Revolt in NY-23

[ThePhantomPatriot]

Today's special election is going on, everyone keep your eyes on it as this election might be a preview of what is to come in 2010!

Doug Hoffman is a Conservative who rose up from the TEA Party movement and is running as an Independent. He has been gaining more and more momentum and support from Republican voters and bypassed both the Republican and Democrat candidates.

Dede Scozzafava was the Republican candidate, but she was a RINO, in reality a bleeding heart liberal. She dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...joe-biden.html

Hoffman is ahead in the polls, hopefully he gets in and sets the bar high for 2010. We might see a rise of a third party of conservative independents and/or liberty-minded republicans getting elected, how exciting!

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by ThePhantomPatriot

Today's special election is going on, everyone keep your eyes on it as this election might be a preview of what is to come in 2010!

Doug Hoffman is a Conservative who rose up from the TEA Party movement and is running as an Independent. He has been gaining more and more momentum and support from Republican voters and bypassed both the Republican and Democrat candidates.

Dede Scozzafava was the Republican candidate, but she was a RINO, in reality a bleeding heart liberal. She dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...joe-biden.html

Hoffman is ahead in the polls, hopefully he gets in and sets the bar high for 2010. We might see a rise of a third party of conservative independents and/or liberty-minded republicans getting elected, how exciting!

Hoffman is running as a Conservative, which is a pol party in NY. He was pasted over by the D23 GOP bosses along with 6 others when they chose and backed Scuzzy. They tried to bribe him with a judgeship if he stayed out of the election next year but he refused and entered this year's race.

Nice thing about Scuzzy, she was endorsed by Newt Gringrich. Steele and the RNC did not endorse her but they didn't criticize the NY RSC either for their pick either.

[gprimr1]

I had been considering changing my affliation to Republican, but after the events in this race, I will probally not be doing it.

This race seems to make it clear the party does not want moderates. I suspect it may backfire in 2010.

That said, I still support gun rights.

[AKbythebay]

Originally Posted by gprimr1

I had been considering changing my affliation to Republican, but after the events in this race, I will probally not be doing it.

This race seems to make it clear the party does not want moderates. I suspect it may backfire in 2010.

That said, I still support gun rights.

Both parties have moved further and further from the center. That's sort of the problem with the primary system. Candidates need to run to the right or left during the primary and then run to the center during the general. It especially hurts here in MD where we are not only stuck with a solid Democrat majority but we are stuck with the most liberal hard left democrats that are capable of winning in the primary.

Although I am a conservative, I'm not a fan of the two party system by any stretch.

[gprimr1]

The primary system was a big thing that killed McCain too I think.

It was easy for Obama to backpeddle from the far left base and appear to please moderate voters.

McCain had to back peddle from pleasing the right base, and try to reach out to the moderates.

I think if McCain, who I consider a moderate, would have been able to run w/o pandering to the base, he could have beat Obama.

If Maryland does have a consitutional convention, I would like to see the primary opened up to Independents.

[Splitter]

McCain doomed himself because his message (and record) were unclear. Obama had "CHANGE!". Hell, no one knew what it meant, but it was easy to remember. McCain's lack of message was why he and Palin did not get along. It was still only a ten point win (soemthing around there, right?) and McCain's base did not turn out for him.

Republicans will win when they simplify their conservative message and stick to it. See Ronald Reagan for details.

Whether or not I agree with you, if you have a belief system and stick to it, I can respect you. If you can defend your belief system, I can respect you. If you try to please everyone and flip flop to do it, I have no respect. That's what McCain did and what Obama is doing.

Splitter

[ThePhantomPatriot]

I didn't support Obama or McCain, their principles were almost identical. Both were big government candidates. Even though Obama said that he'd bring the troops home I knew damn well he wouldn't, even in his inauguration speech he flip flopped on that issue.

[gprimr1]

In all honesty, you can't bring the troops home. Gotta finnish what you start.

[joppaj]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Republicans will win when they simplify their conservative message and stick to it. See Ronald Reagan for details.

The problem is, define who's a Conservative? Social conservatives that run on the "God, guns and against gay rights"; fiscal conservatives that may be more socially moderate; small government/ State's Right's Conservatives; or the far radical right that can border on facism?

Reagen offered up his "big tent" theory and it worked for years. Bush claimed the middle, ran somewhat to the right and the media painted him as the extreme far right. The tea party movement seems to be largely a fiscally responsible, small government movement. The social conservatives will pay lip service to these ideas but are more interested in fighting the culture wars. Libertarians are doing some completly different things.

So, what conservative message are we rallying to?

[ThePhantomPatriot]

@ gp- I understand your argument, but what exactly are we over there for? What is the goal that must be reached?

[Splitter]

People will rally to the simple, idealogical message. That meesage makes the vast majority of people realize just how tradiionally conservative they are.

Reagns message was largely idealogical. He gave the 20K foot overview of the thought process behind conservatism. He then applied that ideaology to various issues.

People generally agreed with his ideaology even if they did not agree with the way he applied it to certain issues. And that right thar is a healthy debate. That's the debate "conservatives" need to be having. Instead, they have redeifned the ideaology to suit the issue.

As an example, when Reagan was elected, the left threw a fit because he was sure to overturn Roe v. Wade. He chose to fight that battle on ideaology but not legislatively. That pissed off the religious right, but they still believed in his ideaology and still backed him in general. Smart man.

His message stayed consistant:
Lower taxes
Smaller government
Strong national defense
Personal freedom and responsibility

It's DAMNED hard to argue against those things! That ideaology, and his ability to present it, shifted almost every debate into: how do we apply these things to issue X?

That's the winning recipe. Once everyone is on the same page in ideaology, any decision the legislature makes is likely to be a win for the ideaology.

Splitter

[joppaj]

Originally Posted by Splitter

His message stayed consistant:
Lower taxes
Smaller government
Strong national defense
Personal freedom and responsibility

If someone were to run on that platform right now, I'll paint my house with thier campaign slogan.

[alucard0822]

For the most part you get your pick between 2 corrupt and authoritarian groups. There is probably a larger ideological spread within each party than between the two parties, and both have royally F-ed up the country for a very long time. I would say the majority of politicians slide left and right as it suits them, republicans have no problem supporting gun control, welfare, or abortion if it suits them, OTOH Many democrats have no problem supporting the opposite from time to time, and this dog and pony show goes on in the forefront while behind the scenes they steadily vote power away from a complacent populace, and into the hands of a growing autocracy. For most issues, I am conservative, for some, I am liberal, however for most I fall into that odd grouping as a libertarian. I do aprreciate the need for balance and vigorous debate from all sides before a law is passed or action taken, but we do not have that now, and haven't for a while. Basically when it comes to one issue or the other, both sides debate back and forth, however recently, the debate has escelated to be between government representing their own interests and the people representing theirs, not between representatives within government advocating for their respective constituents interest as it should be.

[Boondock Saint]

Originally Posted by joppaj

If someone were to run on that platform right now, I'll paint my house with thier campaign slogan.

And after I'm done helping you, perhaps you could come down and help paint my house as well.

[joppaj]

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

And after I'm done helping you, perhaps you could come down and help paint my house as well.

We'll make stencils!

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by alucard0822

For the most part you get your pick between 2 corrupt and authoritarian groups. There is probably a larger ideological spread within each party than between the two parties, and both have royally F-ed up the country for a very long time. I would say the majority of politicians slide left and right as it suits them, republicans have no problem supporting gun control, welfare, or abortion if it suits them, OTOH Many democrats have no problem supporting the opposite from time to time, and this dog and pony show goes on in the forefront while behind the scenes they steadily vote power away from a complacent populace, and into the hands of a growing autocracy. For most issues, I am conservative, for some, I am liberal, however for most I fall into that odd grouping as a libertarian. I do aprreciate the need for balance and vigorous debate from all sides before a law is passed or action taken, but we do not have that now, and haven't for a while. Basically when it comes to one issue or the other, both sides debate back and forth, however recently, the debate has escelated to be between government representing their own interests and the people representing theirs, not between representatives within government advocating for their respective constituents interest as it should be.

Yep! The lines are so blurry it's scary.

I didn't abandon the Republican party, it abandoned me.





Splitter

[tdt91]

3rd parties can ruin it for conservative repubs. (Pero). we will see if that happens to the Jersey governors race

[BRONZ]

I hope we win all three today. NY23, VA and NJ.

[Llyrin]

Here's what I would like to see:

1. Smaller government
2. Lower taxes
3. Broaden the tax base (we need more people with a dog in the fight)
4. With #3 above, we might be able to save social security. If not, kill it and let me keep the money for my own retirement.

No one will run on #3, nope, nada, none, never will. That's because the 48-49% who pay no taxes now will never vote for such a person. Yet, without it, we can't afford to lower taxes. Right now, there are just too many people with a -0- tax, or worse, tax credits that get them a return without paying into the system (or more returned than they paid).

I believe Social Security is a good thing and I don't mind paying into it IF I'M GOING TO GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT WHEN I RETURE, but without a broad tax base (75% or so), we can't sustain it. So, either fix it, or kill it (grandfather it out, I guess I'd say).

[gprimr1]

NY23 is a drop in the water compared to NJ and VA.

I think the Holy Grail of today would be winning NJ. With it's strong govener system, a pro-gun candidate could do a lot to hack away at the gun laws.