And this was the GOP choice? I know NY is a Blue state, BUT I thought the GOP here was still red. "Politics breed strange bedfellows", (but Scuzzyfava better stay OUT of mine!!)

Conservatives seem more than willing to lose with Hoffman than win with Scozzafava.

Scozzafava, selected but not elected.

I wonder if the NY Republican bigwigs that selected her are regretting their choice now that she withdrew and endorsed the Democrat.

Question for Scuzzy:
Were you telling the truth over the last few months when you said Owens would be BAD for NY-23...or are you telling the truth now, when you say he is PERFECT for it??

Bonus question:
Do you have any concept of what the word "Truth" means? "Integrity"? "Shame"?
(ok, that was 3 bonus questions)

As far as I am concerned we can now lump Newt with Frum, Noonan and all the rest of their ilk. Guess the "big tent" doesn't apply when a RINO is on the receiving end. What did anyone expect from this woman anyway, isn't her husband a union official? If Hoffman loses it's better having a Democrat voting for liberal policy then some pretender with an (R) behind his/her name.

If you "quietly encourage", does anybody hear?

Moderates and centrists aren't real Republicans. They shouldn't be allowed in the Republican Party.

Tom: "Moderates and centrists aren't real Republicans. They shouldn't be allowed in the Republican Party."

Well golly...BULLSHIT!

DeDe Scuzzy was NOT a "Moderate" or a "Centrist"...and thus, no, she ISN'T welcome!

Nice try.

The Democrat Party is INFESTED with Far Left loons...CONTROLLING it.

Moderates and TRUE Centrists are welcome in the Republican Party.

Scozzafava is a moderate, and now she's come out and endorsed Owens the Dem.

It's the Bush effect, extended. You nutcakes put up one of your far right idealogue and moderates and liberals join together to stop you.

Bush. Done that. Move on GOP. Give Americans a moderate choice instead of pushing these far right conservatives and you might have a chance.

This is a stunning defeat for Sarah Palin. It's gonna leave a mark, and slow down her fundraising.

Owens will win by double digits.

Vic

VIO:

Crawl back under your rock. Sunshine makes you sick.

What good did it do for the Republican establishment to support Arlen Specter all these years? Al he ever did was bite Republicans in the ass. Good riddance, Scuzzybeans.

Little Vicky...darlin',
Your posts read like a collection of MSM sound bites copied, pasted and..and..oh what the hell do they call that thing you can do with songs on IPods..I know..shuffled..copied, pasted and shuffled for reader consumption. LOL

It all sounds familiar because nothing has changed, ac.

Some learn and adapt. Conservatives ignore the present and reach for the past.

That's the basic difference. Progressives want to move forward and conservatives want to move backwards, and moderates agree with moving forward until they perceive the country is headed in the wrong direction.

All we've seen from conservatives in the time since Obama took office is more of the same old partisan bickering, and goose-stepping party loyalty.

It's the Bush era extended. Figure it out. Or not.

Vic

Some learn and adapt. Conservatives ignore the present and reach for the past.

That's the basic difference. Progressives want to move forward and conservatives want to move backwards(/blockquote>

Yes, and by moving forward, you mean reaching to policies and ideas from Woodrow Wilson and FDR. That's the "forward" thinking progressive regressives?

Vic is an example of the lack of intelligence the left represents. Vic, you lack honesty, integrity, and courage. I think you lack a double digit IQ, but 10 is not a big number.

PROGRESSIVES-powered by democrats, greens, and liberals. In actuality, try socialist/marxist as a true definition of, and to identify the goals of, the "progrssive" movement.

So, Victory is ours, the truth shall set you free (or not, under progrssives. Some of them are MORE equal than others.) Which one are you???

Breaking News:

It turns out that Hoffman is a devotee of Glenn Beck's and has signed some sort of weird pledge/manifesto.

developing . . .

Breaking Rumors:

Adrian and Vic share a double-wide in Hazard Holler.

developing...

BTW, the 912.org connection is no secret or surprise, just a typical ejaculation (seems to be originating at LGF, but who knows or cares).

For all the deep dark secrets at 912, take a look:

http://912candidates.org/ny/2009/09/05/912-candidate-doug-hoffmann-u-s-congress-ny-23rd-district/

This is good news. Not only is the conservative now in a position to win big, it also proves what most of us knew, she was just a democrat making pretend being republican.

And now a fact for our "challenged" VIO. McCain is a moderate/liberal, the republicans ran him and lost. Do you know why? Can your little brain figure it out? He was not conservative. So keep on carping about the conservatives not keeping up, but in fact, you have no idea what you speak about. ww

Conservatives seem more than willing to lose with Hoffman than win with Scozzafava.

Really? In what sense do conservatives win by electing a pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro stimulus/big government comgressman? The fact that Scozzafava is supporting the Dem is enough to tell you that she does not really hold conservative values. So for conservative voters there really wasn't any difference in voting for her vs voting for the Dem candidate.

While I'm not from NY23, my own perspective is that with her or with the Dem conservatives lost. She would not stand with the GOP on core issues. If you have her supporting the stimulus then she would also be likely to break ranks on cap and trade and other issues.

The problem with supporting candidates like Scozzafava is that you end up thinking that you have support for your policies and then you get situations like Snowe, Chaffee, and Specter where the scumbag who you supported screws you over in favor of looking good to the leftist media. The dems are finding this out for themselves in the house where the more vulnerable and conservative members are balking at supporting key legislation.

The reality is that party affiliation means nothing. It is what the candidate actually stands for that is important. That's why Obama is sinking in the polls with independents. They bought a blank slate and now that he's showing what he really is they are not as happy with it.

For the record, when I said:

Conservatives seem more than willing to lose with Hoffman than win with Scozzafava.

I agree. When the GOP candidate gets the endorsement of the Daily Kos they have the wrong person on the ballot.

The GOP spent $900,000 on Scozzafava's, now she endorses the Democrat.

This will be a big help in future fundraising for the GOP./s

Now that she is using the $900,000 to pay for robo-calls promoting the Dem candidate is there any reason why any conservative would donate a single penny to the GOP?

It's one thing to support an individual candidate but with the party's track record of supporting worthless self-promoting liberals why give them any encouragement?

it's easy to see why so many of our "beloved" trolls here are suddenly so supportive of Scuzzy: they LOVE turncoats, and people with no brains or scruples. Scuzzy is their tri-fecta!

As for the NRCC...they ARE gonna have a tough time getting people to donate unless they start backing only candidates that represent the area they aim to represent!

If you're a Republican running in a BLUE District then you're likely to be Center-Left...and that find. Scuzzy was FAR-Left, in a Red'ish/Purple District. Center, Center-Right, and even Center-Left would have worked.

But to be backed by ACORN and the Unions? Puhleeeze!

"Now that she is using the $900,000 to pay for robo-calls promoting the Dem candidate is there any reason why any conservative would donate a single penny to the GOP?"

Good point. Of course, I've been saying that for a while now -- that the GOP was a dead party. Glad some of you are wising up to that fact.

Vic

After this quote yesterday from Dede S. "I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger." is it any wonder why the NRCC has been told repeatedly by conservatives 'Not one more red cent" until they realize compromise is something Republicans do to ingratiate themselves to the Democrats and that they need to return to what made them a force in the 80's and got them elected in the 90's? That lesson only cost them $900k.

Newt's back side has got to be stinging with that swift kick to his posterior.
Personally, I still think he needs to go pound sand.

Hey Vic,

People don't like to agree with you, but I will. Hopefully the GOP as it has been for the last 10 years is DEAD, and is going back to the GOP of the 1980's and early 90's instead. Indeed I cannot stand the GOP as it stands now and hope it dies.

The name might remain after the fallout, but the core values will have returned. A party without values is just a letter by a name. (R,D)

HOWEVER, conservatism is not dead just because the republicans are. The Republicans are dying because they abandoned conservative values and voters were too disillusioned to turn up to the polls. OR the voters were sending a message to the party.

The current democract congress did not win the last election, the republicans lost it. And if they continue down their current path I would rather see a few true conservatives than a bunch of Democrat-light's with an R beside their name.

It is especially scary to hold to my values and vote with integrity in the face of the socialist administration trying to tear down my country. But I don't think the current GOP would stop this train wreck from happening so much as slow it down a little.

However I have found out that the reason you people don't see a problem with our current direction is because you HATE America in its current form and DO want to see it torn apart and rebuilt as a socialist nation. In your arrogance you will not or cannot see how you are wrong. It doesnt matter that it has never worked long term anywhere else in the world, it only matters that this time "We will do it right!".

Your arrogance and stupidity scare the ever-loving-poo out of me.

Another weak-kneed pants wetter afraid of boogeymen invented by Fox News and the same do-nothing Republican party leading bright bulbs that supported Scozzavava.

The room feels a little colder after reading your hateful diatribe, Russ, but even your little poo-fest isn't enough to make me feel anything less than elated that the DEMS and the GOP moderates in this district are joining together to stop monsters like you from regaining power in this country.

Crawl in a hole with the rest of the 20 percenters, Russ. It's not as if you love your country anyway -

- you love your country the way it was 30 years ago. The rest of us are moving forward and honestly quite happy to leave folks like you behind.

Really.

Vic

Newt and the GOP leadership asked conservative Repubs to vote for her, even if they didn't totally agree with her, because 'at least she's a Repub.'

So what's the first thing she does after dropping out? She supports the Democrat!

No matter what the outcome of the election, Newt and the moderate/lefty GOP leadership have egg on their faces.

All this story proves is that it's not Dems vs Repubs. Most of the time it's Dems and Repubs (AKA the government) vs the rest of us. (Taxpayers/Wealth creators)

That's the basic difference. Progressives want to move forward and conservatives want to move backwards, and moderates agree with moving forward until they perceive the country is headed in the wrong direction.

"Progressives want to move towards a more socialistic government paternalism and conservatives want to move back towards smaller government with limited powers. Moderates agree with whoever the MSM tells them to until they realize the country is headed in the wrong direction."

TFTFY

No charge.

What's most edifying is that Scozzafava's detractors can give very, very specific reasons why they looked past her party affiliation and opposed her: she's pro-choice, she's pro-union, she's a tax hiker, and she's backing ObamaCare. And not just a little bit; all those groups have invested in her and her election. Often, one of those can be excused by mainstream Republican voters (not necessarily Republicans) for the right candidate, but all of them together... then it became a race between a Democrat and a Democrat in Republican clothing.

But Hoffman's detractors, such as the perennially clue-challenged Vic, can't bring themselves to cite specifics. What's Hoffman saying or doing that is so bad?

Oh, he's signed on to Beck's 9/12 project!!!

I've actually read the details of the 9/12 project. I don't buy into all of them, but -- taken on their own, without the baggage the liberals and anti-Beckers want to saddle with it -- it's a sensible, responsible, even logical doctrine.

And it's a lot more positive than the 9/11 Truth petition that Van Jones signed off on.

Vic knows he would be crushed in an actual discussion of issues, so he recites his little laundry list of prepared talking points from Kos/Media Matters/MSNBC, and hopes no one notices there's no substance to them.

Hell, even his name is pure Obama: "We won." Nothing about how they deserved to win, that they were right, just as pure an expression of the spoils system -- they won, so therefore whatever they want to do is right and those that lost should just quietly curl up and die.

I'm torn on whether or not I'd want to see Vic right after the pendulum swings back and his beloved liberals are handed a loss. On the one hand, the exploding head would be tremendously entertaining. On the other, I do have a smidgen of compassion and would feel tremendous pity for Vic and his ilk when their world utterly implodes on them... not much, though, because they lit that fuse themselves.

J.

So, Vic, Owens will win by double digits, eh? Your contention is that the Republicans should run "moderates" and the Dems should run liberal statists in order for the public to recognize the Republican Party as a viable one?

Please explain to me why Hoffman surged past Scozzafava "the moderate" then. Please explain to me why a "moderate" is described thus only because they endorse the candidate on the other side and not the one they claim to hold the same values with. Please explain to me why polls show Hoffman and Owens so close in polls if Owens is to win by "double digits". If Scozzafava is such a paragon of moderate values would you vote for her over Owens? I sincerely doubt it.

Scozzafava endorsed Owens for personal reasons. She is a woman scorned and is effectively destroying her own political career to get back at someone who was beating her in polls. Maybe she'll do better if she just changes the initial after her name. But then the only reason she got endorsed by the likes of Kos was to try to poke Republicans in the eye. Look who's holding the stick now.

And Vic, your room is a little colder because there's no sunshine in your life. You exist to snipe and sneer and be a petty little partisan jerk with no personal convictions other than to sow hate.

If Republicans want to regain a congressional majority, they may have to tolerate a bit more apostasy than you contemplate, particularly when it comes to the Northeast. Here's why:

Hoffman benefits right now not merely because he's the "conservative" as opposed to the "liberal" Scozzafava, but rather because the NY23 election is singular. Only one election this year, and that's where all the action is.

Fast forward to 2010 or 2012, and we'll see nationwide elections again. Out-of-state conservatives who have a lot of energy and time to spend on NY23 this time around will instead be focused on their own states and districts ... and I somehow doubt that a Hoffman in the Northeast would attract quite the same attention as he does this year.

THAT SAID, this election because of the Big Mo. If Hoffman wins, then the conservative faction has momentum going into 2010. As in sports, momentum in politics is a powerful force that can carry a team -- even an objectively mediocre team -- to victory after victory.

An addendum:

I am more than a little fed up with the Republican Party/conservative movement. Too often, the movement focuses on abortion and religious issues to the exclusion of other matters. Also, the movement (from my position outside it, granted) apparently treats tax cuts as holy writ rather than one item in the political toolbox.

This last is particularly pernicious.

If we've seen anything in the last couple electoral cycles, it's that people want a lot from their government. If you're going to answer those needs reponsibly, you can either tell those voters to go pound sand -- a legitimate, if unpopular, response -- or you can finance those demanded programs. Financing them demands taxes.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem stuck in "cut taxes at all costs" mode rather than "finance government programs responsibly" mode.

A pity.

James, I have no interest is discussing your views or preferences relative to social issues. Yours, like everyone else's, are personal.

On the other hand I do want to correct a glaring error in your thinking. "... or you can finance those demanded programs. Financing them demands taxes.

Absolutely wrong. Financing any program requires tax receipts. There is a huge difference between what you said and reality. And it's not my job to teach you the difference.

Is George Bush officially a RINO now? Or how does that work?

UOG:
" Absolutely wrong. Financing any program requires tax receipts. There is a huge difference between what you said and reality. And it's not my job to teach you the difference. "

Oh, snap! Absolutely correct.

It doesn't even enter some people's minds that having too many taxes actually hurts tax receipts.
It doesn't even enter some people's minds that you can fund those supposedly 'demanded' programs by cutting other, less demanded programs. God forbid the govt cut or end a program.

"Is George Bush officially a RINO now?"
-

As has repeatedly and consistenly pointed out on this blog; he always was a rino, on some issues. (nclb, immigration, medicare drug handouts, etc..)

Only the lefty wingnuts considered him to be the arch-conservative supervillan

"I am more than a little fed up with the Republican Party/conservative movement. Too often, the movement focuses on abortion and religious issues to the exclusion of other matters. "

James H - Too often the left focuses on abortion and religious issues, blowing their significance WAY out of proportion to the actual issues facing the country. They're convenient, however, to avoid addressing any of the OTHER issues that conservatives are trying to address.

Right now - RIGHT NOW - we're spending in ways that are completely unsustainable, for issues that aren't vital to the country. Right now we're looking at grabbing a trillion dollars (likely much more before it's all said and done) to provide health care to a small segment of the population - which won't even SEE it until 2013 - and nobody seems to be wondering whether or not there's a cheaper or faster way to provide a medical safety net than create a massively expensive governmental infrastructure to provide a 'Cadillac' health plan for everyone not otherwise covered.

Shit - it's on the order of getting fleets of chauferred Hummers and using them for mass transit, building special elevated roads and stations EXCLUSIVELY for them, and then banning personal auto travel in the covered areas. Sure, it gets the people there - but is it the best use of resources? And what about people it indirectly affects?

If the goal is to get medical care to folks that need it, the people who use ERs for things like coughs and colds, fevers and food poisioning, who do not have doctors because they think they can't afford it - why not implement a program that gives people a 'Health Care Debit Card'? Put $1000 on that - and they can use it for doctor visits and prescriptions. Refill it back up to $1000 at the start of each new fiscal year. If they need more - there can be provisions for that. If they don't need it (or all of it) during the course of a year, let it roll over.

If they need ER services, they'll go to the ER like they're doing now, and the hospitals can write it off the way they're doing now. For anything less they can hit anything from a Walgreens' or WalMart MinuteClinic to a doctor that'll take it (at authorized rates - no $200 charge for the sniffles) and get prescriptions at the prevailing generic rates, around $4 a month.

Got a family? One card per SSAN. Arrange things so you can transfer balances within a family, so if you've got a sick kid who needs a lot of visits and prescriptions you can keep the child covered.

This wouldn't involve creation of a massive bureaucracy, or a takeover of the medical system. It'd be an expansion of current benefits, using the same state and federal databases that are used for food stamp cards, AFDC or WIC supplements, and unemployment benefits. It'd cut down on ER congestion - and quickly provide people a safety net for a fraction of the cost that Pelosi & Reid want to spend.

Depending on the number of people covered - it'd be around $50 billion a year after admin costs are accounted for, and with unused balance rollover, the charges in time would likely go down after the first year.

But then, a cost-effective, easily implementable solution isn't really what's wanted, is it?

I suppose you're talking about the Laffer curve? I'm quite aware of that, thank you very much. My specific objection is that tax cuts tend to be put forward as a one-size-fits-all automatically right answer to every question. There are times to cut certain taxes, and times to increase certain taxes. But always cutting all taxes? Not the best option.

At least conservatives put some thought into it most of the time. Libs on the other hand ONLY want to raise taxes in order to fund govt programs. Just as with the current healthcare debate they refuse to even let other ideas onto the table. Taxes are a necessary evil, but there is a balance to be reached and history has shown that every time taxes are lowered the total amount of income to the government goes UP!

GW was a RINO on too many issues but on a few he made us proud. His Presidency however is overshadowed by the things he did wrong.

One last defense of myself. I believe this country needs liberals AND conservatives. But it does absolutely no good to go full speed heading west if you are trying to get to Florida from New York. Moving forward is NOT always the best direction.

I do not want to move backwards, but I do not want to move toward the wrong choice, which socialism IS.

I don't hate you Vic, I hate your ideals but not you. Luckily I can ignore the fact that you hate me and would rather see me dead than listen to reason.

JLaw:

A brief abortion digression: Ruth Bader Ginsberg famously criticized Roe v. Wade for short-circuiting the emerging democratic (note small d) consensus on abortion. The longer I watch American politics, the more I agree witht his criticism.

James H -

And once again, when abortion is mentioned we're supposed to friggin' derail the thread?

Damn, dude, do all the folks leaning to the left have some Pavlovian obsession with it?

IT ISN'T RELEVANT! It doesn't cost the taxpayer much, if anything - and as far as I'm concerned it's a matter of choice! Put it aside - address the issue at hand.

Do YOU believe we can continue spending like this?

James H - "There are times to cut certain taxes..."

Another way of saying what you just said you believe it is government's responsibility to pick the winners and losers in society and the business world. I totally disagree with that premise. It could be on that very basis that you're liberal and I'm conservative.

JH:"But always cutting all taxes? Not the best option."
-

Who proposed this, and when?

B.S.

I think you're fibbing a little here.

Now, 'all taxes as low as needed and no more', I think you can find Repubs like that.

JLaw: Take the meds and calm down. I digressed because I find the politics around abortion tragic ... and the liberal criticisms of Roe interesting. But back to where we were.

No, I don't think spending can continue like it has, and it wouldn't surprise me if we have to make some stark choices about taxes vs. expenditures and make them soon.

Which is partly why I think Obama erred when he made healthcare reform a priority this year. As he came into office, President Obama inherited a slew of government financial obligations and world crises. And he turned his considerable energy and political capital to .... healthcare (???) Piling obligation on top of obligation strikes me as irresponsible.

Less Grossman:

Club for Growth rides the "cut taxes at all costs" bandwagon fairly regularly.

UOG:

Targeted tax cuts are nothing new. Whether you're talking about a tax credit for first-time homebuyers, a graduated tax credit for student loan interest, or tax breaks for opening a factory in a town with few jobs.

Les:

An additional thought, FWIW: Whatever the average Republican thinks, in your opinion, we've seen Republican leaders become allergic to tax hikes (when needed) because of what happened to the first President Bush in 1992.

"Which is partly why I think Obama erred when he made healthcare reform a priority this year. As he came into office, President Obama inherited a slew of government financial obligations and world crises. And he turned his considerable energy and political capital to .... healthcare (???) Piling obligation on top of obligation strikes me as irresponsible."

Health care reform was a mandate from the voters. Obama didn't make reform a priority, the People did.

Obama didn't abandon that mandate in the face of a Republican-led banking collapse and economic recession, true. Good for him.

Obama didn't abandon that mandate in the face of a Republican-led banking collapse and economic recession, true. Good for him.

Hogwash. A good leader would recognize that what the country NEEDS is different from what its people WANT. If I might channel Will Durst for a moment, people WANT government-paid healthcare. But they also WANT fat-free doughnuts.

The nation NEEDS sensible resolutions to the Afghanistan and Iraq situations. The nation NEEDS sensible regulation of Wall Street and responsible stewardship of the economy. Until those are restored, healthcare reform should wait.

Steve Green -

So how do YOU propose it be funded?

James H -

Agreed - abortion's a tragic thing, but too many folks seem to get derailed by focusing on that issue, and ignore other ramifications of the nominal groups they sign onto.

Fully agree with your #54 post, BTW. Buy the 52" TV AFTER the mortgage and bills are paid - not before!

Fully agree with your #54 post, BTW. Buy the 52" TV AFTER the mortgage and bills are paid - not before!

Or else cut out some of the bills. I'm actually doing a car swap/sale within the family for precisely this reason.

JLaw:

I often wish our political system were more third-party friendly. That way, we could have our center-left party and our center-right party, with people who care about a small core of issues (or who are to the fringes of their respective alignments) filtering out to small fringe parties that occasionally win a seat or two in the legislature.

JLawson,
It would be interesting to review the lefts'personal checking accounts. They either look like the governments, in the red all the time. Or they are all hypocritical.

Lame H :"Club for Growth rides the "cut taxes at all costs" bandwagon fairly regularly."
-
No kidding.

As I said, that's not the same as the 'always cutting all taxes' BS. There are plenty of taxes that should be cut right now. Doesn't mean that ALL taxes should be cut ALL the time.

As for Bush I's 'no new taxes', it was the Democrats who pressed the issue for purely political reasons. I don't know what these 'tax hikes (when needed)' are. Care to name any? If you want to pay for some new giveaway, you can cut something else to pay for it, you know.

They will cut something else, namely DOD funding...

Les:

Well, yeah, I could cut it. Problem is that every time somebody rides into Washington on the "Cut tax rates, cut spending" horse, they right back out again on the "Lower taxes, higher deficit" horse.

I sympathize with the "cut spending" rhetoric. I do, really. However, I no longer think cutting spending is realistic. The governments (state, federal, but especially federal) are seldom willing to dole out that medicine in sufficient quantity.