I'm going to link back to Michelle's guest post by Doug Hoffman and address my position on NY-23 as too many people are misinterpreting my posting on the race as an endorsement of Dede Scozzafava. I haven't seen anything about her that would compel me to support, or vote for her. As I don't vote in NY state, that isn't my concern.
Well, if the Republican Party wants to declare war against conservatives, I’m going to fight on the side of conservatives.
If you want to join my fight, I need you. We need money and we need volunteers – boots on the ground. If you can help, go to my website and sign up. Then show up.
It’s time for conservatives to show the Republican establishment who’s in charge.
What I am observing and commenting upon is seeing the same old political machines exploit current sentiments for their own ends. I have, in many cases, no idea what those ends might actually be. I am seeing the same old players playing the same old games and I am sick of it all around.
I had hoped to read Hoffman's guest post and find something that told me he was worth supporting. For whatever reasons, the decision was made to present nothing more than, well, I am not her.
Great. But I am sick of a politics that too often results in people being compelled to vote for someone because they are not the other guy, or gal. I've watched it play out for years and I haven't seen it bring an ounce of real change in our politics. Period.
I can state for a fact that I have witnessed a be more tolerant, grow a bigger party, ignore the hardcore base guy ginning up resentment across the base in this race simply because someone else is paying the freight. Why the hell should I buy that as anything other than political games being played by people only out for themselves?
So, what are the real agendas here? All I have to go on is what I have observed. What the hell is Gingrich's game in endorsing Scozzafava? I have no idea, as I've observed him moving away from conservatives for years.
But what about Thompson? Well, frankly, how the hell should I do, or why should I trust him? If he was dead set for a conservative resurgence he was sitting in the catbird seat just over a year ago and he didn't step up. He balked and supported the disaster that was McCain, not just once, but twice, before and after he allegedly ran. Why should I trust him as the true champion of the conservative cause? Because, I don't.
Huckabee? Give me a break. Along with not issuing a genuine endorsement, I know he's just playing games to benefit his own personal ambitions. As I think he would be a disaster, I have no intention of putting any faith in him.
As I said in my first post on the issue, I didn't much care about the race last week and I likely won't much care next week. What I am seeing is the same old monied interests playing games to make a District race national to raise money, while also fueling a broader divide within the GOP.
My primary interest is in gaining Republican seats in 2010 and praying that some serious Right-side leadership steps up to the plate in 2012. I am tremendously concerned about that as I feel the liberals currently in charge in DC are capable of all but ruining this great nation.
But I remain unimpressed by the same interest groups playing political games they've played for years while America has continued a terrible decline.
Do whatever the Hell you want in NY-23. I doubt many of you around the country will really do anything at all - nor will I. We're talking about one House seat in NY for all of one year.
I know I'll be there in 2010 and, hopefully, 2012 to do whatever I can to turn things around and put a check on Obama by electing a Republican, or nearly Republican House and a more Republican Senate. I don't need to get all riled up about NY-23 to ensure that fact. If you do, then froth at the mouth for all I care. I'm unconvinced frothing at the mouth has ever yielded much of anything when it comes to winning races. It raises money - woot woot!
And we need a more united, not a divided front in 2010 and 2012 to bring victories about. That and only that is the only thing I have been advocating for all along.
So, here's Hoffman's post. Read it and do whatever the Hell you want. But be prepared to do something besides over-spend on one House race in NY in 2010 and 2012 because that's when it counts.
Your views need to be clarified (and you are not succeeding terribly well) because your writing is obscure.
Candidate Hoffman's statements do not begin and end with the fundraising pitch to which you linked.
Scozzafava's candidacy is a manifestation of an autonomous and self-dealing political establishment counting on inertia and a certain sort of political culture among the electorate. Ejecting her is of use to all parties (left, right, and center) not ensconced in the establishment as a statement of resistance - something we have had precious little of in New York in more than 35 years.
Posted by: Art Deco | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 07:33 PM
United behind the RINO-democrats won't do us as much good as uniting behind the Democrats would (At least we wouldn't have to take the blame for what they do).
Uniting behind the people that think the way I do is about all the uniting I am up for.
I'm not going to support (nor spend the gas to drive 24 miles to vote for) RinoDemocrats.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 07:38 PM
Great, Art - sell it in NY with the rest of your art.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 07:55 PM
"...while also fueling a broader divide within the GOP."
That divide exists whether you like it or not, Dan. It exists when the RNC, RNSC and RNCC keep sending me fiery "stop the Democrats" emails while endorsing the elevation of a Gang of Eight member to a Senate seat, a stimulus supporter to the Senate in Florida, and an ACORN flunky to Congress in New York. I would submit to you that the divide is not of the conservative grassroots' causing in such circumstances.
And if you'll be there in 2010, why not be there now, when the foundations are being laid for that fight?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 08:46 PM
I'm posting another comment because I am one of those commenters from earlier today that you believe doesn't understand your position. I have been visiting this site for a long time as a fan of yours and "I feel your pain" Dan. I understand and agree with the substance of what you are saying but, I believe you are completely missing the opportunity this race represents symbolically as the transition point from Tea Party staged rallies to Tea Party determined elections.
The Tea Party movement has grown beyond conservatism by persuading a growing number of disenchanted Americans with its message that American exceptionalism is not dead. As the best opportunity for Americans who share your frustration and mine to finally turn the system on its head, we have now grown to be a potential new party.
In reaction to Dick Armey's refusal to direct this movement onto the lap of the GOP, the RNC is now lashing out independently and brazenly with its now unmasked uber-liberal and corrupt agenda. That the RNC would AGAIN dictate to the locals who their candidate will be in NY-23 is outrageous. Hoffman is creating a test that we desperately need if we are going to turn things around.
Americans are now in an anti-establishment "throw both parties' bums out" mood. For the RNC to tyr to cram down a very liberal leftist against the grassroots is at best fatally tone deaf or more likely, fatally arrogant. This may not be a very important race in the context of being only one of 435 congressional seats but it is absolutely pivotal as a starting point for the Tea Party conservatives to either retake the GOP or maybe destroy it if the leadership insists.
So you are wrong, IMO, that this is another example of "politics as usual". Far from it. The old dinosaurs like Thompson and Gingrich, being no longer relevant, are desperately trying to regain their mojo by appearing to be "edgy". What this race represents is a blunt challenge to the corrupt RNC and "the money" interests who fund these campaign in lieu of the dried up contributions to the RNC. By destroying the last hope of the GOP to prove to “the money” that they can manage their end of the unholy bipartisan post-constitutional one-world-without-borders bargain, we conservatives are either going to retake the GOP in time for the 2010 elections or whatever party we form will become the new 2nd party. That is what this election is about and it is happening in two weeks, not a year from now.
Take a few steps back Dan. You are probably standing too close to the elephant to see it.
Posted by: Pasadena Phil | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 09:18 PM
History is important, from 1993 on there was a continuous wave, of victories from Kay Bailey's
special election, although she now seems like
a RINO to Whitman in NJ, (ditto) and Governor Allen. Now we missed the first turn with Tedesco, and Christie and McDonnell seem not sure things
Posted by: the bishop | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Pasadena Phil is correct.
This along with Crist/Rubio and such is where you send the message. Cross the Conservative base and pay dearly. If the RINOs will not listen to reason, then they can feel the pitchfork. The RINOs can unite behind the base.
I certainly understand your point about being ill at having a RINO come out to support the base. Its vastly annoying to have real loyalists get tossed out in favor of insiders who are willing to sell their loyalty. However, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Of course, the problem with such mercenaries is you have to stand over them with a whip to make sure they don't betray you. I'd much prefer to have a Real Conservative than a mercenary, but I prefer a merc to an open RINO. If at some time in the future, there comes a chance to toss out the merc and get a real conservative in his place, then yeah, that would be great. I have little idea how to do that, tho'.
Posted by: Tennwriter | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 10:11 PM
A winner of the Margaret Sanger has no business being on a ticket as a Republican.
Posted by: chas | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 11:43 PM
"Take a few steps back Dan. You are probably standing too close to the elephant to see it."
I wouldn't characterize it that way, Phil. But for you and others, if you're read here, you know I tolerate disagreement. So, I'm fine with you posting same.
I would hope no one questions my motivations, but I will say I have my own sense of responsibilities as a blogger. There are times when I go off and times when I don't.
More than any sense of loyalty to the GOP, I honestly fear too great a divide on the Right will open the door for an Obama Term II. I am so concerned about that, I don't mind throwing just a little bit of water on sentiments right now. That doesn't mean that I want to see any emotion or momentum on the Right disappear.
I have one primary goal in mind right now. Winning as many R seats in 2010. Then it will become getting a good nominee in 2012. Perhaps I'm being somewhat moderated in my reactions as a function of that.
But I call them as I see them and can't do much else after all these years out here..
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Pasadena Phil is dead-on. This little election is becoming hugely significant. Whatever the virtues of Hoffman, these old guard elites and their fatal illusions of appeal-through-appeasement and their persistent misapprehension of the Left must be repudiated here and now.
Posted by: rrpjr | Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 11:54 PM
The Yankees just won, so I can sound off for a moment...
Dan, your heart is definately in the right place and no one is questioning your integrity. Like I said earlier, in principle, we all want the same thing. You may be getting your back up a bit on the defensive perhaps.
This particular comment you made....
"If you're down for it, go for it. R fund raising should be off the charts right now. It's been lagging behind the Dems all year. That's the way to turn things around, oh year."
is definately an endorsment to send the RNC/NCRR donations. It doesn't sound much like anyone here is of that mindset... I know I am not. I would give them $100 tommorrow though if they show Michael Steele the door immeadiately.
The other thing is that it sounds like you are viewing the NY-23 race as a micro event, unique and pertinent only to New York'ers. The idea here seems to be that Michelle is drawing attention to this as a bit of a line in the sand regarding the RNC's stance on contesting seats and party identification. Every house seat, Gubenatorial race, Senate race should be fought hand over fist with candidates true to the party's overall values. The big picture view is valid, but all the micro races add up significantely.
Since we all want the same thing, and in the spirit of unity, the precieved dis-intrest in NY-23 doesn't help the overall cause. If and when perhaps a tight race needs to be contested in your district, you shouldn't have to read someone say... "Do whatever the Hell you want in XX-xx. I doubt many of you around the country will really do anything at all - nor will I. We're talking about one House seat in XX for all of one year."
Wars are won one battle at a time... typically not in one grand assault.
Your site has good discourse.... everyone seems to respect you... keep up the good work
Posted by: Last Conservative In Brooklyn | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 01:21 AM
Pasadena Phil? Tennwriter? So one can assume that Pasadena Phil is from Pasadena and Tennwriter is from Tennessee? Michelle Malkin is living in Colorado. Hmmmmmm....obvious question is obvious: What business is it of yours who we elect here in New York? Do you live here? Are you planning on moving here in the next 2 weeks? Do you have absentee ballots from here? If not, mind your damn business! Who gets elected here in NY23 is up to us NEW YORKERS and not any of you.
Another case where Conservatives with un-electable candidates invade Moderate territories and declare war on electable candidates. This forces the electable candidates to have to waste money on defending themselves against the un-electable candidates. The Right's vote gets split in two and diluted and worthless and the Democrat comfortably wins the election. It happened in 2006. It happened in 2008. Now it's a repeat performance in 2010. Who needs George Soros when the Dems have you? The Conservatives start bullying themselves in areas where they're a minority, they're not welcome, and they can't possibly win because they can't get it through their thick skulls that a half a Conservative is better than no Conservative at all. The Moderates here in NY23 don't want Right-wing loonies and more than they want Left-wing loonies and the Moderate Democrats comfortably win. Ever since this Conservative childishness against Scozzafava started, the Democrat has climbed to a double digit lead. Dan is right and on behalf of NY23, mind your business and stay out!
Posted by: Syntax | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 01:31 AM
Republicans in NY have always been squishy libs. Think Rockefeller, Javits, Lindsey (early) and droves more, hell evebn Guilliani ran on the Liberal line and the Republican line. Thats why the Conservative party there broke off from the Republicans.
Scozzafava is another squish who would also accept the liberal nod but they disbanded the party after Guillianis last victory.
Posted by: lonetown | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 06:41 AM
Syntax,
Very good. I'm from Tennessee, one of the few states that went more crimson. In other words, you and others from states that went blue should be paying attention to places where the R's won.
What happened in 2006 was the result of RINOism, the repudiation of Conservatism by our elected leaders. They didn't get the message, and doubled down in 2008. At the last moment, McCain realized he was going to make a great, gaping hole in the dessert if he didn't Do Something, and so he betrayed his RINO buds and put in Sarah. This got him from McGovern levels of loss to merely real bad levels of loss, and probably was a large part of the reason those loyal, loyal moderates like Chris Buckley voted for Obama. One would think that the RINOs would get a clue sometime, but you want to quadruple down.
I suspect the real reason is that RINOs are willing to lose as long as they stay in charge of the R party. Well, I'm willing for the RINOs to lose too, but I have a different loss in mind.
But thank you for agreeing that the NRSC should not have endorsed Charlie Crist in Florida.
Posted by: Tennwriter | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 07:34 AM
Syntax, last I checked,it's a free country. Are you telling the RNC and Gingrich to butt out, too? Telling Scozzafava to accept no out-of-district contributions. Hell yeah, Hoffman got my money. I'm not able to fly up there at this point to help out, but I did make a contrib, just like I have to all the non-RINOs the RNC is supporting. The battle is on to show the career Repubs that they won't win by trying to lord over their base. Personally, I don't see how giving Nancy Pelosi another vote helps the GOP.
Posted by: Bruce NV | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Syntax; your crappy ass reps affect me with their socialist policies so it is my business. I will voice my opinion whenever, wherever I choose. If NY didn't keep sending us Schumer, Clinton, ad nauseum, I wouldn't care so much but they do and so it is very much my business.
Down here in Virginia, we are being flooded with your New York money to elect another socialist as our governor. You don't hear us complaining about that. It takes more than money to win votes down here.Some of us actually look at the candidates. Having said that, I don't know how we narrowly went for Obama. Probably more to do with our open primaries and McLame as the other choice.
Posted by: Capt Blasto | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 09:23 AM
so you are not endorsing Dede ... got that from the first paragraph ... So what was the rest of the post for ...
I'm sorry but what other election this Nov. are you spending your energy on ? Its the next fight on the card along with NJ and VA ...
Dan you are standing on the sidelines on this one ... Cox is not going to be on the ballot, nor is Newt or Thompson ...
If you were waiting for the Hoffman MM post to learn about him maybe you should have gone to his web site and tried looking at him ... sounds like you want to he sold via op-eds or blog posts ...
I get it, you don't care about the NY23 special ... you don't care enough to post at least 3 posts about it where you are very clear you don't care about it ...
Posted by: Jeff Carlson | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
syntax,
Are you in the NY23 district ? I'm a NY'er but not in the district so should I butt out ?
Cause if you aren't in the district either you maybe should take your own advice ...
except that I don't think you should butt out but instead voice your opinion and support ...
No more NY RINO's ...
Posted by: Jeff Carlson | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Syntax: parochial censorship in the name of party "unity" is not a very persuasive argument. And in America, not a wholesome one. And for conservatives, not a winning one. Rather than feel threatened by out-of-turn comments from the fraternal conservative hinterlands (from people who, as you admit, can't vote in your election anyway) try embracing the exchange and considering freshly the importance (and proven electoral appeal) of conservative principles over crappy candidates with compromised values. Or explain to us how what's-her-name is really a RINO-INO (Republican in Name Only in Name Only).
Posted by: rrpjr | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I'd agree that candidates must promote positions and policies rather than pure opposition. However, PasaPhil is correct; this is a strategic error of the national committees that highlights the disarray and lack of leadership.
If the RNC et al wanted to win, they'd be addressing candidates that can connect to the Tea Party rabble.
In business you won't last long by ignoring potential customers and pandering to phantom ones.
Posted by: bastiches | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 02:02 PM
bWhat business is it of yours who we elect here in New York? Do you live here? Are you planning on moving here in the next 2 weeks?
I actually do live in the district, though I am not an enrolled Republican. It is their business to some extent because:
1. The Representative from the 23d district votes on legislation which applies in Colorado and Tennessee as well; and
2. The central organs of the Republican Party elected to use cash contributed by the likes of them to promote the candidacy of someone who will likely be un-cooperative when push comes to shove. Mr. Boehner et al. might just have suggested to the county chairmen in the North Country that they clean up their own mess.
Posted by: Art Deco | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 02:16 PM
Jeff Carlson...Yes, I live in NY23. I am voting for Bill Owens, the Democrat and only real true moderate. As you are aware Jeff of the screwed up world of New York Politics, a candidate with no legislative history happens to be a good thing here in New York where corruption runs rampant on both sides of the aisle. I also like Bill Owens because he has a solid plan for looking out for upstate New York farmers where the only message Scozzafava and Hoffman have is more of the same political BS and care more about attacking each other than looking out for New Yorkers.
I won't support Scozzafava because she is more Guiliani Liberal BS and I won't support Hoffman because New York doesn't need local Bush/Palin incompetence either not too mention his accounting firm (Dragon, Benware & Crowley) is a member of the Jefferson County Development and has been working along side Scozzafava and WFP for years.
Posted by: Syntax | Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 10:34 PM
"Owens supports helping local farmers and ranchers by using subsidies and import limits to make sure they get fair prices for their goods. " - from his campaign website.
Agriculture is so extensively subsidized abroad that a program of countervailing tariffs and export promotion is defensible. However, the notion of a 'fair price' is nonsense. Manipulating the domestic market in agricultural goods (in service to the Farm Bureau Federation et al. is another example of business as usual. That it occurs in the sector of the economy where the economists' construct of 'perfect competition' can be a working reality is absurd. If you want to be helpful to farmers, replace property taxes with simple income levy.
Posted by: Art Deco | Monday, October 19, 2009 at 06:58 AM