In the supposedly solid Republican 23rd Congressional District in upstate New York, there will be a special election November 3, 2009 to fill the seat vacated by Cong. John McHugh who was appointed Secretary of the Army. The Republican district chairs selected New York Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava, said to be a fiscal conservative but liberal on social issues, as the Republican candidate. In addition to the Democrat candidate, Bill Owens, the Conservative Party of New York also fielded a candidate, Doug Hoffman.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, National GOP Chair Michael Steele and a host of other Republican loyalist endorsed Ms. Scozzafava. Mr. Hoffman received endorsements from Sarah Palin and other noted conservatives. When it became apparent to the Republican candidate she could not win, she suspended her campaign October 31 and released her supporters to choose between the Democrat and the Conservative. Campaign spokesman Matt Burns said, "Scozzafava is essentially withdrawing from the race, although her name will remain on Tuesday's ballot. She thinks stepping aside is best for the party", he said.
Today, she repaid the party loyalist by endorsing the Democrat.
Posted by warrenpeterson at November 01, 2009 10:20 PM | Email ThisGiven how conservatives are treating moderates in the Republican Party, I'm expecting this is only going to be the start.
The start of winning? Scozzafava was 3rd in a 3 way race between independent conservative Hoffman, Slaver Bill Owens, and herself. How would playing the hyper-moderate-bootlicker - and losing the election overall - have been a good thing?
Forty percent of the US electorate call themselves conservatives; 20% call themselves liberal. You do the math...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 1, 2009 11:56 PMScozzafava was third because some big name right-wing kooks decided to make it their business to get involved and send a message. She probably wouldn't have won out against Owens, but Hoffman is going to tank in a nasty way without those moderates in place.
And the whole "call themselves conservative" thing is bull. The American public is pretty much divided down the middle at this point in terms of actual positions on issues. (Less polarized than the Congress, actually.) I love it though when conservatives losers try to console themselves by trying to convince people they're always in the majority!
Posted by: demo kid on November 2, 2009 12:48 AMTell me again why Republican voters should bend over and take it when Party officials try to ram a Rino leftist candidate down their throats? The majority will indeed speak on Tuesday and then Dede the Leftist will be free to pull a "Specter" and join those who share her demented beliefs.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 2, 2009 06:47 AMWould Seattle Democrats display outrage if Party officials chose Sarah Palin to replace a retiring Jim McDermott? Of course they would.
Get a clue....
Posted by: Saltherring on November 2, 2009 07:22 AMI actually miss the days when Conservative Democrats were in charge. Unfortunately, there are very few of them left. They have been driven out of the Democratic party for being Christian and/or pro-life, just as the Democratic party destroyed itself 150 years ago to help defend slavery.
Posted by: Ray J. Tuleya on November 2, 2009 07:23 AMOnly in a bean-brain world could Scozzafava be considered a moderate anything. She is more accurately an interloper within the party, holding virtually none of the Republican values and all the dhimmi ones.
The GOP should demand their money back from that back-stabbing, traitorous b!tch...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on November 2, 2009 07:51 AMThe truth is Hoffman is the more "moderate main-stream" candidate.
>>> "Scozzafava was third because some big name right-wing kooks decided to make it their business to get involved and send a message." ///
Yes, if only those "kooks" would have thrown all their support behind Scozzafava, she may well have came in SECOND PLACE.
Posted by: jah on November 2, 2009 07:58 AMRepublicans should welcome moderates but not let them control the Party's national agenda. It only leads to failed campaigns like McCain's.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 2, 2009 08:41 AMThe problem with all these labels and accusations is that no one seems to know what constitutes wacky left or wacky right much less moderate. It IS funny to see liberals trying to tell conservatives what a conservative should be. What is also interesting is that there is no benchmark that people have of where the actual middle ground IS in the continuum of the scores of issues that divide liberals from conservatives, each thinking that their position is the moderate one within their own group and that to a conservative, anyone less conservative is a liberal and to the liberal, anyone less liberal is a conservative. Each person seems to define moderation based on themselves as the center. Thus the hyper partisan label tossing of left-wing/right-wing wacko.
It would be great to have a clear "pulse" of the nation on about 50-80 benchmark issues and see how the distribution really lays out when people answer how they feel about certain topics rather than useless polls where people self-identify whether they think they are liberal or conservative.
And if there is something out there like that, I'd like to see it.
Posted by: Eyago on November 2, 2009 08:49 AMWith any luck at all this marks her departure from Republican politics (hopefully from public office all-together!). Neither side needs stealth interlopers like her - or arlen specter for that matter.
IMO, the problem with moderates is that the term is substituted for "will~o~the~wisp". They have few opinions and even less principles. They typically "go with the flow" and often can be found standing in the middle of the road trying desperately to figure out which way to go next.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on November 2, 2009 09:22 AMYou and the others need to do a better job of researching political spectrum. There is a reason Republican affiliation (and Democrat for that matter) is declining. It is because both sides have left the middle. The percentages are now almost equal between Republicans, Democrats and Independents. If you want to know moderates, then look at the Independents. This is the group that Republicans are abandoning. In NY-23, yes the Republican was on the left as far as social issues, but was a fiscal conservative.
If you want to know where moderate are, then you might want to look up the Modern Whigs party. This is most likely where the moderate Republicans will go (along with the Centralist Democrats). It is this political group that Obama captured to win the WH. He didn't win it through Democrats alone. NY-23 shows that Republicans want to discard these people. That is fine. If you don't want Reagon's big tent, then you are welcomed to proceed down the path of permanent minority.
OBTW, if you compare our politics to Europe, many of Obama's pragmatism-based moves would compare better to the Tories in GB and the Christian Democrats in Germany, both are the conservative end of the spectrum. Over there, they do know who are really socialists, communists, etc., and it is nothing close to what Republican's here call anyone who doesn't agree with their conservative agenda.
Posted by: tc on November 2, 2009 09:58 AMAlso, Republican Party leadership has shown itself to be anything but conservative as of late, causing many conservatives (not moderates) to consider themselves independents. I am an example. I consider myself to be a Reagan conservative on all issues, but no longer identify with moderate Republican Party leadership.
And tc, I'm dying to see your list of "Obama's pragmatist-based moves".
Posted by: Saltherring on November 2, 2009 10:30 AM"over there, they do know who are really socialists, communists, etc.": Snort. My family comes from Hungary. We escaped from leftist scum in 1956. Now the same legion of lock-step, leftist, socialist, commie, trotskyite, anarcho-syndicalist (whatever the current fad flavor is) admirers of totalitarianism are trying to impose the same state control of society here. Yeah, I know what a commie smells like and you reek.
Nominating "moderates" is what the reds want us to do. They know that if we had run a strong conservative candidate against president teleprompter in 2008 we could have peeled the coke sniffing, america hating, racist, ACORN troll like an onion. Instead, the republicans nominated a "moderate" who fought a campaign with one arm tied behind his back. Never, ever take advice on who conservatives should nominate for office from the reds. RINOs only know how to surrender their principles for expediency
Posted by: Attila on November 2, 2009 10:33 AMyou seem to not distinguish between social democrats and totalitarianism, a common error, or pretense, on this site.
From Wiki:
Politics of Hungary takes place in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the Prime Minister of Hungary is the head of government, and of a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and parliament. The party system is dominated by the social democratic Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) and the conservative Fidesz. The Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. The Republic of Hungary is an independent, democratic and constitutional state, which has been a member of the European union since 2004. Since the constitutional amendment of 23 October 1989, Hungary is a parliamentary republic.
>>>>>
Then they show the chart indicating the social democrats have 186 seats and the free democrats 18 seats while the christian democrats "fidesz" alliance only has 164.
The Hungarian Communist Workers' Party is probably the one that IS totalitarian, and unsurprisingly they didn't get any seats.
So in fact the free elections Hungary now has puts the social democratic led alliance into power as in most of Europe in the post war years, probably alternating with the christian democrats as both are pretty big.
But it's that alternating that totally disproves your theory that this is the same as the commies in the USSR or that this is totalitarianism.
In fact, if we had a left totalitarian state here, they would just send the troops into the sound politics office and get all your data from the hard drives and round you guys up.
That you're not in jail is sort of proof that you have freedom of speech and in fact we do not have a totalitarian state here.
I do imagine there are similar right wing websites over in Hungary now, too, again proving the point that your fail to distinguish democracy and totalitarianism, which is a pretty big and important thing to miss!
Just as erroneous as erroneously claiming torture is legal if there is an emergency or terrorism situation, btw.
Yes, I heard that Dede was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, but that was NOT the crux of her downfall in NY23. Funny thing is, while I heard that about her, I never once saw support for that characterization. Did anyone ever point to positions that she held that showed her to be solidly Republican? I never saw them.
In fact, what Dede's problem was included such things as
1. Stating her support for the federal stimulus package that all the Republican congressmen/women voted against.
2. Supporting Card Check
3. Has a record of voting for tax increases as a state assemblywoman
4. Her entanglements with the Working Families party, a clearly liberal group that is intertwined with Acorn.
5. And probably the biggest reason of all - Markos Moulitsas Zuniga endorsed her over Bill Owen. This is the guy who tried to throw Democratic moderate Joe Lieberman out on his ear for not being LIBERAL enough.
6. Oh, and I think I read somewhere she is in favor of the Pelosi health package
None of this even covers the pro gay marriage (which by the way is opposed by a majority of the American public) and the pro-abortion stands as well as the Margaret Sanger Award, which I think means you have to be pretty far into the left side of the abortion continuum to even be in the running.
So, wahtcha got that says she's a conservative?
Posted by: Eyago on November 2, 2009 11:14 AMI personally am getting tired of being called a 'Right Wing Kook' by you and others; simply because I, and others like me do not support the extreme immorality and radical tax and spend insanity that has invaded politics in this country.
I can tell you that if you were to go back 50 years, people like me would be considered 'mainstream' Republicans. Right wing kooks would be Nazis, and Left Wing Kooks would be communists.
Now, we have shifted so far to the left, especially in this county, that extreme socialists are considered middle of the road.
Saw what? I THINK the frog has been boiled, and you have no skin left. YOU are fair game for the frog stew. I jumped out of THAT pot when it first started to boil.
By the way, the Republican National Platform was formulated by people who were elected to the National Republican Convention last year by millions of people across this country.
Read it. It is what YOU would consider written by right wing kooks. If that is so, then the whole Republican Party is right wing kooks. I did not hear one NO when we voted on that platform.
Furthermore, we are smart, intelligent, nice, stable God fearing people who simply refuse to bow to Baal.
If you don't like it, go join the Democrats and leave us alone.
Ruth Gibbs, Immediate Past 11th District Republican Chair for 7.5 years, PCO Rnt 11-3223, National Delegate Republican National Convention 2008 & Current President of the King County Conservative Republican Club
regpc3@aol.com
206-947-4648
Posted by: Ruth kGibbs on November 2, 2009 03:29 PMIn NY23, the conservative independent candidate will win. That means he gets the majority of the votes.
Yet, because he's conservative he's out of touch with his constituents and is a fringe right kook.
So, does that mean that most people in NY23 are fringe right kooks, since they voted for him?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 2, 2009 03:56 PMBy the way, supposedly the Discovery Institute (Bruce Chapman is the President)is conservative, but look who started it: Two guy from the Ripon Society!!!! Say what? I think we are all being snowed here!!!!! Go to this website and you will find out EXACTLY who is involved in Discovery Institute and who Bruce Chapman really is!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
Ruth Gibbs
riiiight, only he's a carpet (douche) bagger...
Posted by: mike on November 3, 2009 08:15 AMPalin/ Bachman in 2012.
Take back America from the marxists!
Posted by: attila on November 3, 2009 11:27 AMWell, apparently a majority of the voters of NY23 don't think he's a carpet bagger, and a majority of the voters of NY23 agree with Hoffman's platform.
Seems you don't have an issue with Hoffman, but with the voters of NY23. Just why do you hate them so much? Why do you insist on ideological purity? Where is your tolerance to other opinions?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 3, 2009 03:58 PM