“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.
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.