Clueless Republicans

Politico managed to find a couple moderate Republicans to start whining already. And why Reynolds, of all people, is still speaking for the GOP is a ridiculous mystery. His record at the NRCC was atrocious, he created problems, with others, during the Foley affair. And his decision to end independent auditing at the NRCC led to a million bucks being scammed and even more Republican disgrace. Yet, he continues to be their man in NY State. What a disgrace.

As for moderates, too few to worry about are talking about a purge driven by the Right. Everyone with any sense knows there are districts where we must cooperate. Worse than that, it is precisely these moderates who have been so vocal in demonizing the Right as Far Right crazies, which we are not. They should learn their lesson and shut-up, as they have no clue what they are talking about.

They served and for various reasons, these two have left, or been run out. What they should do is go away. And as for the other Right-bashing moderates who have been doing it for years, perhaps it's they who ought to think about just who has been interested in a purge in the past, because it is not us. I can hardly wait to read the trash talking jerk McKinnon weigh in. If there is anyone who should leave the GOP, it's weak creeps like him. Yet, he's all  over everyone to make a buck, even serving conservatives. He's a jerk and he wears stupid hats. Big whoop!

Former New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, also a previous NRCC Chairman, said that, inevitably, the party would need to run moderate contenders if it wanted to regain the majority.

“The question is, what is the future for moderates? We will have a future.”

“We can play checkmate forever and moderates can do next what conservatives did [to Scozzafava],” Davis added. “So this is something that the party is going to have to manage, keeping everybody under the same tent. These groups need each other.”

Comments

[Mad Monica]

What is the future for "moderates?" There is no future. At least, if the GOP wants to take back the country there isn't. But if the GOP is determined to screw this up, then they'll let the moderates call the shots like they did in 2006 and 2008 and Obama will win another four years to "change" America.

I don't know how moderates came to think the GOP was their party and anyone who was truly conservative didn't belong, but it's a problem that must be fixed. We've allowed the moderates to water down conservative ideas until we were left with no strong leaders and no real platform to appeal to conservatives. The "conservative" party had become nothing more than liberals lite.

I'm glad Dede got the hint and got out. I hope to hell the GOP has figured out what happened and how they screwed up. And I hope this means they stop talking crap about Sarah and start looking at her as a serious future candidate.

Maybe they could put away the jealousy and get behind Sarah and do what needs to be done to make her a candidate that cannot be beat. She could be a very formidable opponent were she to receive the support of the party instead of snide comments and nasty smears.

Let's just hope the GOP heard the warnings and got the wake up call. We don't have time for too many more "lessons."

[Russ. Just Russ]

The time for battles between liberal, moderate, and conservative GOPers is in the primaries. Once the party members have selected their candidate, it behooves them to support their chosen candidate.

It there's one lesson to be taken from electoral history in this country, it's that third parties are for literal losers. With a few notable exceptions (Jesse Ventura), third party candidates get murdered at the polls, and ultimately end up electing Bill Clinton. Twice.

None of this applies, though, when there is no primary (NY-23) or if there are open primaries. Open? Whose brilliant idea was it to let Democrats have a say in who a GOP candidate will be, or vice versa?

Rant ends.

[NeoconBlonde]

Well said, Russ.

[syn]

I did not leave brain-dead Liberalism for Moderate-sized brain-dead Liberalism; if there is no alternative than what is the difference?

GWB is as Moderate a Republican as any Liberal yet for some odd reason Moderates have convinced themselves he is a 'far right winger'.

Moderates should figure out what they want before demanding that their wants be met; for example, advocating low taxes-small government BUT demanding government-funded embryonic stem cell research is spineless. Moderates should stop blaming their flaccid impotence on the 'religious right' and begin looking at their own actions.

Moderates have yet to comprehend the fact that there is no such thing as 'fiscal conservatism-social liberalism' since Liberalism is Big Government; how else will Politically Corrected Professors get paid for indoctrinating stupid?

Moderates might try reading Letter from a Birmingham Jail by Dr King Jr. regarding the flaccid nature of the 'Moderate American'; if Moderates cannot stand for something meaningful then get out of the way of those who do.

[Al-Ozarka]

When the champions of rational thought, logic and reason, are applied, both fiscal and social conservatism will always be revered by the truly enlightened.

That being said, does anyone get the feeling The Club for Growth is more interested in dividing the GOP than getting conservatives elected? Their campaigns have always resulted in getting a Democrat elected, haven't they?

[montee]

This ridiculous concept that the GOP is now out of power because it wasn't moderate enough isn't only naive, its blatantly false. The GOP got pounded in 06 & 08 not because of conserevatives. But because of a failure of its leadership and elected officials. These people campaigned on budget cutting, reduced government growth and presence, free-market principles, no more wasteful spending and pork, even entitlement and tax reforms. But once they got to congress they forgot their promises and govern to suit their own selfish political interests. Thats why blue-dog dems won so many seats in reliable red districts. People no longer trust Republicans to keep their word and why should they. The people who scream moderation at all cost as the ultimate solution to all GOP problems ironically are the ones who presided over this misguided journey. How about they stop blaming conservatives for THEIR failures but instead allow them to be heared.

One interesting thing to note. We always hear how candidates like Hoffman are poisonous to independents. Isn't it funny that Hoffman polls better with independents than either the Democrat or the so called "Moderate" Republican. If some of our brainless GOP strategist had a brain the would realize that conservatism isn't the problem its made out to be.

[Dennis D]

There certainly are circumstances when we must run a moderate but I do not think NY23 was such a case. Even with the recent Gallup poll which shows 40% of Americans consider themself conservative thats still not enoough to gain control. In places like New England and most of New York City the only way you will win is by running a moderate. Thats how Guiliani became mayor.

[Dr. K]

Tom Reynolds was my congressman for many years. He was a Republican in an area (Buffalo, NY) that has been oozing to the left over the past 2 decades. His political survival rested on moving leftwards (though not as quickly) as his district. So I can understand his worldview in "getting moderates" elected.

Unfortunately, looking at how the "moderates" have performed, Buffalo is constantly ranked in the "Top 10" lists. And not the GOOD kinds. Like the "Top 10 Dying Rustbelt Cities", "Top 10 Areas in NYS with Highest Unemployment", etc.

It seems that a Republican becoming "moderate" is the first step to the DARK SIDE. Because once you have sold out your principles, what else do you have left?

[gary gulrud]

"moderates can play checkmate with the conservatives"?

Hey genius, we've been playing that game since Reagan, remember.

This is different? How? We're gone, se fue.

Your 'Big Tent' has be collapsed, buffoon.

[Peg C.]

Dan, great piece. If we're going to vote for moderates, we might as well just all be Democrats. If you don't have firm and resolute principles of liberty guiding you, you are a Democrat at best and a hard lefty at worst. 40% of this country is currently self-identifying as conservative. Why would they want to call themselves Republicans and be associated with party leaders who are colluding to rob us of our liberty and property?

The GOP got pounded in '06 and '08 because we became not only dispirited but disgusted. We had no leadership standing up for us and representing conservatism. We had so-called leaders who just wanted to be liked by the MSM and the Beltway; who were corrupt, who were lying, who got involved in high profile scandals, who did NOT want to see ANY conservatives nominated for president and other leadership roles and who totally turned their backs on us - who were, in all but name, DEMOCRATS. Corruption, mendaciousness, sex and finance scandals, taxing, spending, coercive and punitive policies, regulating away liberty, refusing to protect this country and her allies - these all define DEMOCRAT. When we see RINOs doing this, WE DON'T VOTE. Folks who can't understand this can't understand anything - and the GOP better understand this quick.

Next year the tea partiers are going to gear up in a fearsome way and really make a difference around the country. The same people who bragged that the tea partiers were doing nothing but gathering and echo chambering without strategy are now pissing themselves that we are a force to be reckoned with in elections where there is a choice between a conservative and a DIABLO. When the left praises you, you are in big trouble. When they cry and call you names, you are hitting them where it hurts. They are screaming bloody murder now. The Crybaby Whiner-in-Chief and his thug cronies in the administration and Congress are in for a world of hurt. We are mad as hell, we're not going to take it anymore, and the Dems and lefties are incapable of defending the travesty they have elected.

Democrat Bloodbath in 2010, conservatism on the march.

[Pasadena Phil]

The current GOP is irrelevant so long as the leadership is not replaced. They are not the "sensible middle" among us. They can describe themselves as "moderates" all they want but we know they are hard-core liberal socialists, the most left-wing of Democrats. They should re-register to that party and be done with this charade. That would make it safe again for the GOP to actually stand for something again.

There is a good reason why GOP registrations have dropped from 39% in 2004 (at par with Democrats) to 20% today (vs about 29% Democrat) and it wasn't because the party went all "right wing crazy". America keeps drifting rightward while the elite establishment drifts further and further leftward on its path to fascist socialism. The American dream is founded on existence of a dominant and thriving middle class. Today, we find ourselves having to choose between two unpopular and indistinguishable parties hiding behind the fictitious fig leaf of "bipartisanship", two-parties united in warring against ordinary Americans. Americans are right to be angry and frustrated and it isn't unpatriotic to voice our anger even if the entrenched corruptocrats deem it to be "uncivil" and "divisive". So be it but it must be done. We will eventually take over the government like a tsunami to drive these clueless traitors out.

[Huey]

We're a two-party system. It is in the PRIMARIES that "conservatives" should push for and promote their "conservative" candidates.

If the "conservative" ("quotes" to distinguish belief from party) candidate wins, then the Republicans should get behind him. If the Republican wins (liberal, moderate, conservative) then the "conservatives" should get behind him.

There IS a difference between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat -- if nothing more than the potential for chairs and committee selection.

That ain't nothing...especially when, if we win the majority, that/those "liberal" Republicans allow for more CONSERVATIVE Republicans to sit on/chair those Committees.

[Xiaoding]

"It there's one lesson to be taken from electoral history in this country, it's that third parties are for literal losers. With a few notable exceptions (Jesse Ventura), third party candidates get murdered at the polls, and ultimately end up electing Bill Clinton. Twice."

Gee, where I come from, when a party, say, like the Republicans, runs a candidate, and that candidate loses, it is that party, and not some other party, that loses. The Republcans, and not the third party, lost that race.

But then, where I come from, losers always blame someone else for their failures, so what do you expect.

Gosh, perhaps conservatives are just tired of Republican lies, go figure.

Get ready to KEEP LOSING, Republicans!!

[Pasadena Phil]

Huey and the rest of the "Republican Uber Alles" party noseholders. The primary system is RIGGED against us "conservatives". Does that help you understand what is going on? We conservatives have grown to 40% of Americans according to last week's Gallup poll. You Republicans have shrunk from 39% to 20% in just five years. You do the math. Either allow us to participate in the process or suffer your fate. Whining is very unbecoming.

[Pasadena Phil]

Xiadoing: exactly. For those Republican noseholders who are so afraid of "3rd parties", WAKE UP! Your beloved Republican Party IS the 3rd party. We conservatives are the biggest voter bloc and we are disenfranchised by both wings of the Democratic Party. We have the numbers, Americans are finally understanding our message of individual empowerment and are fleeing "both" parties. Republicans have lost the numbers, the arguments and thus their legitimacy.

It may work out that the path of conservatives passed through the GOP, but if it does, it will be OUR GOP, not yours. We outnumber you 2:1 already and it getting better and better. We don't need you. Chew on that for a while.

[Huey]

Pasadena Phil: By my reckoning, "conservatives" get to participate in every primary by pushing for and supporting their candidate, and, ultimately voting for their candidate in the primary.

Certainly, the system is geared towards power perpetuating power.

As to the primary system being "rigged," I understand what you mean -- to a degree. But, I'm with Reagan -- the Republican party needs reforming -- we don't need a 3rd party, and, in fact, if that 3rd party is composed of those on the right of the political spectrum (i.e., composed of people who almost certainly would vote for the Republican candidate rather than the Democrat) then it does nothing but take votes away from the (almost certainly -- NY-23 notwithstanding) more conservative candidate as between the "R" and the "D."

I am a Reagan Conservative, but, like Limbaugh, I voted for McCain even though I disagreed with him on a host of issues. (Just as I voted twice for Bush even though I'm fairly certain I could go to any gathering of VFW members and throw a dart and find a more "conservative" candidate. The alternatives were either not voting (giving a vote to the "D's," or voting for a fringe (measured by potential vote not belief) candidate, again taking a vote from the "R" in doing so. (Voting for the "D" in these cases simply wasn't an option -- as in these cases the "D" was far more liberal than the "R.")

You may think that a 3rd party consisting of purist "conservatives" has the potential of actually winning in a state-wide or national election. While it may happen in a fairly sparsely populated state, it ain't happening in a national election or in a state with any significant population. All it will do is take votes away from the "R" candidate.

So, the option LEFT (if the goal is to actually elect "more conservative" candidates) is to fight this fight in the PRIMARIES, then support the most conservative candidate OF THOSE WHO HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN in the general election.

That is -- if the GOAL is to ensure that OF THOSE ELECTED they are the most conservative possible, rather than to "send a message" or to "promote a 3rd party" or to "purify the party" or any other damn thing than to ensure that the most conservative candidate is actually elected.

[davis,br]

First - Dan, I know I'm a dweeb, but this post had me shouting (literally) hosannas ...my wife even walked into the room to find out what was up. Kudos

Second - Huey, all your 11:41A reply did was expose your TOTAL lack of knowledge of what went down in NY-23. TOTAL lack. Go out and try educating yourself about the whole sordid process in NY-23 before you offer ignorant comments about conservatives "getting a voice" or "having our chance" in primaries. You just come off as a total clueless noob'. Start by reading some of Dan's past posts and links on NY-23, or by going to the TCOT Report and getting some background.

And back to the first: again, great post Dan.

[eaglewingz08]

If Dede is a 'moderate' than there are no leftwing Stalinists in the world. They too would be 'moderates'. Congrats to Hoffman and to the conservatives including former Gov. Palin and Gov. Pawlenty and Gov. Jindel for supporting Hoffman against that progressive Stalinist democrap in Repub clothing and for exposing her as the democrap that she is. It is shameful that the NRCC gave 900,000 of our money to that leftwing non moderate democrap. Those county chairs who supported Dede should be dead dead out of their jobs the sooner the better.
While I could understand wanting a MODERATE in certain districts, Dede was not a MODERATE and this district could elect a center right republican or conservative. Anyone who called Dede a 'moderate' is either an imbecile or a liar or both.

[Huey]

What happened in NY-23 is unique to NY-23. The "hand-off" of the Republican nomination by the GOP to Dede was, of course, absent a primary, an essential element of my post.

Of course, in NY-23, I was supporting Hoffman. He had two essential elements (found in my post) which are necessary for me to vote for him: 1) He is the "most conservative candidate", and 2) He has a chance to win.

The referenced post, in general, had nothing to do with that race, rather being a generalized statement of the proper time for conservatives to push their preferred nominee. NY-23, is a perfect example of what SHOULDN'T be done in the general election -- the Republicans fighting between themselves to the benefit of the Democrat. Had Dede not withdrawn (to support the liberal) it was entirely possible that the REPUBLICAN (again to distinguish it from the "conservative") vote would have been split enough to give the Democrats a seat which should go to the Republicans. (For further analysis of the dangers of a 3rd party draining votes from another party, see, e.g., the race for the NJ governor -- a race which might be lost by the Republican due to a 3rd party run in the general election.)

[davis,br]

...I rest my case entirely, Huey. You would have been better off not responding: you're totally out of your league. I _am_ glad that you've the great good sense to have supported Hoffman tho' ...kudos on that bit of insight.

[Huey]

Which "league" would that be, Davis? And what "case?"

You alleged that I hadn't a clue about what happened in NY-23. (I will say, however, that I have followed it very closely these past weeks -- since it became prominent on this blog and others) -- and would assert that I'm as informed about that race as anyone who follows conservative blogs can be without being intimately involved with the election.) I merely state that the post to which you refer not only didn't directly reference NY-23, but specifically addressed races other than NY-23.

So, what part of my post do you disagree with?

My argument essentially runs as follows:

1) The time for "conservatives" to push for their candidate of choice is in the primaries. (Again...this is a clue that I wasn't talking about NY-23...)

2) After the primaries are over, "conservatives" should, in general, vote for the person with an "R" after his name because any "R" is, in general, better than every "D" -- if not individually, then in the additional power that might be gained by the overall number of "R's" in committee chairs and assignments.

3) "Conservatives" should not, in the general election, run a 3rd party candidate since the likelihood is that doing so simply ensures that the "D" wins since it splits the "R" vote between die-hard "R's" and "conservatives."

Of course, there are exceptions to this generality, but they are few and far between. There are few instances where the "R" in the general election is to the left of the "D" (or on a liberal par with her), but they could happen, a choice of left and lefter.

I am, unfortunately, a firm believer that the vast portion of the voting populace is ill informed and, in great part, intentionally so. Approximately 40% don't even vote for President. In the off-year elections, less than 50% of those who could vote do vote. Of those who do vote, I would happily state that fully 1/2 of them haven't a clue as to the positions of the person they're voting for, or have only a glimmer of a clue formed by 30 second advertisements interrupting their favorite television shows. (Of course, these made up numbers are skewed by party somewhat simply because "R's" tend to be more informed than "D's" by a significant margin.)

Those people are going to vote for the "R" or the "D" regardless of the positions of the person whose name preceeds that "R" or "D" because they have always voted "R" or "D." (At the time she dropped out, Dede still had 20% or thereabouts of the "R" vote.)

So, unless the vote is taking place in an area which is significantly loaded towards a particular party (such as NY-23 historically) the most likely outcome of a 3rd party "conservative" bid is to simply split the "R" vote sufficiently to give the race to the "D."

Which part of that is disagreeable to you?

[Xiaoding]

Huey: the American Revolution would never have happened, had you been there to "guide" them. Sure, run Gen. Washington in the primaries, but, then, vote for the monarchist!

This time, the solutions are out of the box. If the "3rd" parties wreck things for the Republicans...then get rid of the Republicans! And rather, honest leftists in power, than lying posers and Republicans.

Conservatives, do not listen the the DIABLOS amongst us! (Kudos to whoever used that word first!) Singing their songs of easy retreat!

Better now, that the whole system come crashing down, then put up with it for who knows how long, and who knows what price in freedom. If we fail now, will our children pay for our failure in blood?

[iconoclast]

heh. Ok, I'll bite.

GOP moderates and independent moderates should view themselves as moving slowly to a liberal society with smaller, less intrusive, and constitutionally limited government. As opposed to moving quickly to that point.

So we only eliminate one useless department every few years instead of creating new ones. I suggest the Department of Education as a good first target for removal. Then work our way down that list.

Anyone wishing to move to an even stronger central government with fewer (or no) constitutional limits should be forced to be as apologetic for desiring tyranny as current moderate GOP'ers are apologetic for moving to smaller government.

[Huey]

Xiaoding: Have we gone back in time when I wasn't looking?

I was under the impression that we were in the year 2009, living in a fully mature government with over two centuries of political history behind us -- political history which can teach those who wish to learn.

We are in a dangerous crossroads in this country, perhaps the most dangerous since the Revolution you refer to. At no point has there been the potential to remake ("transform") this country into something which no longer adheres to the principles set forth by our founders. Even now, our country is governed by a sufficient number of one party that they can essentially do whatever they desire politically.

They have taken over the automobile industry in the greatest part.
They have taken over the financial industry for the greatest part.
They are using arms of the government to spew forth propaganda to persuade the sheep of the aims of the government, whether to the grown-ups in television ads or to the children through indoctrination.
They are attempting to take over 20% of the economy in the health care "insurance" take over.
They are attacking and attempting to demonize any who don't toe the line in an effort to marginalize them and silence them.
They are attempting, in the end, to make us just "one of the boys" just another equal among equals rather than the most dominant force (in every way) that the world has ever known.

2010 is the moment of time where we can stop them.

And, by "we," I don't mean "conservatives," I mean REPUBLICANS.

Republicans must take over the House and increase their number in the Senate, else they may yet attain their goal.

That's why I believe that Dede's endorsement of the Democrat in NY-23 is a "good thing" regardless of its effect. It highlights the weakness and willingness of our GOP leaders to compromise their supposed principles to gain a seat by selecting and supporting liberals with an "R" after their name. Her endorsement highlights this weakness in pursuit of power.

The ONLY way to convince the mostly conservative American populace that voting "Republican" is the answer to Obama's radical agenda is for the Republicans to actually STAND FOR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES.

In the primaries, perhaps this egg on their faces will prompt them to search for and stand behind conservative Republicans, trusting that the MESSAGE will result in victory.

Lower taxes. Strong national defense. Less governmental intrusion. Free markets.

There must be a bright line, a clear distinction between Republicans and Democrats.

But, ONCE THE "R" IS DETERMINED through the primary process, that "R" must be supported in 2010 so that the Republicans can stop the madness of Obama's agenda. It is inevitable that, in deep blue districts, either the Democrats will win or whatever "R" who wins will be virtually indistinguishable from the "D." It is our version of "blue dogs." It is a political reality from which there is little potential of escape -- except by altering the realities of those who vote in those districts/states. They simply won't vote for anyone who so fundamentally disagrees with their view of reality. (Or, not enough of them will.)

A visionary leader can change this paradigm. Unfortunately, the only visionary leader in the GOP horizon who has the guts, message, and charisma that is necessary to pull off such a "game changer" is Sarah Palin. And, she has done a lot already. But, in the face of the incessant attacks by the MSM (and our own GOP intelligentsia) she may have been too tarnished in the minds of too many voters to lead the attack from the fore, and must continue her attacks from the flanks.

Time will tell.

But, 2010 will make or break us.

If the liberals gain control of health care, then they will have succeeded in politicizing our health care and, in the future, every time someone goes into the voting booth, in the forefront of their minds will be "what will this person do to my health care" -- trumping issues of national security, free enterprise, and just about everything else as we should have learned from the politicizing of Medicare -- letting the Democrats to PERMANENTLY demonize conservatives as ones who will cut funding to health care, frightening -- not just seniors -- EVERYONE into voting DEMOCRAT in perceived self-interest.

It is a naked grab for perpetual power and one which won't be forestalled by in-fighting by the right in the GENERAL ELECTION.

Confine that in-fighting to the PRIMARIES and vote "R" thereafter.

[Xiaoding]

Huey: Asking a Republican, who does not subscribe to conservative principles, to stand for those principles in an election, is called "posing".

What loyalty can be expected from these folks? What drive? How could they eliminate the dept. of Education,for instance, no doubt a huge job?

The time for posers is over.

The Republcans ask, yet AGAIN, for conservatives to compromise their principles, and vote Republican. I propose, we tell the Republicans to go to hell, they can compromise THEIR priciples, we will not.

I agree with many of your predictions. But this is a time for people to stand, and be counted, for the fight ahead. Posers have no fight in them.

If the Democrats succeed in the naked power grab, so be it. Revoloutions come, when enough people decide, that they simply cannot live another second under this fraud of a government. Anything that accomplishes that goal is to the good.