Posted on 10/22/2009 5:47:30 PM PDT by avg_freeper
THE WEEKLY STANDARD just received a statement from Sarah Palin endorsing conservative Doug Hoffman for Congress:
The people of the 23rd Congressional District of New York are ready to shake things up, and Doug Hoffman is coming on strong as Election Day approaches! He needs our help now.
The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it's important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York's 23rd Congressional district. It's my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.
Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a "time for choosing."
The federal government borrows, spends, and prints too much money, while our national debt hits a record high. Government is growing while the private sector is shrinking, and unemployment is on the rise. Doug Hoffman is committed to ending the reckless spending in Washington, D.C. and the massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government. He is also fully committed to supporting our men and women in uniform as they seek to honorably complete their missions overseas.
And best of all, Doug Hoffman has not been anointed by any political machine.
Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty.
Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate that more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.
Republicans and conservatives around the country are sending an important message to the Republican establishment in their outstanding grassroots support for Doug Hoffman: no more politics as usual.
You can help Doug by visiting his official website below and joining me in supporting his campaign:
http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/donate3.html
This statement will be on Palin's Facebook page soon.
It is not known what is her position on the issue but the Dem nominee will back the public option no doubt.
The possibility of getting even more Democrats elected to Congress frankly speaking is not something to be cheered.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
Whats driving Obamas unprecedented massive deficits? Spending:The HF has this chart, which was originally posted by the Washington Post, emphasizing the difference between the Bush and Obama budgets deficits.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 Obamas budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016. link
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.
That's why we need to reform the GOP, whether the existing leadership likes it or not, and whether they are interested or not, and by using unconventional means.
The word reform in this context means 'to change for the better.' It means the correction of evils, abuses, or errors, and it also means improving social or economic conditions without radical or revolutionary change.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand. If we don't understand the meaning of 'reform,' we will just go around and around and get nowhere.
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.