Fake Republican Endorses Real Democrat

Scozzafava and Owens

In an unsurprising move, Dede Scozzafava, who dropped out of the race Saturday, endorsed Democrat Bill Owens in the New York 23rd Congressional District special election against pro-life conservative Douglas Hoffman.  This should be a major embarrassment to the National Republican National Committee which poured down a rathole almost a million dollars in Republican donations in supporting a liberal Democrat, Scozzafava, in Republican clothes.  I doubt if the endorsement will do much more than drive up Hoffman’s victory margin by a few points as enraged conservatives and Republicans flock to the polls on Tuesday.  No one likes being played for a sucker, and that is what Scozzafava was attempting to do to every Republican in the congressional district.

Update:  Scozzafava’s campaign manager endorses Hoffman.

23 Responses to Fake Republican Endorses Real Democrat

  • Donna V. says:

    So Scozzafava, in effect, just proved her critics were right.

    As for Newt, I remember his work in 1994 (even if Newt has himself forgotten the principles behind the Contract with America). I also remember him standing up for Palin at the ’08 GOP convention.

    The man has done very good work in the past. But he made a serious error in judgement this time, and his reputation has taken a severe hit.

  • Jay Anderson says:

    Gingrich is done. Whatever presidential aspirations he might have held were already on shaky ground and completely crumbled yesterday when Scozzafava endorsed the Dem.

    So, he’s getting a well-deserved shellacking over at his site. Unfortunately, some of his detractors aren’t above engaging in a little Know-Nothingism along the way:

    By Anonymous @ Monday, November 02, 2009 1:36 AM
    Just in case anyone is really interested this all really got in high gear with newt after he got chummy with the pope.

  • jh says:

    A war on Newt I am seeing is silly. He did what he had to do. Again there is a dangerous precedent hoping not being set

    As to her. What do peopl expect Mnay GOP folks and conservatives made her look like polticial bacteria. Her name was used to pump who knows how much money in mailing list companies and special groups ( most of which I predict did not get to Hoffmann) as these things usually work.

    She has been told she is person non gratia. I was in her shoes I would be tempted to do the the same thing

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    JH, Republicans were told by Newt to support a liberal Democrat in Republican clothing out of party loyalty. The liberal Democrat in Republican clothing he was supporting then proves what she thinks of party loyalty by endorsing the Democrat. (Actually it may mean that she prizes party loyalty, just not to the party which nominated her, supplied her with volunteers, and blew close to a million bucks supporting her.) I’d say that tells us all we need to know about Newt’s lack of judgment in this case.

  • Jay Anderson says:

    No, in endorsing the Dem, she proved exactly why she’s persona non grata. She doesn’t hold the same principles as those for whose vote she’s asking. But it’s not about her. It’s about the party and the folks who put their credibility on the line only to see her prove all of her critics correct. The credibility of Newt and the NRCC are shot now that their girl did what liberals do … endorse other liberals.

    I think most of us don’t give a rat’s behind about the GOP. We care about the principles (whether they be social conservatism, economic/fiscal conservatism, etc.). Scozzafava was a loser on all counts when it came to conservative principles. When the GOP ceases stand for those principles, they sure as hell better not assume they’ll be getting my support.

    I compromised my principles in voting for McCain last year. Granted, voting for a political candidate always involves SOME compromise of principles. But I assure you that I will never compromise them to that extent ever again.

  • Jay Anderson says:

    Tito,

    If I had known the race wasn’t even going to be close (I thought there was a chance it would come down to a 1-2% margin here in Ohio), I would never have voted for McCain in the first place.

    I assure you it’ll never happen again.

    (Note to GOP: nominate Mitt Romney at your own risk; I will not vote for that phony flip-flopper under ANY set of circumstances.)

  • Matt says:

    Finally, some free time to post. I agree Newt was rightly excoriated for endorsing the RINO, and I think it was a betrayal that should bring serious doubts to any future run for president. However, he has now done the right thing, so I think the attacks should cease. Given that he had little choice but to do the right thing, and he waited until the last possible moment to do so, I don’t think he deserves any kudos either. Just turn off the burner, we can always crank it up later when/if it’s called for.

  • jh says:

    Doanld

    LEt me be clear I was not a supporter ofher and If I was voting in that race I would have voted for Hoffamn

    What I have become concerned about and I think this is why Newt did what he did was the long term consequences of this. There might be a conservative vicotry here but I really wonder if this battle might mean the conservatives lose the war. This triablism and war in the GOP everyone wants it seems is counter productive. It reminds me of the Louisiana GOP that for deacades engaged in this and because of that among mnay other things we nearly had David Duke elected Governor and Mary Landrieu got elected to a second term

    Further the fact that this is now being used by many to sort of attack the Natioanl GOP is tiresome. THe National GOP does not need to be doing this in local races. It was my viewpoint that GOP elected officals Nationwide should have done one of two things. Support the nominee or like in 99 percent of the case not get involved. What I am worrying about here is turning the concept of a local party molding the national party on its head.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    What I have become concerned about and I think this is why Newt did what he did was the long term consequences of this. There might be a conservative vicotry here but I really wonder if this battle might mean the conservatives lose the war.

    Here’s the thing. NY-23 is a solidly Republican district. Hoffman will probably win this thing, and he certainly would have won had he been the GOP nominee from the outset. This is not a situation where a more moderate candidate was needed because it was a swing district. There was no point in nominating such a squishy candidate to begin with.

    Also, the circumstances surrounding the nomination were also problematic. You had a trifling few party bosses essentially trying to get a liberal Republican through over the wishes of most of the constituency.

    Newt might have had a decent general point about purity tests; however, in this specific case it was really a poor argument.

  • Jay Anderson says:

    From euandus’ blog:

    “… the basis of the party is not abortion or marriage, but, rather, limited government and individual liberty …”

    The founding principles of the Republican Party were every bit as morality-based as the argument against abortion. In fact, the principles are one and the same.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    “The founding principles of the Republican Party were every bit as morality-based as the argument against abortion. In fact, the principles are one and the same.”

    “What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think slavery wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party — where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Free States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!”

    Abraham Lincoln

  • ken weible says:

    Newt Gingrich is hurt most by the Conservative backlash in the Republican Party. Newt gave up a million dollar book deal and put his party ahead of his personal gain. As speaker he was headed for historical greatness. He cut spending, voted on all promise made in the Contract For America. He was bombarded by well over 1 hundred phony etics charges. He was deserted by the liberal Republicans who wanted to out spend the Democrats. His career was ruined. He was completely cleared of all charges but it took 5 years and by then it was too late. I can’t blame him for trying to go along to get along; he had been there before. He was deserted by the liberals and now Conservatives are puting him down for backing the chalk dog in the NY race. His voice should be heeded. There are a hell of a lot more Conservative Republican Commitees across the US than Liberal.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .