How about the option of I'm a Democrat and think it's a good idea for both parties to have a little of everything to appeal to more people, but more importantly be able to just do their job once they are elected!
I agree with you Laura, Let it be fair for both parties. I just want someone who is going to be professional, and honest, with the best interests of the people the forfront of their term. Im not a fan of party lines anyway. Have a great Day!!
This poll comes out of a lot of chatter nationally where GOP activists are blasting "liberal" Republicans, and most specifically in the special election in the NY 23rd Congressional District has become a national issue with a non-local candidate running on the conservative line has been able to force out the GOP candidate, but primarily with non-local backing. People such as Sarah Palin has criticized NY 23rd Republicans for being "parochial" for suggesting that local concerns should be more important than a national political agenda.
There's been a tremendous amount of outside interference in this race.
The NY 23rd former candidate Scozzafava mirrored what we as Republicans were given as a presidential candidate in John McCain. The party has lost its conservative footing and finally some are waking up to the fact. Newt Gingrich's support of Scozzafava in the beginning represents what is wrong with attitudes that we must abandon our core ideals just to make sure the "party" candidate gets elected.
This is why it is important to vote for candidates who best represent the fundamentals of your party and not just the one who has been force fed to you through questionable motivations.
Jeff, Scozzafava had the backing of local Republicans, winning key endorsements, before outside interference from national political operatives. It's none of Sarah Palin's business who the NY 23 elects. That's just offensive. Newt Gingrich is right on this point -- these so-called conservatives are hypocrites for always complaining about the size of government, advocating for home rule and then interfering in a local election.
I agree Howard, just as President Obama should not interfere with who runs or who does not run for NY Governor next year. Even though I'm no fan of Patterson, it is not Obama's or the DNC's business. I think there is far too much emphasis placed on party politics and not enough on the individual politician anyway, if a voter thinks a certain person is good for the constituency, then their affiliation shouldn't matter. I know it's good to be represented by someone who belongs to the party in power, but that is part of the problem in my opinion.
NY State - you can't tell a Republican from a Democrat without a scorecard. If you want to vote for a conservative, vote on the Conservative line - and I'm not always sure of those candidates either.
I'm not a Republican or Democrat. Voters register party affiliation; the party has no right to purge those who are not an ideological match. Republicans aren't alone prefering homogeneous support for the platform. Democrats have suffered from "big tent" syndrome for decades. I would be surprised if the Republicans abandoned their moderates. Moderates may not be the ideological helm- they certainly are the keel and account for significant campaign contributions. Aside from "Log Cabin" Republicans, theocrats and the Right wing extreme; what would remain without the moderates? Can Republicans afford to alienate their loyal "Silent Majority?"
You can try and blame Palin for the hoopla by getting involved, but Gingrich was the first to jump in.
Candidates always want big times names to back them. Its how it works. Obama has been doing campaign stops for many defeatocrats.
Secondly, the is a major indicator of a shift in political alignment in one of the two major parties of the country. The republicans (the people of the party, not the figureheads) saw what happens when you get closer to purple in color. The results of this election will show those figureheads that conservatism wins over being purple. This will let the conservatives comes back to power so long as they have a bright conservative leader emerge such as Jindal or Palin (when not held back by McCain and ready for the national scene).
There is no reason conservatives should give up some of their values when those values are the overwhelming majority of those held by the people of the country.
I'm sure that Scozzavava was chosen by the Republican Party to run because she was a "good fit" to replace John McHugh, who was considered somewhere between moderate and conservative.
This race makes the Republican tent more like a pup tent. I suspect that the national numbers of self identified Republicans may shrink even smaller than 20% after the purging in NY 23. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/the-incredible-shrink…
Sounds like this confirms Palin, Malkin, Beck and Rushbo are the "real" leadership in the Republican Party. They reached into NY 23's race when they had no business getting involved. Good luck to them with their new "leaders".
Howard, I couldn't care less who Palin endorses for anything, but it did bring much needed attention to a candidate who on two big issues directly opposed traditional Republican fundamentals. Shame on 23rd district Republicans for throwing the endorsement to her in the first place. I don't have a whole lot of respect for Newt anyway, after championing "family values" then cheating on his wife. He IS a hypocrite and a political nobody to me.
Jeff, the 23rd Republicans, like a lot of upstate New York Republicans are pretty moderate. They have a right to be represented by a moderate Republican if that's what they want, regardless of what Michelle Malkin thinks.
Chris Lee isn't exactly a burning bush social conservative. Do you think Palin, Malkin, Armey should organize opposition to his re-election?
Scozzafavas drop out was based on the polling of the constituents. It sounds like they ARE getting what they wanted. You don't give enough credit to the voters of that district if you think they were starstruck by the likes of Palin and Co. And I have written Chris Lee several times in the past few months and even had a half hour phone conversation with his Washington legislative director. Conservatives have only themselves to blame for elected officials we have to put up with currently, but I think politicians are being served notice that we are watching, listening, learning, and are not going to be complacent anymore.
Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat after she dropped out this weekend..What does that tell you..Polling data showed that she isn't what people in the 23 want..Biden is up there helping out the democrat...Obama is all over NJ and VA..Talk about outside meddling..
Mark,
What did you call it when Bush, Reagan, etc. went out and stumped for those running for office, nationwide, during the off election years?
Did you consider that meddling too, or is it only when Obama does it?
I'm not sure this whole meddling thing is all that relevant anymore. Biden showed up to stump for Owens in Watertown and the event which was open to the public, free, and didn't even require an advance ticket drew aroung 250 people. People are educated and far more issue focused than they used to be and not as swayed by big name endorsements. Voters don't care who backs a candidate, they care what the candidate stands for.
I agree, Jeff.
The point is that stumping isn't new.
The outrage because those in the White House is doing what has been done for many years just seems little farfetched.
I also agree, some of what we jump on our current administration for is many times simply Washington-as-usual politics. I for one am glad to see that people are becoming more issue driven and less influenced by their parties talking heads.
Bea...My point was why make a big deal that outside people are stumping for the conservative candidate.Obama does it ..Bush did it ..who cares..I personally don't think that the President should do it weather Republican or Democrat..He should be out leading the country,not tring to drum up votes for some one.I though the President is spose to represent all of us...Just because the Heads of these parties tell us to vote for a certain someone is what is wrong with the whole thing..People need to think for them selfs and vote for who they want..Know the issues,be informed..or don't vote at all.........
That is one thing the suprised me about those that want the at large council seats..Balbi and Wallace weren't up on some off the issues of the day in front of council..They even said so in there interviews..Which was honest,but makes it seem to me that it is more spur of the moment to run ,not something they gave alot of thought too..Just my impression..
Mark,
You're right about Balbi and Wallace. They have been in the race since July and actually a bit before. They had all summer to learn what was going on.
They knew the interviews were coming also, so they should have been ready.
There is nothing unusual about political parties purging the impure. It happens all the time. They forget that the margin between a win or a loss is very small. Both parties need everyone to stay in the tent to win but, usually have trouble understanding that till election day.
We're not talking about Republicans coming in and making benign appearances for Republican candidates, nor Democrats coming in and shaking a few hands for the Democratic candidate.
We're talking about right wing conservatives (presumably mostly Republicans) ACTIVELY and AGGRESSIVELY working to defeat the hand-picked (by local leaders, because she fit the tradition of the district) the Republican-endorsed candidate.
I'm just curious if other conservatives/Republicans would support the same kind of outside-interference-purge going on in this area.
Read the Watertown Daily Times Piece above. Or just this part, which is particularly frightening:
"A flustered and ill-at-ease Mr. Hoffman objected to the heated questioning, saying he should have been provided a list of questions he might be asked. He was, if he had taken the time to read the Thursday morning Times editorial raising the very same questions."
"Coming to Mr. Hoffman's defense, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who accompanied the candidate on a campaign swing, dismissed regional concerns as "parochial" issues that would not determine the outcome of the election. On the contrary, it is just such parochial issues that we expect our representative to understand and be knowledgeable about, if he wants to be our voice in Washington."
The backers of Hoffman care nothing about Upstate New York in general or the NY23 in particular. They're not trying to help just some local conservative get elected -- they're trying to use a purely local election to push a national agenda.
Mark makes an excellent point about the President being the leader of all Americans. Once elected, a President should be neither Democrat or Republican in the affairs of those campaigning for office. I would be in favor of disallowing a sitting President from endorsing, or campaigning for others seeking election.
Posted by Jeff Allen on November 2, 2009 - 8:52pm
Mark makes an excellent point about the President being the leader of all Americans. Once elected, a President should be neither Democrat or Republican in the affairs of those campaigning for office. I would be in favor of disallowing a sitting President from endorsing, or campaigning for others seeking election.
When did you come to this conclusion? Was it when Bush, Cheney, Rove and gang were roaming the country fundraising? When President Bush, the leader of ALL Americans was at a fundraiser while HIS citizens were dying in New Orleans - and not one word of "presidential concern" came from him or his office? Could it be when President Bush, the LEADER of ALL AMERICANS, stumped the oountry stating that if we weren't a member of the Republican party we were unAmerican?
The office of President is an office supported by the tax dollars of all Americans regardless of partisan affiliations. And yes Wayne the President has every right to the free speech we all enjoy, however when all of our tax dollars pay for the security details, Air Force One, and all expenses for the President to take part in partisan political activity, then yes, I have a problem with it. Bea, you must stop living in the past. It always has been a partisan waste of non-partisan tax-payer dollars. Presidents past and present have important agendas to fulfill, stumping for others in their party can wait until they are out of office.
Howard, where are you coming up with this stuff? I believe we have been talking about the President taking part in formal campaigning for others. The kind of campaigning that requires the President to travel at tax-payer expense to take part in partisan political activities.
Jeff, I'm not living in the past. If we don't remember our history (no matter how recent) we are doomed to make the same mistakes.
The point I will continue to make whenever the right attempts to make this out to be new and, yet, turned a blind eye when GOP Presidents did the same thing.
I didn't like it then, for the very reasons you cite, the cost to the tax payer and I don't like it now.
The difference is I didn't believe that President Bush or Reagan instituted the practice. They were following the tradition that the President is the head of the party and thus has a responsibility to that party.
Should we institute laws that prevents THIS President from endorsing candidates? Do we repeal the law when the GOP is in power again?
The one thing we can agree upon is that by looking back we know going forward the party in power will change over and over. I've witnessed the administrations of
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D
33. Harry S. Truman (D)
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
35. John F. Kennedy (D)
36. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
37. Richard M. Nixon (R)
38. Gerald R. Ford (R)
39. James Carter (D)
40. Ronald Reagan (R)
41. George H. W. Bush (R)
42. William J. Clinton (D)
41. George H. W. Bush (R)
42. William J. Clinton (D)
43. George W. Bush (R)
44. Barack Obama (D)
So, I don't apologize for looking back in an attempt to go forward.
Jeff, if the president is going to exercise his right to free speech, there is no choice for him to travel any other way. It strikes me as a contradiction to say he can't engage in partisan politics (and you know how I feel about partisan politics), that he is "president of all American," but not to hold equally as strongly that all of American should treat him as president of all America.
Bea, your assumption in your remarks is that I had no problem with it when other Presidents did it. Howard, I understand the the President will engage in political politics and will necessarily do so in the implemantation of his agenda, but to waste tax-payer dollars travelling to political fundraisers is something that maybe should be put in the past. As far as Americans treating the President of all Americans...He took an oath of office and his job description calls for it, I did not and mine does not.
Bea like Jeff says why bring up New Orleans and what Bush did or didn't do..What about the Mayor or the Governor of the state,even the people of New Orleans..They can take some blame in that fiasco ..thats not the point here..I've always felt this way about the President running around the country trying to get votes for their party..Seems like half the time the President who ever it is out campaigning.
Why not leave up to others...He represents all of us..This your guy did this so our guy can do that is all BS...That goes for the right or the left..It gets old and we get nowhere..
If the people in the 23 district of New York don't want this so called outsider they will not vote for him and he will lose..Like i said earlier in this post must be Scozzafava was more in line with the Democrat because she is endorsing him..So what was their choice.The conservitive
candidate is there only option..Maybe if Scozzafava didn't sound like her democratic opponent,she'd be leading the race..But she quit...They say quiters never win..
Jeff, not you per se, but some on this site seem to think that a sitting president, fundraising, is either new or wrong because the party isn't thier's.
On that note, my friend, I'll wish you a good night. Tomorrow is going to be a busy day. I drew the short straw and will open our little snack shop at 6am - when the polls open and people looking for a cup of tea to go with the great baked goods we have available at our baked good sale.
While I'm at it, a former co-worker, in California, suffered a fall on his halloween birthday, the prognosis isn't good. He is in the head trauma unit at a hospital in San Jose. The family was told, this afternoon, not to hold out hope.
But prayers are hope and I'm asking for prayers for my friend, Louis. As you pray, visualize the pressure subsiding on his brain.
Thanks
Mark, she was leading in the polls until all of this outside money and support started pouring in.
It's pure manipulation.
The National Chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, endorsed Bill Owens, the Democrat. Is he a closet Democrat, as well?
You can't escape the fact that a bunch of right wing zealots are trying to hijack this election for their own purposes, screw the district, screw New York.
Sadly, there are a lot of Republicans who will vote as Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote. It has nothing to do with what's best for the NY23. The argument that "it's what the people wants" doesn't hold water because they're being manipulated by sterotypes and appeals to emotion (that last bit is a reference to Walter Lippmann's 1922 book Public Opinion, which is a primer on how political propaganda in the US works). Hoffman is explicitly Lambaugh's man.
"Fortunately, the local Republican county chairs had the foresight to see that Doug Hoffman lacked the integrity and qualities needed to be elected to anything - let alone Congress," Lindsay added. [The Hill, 9/28/09]
The national GOP acknowledges Hoffman and his moneyed supporters make their job harder, but they emphasize Scozzafava is still the favorite.
Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the NRCC, said Hoffman's political calculus doesn't add up.
"We're pleased that the Republican county chairs in New York had the foresight to not even consider Hoffman among the final three candidates, and the Washington-based endorsements and misleading political ads that are meant for his benefit will ultimately backfire on his futile sour-grapes campaign," Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/03/09]
The National Republican Congressional Committee bristles at Mr. Hoffman's campaign, with a spokesman arguing that he's "running a smoke-and-mirrors campaign that has absolutely no path to victory and is based entirely on Washington-based endorsements that carry no weight among voters in central and northern New York."
NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said Mr. Hoffman doesn't even technically live in the district and also said Mr. Hoffman had promised to back the Republican candidate before withdrawing that support and deciding to run.
"At the end of the day, we could not be more pleased that Dede is the only candidate who possesses the principles and cross-party appeal that is needed to win in this swing district," Mr. Lindsay added. [Washington Times, 10/06/09]
"There is still a path to victory, and we will continue to support [Scozzafava]," NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/26/09]
Some conservatives support Scozzafava, insisting that a one-size-fits-all strategy isn't a good approach to districts such as New York 23.
"Outside endorsements will not change the fact that she's the only candidate with the cross party appeal that can win this swing district," said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. McClatchy, 10/30/09
Bea, I will certainly pray for your friend in California (priority one, priority two...politics)
Howard writes "Sadly, there are a lot of Republicans who will vote as Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote."
Sadly, there are many Democrats who will vote as Bill Press, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Stephanie Miller, Paul Kruggman, etc. tell them to vote.
I stand by the fact that it was not the personalities that swayed the opinion of NY23 but the exposure of Scozzafava as a RINO and her endorsement of Owens is proof that they were right.
Yesterday when I commented on the poll, it was not clear that the poll was tied to the 23rd District Republican candidate endorsement. Obviously there is a mammoth difference between party purging of voters and party purging of endorsed candidates.
Although top-down meddling in grassroots politics is neither unusual nor illegal, ejecting the locally anointed favorite for an ideologically-correct, more-party-friendly version would appear to be a two-bladed sword. It may appease ditto-heads like Sarah Palin, but it alienates grassroots organizations. The Republican party elevated itself from mirk of Watergate by building strong grassroots organizations. It can't afford to undo its base by undermining (overmining?) local confidence.
I don't understand how people can keep implying that she was somehow forced out. She quit when she realized that the tide of public opinion had turned against her. If she were truly the locally annointed favorite then the constituents would have rejected outside influence and she would have the poll numbers to show for it. All the voters need is the truth and the truth was is that she was further left than the average voter knew and after she buckled and endorsed the Democratic candidate, the point was proven.
Let me use Judge Arrington as an example. I don't know the man but the overwhelming support on this site tells me he truly is a locally annointed favorite. By some peoples logic, if high level officials from an opposing party came into town and threw their support behind an opponent, then am I to believe that all these wonderful comments that people left would ring hollow as Judge Arrington was forced to drop out of the race?
Jeff, there has been a high-priced media blitz against her. Not even Judge Arrington or Ronald Reagan himself would withstand that kind of onslaught. She was most certainly forced out, and forced about by people who don't have the best interest of the 23rd or New York State at heart.
Public opinion is very easy to sway, given enough money to repeatedly pound the same message at people who largely maintain a facile understand of actual issues or pay close attention to the actual people involved in the race.
And Owens has won but that is not what this discussion was about. It was about the influence of outsiders vs. the education of the constituent. Given the close margin of victory considering Hoffman was a late-coming, outsider I think the message was loud and clear. Republicans are saying don't send us RINO's. Given that there were 3 candidates in this race and Scozzafava threw her support behind Owens it became a 2 on 1 race and Scozzafava handed the Democrats their slim victory. Shameful on her part if you ask me.
Given the results in Virginia and NJ am I to believe that Limbaugh and Palin are responsible for Republicans overturning Democratic governorships in those states even though President Obama "interfered" and personally campaigned for Corzine and Deeds?
I think the message is loud and clear -- the local Republicans knew who better could win the district. If not for the meddling interference of outsiders, the GOP would have maintained a seat in an area that has been a moderate-GOP stronghold since at least 1993.
Scozzafava is a hero for putting local concerns over party and sacrificing herself to help block outside extremists from misrepresenting her friends and neighbors.
Good take if one is a moderate Republican. I would never call someone a hero who accepted a party endorsement along with nearly $1 million Republican support dollars then turns around and endorses the Democratic candidate. Those actions are disgraceful and I'm surprised you would hold that up as heroic.
It could also be argued that since Scozzafava still received 5 1/2% of the vote endorsing Hoffman would have secured the seat for the GOP. She betrayed her party, plain and simple.
Jeff, first off, I totally reject the idea that a party can be betrayed. Principles and ethics are FAR more important than party affiliation.
Second, Hoffman was running as a Conservative, so endorsing the Democrat running against a non-Republican is hardly "betraying the party."
Third, Michael Steele, you know, the guy IN CHARGE of the Republican Party endorsed Bill Owens. None of the Republican establishment wanted anything to do with Hoffman.
You mean the principles and ethics of taking someones money in good faith and then less than a week later endorsing the opposition? You can't spin Scozzafavas actions as anything other than betrayal. In terms of political decorum, what she did undermines the process of party endorsement and financial support. Lifelong Republicans donated their money to her with the clear understanding that she would use it in a way to best maintain a GOP seat. Her endorsement of Owens was political treason. If this situation had played out with the parties switched, the national media would be portraying her as Benedict Arnold.
As far as Michael Steele, he was wrong as was Gingrich who at least has since come out and said he was wrong and understands that many conservative Republicans are rightfully angry with him. Finally, you summed up the problem in two words "Republican establishment"
By your logic then, she would have been equally wrong to endorse Hoffman.
But people give money to political candidates knowing that they may be backing a loser. They relinquish claim to that money once it's given (this is a free market system, remember). If she runs for office again, the proper course of action for people who didn't like what she did is not to back her either personally or financially (a free market reaction) rather than raise a ruckus now. She did what was within her right to do. Nobody owes blind loyalty to a political party.
And speaking of Hoffman and honesty -- you're defending a guy who pledged, gave his solemn word, not to run if he didn't get the GOP nomination. He broke that promise.
Howard cmon with the honesty thing..all these Politicians make promises and never keep them...When Clinton ran for senate she said she wouldn't run for another office,,such as president..
Howard, go back and read my posts and tell me at what point I was defending Hoffman. I don't know the guy, I have been reacting to what the polls have said. Republicans and Conservatives are both to the right as Democrats and Liberals are both to the left. If Scozzafava had endorsed Hoffman it probably would have upset some of her moderate supporters yes, but endorsing Owens was a complete jump to the other side so it is not the same. You also say that there is nothing admirable about Hoffman and defend Scozzafava to the end. Your knowledge of the people and politics of the Watertown area seems to run very deep so you must know more than I about the players involved.
Once someone accepts campaign money from a party then yes, they do owe that party loyalty. Accepting advertising sponsored by NRC means that individuals who contribute to the NRC rightly expect that their contributions will further the cause of the GOP, not Democrats.
I don't know if you are registered with and/or support a political party, but if you supported that party financially in order for them to aid candidates in securing seats for your party, you would consider it betrayal for a recipient of that money to then endorse a candidate on the other side of the political spectrum.
Jeff how do you think the republicans that supported Alan Spector of Pa..He switched to democrat half way through his term..I agree with you they should give all the money they raised under the party flag back...They seem like phoneys to me...
What about those who run for city council as one party, then switch. Should they give the money back too? Funny, but most of you voted for those who switched. Guess they aren't phonies.
Bea,
I believe the city Democrats this year took a measure to protect against that. I was told that you had to sign a paper that if you switched, you pay back any party money given you for the election.
Maybe Charlie can clear that up. I think it's a good idea if they did.
Jeff,
As usual, the point is, if the shoe were on the other foot and it was a Democrat in NY23 who turned and gave the support to the other side, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
John,
Yes, they did have to sign a document to that effect. Which I find the right thing to do.
That was THIS year. What about those who switched after taking office before this? That money is given in good faith, regardless of the party involved. Should it be returned? Yes.
However, was there outrage when elected officials switched parties in Batavia? Did the Republicans stand on a soapbox and insist they return the money they received from the Democratic Party?
Actually, I believe it would. I have not shown myself to ignore wrong even when it comes from those on "my side" and give credit when it is due those on the "other side". While we are on that topic, I don't know if you read about the debate that was being planned between Presidents GW Bush and Clinton. As the hype increased, President Clinton backed out. Fox jumped all over it as weakness or fear on President Clinton's part. I beleive it was out of class that he backed out as the hype began to resemble a pay-per-view wrestling match and truly believe President Bush would have eventually done the same. I have found President Clinton to be one of our best "elder statesman" as an ex-President. His work with President GHW Bush after the tsunami and other global relief efforts are to be commended. I especially admired his role(and said so in blogs on this site) in the release of the American women from North Korea. He brought them home quietly and without the need to glad hand Kim Jong Il or to mug the camera when he got home, unlike Al Gore.
Although I disagreed with some of his politics and certainly his shenanigans in the Oval Office, he has been a pleasant surprise as an ex-Presidnet and ambassador for the US.
Mark,
If I recall correctly, she made that promise during her first run for the Senate when everyone was calling her a carpetbagger. She kept her promise and worked hard for New York State, including Western New York.
I don't recall her making that statement during the next campaign. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can find it.
Jeff,
I'm not specifically addressing all of this to you, but in general. President Clinton has made the ranks of elder statesman. He is doing a good job.
PS: Thank you, so much, for understanding why I couldn't possibly get too involved in the politics of Election Day.
My friend passed early in the morning on Nov. 3. He was kept on life support so that his organs could be harvested. He will be missed. http://thebatavian.com/blogs/bea/memory-louis/10653
Jeff, I've been both a Republican and Democrat in my life, but for the past 15 years at least, I've been a "decline to state" (in California) and a "blank" (in New York).
I pretty much detest partisan politics.
And my reaction to this is purely as a "localist." Anybody who stands up for local interest above party or nationalism is a hero to me. I believe Scozzavava put the interests of her district and her community a head of the Republican Party, and that was 100 percent the right thing to do. Regardless of her degree of conservatism, her district should come first. She owed nothing to Hoffman or the Republican Party compared to the interest of her district, and endorsing a Democrat makes her neither a turncoat nor a liberal and it would be illogical to draw any conclusion that she's more liberal than conservative from her endorsement. It was about defeating a guy who shouldn't even have been in the race.
A guy named John Warren left this comment on The Rural Blog, and I like the way he puts it: "Hoffman (and his big media buddies) tried to make it a race on bogus national issues and missed the fact that it was a race about representing local people nationally, not the other way around."
If quitting after you've spent someone elses money is standing up for the locals then Sarah Palin must be your no. 1 choice for the White House in 2012
I would consider your argument of this great ethical and principled woman if she had stayed in the race and said I will continue to fight for the people who put me here and for my constituents. Palin and Scozzafava both quit for different surface reasons but the fact remains that they each committed to represent a group of people, accepted their financial support and when the going got tough, they quit.
If she stayed in the race, she might have drained votes from Owens, and that would have enabled Hoffman to win. How is that doing a good thing for the NY23. That would have been evil.
This conversation about local city council candidates who switch is silly at best. It’s also funny that this conversation started "out of the blue" two hours after I switched to an independent. As for money I used to run, I just finished paying it off. I raised the small amount I was given and paid dearly for the other 90% rest out of my own nest egg.
You’re all missing a very important point that was made about our local parties. Politics should be about issues and parties should support issues. A party should gather candidates that support a platform of issues. That is NOT how our local parties are formed or run. There are NO local issues that either party supports and everyone on Council is all over the place on issues. Your political affiliation in city politics is built on whose social club you would like to attend. Unless people like Chris are willing to step up and change the basis of our local parties that is what we have right now. For better or worse our local political parties are actually social clubs.
I'm your huckleberry Charlie. As you know, I've already started that work and I intend to continue.
It isn't my intention to unleash the rabidly drooling partisan in all committee members, but I will continue to insist that party members recall why we exist in the first place.
Charlie, I think its great that you switched to an independant. It tells me that for you, its not about the party lines.
All I wish is that city council will work together as a TEAM. Imagine that, dropping their poltical views, bickering, and making decisions for the greater good of their community, not themselves.
I think during your term you were trying to please everyone else, instead of doing you. You were so busy putting out fires, it took you away from the real job. Live and Learn Right?
I hope our new council realizes the job set before them and the seriousness of the titles given. They will be under the spotlight, and I think we all expect change. No More Business as Usual. This is not a social club, its Batavia City Council, making decisions for the city of Batavia, and its residents, not about being a "YES BOY" for all their Gumbadies. I also hope council addresses the "Complaint" against Jason, and stop waisting time blaming the "Leaker", and the complaintant. I wont forget, will you?
Ps. I will be forever suspicious
of the voting process this year,for
more than a few reasons.
What happened to the computer tallying
the votes? From what I undertstand,
it was down for a time?? Is that
true?
Posted by Charlie Mallow on November 6, 2009 - 8:16am
This conversation about local city council candidates who switch is silly at best. It’s also funny that this conversation started "out of the blue" two hours after I switched to an independent.
This is the first I heard about you switching. Any comments I made were a reaction to the comments about NY23.
Good luck with your new affiliation.
Posted by Chris Charvella on November 6, 2009 - 9:02am
I'm your huckleberry Charlie. As you know, I've already started that work and I intend to continue.
It isn't my intention to unleash the rabidly drooling partisan in all committee members, but I will continue to insist that party members recall why we exist in the first place.
Thank you, Bea. Although, there is no luck needed to be an independent. Good luck to my Democrat friends on the committee hopefully, we can see some more focus on issues next time.
Chris better a huckleberry than a Huckabee. Good luck and stay involved.
Charlie,
This had nothing to do with you, and you know it. It was about the upstate contest and if the republican candidate who then backed the democrat, would/might switch.
While I expected you to change party, this is the first I have heard about it also.
I'll be involved, but I'm going to be focusing on some of the charity work we started this summer, the USO in particular. Anyone interested in helping us do some fundraising for a great organization should get in touch with me at:
Good stuff Chris! I've done some fundraisers with the USO while I was in Germany and it was great! Let me know what kind of events that you are going to do!
Posted by Chris Charvella on November 6, 2009 - 10:10am
I'll be involved, but I'm going to be focusing on some of the charity work we started this summer, the USO in particular. Anyone interested in helping us do some fundraising for a great organization should get in touch with me at:
How about the option of I'm a
How about the option of I'm a Democrat and think it's a good idea for both parties to have a little of everything to appeal to more people, but more importantly be able to just do their job once they are elected!
I agree with you Laura, Let
I agree with you Laura, Let it be fair for both parties. I just want someone who is going to be professional, and honest, with the best interests of the people the forfront of their term. Im not a fan of party lines anyway. Have a great Day!!
What is best for the people
What is best for the people is opinion based and is the heart of why there are different parties.
This poll comes out of a lot
This poll comes out of a lot of chatter nationally where GOP activists are blasting "liberal" Republicans, and most specifically in the special election in the NY 23rd Congressional District has become a national issue with a non-local candidate running on the conservative line has been able to force out the GOP candidate, but primarily with non-local backing. People such as Sarah Palin has criticized NY 23rd Republicans for being "parochial" for suggesting that local concerns should be more important than a national political agenda.
There's been a tremendous amount of outside interference in this race.
Here's an <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Gingrich_NY23_purge_guarant… interview with Newt Gingrich,</a> who supported the former Republican candidate.
The NY 23rd former candidate
The NY 23rd former candidate Scozzafava mirrored what we as Republicans were given as a presidential candidate in John McCain. The party has lost its conservative footing and finally some are waking up to the fact. Newt Gingrich's support of Scozzafava in the beginning represents what is wrong with attitudes that we must abandon our core ideals just to make sure the "party" candidate gets elected.
This is why it is important to vote for candidates who best represent the fundamentals of your party and not just the one who has been force fed to you through questionable motivations.
Jeff, Scozzafava had the
Jeff, Scozzafava had the backing of local Republicans, winning key endorsements, before outside interference from national political operatives. It's none of Sarah Palin's business who the NY 23 elects. That's just offensive. Newt Gingrich is right on this point -- these so-called conservatives are hypocrites for always complaining about the size of government, advocating for home rule and then interfering in a local election.
I agree Howard, just as
I agree Howard, just as President Obama should not interfere with who runs or who does not run for NY Governor next year. Even though I'm no fan of Patterson, it is not Obama's or the DNC's business. I think there is far too much emphasis placed on party politics and not enough on the individual politician anyway, if a voter thinks a certain person is good for the constituency, then their affiliation shouldn't matter. I know it's good to be represented by someone who belongs to the party in power, but that is part of the problem in my opinion.
NY State - you can't tell a
NY State - you can't tell a Republican from a Democrat without a scorecard. If you want to vote for a conservative, vote on the Conservative line - and I'm not always sure of those candidates either.
I'm not a Republican or
I'm not a Republican or Democrat. Voters register party affiliation; the party has no right to purge those who are not an ideological match. Republicans aren't alone prefering homogeneous support for the platform. Democrats have suffered from "big tent" syndrome for decades. I would be surprised if the Republicans abandoned their moderates. Moderates may not be the ideological helm- they certainly are the keel and account for significant campaign contributions. Aside from "Log Cabin" Republicans, theocrats and the Right wing extreme; what would remain without the moderates? Can Republicans afford to alienate their loyal "Silent Majority?"
You can try and blame Palin
You can try and blame Palin for the hoopla by getting involved, but Gingrich was the first to jump in.
Candidates always want big times names to back them. Its how it works. Obama has been doing campaign stops for many defeatocrats.
Secondly, the is a major indicator of a shift in political alignment in one of the two major parties of the country. The republicans (the people of the party, not the figureheads) saw what happens when you get closer to purple in color. The results of this election will show those figureheads that conservatism wins over being purple. This will let the conservatives comes back to power so long as they have a bright conservative leader emerge such as Jindal or Palin (when not held back by McCain and ready for the national scene).
There is no reason conservatives should give up some of their values when those values are the overwhelming majority of those held by the people of the country.
I'm sure that Scozzavava was
I'm sure that Scozzavava was chosen by the Republican Party to run because she was a "good fit" to replace John McHugh, who was considered somewhere between moderate and conservative.
This race makes the Republican tent more like a pup tent. I suspect that the national numbers of self identified Republicans may shrink even smaller than 20% after the purging in NY 23.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/the-incredible-shrink…
Sounds like this confirms Palin, Malkin, Beck and Rushbo are the "real" leadership in the Republican Party. They reached into NY 23's race when they had no business getting involved. Good luck to them with their new "leaders".
We can only hope that they
We can only hope that they end up as the leaders.
And if it wouldn't take him off the front line, add Sherrif Joe Arpio (sp?) of Arizona to the list of leaders.
Howard, I couldn't care less
Howard, I couldn't care less who Palin endorses for anything, but it did bring much needed attention to a candidate who on two big issues directly opposed traditional Republican fundamentals. Shame on 23rd district Republicans for throwing the endorsement to her in the first place. I don't have a whole lot of respect for Newt anyway, after championing "family values" then cheating on his wife. He IS a hypocrite and a political nobody to me.
Jeff, the 23rd Republicans,
Jeff, the 23rd Republicans, like a lot of upstate New York Republicans are pretty moderate. They have a right to be represented by a moderate Republican if that's what they want, regardless of what Michelle Malkin thinks.
Chris Lee isn't exactly a burning bush social conservative. Do you think Palin, Malkin, Armey should organize opposition to his re-election?
Howard, I certainly do if
Howard,
I certainly do if there is a better conservative candidate available.
Scozzafavas drop out was
Scozzafavas drop out was based on the polling of the constituents. It sounds like they ARE getting what they wanted. You don't give enough credit to the voters of that district if you think they were starstruck by the likes of Palin and Co. And I have written Chris Lee several times in the past few months and even had a half hour phone conversation with his Washington legislative director. Conservatives have only themselves to blame for elected officials we have to put up with currently, but I think politicians are being served notice that we are watching, listening, learning, and are not going to be complacent anymore.
Scozzafava endorsed the
Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat after she dropped out this weekend..What does that tell you..Polling data showed that she isn't what people in the 23 want..Biden is up there helping out the democrat...Obama is all over NJ and VA..Talk about outside meddling..
Mark, What did you call it
Mark,
What did you call it when Bush, Reagan, etc. went out and stumped for those running for office, nationwide, during the off election years?
Did you consider that meddling too, or is it only when Obama does it?
I'm not sure this whole
I'm not sure this whole meddling thing is all that relevant anymore. Biden showed up to stump for Owens in Watertown and the event which was open to the public, free, and didn't even require an advance ticket drew aroung 250 people. People are educated and far more issue focused than they used to be and not as swayed by big name endorsements. Voters don't care who backs a candidate, they care what the candidate stands for.
I agree, Jeff. The point is
I agree, Jeff.
The point is that stumping isn't new.
The outrage because those in the White House is doing what has been done for many years just seems little farfetched.
I also agree, some of what we
I also agree, some of what we jump on our current administration for is many times simply Washington-as-usual politics. I for one am glad to see that people are becoming more issue driven and less influenced by their parties talking heads.
Bea...My point was why make
Bea...My point was why make a big deal that outside people are stumping for the conservative candidate.Obama does it ..Bush did it ..who cares..I personally don't think that the President should do it weather Republican or Democrat..He should be out leading the country,not tring to drum up votes for some one.I though the President is spose to represent all of us...Just because the Heads of these parties tell us to vote for a certain someone is what is wrong with the whole thing..People need to think for them selfs and vote for who they want..Know the issues,be informed..or don't vote at all.........
That is one thing the suprised me about those that want the at large council seats..Balbi and Wallace weren't up on some off the issues of the day in front of council..They even said so in there interviews..Which was honest,but makes it seem to me that it is more spur of the moment to run ,not something they gave alot of thought too..Just my impression..
Mark, You're right about
Mark,
You're right about Balbi and Wallace. They have been in the race since July and actually a bit before. They had all summer to learn what was going on.
They knew the interviews were coming also, so they should have been ready.
There is nothing unusual
There is nothing unusual about political parties purging the impure. It happens all the time. They forget that the margin between a win or a loss is very small. Both parties need everyone to stay in the tent to win but, usually have trouble understanding that till election day.
Mark, what's going on in the
Mark, what's going on in the 23rd is far more than just stumping. It's downright interference.
The conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, doesn't even live in the district and <a href="http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091023/OPINION01/310239957… know district issues</a>.
We're not talking about Republicans coming in and making benign appearances for Republican candidates, nor Democrats coming in and shaking a few hands for the Democratic candidate.
We're talking about right wing conservatives (presumably mostly Republicans) ACTIVELY and AGGRESSIVELY working to defeat the hand-picked (by local leaders, because she fit the tradition of the district) the Republican-endorsed candidate.
I'm just curious if other conservatives/Republicans would support the same kind of outside-interference-purge going on in this area.
Read the Watertown Daily Times Piece above. Or just this part, which is particularly frightening:
"A flustered and ill-at-ease Mr. Hoffman objected to the heated questioning, saying he should have been provided a list of questions he might be asked. He was, if he had taken the time to read the Thursday morning Times editorial raising the very same questions."
"Coming to Mr. Hoffman's defense, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who accompanied the candidate on a campaign swing, dismissed regional concerns as "parochial" issues that would not determine the outcome of the election. On the contrary, it is just such parochial issues that we expect our representative to understand and be knowledgeable about, if he wants to be our voice in Washington."
The backers of Hoffman care nothing about Upstate New York in general or the NY23 in particular. They're not trying to help just some local conservative get elected -- they're trying to use a purely local election to push a national agenda.
Mark makes an excellent point
Mark makes an excellent point about the President being the leader of all Americans. Once elected, a President should be neither Democrat or Republican in the affairs of those campaigning for office. I would be in favor of disallowing a sitting President from endorsing, or campaigning for others seeking election.
Jeff, if he should be the
Jeff, if he should be the president of All America, should all of America support him and not launch partisan attacks on him?
So - the President of the U.
So - the President of the U. S. should not have the right to Free Speech?
Posted by Jeff Allen on
Posted by Jeff Allen on November 2, 2009 - 8:52pm
Mark makes an excellent point about the President being the leader of all Americans. Once elected, a President should be neither Democrat or Republican in the affairs of those campaigning for office. I would be in favor of disallowing a sitting President from endorsing, or campaigning for others seeking election.
When did you come to this conclusion? Was it when Bush, Cheney, Rove and gang were roaming the country fundraising? When President Bush, the leader of ALL Americans was at a fundraiser while HIS citizens were dying in New Orleans - and not one word of "presidential concern" came from him or his office? Could it be when President Bush, the LEADER of ALL AMERICANS, stumped the oountry stating that if we weren't a member of the Republican party we were unAmerican?
The office of President is an
The office of President is an office supported by the tax dollars of all Americans regardless of partisan affiliations. And yes Wayne the President has every right to the free speech we all enjoy, however when all of our tax dollars pay for the security details, Air Force One, and all expenses for the President to take part in partisan political activity, then yes, I have a problem with it. Bea, you must stop living in the past. It always has been a partisan waste of non-partisan tax-payer dollars. Presidents past and present have important agendas to fulfill, stumping for others in their party can wait until they are out of office.
So, Jeff -- Republicans
So, Jeff -- Republicans should attack President Obama, since he shouldn't be involved in partisan politics himself, right?
Howard, where are you coming
Howard, where are you coming up with this stuff? I believe we have been talking about the President taking part in formal campaigning for others. The kind of campaigning that requires the President to travel at tax-payer expense to take part in partisan political activities.
Jeff, I'm not living in the
Jeff, I'm not living in the past. If we don't remember our history (no matter how recent) we are doomed to make the same mistakes.
The point I will continue to make whenever the right attempts to make this out to be new and, yet, turned a blind eye when GOP Presidents did the same thing.
I didn't like it then, for the very reasons you cite, the cost to the tax payer and I don't like it now.
The difference is I didn't believe that President Bush or Reagan instituted the practice. They were following the tradition that the President is the head of the party and thus has a responsibility to that party.
Should we institute laws that prevents THIS President from endorsing candidates? Do we repeal the law when the GOP is in power again?
The one thing we can agree upon is that by looking back we know going forward the party in power will change over and over. I've witnessed the administrations of
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D
33. Harry S. Truman (D)
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
35. John F. Kennedy (D)
36. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
37. Richard M. Nixon (R)
38. Gerald R. Ford (R)
39. James Carter (D)
40. Ronald Reagan (R)
41. George H. W. Bush (R)
42. William J. Clinton (D)
41. George H. W. Bush (R)
42. William J. Clinton (D)
43. George W. Bush (R)
44. Barack Obama (D)
So, I don't apologize for looking back in an attempt to go forward.
Jeff, if the president is
Jeff, if the president is going to exercise his right to free speech, there is no choice for him to travel any other way. It strikes me as a contradiction to say he can't engage in partisan politics (and you know how I feel about partisan politics), that he is "president of all American," but not to hold equally as strongly that all of American should treat him as president of all America.
Bea, your assumption in your
Bea, your assumption in your remarks is that I had no problem with it when other Presidents did it. Howard, I understand the the President will engage in political politics and will necessarily do so in the implemantation of his agenda, but to waste tax-payer dollars travelling to political fundraisers is something that maybe should be put in the past. As far as Americans treating the President of all Americans...He took an oath of office and his job description calls for it, I did not and mine does not.
Bea like Jeff says why bring
Bea like Jeff says why bring up New Orleans and what Bush did or didn't do..What about the Mayor or the Governor of the state,even the people of New Orleans..They can take some blame in that fiasco ..thats not the point here..I've always felt this way about the President running around the country trying to get votes for their party..Seems like half the time the President who ever it is out campaigning.
Why not leave up to others...He represents all of us..This your guy did this so our guy can do that is all BS...That goes for the right or the left..It gets old and we get nowhere..
If the people in the 23 district of New York don't want this so called outsider they will not vote for him and he will lose..Like i said earlier in this post must be Scozzafava was more in line with the Democrat because she is endorsing him..So what was their choice.The conservitive
candidate is there only option..Maybe if Scozzafava didn't sound like her democratic opponent,she'd be leading the race..But she quit...They say quiters never win..
Jeff, not you per se, but
Jeff, not you per se, but some on this site seem to think that a sitting president, fundraising, is either new or wrong because the party isn't thier's.
On that note, my friend, I'll wish you a good night. Tomorrow is going to be a busy day. I drew the short straw and will open our little snack shop at 6am - when the polls open and people looking for a cup of tea to go with the great baked goods we have available at our baked good sale.
While I'm at it, a former co-worker, in California, suffered a fall on his halloween birthday, the prognosis isn't good. He is in the head trauma unit at a hospital in San Jose. The family was told, this afternoon, not to hold out hope.
But prayers are hope and I'm asking for prayers for my friend, Louis. As you pray, visualize the pressure subsiding on his brain.
Thanks
Mark, she was leading in the
Mark, she was leading in the polls until all of this outside money and support started pouring in.
It's pure manipulation.
The National Chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, endorsed Bill Owens, the Democrat. Is he a closet Democrat, as well?
You can't escape the fact that a bunch of right wing zealots are trying to hijack this election for their own purposes, screw the district, screw New York.
Sadly, there are a lot of Republicans who will vote as Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote. It has nothing to do with what's best for the NY23. The argument that "it's what the people wants" doesn't hold water because they're being manipulated by sterotypes and appeals to emotion (that last bit is a reference to Walter Lippmann's 1922 book Public Opinion, which is a primer on how political propaganda in the US works). Hoffman is explicitly Lambaugh's man.
And courtesy of Robert
And courtesy of Robert Harding form the Albany Project Here is a compilation of quotes and quips from the NRCC
http://www.thealbanyproject.com/diary/7506/flashback-nrcc-attacks-hoffm…
"Fortunately, the local Republican county chairs had the foresight to see that Doug Hoffman lacked the integrity and qualities needed to be elected to anything - let alone Congress," Lindsay added. [The Hill, 9/28/09]
The national GOP acknowledges Hoffman and his moneyed supporters make their job harder, but they emphasize Scozzafava is still the favorite.
Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the NRCC, said Hoffman's political calculus doesn't add up.
"We're pleased that the Republican county chairs in New York had the foresight to not even consider Hoffman among the final three candidates, and the Washington-based endorsements and misleading political ads that are meant for his benefit will ultimately backfire on his futile sour-grapes campaign," Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/03/09]
The National Republican Congressional Committee bristles at Mr. Hoffman's campaign, with a spokesman arguing that he's "running a smoke-and-mirrors campaign that has absolutely no path to victory and is based entirely on Washington-based endorsements that carry no weight among voters in central and northern New York."
NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said Mr. Hoffman doesn't even technically live in the district and also said Mr. Hoffman had promised to back the Republican candidate before withdrawing that support and deciding to run.
"At the end of the day, we could not be more pleased that Dede is the only candidate who possesses the principles and cross-party appeal that is needed to win in this swing district," Mr. Lindsay added. [Washington Times, 10/06/09]
"There is still a path to victory, and we will continue to support [Scozzafava]," NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/26/09]
Some conservatives support Scozzafava, insisting that a one-size-fits-all strategy isn't a good approach to districts such as New York 23.
"Outside endorsements will not change the fact that she's the only candidate with the cross party appeal that can win this swing district," said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. McClatchy, 10/30/09
Bea, I am adding your friend,
Bea, I am adding your friend, Louis, to our prayer list.
Bea, I will certainly pray
Bea, I will certainly pray for your friend in California (priority one, priority two...politics)
Howard writes "Sadly, there are a lot of Republicans who will vote as Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote."
Sadly, there are many Democrats who will vote as Bill Press, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Stephanie Miller, Paul Kruggman, etc. tell them to vote.
I stand by the fact that it was not the personalities that swayed the opinion of NY23 but the exposure of Scozzafava as a RINO and her endorsement of Owens is proof that they were right.
Yesterday when I commented on
Yesterday when I commented on the poll, it was not clear that the poll was tied to the 23rd District Republican candidate endorsement. Obviously there is a mammoth difference between party purging of voters and party purging of endorsed candidates.
Although top-down meddling in grassroots politics is neither unusual nor illegal, ejecting the locally anointed favorite for an ideologically-correct, more-party-friendly version would appear to be a two-bladed sword. It may appease ditto-heads like Sarah Palin, but it alienates grassroots organizations. The Republican party elevated itself from mirk of Watergate by building strong grassroots organizations. It can't afford to undo its base by undermining (overmining?) local confidence.
I don't understand how people
I don't understand how people can keep implying that she was somehow forced out. She quit when she realized that the tide of public opinion had turned against her. If she were truly the locally annointed favorite then the constituents would have rejected outside influence and she would have the poll numbers to show for it. All the voters need is the truth and the truth was is that she was further left than the average voter knew and after she buckled and endorsed the Democratic candidate, the point was proven.
Let me use Judge Arrington as an example. I don't know the man but the overwhelming support on this site tells me he truly is a locally annointed favorite. By some peoples logic, if high level officials from an opposing party came into town and threw their support behind an opponent, then am I to believe that all these wonderful comments that people left would ring hollow as Judge Arrington was forced to drop out of the race?
Jeff, there has been a
Jeff, there has been a high-priced media blitz against her. Not even Judge Arrington or Ronald Reagan himself would withstand that kind of onslaught. She was most certainly forced out, and forced about by people who don't have the best interest of the 23rd or New York State at heart.
Public opinion is very easy to sway, given enough money to repeatedly pound the same message at people who largely maintain a facile understand of actual issues or pay close attention to the actual people involved in the race.
I think you give too little
I think you give too little credit to the constituents and their ability to make educated decisions in spite of outside influence.
Well, at the moment Democrat
Well, at the moment Democrat Bill Owens is winning.
And Owens has won but that is
And Owens has won but that is not what this discussion was about. It was about the influence of outsiders vs. the education of the constituent. Given the close margin of victory considering Hoffman was a late-coming, outsider I think the message was loud and clear. Republicans are saying don't send us RINO's. Given that there were 3 candidates in this race and Scozzafava threw her support behind Owens it became a 2 on 1 race and Scozzafava handed the Democrats their slim victory. Shameful on her part if you ask me.
Given the results in Virginia and NJ am I to believe that Limbaugh and Palin are responsible for Republicans overturning Democratic governorships in those states even though President Obama "interfered" and personally campaigned for Corzine and Deeds?
I think the message is loud
I think the message is loud and clear -- the local Republicans knew who better could win the district. If not for the meddling interference of outsiders, the GOP would have maintained a seat in an area that has been a moderate-GOP stronghold since at least 1993.
Scozzafava is a hero for putting local concerns over party and sacrificing herself to help block outside extremists from misrepresenting her friends and neighbors.
Robert Harding has a good
Robert Harding has a good take on <a href="http://www.thealbanyproject.com/diary/7522/ny23-reasons-why-owens-won">… race and its outcome</a>.
Good take if one is a
Good take if one is a moderate Republican. I would never call someone a hero who accepted a party endorsement along with nearly $1 million Republican support dollars then turns around and endorses the Democratic candidate. Those actions are disgraceful and I'm surprised you would hold that up as heroic.
It could also be argued that since Scozzafava still received 5 1/2% of the vote endorsing Hoffman would have secured the seat for the GOP. She betrayed her party, plain and simple.
Jeff, How long do you think
Jeff,
How long do you think it will be before she changes to Democrat?
she already has except for
she already has except for the signature card
Jeff, first off, I totally
Jeff, first off, I totally reject the idea that a party can be betrayed. Principles and ethics are FAR more important than party affiliation.
Second, Hoffman was running as a Conservative, so endorsing the Democrat running against a non-Republican is hardly "betraying the party."
Third, Michael Steele, you know, the guy IN CHARGE of the Republican Party endorsed Bill Owens. None of the Republican establishment wanted anything to do with Hoffman.
You mean the principles and
You mean the principles and ethics of taking someones money in good faith and then less than a week later endorsing the opposition? You can't spin Scozzafavas actions as anything other than betrayal. In terms of political decorum, what she did undermines the process of party endorsement and financial support. Lifelong Republicans donated their money to her with the clear understanding that she would use it in a way to best maintain a GOP seat. Her endorsement of Owens was political treason. If this situation had played out with the parties switched, the national media would be portraying her as Benedict Arnold.
As far as Michael Steele, he was wrong as was Gingrich who at least has since come out and said he was wrong and understands that many conservative Republicans are rightfully angry with him. Finally, you summed up the problem in two words "Republican establishment"
By your logic then, she would
By your logic then, she would have been equally wrong to endorse Hoffman.
But people give money to political candidates knowing that they may be backing a loser. They relinquish claim to that money once it's given (this is a free market system, remember). If she runs for office again, the proper course of action for people who didn't like what she did is not to back her either personally or financially (a free market reaction) rather than raise a ruckus now. She did what was within her right to do. Nobody owes blind loyalty to a political party.
And speaking of Hoffman and honesty -- you're defending a guy who pledged, gave his solemn word, not to run if he didn't get the GOP nomination. He broke that promise.
Howard cmon with the honesty
Howard cmon with the honesty thing..all these Politicians make promises and never keep them...When Clinton ran for senate she said she wouldn't run for another office,,such as president..
Mark, I'm just pointing out
Mark, I'm just pointing out to Jeff that you can't throw stones the assemblywoman when there is nothing admirable about Hoffman.
Howard, go back and read my
Howard, go back and read my posts and tell me at what point I was defending Hoffman. I don't know the guy, I have been reacting to what the polls have said. Republicans and Conservatives are both to the right as Democrats and Liberals are both to the left. If Scozzafava had endorsed Hoffman it probably would have upset some of her moderate supporters yes, but endorsing Owens was a complete jump to the other side so it is not the same. You also say that there is nothing admirable about Hoffman and defend Scozzafava to the end. Your knowledge of the people and politics of the Watertown area seems to run very deep so you must know more than I about the players involved.
Once someone accepts campaign money from a party then yes, they do owe that party loyalty. Accepting advertising sponsored by NRC means that individuals who contribute to the NRC rightly expect that their contributions will further the cause of the GOP, not Democrats.
I don't know if you are registered with and/or support a political party, but if you supported that party financially in order for them to aid candidates in securing seats for your party, you would consider it betrayal for a recipient of that money to then endorse a candidate on the other side of the political spectrum.
Jeff how do you think the
Jeff how do you think the republicans that supported Alan Spector of Pa..He switched to democrat half way through his term..I agree with you they should give all the money they raised under the party flag back...They seem like phoneys to me...
What about those who run for
What about those who run for city council as one party, then switch. Should they give the money back too? Funny, but most of you voted for those who switched. Guess they aren't phonies.
Bea, I don't live in the city
Bea,
I don't live in the city or in Pennsylvania.
Bea, I believe the city
Bea,
I believe the city Democrats this year took a measure to protect against that. I was told that you had to sign a paper that if you switched, you pay back any party money given you for the election.
Maybe Charlie can clear that up. I think it's a good idea if they did.
Jeff, As usual, the point is,
Jeff,
As usual, the point is, if the shoe were on the other foot and it was a Democrat in NY23 who turned and gave the support to the other side, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
John, Yes, they did have to
John,
Yes, they did have to sign a document to that effect. Which I find the right thing to do.
That was THIS year. What about those who switched after taking office before this? That money is given in good faith, regardless of the party involved. Should it be returned? Yes.
However, was there outrage when elected officials switched parties in Batavia? Did the Republicans stand on a soapbox and insist they return the money they received from the Democratic Party?
Bea, There must of been
Bea, There must of been outrage because they did take measures to stop this....
Actually, I believe it would.
Actually, I believe it would. I have not shown myself to ignore wrong even when it comes from those on "my side" and give credit when it is due those on the "other side". While we are on that topic, I don't know if you read about the debate that was being planned between Presidents GW Bush and Clinton. As the hype increased, President Clinton backed out. Fox jumped all over it as weakness or fear on President Clinton's part. I beleive it was out of class that he backed out as the hype began to resemble a pay-per-view wrestling match and truly believe President Bush would have eventually done the same. I have found President Clinton to be one of our best "elder statesman" as an ex-President. His work with President GHW Bush after the tsunami and other global relief efforts are to be commended. I especially admired his role(and said so in blogs on this site) in the release of the American women from North Korea. He brought them home quietly and without the need to glad hand Kim Jong Il or to mug the camera when he got home, unlike Al Gore.
Although I disagreed with some of his politics and certainly his shenanigans in the Oval Office, he has been a pleasant surprise as an ex-Presidnet and ambassador for the US.
Mark, If I recall correctly,
Mark,
If I recall correctly, she made that promise during her first run for the Senate when everyone was calling her a carpetbagger. She kept her promise and worked hard for New York State, including Western New York.
I don't recall her making that statement during the next campaign. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can find it.
Jeff,
I'm not specifically addressing all of this to you, but in general. President Clinton has made the ranks of elder statesman. He is doing a good job.
PS: Thank you, so much, for understanding why I couldn't possibly get too involved in the politics of Election Day.
My friend passed early in the morning on Nov. 3. He was kept on life support so that his organs could be harvested. He will be missed. http://thebatavian.com/blogs/bea/memory-louis/10653
Bea, sorry for your loss.
Bea, sorry for your loss. Sounds like Louis was quite the adventurer and now can pass it on through his donations. Life's final gift, hope for others.
Jeff, I've been both a
Jeff, I've been both a Republican and Democrat in my life, but for the past 15 years at least, I've been a "decline to state" (in California) and a "blank" (in New York).
I pretty much detest partisan politics.
And my reaction to this is purely as a "localist." Anybody who stands up for local interest above party or nationalism is a hero to me. I believe Scozzavava put the interests of her district and her community a head of the Republican Party, and that was 100 percent the right thing to do. Regardless of her degree of conservatism, her district should come first. She owed nothing to Hoffman or the Republican Party compared to the interest of her district, and endorsing a Democrat makes her neither a turncoat nor a liberal and it would be illogical to draw any conclusion that she's more liberal than conservative from her endorsement. It was about defeating a guy who shouldn't even have been in the race.
A guy named John Warren left this comment on The Rural Blog, and I like the way he puts it: "Hoffman (and his big media buddies) tried to make it a race on bogus national issues and missed the fact that it was a race about representing local people nationally, not the other way around."
If quitting after you've
If quitting after you've spent someone elses money is standing up for the locals then Sarah Palin must be your no. 1 choice for the White House in 2012
Sarah Palin quit to pursue
Sarah Palin quit to pursue her own egotistical goals, so I don't see the comparison with Scozzavava.
I would consider your
I would consider your argument of this great ethical and principled woman if she had stayed in the race and said I will continue to fight for the people who put me here and for my constituents. Palin and Scozzafava both quit for different surface reasons but the fact remains that they each committed to represent a group of people, accepted their financial support and when the going got tough, they quit.
If she stayed in the race,
If she stayed in the race, she might have drained votes from Owens, and that would have enabled Hoffman to win. How is that doing a good thing for the NY23. That would have been evil.
Bea, When some Republicans on
Bea,
When some Republicans on city council became Democrats, yes, the Republicans complained.
Same as when Democrats on city council changed to Republican, the Democrats complained.
This conversation about local
This conversation about local city council candidates who switch is silly at best. It’s also funny that this conversation started "out of the blue" two hours after I switched to an independent. As for money I used to run, I just finished paying it off. I raised the small amount I was given and paid dearly for the other 90% rest out of my own nest egg.
You’re all missing a very important point that was made about our local parties. Politics should be about issues and parties should support issues. A party should gather candidates that support a platform of issues. That is NOT how our local parties are formed or run. There are NO local issues that either party supports and everyone on Council is all over the place on issues. Your political affiliation in city politics is built on whose social club you would like to attend. Unless people like Chris are willing to step up and change the basis of our local parties that is what we have right now. For better or worse our local political parties are actually social clubs.
I'm your huckleberry Charlie.
I'm your huckleberry Charlie. As you know, I've already started that work and I intend to continue.
It isn't my intention to unleash the rabidly drooling partisan in all committee members, but I will continue to insist that party members recall why we exist in the first place.
Charlie, I think its great
Charlie, I think its great that you switched to an independant. It tells me that for you, its not about the party lines.
All I wish is that city council will work together as a TEAM. Imagine that, dropping their poltical views, bickering, and making decisions for the greater good of their community, not themselves.
I think during your term you were trying to please everyone else, instead of doing you. You were so busy putting out fires, it took you away from the real job. Live and Learn Right?
I hope our new council realizes the job set before them and the seriousness of the titles given. They will be under the spotlight, and I think we all expect change. No More Business as Usual. This is not a social club, its Batavia City Council, making decisions for the city of Batavia, and its residents, not about being a "YES BOY" for all their Gumbadies. I also hope council addresses the "Complaint" against Jason, and stop waisting time blaming the "Leaker", and the complaintant. I wont forget, will you?
Ps. I will be forever suspicious
of the voting process this year,for
more than a few reasons.
What happened to the computer tallying
the votes? From what I undertstand,
it was down for a time?? Is that
true?
Posted by Charlie Mallow on
Posted by Charlie Mallow on November 6, 2009 - 8:16am
This conversation about local city council candidates who switch is silly at best. It’s also funny that this conversation started "out of the blue" two hours after I switched to an independent.
This is the first I heard about you switching. Any comments I made were a reaction to the comments about NY23.
Good luck with your new affiliation.
Posted by Chris Charvella on
Posted by Chris Charvella on November 6, 2009 - 9:02am
I'm your huckleberry Charlie. As you know, I've already started that work and I intend to continue.
It isn't my intention to unleash the rabidly drooling partisan in all committee members, but I will continue to insist that party members recall why we exist in the first place.
I guess I'm a huckelberry, too. Right on, Chris!
Thank you, Bea. Although,
Thank you, Bea. Although, there is no luck needed to be an independent. Good luck to my Democrat friends on the committee hopefully, we can see some more focus on issues next time.
Chris better a huckleberry than a Huckabee. Good luck and stay involved.
Charlie, This had nothing to
Charlie,
This had nothing to do with you, and you know it. It was about the upstate contest and if the republican candidate who then backed the democrat, would/might switch.
While I expected you to change party, this is the first I have heard about it also.
I'll be involved, but I'm
I'll be involved, but I'm going to be focusing on some of the charity work we started this summer, the USO in particular. Anyone interested in helping us do some fundraising for a great organization should get in touch with me at:
charvellac@rochester.rr.com
Good stuff Chris! I've done
Good stuff Chris! I've done some fundraisers with the USO while I was in Germany and it was great! Let me know what kind of events that you are going to do!
Posted by Chris Charvella on
Posted by Chris Charvella on November 6, 2009 - 10:10am
I'll be involved, but I'm going to be focusing on some of the charity work we started this summer, the USO in particular. Anyone interested in helping us do some fundraising for a great organization should get in touch with me at:
Check your email, Chris :)