Dede Scozzafava
This is not one of the subjects I’ve been following closely, since I don’t live in New York State, but the response to her decision to drop out of the race is interesting.
My understanding is that Scozzafava is a moderate Republican — she does not hew to the far right position on abortion and marriage equality, for example. But Michelle Malkin, in her post exulting about the news that she is no longer a candidate, calls Scozzafava a “radical leftist.” I didn’t realize that even the hard right had gotten extreme enough to consider a moderate Republican a “radical leftist.”
Andrew Sullivan speculates on what it all means:
What we’re seeing, I suspect, is an almost classic example of a political party becoming more ideological after its defeat at the polls. in order for that ideology to win, they will also have to portray the Obama administration as so far to the left that voters have no choice but to back the Poujadists waiting in the wings. And that, of course, is what they’re doing. There is a method to the Ailes-Drudge-Cheney-Rove denialism. They create reality, remember?
From the mindset of an ideologically purist base – where a moderate Republican in New York state is a “radical leftist” – this makes sense. But for all those outside the 20 percent self-identified Republican base, it looks like a mix of a purge and a clusterfuck. If Hoffman wins, and is then embraced by the GOP establishment, you have a recipe for a real nutroots take-over. This blood in the water will bring on more and more and deadlier and deadlier sharks.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
70 Responses to “Dede Scozzafava”
Yes, I know he is technically an Independent, but that was only because the Dems wouldn't support him in an election….
He lost in the primary, adelinesdad. The Democratic voters of Connecticut picked Ned Lamont over him. It was his decision to then run as an independent and win by splitting the vote. I don't understand what Democrats in Congress have to do with that.
Hows that for a not-so-veiled threat?
Gosh, AD, I guess I just can't muster up any sympathy for poor old Joe. I mean, can we remember for a moment that the condition he agreed to in exchange for Harry Reid letting him keep his chair of Homeland Security even though he had campaigned for John McCain, *and* said things about Obama that were just despicable lies was that he would be loyal to the Democrats at least on alternate weekends? The whole reason for not removing him from one of the most powerful committee chairmanships in the Senate was that the Democrats needed his 60th vote on health care. He knew that. He used it to keep his committee assignment.
This is not principled call to conscience we're talking about here, AD. Joe Lieberman is simply not comparable to ANY other lawmaker in Congress, Democrat OR Republican, liberal OR conservative OR centrist. Lieberman is a man with absolutely no sense of loyalty and not an ounce of integrity or honesty. He's a snake, AD. He's a back-stabber. There is no good faith in anything he does. You just cannot compare him to Olympia Snowe or Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson. They're not back-stabbers. They don't promise something really important to get what they want in the moment and then turn back on their promise, probably never having had any intention of keeping it.
It's really bewildering to me why so many conservatives don't seem to get this — given how praiseworthy they all said former Pres. Bush was for his “loyalty.”
Yes, I know he is technically an Independent, but that was only because the Dems wouldn't support him in an election….
He lost in the primary, adelinesdad. The Democratic voters of Connecticut picked Ned Lamont over him. It was his decision to then run as an independent and win by splitting the vote. I don't understand what Democrats in Congress have to do with that.
Hows that for a not-so-veiled threat?
Gosh, AD, I guess I just can't muster up any sympathy for poor old Joe. I mean, can we remember for a moment that the condition he agreed to in exchange for Harry Reid letting him keep his chair of Homeland Security even though he had campaigned for John McCain, *and* said things about Obama that were just despicable lies was that he would be loyal to the Democrats at least on alternate weekends? The whole reason for not removing him from one of the most powerful committee chairmanships in the Senate was that the Democrats needed his 60th vote on health care. He knew that. He used it to keep his committee assignment.
This is not principled call to conscience we're talking about here, AD. Joe Lieberman is simply not comparable to ANY other lawmaker in Congress, Democrat OR Republican, liberal OR conservative OR centrist. Lieberman is a man with absolutely no sense of loyalty and not an ounce of integrity or honesty. He's a snake, AD. He's a back-stabber. There is no good faith in anything he does. You just cannot compare him to Olympia Snowe or Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson. They're not back-stabbers. They don't promise something really important to get what they want in the moment and then turn back on their promise, probably never having had any intention of keeping it.
It's really bewildering to me why so many conservatives don't seem to get this — given how praiseworthy they all said former Pres. Bush was for his “loyalty.”
Yes, I know he is technically an Independent, but that was only because the Dems wouldn't support him in an election….
He lost in the primary, adelinesdad. The Democratic voters of Connecticut picked Ned Lamont over him. It was his decision to then run as an independent and win by splitting the vote. I don't understand what Democrats in Congress have to do with that.
Hows that for a not-so-veiled threat?
Gosh, AD, I guess I just can't muster up any sympathy for poor old Joe. I mean, can we remember for a moment that the condition he agreed to in exchange for Harry Reid letting him keep his chair of Homeland Security even though he had campaigned for John McCain, *and* said things about Obama that were just despicable lies was that he would be loyal to the Democrats at least on alternate weekends? The whole reason for not removing him from one of the most powerful committee chairmanships in the Senate was that the Democrats needed his 60th vote on health care. He knew that. He used it to keep his committee assignment.
This is not principled call to conscience we're talking about here, AD. Joe Lieberman is simply not comparable to ANY other lawmaker in Congress, Democrat OR Republican, liberal OR conservative OR centrist. Lieberman is a man with absolutely no sense of loyalty and not an ounce of integrity or honesty. He's a snake, AD. He's a back-stabber. There is no good faith in anything he does. You just cannot compare him to Olympia Snowe or Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson. They're not back-stabbers. They don't promise something really important to get what they want in the moment and then turn back on their promise, probably never having had any intention of keeping it.
It's really bewildering to me why so many conservatives don't seem to get this — given how praiseworthy they all said former Pres. Bush was for his “loyalty.”
AD's okay, Steve. I have no problems with him. I don't think he's trying to hijack anything. Save your opprobrium (love that word!) for Jazz, who truly does deserve it.
AD's okay, Steve. I have no problems with him. I don't think he's trying to hijack anything. Save your opprobrium (love that word!) for Jazz, who truly does deserve it.
AD's okay, Steve. I have no problems with him. I don't think he's trying to hijack anything. Save your opprobrium (love that word!) for Jazz, who truly does deserve it.
AD's okay, Steve. I have no problems with him. I don't think he's trying to hijack anything. Save your opprobrium (love that word!) for Jazz, who truly does deserve it.
AD's okay, Steve. I have no problems with him. I don't think he's trying to hijack anything. Save your opprobrium (love that word!) for Jazz, who truly does deserve it.
AD's okay, Steve. I have no problems with him. I don't think he's trying to hijack anything. Save your opprobrium (love that word!) for Jazz, who truly does deserve it.
AD's okay, Steve. I have no problems with him. I don't think he's trying to hijack anything. Save your opprobrium (love that word!) for Jazz, who truly does deserve it.
hi there, going to ask all to stay on the topic. Opinions about TMV writers stop now.
thanks.
dr.e
[quote][quote]lnmvkhgcv[/quote][/quote]
“adelinesdad, Is there a reason that you're trying to hijack this thread from one about Dede Scozzafava to one about Joe Lieberman?”
The thread is about the Republican party pushing out moderates. As Kathy implied, the race itself is not that interesting; what Kathy (almost wrote “she”, sorry Kathy:)) found interesting was the Republican reaction. I won't speak for Kathy, but it seems to me Kathy would agree with me that the thread is not so much about Dede but about the perceived exclusions of moderates in the GOP.
While I mentioned that I agree with Kathy's general point, I think pointing out a double-standard is relevant and is not a hijack. My comment does relate to the post as a whole, it specifically relates to the quote from Andrew:
“What we’re seeing, I suspect, is an almost classic example of a political party becoming more ideological after its defeat at the polls.”
When one considers examples of the Democratic party doing the same, it calls that logic into question. Therefore, I stand by my comment as relevant to the current topic.
You're fine, AD, as far as any “appropriateness” of your comment as a response to my post. However, as I indicated in my other reply to you, Joe Lieberman is not at all a good example of a “double standard” with regard to pushing moderates out of the party. For the reason I gave above, but also because Lieberman is simply not a “moderate” in relation to the rest of the Democratic party. The GOP leadership — the mainstream of the party — has become a narrowly ideological party catering to the most extreme right-wing voices in the party. Political and social positions that deviate in the slightest from the “party line” are demonized. This is something one simply cannot accurately and truthfully say about the Democratic Party.
I still think the situation with Lieberman and Democratic party is very similar to the situation with Scozzafava. I think a right winger (the counterpart to your self-confessed left wing position) would probably describe Scozzafava's positions as “not moderate in relation to the rest of the [Republican] party” also, so I don't see much difference except for perspective. I also don't think Lieberman ever promised, either explicitly or implicitly, that he would support a public option in return for the forgiveness he received from the party, so I don't buy your “back-stabber” argument.
AD, we don't have to guess at how a right-winger would describe Scozzafava. She's a “radical left-winger.” That shows you the difference right there. No human being in their right mind would think Scozzafava is a “radical left-winger.” And no right-winger would describe her as “not moderate” in relation to the rest of the party. Right-wingers do not think of themselves as “moderate.” Their whole thing is that they want the party to follow the farthest right voices among them. “Moderate” is not a compliment to the Republicans who wanted Scozzafava out of the race.
And it doesn't matter that Lieberman didn't promise specifically to support “a public option.” He committed to supporting the Democrats' legislation on health care reform. He didn't say, “except if it has a public option.” He didn't say, “No health care reform at all is better than health care reform with a public option.” Furthermore, the point is moot anyway because Lieberman also opposed the Baucus bill, which did not even have a public option.
What's overdue is intelligent querying. Why is she now endorsing a Democrat? Is it disgusting RINO behavior, Never Question Big Government (that is, is she aping Rockfeller and the worst that the Empire State Plaza as well as state government in Albany signify in her own state), it is just bitterness at losing the race (and bitterness at outside interests who interfered), or is it robotic Duopoly-adherence?
Any and all likely answers are unflattering, if not downright disgusting.
“far right”
On this lefty site, as uttered by lefties (when they aren't just clueless and spouting words and phrases they know nothing about, like terms of logical fallacies they routinely misuse, while committing all manner of such fallacies) –
“far right” = anybody to the right of Barbara Boxer or the many lefties on this site
“Bonus” distance points (to rightward) if they criticize weak or bogus Republicans
Again, I don’t think you can use a quote from one right-wing blogger to prove your point about the Republican party in general, just as I can’t use a quote from a left-wing blog to paint the Democrats with a broad brush. Regarding Palin, she ran for VP with McCain, someone widely regarded as a moderate. So I think it’s more accurate to say that Palin doesn’t feel that Scozzafava is in the same category as McCain (ie. “not moderate”) rather than to say that she doesn’t tolerate moderates. I don't know enough about Scozzafava to know if Palin is right, but it seems just as plausible are your case that Leiberman is “not moderate”.
Secondly, I find it very hard to believe that a long-time independently-minded senator like Lieberman would write a blank check to the Democratic party and agree to support their bill unconditionally before it was even written, but if you have evidence that that’s what he agreed to I’d reconsider. It’s more likely that he agreed to support the effort for health care reform in general, but in the end the bill turned out more left that he expected.
Thirdly, I’m feeling less-than-motivated to continue arguing for what could be considered a defense of the Republican party. That’s not my intent. So, let me try to make a concession: Yes, the rhetoric on the right has been more extreme than on the left. But it seems to me it’s mostly just that: a rhetorical shift, not as much an ideological shift. In that sense, I would agree with Andrew that this is common among parties out of power, just as the far left did under Bush. The “get out of Iraq now” and “Bush lied” crowd was very loud, but when one of their own gets into power it is revealed that his actually policy decisions are more nuanced as he understands that getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster. So it remains to be seen what that means for the ideology of the Republican party. If the party nominates Palin in 2012, I'll eat my words, but I don’t believe that will happen.
The “get out of Iraq now” and “Bush lied” crowd was very loud, but when one of their own gets into power it is revealed that his actually policy decisions are more nuanced as he understands that getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster.
Well, I agree with your argument that the party out of power moves more toward the other party's positions when they get into power (although this did not happen with Bush — he moved us farther to the right), but I don't necessarily accept your premise that the reason for the shift is that Obama realized getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster. I think it's more that realities of power politics in Washington, D.C., make it very difficult to do that, and he's picking his battles. Plus, we have a signed agreement with Iraq to be out of there completely by– whatever date it is, I forget– August 2011? So he can diddle with the interim dates, but not the final one.
So it remains to be seen what that means for the ideology of the Republican party. If the party nominates Palin in 2012, I'll eat my words, but I don’t believe that will happen.
Well, from my pov, of course, I hope they do.