Breaking: Scozzafava Drops Out of NY-23 Race

And in a single stroke she shows why she was the better candidate.

She was the better candidate, I agree. And I hope the opportunistic Hoffman -- a man who doesn't even live in the district he seeks to represent -- gets beaten.

I lived in this very district for years. Good people in a rural, perpetually depressed area. Generally speaking, they view people like Hoffman as an outsider who doesn't really 'get' their concerns. I hope that trait rises to the fore.

Once again, Scozzafava does what liberals want her to do. I guess when NYC liberals say jump, all Scozzafava knows how to do is ask how high?

How can someone claim to be a good representative when the same person keeps giving people who hate her whatever they want. Maybe people finally figured out that Scozzafava is not competent enough to be involved in government.

So the neocons forced the People's candidate clear out of the race and inserted "their boy" eh?

Why does this sound so eerily familiar..

You see, the People aren't allowed to define what it means to be a TRUE conservative in their republican party. No. You have to espouse 20th Century Bush Sr. stealth zealotry OR ELSE...your a 'LIBERAL'!!! [why do I smell Cheney all of a sudden..?]

The day their little buzzwords start losing their effect on people is the day we can all rejoice that people have regained their brains.

This means Hoffman has to win or the Tea Party movement will likely be strangled in the crib. I would bet he will but keep in mind a loss here is no longer an option.

Can't help noticing (and being amused by) the back to back comments by Sil and SD, who almost simultaneously blamed a) the liberals, or b) the neocons.

SD, though, said: "Maybe people finally figured out that Scozzafava is not competent enough to be involved in government."

SD, she's been involved in government (elected offices) for nearly 2 decades. Are you actually following this race at all?

I dont even have a dog in this race but I began to read the coverage and I must say that though she is not a lockstep Republican she has a record to be incredibly proud of and did a good many things that I think took political guts that I would vote to represent me regardless of party. I am probably biased though since where she moves left is on the social issues which I find to just be rational but I know many others disagree.

How unfortunate that Dede dropped out. Nothing like caving to the baser elements. Here are the comments from David Brooks and Mark Shields on that race from Newshour last night:

DAVID BROOKS: I think it is a suicide pact for the Republican Party, essentially taking a moderate Republican, dead-center in American politics, and saying, sorry, you are too liberal. That's crazy.

MARK SHIELDS: Only in a Republican fight, Jim, could Dede Scozzafava, who has the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, was for the Bush tax cuts, was against the Obama medical care, only in a Republican fight could she be accused of being a Castroite, which is what the charge is against her.

Scozzafava is not a moderate, she is a liberal on both social and economic issues. The big hammer in this one is another one page Facebook entry from Sarah Palin, who took on the RNC, RCCC, and the party establishment and knocked their liberal candidate out of the race in a couple weeks. You remember Sarah, the one the liberals told us was "finished", washed up and powerless, several months ago. Repeatedly.

The race is up for grabs now. Had Palin not intervened (and of course a number of other conservatives), it would have been a lock between two liberals. So this is already a victory for conservatives. We are back in the race. Now we get to see if they can put the icing on a very nice cake on Tuesday. But even if the Democrat wins, a powerful message has been sent to the David Brooks of the world and the Republican establishment. That alone is well worth it.

It's great to see all the gratuitous advice to Republicans coming from the left. As if you wished nothing but our success.

"This means Hoffman has to win or the Tea Party movement will likely be strangled in the crib. I would bet he will but keep in mind a loss here is no longer an option." ~Magicalskyfather
*******
In that case look for largely dam polling sites to be snarled with "sudden" inexplicable traffic jams, detours and inconveniences of all sorts. It wouldn't even surprise me if counts were meddled with. When neocons feel threatened, there is nothing that will stop them from gaining their objective. And we think the real threat to democracy is in Afghanistan..lol..LOL!

And I'm sick of the graying of terms within the english language too when it comes to politics. Conservative used to mean people who didn't like those that glommed onto radical fringe ideas that centered outside of the judeo-christian edicts...and whose hallmarks of being despised were that those fringe ideas centered around [usually] personal indulgence and lack of modesty/moderation.

Now we have the neocons who have replaced the christian god with their own god of Money and anyone who doesn't fall in line with that way of thinking is "a heretic" aka "liberal". They are on an inquisition now and like MSF said, losing isn't an option for them..

The sentiments expressed by people like DaMav are exactly the sort of thing that will contribute to longterm marginalization of the GOP. Playing reactionary may be fun for awhile, but becomes toxic if kept up for too long. And Palin? She is the gift that keeps giving. . . to the democrats. The GOP really needs to get their bearings if they want to move into the 21st century. Many of us are waiting to see signs they have learned anything from their failures, but with a few exceptions, there is little to be encouraged by.

So the neocons forced the People's candidate clear out of the race and inserted "their boy" eh?

Actually, due to the small window of time between the time that the former office holder resigned and the special election, no Republican primary was held. Scozzafava was actually chosen by Republican Party county chairs, so the idea that she was the People's candidate is not correct.

Also, I think it is a mistake to conflate neoconservatives with right-wing conservatives. Neoconservatives are extremely hawkish on foreign policy but are more moderate on domestic policy. Right-wing conservatives are very conservative on domestic issues and all over the map on foreign policy.

That being said, I realize that Hoffman has been pretty hawkish on foreign policy and has been backed by several neoconservatives, including Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard.

Isn't being backed by Bill Kristol sort of like the kiss of death anymore?

" And Palin? She is the gift that keeps giving. . . to the democrats. The GOP really needs to get their bearings if they want to move into the 21st century. Many of us are waiting to see signs they have learned anything from their failures, but with a few exceptions, there is little to be encouraged by."
*****
Words of wisdom J Spencer, words of wisdom.

And yes, Bill Kristol is also the kiss of death. As is Cheney's endorsement which is equal and the same as Kristol's and Palin's. McCain was and is their boy. He was just cloaked during the campaign to sugarcoat the same old rotten pill.

Didn't work then. We'll see if people have become dumber by Tuesday in Upstate New York.

This event uncorks and releases a wave of ... waste from leftist critics. Pathetic.

"they view people like Hoffman as an outsider"

What's been missing all along here is intelligent observation of outsiders from DC involving themselves in elections like this.

Also missing is the comparison with the current Obama big-money-raising effort throughout the USA, which at least shows some effort to exploit the Dems' current political power and advantage over the GOP, prior to next year's elections.

There goes DLS again, trying to grey the meaning of conservative. On his inquisition he will regularly post about the regular posts of others he considers "heretics' to the neocon's new god: Money..

I'll just say it. The Palin, Kristol, Cheney etc. neocons are just a bunch of gansters, amoral thugs hellbent [literally] on power, money, debauchery-behind-closed-doors and ever other kind of non-conservative idiology you can imagine. And they have bots that spindoctor for them 24/7, keeping the cloak intact, washed and pressed nicely.

"There goes DLS again, trying to grey the meaning of conservative."

Quit squinting or cutting off the circulation to your brain, Sil.

The moderate Republicans are just going to have to find a way to be moderate without selling out to militant homosexuals, public sector unions, and the left.

The moderate Republicans are just going to need to learn the lesson that no matter how much you appease the left, they are still going to hate you and will never support you.

The moderates also are going to have to learn the lesson that conservative whites are not the same as blacks or Hispanics. Blacks and Hispanics will vote Democratic no matter what. Conservative whites will revolt against the Republican establishment when the establishment spits in their face.

The moderate Republicans are just going to have to find a way to be moderate without selling out to militant homosexuals, public sector unions, and the left.

This is the second time I've come across the phrase militant homosexuals with regards to Scozzafova on this blog.

I'm not sure exactly what people mean when they use the phrase militant homosexuals (gay people who bring guns to gay pride parades?) so I offer a challenge to anyone who wishes to continue using that term, and that challenge is that the user of the phrase actual define whom they are referring to. Because to me, the phrase militant homosexuals just sounds like a bunch of Orwellian newspeak meant to inspire hate or fear without defining what exactly it is that we are supposed to hate or be afraid of.

The moderate Republicans are just going to have to find a way to stay Republicans as they poll lower than Libertarians.

But the wrestler mask will make teabagging anonymously much easier so it's all good!

Most folks who contribute here temper their comments with a certain degree of civility, as though the people they are communicating with are real and could potentially be met face to face. There is one commenter here though who routinely engages in cowardly insults and characterizations - ones I doubt he would ever make face to face. This aspect of the internet, which potentially removes accountability, is actually quite good at highlighting the character deficit some people suffer from.

Apologies for the digression, this observation has been waiting to be made for some time now. It could have been made by others here as well. As you were...

Militant homosexuals are the ones that will do whatever it takes and do not care what the voters, the laws, or the polls say. The original strategy was to get one state to legalize gay marriage and then sue in court. The DOMA put an end to that strategy, so the next was to apply civil rights laws to sexual behavior so that the militant homosexuals can go around the way. I remember in the 1990's when Colorado pass a constitutional amendment banning special rights for homosexuals. A liberal judge almost immediately struck it down and ruled that a constitutional amendment was unconstitutional.

The next push will be the thought crime laws that activist homosexuals will use to silence anyone that diagrees with them.

In the long run, the moderate Repubicans are going to have to learn the lesson that homosexuals dispise all conservatives and seem to be universal in their support for big government, big spending, and the nanny state. Homosexuals want a nanny state because they know (correctly) that they will be the ones in control of it.

JSpencer wrote: "Most folks who contribute here temper their comments with a certain degree of civility, as though the people they are communicating with are real and could potentially be met face to face. There is one commenter here though who routinely engages in cowardly insults and characterizations..."

Thank you JSpencer for saying what many here have hoped management would say for quite some time. Disagreement and debate are all fine and good but the constant (8333) diet of the childish taunts and generalizations that you refer to take much of the pleasure out of trying to have a reasonable conversation.

Militant homosexuals are the ones that will do whatever it takes and do not care what the voters, the laws, or the polls say.

I'm not sure why what voters or polls say should have any bearing on what homosexuals believe or how they act. The United States was founded as a Constitutional republic, not a democracy. The idea that 95% of the population has the right to dictate to the other 5% how they are to live their lives isn't very consistent with freedom.

The next push will be the thought crime laws that activist homosexuals will use to silence anyone that diagrees with them.

I'm assuming you're referring to hate crimes legislation, which I agree goes beyond prosecuting people for the crime they commited and seeks to criminalize bigotry, which i believe should be not be criminalized. But there is a difference between homosexuals who want to use the force of government to force others to agree with their views and homosexuals who simply want to live their lives without being coerced or denied basic rights that everyone else enjoys. Were homosexuals who supported the repeal of antisodomy laws militant? Are homosexuals who want to be able to marry whoever they want (the same way heterosexual couples do) militant?

I'm not aware of the nuances of Scozzafava's views with regards to homosexuality to be able to judge whether your criticism of her is fair enough, but I'd be curious to know what specific views you find particularly wrong. If it's a matter of hate crimes legislation, I'm definitely not on board with that. But if its a matter of homosexuals not wanting to be arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own home or serving in the military or being able to marry whoever they want the same way heterosexual couples do, I see that as tolerance and common sense, not militancy.

SD, you usually confine your diatribes to worries about increasing representation in the electorate by non-whites. You've made this quite clear on many occasions. Now it appears your intolerance and paranoia include gay people as well. Not a very healthy picture you're painting of yourself there.

Thank you for a voice of reason. I've always considered character attacks and insults to be an admission of defeat. I also see generalization to be to the fuel for discrimination. It's hard to hate someone for the group that they belong to, when you know them personally. I would even bet that there are some conservative homosexuals out there.

Steve, the degree of patience management has shown is impressive. Pity the fellow is too immature to realize how he ruins his credibility by behavior alone. I suppose that's why most don't bother to respond, it isn't worthy of the effort. Still, there is a taint that lingers...

Anyone who believes in freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, or the freedon of association should be very scared of the militant homosexuals. It will not be long before the government begin to collect data on sexual preference and starts environments quotas for gays, lesbians, transgendered, etc. Why else would the organized homosexuals movements cling to the very discredited 10% number if they did not want 10% of the government to be for themselves.

Churches, private organizatio0ns, think tanks, religous schools, and others will soon be scared because organized homosexuals groups will have veto power over them.

Tremble America... We have been warned... superdestroyer's militant homosexuals are coming. They're coming and they want to steal our very way of life... and our color TV's!

SteveK,

The average university will show you the future. If you say anything outside of the politically correct dogma, a student, profressor, or employee risks their future association with the university. Look at the political reeducation that was mandatory at the University of Delaware.

Why else do you think that the left is so excited about the just signed thought crime laws. Federal prosecutors will be able to establish criminal conspiracies to punish anyone who says anything politically incorrect about homosexuals.

superdestroyer wrote: "The average university will show you the future... "

Yes, a average university DID show me my future to which I will be eternally grateful. You should drop by one sometime... I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

I think you should actually read the bill that you've so seriously misrepresented (misunderstood)... I think you'd be pleasantly surprised by it, too.

SteveK,

You should read the law,

(4) GUIDELINES.— All prosecutions conducted by the United States under this section shall be undertaken pursuant to guidelines issued by the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, to be included in the United States Attorneys' Manual that shall establish neutral and objective criteria for determining whether a crime was committed because of the actual or perceived status of any person.

The laws gives prosecutors complete discretion. They can do whatever they wand and given the organized homosexual community's ability to manipulate the courts, that means the means whatever they say it means. A single prosecutor and a single judge will eventually make it a thought crime law.

superdestroyer quoted:
"(4) GUIDELINES.— All prosecutions conducted by the United States under this section shall be undertaken pursuant to guidelines issued by the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, to be included in the United States Attorneys' Manual that shall establish neutral and objective criteria for determining whether a crime was committed because of the actual or perceived status of any person."

superdestroyer, The section you quote is, in my opinion, saying just the opposite of what you are implying that it says. Established "neutral and objective criteria" for prosecution would prohibit capricious and/or unnecessary prosecutions.

Actually, the real issue is the real nature of Scozzafava (sp?), who may be a darling "moderate" (i.e., mushy or at least An Acceptable Republican or "Conservative" by Barbara Boxer and TMV standards), who after dropping out has chosen to endorse the Democrat. I suspect it has to do with compatibility and political honestly (now that she's out of the race!) more than it may have to do with bitterness at losing.

More overdue remedial reviewing by people on this site can be found here. This nation is far from homogeneous (politically as much as geogically, climatically, or "scenically" and the aging, decaying Blue Nation sites have been becoming separated from mainstream-normality (and vitality, and growing rather than declining importance, in the case of the Sun Belt, much of it Red Nation) the more they cling to old,outmoded, often-failed ways (so similar in a broader sense to the fools still stupidly stuck in the 1950s-1960s "Detroit bubble").

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/20...

If the foregoing catrogram is too difficult to grasp:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/20...

Good maps DLS.

Add to them Red State Blue State One State Two State and it's easier to understand what's happening in this country...

*** Late in the Thread Warning - The following is Off Topic and meant in good humor so if you object to either off-topic or humor please ignore the following links.***

And why Conservapedia thought they needed to write a Conservative Bible. One that removes all the liberal bias that the pathetic leftists put into "the other one" when King James wasn't looking. :-)

Do you really believe that a liberal Democrat lead Justice Department will be neutral. It will give homosexuals anything they want. Do you really believe that Attorney General Eric Holder, who believes that governmental action should be race based, will be neutral. Pretty soon, being in the same church as a thought criminal or belong to the same club will be enough to draw the full force of the government down on anyone's head. Go read George Will's column from last Sunday.

comment read. It's always good to start the day with a laugh.