The guy is an idiot.
I am not convinced that the NY loss means that much....
“Well… I might as well say it… social conservatism. America is a fiscally conservative country – now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification – but not a socially conservative one. No, I don’t mean to say it’s socially liberal. It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire (just as its mostly fiscally laissez-faire). Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.
Hoffman’s capital-C Conservative campaign, however, tried to separate itself from the majority parties by making a big deal of the social issues. He was all upset that Scozzafava was pro-gay marriage, seemingly as upset as he was with her support for the stimulus plan.”
This is horsecrap. We just won a battle in Maine to end same-sex “marriage”. Do I have to remind you that Prop 8 passed in loony California? More Americans call themselves pro-life now. Social conservatism didn’t lose this battle.
The guy is an idiot.
Social conservatism is not a loser.
Owens got less than half the vote. He is a good bet to go down to defeat next year when the Republican and Conservative Parties unite behind a single candidate.
It's a typical Northeastern RINO attitude.
I think NY23 folks resented outside bigshots trying to force their wills onto them, after they had their own local process—however imperfect.
It is a moderate GOP district, where the previous GOP guy held moderate ACU ratings: lifetime 8 terms 71.55, but 60 and 40 in last two terms.
Hoffman would likely be a 90+ rating person, quite a bit to the right of McHugh (previous GOP representative).
NY 23 lost because the RINOs encouraged Scuzzy to drop out, otherwise, she and Owens would have split the Marxist vote. It was a win for conservatism, too, because Palin demonstrated she has more influence than neo-con Newt.
By the way, where is all of the outrage from party leaders for Scuzzy’s endorsement of the Democrat? Oh, yeah, they aren’t outraged - it was their idea. They also wrote the talking points repeated by Steele and Barbour, that the overwhelming upsets in VA and NJ aren’t a referendum on the Marxist usurper.
Sarah, could you do us a favor and throw Steele and Barbour under the bus?
Hoffman lost because the GOP leadership didn’t have their sh!t together until it was much too late. They backed a leftist dressed up as a Republican.
In this campaign we had a Republican candidate chosen not by primary but by party bosses who may well have been left of the Democrat candidate. The Republican candidate was challenged by a conservative who ran under that banner. But his entry into the race split the GOP asunder. The National Congressional Committee precipitously endorsed the Rino candidate who was presented to them out of smoke-filled rooms after an undemocratic selection process done by party hacks. The RCCC committed money to the Republican candidate which was used for television ads which actually attacked the conservative candidate. Meanwhile national Republican figures from Sarah Palin to Fred Thompson as well as radio personalities like Mark Levin entered the fray in support of the conservative. Newt Gingrich foolishly lent his (now fading) prestige to the Rino explaining that party discipline must be maintained or there would be chaos for the 2010 election. Gingrich to the contrary notwithstanding, the clamor from the right was so loud that the Rino, seeing her polls and contributions sink like a stone down a well, suspended rather than ended her campaign only days before the election, which had the effect of leaving her name on the ballot.
Confirming conservative complaints against her, the Rino candidate, 24 hours after her withdrawal, endorsed the Democrat in the race, whining that she had received gracious telephone calls of condolence from Democrats in New York state but nothing from Republicans. News reports indicated that the Rino candidate had received telephone calls directly from the White House prior to making her endorsement of the Democrat. Conservatives felt vindicated in their suspicions of this woman but, evidently, the electorate was less clear in their reaction. The Rino Republican candidate garnered five or 6% of the vote which, when combined with the vote for the conservative, would have been enough to beat the Democrat. Unfortunately, the election was not in the European Parliament style, so the Democrat won.
From this burlesque of conflicting interactions and out of district intermeddling by party bigwigs working at cross purposes, the pundits, nothing daunted, proceed to draw conclusions about the mood of the electorate.
Flipping Aces quotes pundits who tell us that the conservative lost the race because he was too puritanical in emphasizing the social issues. The pundits offer not a shred of data to support their proposition so solemnly vouchsafed. In the best traditions of Free Republic, it took FReepers about 15 minutes to offer up data showing the contrary of the proposition. Incidentally, I cannot like the pundits version because it is congruent with my feelings published in vanities here on FR to the effect that we social conservatives should confine our intrusions into the bedroom and elsewhere to cases in which there is an identifiable victim, such as in abortion, but not in cases like homosexuality were an identifiable victim is not so easy to identify. Nevertheless, there is simply no basis to draw this conclusion from this election.
There is another proposition in the article which I think is supportable:
So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.
Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable.
Third parties lack funding and ability for a host of reasons. Conservatives are going to have to work from within the GOP. The GOP had better pay attention. (emphasis supplied)
These conclusions were quoted approvingly here:
Great points, especially the third party point. Just won’t happen. If the Beltway crowd hadn’t of (sic) picked a person to represent the Republican party who was more liberal then the Democrat challenger….then Hoffman would of (sic) won. Instead the establishment picked Scozzafava and it took a groundswell to get her removed.
Essentially the authors are making a point which I've been making for some time now: the Republican Party simply must accommodate itself to the conservative impulses of the Tea Party Movement. If the Tea Party Movement and conservatives in general fail to reform the Republican Party and work with in it, rather than against it as occurred in New York (or even as a third party movement), they will succeed only in electing Democrats.
I believe that we should take a moment to acknowledge the courage and decency of Doug Hoffman who, Cincinnatus like, stepped into the breach to do his duty as he saw it and ran a decent and honorable campaign which burnished his reputation and elevated conservatism considerably higher in the eyes of the public than New York's version of Republicans. Doug Hoffman is the kind of man who represents conservatism to the nation well.
