Posted on 11/04/2009 3:07:13 AM PST by markomalley
Conservatives owe NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman immeasurable gratitude. He overcame impossible odds (single digits just a month ago) to come within two points of defeating Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman had zero name recognition. National Republican Party officials dumped nearly $1 million into the race on behalf of radical leftist GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who then turned around, endorsed Owens and siphoned off 5 percent of the vote with her name still on the ballot after she dropped out.
Conservatives’ money went to pay for specious attack ads against Hoffman run by the NRCC like this.
Conservatives’ money went to support a GOP candidate who shares the same socialist alliances with fellow SEIU/ACORN/New Party/Working Families Party activist Patrick Gaspard, the Obama White House political director who intervened in the race to secure Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens.
Hoffman’s candidacy illuminated the stark difference between GOP political opportunists willing to pimp out their endorsements to any old ACORN-embracing, Working Families Party-consorting, Big Labor crony who puts an “R” by her name — and movement conservatives who refuse to “mooooderate” for the politically expedient sake of mooooderation as dictated by out-of-touch Beltway party leaders. The NRCC/RNC’s $1 million debacle will cost much more than that.
As I’ve repeated many times over the last several weeks:
One thing is guaranteed at the conclusion of the NY-23 special congressional election: The Beltway Republicans who endorsed radical leftist Dede Scozzafava are going to have indelible egg stains on their faces. And GOP establishment fund-raising organizations will be the poorer for it.
To illustrate the point: This blog now has a regular feature spotlighting readers’ RNC rejected solicitation forms of the day.
Today’s rejected RNC donor form comes from reader Bud:
Which brings me to my syndicated column today.
Hoffman may have lost narrowly, but NY-23 is a much broader victory for conservatives who believe the Republican Party should stand for core limited government principles. Scozzafava, who was endorsed by far Left blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and backed by Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association, and card-check-promoting trade unions, was denied the congressional seat because movement conservatives refused to support Arlen Specter in a skirt. This is a victory of principle.
Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in elephant’s clothing making a complete ass of the GOP.
Moreover, NY-23 is a victory for conservatives who refuse to be marginalized in the public square by either the unhinged left or the establishment right. A humble accountant from upstate New York exposed the hypocrisy of GOP leaders trying to solicit funds from conservatives by lambasting Pelosi and the Dems’ support for high taxes, Big Labor, and bigger government — while using conservatives’ money to subsidize a high-taxing, Big Labor-pandering, bigger government radical. The repercussions will be felt well beyond NY-23’s borders. Conservatives’ disgust with the status quo has been heard and felt. They have been silent too long. They will be silent no more.
The GOP leadership knows it cannot afford to rest on its laurels, continue business as usual, and bask in yesterday’s electoral victories without confronting its abysmal abdication of principled conservative leadership in NY-23.
As Hoffman said in his concession speech, “This is only one fight in the battle.”
Onward. Upward. Rightward.
“One sided commentary from the queen of conservative spin, if you like that. I prefer truth. Big wins for Republicans last night. NY-23 was a loss for conservatives and a win for rats...no matter how it is spun.”
I really disagree with this. As of the nominations, conservatives had already lost. We had either a rat (D, NY) or a rat (R, NY) as congresscritter. I prefer an honest rat. They don’t provide faux bipartisan cover for bad laws.
That an unknown 3rd party conservative candidate almost pulled this off against millions in spending by Owens and Scuzzy was a minor miracle. And, if headwinds are still with the R’s in 2010, we are well positioned to take that seat back with a conservative. The only price, about a year of having an honest rat instead of a dishonest one in congress. During that next year, Scuzzy’s vote for an R leader of the house would be meaninngless—there’s no way there is a close vote on that. And that’s all she was good for.
Finally, once an R gets elected in an R district, no matter how odious, they tend to keep getting elected. To get rid of her in 2010 in a primary would have picked this same scab, except worse. So had Scuzzy won, we had a high probability of a dishonest rat in that seat for years to come.
My conclusion, big possible gain. No loss at all.
You forgot Biden campaigning on your list.
WE absolutely MUST use the primary process to select the most conservative we can get but then after that we MUST also agree to hang together to prevent every possible RAT from obtaining political office.
There are no honest rats...so let us edit this down to "I prefer a rat." I believe that. rat is the new conservatism at FR. Now be honest with yourself.
really.
Scuzzy would have voted with the GOP 40% of the time. Owen 0%. You still prefer Owen.
Owens will have to run in 12 months and will lose the next go around. NY-23 would have been stuck with DeDe for ever.
Rats don't earn the primary free-ride that we tend to grant to rino's.
We end up with Jeffords and Spector for life. Always fearful that they will finally turn ultimate traitor... instead of issue-by-issue traitor... and finally they do.
At least with a Rat in the seat, a conservative has a clear shot next go round. Had Dede won, we'd be stuck with her for 20 years.
We have a first past the post single member district electoral system.
What that means is that all you have to do to win is get the most votes ~ not even a majority ~ in a district.
The consequences for party politics are profound. The math necessary for winning tends to reduce the number of potentially successful competitors to one or two parties. Coalitions are necessary since, in general, in our society, there's almost never a single voting block that constitutes a majority.
NOTE: (although courts have tried to do that with black voters ~ creating one black Congresscritter and effectively removing the black vote from surrounding districts ~ as if having a black Congresscritter offsets total loss of political influence outside the black milieu).
We end up with districts of all sort dominated by one or the other of the two parties ~ and sometimes dominated by only one (such as is the case in New York districts).
Mathematically, the ideological structure of American electoral politics is called a BI MODAL SADDLE.
So-called "independents" and "moderates" have no clear choice except this ~ if they want their votes to count they have to vote for someone ~ and that someone is going to come from one of the "modes" on that "saddle".
At the same time any so-called "independent" or "moderate" is going to find himself working OUTSIDE the parties without a label. That's probably why you never find an "Independent party boss" (bwahahahahah!)
Sometimes in relatively evenly balanced districts where control passes from one mode to the other on a regular basis it is possible for sufficiently motivated outsiders in the fringe of the bi-modal saddle to toss an election one way or the other. Still, the person they are voting for will arrive in the state legislature, city council or Congress prepared to caucus with one of the two modes in the bi-modal saddle as it is represented at the top of the heap.
So, you ask, what about the RINOs ~ where do they come from?
A RINO (and there are Democrat equivalents) is usually an individual whose ideological inclinations are with the regular Democrats but he or she doesn't fit for social, racial, religious or other reason. Their odds of ever acquiring sufficient backing from their fellow Democrats to run for public office is limited. If the local Democrat "machine" is sufficiently powerful, this sort of potential office holder has few options in our system. He can't just go form a new political party. So, he ends up running as a Republican in a district (or state) with a weak Republican presence.
This person's election as a Republican may give the Republicans CONTROL of a legislative house, or a Congressional house, or the city council. Once control is achieved, the most numerous party then sets the legislative agenda!
NOTE: (Newt Gingrich is in the school of thought that it's more important to get control than to have candidates who adhere to Republican principles, and he was successful at gaining control of the House, but not the Senate. There were entirely too many RINOs in the Senate to ever achieve a stable situation for the Republicans. Hence the Jeffords disaster which set this nation back 150 years).
Rahm Emanuel is a practitioner of the art of gaining control of Congress. He is the fellow who decided the Democrat litmus test should eliminate GUN CONTROL. The Democrats were then able to run pro-gun candidates in weak Republican districts (or where we had RINOs) and take enough seats to control the agenda in the House. That's why we have that horrid Nancy Pelosi in charge).
The Old South sought to eliminate blacks from the electoral process while at the same time maintaining some semblance of democratic process. That's why you had extensive primaries, and then primary run-offs in their old system. Today, with few Democrats left in the South outside of all-black judicially mandated districts, you farely see the run-offs happening but I don't think the laws were changed ~ just the opportunities to run for office.
You can pick up all this stuff from V.O.Key's books regarding parties and politics. It's old stuff ~ some of it nearly 80 years old ~ but he was on top of the situation even then.
Now, back to the "independents" and "moderates" ~ a "moderate" is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, I see no "moderate" Democrat voters. They are all ideologically driven fanatics. And the "independents are usually just Democrats who find it hard to make decisions ~ their bosses should keep close watch over them.
Thank you. rat...It's the new conservatism!
I see you carefully avoided dealing with any of the solid points he raised, and instead went off on your own little tangent.
” If you are intellegent, I believe that you may come to understand my post after a few more election losses”
Since there is little of much intelligence in your post, its not going to be possible to glean any great harvest of intelligence from it, will it?
Meanwhile, about them election losses...in case you didn't hear the news yet, conservatives/Republicans actually won in the biggest elections last night, in Virginia(which 0bama carried), and in a state that is one of the most strongly liberal and Democratic in this country, New Jersey. Those are strong endorsements for conservatism.
“One sided commentary from the queen of conservative spin, if you like that. I prefer truth. Big wins for Republicans last night. NY-23 was a loss for conservatives and a win for rats...no matter how it is spun.”
It is never a loss when you stand up for what is right!
Hoffman was running against BOTH major parties. His showing in the election is remarkably strong given the obstacles he faced, and a tremendous marker for a coming sea change in American politics.
Then why are you wasting our time responding? I stopped reading here. Others may think it takes a bigger fool to respond to a fool, but I'm still drunk from celebrating GOP(not conservative) victories.
are you still reading my response...you big rat victory celebrating conservative?
tell it to Sen Goldwater, Sen. Santorum, Rep JD Hayworth, Sen George Allen, Rep Richard Pombo, Rep. Curt Weldon, and Rep. Charles Taylor
This one will be kicked around by political scientists for a long time. It was a weird dynamic which makes it difficult to draw any clear conclusions IMHO. But I do agree that a more appealing candidate would have made some difference.
If Newt, Steele and the party establishment would have shut up in the beginning, Hoffman might have pulled it off ...
Because you completely avoided addressing even a single one of the poonts in the post you were replying to, and went off on your own trip instead.
“Others may think it takes a bigger fool to respond to a fool:
Unfortunately, fools sometimes have to be suffered, albeit ungladly.
“but I'm still drunk from celebrating GOP(not conservative) victories.”
Since both two new GOP governors are conservatives (neither of them back abortion, or card check, or gay marriage like your pal Scozzafava), its kinda hard to split one celebration from the other.
make no mistake,
the RINO GOP alleged leaders are happy the democrat won.
the alleged GOP protects their country club
the alleged GOP protects their pay for candidacy contributors.
RINOs just give the left “bipartisan” cover for their radical leftist agenda so they don’t have to OWN the results of their policies.
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.