Predictions

Monday, November 2, AD 2009

fishing for votes

For political junkies like me, tomorrow begins the political season for 2010 with gubernatorial elections in Virginia, New Jersey and the special congressional election in New York 23.    There is also a special congressional election in California 10, but that is in the San Francisco metro area and everyone, except for the Republican running, David Harmer,  believes that is going to be won by the Democrat, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, and I join in that consensus, although I suspect it might be surprisingly close.

In regard to the three competitive races, here are my predictions:

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Predictions

  • I think McDonnell will certainly win in VA, and I’ll bet Hoffman does too, but NJ I am not so sure about. They sure seem to love incompetent state government there. I wouldn’t be shocked if Corzine manages to win by a hair. But even that would be good news for conservatives. NJ is a deep blue state. The very fact that Corzine had to struggle and The One had to go there and campaign for him is a bad omen for the Dems.

  • I’m with Donna V., but probably more confident that Christie will pull it off. Our Dear Leader may have overstated his (manufactured) gravitas and used up whatever charismatic potion he had for a Corzine push.

    As Mister Rogers would say…

    It’s a wonderful in the neighborhood, it’s…

  • I live in New York, work in New Jersey and I sure hope you are on the money.

  • For what it’s worth, Intrade gives Hoffman about a 65% chance of winning, and McDonnell a 98% chance. New Jersey is split roughly 50/50, but with a slight edge to Corzine.

  • McDonnell is a lock, and that 57-43 split sounds about right. I think Hoffman also pulls it out, probably in a bit of a squeaker. I am not sure about NJ, but I have a sinking feeling Corzine pulls it out.

  • Ditto Paul Zummo’s prediction…

  • I’ll join the chorus, pretty solid except for NJ, that one is too close to call as far as I can tell.

  • Concur with the consensus. McDonnell will win easily. Hoffman will win fairly easily. Christie will win on election day, but it will be close enough that the Dem’s will Franken the results. To Franken the results means to keep counting (magically finding Dem votes) until you get the results you want.

  • To Franken the results means to keep counting (magically finding Dem votes) until you get the results you want.

    How does Franken (v.) differ from Gore (v.)?

  • Edward G. Robinson explains Democrat recount strategy!

  • Rich:

    When you Franken the vote, you win. When you Gore the vote, you lose and then spend the rest of your life saying “I wuz robbed!”

  • McDonnell 55%, Deeds 43%

    Corzine 43%, Christie 42%, Daggett 11% (won’t be decided until at least sometime Wednesday)

    Owens 48%, Hoffman 46%, Scozzafava 4% (NY-23 isn’t THAT conservative and I would think voters there would realize that)

    These off-year elections are very tough to predict because turnout is usually low. It’s often less about how well you win over the independents and undecideds than how good a job you do of making sure your base gets to the polls. McDonnell will win VA in a landslide, but the other two are tossups.

  • Owens 48%, Hoffman 46%, Scozzafava 4% (NY-23 isn’t THAT conservative and I would think voters there would realize that)

    ??? I think the voters there know how conservative they are or are not. They haven’t elected a democrat since 1870, it seems the latest poll indicates they aren’t starting this year either.

  • Republicans will win. Not much will change.

  • Apparently they are not that conservative and they have elected a Democrat.

  • Two out of three, not bad Donald =)

Fake Republican Endorses Real Democrat

Sunday, November 1, AD 2009

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.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Fake Republican Endorses Real Democrat

  • Boy, other than everyone, who could have seen this coming? Oh yeah, Newt.

  • This is a body blow for Gingrich Paul. He is yesterday’s news as far as Republicans are concerned.

  • Donald,

    I hope that’s true.

    Outside of his conversion, this is the only depressing point, him picking a RINO.

    But he did help take back congress back in ’94.

    His rep is shot.

  • Ouch!

    Some of those comments are visceral!

  • 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.

  • Newty lost me a while ago when he appeared in a commercial with Al Sharpton.

  • Daledog,

    You serious?

    If he did appear with that racist and bigot then count me out as one of Newt’s fans.

    That’s unconscionable!

  • hello ,This is a body blow for Gingrich Paul. He is yesterday’s news as far as Republicans are concerned.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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,

    I’m with you.

    I will not do that again with McCain.

    I’ll vote third party for sure, if neither of the major parties provides a solid candidate that represents my Catholic values.

  • 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.)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • I suspect that the evangelical dominance in the Republican Party will result in the party being relegated to a third party. I wonder if we may see a shift from the two parties we have known? I have posted on this at http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-republican-party-writing-itself-into-a-corner/

    You might be interested in this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33583328/ns/politics-more_politics/

  • 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.

  • Harry Truman said “If a man will not keep his word to his wife, to whom will he keep it?”

  • “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

  • 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.

Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll

Tuesday, October 27, AD 2009

Take this with more than a grain of salt, since the Club for Growth supports him, but in the latest poll by the Club for Growth Doug Hoffman, the pro-life Conservative Party candidate  in the special election in the New York 23rd Congressional District endorsed by Sarah Palin and other Republican Party luminaries, leads with 31.3% of the vote to 27% for Bill Owens the Democrat and 19.7% for the pro-abort leftist Republican Dede Scozzafava., with 22% undivided.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll

  • If anything Mr. Hoffman’s support has gone up. The question is, is it enough to lead the polls?

    I’ll believe it when I see a more credible poll. Though a 5% margin of error isn’t bad for the Conservative Party candidate.

  • “Maddeningly the Republican National Committee is pumping money into Scozzafava’s campaign and running adds against Hoffman. This is an excellent way to alienate the conservative base of the party. Idiocy, sheer idiocy.”

    THE GOP is doing what it is suppose too. At least some of them. The GOP is a party that has “moderates” too and we shall see what can of worms have been opened up by this.

    The problem is in New York and people would be much better off changing the leadership there in the party. THE prob;lem is not the National GOP.

    I hope I don’t wake up and see Republicans for Free Choice and the Olympia Snowes of the world campaigning for conservative yet pro choice “independents” against GOP pro-lifers we picked in our primary. If they do then a lot of people will not have a moral arguement against it

    I think in the long run this will backfire but again the GOP has no choice here. Unless we are taking a stand that local control of the party should be micromanaged from Washington?

  • My Lord! No other phrase captures what I am thinking other than “Idiocy!” How could the republicans be stupid? This is a telling display of how the republicans are losing voters. Pro life is 98% of the reason I vote at all yet alone republican. I wish they would get that through their heads…

  • It sounds a lot like the kind of craziness the GOP pulled on Congressman Paul in the 14th District of Texas. In ’96 they recruited the DEMOCRAT to switch parties and run as the G.O.P. -backed candidate. Paul was able to survive into the run-off , and then won by simply reminding everyone how liberal his ‘establishment’ opponent really was.

    If the Republicans insist on choosing ‘winners’ over their principles, I hope more and more people defect. They have not learned their lessons after 2006 and 2008.

  • Robert I agree with you in the need to keep the GOP as Pro-life as possible. But the problem here is not the National GOP but the New York GOP. Again do we really want the National GOP to decide what races it will fund and not fund. The local party in New York needs to change

  • jh is right. The national GOP cannot be expected to overrule the state GOP; that is just not realistic. NY conservatives cannot bolt from the GOP in favor of the NY Conservative Party and then feel entitled to get angry when the National GOP supports the GOP candidate over their own party candidate.

  • I’m nervous about the 23% that are undecided. Expect more of Scozzafava’s numbers to migrate to Hoffman and then hold your breath for the next 7-8 days!

  • The Republicans are showing their true colors – this is another momment of decision. Will the Republican party hold to authentic conservative and traditional values or will they be run by liberal, establishment Democrat-lite insiders?

    This is not a political question – it is a question of culture. Are conservatives and traditionalists strong and principled enough to rout the liars or will we be left with the choice of speedy progressives and not-so-fast progressives again?

    Goldwater, Reagan, Paul and Hoffman (and Palin) are examples of the people choosing principles over political-pragmatism. You can either change the Republican party or migrate to another. Perhaps the Conservative Party will grow and the Republican party die, or publically merge with the Democrats, rather than keep up the farce that they are two different parties. In fact, the Republicans and the Democrats are just slightly different factions of the same oligarchy.

  • NY conservatives cannot bolt from the GOP in favor of the NY Conservative Party and then feel entitled to get angry when the National GOP supports the GOP candidate over their own party candidate.

    Once more with feeling. Mr. Hoffmann is an enrolled Republican. Ten county chairmen in the North Country selected Mrs. Scozzafava as a candidate by a weighted vote among themselves per the Election Law of New York. There was no petition process or primary. The North Country is not the east side of Manhattan or Westchester. Common-and-garden Republicans can and do poll well there. The county chairmen have been playing an obscure insider game and expected (as New York pols do) that the electorate would suck it up (as that electorate generally does if you do not poison the water table or forthrightly and transparently raise their property taxes). These ten individuals cannot legitimately complain if their own committeemen flip them the bird, much less if everyone else does.

  • Art, I agree, and admit that you have a far better grasp of the facts than me. My only remaining point would be that it is difficult to expect the national GOP to ignore or overrule the decisions of the local GOP, regardless the mechanisms or machinations behind those local decisions. It would be different if the national GOP were complicit in such insider games, but no one has suggested that, but instead some seem to want to count deference to local decisions as complicity. That just strikes me as unfair and unrealistic.

Political Parties Must Stand For Something: Sarah Palin Endorses Doug Hoffman

Thursday, October 22, AD 2009

Sarah PalinIn the 23rd New York Congressional District special election, Sarah Palin has tonight endorsed the pro-life Doug Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party ticket, against Dede Scozzafava, the pro-abort leftist Republican, a race that I posted about here earlier in the week.  Sarah Palin’s statement is as follows:

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Political Parties Must Stand For Something: Sarah Palin Endorses Doug Hoffman

  • She is amazing.
    Guiliani,Romney,Huckabee,Pawlenty,Jindahl – have you nothing to say about this? Too risky to intervene in a congressional race?

  • Sarah’s appeal has been her genuineness from the beginning. Notice that it wasn’t until the psudo-Republican McCaine machine got hold of her that she started making mistakes.

    I doubt she’ll fall for that again.

    The current climate does not favor the over-reaching Demoncrats but the Republican’ts need to be wary because America doesn’t trust them either.

    Conservatives can take the party back and this move by Sarah may be the first national salvo in the fight.

    I just wish she’d come back to the Church of her baptism.

  • We shall see how this works out. It carries risk of course and I am not reaaly on board with the slamming of the GOP nominee in this case and espcially those that feel compeeled to support him

    I pretty much agree with the statements of Dan Riehl here

    “Scozzafava Candidacy: Not the Fault of DC GOP”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/scozzafava-candidacy-not-the-fault-of-dc-gop/#

  • Palin is nothing but a pretty face on a hot body; that’s all.

    To capitalize on her political capital (when there is none, actually) is, quite simply, to play the fool.

  • “Palin is nothing but a pretty face on a hot body; that’s all.”

    You completely misread her e. Palin is a phenomenon in politics, the likes of which I have not seen since Ronald Reagan flew off into the sunset. The fact that a defeated vice presidential candidate and former governor has a national political network , constant media attention and the power from a facebook page to have a vast impact on our politics indicates that she is something new and different on the political scene. She is not a conventional politician, and she is about to blaze a new path to the White House. Sit back and prepare to be amazed.

  • Donald I think you are 100% correct. Of course, we don’t know what will happen, but her impact cannot be ignored.

    Americans are overwhelmingly fed up with business as usual, which is why someone with no experience, no accomplishments and a horrible ideology can win the White House based on unspecified change.

    People don’t want more of the same and Americans want someone who is a ‘regular’ person with a beleif in our common values: God, country, personal responsibility, community, small government, free enterprise.

    A candidate who is, well, candid and committed to authentic conservative principles will appeal to hard core conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians (most of them anyhow), anti-Communists and even traditional-minded liberals. Only the small lefty loonie minority in the White House now will show disdain.

    This is what propelled a former actor, union leader, ex-New Dealer and supporter of AuH20 to the White House and invented the Reagan Democrats. It will happen again. Is it Palin? Perhaps. If not, it will be someone else. But it is coming.

    I think McClarey is right, sit back and prepare to be amazed.

  • Ditto Tito… Go Palin Go!

  • To e. says, yes Sarah Paln is a pretty face, for 45 years old she has a hot body, but what you choose to ignore is that she has a political mind that will prove to be the brightest in our lifetime.

    First she has only been involved in politics for less than twelve years yeat she has gone up the ladder in record time, City Council, Mayor, Governor, VP candidate.

    She uses Facebook to bypass the Drive By Media and has more impact than any other political figure

    Her first Paid Speech garners $300,000 and is complimented by Wall Street Journal and even the New York Times as thoughtful, insightful and that the current administration could take a page in dealing with China

    She writes a 437 Book in less time that many authors could even come up with an outlineand it becomes # 1 within hours of a Title and date release. Unthinkable in the Publishing world.

    She endorses an unknown candidate in NY 23 and he garners $116,000 within one day and now hasan actual chance of winning the election.

    She challenges the GOP elities that politics as usual will not be tolerated in this election cycle, for the grassroots have spoken and they better head the message.

    All of this without campaign strategists, no poltical machine but just a belief that to serve is serve the people and therewishes. Palin has a motto ” Get out of the way I will do it”

    Enjoy the next three years for we will see a campaigne that will be in the record books for years to come and we will have a President that we will all be proud of.

  • For the comment that Sarah needs to come back to the church of her baptism, I pose the question should the church come back to its people?

    As a life long Catholic I have become dissappointed in how the Church has handled the Pedophile priest and now how there are dealing with illegal immigration? They encourage breaking the law for the ” Better Good” Are they any different than what the heads either political party do to there constituents on a daily basis?

    This is a case where separation of church and state is very appropriate1

  • “Palin is a phenomenon in politics, the likes of which I have not seen since Ronald Reagan flew off into the sunset. The fact that a defeated vice presidential candidate and former governor has a national political network , constant media attention and the power from a facebook page to have a vast impact on our politics indicates that she is something new and different on the political scene. She is not a conventional politician, and she is about to blaze a new path to the White House. Sit back and prepare to be amazed.”

    In polls, she loses to just about everyone. Her unfavorable rating even among Republicans is very high. Palin is popular like Rush Limbaugh is popular, i.e., not popular enough to be elected.

  • Another similarity with Reagan restrained radical. Prior to his victory in 1980 Reagan polled poorly in Presidential horse race polls. Even in 80, most of the polls showed the race dead even until the weekend before Reagan crushed Carter. Like Palin however, he had extremely dedicated supporters among the conservative base of the party, and a dedicated enthusiastic minority can often sway the outcome of an election. Like Reagan, Palin is always underestimated and that is almost always to a politician’s advantage.

  • it is amusing that so many of Palin’s supporters believe that she is poised for great things and that Democrats and liberals greatly fear her (which is why they attack her). Truth is, Palin is just another Joe the Plumber, one more bumper sticker populist for the under-informed and under-educated. A palin candidacy would be the greatest gift for the Democrats…the Democrats do not fear her, not one bit, she would hand them the most lopsided win in history. There are actually intelligent and knowledgable republicans out there – pick one.

  • Precisely what they said about Reagan, Shawn. “A washed up hack B actor.” “He is senile.” “We’ll beat him easily.” Clark Clifford, a fixture of the Democrat establishment in Washington for half a century, summed up this attitude when he referred to Reagan as “an amiable dunce”. Many Liberals rarely understand Conservatives in this country, and I thank God for their blindness and condescension.

  • Donald,

    It seems that many Republicans don’t get conservatives either.

    I expect to never be amazed by political pragmatists, although, it is particularly unnerving when it comes from people of faith.

    Why should we seek the pragmatic candidate rather than someone with conviction of principles?

    I am hearing many alleged pro-lifers stating that she is splitting the race in NY, etc. Why does Sarah get the blame? Why not correctly blame the supporter of child murder?

    Dismissing her is odd for anyone with true conservative values and it is particulary sickening by alleged pro-lifers and Christians, especially Catholics. She is taking a very pro-life stance and for that she should be applauded not derrided.

  • Funny for someone the Democrats supposedly don’t fear, they sure seem to go out of their way to express how much they don’t fear Palin every time her name is brought up. Me thinks they doth protest too much.

  • Excellent points Paul.

    I am not a registered Republican, but I’m all for a national Conservative Party. Though we may not get majorities in either House, we could certainly work with non-RINO-Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to get legislation passed.

  • I don’t wish to digress too much from the focus of the actual topic of this column. But I am rather interested in the “RINO” and “DINO” labels.

    By all counts to a Democrat who agrees entirely with the platform, I’m a Democrat-In-Name-Only. But why should we have such rigid political orthodoxy?

    I’m not saying that a party should not have agreement on a fundamental vision and philosophy, or principles, which is necessary for unity. But if there is not room for disagreement on means to the same end, there is very little room for intellectual freedom and creativity that actually allows for constructive criticism from within the party and viable and practical solutions to problems we face as a society.

    If anything, we benefit from Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson who is opposed to the public option, who is opposed to the “opt out” compromise, and who most certainly will not vote for a health care reform bill with abortion in it. He is being attacked as a “fake” Democrat. I can’t see how such dissent is a bad thing — maybe because I’m pro-life?

    Perhaps, I am misunderstanding one’s definition of a “RINO” or “DINO.” Is it someone who is so antithetical to the whole platform that they belong in the other party? Can someone be pro-choice and completely conservative on everything else and not be a “RINO”?

    Sorry to divert to a tangent, but it is something I have always been confused about and quite obviously it relates to me since my political views cut across the political spectrum, unevenly at that.

  • Actually Eric, I don’t normally like the term RINO. Yes, moderate and left-leaning Republicans annoy me, but a political party is different from an ideological movement, therefore the term itself is problematic. The Republican party, while generally the home to conservatives, is not an ideological entity per se. There are of course party platforms, so political parties should have some kind of general outlook. But we don’t have to enforce complete orthodoxy on all issues.

    That being said, Dede Scozzafava isn’t even remotely Republican leaning in any meaningful sense of the term. At least Senators Collins and Snowe occasionally display backbones and ally themselves with conservatives on important issues. Scozzafava, however, is pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro stimulus, pro ACORN, etc. It is almost impossible to figure out how she is even remotely related to the Republican party. So she’s one of the unique cases where the RINO label is very apt.

  • Pingback: Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Southern Appeal » That RINO label
  • She’s pro-gun.
    Is she really that different from Schwarzenegger or Giuliani? Is she that far from Nixon, Ford, or Bush 41?

  • She’s pro-gun.

    Oh, the horror!

  • Pro-gun? Really. Who in their right mind is pro-gun. A gun is a tool, saying you are pro-gun is as stupid as saying your are pro-mop (unless its a Marxist mop:)). Big Tex is right that’s horrible – the Marxist mop, not the guns.

    She is pro gun-ownership rights, which is just a sadly needed reactionary defense of natural property rights.

    And of all of her positions that is a really lame one to point out. Anyone who is pro private property and is sane and rational will be pro gun-ownership, whether or not they shoot moose, or is that meese 🙂

  • I wasn’t going to reply but I just read this quote from a Hoffman volunteer in today’s Economist:

    Ms Johnson describes Ms Scozzafava as “practically a Democrat”, but does “give her credit for being pro-guns”.

    http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14753792

    American Knight, I suggest you call up the Hoffman office, ask for Ms. Johnson, and educated her on why she’s not in her “right mind” and that what she said was “stupid.”

  • Pingback: Scozzafava Drops Out In New York 23 Race « The American Catholic