Conservative Rebellion Explodes in New York over Extreme Liberal GOP Candidate

SYRACUSE, New York, October 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A conservative uprising against the GOP's selection of a staunchly pro-abortion, pro-gay "marriage" nominee has transformed the battle for New York's 23rd congressional district into a tight three-way race that has the strong possibility of a dark horse Conservative Party candidate pulling an upset victory - or sending a strong message to the GOP that they alienate social and fiscal conservatives at their peril.

New York's 23rd Congressional District covers much of the northern areas of upstate New York just north of Syracuse, bordering Canada, and encompassing most of the Adirondacks. While conservative values figure greatly into the political landscape of upstate New York, GOP party bosses instead chose to nominate NY Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava - a far-left Republican who has strong pro-abortion, pro-gay "marriage", pro-tax, and pro-card check positions - to replace Rep. John McHugh, who handily won nine consecutive terms in a district that was safely Republican.

McHugh left the House of Representatives on September 21, 2009 to become Secretary of the Army, and Gov. David Paterson declared that Nov. 3 would be the date of a special election to replace him until the 2010 general election.

Local conservatives, however, outraged that GOP bosses selected a candidate so out-of-touch with their constituency, instead have fought back, running businessman Doug Hoffman on the Conservative Party ticket. The race has become extremely close in an area that would otherwise be a slam-dunk win for the GOP, as pro-life, pro-family conservatives and economic conservatives have made common cause to deliver the 23rd district into the hands of a candidate that will represent their values in Congress.

According to an October 15 Siena poll of the NY-23 special election, Democrat Bill Owens currently leads the race with 33 percent, followed by the GOP liberal Scozzafava at 29 percent, and Conservative Doug Hoffman with 23 percent, who leads among independent voters.

Those numbers are drastically different than two weeks ago, when Scozzafava stood ahead with 35 percent, Owens placed second with 28 percent, and Hoffman at 16 percent.

Siena pollster Steven Greenberg stated that the race would likely come down to the wire on Election Day, saying that the one sixth of undecided voters "will likely determine the outcome of this race."

With Hoffman's insurgent candidacy accelerating, conservatives - social and fiscal - see an opportunity not only to teach the GOP a lesson, but also a realistic shot to snatch victory. For Hoffman, the endorsements have been coming in at rapid fire, beginning with the pro-family Concerned Women for America and then the Club for Growth.

Now former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has entered the fray, giving her full endorsement to Hoffman and pledging her personal support and the financial support of her political action committee, SarahPAC,

"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," stated Palin on her Facebook page.

Palin's endorsement followed after Dick Armey, chairman of FreedomWorks and former House Majority Leader from the conservative-driven 1994 Republican Revolution, gave Hoffman a huge boost. He appeared in New York to give a vigorous endorsement, mobilize "Tea Party" conservatives behind Hoffman and enhance Hoffman's name recognition - all critical for victory in the election contest.

So far, Hoffman has captured at least 19 total endorsements - including the New York State Right to Life Party, Susan B. Anthony List, National Organization for Marriage, Fred Thompson, and Steve Forbes to name a few. And Hoffman's campaign has reported more than $210,000 in on-line contributions since October 15, when the Siena poll was released - money that translates into ammunition for advertizing and greater name recognition.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann broke ranks with the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), House Minority Leader John Boehner and leading national GOP leaders on Wednesday, by declaring on the Laura Ingraham program that Hoffman was "on the ascendancy," and that the GOP should give their support to him and not to the ill-chosen Scozzafava.

The election could prove to be a referendum on the direction of the GOP, and many commentators are ruefully saying that if the GOP fails to learn important lessons from botching a sure-fire victory in 2009, they are likely to lose a golden opportunity in 2010.

The Wall Street Journal excoriated GOP leaders for supporting Scozzafava in a October 21 editorial, saying that "A defeat would teach Republicans that running candidates who believe in nothing will keep them in the minority for years to come."

The Journal's editors pointed out that Scozzafava stands to the left of President Barack Obama on the question of same-sex "marriage" and her position on taxes makes her Democratic opponent Bill Owens look conservative. Scozzafava has also run on the ticket of the socialist Working Families Party and there is no guarantee that she would not switch parties and caucus with the Democrats if she lost a GOP primary fight in 2010.

Pro-life and pro-family advocates are devoting considerable time and effort to canvass voters and make the difference for Hoffman in the election fight. Emily Buchanan, executive director of the Susan B. Anthony List is coordinating an independent project for the National Organization for Marriage & the Susan B. Anthony List to elect Hoffman by enlisting pro-life/pro-family advocates to man the polls on November 3.

In all, conservatives of all stripes - fiscal, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage - believe that the battle for the 23rd District is a pivotal moment for them, one with national implications that exceed the boundaries of a rural district in upstate New York.

Learn more about Doug Hoffman candidacy here.

Oh shut your piehole, you 2 month old, non-paying newbie...

He’s the token black conservative and a RINO. If you’ve been paying any attention NEWBIE...80% of Freepers in every thread are disgusted with the token black liberal guilt chosen leader.

Nice try TROLL.

In all fairness to max, his statement is analytically similar to Rush’s ESPN comments. Technically, he is not being racist; he is describing GOP racism. If Steele was chosen, not because he was absolutely the best person for the job, but because it was thought his skin color would help pull in black votes, then that is where the real racism lies, and not with max. The problem is that for most people, this type of analysis is too cumbersome. It is far easier to blindly launch off the mere presence of certain keywords as triggers to the charge of racism. Therefore, you are also correct, in that statements such as max made do tend to become ammunition against us, but only because the left is operating on Pavlovian principles of mass manipulation at an emotive rather than rational level, not because there is anything truly racist in what max said.

newbie...lol...you been here a whole less than two years and I have been here almost three months and that makes you an old timer? You use leftist language, you moron. Saying black conservative is one thing. Saying he was elevated to his position because of his race is another thing. Calling him the “token black” is straight out of the left’s playbook. He is a RINO. He also isnt very conservative. We are all disgusted by his very non-conservative statements. You calling him a “token black” contributes to those who view crap like you say to conservatives being racist.

since late 2007, and you think your an old timer going to tell me what to do...lol...buy a clue about saying leftist talking points before you post.

So why not describe Steele in those terms instead of throwing out liberal talking points, such as “token black GOP”? When people use leftist talking points to make their point, they have also made it ammunition. Use conservative points and language, instead of the lefts.

“Technically, he is not being racist; he is describing GOP racism” ??? WTF is that supposed to mean?

I don’t recognize “token black” as a liberal talking point per se. I suppose when liberals use it, it means a person hired just to paper over raced-biased hiring. As max used it, it was a plausible accusation that the GOP had cynically used race rather than pure qualification for the job in selecting Steele. Max may or may not be right about that, but I believe it is reading him wrong to take that expression as an “openly racist” comment, as you suggest. It is just max saying the GOP made a decision unduly influenced by race. There is nothing racist about making such a statement.

So, to me, “token black” is a dual-use term. It depends on the context. “Words is words,” and conservatives should not have to worry about getting locked into specific verbal formulas as long as the ideas they express retain their conservative core. Free speech means free word choice. If it doesn’t fly, fine. Try something different. But I got what he was saying (max, you can jump in anytime ...). I don’t think this is as hard as you’re making it, and I really don’t think that as conservatives we should be stirring up conflict among ourselves where none is necessary. Fighting over this is ridiculous. We have much bigger fish to fry.

Ok, here is another question. If you become a precint chair in your precinct, are you bound to vote in the general election for the Republican even if they turn out to be a super liberal? I guess I’m thinking of a case like this Doug Hoffman case in NY, where he might actually have a chance of winning, would being a precint chair cause you to have to commit to voting for someone like Dede Scozzfava if someone like that ends up getting nominated to be the Republican candidate? I don’t think that would happen where I live but am interested in how that works.

LMAO!

Using the word “racist” and flipping it out faster than Sharpton and that’s conservative? . Nice try trollbie.

Take a hike, newbie.

“Ok, here is another question. If you become a precint chair in your precinct, are you bound to vote in the general election for the Republican even if they turn out to be a super liberal?”

No party affiliation compels one to vote party line. Period. What you vote is your secret ballot.

What I understand is Hoffman was in the running for the GOP nod for the special election. But Scozzfava had a political name branding and some supporters, shady as they may be. So she got the party nomination. Apparently there were not enough conservative precinct chairs to override the nomination process..
But Hoffman felt he had enough support on ideology to overcome not being name branded party so he went independent and filed as a Conservative Party Candidate. The so called “Rockefeller” Republicans only wanted a name with the (R) stamp for the appearance that would deceive some, unfortunately uninformed voters to pull the Republican lever.

I would only commit to voting for who matches best my ideology as a conservative. If someone don’t make the grade, it is my free choice to look (and vote) for someone else. The day of holding my nose to vote, so a political hack “chosen” by people who otherwise have no interest in me or my opinions is over. Done.

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.