The outcome of the election yesterday in NY-23 pretty much demolishes the argument by purity-minded conservatives that the GOP should engage in ideological purges rather than a big tent. a More perfect test case for evaluating their theory than NY-23 could not have existed, and the result: major pwnage.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
{ 55 comments }
A third party candidate comes within a few percentage points of election to Congress. A neo-liberal Republican fares so poorly, she can’t afford to stay in the race. Yep, those are sure-fire signs that conservatism is a losing position.
Virginia? New Jersey? Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
NJ and VA Gov races were not run as explicit Tea Party movement-style conservatives, bt pragmatic Republicans. In other words, Dede Scozzafava types.
But ok, i can agree to disagree – I assume then that you see nothing wrong or even remotely illogical about Erick’s commentary?
Scozzafava may not have been the ideal candidate, but she was the candidate that the NY-23 Republican committee chose. Then she was tea bagged out of the race by an inarticulate right-wing carpetbagger endorsed by TV and radio talk-show hosts and a quitter from Alaska. While Republicans may have held their noses in crossing over to vote for Owens, it should be noted that Dede still got 6 percent of the vote in what has to be considered a protest
Beck and Limbaugh make no pretense of wanting to be taken seriously. They’re clowns to their very cores. But Palin, who can’t even maintain the high ground in a faceoff with the 19-year-old high school dropout who knocked up her daughter, yearns to be taken seriously and the victory of Owens over Hoffman is a big cream pie to her smarmy face.
I didn’t bother to read Erick’s commentary. I find Red State to be a little too predictable to be worth reading.
But a Tea Party candidate (if so you describe Mr. Hoffman) garnered nearly half the votes in a district that averages more conservative than average for New York State but more liberal than average for the USA as a whole. I hardly see that as a repudiation of conservatism.
We’ll never be able to know what might have been; but if a late entry conservative third party candidate with a weak resume who is opposed by many of the GOP’s heavy hitters can almost win in a race where the GOP candidate drops out and endorses the Democrat, maybe — just maybe — a stronger conservative with the full backing of the party could have won. And if you don’t think that the national party leaders are lamenting that road not taken this morning, you’re missing the obvious.
but pragmatic Republicans [NJ/VA]. In other words, Dede Scozzafava types.
I think Aziz’s disconnect with Martin (and me) is neatly illustrated in that excerpt.
But a Tea Party candidate (if so you describe Mr. Hoffman) garnered nearly half the votes in a district that averages more conservative than average for New York State but more liberal than average for the USA as a whole. I hardly see that as a repudiation of conservatism.
whoa now. That district is a solidly Repblican one, for over 120 years in the GOP hands. Scozzafava was assured of an easy victory with endorsements from all the GOP orthodoxy, including the NRA, Newt, and Norquist.
Hoffman is a self-described Tea Party candidate, a carpetbaggger, and one whose only platform was ideologica purity. He garnered less than half of the votes despite the argument by the conservative purists that in a contest between a “true conservative” and a liberal, the true conservative would prevail where the RINO would not. In THIS district, of any district at least, youd expect that to happen if it was going to happen. That he failed speaks major volumes.
jody, i provided plenty of links for my assertion. Both Christie and McDonnell ran as economic problem solvers, not social crusaders. That was completely opposite to Hoffman’s campaign. Scozzafava was indeed more liberal than the two new governors, but their campaigns were all remarkably similar and pragmatic, focused on the problems of the district rather than espousing a ideological agenda. Hoffman’s ONLY platform was that agenda.
Martin, Erick’s commentary is worth reading. Your problem is you are too data-driven and reasonable. You need to understand what the actual arguments by the movement conservatives are. Ive excerpted the important parts in my post so you neednt wade too far into teh muck.
Aziz,
You act like because someone with an (R) next to their name held the office for an extended period of time that some brand of conservative held that office. New York is a liberal stronghold. A win for Hoffman woulod have been surprising. But, you ignore Martin’s point:
1. A third party candidate came close to winning.
2. The established candidate ran so poorly she had to drop out of the race.
Reagan lost against Ford. I suppose that means Reagan never really should have tried running for the GOP nomination later, huh?
You and Shaun both need to take your blinders off and look at the bigger picture:
A third party candidate, someone actually a bit fiscally conservative, gained national attention and nearly won an election he shouldn’t have ever had a chance in. He was so popular in fact he made it impossible for the Republican candidate to run!
My God you two simply refuse to see the obvious.
As for Shaun’s idiotic statement about Palin being a “quitter,” well, you’re so far out to the left there really is little point in trying to correct you. But, as I’m a glutton for punishment, I’ll do it anyway:
Palin quite because her liberal enemies made it impossible for her to do her job. She spent so much time defending herself in court against frivolous ethical charges she became a lame duck governor. She didn’t step down because she couldn’t do the job. She stepped down because liberals wouldn’t let her do her job.
But someone so clearly in the tank on the left shouldn’t let pesky facts like that get in the way of their opinions. Tell me where I’m wrong, Shaun.
As should be obvious by now, “solidly Republican” does not mean conservative. NY-23 averages more liberal than the USA in general.
And that district was a sure fire Republican win? President Obama sure didn’t think so when he pulled John McHugh out of there in hopes of flipping the seat.
He garnered less than half of the votes despite the argument by the conservative purists that in a contest between a “true conservative” and a liberal, the true conservative would prevail where the RINO would not.
He garnered less than half the votes in a race that the GOP completely screwed up. 4% less than half. Even a small amount of competence on the part of the GOP could have made up that difference.
And if “He garnered less than half the votes” is a sign of utter defeat, than Bill Owens (49%) was utterly defeated.
Again, you confuse Republican with conservative. You need to stop doing that.
The 23rd district may be more right leaning than the rest of New York but, as Martin points out, it’s far left of most American conservative districts.
You need to decouple “Republican” and “conservative” in your brain, Aziz. They are not synonyms.
Also, though being repeated a lot, the 120 years figure is wrong. I can’t find the link right now, but a Democrat held that seat some time in the 1970s.
“Palin quite (sic) because her liberal enemies made it impossible for her to do her job. She spent so much time defending herself in court against frivolous ethical charges she became a lame duck governor. She didn’t step down because she couldn’t do the job. She stepped down because liberals wouldn’t let her do her job.”
I shot coffee out my nose reading this. A woman who wants to be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency is driven to ground by a bunch of libruls? No, she quit on her very own terms. That was for a $1.25 million payday in the form of a memwow. The Saracudda’s negatives already are high in her own party. The NY-23 embarrassment is just another nail in her political coffin.
Shaun,
Got proof for any of that? Because I can show you the many, many ethical charges filed against her – charges that cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against. I can show you Palin’s own words. I can show you the words of officials in Alaska affirming this.
You? You have your irrational hatred of the woman as your proof. That’s pathetic. We have higher standards here, sir.
Martin,
The GOP regained the NY-23rd seat in 1993.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY-23
The seat seems to have gone back and forth between Democrats and Republicans fairly regularly.
The 23rd district may be more right leaning than the rest of New York but, as Martin points out, it’s far left of most American conservative districts.
ok, then what was the logic of running a die-hard conservative and ejecting the RINO then?
you’re saying that … in this liberal district, which favors RINOs, the right thing to do was run a true conservative? And now that the true conservative lost, that’s… good for conservatism?
the physical district now called NY-23 has been Republican for 120 years. It was sometimes called NY-22 or 24 or a fe wothers over its lifetimes as NY state grew. If you just look up the voting history of “NY-23″vs year then you are actually looking at different districts.
Aziz,
Yes. When choosing between a liberal Democrat and a RINO, especially one like Dede, it’s a zero-sum game. It doesn’t really matter who wins in that race.
But this election shows there’s thirst for real conservatism. Even in a district as blue as NY-23rd.
A 3rd party candidate grabbed 45% of the vote! That doesn’t happen.
So, yeah, this is a good thing. It shows Americans are leaning more to the right.
Good hunting, Kevin! The 120 years isn’t just wrong, it’s an utter falsehood. Somebody, somewhere is knowngly peddling a lie. (NOT Aziz, he’s just repeating conventional wisdom.)
you’re saying that … in this liberal district, which favors RINOs, the right thing to do was run a true conservative? And now that the true conservative lost, that’s… good for conservatism?
A weak true conservative almost won, with the GOP actively campaigning against him up until the end, when they were trying to save face when their hand-picked candidate endorsed the Democrat. That was too late. (Keep in mind: there was a lot of early voting, ballots cast before Ms. Scozzafavva withdrew.) Maybe a strong conservative with full GOP support from the outset could’ve crossed that 3% gap.
*shrug* okay, Kevin, I at least understand the argument you are making now. But you’re still wrong about the district being “more liberal” than average for the US – Democrats haven’t broken 38% there in three decades.
and “almost won” doesnt cut it.
Martin – see my comment above – NY-23 is a complex district. Here’s a useful graphic. NY-23 was known as NY-26 from 1982-1990 and NY-24 from 1992-2000.
Aziz,
I’m going to make something clear for you. I just want you to know what information I will or will not accept.
I will not accept anything you link from Daily Kos. It’s fine if you want to visit that site, it’s your time, but I will not accept anything written, posted, talked about, whatever else as legitimate from that place.
So, please provide me with something else. Because I feel that site is not trustworthy.
As others have mentioned, the problem with your analysis is that you treat the effects of the GOP machine and Dede’s endorsement of the Democrat as negligible.
Perhaps they are, but it’s far from a given.
Had Dede endorsed Hoffman, or with the GOP solidly behind Hoffman from the start, the outcome may have been different. Those two effects only need to be about 3% to make that happen. This seems a completely reasonable assumption to me.
What is surprising isn’t that he lost, but that he almost won.
I reject arguments that Dede Scozzafava is either pragmatic or Republican. Her policy positions are 100% Democrat, she endorses Democrats, and she presumably voted Democrat.
You have to be kidding me Aziz. The “Republican” candidate in NY-23 was nothing more than a Democrat with an R by her name. There was almost nothing on a conservative platform she supported. NOTHING. Anyone that thinks there is some moral victory to be had by electing a progressive liberal to the House just because they have an R by their name is an absolute fool. There is an argument to be made about running moderates in BLUE districts, but this is not one of those.
And as Phelps points out, ultimately the most telling thing is that between the conservative candidate and the Democrat, Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat.
The bottom line in the NY-23 race is this…
Owens got LESS than 50% of the vote (from Syracuse.com with 91% reporting). Ultimately he got 49.1%. Hoffman pulled in 45.4% and the Democrat in sheeps clothing got 5.5%. The simple fact of the matter is that if the Republican party took their heads out of their collective asses and ran a candidate like Hoffman from day one, that is an easy victory and a district whose representative would actually represent conservatism and what the Republican party allegedly represents.
THAT is the message here. There is no way Republicans should stand behind a progressive liberal in any race, let alone in a district that historically votes conservative.
The real message here, though, is about cronyism, corruption, and the fact that people like Dede Scozzafava don’t get to run for representative in places like NY-23 because they are good solid candidates. No, they get picked because they know somebody, or have paid their dues so to speak. This race was a message to Republican party officials all over the country that the people want legitimate candidates that represent what the Republican party is supposed to stand for, and that picking candidates because they are somehow owed a shot at office is bullshit.
I’m confused by these continual assertions by Aziz and (less coherently) Shaun that plainly NY-23 is a deathknell for conservative activism because… the conservative activist (the “inarticulate carpetbagger”, to use Shaun’s hilarious abuse), with no party support, lost by only 4%.
I guess “inarticulate carpetbaggers” must be staggeringly popular in the 23rd District, to win 45% of the vote, without even the backing of the party opposed to the winner?
Or maybe, just maybe, the locals don’t share Shaun (or even Aziz)’s ideas about what the candidates or the opinions of the locals are?
(And following what Kevin said, I thought I’d look at the sources for the Kos chart… and the Kos chart, while accurate as to the “percentage of democrats” doesn’t bother to mention the way there were so many non-Republicans as well; in 2006, for instance, there were about 35,000 non-R, non-D voters… more than the difference between the two parties.
That the two parties were so close in 2008 suggests not so much a great change “in favor of Democrats” as a great change in removing unaligned voters. Perhaps they don’t allow write-ins in special elections?)
Sigi:
Nice misread of my comments. I never said that NY-23 was a death knell for anything. Conservatives need to have a place in the national conversation, but if they are Palinesque conservatives who demand political purity then their place is next to the dog’s bowl in the kitchen.
Their chances of winning anything more than county dogcatcher in any but the reddest of states is nil and I continue to labor under the impression that the GOP would like to move beyond being one big circular firing squad and take back Congress and maybe even the White House at some point in the future.
A few more points on this.
The only practical difference between electing Owens or Scozzafava in NY-23 is that in the future when obamanations like Cap and Tax or Obamacare, or Card Check come up for votes in the House, we won’t have to look at Scozzafava’s name among the 12 idiot Republicans that can’t help themselves but to vote for such crap. Instead, those votes will come from Owens, a Democrat, who we EXPECT to vote for such crap.
On the other hand, Bill Ownes (hopefully) isn’t stupid, either. He should absolutely see the writing on the wall and recognize that he represents a center-right district. He should be caucusing with the Blue Dogs, and when liberal, progressive deficit expanding, market crushing nonsense like Obamacare and Cap and Tax come to the floor, he should not be voting for them. Which happens to be the same message the voters sent to ALL of congress last night. You are all in deep trouble already, but vote for ultra liberal crap like Obamacare and Cap and Tax, dooming the economy to double digit inflation and unemployment for the forseeable future, and you are going home in 2010 without a question.
Oh and I love the “OOoooo carpetbagger” taunts. That didn’t seem to bother you moron liberals when Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in NY. Principles. You might want to look the word up. Generally a working definition would be that you don’t support something when it helps you and then tear it down when it doesn’t.
Scozzafava isn’t a moderate Republican. She’s to the left of several dozen congressional Democrats on the major issues of the day. Comparing her to the new governors-elect of New Jersey and Virginia is unfair and inaccurate. McDonnell has a very conservative track record. Christie’s moderate by national GOP standards, but still distinctly within the Republican mainstream.
What McDonnell and Christie did that Hoffman didn’t was to make arguments for conservative policies that appeal to moderates. Hoffman ran as a hard-core unapologetic conservative and he did remarkably well for what started out as a third-party protest run, but he still fell a bit short. Had the local Republican party nominated a mainstream conservative as their candidate who could then make a McDonnell-style appeal to moderates in a two-way race, the Republican candidate likely would have won handily.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what Palin’s actual policy positions are. Palin has made solid inroads to the Dems and libertarians in her state, and the Dems only turned on her when they got pressure from Washington to turn on the heat (just like GWB in Texas, as a matter of fact.)
Palin is certainly conservative, but there’s no “purity test” that she’s going to put someone to. You want to know how big tent she is? She ran on a ticket that placed her under JOHN MCCAIN.
This just in Purity Deniers:
Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund is endorsing California state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore over former HP CEO Carly Fiorina because . . . gasp! Fiorina isn’t . . . gasp! a pure enough conservative to take on Barbara Boxer next year.
Now this makes perfect sense (not) since Fiorina may have had a shot
at unseating Babs but the teabagging Devore stands none whatsoever.
Maybe one of the Republican Rocket Scientists who comment here can explain why this is a smart decision.
I’m sorry, Shaun, you must have misspelled “Palin”, as I don’t see it in your anecdote.
Okay, that’s one Rocket Scientist who won’t answer the question.
But at least he is a rocket scientist!
Two who won’t answer the question. Do I detect a pattern?
YOU ASKED NO FUCKING QUESTION.
Questions contain a who, what, why, where or how, and they end in a question mark. You told an anecdote.
Please try to keep up.
Temper, temper!
With both feet on the floor and deep breathing into that lunch bag you keep handy for such outbursts, recall that I asked why it made sense to endorse a candidate who had no chance of beating Boxer over than one who did. My answer is that political purity has become more important than political relevance to you and yours.
Correct?
Because Devore is a politician with a history of winning races, and Fiorina’s sole political experience is working on the failed McCain ticket, where she put her foot in her mouth on national television and was promptly fired by the campaign. Fiorina had no chance of winning in any place but the minds of people who don’t want a Republican winning anyways.
Thank you.
Your judgment on what constitutes extreme conservatism is dubious. But for the moment, let’s allow it.
You assert that extreme conservatism has no chance of winning.
As proof of this assertion, you cite the fact that Senate conservatives are backing an extreme conservative (in your judgment), which you predict will be a dumb move because extreme conservatism has no chance of winning.
You “prove” the assertion by asserting it again and by predicting that the assertion will be proven true. There is no arguing with such a logical fallacy.
Meanwhile, we have not a prediction, but actual data: a conservative — an extreme conservative, in your judgment — came within 4% of winning in a liberal district.
MLS:
My statement was considerably less sweeping than extreme conservatives (your term) having no chance of winning.
Of course they have a chance of winning — but only in reliably red districts in reliably red states. My framework is a teensy bit larger, as in winning enough seats in 2010 and 2012 to take back Congress and perhaps the White House in 2012 or 2016.
These conservatives’ world view is on the fringe, in some cases the lunatic fringe. The Republican Party will not make meaningful inroads into the Democratic majority, let alone reoccupy the White House, so long as the loudest voices are those of Palin, Beck and Limbaugh, and the fairy godmothers are people like DeMint.
A woman’s right to choose and a person’s right to the sexual orientation of their choosing are no longer big issues to most voters, but these are enormous issues to the Purity Police.
You know, there were a lot of Republican strategists that were telling us that the Dems would never make meaningful inroads into the Republican majority, let alone reoccupy the White House, so long as the loudest voices were those of Pelosi, Boxer, Clinton and Obama.
Turns out they were idiots. The lesson I learned from that is to not listen to your opponent’s “suggestions” to you.
Phelps:
You’re sort of onto something but a half a bubble off.
The Democrats’ road back to majority status and the White House was built from the local level on up. Candidates were not tested for their purity, which is why (without getting too caught up in the label game) you have conservative Democratic congressfolk, moderate Democratic congress folk and, yes, librul Democratic congressfolk. All that the national party cared about was whether you would work for the greater party good and be helped by the eventual nominee’s coattails, and in 2008 we know that Obama’s were loooong. To steal a now derelict Republican phrase, this is what is known as the Big Tent concept.
I don’t have my abacus handy, but it would not be unfair to suggest that today the vast majority of Republican congressfolk are conservative, a few are moderate and arguably a very small handful are librul. If the national party insists that only the candidates that meet its purity test can run, then the road out of the electoral wilderness grows a whole lot longer.
A woman’s right to choose and a person’s right to the sexual orientation of their choosing are no longer big issues to most voters
Which is why Palin spent so much of her time trying to ban both. Oh, wait… she didn’t do either of those things. I guess now she’ll have to kick herself out of the party for ideological impurity.
And yet whenever a Republican is questioned by the media it’s these two issues they get hammered on.
These two issues, while important to conservatives, are the litmus test for liberal purity. You must support abortion and you must support gay marriage. You won’t get elected as a Democrat if you don’t have these two one your resume somewhere.
Conservatives? Well, you can be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and I’ll vote for you as long as you leave it a state rights issue. Many conservatives will.
See, Shaun, conservatives like this thing we call the Constitution. And, well, we think it means what it says. And it says most political power should reside with the states or the people.
Hell, Bob Joe from San Francisco running for national office can give his lover Mike a sloppy blowjob on national television and I’ll vote for him as long as he muttered the words, “Let the states decide!” between mouthfuls and meant it.
Liberals seem to think the states are too dumb to decide these issues for themselves. They’re cowards and thieves of the worst kind.
KD:
Hard to imagine that we agree about anything, but I do agree with you about that states rights stuff. But a funny thing happens on the way to the real world.
A pungent example: Some 13 states (at that time) had approved medical marijuana use through state referendums, but the Bush Just Ice Department with the backing a Supreme Court majority declares that because Mary Jane is a Schedule One drug on par with Hero-fricking-in then the states have no rights in this matter.
…if they are Palinesque conservatives who demand political purity then their place is next to the dog’s bowl in the kitchen
Their chances of winning anything more than county dogcatcher in any but the reddest of states is nil…
My mistake for interpreting that as “extreme conservatives have no chance of winning.” No doubt in NewSpeak that means something different — whatever you need it to mean to support your position today. Tomorrow it will mean something else.
… and the Obama administration has continued the exact same stances and conduct — stances that started in the Clinton administration. How is this an refutation of the idea that liberals apply a more stringent “purity test” than conservatives?
Of course they have a chance of winning — but only in reliably red districts in reliably red states.
President Obama did not think NY-23 was a reliably red district. New York is as far from a reliably red state as you can get and not be California. Yet the “Palinesque conservative” clearly almost won. That meant that with a competent campaign, he would have had a chance of winning.
That and if Dede wasn’t on the ballot for a race she dropped out of.
This post carries just as much intellectual weight as the one where you asserted that people were unpatriotic because they were criticizing Obama’s foreign policy and “politics ends at the water’s edge”.
That is, exactly zero. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you simply spout Dem talking points. You are a partisan hack Aziz, a simpleton at best. By all means let us know what they are telling you to say tomorrow.
I recall that when we had Dean Esmay acting as editor-in-chief around here, almost no personalized name-calling was allowed to stand. The comments to this post all but slosh around in that. I assume that Aziz’s politics are the flip side of mine on most issues. But I regard him neither as a “partisan hack” nor as a “simpleton”. And I think it would be foolish for any of the rest of you to tag him thus. Even though I disagree strongly with what many of you hold dear, I value your opinions. And believe it or not, I try to learn from people who disagree with me.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Aziz,
Michael McNulty was elected to represent District 23 in 1989. In 1993 there was redistricting and he was shifted over to District 21.
McNulty then represented District 21 from 1993-2009
Here’s the Wikipedia link for District 21: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_21st_congressional_district
So, no, Aziz. Democrats have held District 23 on and off with Republicans since the district existed.
No. It is true because it was written on DKos. NY-23 has always been Republican until the Glorious Victory.
Time to drop that wikipedia article down the memory hole.
Right. I forgot about that. You’re right, Phelps. How could I have been so stupid?
Oh, I’m a conservative. I forgot it’s a mental disease.
I can’t wait for ObamaCare to come around and address my disease. Reeducation here I come!
Aziz is a partisan, though not a partisan hack. And while I think Aziz is often too quick to congratulate himself for his benevolence in always giving others the benefit of the doubt, the namecalling is totally unwarranted not to mention incorrect.
The rest of this thread seems like people cheering for their political party like it is a sports team, which personally, I just don’t understand and why I have nothing else to add. (FWIW that is not meant to be criticism of any kind.)
Comments on this entry are closed.