Posts
Democrat wins in NY-23 and New Jersey may not say much more than that. Indeed, if Democrats win there by narrow margins, it may say that, a year after Obama won the presidency, it takes nasty three-way contests for Democrats to win in Obama-friendly territory.And here is Glenn Reynolds:
The hope on the left is that NY-23 is a bellwether of intra-GOP warfare, or of the party being seized by "extremists." However, most such fights will happen within primaries, which allows more time for unification. And few of those will feature "Republican" candidates as liberal as Dede Scozzafava.
Likewise, if Tea Partiers get too carried away and full of themselves -- like the Nader Democrats of 2000 -- they will wind up handing the elections to people they really don't want running the country. The third-party threat is a good way to get the GOP establishment's attention, but, as they say, the value of the sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it falls. Like a nuclear deterrent, it's a threat that's best not employed.Karl displays a proprietary concern about the Republican Party being perceived as too "far right." This is what happens when Republicans internalize liberal critiques of conservatism and begin to believe -- as all liberals relentlessly proclaim -- that there is something wrong, inferior or shameful about being conservative.
Professor Reynold's concern is similarly unfounded. Talk of a third-party conservative movement is just that: Talk. Republicans who fret over such things are just worry-warts who still blame Ross Perot for the Clinton presidency. (In fact, the blame should be placed squarely on Bush 41 and the idiots responsible for the '96 Dole campaign.)
My advice: Don't let liberal spin to drive you into fear-based defensive thinking. The real danger to the Republican Party is not "extremists" or third parties, but rather the cluelessness of the Beltway GOP establishment.
I do worry somewhat about a third party sometimes. It seems to be pretty much impossible, back in NY and here in LA, at least, to talk with a self-appointed 'libertarian'who can't start out sounding quite reasonable without sooner or later spiralling off into Flake Valley (Yes! Letters of Marque and Reprisal for Afghanistan!)... or who doesn't turn out to be willing to sell out the nation, the Constitution and his mother for free pot...
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't mean I won't march with them and worry about keeping conservatism sane after the fact, anymore than it bothers peaceniks to march with Palestinian symps and the Spartacist League.
I'd also point out that the Conservative Party in New York is a whole different animal, with a long and healthy political history in NY. Something like that nationwide might be a healthy caucus partner for the GOP generally.
Remember, the goal is not to save the GOP. It is to save the Constitution and a democractically constituted republic.
Bloody well AMEN! Here Hear!
ReplyDelete"The real danger to the Republican Party is not "extremists" or third parties, but rather the cluelessness of the Beltway GOP establishment."
ReplyDeleteVery well put.
The notion that the party elders and leadership are concerned that a conservative push will somehow adversely affect the success of what they have been doing is preposterous.
They have driven the party to irrelavance through their free-spending ways and "bi-partisanship" with Marxists.
To paraphrase the inimitable Al Gore, it's time for them to go.
Molonlabe28
Part of the problem with the Bushtard GOP and its remnant in Washington and New York (one of whom changed the name of his blog from New Majority to FrumForum, btw) is that this crowd peddles an inherently reactionary and defensive set of beliefs. This is done so in an attempt to make elites and liberals believe that, well, they are the Nice, Thoughtful, Compassionate Republicans.
ReplyDeleteOnce you concede that to the Left, you are done. It is game over. The great thing about Reagan Conservatism, especially as represented by Palin, is how unapologetic it is in its analyisis of the pernicious effects of liberal neosocialism on the people of this country.
The NY-23 is a microcosm of what a national 3rd party movement may look like, but not like people(including Prof. Reynolds) think,
ReplyDeleteIf there is a third party split, the third party will be what's left of the Republicans, supplanted by whatever principled group forms. The modern Republican party is starting to mirror the old spineless Whig party in it's potential for implosion. On it's present course, it will implode and be absorbed into the other two, like the Whigs and Dede-ites.
Essential talking points:
ReplyDelete* National and local GOP officials made it impossible for social and fiscal conservatives - as well as *non-partisan* opponents of the Obama Revolution - to have a reason to vote in NY-23. Hoffman and the Conservative Party were there to pick up the pieces, fair and square.
* Sarah Palin's endorsement was the game-changer. The presidential wannabees all followed suit. Her viability as a national candidate is still questionable, but her "rogue" influence both w/in + w/out the GOP is a force to be reckoned with.
* However the MSM spins Hoffman, think the opposite. What the MSM calls "extremists purging moderates" is conservatives beating moderates in democratic process. When the Left achieves this, they call it "participatory democracy."
* And remember, Doug Hoffman is not a recipient of any Nobel Peace Prize.
Spot-on, Stace.
ReplyDeleteWe should all remember Patton's motto: Do not take counsel of your fears.
Quoted from and Linked to at: 23 SKIDOO X: DON'T GET OVERCONFIDENT Edition
The Progressive "House-of-Cards" is falling fast. Obama's dislike of America, the Go-Green religion, and the strategy of dismantling America's free market system, is turning into the "Vapor" that it has always been. Hoffman, in a single stroke, has redefined the Republican Party back to Reagan Conservatism, and has sent the "Shot" that has cracked the thin armor of the Progressive religion. And the progressives and liberals know this to be true, but they won't openly admit it. Pundits will burn up their keyboards in the coming months to say Hoffman is "no big deal". We'll see about that.
ReplyDeleteLook, there isn't going to be a third party.
ReplyDeleteYou know why? We have primaries. If unapologetic conservatives are in the ascendancy, as I think they (we) will be, we'll sweep the primaries and re-take the Republican Party from within.
NY-23 is an exception because there was no primary. This won't be the case in 2010 and 2012.
Look at the end of the careers of people like Clifford Case and Jacob Javits. Or Arlen Spector or (fingers crossed) Charlie Crist.
We've seen this before. There's nothing to fear, and everything to gain.
Just find the right candidates and support them.
Professor Reynolds also likes to vote for Democrats. Back in 2006 he voted for Democrat Bredesen in lieu of a fiscal conservative State Senator in the governors race. That same election he voted for Harold Ford, Jr instead of Bob Corker in the senate race. Why do these little facts stick in my mind? Because I don't trust those who say they are libertarians unless they label themselves as conservative/libertarians. Like Reynolds they end up voting for the Democrat. Why is that? Needless to say, "Professor" Reynolds is no different than most ensconced in their ivory towers.
ReplyDeletePlease tell me about a different fear: The fear of widespread fraud and cheating in NY-23. You've been there, on the ground, so what do you think? Is this a big worry for the Hoffman campaign? What are they doing to watch out for it?
ReplyDeleteHomeschool mom
So the fact that fully 57% of the voting public did *not* vote for Clinton in 1992 is not germaine? Or that in 1996, 54% of the voting public didn't?
ReplyDeleteWhen liberal votes get split, we get nail-biting months-long cliffhangers like Florida in 2000. When conservative votes get split, we end up with a horny hick governing like he has an overwhelming mandate.
There is the world the way we want it, and then the world the way it is: Third parties will not benefit the conservative movement. Period. Take it to the bank.
We need to start talking about the "LEFT WING EXTREMIST" That is what is running our country now. OBAMA, THE MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESS AND SENTATE...SOROS..J. WRIGHT, DAILY KOS, ACRON, ETC. COME ON GANG...THROW IT BACK IN THEIR FACES INCLUDING THE MSM....REMEMBER IT IS THE "LEFT WING EXTREMIST" voters need to worry about.
ReplyDelete...the idiots responsible for the '96 Dole campaign.
ReplyDeleteYou are much too kind to those folks.
The charity 'Raising Malawi' (PR firm) founded by Madonna AND TWO OTHERS in '06' held fund raisers for over two years before finally getting registered as a non-profit. In other words, Madonna and the others were free to squander that funding any way they saw fit for those first two years. In fact, they still havn't accounted for the 3.7 million raised from a single event in the fall of '07' (The grand opening of a Gucci flagship store in Manhattan.). She also pleaded with her fans worldwide for donations along the way. In the meantime, she toured the world to promote her latest CD and raked in another $280,000,000 gross in just over 12 months. To date, the basic financial info for 'Raising Malawi' still hasn't been posted on the website or anywhere else. The 'progress' page only tells of the collective works by over 20 seperate charities. Each of which have their own sources of funding and may have recieved some sort of promotion or support from 'Raising Malawi' in order to be considered 'partners'. But no indication is made how much of their funding came from 'Raising Malawi' or how much of their progress if any could be directly attributed to 'Raising Malawi'. The fans/donors have no clue how many millions of dollars were raised in that first two years, no clue how much Madonna herself chipped in, and no clue how the money was spent before they finally registered as a non-profit. No clue what fraction of funding or works listed on that 'progress' page could be directly attributed to 'Raising Malawi'. Nothing to go on but the vague and misleading word of Madonna. For example: She states in her latest promotional video that she will match any contributions made to her charity (PR firm) "dollar for dollar". However, there is a disclaimer posted on the website for 'Raising Malawi' that Madonna's total contribution will not exceed $100,000. Thats not per donation. Thats a maximum of $100,000 TOTAL. Less than a single days pay for Madonna. Also much less then she will surely rake in by promoting her own CDs, DVDs, and 'for profit' merchandise through this massive worldwide publicity stunt. So I called the office of 'Raising Malawi' in an attempt to verify some sort of efficient financial operation (310) 867-2881 or (888) 72-DONOR). These details are ALWAYS made available by legitimate charities. But not in this case. I got nothing but recorded messages and hangups. So I did some research on my own. 'Raising Malawi' still hasn't been given any kind of rating by ANY independent charity watchdog like Charitywatch.org. The vast overwhelming majority of 'celebrity' foundations never are. In general, they are inneficient and riddled with corruption. Like the promotion of CDs, world tours, commercial websites, entire lines of jewelry (not just the single piece from which proceeds are donated), and high end retail flagship stores. Its far less expensive to promote your image and product with a contribution to your own charity (PR firm) than it is to buy commercial airtime worldwide. This is why its become such a trend. Celebrity foundations are also notorious for squandering much of their funding on private jet rides and super high end accomodations for their managers, PR crews, and celebrity figure heads. Its legal even for a nonprofit but not noble or efficient by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, non-profits are not actually required by law to be efficient. This is why the independent rating is so important. In general, 'celebrity' foundations never even get one. They are a twisted inefficient mutant of charity, self-promotion, exotic travel, and PR crap. Still, they compete for funding with more efficient legitimate charities. The celebrity figure heads often disregard the primary donors, co-founders, and managers, take personal credit for any collective work done, and seek maximum publicity shortly before or after the release of their own commercial projects. Its a sham. So if its not rated, then don't support it. Instead, support a top rated charity like any of those given high ratings at Charitywatch.org.
ReplyDelete