ATLANTA— In yet another sign that conservatives may be forcibly changing the direction of the Republican Party (and possibly the country), Dede Scozzafava (R), has suspended her campaign in the New York District 23 run-off election for Congress. Mrs. Scozzafava has been pilloried by the right for being pro-abortion and too soft on state spending and other key issues. Her withdrawal from the race may free up Republican votes for Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who had lost the Republican nomination to Mrs. Scozzafava in an earlier primary. Mr. Hoffman’s views align much more closely with those of the Republican conservative base and he would caucus with Republicans in the House. Mrs. Scozzafava was behind in the polls and her campaign cited inadequate funds to define her candidacy for voters against sharp criticism from conservatives.
What an exciting development!
Conservatives everywhere are pulling for a trifecta next Tuesday, with Mr. Hoffman winning in District 23 and Bob McDonnell (R) and Chris Christie (R) winning gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. This could signal a widespread rejection of Barack Obama’s ideological over-reaches and might be an early warning to Democrats that 2010 will be ugly.
Most significantly, such a trifecta could derail the health care debate in Congress and end Mr. Obama’s hopes of dramatically overhauling the health care system with big government.
There are more ominous signs that one could read from the Scozzafava withdrawal, however. It could be an evidence that a split is occurring within the Republican Party between the hard-core conservative base and the much more moderate Republican establishment.
The open disagreement this past week between prominent Republicans Sarah Palin, who supports Hoffman, and Newt Gingrich, who supported Scozzafava, could be a troubling sign of rifts and internal wrangling within the Party. If the Republican Party lacks unity in the upcoming year, it will blunt the conservative uprising and could guarantee that Barack Obama’s unhealthy agenda will continue on.
My hope is that Republicans recognize the need for unity, come next summer and fall, and that the issues highlighted by this election in New York are resolved.
More importantly, I’m hoping next Tuesday serves to derail this awful health care reform bill in front of Congress!
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
Let’s pause for a minute and recognize that Scozzafava has done something here that is almost unheard-of in politics today. She has acknowledged the dynamics of the race, refused to be the spoiler, and backed out with class. For a candidate whose campaign’s gracelessness has been its undoing, her graceful exit should be acknowledged.
Now let’s win this race!
Nevermind! I take everything nice I said about Scozzafava back. She waited a whole 24 hours before endorsing the Democrat in the race.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/scozzafava_endorses_democrat_b.asp
So, NRCC, what do you think about all that money you spent on this lovely lady now?
>There’s little doubt that Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens was motivated by her politics of personal revenge.
From the article you posted. How true- and what a shame! This is what is wrong with politics. There shouldn’t be a place for revenge in all of this. We are talking about our country’s future and our fiscal well-being. Issues like healthcare that will affect all of is.
And Scozzafava is so small as to imply this is about revenge.
This is truly the height of conceit.
Great point. I concur that it is something unique in politics. Generally, the candidate puts their own pride in front of everything else. Not so this time.
Was just reading another article on these races and they were talking about much trouble Deeds is having generating the enthusiasm Obama generated in Viriginia.
We talked on this blog during last year’s election about how Obama was too dependent on voting blocs that are notorious for not showing up come election time. At the time, we thought that might make his margin of victory smaller. We were wrong- he got them to show up in 2008. …But maybe the problem was a prospective one- he would have trouble rallying them in the off year elections.
I question whether or not Republicans are currently capable of uniting behind a conservative front. Newt and the other Republican “leaders” are apparently unable to understand that the Liberal machine must be confronted and defeated, rather than hoping that the Libs will respond to peaceful offers to work together in solving the nation’s problems. Their attitude has resulted in the aura of corruption that taints Washington so thoroughly.
Yep – I agree with your thoughts. This is probably the biggest open question for me as we head into next year.
I’m disappointed with Newt. He still has a strong draw in conservative circles (where people can forgive his obvious personal hypocracy in terms of his affair in the late 1990′s).
But it’s disappointing politically that he is not more discerning.
Stephen, I think your point is right about the non-performing voting blocs. Those folks were far more likely to turn out for the idea of Obama than the reality that Obama has presented. They weren’t voting for policies or outcomes as much as they were a feeling — Obama was selling an opportunity for Americans to feel better about themselves than they had under Bush. Americans had been told for years that their country’s leaders were corrupt, lying, scheming, stupid warmongers. Obama swore he would be none of these things, and he had no record to prove him wrong. (Note that the moments he dipped in the polls were those when his record was brought forward to show that he might be those things – Wright, “clingers,” Joe the Plumber.)
Now that he’s got a record, and it’s playing out on the nightly news every evening, Americans are losing that lovin’ feeling. Even those Obama voters who still want to believe are less motivated to defend their guy, and less certain that his preferred candidates are right for them. We all likely had moments in 2006-2007 when we avoided our friends’ political conversations or stopped watching the news, largely because we knew nothing good could come of it. That’s what Obama folks are experiencing now. For everyone but the truest believers, the best way to deal with disappointment is to do something else. Hopefully New Jersey Democrats will go bowling rather than support their unpopular governor.
Maine, I think you have to remember that Gingrich is a product of the Washington system, not the grassroots. He likes to posture as the voice of the people sometimes, but this guy spent over a decade in the House leadership, where he had to do things like pick special election candidates and decide who gets NRCC money in an intraparty spat. He’s strongly predisposed to trust the institutional Republican decision, even if it runs against his personal ideology, because he hated it when outside folks criticized his decisions when he was in charge of those same institutions.
The good news about NY-23 is that none of next year’s primaries will be decided by the county chairmen of the district. They’ll be decided by the people. And as much as they might like to put their finger on the scales, they will back the people’s choice in the end. If you want to vent your frustration at the Republicans’ tendency to pick the “next in line” over the conservative option, give money to Marco Rubio!
>Marco Rubio
Yeah, this guy is a definite spark plug. I would think he would be huge with hispanic voters.
And on that topic, the Republicans need to make serious outreach to Hispanics. They are a completely untapped market that is ripe with intinsic conservative values. Most of them have fleed the financial ruin that political liberalism has wreaked on their countries and they are happy to find a place that is free, welcomes dissent and public political debate, and that rewards hard work. Plus, they are socially conservative. I think they are a completely untapped market and a potential boon for Republicans, if we can reach them. (We just have to tamper down the anti-immigration crowd within the party, because that is totally unhelpful).
But agreed on your analysis here.
This is truly an exciting time for Conservatives. My greatest fear is that we will be lured in by “big tent” Republicans who, like New, often put party loyalty over platform.
With Obama in office and things like Public Health Care, National Defense, the bail out, Taxes, and the Fairness Doctrine clearly on his agenda, we have the perfect opportunity to contrast the deep philosophical differences between the Right and the Left. Seldom in American history has such a wide chasm existed. If we do not take advantage of this opportunity and unite behind core conservative principle we have failed.
Yep – this is really exciting. When you get 40% of the nation or more riled up in an off-year election, you have a good chance of making real headway. Most people sit home on the congressional elections, so getting people to the voting booth is 90 percent of the battle. The energy is on our side.
Given the number of condescending articles from hyper-liberals bashing tea-party goers and predicting the implosion of the Republican Party in recent weeks (read, Frank Rich), it tells me they are scared. They know they have awoken a sleeping giant. This is a center right nation they thought they changed overnight last November. They were wrong.
We have started Pickett’s charge with the Tea Parties and recent demonstrations. It will be very interesting to see if we can keep it up all the way across the open political field.
I pray we can.
Yikes, Chuck – can we pick a bit more hopeful a metaphor next time? Might as well have said we were the Light Brigade…!
LOL! Good point. I will pick the winning side next analogy…
Some great exploration and commentary here, guys. Marque, it is hard to argue with your analysis – you seem to have had Obama pegged from the beginning.
I would agree that the doomed, gallant misadventures of Pickett’s charge and the Light Brigade might not be the most enlightening metaphors to attach to the Tea Party activities, Chuck. It is an indicative point, though, that the true conservatives who instigated these activities did so without any national political power “having their back” (upon reflection, that is certainly no surprise, given a politician’s natural bent to take advantage of events from which they can profit without investing much of their personal and political capital).
A most interesting and enjoyable discussion.
My hope is for a schism of the party if the RINOs try to run things. Better to have an actual option than to just have a piece of crap that just smells a little less pungent than the other steaming pile of “hope and change”.
I am quite comfortable as part of the lunatic conservative fringe – it is my conscience. Definitely not interested in Newt Gingrich or Bob Dole – who have both chimed in as of late on the political spectrum.
I remain firmly entrenched in the court of Ron Paul and he gets proven more correctly every day that famous RINOs, Lindsey Graham and John McCain, bungle things on Capital Hill.
Based on my observations – just through discussion with my wife and her family – who are pretty conservative politically in their own Hispanic countries, they are perfectly happy to see the current trend in American politics. I call them out on it on a daily basis if I hear them talk of how Obama is good for the US and generally correlate him to their leaders (Rafael Correa in their case) pretty successfully. I don’t really expect much from the Hispanics as a conservative voting bloc – they hold a pretty strong grudge over immigration and it will not be forgotten anytime soon. I recommend you see George Lopez’s most recent comedy special on HBO to get a good picture of what the voting bloc considers important and you will see that it is pretty much only immigration.
I agree in that I get frustrated with the RINO’s. Lindsey Graham is definitely one of my least favorite. I’ve never been certain what he stood for. Seems to stand for himself, above all else.
A schism in which conservatives split from push-over moderates would be nice in one sense, b/c we wouldn’t have to worry about flip-floppers on key issues.
But it would also make winning national elections very, very difficult. As frustrating as the RINO’s are, they are representative of the makeup of certain states/districts and the reality is, that makeup is a part of America and it is not going to change anytime soon.
I’m for a party that is more true to its conservative roots, but I do at times worry whether that is sustainable nationally.
The only way I could be certain that it would be is if a centrist party of some type sprouted up in the middle. I’ve been kind of hoping one would, to attract the moderates out of both parties. Then we’d have a fighting chance. Of course, we’d have to then build coalitions in the Congress in order to get legislation passed, and maybe we’d be right back where we started.
To your point on Hispanics, I agree- the immigration issue is a huge one. There’s got to be a sensible way to address the problem of illegal aliens. Unfortunately, though, I don’t have any ideas and I haven’t heard any good ones put forward…
BaldManMoody,
Good points here. I think we are truly at a defining moment for the Republican party. To me, the entire Big Tent thing is meaningless. Either your party stands for certain core principles or it stands for everything…which means it stands for nothing.
Agreed Chuck – I have become quite accustomed to voting for the losing side as I generally vote Libertarian (or someone who closely reflects what I believe Libertarianism represents – i.e. Ron Paul). I didn’t vote for any of the bad alternatives floated by the Libertarian party in 2008.
As for the need to have a moderate party come into the middle – more power to them. If there is truly such a moderate majority in this country why haven’t they gotten rid of the two parties of tools that inhabit Washington?
The interesting I find about schisms of the two parties (read one overall ineffective party in the pocket of lobbyists/out of touch with its voters) and watching people talk about them is that everyone is perfectly fine with a schism if it happens to when the party they more closely identify with principle wise (who really stands for none of the principles they espouse) is not the party in power.
Quite frankly, the change has to happen and if it happens when the Republicans are in the minority I am fine with it and if it happens when the Dems are in the minority I am fine with it. Maybe if people actually got a choice, lobbyists had to spread themselves thinner – maybe we could actually see change. Probably a pipe dream on my part. After all, they are all politicians.
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? At any rate, if traditional republicans are leaving, it is not because they have suddenly become democrats. Rather, they are being pushed out. I have posted that this will hurt the GOP. See: 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/
Euandus – thanks for visiting the site and for your comments.
Being an evangelical Christian who votes Republican, I find your comments very interesting indeed. I recognize there is a divide in the Republican Party, much like you say. But I am not so sure that it is as dramatic as you say, such that there could be a split coming down the road.
Many evangelical Christians are business people in companies large and small, and have a lot of same convictions about economic policy as would the non-religious “libertarians” in the party, albeit they come to them from a much different worldview.
I’m filling in a blank here in terms of what you had in mind that was driving off traditional Republicans, but I assume a major area where Christians and libertarians differ is on views concerning abortion and homosexual marriage and how public policy should address both. But I think you would be hard pressed to say evangelical views on these matters are outside the mainstream, given how poorly homosexual marriage has performed at the ballot in the last couple of election cycles and given the shifting American views on abortion over the last 15 – 20 years.
the Bob McDonnel election in Viriginia is also an interesting case here, because he is very much from the evangelical, conservative side of the Republican Party, having graduated from Regent University. And yet he approached his election focused on kitchen table issues like transportation, job creation, etc. He did not come off like a “cultural warrior” that would put many non-reilgious Americans off. I think instead, he probably attracted and retained the very “traditional” Republicans you are saying are being driven out of the Party.
As an evangelical, I believe matters of religious faith are to be addressed interpersonally and in church-related settings, and it runs contrary to scripture to say that we should push Christianity and Christians views top-down on people through the government. The majority of evangelicals believe this way.
But I think they draw the line on issues of morality- we believe abortion is effectively killing an unborn child, so clearly we want laws to protect against that. Further, on homosexual marriage, we believe if embraced by states nation-wide, it will lead to a backlash and restrictions of religious freedom, with churches and Christian communities coming under assault when such marriages are not recognized b/c they run contrary to Christian faith. If Christians were advocating a ban on homosexual behavior- that would be different. We are not. We simply believe the government is dabbling into a the religious/moral arena when they designate something as being “marriage” versus being anything else. Defining marriage is a church and private matter, not a state matter.
Anyway – those are the first blush thoughts that come to my mind as I read your comments here and back on your blog. Would be curious to hear more about your views here.
Thanks again for dropping by.