What Ousted GOP Candidate Endorsing Dem in Messy NY Race Means (Guest Voice)
What Ousted GOP Candidate Endorsing Dem in Messy NY Race Means
by Jon Wells
The drama over the special election in NY-23 has taken a variety of surprising turns over the past few weeks. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was selected by a county board of GOP supervisors and got a load of initial cash and support from the national Republican establishment. But a plethora of her policy stands made many in the base question why she was selected in the first place. There are her positions on social questions that rub many the wrong way (including winning an award from Planned Parenthood), but besides that, she also favors card check and the stimulus package.
Many in the national GOP electorate reacted with growing anger after already being served with a moderate Republican candidate in the presidential race who fared rather poorly. Complicating matters was the presence in the race of a Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. After the national spotlight was shone on Scozzafava, and after Hoffman began to make significant gains in the polls, several national figures endorsed Hoffman, including Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, and George Pataki. Other party leaders, seeming motivated more by party affiliation than policy positions, continued to stick by Scozzafava, like RNC chair Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich.
On Friday, however, beaten back by plummeting poll numbers and an influx of national cash and ground support for Hoffman, Scozzafava dropped out of the race. She shortly endorsed her Democrat opponent, Bill Owens, apparently after urging from numerous members of the Democratic party, including Sen. Charles Schumer and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. It’s hard to see how her endorsement, along with its coordination with national Democrats, blunts any criticism that Scozzafava was basically a Democrat with a different letter after her name; indeed, it underscores the truth of it.
The NRCC and the RNC look like huge dupes for blowing $1 million on a candidate that angered their national base and ended up stabbing them in the back anyway. Now the headline is a predictable, “Is there room for moderates in the GOP?” It was the same blather that was spouted after Arlen Specter defected, but like Scozzfava, his defection solidified criticism that he was basically a Democrat with a different letter after his name. Never mind that many of Scozzafava’s position are more in line with a liberal Democrat than a moderate Republican, but it returns to an issue that many are trying to foist on Republicans in the hope of reducing their appeal and their influence.
I would respond that a political party must have a set of core principles that it must expect its members to adhere to the majority of the time, and the local GOP ran a candidate that in many ways is indistinguishable from the Democrat. On one level it may be advantageous to have more numbers in your caucus, but if the liberal GOP rep goes to Congress and votes with the Democrats on the big issues like health care reform, cap and trade, and card check, then nothing of substance is gained at all. Instead, you’ve jeopardized your party’s goals at the expense of the base’s trust, all for the sake of having a few more people with the same letter after their name on your team.
There are some places where a more moderate candidate is absolutely necessary to win. NY-23, which has voted reliably Republican for quite some time, wasn’t one of those places. If this had remained a two person race, many probably would have grumbled but been OK with a Scozzafava win. But with the presence of Hoffman, it was too much for conservatives to see the national party prop up a liberal candidate at the expense of an actual conservative in the race.
It may be that this will be the right’s Ned Lamont moment, although that’s a somewhat flawed analogy as Lamont was the liberal faithful’s answer to a sitting incumbent that didn’t fit their tastes. In any case, I have no idea how this race will turn out. PPP says Hoffman has a double digit lead, but a lot of other polling outfits have the race much closer, and while the late momentum seems to be in Hoffman’s favor, I’m not going to say anything for sure.
Now the shouts are coming that this race shows the GOP is becoming too ideologically driven and the base too needful of “litmus tests” for its candidates. This criticism rings hollow as most of the Democratic agenda in Congress is coming straight out the liberal playbook with threats against moderate members to go along if they know what’s good for them. No, the question that NY-23 poses isn’t whether the GOP can be more inclusive in its principles, it’s whether the party will have any principles at all.
Whether Hoffman wins or loses, the message has been sent to the GOP leadership that an “R” after the name isn’t enough any more. Whether that’s “inclusive” enough for some is immaterial because a party cannot merely become the milquetoast version of its opponent to survive. Instead of statistically based pandering, it needs bold contrasts and recognizable differences, and more importantly, it needs workable ideas and solutions. NY-23 showcases the vast divide between the expectations of the Republican base and the cynical vision of the RNC leadership.
If it is to have success in 2010 and 2012, the GOP can’t simply bank on Democratic failure. It must provide positive solutions of its own. But beyond that, Bush’s second term and McCain’s candidacy utterly disillusioned a vast swath of the conservative base, and if the GOP is to flourish, it cannot continue to be not just apathetic but antagonistic toward its core voters. Regardless of whether Hoffman wins or loses, NY-23 may represent the beginning of a shift away from political expediency and back toward principled leadership.
Jonathan Wells is a 28-year-old husband and father who lives in Ohio and has a day job in the microbiology field. He notes that he tends “be conservative in most of my views, but by no means do I bear blind allegiance to a political party.” He stresses that he is open-minded and encourages “any civil disagreement (or uncivil agreement) any of you would care to express.” He likes to make people think – and does so on his blog Wellsy’s World.
23 Responses to “What Ousted GOP Candidate Endorsing Dem in Messy NY Race Means (Guest Voice)”
'Kill the rino! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!”
Dear Reps…your little piece of the island is getting smaller and smaller.
One could argue that the GOP is just going back to its roots pre-Reagan when they were relatively ideologically pure. Of course they rarely held any power due to people being repulsed by their ideology but they did have a pretty pure ideology. Personally I would prefer people that actually get things done but its nice to see that those that just want to vote for a screamer that digs in their heels and changes nothing are now free to do so. Problem is to get anything actually done you need a big tent and to get everyone in that big tent on close to the same page, Reagan understood this which is why he was successful as were the GOP that followed. It sounds to me like one of the few wise lessons of Reagan is being ignored or completely misunderstood, but maybe that is because Reagan was originally a Dem so he is just a really really sneaky RINO.
So long as only 21-27% (depending on which poll you want to cite) of the electorate buys into the hard core right, this strategy seems a fool's errand. Winning solidly Republican NY-23 won't change that.
BR>
I wonder how many social conservatives actually know that.
“Instead of statistically based pandering, it (the GOP) needs bold contrasts and recognizable differences, and more importantly, it needs workable ideas and solutions.” ~ JW
Finally, after all the wordplay we cut to the chase, namely the “workable ideas and solutions.” When the the GOP starts making a genuine effort to formulate and advocate said “ideas and solutions”, then I will be happy to give them credit. Until that happens, why should anyone expect other than the negative dynamic they appear to be so in love with?
Without leadership they'll never be able to formulate workable ideas and solutions. They has a massive leadership void right now.
Empirical data seems way more useful to me……..
UPDATE (3:30 PM). Tom Jensen at PPP reports that he had a poll in the field this morning that was showing very good numbers for Hoffman, although how much emphasis we should give to unweighted, small-sample polling conducted on Halloween morning, I don't know. I would say that if Hoffman wins, it will tend to because of factors that were already in place before Scozzafava's withdraw.
This reminds me of a classic joke, its not that I have to out run the alligator, I just have to out run you. You do not have to have a big tent approach, you just need to have a bigger tent then the other guy, shrinking the tent is not a new approach but it has yet to turn into a winning strategy that I remember, does anyone know of a period in US history where shrinking the tent actually lead to winning?
Or how about shrinking the tent while your demographics are also shrinking?
MSF asks, “does anyone know of a period in US history where shrinking the tent actually lead to winning?”
Let's see? It didn't work for Goldwater. It didn't work for McGovern. In both of those examples, the shrinking was followed by movement to the center and success in the next election cycle. Goldwater ('64) to Nixon ('68) and McGovern ('72) to Carter ('76).
There's a reason most successful politics involves running to the center. That's where most of the voters are, though there may be ideological or party strongholds in particular districts/states.
Excellent post Michael. If you aren't aware, most of the “moderates” here are lost and stumbling around in the left wing bogs, so don't expect too many kudos.
You made all the key points, and made them well.
This is not a “purification” of the party. Scozzafava was a left winger on both economic and social issues running in a moderate district. Most of the concern trollers are Democrats who want to see conservatives marginalized; it's a form of humor to see them warning us about it.
Gallup puts conservatives at 40% of the population, Republicans in the 20s. By becoming more conservative, Republicans can tap into that larger demographic and grow the party nicely. And by standing for something, they can attract many independents who place value on principle. We just need to do some house cleaning and redesign. I'd like to see some resignations from the dunderheads who gave a million bucks of Republican money to a Democrat, for example. That's not motivated by ideology, but the need to address basic competency.
Thanks, I had to “Like” this not because you agree with my assessment but because you answered the question(though agreeing is always wonderful). Of course Goldwater's loss was epic so it makes since why they bolted to the center then, I think this will look a bit more like McGovern-Carter since I do not think the lesson will be learned until 2012 but I have high hopes that the 2010 election will involve so little movement that they may learn it then(chances are good though that they will win enough to believe that this strategy is working). To be honest it would be really bad for the Dems to keep all branches until 2012 but 2014 would be even worse(any party owning all branches is a bad idea). I have this creeping fear that they will run in 2012 as the full on stiletto wearing Frakenfurter version of the GOP and they will not only lose the Pres but further seats as well which makes me extremely nervous.
Apologies to Jon Wells for calling you “Michael”. The edit function here always puts me in an endless loop so I can't correct the error.
Mr Wells — thank you for your thoughtful piece. And although DaMav has overgeneralized a bit, it's true that there's some leftward slant here sometimes. Nevertheless, I think it's a mistake to disdain comments from people left of one's position; there are valid responses here, regardless of affiliation.
Where I see a real problem, frankly, is in what appears to be a fusion of far right social conservatism with libertarian-type government reduction. Yes, it's true that one must have principles, but the principles being espoused (in NY and tea parties) are very different from the Republican party I grew up with. But then, the GOP I knew would never have indulged themselves in a case like Terri Schiavo, either — so clearly the changes are not merely reaction to Obama and Bush.
The Republicans have been morphing over time, and while it may not be clear to observers where they'll end up, I doubt the Republicans really know where they'll end up, either.
Finally — you said: “…a political party must have a set of core principles that it must expect its members to adhere to the majority of the time…”
Can you share what positions you would allow someone to vary on? How far can one stray from the core, and still be acceptable to you and your movement?
DaMav, I'll see your concern trolling and raise you one whistling in the dark.
I'll call. Now turn off the light
When a Scozzafava backs the Porkulus and more
Give a little whistle. Give a little whistle
When your start to wonder what your party's standing for
Give a little whistle! Give a little whistle
Not just a little squeak
Pucker up and blow
And if your whistle's weak, yell “Doug Hoffman!”
Take the path to principle and if you start to slide
Give a little whistle!
Give a little whistle!
And always let your conscience be your guide
Apologies to Mr. Cricket. And probably everyone else, lol
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Spee and TMV, Tiger Edwards. Tiger Edwards said: What Ousted GOP Candidate Endorsing Dem in Messy NY Race Means (Guest Voice): We just need to do some house cle.. http://bit.ly/2sG8GC [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: What Ousted GOP Candidate Endorsing Dem in Messy NY Race Means (Guest Voice): What Ousted GOP Candidate Endorsing De… http://bit.ly/3x7Xp6...
[...] Update: Cross-posted at The Moderate Voice. [...]
Seriously? Two words. Joe Lieberman. Endorses the GOP nominee for president and even speaks at the convention. Promises to filibuster, not just vote against, but filibuster the number 1 domestic legislation for Democrats this year. And on top of all that, announces he'll support one or more Republicans in the coming mid terms.
So surely he lost his seat as Chairmen on the Homeland Security Committee right?
Right?
I love ya Polimom, but this is a bit silly.
Let's be clear here. Far right conservatism and Libertarian type government reduction types never cared a bit about expansive government deficit spending prior to January 2009. Be it foreign wars bloating spending, or supposedly libertarian issues like warrantless wiretaps, torture, habeas corpus for US citizens or a plethora of other issues that would cause small government conservatives or rock ribbed libertarians to hit the streets in protest.
Search Reason's hit and run blog about any of these issues and you'll find they have abandoned civil liberties long ago. Face the facts, most Libertarians now could not even explain the concepts of civil liberties because they are no longer a part of the “libertarian party”.
The two are attempting to form a party, any party, ideology be damned, that can put them back in power. And if it takes social conservative flocking to Palin types while small “L” libertarian types who really have no concept of what being a libertarian means, that's all good.
It's an attempt to take a 21% hard core conservative constituency and mix it with a 10% libertarian constituency, then hoping that you can get a 9% bat shit crazy constituency to hold their nose and sign on to win some elections.
It won't work. But it will make for some hilarious bedfellows and a dying GOP.
“a dying GOP”
Today's elections will be a nice test of your predictions. Enjoy the hilarity
As someone who's been watching lp.org and lpin.org, I think you may be out of touch with Libertarian party. They've been railing on the Patriot act, illegal wiretaps, and most everything else Bush did while in office. I personally can't see how the libertarians could join the conservatives any more than they could join the liberals. I would say the Cato institute (cato.org) is the best voice for libertarians, all in all, since I've had some problems with lp.org's honesty on a few occasions.