GOP frak up looming in NY-23rd- rise of the extremists

[DealMonkey]

So, you're either stupid or a liar.

Could it be both?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The conservative victory was in destroying the moderate Repub candidate, and in succeeding to get the Republican national leadership to basically repudiate her. The actual election was secondary - more or less a casualty of war. The conservatives have no interest at all in forming a third party - their interest is in eliminating the moderates within the Republican party.

 

[Ausm]

You far more often than not speak of subjective conclusions, not facts. I'll acknowledge facts when you present them.

Any casual observer of this thread who doesn't have pom-pons in hand can clearly see who's partisan. So I really have nothing further to say to you =D

Maybe in your opinion, but if you care to scroll up some peep already answered your question which you chose to ignore...In regard to being partisan...Welcome to the P & N forums.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Hoffman doesn't live in the district and never debated his opponents. He opposes earmarks, did he come out against those earmarks that saved Ft. Drum, the district's major employer, or one of them?

There is no evidence anywhere that suggests he would be any more serious about reducing spending or the size of the government than any other Republican politician before him. His website suggests a strong familiarity with Heritage Foundation talking points and little else.

They didn't line up behind Hoffman because of fiscal issues! They lined up because Hoffman was pro-life. Yeah, you're going to see some primary challenges against moderate Republicans. But they won't be over fiscal issues, but abortion, gays, the UN and coddling terrorists.

You're going to see more conservative alternatives, as long as you ignore fiscal issues. If some of you think there's going to be net movement towards fiscal conservatism in the Republican caucus, you're dreaming.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You apparently didn't or you wouldn't have said something so stupid. The NY-23 that had a Democrat in it was a district made up of almost entirely different people. What is important to anyone with a functioning brain is how the people in an area voted, not the arbitrarily assigned number of their district.

For example, the 11th district in Brooklyn has pretty much voted for Democrats as long as the 23rd had voted for Republicans (with one exception). If you suddenly had switched the 23rd's name to the 11th, and the 11th to the 23rd, would it be BIG NEWS that districts which hadn't gone for the other party in a century suddenly did? Of course not, because the same people were voting the same way, just with a different name attached. If the people in Brooklyn suddenly voted in a Republican, that would be news. This is not difficult.

You were either ignorant of the redistricting in the area, or were being willfully dishonest by attempting to assert that the people in NY-23 today had voted in a Democrat as recently as 1993 by showing the results of a congressional district that was made up of different areas.

So, you're either stupid or a liar.

lol, keep trying to spin it how you wish but it doesn't change the FACTS. When you mess with an area's boundaries - ofcourse it could change how they vote, but in your little warped world - no matter who was elected it would be the first time in 100+ years since the district is different. So anyway, keep trying to claim something other than what the FACTS prove.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Independent my ass

He is running as an Independent because he, like Hoffman and many others around this nation are tired of the GOP trying to be Dem-lite and compromising the principles and party platforms.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Could it be both?

says the guy who bought the media narrative hook line and sinker. :biggrin:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Hoffman doesn't live in the district and never debated his opponents. He opposes earmarks, did he come out against those earmarks that saved Ft. Drum, the district's major employer, or one of them?

There is no evidence anywhere that suggests he would be any more serious about reducing spending or the size of the government than any other Republican politician before him. His website suggests a strong familiarity with Heritage Foundation talking points and little else.

They didn't line up behind Hoffman because of fiscal issues! They lined up because Hoffman was pro-life. Yeah, you're going to see some primary challenges against moderate Republicans. But they won't be over fiscal issues, but abortion, gays, the UN and coddling terrorists.

You're going to see more conservative alternatives, as long as you ignore fiscal issues. If some of you think there's going to be net movement towards fiscal conservatism in the Republican caucus, you're dreaming.

Hoffman got redistricted out of it by 3 miles or so. He does own business there however.
You are also misinformed about why they lined up behind him. The Conservative party picked him because of his fiscal issues and much of his support came because of it. You know... the "tea bagger" types. But yeah, the ones dreaming are the ones who think the Republicans won't field more fiscal Conservative candidates...

 

[Lemon law]

No thread about this NY election could be complete without the opinions of Limbaugh although I somehow missed them today. But from what I gather, Rush has somehow spun the Hoffman loss into a great GOP victory.

But failing the exact Rush line of reasoning, I can only give you the Christan Science Monitor rebuttal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091104/cm_csm/ygreenbaum

 

[Carmen813]

Hoffman got redistricted out of it by 3 miles or so. He does own business there however.
You are also misinformed about why they lined up behind him. The Conservative party picked him because of his fiscal issues and much of his support came because of it. You know... the "tea bagger" types. But yeah, the ones dreaming are the ones who think the Republicans won't field more fiscal Conservative candidates...

Man...do you even know who you were supporting? This guys issues web page was a mess. His answer about the stimulus bill is full of double think. "Bureaucrats are the worst at spending, the stimulus bill is taking to long to work , I would support a stimulus bill with tax cuts and infrastructure spending, so long as it's spent faster."

*Waves a hand* This is not the fiscal conservative you are looking for. Move along.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Man...do you even know who you were supporting? This guys issues web page was a mess. His answer about the stimulus bill is full of double think. "Bureaucrats are the worst at spending, the stimulus bill is taking to long to work , I would support a stimulus bill with tax cuts and infrastructure spending, so long as it's spent faster."

*Waves a hand* This is not the fiscal conservative you are looking for. Move along.

I believe I already posted that he was not a very good politician. Nice try though.

 

[Lemon law]

I suppose we can ask the woulda coulda shouda question, namely what would have happened if Hoffman rather than Scozzafava had been the initial GOP nominee. In some ways we could assert a Scozzafava to Hoffman might of have never happened, but we are now left with an de facto split of the GOP's 23'rd district in NY.

With both sides on the outside for the first time in some 150 years, and both will be touting the mantra of taking back the GOP in the primaries of 2010.

 

[fskimospy]

lol, keep trying to spin it how you wish but it doesn't change the FACTS. When you mess with an area's boundaries - ofcourse it could change how they vote, but in your little warped world - no matter who was elected it would be the first time in 100+ years since the district is different. So anyway, keep trying to claim something other than what the FACTS prove.

You are a moron. TWO-THIRDS of the districts population had never been represented by a Democrat since the 1800's. Speaking of a 'warped little world', how you could try to spin this fact into 'they elected one in 1993' is either a case of gigantic personal delusion, or deliberate dishonesty. 'The media narrative' is an actual accurate description of most of the area, since the actual news story is a change of voting habits for people in a region.

Your posts by way of comparison, represent ultra-partisan, extreme right wing delusion and obfuscation. (mixed with having too much personal pride to admit you didn't know about the history of the district) The mythical 'librul media' was right, and you were wrong.

Yet again.

 

[Fern]

I see all kinds of people trying to draw all kinds of sweeping conclusions about this race. It's easy to see who's parroting the left-wing talking heads and pundants.

Of all the races decided yesterday, this one is least relevent to anything.

A winning game plan for the Democrats?

Yeah, all you gotta do is:

1. Ensure the Repub party doesn't hold a primary.

2. Ensure the Repub party bosses decide to choose a Dem to run as the repub candidate.

3. Ensure the Repub (RINO) candidate withdrawls at the last minute, thus leaving their name on the ballot (and of course, drawing votes away from others).

4. Then ensure that the (former) repub candidate endorses the Dem candidate.

5. Then insure that any independant candidate enters the race late, has no charisma, and doesn't even live in the damn district.

6. PROFIT ! (by still getting less than 50% vote hahahaha).

Besides, I'm hearing this district won't even exist by next year. The MSM has been reporting that the district is being split up and absorbed by the surrounding districts (gerrymandering anyone?)

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You are a moron. TWO-THIRDS of the districts population had never been represented by a Democrat since the 1800's. Speaking of a 'warped little world', how you could try to spin this fact into 'they elected one in 1993' is either a case of gigantic personal delusion, or deliberate dishonesty. 'The media narrative' is an actual accurate description of most of the area, since the actual news story is a change of voting habits for people in a region.

Your posts by way of comparison, represent ultra-partisan, extreme right wing delusion and obfuscation. (mixed with having too much personal pride to admit you didn't know about the history of the district) The mythical 'librul media' was right, and you were wrong.

Yet again.

ah yes, so since some of it hasn't, it's ok for you to claim "100 years". Right. Again, you can spin it how you wish but it matters exactly zero. The FACT is, the district had a D in 1993. The media got caught and have now tried to find a way to cover their ass.
Oh and btw, I WAS the one presenting the historical FACTS refuting the claims by some of your fellow leftists and media.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Hoffman got redistricted out of it by 3 miles or so. He does own business there however.
You are also misinformed about why they lined up behind him. The Conservative party picked him because of his fiscal issues and much of his support came because of it. You know... the "tea bagger" types. But yeah, the ones dreaming are the ones who think the Republicans won't field more fiscal Conservative candidates

We shall see, The people who describe themselves as "economic conservatives" have had plenty of opportunities to vote for people who talk the talk of smaller government -that is, pretty much every Republican in any office in my lifetime. But most of those voters aren't willing to cut their own government services; they just wish the government would stop spending so much money on other people. So that's why government doesn't get smaller even when those who talk the small-government talk are running things.

As for Hoffman, the Teabaggers are not exactly going against the Republican tide by supporting a candidate who's a strong social conservative and talks the talk of an economic conservative, since at least 90% of elected Republicans could be described that way. What makes Hoffman so appealing to the Teabaggers, and it's perfectly exemplified in the statement he released on Scozzafava's exit from the race:

"This morning's events prove what we have said for the last week; this campaign is a horserace between me and Nancy Pelosi's handpicked candidate, Bill Owens. At this moment, the Democratic Party, the Working Families Party, ACORN, Big Labor and pro-abortion groups are flooding the district with troops and they are flooding the airwaves with a million dollars worth of negative ads. They are throwing mud; they are trying to stop me."


I apologize to anyone who was playing the Right-Wing Boogeyman Drinking Game, and best wishes for your recovery from the alcohol poisoning. But, This is one of the characteristics that seems to bind the Teabaggers together: high levels of butthurt. Sarah Palin plumbed previously unexplored depths of butthurt victimhood in her campaign, and her rhetoric struck a chord with those who feel that everybody is out to get them and destroy their way of life. I had hoped that this would go away as Palin faded into the background, but it's no surprise that other candidates would pick it up and run with it.

With their anti-Scozzafava campaign, Palin, Beck, Armey and other conservative firebrands declared they were not going to accept moderate Republicans as candidates, and they have emboldened grassroots right-wing activists to continue this crusade. That is, Palin and the others have unleashed the furies. As has been widely noted, therein lies potential trouble for the party. An ideological civil war probably won't be good for business for the GOP, though these conservatives clearly believe that right-wing purity is the best path for a Republican return to power. Still, Palin may run into a dilemma of her own.

I guess tea partiers across the nation are now salivating as they eagerly search for other prey. They already have a list of RINOs (Republicans in name only) to hunt. Though Palin led this merry band in the battle of NY-23, she now might have to worry about these activists, especially if she's pondering a presidential bid. With the Hoffman quasi-victory, or was it a Pyrrhic victory? The grassroots conservatives have had their expectations raised. As they rush after other Republicans not deemed ideologically correct, many will look to Palin to continue leading the charge. But going after a no-name assemblywoman is a different matter than targeting sitting governors, senators, and House members. Is Palin truly willing to lead pitchfork-waving conservatives against well-established Republicans, such as Crist in Florida, Bennett in Utah and Mark Kirk, who is seeking Obama's old Senate seat in Illinois?

Like it or not, and for many that's "not", success in achieving one's goals requires forming coalitions that add up to the majority needed. A party engaged in purging its heretics dooms itself to minority helplessness. Those of its members who support such a purge thereby actually work against their own interests.

 

[Bitek]

2010 should be quite a show for the GOP. It could get bloody, not that there were many true moderates left. The hardliners seem intent on creating a niche party rather than a majority party.

I think the Dems will have more of a challenge from their own voter apathy rather than an organized challenge from the GOP.

The biggest danger is being seen as incompetent, ineffective and corrupt. Time to get some asses in gear.

 

[Jhhnn]

I see all kinds of people trying to draw all kinds of sweeping conclusions about this race. It's easy to see who's parroting the left-wing talking heads and pundants.

Of all the races decided yesterday, this one is least relevent to anything.

A winning game plan for the Democrats?

Yeah, all you gotta do is:

1. Ensure the Repub party doesn't hold a primary.

2. Ensure the Repub party bosses decide to choose a Dem to run as the repub candidate.

3. Ensure the Repub (RINO) candidate withdrawls at the last minute, thus leaving their name on the ballot (and of course, drawing votes away from others).

4. Then ensure that the (former) repub candidate endorses the Dem candidate.

5. Then insure that any independant candidate enters the race late, has no charisma, and doesn't even live in the damn district.

6. PROFIT ! (by still getting less than 50% vote hahahaha).

Besides, I'm hearing this district won't even exist by next year. The MSM has been reporting that the district is being split up and absorbed by the surrounding districts (gerrymandering anyone?)

Fern

The rightwing of the repubs is purging moderates at an increasing rate, something they've been doing for decades, but it's all somehow the fault of teh ebil libruhls...

Always some externality, some assumed blanket of victimhood covering the deed, rather than the result of munchausen syndrome... of self induced wounds.

Didn't even get 50% of the vote? I didn't notice any so-called conservatives mentioning that when W actually lost the popular vote in 2000... Must be different when you're winning...

 

[Carmen813]

I believe I already posted that he was not a very good politician. Nice try though.

I'm saying I don't think the guy was actually a fiscal conservative. Certainly not the staunch one he was painted as by his supporters. His positions were inexplicably contradictory.

These are directly taken from his web page a few days ago:

While most economists agree that spending is required in a recession, government bureaucrats are the worst people to be spending our money. That’s why there are no jobs with this recovery. The economy may be slowly beginning to recover but it is doing so in spite of the stimulus, not because of it. I believed at the time the stimulus passed that it was a bad bill and would not work as promised and I believe that even more so now. What I would have supported is a bill that puts real money in the hands of Americans to spend, not federal bureaucrats… and a bill that spent money on capital projects that would have put people to work now, not in the next two to three years.

This is just logic fail. Do I need to point out how? Also, the 23rd has received ~$1 billion in stimulus funds this year, which isn't bad.

I would cut the pork and wasteful earmarks. When the Democrats took control of congress, they did so with the promise to end earmarks. Unfortunately, they not only did not end earmarks, they took them to a whole new level. I didn't have to think twice. I signed the pledge to oppose pork barrel spending."

19 billion down, 1.38 trillion to go...Also, as one of those people who claims to be all strictly Constitution, perhaps its time to review Article 1 Section 7 Clause 1?

Where do you stand on issues such as the war/terror/military?
It is often said, yet too often forgotten: Freedom isn’t free. The men and women of our armed forces are the true heroes in today’s world. Here in the 23rd district, we are more aware of that than most. The 10th Mountain Division is doing a super job and we understand the burden this places on them and on their families. We owe all our soldiers – and their families – a tremendous debt of gratitude and we must do everything we can to support them. The new G.I. bill is a good first step in that direction. We must continue our work to do more for them and to do everything we can to support their families when they are deployed… … We are past the point of pointing fingers over how we got to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question for us now is where do we go from here? I believe we must continue to try and turn the security and governing of Iraq over to the Iraqis. I also believe we need to continue to go after the terrorist strongholds and training bases wherever they are located. The war against terror is not over and the terrorists’ goal remains the destruction of the United States and our way of life… We must never forget this fact.

The reason that GI Bill he praises passed is because Republicans partnered with progressives to overcome Blue Dogs protesting the $63 billion it added to the deficit. Blue Dogs wanted to include tax increases or spending cuts to make it budget neutral. In other words...it wasn't a fiscally conservative bill.

Where do you stand on Cap and Trade?
It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations killing businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher energy costs

What President signed the first C&T law? What district in NYS was this C&T law credited with helping to save from the destructive effects of acid rain? *Hint* 13 + 10 is the correct answer. It might result in marginally higher energy costs...have you considered the potential environmental benefits to your district?

I could go on and on, but why bother at this point. It should be freaking obvious why he lost.

 

[fskimospy]

ah yes, so since some of it hasn't, it's ok for you to claim "100 years". Right. Again, you can spin it how you wish but it matters exactly zero. The FACT is, the district had a D in 1993. The media got caught and have now tried to find a way to cover their ass.
Oh and btw, I WAS the one presenting the historical FACTS refuting the claims by some of your fellow leftists and media.

You're just flailing now, it's getting really pathetic. By 'some of the district' you mean 'two thirds of the district'. You are arguing that the name of a district is what's important instead of the voters inside that district. That's a really really stupid argument. And speaking of 'spin', projecting much are we?

 

[OrByte]

No thread about this NY election could be complete without the opinions of Limbaugh although I somehow missed them today. But from what I gather, Rush has somehow spun the Hoffman loss into a great GOP victory.

But failing the exact Rush line of reasoning, I can only give you the Christan Science Monitor rebuttal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091104/cm_csm/ygreenbaum

"In a nation that is so diverse economically, culturally, and politically, a party that enforces a rigid litmus test for membership will not be able to remain viable."

Thank you and good night folks....there is your story in a single goddam sentence.

 

[fskimospy]

I see all kinds of people trying to draw all kinds of sweeping conclusions about this race. It's easy to see who's parroting the left-wing talking heads and pundants.

Of all the races decided yesterday, this one is least relevent to anything.

A winning game plan for the Democrats?

Yeah, all you gotta do is:

1. Ensure the Repub party doesn't hold a primary.

2. Ensure the Repub party bosses decide to choose a Dem to run as the repub candidate.

3. Ensure the Repub (RINO) candidate withdrawls at the last minute, thus leaving their name on the ballot (and of course, drawing votes away from others).

4. Then ensure that the (former) repub candidate endorses the Dem candidate.

5. Then insure that any independant candidate enters the race late, has no charisma, and doesn't even live in the damn district.

6. PROFIT ! (by still getting less than 50% vote hahahaha).

Besides, I'm hearing this district won't even exist by next year. The MSM has been reporting that the district is being split up and absorbed by the surrounding districts (gerrymandering anyone?)

Fern

Fern, you're letting your ideology color your perception of reality again.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/10/scozzafava_is_a.html

As this statistical analysis shows, Scozzafava is to the right of the average elected Republican in New York state. If she's a 'Democrat', then so is 58% of New York's Republican delegation. I don't think the Republican party can afford to get any smaller, so you might want to reconsider what you think a 'Republican' is. You are pretty far to the right even on the national scale (which is in turn pretty far to the right of New York), and you are attempting to put what you consider a 'Republican' to be on top of what New Yorkers consider a 'Republican' to be. That's going to lead you wrong every time. (aren't you from South Carolina? Jim DeMint territory? You do realize the rest of the country thinks he's nuts, right?)

Furthermore as I posted earlier, Scozzafava voters actually had a more favorable view of Owens than Hoffman, which if anything would likely mean that her voters would have been more likely to be Owens voters than Hoffman even if the guy had never gotten into the race.

You're right that Hoffman was a crappy candidate regardless, but he was also simply too conservative for the district he was running in. You can't run ultra-right candidates in New York and expect to win. Palin and those who endorsed Hoffman didn't do it for him, they did it for their credentials with primary voters in '12. They knew they were screwing their party out of a seat it would have easily won with a more moderate candidate... they didn't care.

The only downside to Owens winning here is that the Republicans won't be as amenable to trying this strategy in more places. Had the Democrats let Hoffman win here, they probably could have decimated the Republicans in a half dozen contests down the road when the crazy base convinced the Republican leadership to run candidates who were as nutty as Hoffman.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...aren't you from South Carolina? Jim DeMint territory? You do realize the rest of the country thinks he's nuts, right? ...

FWIW, there are more than a few of us here in Senator DeMint's bailiwick who agree he's not the sharpest blade in the drawer...

 

[jonks]

Anyone see Pawlenty on Morning Joe yesterday? He was asked if he wanted Olympia Snowe in the Republican party. He equivocated and hemmed and hawed and kept saying "that's up to the people in her state." She votes over 65% of the time with the republicans, is a known moderate, and the guy likely running for president can't say out loud he wants her in his party for fear of ostracism by the tea baggers and other far righties in the party. 20 minutes later Michael Steele came on and said "damn straight we want her in the party!" Now Steele is a joke and aint running for anything, but the fact that Pawlenty can't compliment a moderate Senator in his own party says volumes.

Now Bachmann & Co are courting the teabaggers, but I have a feeling the baggers don't want to be "used" by incumbents scared of getting primaried by fellow conservatives. NY23 might have been a special case but it sure sets the stage for a possibly hectic republican primary season leading up to the 2010 midterms.

 

[Fern]

Fern, you're letting your ideology color your perception of reality again.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/10/scozzafava_is_a.html

As this statistical analysis shows, Scozzafava is to the right of the average elected Republican in New York state. If she's a 'Democrat', then so is 58% of New York's Republican delegation.
-snip-

I have heard some conflicting reports on what her views are, but this is the general list people have claimed:

1. pro tax (the article you link claims the Dem candidate was even critisizing her for that)

2. pro card check

3. pro cap-n-trade

4. Pro abortion

5. pro gay marriage

I think the fact that she endorsed the Dem candidate is also pretty revealing. She didn't need to make an endorsement.

How these guys came up with a chart declaring her, supporting those policies, as slightly to the right of Repub politicians is highly curious and totally unpersuasive.

Even so, whatever her positions are irrelevent to the point that many on the left are trying to make out of this unusual situation: the Repub party is purging moderates and lurching to the far-right.

Might be, it's anybody's guess but I contend you sure as heck can't tell from this situation.

For one thing, I haven't see anybody demonstrate that the Repub voters in this district abandoned Ms Scozzifava because they're all lurching to the far right. I care little of what Limbaugh and Hannity might say, they are irrelevent and not even of this district - they don't know. Why did the voters in that district abandon her? Likely because they don't like her much. And I don't mean her policies. From years of observing politics I am firmly convinced policy is the domain of only talking heads and P&N nuts like those found here. Most people vote on likeability, charisma or are voting 'against' some other politician they don't like in the race. I.e., something other than policy. There wasn't a dime worth of difference policy-wise between Hillary and Obama in the primary but there sure were many either adament for one or the other.

Will there be a backlash and possibly some purguing of the Repub party? I think it quite likely. However the majority on the left seem to think the 'purging' will be over social issue. I think it will be fiscal issues. It's been noted by some on the left that Repub politicians haven't proven to be very conservative in fiscal issue, I agree and I hope those who aren't fiscally conservative do get 'purged'. If it makes the party smaller, so be it. I see no benefit or point to a two party system if they're both fundamentally the same. What do I care if the hand-out of taxpayer money goes to either a car maker in Detroit (Dems) or a defense contractor in California (Repubs)?

As far as social issues, many here are (mistakenly) of the belief that it splits along party lines; well it doesn't. I've found that generally people in rural areas and in the South (among others) tend to be socially conservative regardless of their party affiliation. Those in urban areas and the NE tend to be more socially liberal, again regardles of party affiliation.

So just as we can have Democratic candidates down here who oppose abortion or gay rights, the NE can have Repub candidates who support them.

IMO, the real conclusion to be drawn from this special election in the 23rd is that people don't like party bosses picking their candidates. To try and make much else out of it is partisan BS. I mean the Left is fond of saying that the Repubs march in lock-step and are sheeple who do what their party bosses tell them. Well, they sure as h3ll didn't here. Blew that motherfvcking myth right out of the water.

Fern