Funny how the Conservatives don't see it that way since money and support are pouring into Hoffman's campaign.

Is that another campaign OP campaign slogan? Funny how the Conservatives don't see it that way since money and support are pouring into Hoffman's campaign.

You know something, I know am waisting my time when people like you distort my comments. So I don't intend on replying to those whose intellectual dishonesty is an essential component of their ability to NOT think. I will respond just this time, though I don't expect an intelligent response from you, so in that regard you wont get any more answers from me. I get to vote for Hoffman, my entire family is voting for him, and you just get to only talk! I didn't sit on my ass last election, allowing Obama to win, so don't talk to me about socialists! How about looking at yourself in the mirror, and seeing the type of person who undermines the advancement of the conservative agenda?

You posted: Hoffman is not a "Conservative Republican"! He is a member of the Conservative party. Republicanism and Conservatism are two distinctly different ideologies.

Hoffman is the Conservative party nominee NOW, for purpose of running against Scozza. However, I pointed it out to you that he was a GOP member seeking the GOP nomination back in June, since you didn't seem to know that. Indeed, I even provided a source, which is more than you have done in our discussion.

Hoffman is a Republican who announced in June that he was seeking the GOP nomination. When they chose to not have a primary and anointed Scozz as the nominee, he sought and got the Conservative Party nomination.

One may be a Republican and get the Conservative party nomination. Al D'Amato ran on both lines, for example. If that's too difficult for you to follow, that speaks volumes for you.

I didn't admit the GOP has been taken over by socialists. No idea what gave you that impression. Probably an overactive imagination.

My post had plenty of intellectual content. As for characterizing you as myopic with severe bowel problems, well, it seemed like an apt depiction of you. It's not so much an insult, but just a statement of how you come across.

The GOP does indeed have some folks who are too liberal for my taste. But that's not to say that there is no difference between the parties. As I wrote before, if you can't make meaningful distinctions between some GOPers and some Democrats, then you simply can't evaluate things clearly. If the GOP and the Democrats all look alike to you, you need glasses.

The Barney Frank world view is not overtaking the GOP, regardless of how you like to characterize things.

To clarify, Hoffman will caucus with the GOP if elected since his party affiliation is the Conservative Party of NY. If he wins, you will see that I am right and you are wrong.

NY-23 isn't part of a national trend. For starters, the democrat is polling ahead as the Scozz candidacy collapses. If Hoffman can win, and I hope he does, that will be very welcomed.

You come across as very silly and immature to characterize the Hoffman campaign as representative of a new national movement. If he loses I doubt that you'll see it as the start of an exciting new national trend, though. That speaks for your shoddy analytical skills and a poor evaluation of the political climate. If you see this as evidence of a new national trend, you're probably used to shooting blanks, too.

You know something, I know am waisting my time when people like you distort my comments. So I don't intend on replying to those whose intellectual dishonesty is an essential component of their ability to NOT think.

You know, that's on of the same tired old refrains OP members make when they are called out by Conservatives. Keep in mind this is a Conservative website, not a Republican website. Over time you will find your communication with Freepers declining to very little if not zero.

I get to vote for Hoffman, my entire family is voting for him, and you just get to only talk!

I'll be voting against Dodd and all you can do is talk about him! Whoopdee Doo!

How about looking at yourself in the mirror, and seeing the type of person who undermines the advancement of the conservative agenda?

I prefer to look at the actions of the socialist OP leaders I listed in my last post to you that you refuse to address. Continually ignoring the problem with the multitude of socialist OP party leaders requires some self reflection by you.

However, I pointed it out to you that he was a GOP member seeking the GOP nomination back in June, since you didn't seem to know that. Indeed, I even provided a source, which is more than you have done in our discussion.

And you, once again, conveniently ignore another point I made by providing a source from his own website referring to him as a member of the Conservative party. I'll play your game of ignoring a point to fit your OP agenda. Claiming he became a member of the Conservative party only to later return to the OP should he win is an admission the OP can only achieve a victory by perpetrating deception against the American people by using the Conservative party because OP leaders know they can't win with their incrementally socialist agenda as is apparent with Scozzofava. That's an idea I would admit to nor hang my hat on.

One may be a Republican and get the Conservative party nomination.

Oh, I see. A person can be a member of two parties at the same time! Why doesn't he claim to also be a member of the OP on his website if that is the case? Do you understand they are two distinct parties? Either you are registered with one or the other. You claim a person can be a member of two parties for the same election couldn't be more intellectually dishonset.

NY-23 isn't part of a national trend.

Prior to Hoffman no one thought any candidate from the Conservative party(and I don't mean the non existent Conservative /Republican party)had a chance to win any election. Now one is a serious threat to the OP and the OP claim is reduced it can't be a trend. The OP is showing signs of desperation.

You come across as very silly and immature to characterize the Hoffman campaign as representative of a new national movement.

You, like other OP members, resort to the same tired old tactic of insulting any Conservative who calls out the OP for pandering to socialists and refusing to accept the fact the OP's days are numbered. Conservatives are increasingly seeing the OP for the socialists they truly are with the likes of those party leaders I listed in my last post to you that you refuse to discuss.

That speaks for your shoddy analytical skills and a poor evaluation of the political climate. If you see this as evidence of a new national trend, you're probably used to shooting blanks, too.

The OP has been shooting blanks at Conservatism for years and then attack the very people they are trying to convince to remain in the party out of desperation when the OP sees Conservatives are no longer by the socialist light mentality. The personal attacks make the OP sound more like the socialist RAT's with each passing day. Great strategy!!! LOL!!!!

Over time you will find your communication with Freepers declining to very little if not zero.

I've been around FR for about 10 years, so why would a solid conservative like me want to waste her/his time with silly, immature nuts like you? I thought you were a normal poster, that's why I addressed your post. Instead, you cavalierly call the GOP 'socialist' (it isn't), and repeat shallow talking points, without much evidence that you have the depth of intellect to know what you are talking about.

Going to party tonight, but before I go check out this video of Hoffman on Neil Cavuto's show of October 23, 2009, referring to himself as a Republican, clearly calling himself a Reagan Republican.

One may indeed be a Republican and Conservative Party nominee. If you knew even a bit about NY Politics, you would know that they often (but not always) endorse the same candidate. I know the facts undermine your bluster, but that's not my fault - it's yours.

Hoffman notes that this is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Even Hoffman himself sees the goal as influencing the GOP for the better. Hoffman's candidacy is a good thing, and I hope the GOP gets the message. If Hoffman wins, the message will be stronger, for sure.

Bye bye.

Right now, McCain and the status quo in the GOP are trying to mold the party in his image, crafting it moderate and with a message full of mush, soft both inside and out. We don't need that. But if we join a third party we are not going to win elections, and in the meantime the liberal-leftist democrats will continue to advance their agenda and trash this country with their policies of destruction and naked pursuit of total power.

They are not trying to mold anything, the molding is done, they are merely continuing a process of moving to the left that started in 2001 when Bush took office. Bush gave us the biggest, most expensive, and most intrusive government in history and like myself and others predicted, eventually the Democrats would inherit that big, expensive, intrusive government.

The fact is, if we keep on voting for the Republicans as they march to the left, we will keep reinforcing the GOP leadership's belief that moving to the left to chase moderates is the proper way to go.

At some point, some tough love has to be applied. We obviously don't have the financial clout to influence them, and so we are left with our votes. If we give them our votes, we are like that parent that caves into the screaming kid who wants some toy in a store and knows they'll get it if they scream loud enough.

Bush gave us the biggest, most expensive, and most intrusive government in history and like myself and others predicted, eventually the Democrats would inherit that big, expensive, intrusive government.

Is a debatable point, but whatever government excesses we saw under the Bush administration, Obama has already eclipsed and surpassed those excesses in just the nine months he has been in office.

The Heritage Foundation does a good job putting this into perspective:

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016. link

The HF has this chart, which was originally posted by the Washington Post, emphasizing the difference between the Bush and Obama budgets deficits.

Furthermore, the HF points out that even though Obama has claimed to have cut the deficit by half, he has already quadrupled the deficit with his bloated stimulus package. And let's not forget, Obama has another stimulus package in the works which will cripple our economy and increase the deficit even more.

The fact is, if we keep on voting for the Republicans as they march to the left, we will keep reinforcing the GOP leadership's belief that moving to the left to chase moderates is the proper way to go.

I mentioned in my previous post that this is why we need reform. We need conservatives like Sarah Palin to reform the GOP from within and take the party back to its roots and conservative principles. I know that rebuilding a party takes effort, time, courage, and determination. Forming a third party is a fast, self satisfying approach that doesn't really address the problem, and it tends to be a lost cause come election time.

We need conservatives like Sarah Palin to reform the GOP from within and take the party back to its roots and conservative principles. I know that rebuilding a party takes effort, time, courage, and determination.

The GOP is not interested in true Conservatives - they've spent the last few decades moving every so slowly to the left, and they've stuck us with moderate candidates and moderate Presidents because that's where the big money ended up - McCain should have been finished in the primaries and was nearly finished at one point. When Hillary pulled out, McCain and the GOP leadership immediately reached out to her followers. That should tell you something - she who was married to the former Scumbag-in-Chief and who wanted to push universal healthcare down our throats in the '90s and all of the sudden the GOP reverses course and thinks her supporters are worth having.

Unless you can come up with the kind of big money that gets the GOP's attention and you force an ultimatum, they are going to continue this trend, and it makes a warped kind of sense, because with enough money you can get the moderates to vote for you. Too many of the big money donors stand to financially benefit from moderate Republicans in Congress and the White House, and true conservatives are a dying breed unfortunately.

Forming a third party is a fast, self satisfying approach that doesn't really address the problem, and it tends to be a lost cause come election time.

It used not be a lost cause in America until the Democrats and Republicans managed to put a stranglehold on politics and convinced the electorate that there should only be two parties and unfortunately we've been dumb enough to believe it ever since.

Even if voting for a third party is considered a lost cause, at least I can say I'm a Conservative 365 days out of the year instead of every day but election day. If the GOP wants to ignore me and people like me, fine, I'm not going to piss away my vote on any party that doesn't follow my beliefs - a vote for moderates and liberals is still a vote for moderates and liberals even if they have an (R) next to their name.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.