11/02/2009 (9:40 am)
“Truth Will Out” in the New York 23rd
The Republican candidate for representative of New York’s 23rd Congressional district, Dede Scozzafava, suspended her campaign over the weekend as it became clear that most Republicans were going to vote for Doug Hoffman, a staunch conservative opponent who was running on the Conservative ticket. That was wise and predictable; she was running a distant third. A hair less predictable was what came next: she publicly endorsed the Democrat in the race, fully vindicating the criticism being heaped on her by conservatives, who claimed that Scozzafava, a former Planned Parenthood board member whose husband represents the local Labor Council, held views regarding unions and abortion were more consistent with those of the Democratic party.
The revolt of the Republican base in the 2006 and 2008 elections are of a single piece with the this year’s Tea Party movement. Democrats insisted that the nation had taken a sharp turn to the left, but the reaction to President Obama’s hard-left policies has demonstrated that this was incorrect. What had happened, instead, was that conservatives had felt abandoned by the party when Republicans elected through the 90s failed to deliver consistent, conservative policy in the 21st century. These same conservatives have responded to the “progressivication” of America with a return to conservative fundamentals.
Whereas a large percentage of New York Republicans would probably have accepted Scozzafava with chagrin in the past, muttering “Well, this is New York” under their breath, they were in no mood to do so this year. The Obama Onslaught has changed everything.
What remains to be seen is whether this move will change the Republican party. Hoffman is a Republican, but he’s running on the Conservative ticket. Smart strategists suggest it would be better if conservatives attempted to reclaim the party rather than abandoning it, but if the pattern of the New York 23rd holds, the distinction may be only semantic. What seems to be happening there is that more voters want to identify themselves as “conservative” than want to identify themselves as “Republican.” If Republican party leadership does not adjust, “Republican” could come to be nothing but a weak 3rd party of moderates, whereas the dominant right-wing party of the nation could become “Conservative.”
Time will tell. I’m no political junkie, but I know that a hot Senate race in Florida is pitting party regulars against Tea Party activists for the 2010 nomination, as conservative upstart and former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio appears to be surging against the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s endorsed but moderate candidate, Gov. Charlie Crist.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Republicans who think more like Democrats will increasingly acknowledge their ideological bonds and support Democrats, as Scozzafava is doing. The divide in America is not between R and D, but between Left and Right. Sooner or later the party boundaries will shift to reflect the public reality, or the parties will cease to exist.
It is probably too soon to speak with certainty about the outcome of the New York 23rd race — the election will be over before more relevant polling can take place — but Hoffman held more than 51% in Public Policy Polling’s report over the weekend, and that’s with Scozzafava still in the race. Head-to-head polling with Hoffman against the Democratic challenger Bill Owens gave Hoffman a 54-38 advantage.
Republican party regulars must be alarmed; they have a full-blown rebellion on their hands. And according to Michelle Malkin, they just wasted a cool million dollars on Democrat-endorsing Dede. We’ll see whether they get the message.
« « Is Abortion Genocide? | Main | How Democrats Will Spin the IED That’s About To Explode In Their Faces » »
16 Comments »
Comment by suek
This whole situation opens the door for some interesting considerations…
Can a third party be formed effectively? how would a three party system – if established – affect our political system?
If we assume that a two party system is better (and I’m not certain it is or isn’t), does party loyalty trump personal values? Is it better to have Olymia Snow as a Republican or force her to recognize that she’s a Democrat and have no Republican from Maine? Should RINOs be forced out of the party, or is it better to have them voting with the party 50% of the time?
Please note that I am not considering at all what a person’s positions are – just whether the GOP should enforce the same standards of loyalty to their party platform that the Dems do.
Personally, I suspect that by _not_ requiring endorsed candidates to meet party platforms to some established level, the GOP opens itself to infiltration by the left, and given the present difficulty in ousting congressional members from their seats, it’s no wonder the GOP has moved left. I also think the left has used infiltration in many organizations to redirect them, so while that’s a different issue, it’s also relevant.
Comment by Phil
The reason multiple parties don’t run well in the US is that we don’t have a Parliamentary system like Britain. In Britain, small parties can join together to form coalitions in order to supersede the numeric advantage of a larger party. If the people dislike a particular direction or government, they can call for an immediate election and change it.
Not so in the US; our regularly-scheduled elections and fixed terms of office guarantee that an elected government will have a run of at least 2 years, with no real possibility of change. Smaller parties can have a presence in Congress, but with the committee system, the majority party has strong advantages. The incentives to keep things within the same, 2-party boundaries are strong.
We all saw what happened in 1992. A strong 3rd-party candidate appeared on the right, and the Democrat won the presidential election with a mere 42% of the vote. I’m still not 100% convinced that the Clintons did not pay Ross Perot to run. 
And an even smaller party affected the 2004 election; it’s unlikely that George W. Bush would have remained President without the help of Ralph Nader and the Greens. Spawning third parties is a pretty good way to lose elections.
That’s why the sane thinking says that grass-roots conservatives have to TAKE BACK the Republican party, and drive the moderates and the career politicos out of the power positions. That’s the only way we’ll ever end the endless power games in Washington and the passive toleration of RINOs. And that’s why we need to learn how to engage in local, ward politics — ’cause that’s where the power of the party begins.
Comment by darkhorse
“That’s the only way we’ll ever end the endless power games in Washington and the passive toleration of RINOs. And that’s why we need to learn how to engage in local, ward politics — ’cause that’s where the power of the party begins.”
Phil, see my long post under the Planned Parenthood post – this is exactly the sign of a compromise of Christian ideals that I am pointing to. Could someone run under the Republican ticket (after all, there’s really only 2 to choose from), in GOOD CONSCIENCE, not necessarily accept all the planks in the GOP platform, yet still earn your scorn as a RINO?
I think this is very clearly so, and a clear indication that the victory of the party is more important than what people’s consciences may be telling them.
Comment by Phil
Phil, see my long post under the Planned Parenthood post – this is exactly the sign of a compromise of Christian ideals that I am pointing to. Could someone run under the Republican ticket (after all, there’s really only 2 to choose from), in GOOD CONSCIENCE, not necessarily accept all the planks in the GOP platform, yet still earn your scorn as a RINO?
WHAT????????????????????????
You are so COMPLETELY confused…
Seriously, Jim, I don’t have the time or energy to try to parse the core idea out of this menage of conflicting notions. Personally, I think you’re just flailing around trying to find some way to say “It’s wrong for a Christian to say one party is better than another.”
It’s not wrong for a Christian to say one party is better than another. In the current environment, one is. Sorry, it’s a fact. This does not mean I think one party is perfect, or that Michael Steele, current Chairman of the Republican party, sits in the seat of Christ and wears the Shoes of the Fisherman. It means I think one party is clearly better than the other. Why is that so F**KING hard for you to swallow???????????????
And what the HELL does my calling Dede Scozzafava, who managed abortion mills, have to do with me “compromising my Christian ideals” by CORRECTLY identifying her as a Republican-in-Name-Only??? Criminy, Jim, she’s endorsed the Democratic candidate! She really IS a Republican in name only!
Comment by darkhorse
Thanks for the respect, Phil. Next time I’ll think for a few minutes before I say something here that is more important to me than just about anything else.
Comment by darkhorse
And spend three hours doing it.
Comment by Phil
Jim,
Calm down, take a deep breath, and then… try to answer this in no more than two sentences:
Why, precisely, does attempting to move the Republican party in the direction of conservatism necessarily require that I compromise my commitment to Christ?
The exercise of attempting to distill the answer down to two sentences should demonstrate to you why it is that I’m having trouble getting a handle on what you’re trying to get across.
Comment by darkhorse
Phil, if you don’t have time to “parse the core idea”, then please, just leave it alone, don’t take the time to insult me to make sure that I’m “dealt with”. That is just plain poor.
As to the answer to your question:
“Why, precisely, does attempting to move the Republican party in the direction of conservatism necessarily require that I compromise my commitment to Christ?”
2 sentences:
Who said that? I only offer my cautions, and indications that the cautions are warranted, that the “conservativism” you are pushing for is Christianity plus a whole schmeal of political philosophy plus the vested interest of those in power at the GOP.
Comment by Phil
Who said that? I only offer my cautions,
You did.
The quote that you clipped from my comment to suek spoke directly of the need to move the Republican party to the right. Something about that triggered your fear that I’m somehow adding something to Christianity. However, the comment was not offered in a Christian context, it was a discussion between two Republicans who agree on the need for a strong, conservative party and are wrestling with how best to achieve that. The fact that we’re both Christians is incidental to the discussion. There exists, in the clip you quoted and in the entire comment from which it was lifted, not the slightest hint, nor the faintest echo, of any claim that she or I are confusing our Republican strategies with our devotion to Christ.
What, precisely, am I adding to Christianity? And don’t give me “I didn’t say that.” You did. Be a man and say what you mean for damn change.
Comment by darkhorse
“Be a man and say what you mean for damn change.”
Or, I can retort, “Be the man you should be and assume first I am telling the truth when I say something.”
I tied everything I said to my post under the Planned Parenthood entry this morning…which you summarily wrote off also. Everything I said was in that context.
Comment by suek
More truth coming out:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/democrats_attempting_a_coup_fo.html
Comment by suek
>>this is exactly the sign of a compromise of Christian ideals that I am pointing to.>>
_WHAT_ is the sign of compromise of Christian ideals?
_WHAT_ is “this”?
Comment by suek
>>Could someone run under the Republican ticket (after all, there’s really only 2 to choose from), in GOOD CONSCIENCE, not necessarily accept all the planks in the GOP platform, yet still earn your scorn as a RINO?>>
Let me rephrase that sentence:
“Could someone not necessarily accept all the planks in the GOP platform, yet in GOOD CONSCIENCE, run under the Republican ticket?”
In other words, a person…well, we can’t call him Joe…that would be asking for trouble… someone named Mike is a good Christian. He feels that he can contribute to the good of his local town if he runs for office. He has to choose one of two parties.
He:
a)completely agrees with one party.
b)completely disagrees with both parties
c)agrees with some of one party and some of the other party.
Take your pick. a) is easy. b) probably means he will run as an Independent. c) presents the real problem. Now…he makes his choice. The voters have to make _their_ choice.
You question, I think, is whether I – as a voter – should choose the Mike – who I know is a good Christian, but whose political positions I disagree with – or the other guy – whose political positions I agree with, whether he’s a good Christian or not. (I’ll stipulate here that even if I don’t know his religious affiliation, I know he’s honest and ethical – just to take out the obvious bad guy).
In other words can religious beliefs and political beliefs be separated?
Is that basically your question? That our first loyalty should be to other Christians regardless of their political positions?
Comment by darkhorse
Suek,
I was more after a continuation of my post under the Planned Parenthood section. If I get frustrated that a person doesn’t “sign on the dotted line” for every supposedly GOP position, is it enough to call that person a RINO?
More importantly, can ANYONE accept every plank of the Republican or Democratic party platform, and have a mind and conscience of their own?
To be fair, the subject Phil is writing about in his post is pretty extreme, and I wasn’t arguing in her favor. I was continuing the hypothetical question of whether it is healthy for a Christian to sign over, carte blanche, his allegiance to any political party, and if not, is it then also unhealthy to deride someone for refusing to do same.
Comment by suek
>>the subject Phil is writing about in his post is pretty extreme, and I wasn’t arguing in her favor>>
Exactly.
>>I was continuing the hypothetical question of whether it is healthy for a Christian to sign over, carte blanche, his allegiance to any political party>>
You’ll need to explain how allegiance to a political party conflicts with someone’s Christian religion. Now you specify “carte blanche”…if by that you mean that you’re willing to accept a party although you disagree with a position that you feel is morally wrong, then the Christian has some ’splainin’ to do. You know – like “I support the party – but I disagree with “whatever”.” Lieberman did that, and the Dems refused to support his nomination. I think he took a principled stand – although he still caucuses with the Dems.
But you haven’t established a political position the GOP takes that is offensive to Christians. So what’s your beef?
Comment by suek
Here’s another viewpoint:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/01/the-gop-is-not-my-religion-reader-post/#more-29982
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
