November 3, 2009, was a great day for the Republican Party with resounding wins in Virginia and, improbably, New Jersey where Bruce Springsteen blared as Chris Christie began his victory speech. (I wonder if Bruce will sue.) But in the midst of the welter of re-upped GOP glory only one year after ignominious defeat, there was one outlier – New York’s Twenty-Third Congressional District.
Now I realize that the surprise loser there, Doug Hoffman, ran as a Conservative, not a Republican. But I submit in this case that was a distinction without a significant difference because virtually all the Republican establishment had lined up behind Hoffman by the day of the election.
So why – in what was clearly a Republican year – did Hoffman lose? Well, there are several reasons and, yes, the Democratic victory was narrow, thinner than the five or so percent that went to withdrawn Republican nominee Scozzafava who herself endorsed the Democratic candidate. Still, the 23rd is a safely Republican, even conservative, district. In a year where the GOP racked up a 20% margin in Virginia and coasted easily in Jersey, a state in which Obama romped in ’08 by 16%, what was the problem?
Well… I might as well say it… social conservatism. America is a fiscally conservative country – now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification – but not a socially conservative one. No, I don’t mean to say it’s socially liberal. It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire (just as its mostly fiscally laissez-faire). Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.
Hoffman’s capital-C Conservative campaign, however, tried to separate itself from the majority parties by making a big deal of the social issues. He was all upset that Scozzafava was pro-gay marriage, seemingly as upset as he was with her support for the stimulus plan. He projected the image of a bluenose in a world that increasingly doesn’t want to hear about these things. Hoffman’s is a selective vision of the nanny state – you can nanny about some things but not about others. I suspect America deeply dislikes nannying about anything.
There is, of course, a message in this for the Republican Party going forward. You can choose to emphasize the social issues or not. Today may show the former is a losing proposition.
Roger are correct, Reagan ran as a fiscal conservative not a social conservative. Unfortunately most here won’t want to differentiate between the two.
Reagan ran and governed as BOTH a fiscal and social conservative.
He wouldn’t have had a coalition and, subsequently, an era without the social conservatives.
Heck, the social conservatives are the backbone of the GOP, but it is becoming quite clear that the GOP doesn’t really want them.
Well, TexasDude, Reagan was a really soft-pedaled social conservative if he was one. He had a pretty interesting private life himself, before he met Nancy. And together they had a lot of interesting friends.
Look, I don’t have a problem with social conservatives. I admire them much of the time. It’s just the private should remain private. Your faith and values may not be the same as mine (maybe they are – who knows?). But I don’t want to take those judgements into the public arena. Leave it to the priests, rabbis and whatever. Let government do what it does – and keep that in line. When Rick Santorum shuts down the Senate because of someone’s private medical issues, I just want to cringe. And so does America. We have doctors and clerics for a reason. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto… well, you know the rest.
Hoffman lost, because Scozzafava kept just enough votes. She eventually was the third-party spoiler. The RNCC simply screwed the pooch on this whole thing, from th eselection process, to the money spent on the wrong candidate, to the ground support. Pubs: The stupid party.
Too, the Pubs got into the game too late in supporting him. He had not the ground game. If he’d had another week or so, he’d've won handily. Once Scozzafava withdrew, the unions mobilized for the Dems. The DNCC brought in all kinds of people and money. His small-time campaign could not compete on the ground.
Anyway, although he has conceded, there are thousands of votes yet to be counted. Things may change drastically. Not likely, but who knows?
Roger is right, if we are truly, truly honest with ourselves. Reagan never shied away from stating his socially conservative views, but he did not make them campaign themes! Did Reagan give speeches in certain environments defending and lauding social cons. views? Certainly, but never as the thrust of his campaigns. In this day and age with the problems besetting our country, the candidate who loudly and proudly articulates the smaller gov’t and strong nat defense ideals wins – virtually every time. My only minor disagreement with Roger is gay marriage – this is a social issue that still resonates with a clear majority of Americans, as the gay mafia assails the bedrock institution of marriage. That being said, it shouldn’t be issue one in any campaign, and is clearly optional.
Roger,
Thank you, first for the article, which is wonderful as is, and second for your reply to TD. I agree on all points.
For those of you care not for the SoCons, just keep voting for the immoral candidates. I’m sure you can trust them. Who has the most crooks in Congress, the Libs or the SoCons? And you wonder why we have a mess? At least a SoCon tries to be moral and claims to have values. The Libs never claim any such thing.
The SoCons are the fringe group in our Congress, completely marginalized. The Congress is totally out of control. What do these two things tell you?
Then add in Obama. Black Liberation Theology. Communism dressed up as Christianity. Wonder why he’s such a liar?
Yeah, the SoCons are so terrible for standing up for morality. Idiots. you can’t have it both ways. You want hedonistic license, but you want a moral government. You get the kind of government you deserve. It’s a VERY representative government. They’re… just… like… you.
Roger’s main point:
“Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.”
First, protecting the life of an innocent baby is not the same as one position you are in when you having sex. The latter is out of my bedroom, the former is the denial of an unalienable right.
Second, how does Roger’s thesis line up with Maine’s voting down gay marriage? This vote had nothing to do with any other issues, but it shows again that most people are a bit more sophisticated than pundits try to make things. Two men or two women are free to do whatever they want in their bedroom, but to conflate that act with the denial of marriage to the same couples as government in their bedroom is once again a confusion of categories.
Most pundits and politicians understand that, but they are hoping we *dumb* Americans cannot make the distinctions.
Ha.
New Jersey and Virgina,
we swept Obamamanian under the rug.
Nov. 2010-
Watch Out Democrat congressmen,
we are coming to get you!
Happy Halloween!
“We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government.”
- James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwaclink.html
The narrative is freedom, not ideology. The standard is The Constitution, not those behaviors you wish to limit or to impose upon others.
I think the national conservatives just overplayed their hand here. In the end all that support from the likes of Palin and Armey might have energized the conservative activists but alienated independent-minded voters who didn’t want their vote to be seen as an endorsement of a revival of the national GOP represented by faces like Sarah Palin’s.
This is a district that went for Obama last November and for Hoffman to win with Dede still on the ballot, he needed a considerable drop in Dem turnout due to lack of interest and enthusiasm whilst turning early Dede supporters into his own supporters.
Putting the race into the national spotlight, having conservative-leaning media fire off one anti-Dede editorial after another, having all these figures of the national GOP involved surely could only have energized Democrats and irritated people in the local GOP who may have been supportive of Dede and whose support Hoffman eventually would have needed. Making conservatives in Texas, Utah and Kentucky cheer for Hoffman didn’t win votes in NY-23 however.
Conservatives and Republicans alike would be very wise to understand that the results of 2009 do not mean some kind of public re-evaluation of the Bush years especially in areas that are by national standards very blue. Someone like Palin might send the GOP base into orgasmic contractions but in New York state she’s more likely somewhat of a liability. Future GOP candidates do well to run on Reagan-type platforms but they would also do well to not be associated with the GOP failures of the 00s which drove the country into Obama and Pelosi’s arms in the first place.
Swing and a miss, with respect, Roger. Scuzzy put her votes, through her deep ideological commitment to leftism, directly to the Democrat. The OTHER Democrat. Machine politics kept Hoffman out of office. This time. Next time, he will either win or there will be no more Republican party.
It would be so much easier for me if the two parties were Libertarian and Authoritarian. Is Roger saying that Republicans would be better off if they were more Libertarian, or that Democrats would? I vote YES!
When social conservatives convey the image of keeping the government from interfering with their choices (and by extenuation, those of others) social conservatives win.
When social conservatives convey the image of
using the powers of government to impose their viewpoints on others, social conservatives lose.
Like Roger said, it is a matter of knowing to whom to render what.
I disagree with the premise that social conservative issues sunk Hoffman. Owens may well be surprised by the win. Owens was a very good candidate in the mold of Rahm’s picks as a slightly conservative Blue Dog. The reason that conservatives vested so heavily on a third party against the GOP establishment was that on the issue Dede was more liberal than the Democrat so if Owens won they still got a better candidate than Dede.
So Rahm Emmanuel’s strategy of 2006 and 2008 succeeded again in 2009 by recruiting more conservative candidates in conservative districts.
I believe that the intense attention actually increased turnout by conservatives and Democrats and Owens was safe pick by both sets of votes. NY 23 had so much attention that it had to energize Democratic supporter plus Dede on the ballot may have confused some voters. But I think Owens win is enough to validate Emmanuel’s strategy of Blue Dog Democrats.
What needs to be determined is the turnout numbers. If low turnout helped GOP candidates so much in VA and NJ that is not a good sign for the future when Democrats will energize in fear of losing 2010. GOP has to win on persuading that conservative policies will help the economy and produce jobs. That is not hard to argue since capitalism does work to produce jobs if government doesn’t block the way with taxes, regulations and attitude that capitalism is wrong.
With the economy in the tank, the fiscal conservative argument has ascended as number one issue, not social issues. Social issues are still important but not in front of getting the jobs issue turned around.
Cap and trade does fall in that since it is a job killer. Government run health care is a freedom issue and cost issue since it adds another 1 trillion to the deficit and will increase personal health costs.
Almost my entire family was born and raised in Watertown, NY. The area has been an economic basket case for decades. A large number of the areas citizens rely on getting financial assistance of one sort or another from the government. Much of the remaining economy revolves around the military base at Fort Drum. I visited Watertown ten years ago and was stunned by the poverty and empty store fronts in the center of the city. The high likelihood is that the minds of these voters focussed on the pocketbook issues. These are people, after all, who normally encourage their kids to move away from Watertown after graduating from high school. Minimum wage jobs can literally be hard to find! Some of the younger residents feel elated if able to obtain employment at $7 to $8 per hour. They have died and gone to heaven.
Doug Hoffman and the Republican Party ultimately got screwed by Dede Scozzafava. Her last minute betrayal made all the difference. If Scozzafava had not been a factor—Hoffman would have easily won.
True enough. It’s not that social conservatism doesn’t have its place; the point is that it has to be put in the right place.
As I’m sure Machiavelli would have pointed out, had he been thinking in exactly those terms, the tasks of government must be prioritized. Most important is defense, either against attack, or against natural disasters (floods, plagues, typhoons, droughts, famines, etc.) If the body politic can’t be defended from attack, nothing else really matters much. In second place is fiscal soundness. On average, a country or society can’t spend more than it can produce; at some point, everything must be paid for. If you spend yourself into bankruptcy, it doesn’t matter what marvelous social improvements you have planned, as you simply won’t be able to afford them. Thirdly, after the basics, defense and sound finances, are taken care of, then it’s party time; devote all your remaining resources to social engineering, messianic crusades, temperance societies, evangelism, “saving the world”, and “activism” in general.
Too little time, a shoestring budget, and Scozzafava’s name still on the ballot, did him in. Nevertheless, that Hoffman got so far so fast — it’s an utterly amazing accomplishment!
You’re asking an very important question but not asking another, equally important one. The very important question is: Are self-identified conservatives capable of running as, and winning and governing from the center-right? In this election, Hoffman was clearly the center-right choice on the issues, and with a populist, “not a politican” persona to boot.
The equally important question is: Ideas and image aside, what grittier factors tipped it for Owens? These include Scozzafava’s endorsement and her higher ballot line (B, not D) drawing some votes from less-informed or lazier or weaker-visioned voters (a little like Palm Beach, FL ballots in 2000). If she had been more principled in her exit (making no endorsement, say), that translates into more Hoffman (or simply fewer Owens) votes.
The election results in New Jersey and New York indicate that these blue states will continue to decline. More of their citizens will continue to move to Texas, Florida, and other red states. It is good news that Doug Christie won, but that election should have not been anywhere that close. I am interpreting this result as a sign that the citizens of that highly blue state lack the will to do what really needs to be done. Chris Christie’s life will be turned upside down. The union bosses will do everything to shut New Jersey down. As for Watertown, NY, the land of my ancestors—the kids will still graduate from high school and move far away from their parents. It would not surprise me in the least if the Republicans do even worse in the area in 2010! Those red state voters will have already left Watertown. Only the blue will remain.
Most of the blue states are likelier to get bluer. The purple and red states will get even redder. Virginia’s contest was really the key race of the evening. The Republican kicked butt and the Democrats were running for the hills. It is obvious that Virginia’s voters don’t want to lose more jobs. They still have a chance to turn things around.
Dave @ 17 said:
“When social conservatives convey the image of keeping the government from interfering with their choices (and by extenuation, those of others) social conservatives win.”
Yeah, you should have the choice to murder a baby, right? Why not the choice to murder people name Dave? The argument about choice is foolish. The debate should be about if this is an human person, and if you are 100% sure we should error on the side of caution as we do in every other case.
“When social conservatives convey the image of
using the powers of government to impose their viewpoints on others, social conservatives lose.”
Oh you mean the viewpoint that are all men are created equal? That is a viewpoint you know that some do not agree with(i.e. KKK, Nazis ), but according to the wisdom of people like Dave we should not impose our viewpoints on this.
BOSH.
We are the only industrialized country in the world with but two parties, cannot we get at least a third? A culturally liberal, fiscally conservative party, of normal generous people, secular and non-commies?
Is this too much to ask? Can I belong to a party that isn’t a constant compromise?
I think it needs to be said as a matter of principle though that it’s unlikely social issues did Hoffman in. If anything it was social issues which likely triggered the revolt in the first place. McHugh was a moderate Republican but he was a lot more socially conservative than he was on economic matters. No shock there, the area of the 23rd district is economically hardly booming and depends on federal help but it’s also a fairly rural mostly white district with a sizable Catholic presence.
Scozzafava’s social liberalism was likely what made her untenable to many district Republicans in the first place, so if anything it did her in and not Hoffman. McHugh showed that a Republican who plays towards social conservatism but is open to center-left economics can win in the district and fairly easily so.
I still think that it wasn’t any particular issue stances that killed Hoffman. His was an uphill battle from the start of course so there’s many reasons as to why he lost including Scozzafava’s presence on the ballot and the lack of funding etc. But I really think the heart of the loss is that at the end he was perceived as a figurehead for national GOP and conservative interests rather than as someone with an eye on local issues and conditions. Scozzafava said as much. She of course was a bitter loser but obviously she has had friends and some influence as well. There was a perception of “nastiness” and the national circus about the race helped turn a local insurgent into a guy that Limbaugh wants to “impose” on the area.
Rural, isolated areas often show an instinctive reflex against outside meddling. I think Scozzafava’s strong turn for Owens in the end helped foster the idea that the race is Our folks (Owens) vs. Fox News/Palin/Limbaugh (Hoffman). Hoffman fared best when he was the voice of local anger rather than a symbol of a national movement. I think it was enough to help Owens exceed his poll numbers considerably in the actual vote and win that way.
The lesson isn’t to embrace every Scozzafava, the lesson is to never forget that every race reflects mostly on the location it takes place in and that campaigns need to be tailored to these places. That doesn’t mean selling out, it means crafting a conservative message that nevertheless emphasizes local concerns. I think the VA and NJ campaigns realized that.
“In the end all that support from the likes of Palin and Armey might have energized the conservative activists but alienated independent-minded voters who didn’t want their vote to be seen as an endorsement of a revival of the national GOP represented by faces like Sarah Palin’s.”
I think you’re absolutely correct about this, and I’m surprised no one else has mentioned the Palin factor. Yes, she is loved by conservatives, but, for many others, including some Republicans and independents, they just don’t like her. Dems know this, and I think that’s why Biden made her the issue in the last few days.
Clearly, this is a lesson for the Republican party and for the tea party movement. Maybe you can’t just barge into a local election like this and try to manipulate it, which is what I think Palin, et al, were trying to do. I could see where local Republicans might have been offended.
For next year, I think politicians ought to think twice about whether they would want a Palin endorsement or not. I consider myself to be a conservative, but some of these hard core conservatives frighten me as much as the hard core liberals.
There are two major question a sensible blue state voter must ask themselves:
1.) Would you move to a red state if a reasonable price could be obtained for your home?
2.) Are you advising your children to move to a red state after graduation?
I am increasingly convinced that pocketbook issues will dominate the political landscape for the foreseeable future. Virtually everyone will ask whether the Democratic Party’s economic polices will help them. Are they among the favored political classes—or are they an example of William Graham Sumner’s description of the “Forgotten Man?”
Roger’s thesis would be more convincing if Christie wasn’t a prolifer. He still managed to win in NJ. Gay marriage lost in Maine. Gee, it must have been those damn Mormons.
Gay marriage (an issue that doesn’t excite me much one way or the other) has never won in any state where it’s been put to a vote. So I don’t see where that’s a big losing issue for the GOP.
As one commenter put it, Reagan didn’t toss the socons under the bus. The emphasis was different. We need to keep pounding the economic issues. But that doesn’t mean social conservatives can’t win or must be discarded.
As for NY-23 – Dede was a spoiler. And the upside to that election is: NY-23 did not pick a RINO. Dede might have tinkled in Hoffman’s corn flakes. She still doesn’t get to go to DC.
MKH is right that local issues helped Owens and not Hoffman. Too much emphasis on national issues and Hoffman was not a resident and knew little about the local issues. The Watertown newspaper showed that.
I will agree that locals may have gone for the local Owens than the newfangled Hoffman. Next time he has to bone up on NY issues.
Anti Incumbent angst will help him next time.
Plus see how the conservatives did in other blue state localities in NY shows that conservatism does win.
Roger, you may be right about Hoffman pushing social issues. People are concerned about the economy currently. If the economy was humming, they might be more interested in gay marriage. By your logic, people pushing gay marriage are pushing their values on others. Similarly people who are opposed to abortion are pushing their values. I think the idea that values can be kept out of politics is wishful thinking. If it is a Democrat saying this, I assume they are trying to foist their values on an unwilling public.
What do you mean by that, Mr. Simon? GOP-NY never campaigned for Hoffman. Their official candidate remained Dede Scozzafava, whose name occupied two ballot rows. Indeed, there’s a possibility that Scozzafava persuaded GOP-NY not to endorse or campaign Hoffman enthusiastically, as it would have undermined her position in the NY State Assembly, where she remains.
After Scozzafava proved to be a losing choice, ACORN, SEIU, and WFP operatives flooded into NY-23 to campaign for Owens. Did that have no effect worth mentioning?
It might well be that Hoffman’s “capital-C Conservative” stands — is opposition to the radical transformation of marriage itself radical? — dissuaded some NY-23 voters, but the district has long been solidly conservative in both senses, and would reasonably have been expected to accept his positions on same-sex marriage and so forth. Your analysis presumes a preponderance of socially liberal voters in NY-23 — so socially liberal that they’d jump parties for that reason — that has never manifested there before.
The only firm conclusion one can draw from the election in NY-23 is that the New York State Republican Party is no friend to conservative candidates or candidacies. But we’ve known that since New York first elected Nelson Rockefeller.
I strongly disagree with Roger Simon. It was not social conservatism that tipped the election to Democrat Owens; indeed, Roger Simon cites no evidence that would lend support to that hypothesis. Differently, what undermined Doug Hoffman’s chances was the GOP disarray that started with the nomination of liberal Dede Scozzafava as the GOP candidate by old time politicians, followed by a conservative revolt against a candidate who did not represent Republican values and was topped off by Scozzafava’s withdrawal and endorsement of the Democrat candidate. A united Republican Party behind Doug Hoffman could have and should have won. When there is Party disunity, almost always there is electoral loss for that Party.
Roger, so what do you think of Maine’s repeal of gay marriage? Certainly, Maine is no bastion of conservatism politically speaking.
Let’s not forget that Owens is retired military and that counts in an area where Ft. Drum is the major economic engine. Also, he is much more conservative than Dede Scozzafava so in effect a conservative did get elected in NY 23. Still, had Scozzafava not done the Benedict Arnold thing Hoffman probably would have won.
Roger is clearly wrong, and I suspect he knows this. He’d *prefer* that America be primarily a fiscally conservative nation but it just isn’t so. Social conservatives surely overreach, and can be overly strident, but this is a nation that simply does not accept gay marriage and a range of other issues clearly more acceptable to fiscal conservatives. Free from manipulation centered on guilt, etc., New York 23 does not reflect America writ large; instead, it reflects a regional vibe that does not drive the train.
No matter how much Roger wishes it did.
Live and let live, yes. But with clear standards. That’s the winning political path *AND* the social conservative path. Successfully navigating that tension is what Republicans will have to negotiate in the immediate future.
Mr. Simon:
“There is, of course, a message in this for the Republican Party going forward. You can choose to emphasize the social issues or not. Today may show the former is a losing proposition.”
I think that you’re grinding your own axe a bit here, and thereby you’re reading too much into it.
The lesson of ’09 is not to be an incumbent in this economy.
Hoffman was an accountant from out of the district whom noboady had ever heard of until Sarah Palin mentioned his name, and he almost takes the seat, (as of this writing I don’t know if he’s conceded or if all the absentee ballots have been tallied), and he comes within 5% of winning.
That’s the lead sub-story…the Sarah effect.
Scozzafava was the hand-picked palooka of the District’s GOP machinery, and the state and national GOP hacks backed their play.
This has been as textbook a “foot-bullet” as you’ll likely ever see.
America might not be as socially conservative as some suspect, but it’s quite a long ways from endorsing “Gay Marriage”, subsidizing abortion on demand, or handing the workplace keys to the man from the Teamsters.
/”What was the problem? Well… I might as well say it… social conservatism. America is a fiscally conservative country – now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification – but not a socially conservative one.”/
So, THAT’s the reason why all those “fiscal conservatives” voted for a “we’ll-tax-you-till-you’re-poor” Democrat, isn’t it? We are very much FISCAL CONSERVATIVES, but we are so much “NOT SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE” that we’ll better all get poor.
We’ll better take OUR money from OUR families and give it to those who don’t work, than to vote for a guy that will secure the future of our children, but supports (omg!!!!!) traditional marriage.
If we cannot get a PURE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, let’s vote for someone who is NEITHER FISCAL NOR SOCIAL one. Well… really?
I mean, REALLY?
And if it’s not social conservatism? Well, my humble smartass suggestion: ABSENTEE-BALLOTS:
- Owens – 49%
- Hoffman – 46%
- Scozzafava – 6%
So, it was the 6% of the “absentees” who already voted for Scozzafava before she withdrew, or even before Sarah endorsed Hoffman. 6% of the conservatives who already voted not knowing there would be an alternative to the “lib-lib”. 6% of those who couldn’t call their votes back. 6% of conservatives who would have voted Hoffman.
And now: 46+6=52. We actually could have won, if the Reps wouldn’t have put their “dem-under-cover” on the race.
Here is my guess.
Ms. Scozzafava was chosen by political hacks because she’s a woman and might attract women who tend to vote for the Democrat. That she was a progressive who could not win as a Democrat in the Democrat Primary(and therefore became Republican) did not matter to them because that is what they are themselves: Michael Bloomberg Democrats.
When conservatives opposed her because she’s a “progressive” they were being “mean to the girl.” Much of her female support then went to the Democrat.
The lesson is to get your base voters on board with your decision first and that Republicans should not play the “groupism” games of the Democrats.
Ronald Reagan once said:
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”
That is why Mr. Hoffman lost. He did not have the backing of the party whose platform should be;
Anti-gay marriage
Pro- life
Pro- secret ballot
Pro- Constitution
Pro-Small Government
Anti-Tax and Spend
Pro-Family
This is where the base is, as evidenced by the wins in VA. and NJ. The national leadership (Steel, Gingrich et al) betrayed the core members of the party by endorsing and sending 900,0000 dollars to a candidate who is only slightly right of Barak Obama.
What does it profit us to elect someone who acts and believes the same thing as our opponents? So just to get elected we put into power someone who is no different then the person they are running against. Just because they put an R in front of their name means little if they are not adherents to the party platform. Other wise they might as well be members of the other party.
If one where a member of any other organization they would be expected to abide by their rules. Why is this any different. Of course I’m a dinosaur who would rather keep my integrity in tact than compromise my principles, so I guess that makes me a radical, extremist.
So be it.
I heartily agree with Roger’s observations. This is a conservative family fight that we all need and will benefit from. Hoffman was invigorating and exciting for many of us who just happen to live no where near the 23rd District.
Here in AZ Scottsdale (5th district) is no longer the biggest Maricopa co suburb of Hollywood. Chandler & Ahwatukee followed by Paradise Valley were where Obama registered his biggest margins. (Tuson is solidly liberal in AZ) These are the communities where the likes of Bruce Springsteen & Rod Stewart own homes – and – the desired destination of may Californian’s who’ve fled the decline since Gray Davis & Arnold.
For the uber-succesful they commute to Hollyweird (and throughout the globe). And they have had a dramatic effect on AZ politics folks – they are right that if McCain wasn’t a fav son O had a shot at stealing AZ.
Hoffman now places Michael Steel and the establishment in a new place – like em or not – they have to counter what the Dem’s did when recruiting Blue Dog congressional candidates.
People will soon forget about the RINO backstabber Scuzzy of NY. He should have won – but – lost a close call after bouncing the chosen candidate with establishment endorsement (And 1 million – talk about the need for clawback!) who encouraged loyal supporters to VOTE FOR OWENS!
As disgusting as her final act was – Hoffman is the template for taking back congress. Imagine if this guy had six months and money – he would have trounced! He did have endorcements – but both Christie and McDonnel had Haley Barbour and well financed professionals.
I like the results. Bring on 2010.
Both Roger and MKH make some good points. Looks like we need a poll to figure this one out. Gay marriage and abortion inspire a lot of passion, but don’t imperil the future of the republic. Creeping socialism and national bankruptcy are a clear and present danger and should be hammered on relentlessly. Reminder for 2010. I imagined there might be some resentment toward all the national involvement in the district. But Hoffman would not have surged without Sarah. Her message is right on and eventually her reality will trump the false perceptions created by the Democrat media complex. By 2010 the district will have realized how right I am. And how ridiculous are those who contradict my sageness. Or is it sagenicity?
Virginia mmm mmm mmm We Won!; New Jersey mmm mmm mmm We Won! Congresscritters – PAY ATTENTION!!!!!
I agree with our host on this one.
Hoffman could be a fine candidate in some other congressional district, but it doesn’t look like he’s cut out for NY 23. If the party had picked the right candidate from the start it would have made all the difference, but that isn’t always so easy. An electoral blowout like 2008 for the Dems has the effect of scaring off potential candidates. It’s hard to compete when your bench is weak.
I think Roger is right in a very broad way across the board, but I think he misses the specific lessons conservatives and Republicans should draw from NY23. Social issues can weaken a candidate if that candidate is already weak and is not backed by the party with full force. The failure here was the failure to take the base seriously enough to provide a candidate it could live with instead of a complete fraud, which is what they did offer. And the party did that because of its famous and famously self-defeating Republican flinch.
After all, the Washington Post spend a forest of trees trying to demonize Virginia’s new governor on exactly the same issues it will now try to convince us did in Hoffman. The lesson here may be to choose social conservatives who do not push their social conservatism via state power, yet do show respect for the values of social conservatism that voters see as imperiled by current state power. I believe that is all most social conservatives in the party are asking for, which is why they flocked to Christie and McDonnell. Had the Republican bigwigs in NY23 chosen someone like that, they would have won easily.
So while I agree with Roger sort of, I think it will be a mistake to let the WaPo types define NY23 as a slap against social conservatism, with them pretending to just be offering good advice out of their deep concern for the health of the Republicans. NY23 was a quirk, of no real broad significance. It is good, not bad, that the base there thwarted an effort by party leaders to bend over backwards to prevailing liberal sensibilities.
The question is, how would this contest shake out if like in Atlanta there was a run-off?
Marina has the correct analysis in the end.
Conservatives generated 46% of the vote. GOP Line item voters generated 6%.
Owens didn’t grab the majority. The NOT-Democrat line grabbed it. So the conclusions are:
1. Social Conservatives are the major faction in the Republican “tent”. If they are ignored or dissatisfied the GOP loses. The actual minority faction is the Establishment (lets just call them the “Elites” from now on…)
2. Fiscal Conservatives who are Social Liberals will more often than not vote AGAINST their fiscal interests when it comes to social/moral matters. They have no principle above libertine behavior. Conversely, SoCons are far more often than not ALSO fiscal Conservatives, but are much less likely to vote against morals and mores.
Which all says, fiscal Conservatives will vote for a Marxist as long as the Marxist allows them to fornicate indiscriminately, and kill babies with wild abandon…
SoCons are disgusted by the whole thing, and stay home since money is less important to them than their mortal souls.
The GOP wins when it runs Conservatives with Conservative social and fiscal beliefs. It loses, routinely when it runs candidates on platforms that eschew such issues.
Please see Harry Truman on why he beat Thomas Dewey in 1948.
- “When you give the people a choice between a Democrat, and a ‘Democrat’, they’ll vote for the Democrat every time.”
Truer words were never said by the last Democrat that I ever trusted.
Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
“Creeping socialism and national bankruptcy are a clear and present danger and should be hammered on relentlessly.”
Amen. People are going to be primarily voting their pocketbooks for a long time into the future. Are you benefiting from the Democratic Party’s economic polices—or are you the Forgotten Man? This is the key question. Just about everything else will rank a distant second on the voters’ radar screens.
Sorry Roger, but this bit had a disjointed, Rick-Moran-like feel to it.
You clearly enumerated the practical reasons why Hoffman lost, and the most significant of these was the GOP’s failure to select a suitable candidate right from the beginning. The fact that it took almost until the day of the election for the GOP to line up behind Hoffman is staring you right in the face, and it’s punctuated by the fact that the GOP’s choice of candidate demonstrated exactly why she was a terrible candidate – i.e., by endorsing the other party!
How does all that translate into “Hoffman lost because he was a social conservative”??
Answer: it clearly doesn’t.
Ultimately, the point of the Hoffman candidacy was made as soon as the GOP was forced to support him over DIABLO Dede. For better or worse, the GOP will support its erstwhile conservative base or it will cease to be a major political party in the U.S. It’s that simple.
Disappointing but strategically,it’s a win.Owens is more conservative than Scuzzghag,and given the results,in NJ,and VA,is likely to suppress his already weak left-wing impulses.The GOP has been taught a lesson: better a bluedog than a RINO!
“Heck, the social conservatives are the backbone of the GOP”
They are very much not. They are the icing on the cake that puts the GOP over the top in some areas, something which they needed because they’d been betraying fiscal conservatism.
But at times, and outside the midwest, the “icing on the cake” becomes an “anchor around the neck.”
Don’t forget the “social conservatives’” support for Jimmy Carter…
I was helping out in Watertown. I think Dede was successful enough in the last few days to get enough of her supporters to support Owens instead of her.
Hoffman is both a Socon and a Fiscon. The media tried to portray him as a far-right Bob Jones type.
However, if Hoffman was the GOP candidate from a normal primary, he would have won NY-23.
It was a victory for conservatives because they were able to purge a leftist R from their ranks and now set up for a united strong run in 2010.
I do not see how NY-23 stays Dem next year. There will be no or few outsiders next year to irritate both sides and it can settle down to be a normal election with the HUGE difference that the moderate and conservative Republicans are awake and will not let another Dede to incubate and destroy the party from within.
Those days are over.
I think it points out the need for conservatives to work inside the party rather than outside. It looks to me like 6% of the GOP voters were brain dead and pulled the lever for Dede because she had an (R) next to her name. They probably didn’t even realize she had dropped out.
Add that 6% to Hoffman and he wins even if the moderate independents broke for Owens…which they did.
So I have to agree with goy…how does this translate into a rebuke of social conservatism rather than a rebuke of how the Republican chose the candidate in the first place?
Precisely, Mr. Simon. There is a difference between fiscal and social conservatism, and IMO the country as a whole is less socially conservative than it was 50 years ago. And I think Sapwolf’s comment is right on target.
The Republican party is out of touch with national security hawks, fiscal conservatives, but social liberals. They are screwed until they realize that.
NEVER LET FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A PET THEORY , (by Roger Simon)
The fact that the uber nerdy Hoffman was a very weak candidate who is inarticulate and looks like a deer in the headlights had nothing to do with the result. It was his socially conservative views that was the difference.
Well, we certainly dodged a bullet there. It’s not as if Hoffman would have been one more vote against the far left Pelosi agenda. It’s that Hoffman’s first act on being elected would have been to ban abortion and gay marriage. (This is sarcasm).
Roger Simon assumes the voters of NY23 are as irrational on this subject as he is.
All in all, what will stand out with this result…
Owens cannot betray the Republicans.
Owens cannot pull the rug out from under Republican Leaders in a floor fight
Owens cannot give a token bi-partisan cover to bad legislation
Better your enemy in front of you and known, than behind you posing as an ally.
jd
NY-23 involved a unique set of circumstances unlikely to be repeated anywhere else. There was no real primary, and thus there was a lack of GOP unity that just won’t come up elsewhere. I’m open to the idea that Hoffman was too conservative for this particular district, but if there had been a real primary, perhaps there would have been a more suitable nominee.
So social-con issues hurt Hoffman?
Maybe he should have run in, I don’t know, MAINE?
The only example given here of Hoffman’s allegedly harmful social conservatism is that he was against redefining marriage, and that is supposedly a factor in why he lost. I don’t know if Roger missed out on the events in Maine, but again we have voters in blue states such as Maine, California, and Washington rejecting the notion that we have to provide state sponsorship of homosexual relationships, and pretend that they are exactly the same in every way to a marriage.
It sounds like Doug Hoffman ran as a mainstream moderate on marriage.
This district has gone both ways over time, so “solidly republican” may not be a good description. (copy embedded link if it doesn’t come through– or go straight to Wikipedia). I think the only lesson is that the GOP can’t count on the support of people who thnk like republicans if they nominate democrats.
Somewhere along the line the Gay Agenda of respect for their rights – something most Soc-Cons would support out of a sense of basic fairness – became the Radical Gay agenda of Gay Marriage. And as usual the Dems put a great deal of effort into muddying the waters. Now, not being a supporter of Gay marriage has been portrayed as Neanderthal anti-Gay bigotry, whereas it more likely reflects reluctance to play games with one of civilization’s bedrocks. And the idea that Americans are solidly behind gay marriage plays well in the drive by media, but is belayed by the results, every time the question is put to the people. Other Soc-Con issues, such as Right to Life, also enjoy majority support.
The outcome in the 23rd has more to do with absentee ballots, and Scuzzy remaining on the ballot after she had withdrawn. You should leave the anti-Soc-Con spin to the Dems. They have the lack of morals necessary for the depth of deceitfulness required.
I know from being from Massachusetts, there is this kind of perception that having a Republican governor kind of balances off having Democratic Senators and Representatives, and that it’s also more of a middle management position best suited for unimaginative basic nuts & bolts conservative thinking rather than the creative leadership you would want for dealing with more national concerns (Deval Patrick was the first Democratic governor in while, and there is a fair chance he won’t be reelected if Republicans can manage to find anyone who isn’t scary.)
Wait until you see the wonderful job Dede gets in the Obama administration. She may well be in charge of the death panel for all of New York State (except New York City)!
I think David Thomson nails it. The people who normally vote Republican are moving away, out of places like NY23. The Democrats are staying. That would seem to explain why Dede was chosen and why the eventual winner ran as a blue dog style Democrat.
The truly ambitious are going to places where their work will be rewarded (or just where work is available). New York is definitely not that place.
Maybe the miracle here is that Doug Hoffman did as well as he did.
You can’t say we didn’t warn you….
Peace.
DS
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s the Republican way.
Excellent analysis, Roger. I would add another factor that turns natural Republican supporters off: the anti-science stance of too many. The widespread anti-Darwinism among social cons (see Bobby Jindal) and the opposition to embryonic research, a vital area in the search for cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and many cancers. There’s a distinctly regressive fundamentalist component to the GOP.
If Roger is correct that most Americans are socially laissez-faire, then our nation is doomed, and with it western civilization. The family unit has been the basic building block of all societies through history. Both the mother and father have a vital role in raising offspring. There is simply no equivalent no matter what advocates of gay marriage wish to believe.
Affordable birth control, abortion, and easy divorce allow Americans to indulge in the sensual without regard to the fundamental reason for sex. Could any society be more selfish than to simply abort the next generation because children are a burden and a nuisance? If so, then our selfishness will be our death warrant as a civilization.
Meanwhile, advocates of gay marriage are attempting to redefine a fundamental institution. I can offer only anecdotal evidence from the very liberal community where I live. Jumping the gender barrier mid-marriage is one of the worst forms of child abuse imaginable. Seeing the results, I put it on a par with child rape. I know that sounds harsh, but that doesn’t make my statement any less true. While some well-meaning homosexual couples do provide a loving household for abused children, a fair slice of the gay community adopts children like they were trophies. Yes, “trophy children” that they parade around at social events to establish their liberal bonafides. Extra credit for adopting children of color.
If we as a people do not adopt social policies to protect marriage for the purpose of properly rearing children, we are doomed as a society. We have the traditions of twelve thousand years of human civilization to instruct us. We need to renew ourselves with the conviction that marriage is about children, and honor that conviction in deed.
Well finally a piece I can agree with. If you are about limited government, then don’t support government enforcing your moral codes.
Apart from being a social conservative, a few other things hurt Hoffman, such as:
1) Having the personality of a lizard
2) Not living in the district
3) Having waves of outsiders stump for him.
Bad news for the GOP: Hoffman lost.
Good news for the GOP: Owens will likely turn out to be a (fairly conservative) surprise.
Even better news for the GOP: Owen will be on defense next year given that he’ll have to take stands on some pretty hideous pending legislation.
Shucks, I’m laying down a sawbuck right now that says Owens is already muttering, “If Nancy Pelosi thinks I’m gonna take a bullet for her, she’s crazier than a New York loon.”
Exactly how do social cons hurt the GOP? The vast majority of Americans don’t support gay marriage, reiterated last night with a blue-blue state rejecting it yet again. Being in line with most Americans’ position on this issue is not a loser for the GOP.
No matter what poll you reference, only 25% of Americans support abortion on demand for any reason. The remainder support at least some restriction or limits, with support especially high for limiting partial-birth abortions. How is being pro-life a liability for the GOP?
Currently, only 20% of the American populace admit to being both socially and economically liberal. How does that translate to a successful race for candidates like Scozzafava in a generally red district?
This race was a powerful statement about rejecting the GOP establishment’s pattern of jettisoning core fiscal conservative principles to *maybe* pull out a win. Had she won, what benefit would Scozzafava have provided to the advancement of fiscally responsible legislation? None. Social issues had little, if anything, to do with the outcome of this race.
If I’m voting in a state election, I vote for the person I believe will help me and my state. Whether they are Republican or Democrat
I don’t like what Obama and his friends are doing to America and will vote against him again. In 2010 I’ll look at what our elected officials are doing in Washington etc and vote accordingly.
I admit, I’m “UNdependable” to either party. At this point, I will stay this way.
This morning I’ve been hearing Hoffman lost because he was an outsider, late bloomer, inarticulate, more interested in Obama than New Jersey. Were the people so worried about gay marriage in New Jersey? Perhaps they had bigger issues, I sure do. I can understand all of these.
“New York is definitely not that place.”
The election last night in NY23 was mostly meaningless—even if Doug Hoffman had won! Watertown’s decline may not be reversible. I can’t imagine any entrepreneur investing in the area if they could avoid doing so. The blue states are royally screwed. If nothing else, they are being severely damaged by the unforgiving and relentless government employee unions. There are literally countless “blue state” municipalities that must declare bankruptcy. Who in hell wants to start a business in such an economically crazed environment?
I strongly suspect that a lot of companies may not be directly taxed. Instead, the local authorities will find every excuse imaginable to fine them. They will be nit-picked to death. This is already happening in New York City.
So, Rog, you don’t want the SoCons around? Only FisCons, eh? Not smart, bud, not smart at all.
Know why most people are SoCons, Rog? IT’S BECAUSE ALL THOSE DAMNED THINGS THAT AREN’T SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE HAVE A HELLACIOUSLY BIG PRICE TAG ATTACHED AND SOCONS ARE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW IT!
How do most people get AIDS, Rog? Not in heterosexual married relationships. Why is the American family failing and our inner cities turning into real-life reenactments of The Lord of the Flies? It’s not because there are too many two-parent households trying to raise their children to be decent members of society.
The adultery, the diseases that go with illicit sex, corruption, violent crime, white-collar crime–all of those things have a cost, and it’s a damned big one. Plus, what does it say about a society when it is willing to literally rip apart the most innocent among us while some desperately defend the right to life of the most heinous killers?
When people govern themselves properly, government doesn’t cost much. When it becomes necessary to have large numbers of militarized police and super-restrictive laws, it’s because the society is on the verge of collapse from internal moral decay. Postponing that collapse doesn’t come cheap, Rog, and the reality is we’re not going to postpone it much longer unless we as a nation do some serious changing of our priorities.
You’re usually a bright guy, Rog. This article is ridiculous and never should have seen the light of day. You better hope the SoCons start having a much greater influence in this society, and real soon, because without it any hope of fiscal conservatism is stillborn.
Was it clearly a Republican year?
What makes it clearly a Republican year? An open seat win in a purple state and a win over a Gov at 39% approval in NJ?
Why, if it was a Republican year, did Republicans not mount a serious challenge in the CA-10 special election? Why if it was a Republican year did Charlotte, NC elect its first Democratic mayor in 22 years?
You beltway boys are really really simple.
/71. David S:
You can’t say we didn’t warn you…./
Why, thank you. Without warnings from your “caring souls” a newcomer like Hoffman wouldn’t get so many votes.
But you see, 46% isn’t enough. So next time please, tell your side TO WARN US MORE!!!!! Why have you sent BIDEN to warn us? – Not good enough! – Next time send us OBAMA, just like in New Jersey. See? That worked! That was great!
THANKS!!!!!!!!
Roger,
You are way off base, but that goes with relying on the MSM for your information.
I’ll repeat here a comment I left at Ann ALthouse’s blog:
Hoffman and conservatives won if only because they exposed the backroom shenanigans that allow the party bosses to manipulate nominations. Scozzafava was a horrible choice for the district.
All the talk of Hoffman being from outside the district is bull. He was inside the district until the district lines were jerrymandered the last time around. The same thing happened to me and I only became aware when I went to vote in a primary and found out I was no longer in the district.
Scozzafava’s late exit ensured that absentee ballots that favored her would not go to Hoffman. Plus, her name was on two lines of the ballot as was Owens. Hoffman was on only one line, the fourth one down.
Political junkies often overlook the fact that many folks do not tune in to politics and it is not the central focus of their lives. They are accustomed to going to the voting booth and pulling the lever (or whatever passes for a lever in their district)for the party with which they identify.
This is particularly so in rural areas. So unless you are able to get your information directly to each voter you cannot change this tendency. In a rural district like much of NY 23 this is a function of time and money.
Scozzafava’s late exit deprived the Hoffman campaign of the time.
I would expect a better result in 2010.
Whether Hoffman is the perfect candidate is moot. You fight the war with what you have, not what you wish you had. He stood up and took the lead and did a damn good job of it.
That’s why I call this a victory delayed.
http://nygoe.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/a-victory-delayed/
Hey Mac,
A War of choice in the ME costs over a trillion bucks dude.
We also spend 100s of billions a year on our military, even in years of peace, to protect our force so that we can keep the oil pipelines around the world open and flowing in our direction.
A shot of penicillin or some herpes cream is waaaaay cheap in comparison. … Just sayin.
Fools will listen to the advice of Roger Simon. If you want more John McCain types, follow along with his plan which really isn’t much different what we’ve been discussing about RINO weaknesses for ten months now.
Owens won because he was a good candidate – a military man in a district with a high military presence.
Perhaps what we ought to be doing is congratulating Doug Hoffman for preventing another lib masquerading as a Republican up to Washington to give the feckless Barack Obama more assistance.
Hoffman lost for a couple of reasons:
The RINO establishment, like Newt, lined up for Scuzzyfava.
It was a tough one from the beginning and Hoffman was underfunded and under exposed locally.
It’s NY, it’s a Blue state.
There was apparently some feeling that the “outsiders” were influencing the election…rural communities do not like outsiders. I know I live in one in Montana
I’m socially conservative, but I could not agree more with Mr. Simon. A party that focused on fiscal responsibility and respect for the Constitution (in particular its limitations on federal power) is what we need. Social issues are better hashed out at the state and local level than in Washington.
I don’t know much about Hoffman’s views as a so-con.
But I did know something of him as a fis-con, and that alone is enough for me to be disappointed that he didn’t pull it off.
As I’ve maintained for the duration (at least since the 1970′s) all the “so” stuff* doesn’t even belong in the domain of government.
*I’m convinced the authors of the Constitution would be bemused at some of that document’s more modern interpretations, as in when the SCOTUS in 1973 found the implicit “privacy” guarantee to be a rationale for their vote on roe v. wade.
I don’t think “the times” have changed greatly enough that we need to think of the Constitution as “living” and apply its principles in areas that don’t strictly pertain to governance.
I guess I’m a Con-con.
NY23 was a bit of a bummer but it was a depressing night all around in Maine methinks. The big-government meddling high taxing ideas won the night. It was a night which demonstrated how completely warped some political types priorities are in this state. Instead of doing everything they can to help Maine families by reducing taxes, regulations and big government meddling they have banned a tiny majority from marrying.
At least sick people can get access to pot to self-medicate.
Ultimately a Democrat won in NY23 because the Republican candidate was awful and a political fraud.
There are also these factors in the Hoffman loss:
1. Dede Scozzafava (R) endorsed the Owens, the Democrat the day after suspending her campaign. This cost Hoffman votes.
2. It is likely that many women voters decided to vote for Owens because of resentment that Dede Scozzafava was strongly encouraged to leave the race.
3. Hoffman was unknown 30 days ago and was just the third party guy until Saturday when Scozzafava suspended her race.
4. NY-23 is a very big district, about the size of New Jersey. It is spread over several TV markets and likely costs a lot to advertise. Hoffman had little money and little time to travel over the vast miles of the district.
5. Almost all absentee ballots of Republicans would have gone to Scozzafava and most such voters would have been ignorant of the nature of Scozzafava (to the left of Owens, the Democrat).
What did happen is that a Republican (Scozzafava) who was selected by 11 Republican Party county chairman and who was to the left of the Democrat candidate (Owens) lost and a message has been sent to RINOs across the USA that they will not be automatically supported. We have other options, one is not voting and the other is supporting a third party. The better option is to deal with RINOs in the primaries.
Dede Scozzafava is a liberal Democrat; she is not a moderate Republican. The local Republicans screwed themselves with the snake called Dede Scozzafava. I believe Doug Hoffman made a great impact, despite his loss. He knocked Dede Scozzafava out of the race, but could not secure the win because he literally came out of nowhere. Republicans need to take heed of giving anymore Dede Scozzafava’s the silver platter (Charlie Crist I’m talking to you). I expect another RINO purge in 2010…
The blue states are royally screwed. If nothing else, they are being severely damaged by the unforgiving and relentless government employee unions. There are literally countless “blue state” municipalities that must declare bankruptcy.
It’s very telling to me that the states in the most financial trouble are blue in terms of governance, Michigan, New York, even Callyfornia under “progressive” Ahnald, who I’ll never forget, was spozed to undo the fiscal chaos under his predecessor, Gray Davis.
Pretty depressing night all around methinks. The big-government meddling high taxing ideas won the night in Maine. It was a night which demonstrated how completely warped some political types priorities are in this state. Instead of doing everything they can to help Maine families by reducing taxes, regulations and big government meddling they have banned a tiny majority from marrying.
At least sick people can get access to pot to self-medicate.
NY23 is pretty easy… the Republicans selected a political fraud as their candidate. Its their fault it went to the Dems not anyone else.
There is no need to make this complicated, and I think Mr Simon is wrong about this race. You had a moderate and locally well known Democrat running against a confused Republican Party who nominated a liberal. Hoffman came in late and unknown, basically as a third party candidate. The fact that an unknown third party candidate with absolutely no charisma came within a hair of defeating a well known Democrat is the real story here, and it should be shocking.
Perhaps there is a bit of over analyzing going on regarding NY-23?
Obama campaigned for Deeds and Corzine. Obama did not campaign for Owens. Which democrat won his race?
Lesson Learned from the temporary set back in the 23rd
I campaigned for Doug Hoffman. I met him and spoke with him one on one. He is a very nice person and definitely a Ronald Reagan Conservative. He seemed very aware of what he is for and what he is against on the national issues and the way Obama and the Democrats are taking this country away from the Founders intent. He definitely is more of a man of the people than a man of either party and therefore he had the full support of Tea Party and 912 people, as well as many other everyday folk!
I suppose just like anyone who is sick of what Washington is doing to our nation, Hoffman was more focused on macro political problems and was not all that well aware of the micro political issues which specifically affected every city, town, village and community in the 23rd District. Owen was much the same. During the one debate the candidates had, both he and Hoffman sort of winged it on the stuff they had little first hand knowlege of and they focused more on the macro political issues! (Owen supporting Obama and the Democrats and Hoffman opposing)
Having spent ten years in the New York State Assembly, Dede Scozzafava trumped both Hoffman and Owen in her knowlege of specific issues of concern to local areas throughout the district. Although knowlegeable about the local issues, it is her politics that stinks and didn’t represent the people of this district.
Scozzafava threw the election to Owen! I guess the minority liberal contingent of the 23rd District might think this is a good thing, but I don’t.
One lesson of this 23rd Congressional District race ought to be that any regular person who wants to go up against the political machine had better learn the local issues and be willing to make some campaign promises to the voters!
All politics is local and while voters may respect the integrity of one who runs without pandering; The folks do love their pork! Much of why any representative is elected is because of the self interests of the electorate.
Concepts like hoesty and integrity, freedom and democracy don’t trump greed! In the one debate, both Scozzafava and her protege Bill Owens defended “ear marks” they would bring back to the 23rd District. Doug Hoffman signed a pledge to accept no ear marks and he stated he would make his case on the floor, as our Founders intended! Both Scozzafava and Ownen agreed that would all the President to determine what funds came back to this District!
Owen gets this for one year. but he better not get too use to his seat. In 2010 he will be challenged by Hoffman and I predict that Doug will have time to know all the local issues and better articulate them in his challenge. He also won’t have a Democrat Party, big goverment Loyalist (Tory) throwing (HER) support the elite political establishment!
It’s always better to be pissed off than to be pissed on and folks, we all just got pissed on! There is a revolutionary spirit that is alive and well and growing stronger, here in upstate New York and around this nation!
Torries beware! The tar is boiling, the feathers are getting plucked and we have a lot of split rail fences in these parts!
What was your so called warning about, David S. ?
That Obama would pretend he wasn’t watching the returns last night, just as he tried to pretend ACORN and the Foxnews brouhaha were no big deal ?
That he would hide under his blankie and the White House would have no comment on NJ and VA races until they figure out how they’re going to dance, aka their positioning ?
Did you warn us about that ? Darn, I missed it.
It’s obvious from the comments that a lot of folks agree with you, but I think you are making this a one issue race, or at least, a one major issue race. The problem with making a major issue of gay marriage vis a vis NY-23 is that it doesn’t really represent national reality. Gay marriage was voted out in liberal Maine, not to mention liberal California, and 30 or so other states of varying degrees of liberaltude. It seems a bit of a strain to find that this one issue that was not raised against Hoffman in the race was the one that defeated him. I think someone might have noticed early on that it was a drag on his candidacy.
Perhaps an ugly and public fight in the Republican Party put some folks off. Perhaps Newt Gingrich telegraphed that it was ok to defeat Hoffman, since Hoffman didn’t live in the district. Perhaps Newt didn’t help with his carpetbagger theme that too many outsiders were trying to override the will of the people in NY23. Or that Newt kept preaching that the will of the eleven people who chose Scoffafazza was the equivalent of Holy Writ, not to be challenged by ordinary folk. Or maybe Hoffman didn’t have enough money to overcome the $900,000 wasted on Scoffafazza, and the money that the Dems poured into the race for Owens. And maybe Owens’ lack of support for healthcare and other administration policies made the more conservative folk feel safer in their vote for him. Maybe all of these issues, combined with Dede’s pique, were what lost the race. Even if you add social conservatism to this mix, the fact that he lost by only 3000 votes or so was remarkable.
It might be just as valid to say that Biden’s appearance for Owen or Palin’s endorsement of Hoffman was the vote changer. I don’t really think so, but at least people talked about these issues. Just saying.
72. Stephen Rittenberg,
Yeah. The Nazis were into ‘science’ too. Yippee Kai Yay!
Stem cell research doesn’t need embryos, oh scientific one:
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html
Advancing science shouldn’t mean that we create HUMAN life simply to destroy it mmm kay?
——————-
How someone leans on certain social issues doesn’t need to be politicized at the national level imho. Our country is in big trouble and abortion/gay-marriage [as polarizing as those issues can be] is not what is destroying our dollar, real estate and putting us into generational tax slavery.
The problem is, in my view, that “civil rights” being administered by the federal government is always like using a sledgehammer to kill a flea. Whether you are talking about racism, abortion, gay rights, or any other moral issue, and whether you are liberal or conservative trying to solve these problems legislatively will always result in unintended consequences. The racism issue is a good example. That hasn’t been solved, has it. The minority populations are worse off now than before LBJ except for a choice few who now make their living off of community organizing. The left has figured out how to get what they want. You have to change hearts and minds on the ground level to win. This is why every single TV show has a gay couple on it and why your kids are learning about global warming. When it comes to matters of morals or what is now called “civil rights” one on one conversion is what works. That and making sure there are judges in place to back it up. And, right now, we have the Supreme Court. Social conservatives should work smarter not harder and concentrate on judicial appointments. That and teaching your children, so they grow up to be teachers and journalists and movie producers. Beautiful roses bloom when you prune judiciously and fertilize the ground. If you don’t, you get nothing, now or in the future.
#81 mac:
You win the internets. Hella well said!
“So, Rog, you don’t want the SoCons around? Only FisCons, eh? Not smart, bud, not smart at all.
Know why most people are SoCons, Rog? IT’S BECAUSE ALL THOSE DAMNED THINGS THAT AREN’T SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE HAVE A HELLACIOUSLY BIG PRICE TAG ATTACHED AND SOCONS ARE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW IT!
How do most people get AIDS, Rog? Not in heterosexual married relationships. Why is the American family failing and our inner cities turning into real-life reenactments of The Lord of the Flies? It’s not because there are too many two-parent households trying to raise their children to be decent members of society.
The adultery, the diseases that go with illicit sex, corruption, violent crime, white-collar crime–all of those things have a cost, and it’s a damned big one. Plus, what does it say about a society when it is willing to literally rip apart the most innocent among us while some desperately defend the right to life of the most heinous killers?
When people govern themselves properly, government doesn’t cost much. When it becomes necessary to have large numbers of militarized police and super-restrictive laws, it’s because the society is on the verge of collapse from internal moral decay. Postponing that collapse doesn’t come cheap, Rog, and the reality is we’re not going to postpone it much longer unless we as a nation do some serious changing of our priorities.
You’re usually a bright guy, Rog. This article is ridiculous and never should have seen the light of day. You better hope the SoCons start having a much greater influence in this society, and real soon, because without it any hope of fiscal conservatism is stillborn.”
Was worth a reprise.
You got it wrong. Gay marriage loses everywhere. So I would guess opposing it can’t hurt a conservative candidate. It was pure third party influence and shenanigans by the diablo that got the Dem elected this round. Wait until 2010.
The minority populations are worse off now than before LBJ except for a choice few who now make their living off of community organizing.
Minorities have made great strides in American society in my lifetime.
And that’s in spite of programs like LBJ’s Great Society, welfare etc.
I think someone should do a PhD (piled higher and deeper) thesis on the relationship between government programs and the destruction of the black family in America.
Roger got it right.
I consider one of the most important items from these Nov. 3 elections, the White House’s public statement that Obama wasn’t watching the election returns.
This ‘says it all’. Such an open contempt for the voice of the people couldn’t be any louder, any clearer. He’s effectively said that he’s not interested in what The People have to say. What The People say is utterly beneath Him.
You either agree with Obama. Or, as he’s made it clear again and again, you don’t exist.
The next most important item from this set of elections is that these same People don’t want socialism; they don’t want a liberal fiscalism or liberal socialism. They want a fair and reasonable conservativism, which simply means a small and non-intrusive government, low taxes, a focus on local enterprise and small business – essentially, an adherence to the Constitution.
It’s all in the emphasis. Fiscal issues are at the top of voter’s agendas right now. Governments at all levels are being fiscally irresponsible and impoverishing our great-grandchildren. And while Obama and the Democrats have made it much, much worse, Bush started it and people remember that. He ran up a big debt, and TARP originated with his Treasury Department. The lasting legacy of “Compassionate Conservatism” is that George W. Bush is viewed as a fiscally irresponsible social conservative. Voters were so unhappy that a year ago, a majority thought the Democrats would do better on economic issues than Republicans. Yeah, lots of clueless people there, but they vote.
The upshot is that voters are going to be suspicious of anyone emphasizing social conservative issues – not so much because they disagree with those issues but they’re going to worry that if elected, that politician will abandon fiscal issues to pursue the social agenda, and the country can’t afford to ignore the fiscal issues any longer.
I don’t think anyone needs to avoid social conservative issues or stances, but they better not emphasize them in their campaigns (or let their opponent make voters think they do). Doing so risks being considered a Bush-style conservative who can’t be trusted on fiscal issues. And it’s no good trying to emphasize both – every word devoted to Gay Marriage is one that could have been devoted to Cap N Trade or another economic question that voters are profoundly worried about. Plus Democrats are very good at turning an election into a debate on the conservative candidates social message. It helps the Dem immensely with their base, and these days it helpe the Dem with the Republican base too. You can’t give them any ammo to use here.
Let’s be clear, the biggest issues facing families today are economic stagnation and crushing debt. If voters think your platform is “ending economic stagnation and crushing debt” you have an excellent chance of winning. If they think your platform is “saving the institution of marriage from the gays and, if there’s any time left over after that, maybe I’ll look into this whole ‘economy’ thing” well, you’re going to have a tougher time.
108 JMH: I think you’ve nailed it.
Obama campaigned for Deeds and Corzine. Obama did not campaign for Owens. Which democrat won his race?
A propos of something
Considering the brevity of Hoffman’s campaign, and the fact that he had to fight Scozzafava, and Owens, and the RNC, and Newt Gingrich to nearly the very end, it’s amazing that he lost by only 4%. He had all the negatives, and everything going against him. The amateur ran a good race. He’s respected nationally. To hang his loss on social conservatism appears to be an effort to ‘find’ something to ‘blame.’
Next year will come. I don’t see Hoffman going away. And he shouldn’t.
#30 Donna V — As one commenter put it, Reagan didn’t toss the socons under the bus. The emphasis was different. We need to keep pounding the economic issues. But that doesn’t mean social conservatives can’t win or must be discarded.
Actually, it does prove so-cons can’t win merely by being so-cons. What this proves beyond a doubt is that so-con issues are never, ever won, that so-con issues ride on the coat-tails of everything else.
Reagan was an ideal and people also reluctantly accepted his so-con views. He was flawed but not fatally so. Had he emphasized his so-con views he wouldn’t have been elected. People are willing to put up with so-con views providing that they don’t interfere with anything important. Read what Roger wrote. He is absolutely correct.
If this doesn’t prove once and for all that social conservatism for it’s own sake cannot EVER win, nothing will.
Cleaning house is always a good idea.
We’re still waiting for the dems to make an attempt to put their house in order, and it’s getting dirtier by the day!
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As the level of dem audacity rises, so too will their numbers drop, and then it’s meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Ah, the beauty of the two party system.
How come we don’t hear anything more about that line-item veto that Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush clamored for? Want to bring some hopey-changey Obama?
Line.
Item.
Veto.
Kill the riders/political payoffs!
The LIV is just one of many bipartisan reforms floating around out there; Obama could champion it but he will not because it runs counter to his political style.
He needs the payola system that an unrestricted, spendthrift congress provides. The Chicago Player is more into brass knuckles/political infighting/legal graft than in any kind of real reform. So, no great leader for you, liberals!
Methinks 2012 is RINO season! Let’s thin the herd and sort things out. Somewhere in the process we may find a real leader.
Glad to see that the repubs in NY23 didn’t bend to the winds of political necessssity for short term gain.
81. mac,
You’re living in la-la land right next to the communists and anarchists.
So tell me, what do you suggest we do in terms of preventing and reversing the moral decay? Something authoritarian I imagine is what your answer will be.
Roger, You ought to read Reagan’s “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation” if you would claim he ran primarily as a fiscal conservative. The Reagan Dems were not moved by fiscal issues but by the “acid,abortion and amnesty” wing of their party which was so far from their own Catholic working class roots.
As a Christian and a social conservative, if Roger’s analysis causes the GOP to embrace unprincipled Dem lite candidates in the future, I am ripe for the third party route. The message in 2010 needs to be that in the heartland we’re sick to death of amoral, lying, corruptocrats and big government whores ruining our country and sucking the life out of it.
I’d be interested to know how many votes went to Scozzafava as absentee ballots cast before the blow up.I’d like to know whether a recent redistricting had some effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district.I think Sozzafava’s endorsement of Owens and the aid of her husband’s SEIU were also–unusal–factors. I think this is one of those elections where there is so much going on, it’s easy to make it mean almost anything. But in the end Owens seems a more fiscally conservative choice than Scozzafava would have been and refusing Obama votes for health care overhaul and cap and trade strikes me as the most important object at the moment.
Roger is absolutely correct. The GOP deserves to spend more time out of power if the only choice it gives us is between RINOs on the one hand and rabid social conservatives on the other.
The Tea Party rebellion is not over Obama’s position on abortion but over his and Pelosi/Reid’s environmentalist and socialist power grabs. Show me the Goldwater conservatives who can stand in opposition to this (assuming they still exist), and I’ll vote Republican again.
To Mr. Roger Simon: “Well…I might as well say it…” what a worthless and predictable column. When I saw a column under your byline, I already knew what your basic argument would be and which group you would blame for the loss. Social conservatives are your whipping-boy of choice and no matter what the problem you delight in putting the blame on them. Your disdain for social conservatives is so intense that, at least in this case, it has blinded you to the truth.
Elitist moderate to liberal Republicans like yourself caused the loss in NY-23.
Elitist moderate party leaders chose a candidate who alienated a majority of the Republican and Conservative voters. Their choice opened the door to the Hoffman candidacy. If the leadership had been more in touch with the common voter they would have endorsed someone who was at least a moderate rather than a card-carrying liberal. Rank and file Republicans and Conservatives favored Hoffman in the polls and catagorically rejected Scozzafava. When it became appartent that Scozzafava would lose in a three-way race to a third party candidate, she withdrew, took her ball and 6% of the vote, and went home. Had she been a true Republican, she would have endorsed Hoffman. Instead, she endorsed her liberal brethern and the Republican party lost. Now, Conservatives hear from liberal and moderate Republicans all the time how they should suck it up and knuckle under for the good of the party. When the shoe is on the other foot, these same people damn the party out of spite.
The real lesson here is that a third-party conservative candidate beat the moderate establishment Republican candidate by 40% of the vote.
Although I will save my comments on your claim that social conservatism is a selective version of the nanny state for another post, let me ask one question. Where is your proof that voters rejected Hoffman because of his social conservatism? Where are your exit polls with that data? Why would the issue of gay marriage hurt Hoffman when it failed in Maine when it came to a vote? Where is the evidence?
Very bad analysis Roger.
The establishment GOP in NY-23 screwed up big-time in nominating a liberal ACORN-hugging big-spending pro-abortion liberal. When she was finally exposed by conservatives across USA rebelling at this huge mistake, and when that rebellion caused Hoffman to get more support as a conservative than Dede in the polls (she imploded), then Dede Skuzzyfava showed her true colors by jumping out of the race … to nominate another liberal, Democrat Owens.
Had the GOP nominated a true conservative Republican from the get-go (like Doheny), the GOP would have gone 3 for 3 and won NY-23.
Hoffman was the third-party vehicle for the rebellion, but that was a long-shot from the get-go, and it is more remarkable that he did well enough to knock out the faux GOP candidate Dede than that he lost.
Hoffman was near single digits only a month ago, yet he managed 45% on election day…
Hoffman ran not as a social conservative but as an “anti-Pelosi” vote, mainly fiscal conservative. Being against gay marriage is a moderate position, as is opposing taxpayer funding of killing of the unborn (abortion).
Let us be clear, if not for the timed Dede endorsement of Owens *and* the heavy union support and money from the Democrats, Hoffman would have won. If there was no GOP ballot line, the GOP+conservative candidate would have won.
Meanwhile, attempts to push gay marriage went down in flames in Maine, the 31st state to do preserve traditional marriage in the state constitution.
This is not about social vs fiscal conservatives. This election was about whether the GOP would have a UNITY CONSERVATIVE candidate who can win (The McDonnell model), and more center-right-blue-state candidate who can win in tough areas the Christie model), or whether the GOP would cast principles to the wind entirely (The Dede Skuzzyfava model). NY-23 shows that the last model is a complete and utter DISASTER for Republicans. It’s a lesson that has nothing to do with social conservatives and everything to do with the soul of the GOP Party.
Reagan wrote “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation” while President. Supposedly Reagan wrote this without anyone asking him to do so. It ran in the Human Life Review in 1983.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp
“Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion — efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of “freedom of choice,” have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.”
Reagan is quite clear that he wasn’t just giving social conservatives lip service, but was actively engaging in the fight to overturn abortion on demand.
Reagan clearly understood that this was more than just about faith, this was about the scientific fact that human life began at conception and the real argument was how we valued that life.
“The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life brought out the basic issue more clearly than ever before. The many medical and scientific witnesses who testified disagreed on many things, but not on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, or is a member of the human species. They did disagree over the value question, whether to give value to a human life at its early and most vulnerable stages of existence.
Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. Some have said that only those individuals with “consciousness of self” are human beings. One such writer has followed this deadly logic and concluded that “shocking as it may seem, a newly born infant is not a human being.”"
Before the above quote, Reagan asked what is the real issue since the science is clear …
“What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn — for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will’s moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?
The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have.
What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being — one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down’s Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a “non-existent” possibility for “a minimally adequate quality of life” — in other words, that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.”
Keep in mind, folks, that Hoffman had BOTH major parties trying to derail his campaign. The fact that he came so close should tell you something, off-year election or not.
aside: For conservatives and Republicans who think that certain aspects of social conservativism are right and just and true, you really ought to read The Constitution again. There are a lot of things you are used to and take for granted that simply cannot be found there.
For example, there’s nothing about the government’s involvement in marriage or other relationships. You think you need a ‘license’ from the government to be married. Why? You think the government should limit the decision of individuals who make bad decisions, yet you complain when the Democrats and liberals promote the same platform. It is not the right of the state or federal governments to be involved in these or several other matters that you take for granted. According to a plain and simple reading, and according to the ideals and commentary left by the Founding Fathers, none that can be justified in any way whatsoever. From property taxes to income taxes to social security, and much, much more, none if it was ever meant to be. The government was never meant to be involved in any of it.
refer:
The Online Library of Liberty
Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/jefferson_g_01.html
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0500.htm
etc., etc.
While Barack hid out under his blankie…
Keith was hiding out in the tub
Olbermann is right now working feverishly on a long winded and mean-spirited explanation for why the Americans who voted for Republicans are stupid and misguided.
I don’t know what sank Hoffman, but count me as a SoLF (Social Laissez-Faire, although I can see the chance for a little smutty humor).
Dead on the money, Roger. GDI’s keep sending messages…the fools in each party keep interpreting them with their plastic decoder rings.
Throw the bums out, bring in the new bums.
I do not understand how Dede got the nomination. If she was a far left person, did this not show in her background? How was she vetted to be the nominee? Who was behind this??? A far left person trying to get a left candidate in office under the guise of a Republican? Who? Republicans need to be more careful.
New Jersey has been having a hard$$$ time…sooo it would be logical to let Corzine go. Maybe it’s not so much about Obama for them as it is a local job/economic issue.
Did Hoffman run on social issues, was that even the major issue, no the stimulus and health care were the big issues. The million dollars in RNC contributions to Scozzofazza
who was ostensibly against cap n trade, but couldn’t articulate a reason. The signature local issue that Owens was supposedly keen
on, wasn’t a big thing either.
Excellent article Roger, its a shame the SoCons won’t listen.
There is, of course, a message in this for the Republican Party going forward. You can choose to emphasize the social issues or not. Today may show the former is a losing proposition.
Sorry, but this is Rodger imparting his hearts own desires to what happened. Not a single other analyst will tell you that Hoffmans excessive social conservatism is what caused him to lose.
The outgoing GOP Rep in this district is John McHugh. From the excellent website “On The Issues” we learn this about him.
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. (Sep 2006)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Looks pretty darn socially conservative to me!
McHugh held this district from 1992 until he resigned this year. If the voters there dislike social conservatism they sure have a strange way of showng it.
Hoffman’s capital-C Conservative campaign, however, tried to separate itself from the majority parties by making a big deal of the social issues. He was all upset that Scozzafava was pro-gay marriage
Gay marrige has been voted down in every single state in which it has come to a vote, including Maine last night.
I know that Mr Simon is himself a big believer in gay marriage, but the evidence is conclusive that the public does not share his views.
A party that focused on fiscal responsibility and respect for the Constitution (in particular its limitations on federal power) is what we need. Social issues are better hashed out at the state and local level than in Washington.
Hashing out social issues at the state and local level requires the overturning of past liberal triumphs at the national level. It requires, among other things, the overturning of Roe V Wade. In other words, it requires the success of the “social con” agenda and it requires the GOP to adapt that agenda.
The fact is Hoffman lost because he wasn’t a Republican, and therefore, voters could not vote for him simply by voting straight-ticket Republican. I’ll bet a huge chunk of the 6% who voted for Dede voted straight-ticket Republican.
The social-cons ought not use Reagan as their touchstone; he used them to his advantage but largely stiff-armed their issues.
Hoffman’s not particularly mediagenic, and all the outside support his campaign attracted proved a two-edged sword.
Owens has a year; if the GOP doesn’t screw up over the next year they stand a good chance of taking it back in 2010. His only real hope is managing to be out of the office whenever Pelosi calls, plus a little GOP self-buggery.
Roger, I agree. Also, Gary Ogletree stated it well: “Gay marriage and abortion inspire a lot of passion, but don’t imperil the future of the republic. Creeping socialism and national bankruptcy are a clear and present danger and should be hammered on relentlessly.”
As a social liberal, I have no problems of conscience voting conservative, as fiscal conservatism will make more people’s lives better from top to bottom income brackets than social liberalism will. That’s why when fiscal con is emphasized, one gets Independent, fiscal conservatives and moderates who are socially liberal to vote conservative.
The social-cons ought not use Reagan as their touchstone; he used them to his advantage but largely stiff-armed their issues.
Sounds a lot more like what he did to the libertarians.
Maybe it was Hoffman himself, who didn’t quite have what it takes. I had not seen the guy until I saw a clip last night and the guy came across as the personification of the word, “nerd.” I am not trying to be mean-spirited here; he just strikes me as someone who would be hard to rally around.
As for New jersey, there was so much corruption around that most self-respecting centrists would have trouble holding their nose and voting for Corzine. Throw the rascal out and they did!
Like all good accountants such as Mr. Hoffman, let’s just review the numbers Mr. Simon. Per the Watertown, NY Daily Times:
Owens (D) 61,666
Hoffman (C) 57,073
DS (R) 6,976
C + R = 64,049
- D 61,666
______
+2,383 Anybody but Party of Pelosi
Let’s remember that Owens is a retired USAF officer. Not a profession known for social liberalism. If he kowtows to NP he’ll be gone in 2010 without Dede around to create confusion. The most salient issue right now can be spelled with 3 letters:
J-O-B-S!
/s
The Hoffman loss highlights a major disaster facing the Republican Party. The Sarah Palin folks will do well in the south. But, the rest of the USA will vote the moderate, traditional Republican candidate. If the GOP primaries select social-issue candidates, the future is not very bright.
STOP TALKING ABOUT ABORTION !!!!! Enough already. Yes, late term abortions are awful. So is child rape, beheading women, running down Westernized daughters, selling drugs, using drugs, driving drunk, abusing animals, corruption, sloth, stealing, murder, physical abuse, and so on.
Conservative does not mean being a “one trick pony”. It means loving liberty, self determination, freedom of expression, freedom of travel, freedom of contract, common sense, dignity of the individual rather than the state and basically “LEAVE ME ALONE”!.
If someone has a personal issue about abortion, offer alternatives … put your money where your mouth is … provide unwed mothers homes, easy adoptions, free birth control, sponsoring parenting classes, etc. THOSE WHO WANT THE STATE TO STOP ABORTIONS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE WHO WANT THE STATE TO FUND ABORTIONS. LOOK IN THE MIRROR !!!
CarolB@24,
If I was a Democrat strategist, I’d have you spout the same innanities.
The party officials in district #23 should be thrown out of the Republican Party. They are the fools who lost this election.
“As a social liberal, I have no problems of conscience voting conservative, as fiscal conservatism will make more people’s lives better from top to bottom income brackets than social liberalism will. That’s why when fiscal con is emphasized, one gets Independent, fiscal conservatives and moderates who are socially liberal to vote conservative.”
As far as I’m concerned its the opposite. I have yet to see any government truly implement a fiscal policy that will be good for all Americans. The Gipper couldn’t do it and everyone since has failed. It’s my opinion, that we simply do not have a good handle on economics as Alan Greenspan himself has admitted.
However, social liberalism means more freedom for everyone, regardless of the economy, the Big Business deals and unemployment.
If I can choose a fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidate, I will. If I can’t, I’ll pick the socially liberal candidate, because fiscal policy seems to be a joke from either side of the coin.
Porkov: “It would be so much easier for me if the two parties were Libertarian and Authoritarian.”
I’d agree if Libertarians could define doing nothing to oppose aggression as objectively wrong. But they can’t. That’s “Authoritarian”. As they cripple our resolve by playing the useful ideot to leftists and shouting, “who are you to impose freedom on people”, tyranny advances.
From property taxes to income taxes to social security, and much, much more, none if it was ever meant to be. The government was never meant to be involved in any of it.
True enough.
And now we’ve got a Prezzydent who makes ads telling you that since those usurious credit companies are charging you upwards of 20%, he’s personally gotta step in (in the name of “economic justice”) and regulate the things.
So-con topics aren’t the only area in which the federal government (maybe better named the national government) has far and away overstepped its intended boundaries.
(over and out)
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”
…. Ronald Reagan (1975)
“Every Republican should know that there are two divisive forces in the Republican Party that always threaten to break it apart and ruin its chances. The first is the insincere consultants in the “news” media that try to rule it from the outside. The second is the consultants in the party that listen to them.”
……. Brent Bozell
The benefitst of the NY23 outcome;
1) Owens will NEVER betray the grass roots Republican base!
2) Owens will NEVER give bi-partisan cover to democrats for bad legislation (cap-n-tax et al)!
3) Owens will NEVER pull the rug out from under Republican leadership in a floor fight regarding principle!
Yet Owens overall voting record will have little to distinguish it from that of the RINO we defeated.
jd
Do Not Feed the RINOs!
Reagan didn’t champion social conservative issues?
Really?
What was the Equal Access Act of 1984 that Reagan signed into law about? A social conservative issue regarding religion in public school.
In 1983 Reagan stated that … “[a]s Justice O’Connor emphasized in her dissenting opinion joined by Justices White and Rehnquist, the legislature is the appropriate forum for resolving these issues. The issue of abortion must beresolved by our democratic process. Once again I call on the Congress to make its voice heard against abortion on demand and to restore legal protections for the unborn whether by statute or constitutional amendment.”
Here’s Reagan stating clearly what he has done in fighting against abortion, you know that social conservative issue he supposedly just gave lip service to …
Reagan’s remarks at a March for Life Rally in 1988 …
“Now, I’m going to ask your support on a few things. We have sent up to Congress the prolife bill. It states that abortion is the taking of a human life and stops all Federal funding of abortion by making the Hyde amendment permanent. It needs your support, and it deserves your support.
We will soon publish regulations that will cut off Federal family planning funds from abortion-related activities. The law prohibits using title X money to encourage or promote abortion in any way. Yet under the current guidelines, title X programs must offer abortion counseling and referrals. It has been argued that this is evenhanded, a way of ensuring that young women are presented with all options. But that’s not how it’s worked out. Too often, the same title X funded programs that give referrals have financial ties to programs that perform abortions. In practice, young women using their services have sometimes been led to believe that abortion is their best, if not their only option. As one young woman reported recently in a comment on our new regulations: “I was not given a complete picture [by the family planning clinic]. . . . The decision I made for abortion was no decision at all. It was a coercion.”
Well, our new regulations will put an end to this conflict of interest in cases where title X funds are involved. They will prohibit using title X money for any program that performs abortions, or counsels or refers for abortions, or promotes abortion through the media, the courts, or anyplace else. They will require family planning programs to be both financially and physically separate from facilities that use abortion as a method of family planning — no mingling of silver. We are getting title X back to Congress’ original intent: reducing the number of abortions. But as you know, original intent is controversial these days. We’ll need your help in defending these regulations.”"
Reagan didn’t just lip service to social conservative issues.
Again, you can’t have Reaganesque coalition without the social conservatives. Likewise, you can’t do it without the fiscal conservatives. It takes both and the GOP has long been attempting to diminish one portion.
david S.,
You are able to get your reception hall and chapel deposit back for your big Maine event, yes?
love and harmony,
DTOM
Unify Without Compromising
1) Prohibit State funding of abortion in any form
2) Don’t block people who’s faith doesn’t insist an early term fetus is a child from killing theirs with their own resources.
3) Promote criticism of evolution in science classes, but only teach ID in social sciences (Divine intervention is not a science.)
4) Allow anyone to publicly announce a “prayer” for school, even atheists.
5) Let gays marry and call it anything else but marriage.
6) Allow gays to join the military as soon as men can join all girls sports teams.
Abortion is a very prominant portion of social conservatism. So much so that Reagan worked hard to get abortion limited.
Yet, we are told to stop talking it and other social conservative issues.
Didn’t a friggin’ liberal state, Maine I believe, side with social conservatives on gay marriage?
But, yet, are told to sit in the back of the bus and shut up.
Pretty slim pickings on PJ re NY23…This Roger Simon analysis as well as the previous Jazz Shaw dribble are so full of holes as to be rendered irrational or worst. I now know why PJ has slipped down on th fav read list!
The one Social Conservative position that baffles me is opposition to Gay Marriage. I keep hearing that it will “destroy” the instiution of marriage.
What’s up with that? I can’t imagine my marriage being “destroyed” because a pair of gays down the block get a marriage certificate. Is there anyone out there who can tell me that the presence of a nearby married gay couple will make them more likely to cheat on their spouse?
Infidelity can ruin the institution of marriage. So can abuse. So can gambling, alchoholism, drug abuse, and arguments over money. The anger should be aimed at a real target.
How about the PLEDGE? A binding pledge that simply removes the option of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of elected republican officials by FORCING them to refrain from deficit spending and FORCING them to filibuster any and all deficit spending?
This is something that I hope fiscal conservatives and social conservatives can agree on–and frankly right now we need to keep our eyes on the prize, and stop all this infighting.
The social-cons ought not use Reagan as their touchstone; he used them to his advantage but largely stiff-armed their issues.
Scalia.
And Bork, who was “borked” precisely because of his stand on abortion.
Dave K proves once again that libs think independent thought is icky. The Democrat Hive Mind must be going haywire.
Steve:
It looks like it might have passed in Washington State last night (though Ref 71 is called the “everything but marriage” bill). Still, I’m not in favor of gay marriage myself, but you ought to ask yourself why, if Gay Marriage is a losing proposition everywhere, that Democrats have the White House and large majorities in Congress? Not very many Republicans have actually run on a pro-Gay Marriage platform after all.
The answer really is that people are looking for politicians who will do something about the explosive growth of government and the accelerating assault of government upon our daily lives. When it comes down to it, I can look after my own morality and my children’s morality. What I can’t do is look after my own and my family’s prosperity when my government is stealing my money and borrowing against my children’s future. So what I really need is a politician who will tackle the fiscal issues of our government, because I can’t do that by myself.
I can fend off liberal assaults on my morality without anyone’s help. I can’t fend off liberal assaults on my prosperity alone. Politics is about group action – what do we have to do as a group vs what we can do as individuals. I’m not alone – I’m in the majority on that question.
Sure, if there’s a ballot issue that deals with a single issue, you can get support for the conservative social position (and Defense-of-Marriage initiatives get lots of support from the Social laissez-faire as well because most of them correctly view Gay Marriage as an attempt by the Left to impose their own moral standards). But candidates are not single-issue decisions, they vote on everything once elected and voters will base their decisions on that. Gay Marriage isn’t the most important issue to very many people. It can win ballot initiatives, but it can’t win congressional seats.
If you want to win congressional seats, you have to run on the issues people care the most about.
The problem with social conservatives is that things like gay marriage and abortion are always at the top of their list of priorities to address when in my opinion they should be near the bottom. Quite frankly they are non-issues that should be left to the states in my book, despite the fact that I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Social conservatives are what completely turns me off from Republicans, and I can’t really understand how some of them can be pegged as libertarians because if anyone is out to impose their will short of bully-boy tactics, it’s them.
74. Argus wrote:
We need to renew ourselves with the conviction that marriage is about children, and honor that conviction in deed.
Peter writes: I have to take issue with this statement.
My wife and I dated for 8 years before we got married. Throughout that entire time, we agreed we did not want any children. (In the interests of full disclosure, I have a teenaged daughter from my first marriage. Our present marriage is my wife’s first.)
Since we do not want kids, nor have any intention of ever having kids of our own, does that make our marriage invalid in your eyes? Should we not have even considered getting married, only spent the next 40 years or so living together, because to you marriage is ONLY for the purposes of procreation?
MKH – I think your analysis is correct.
71. David S:
Nov 4, 2009 – 7:17 am
72. Dave K.:
Nov 4, 2009 – 7:22 am
Well, well, well. What a coincidence – NOT!
Both David S and Dave K show up to post their only two moronic snarks within 5 minutes of each other, in successive comments. If that isn’t proof enough that these two are actually just one, I don’t know what is.
And you can see this same pattern when other trolls post here. Two or more ID’s show up with minutes of each other – more coincidences, I’m certain – NOT.
Hey guy(s), how much does Soros pay you to be leaving your little smelly droppings on this site? No way these people(?) have J-O-Bs other than disrupting conservative/moderate communications.
(Note how I spell out J-O-B? I know they won’t realize what it means if I do this, because they are too stupid to know how to spell such a big complicated word. Plus, I don’t want to hurt the little tyke(s) feelings.)
Please!, social conservatives, get Roger’s message here because the 2010 elections are riding on it.
It is not that social issues are not very important; of course they are (so cut out this “you don’t care about babies or immorality” junk). But you need to understand that you cannot lead with this; that Democrats with the MSM will frame the election around the social issue.
Limited govt, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty are the *core* conservative principles. If you push using the govt to enforce your values on a very large segment of the population who doesn’t want that, you will lose. The way to achieve this change is through leadership and example and patience from inside the system, not by a social revolution.
McDonnell is a good model. He clearly has conservative social values, and WaPo mercilessly tried to nail him with that. But he kept focus on the issues most important to most voters, in particular swing independents and moderates.
Reagan is also a good example. Being from Calif, I remember him well. His personal values with definitely conservative. But his message was one of principles and it was uplifting. He avoided litmus tests. Once elected, he would facilitate the system overall in a conservative direction.
Let’s not blow what could be our last chance (at least for a long while) in 2010.
Please, think strategically!
Why is abortion soo prominent?
It is the taking of human life. That is not a religious belief, but a scientific fact.
This is why the issue, as Reagan observed, was never about when life begins, but what value we give to that life.
If you vote on one issue, i.e., gay marriage, abortion (pro/con), then you are selling yourself and your vote short. It’s narrow minded at best.
There’s much more at stake!!!
Hoffman did GOOD!! for a late comer.
If someone had stepped in sooner, perhaps he would have done even better. A few weeks ago, no one knew who he was!!!
This blue and red state business is crap. We are supposed to be a republic, not a color card.
“It looks like it might have passed in Washington State last night”
It did. Read it in the papers this morn.
SR@73,
Embrionic research? Jeesh. Is that the kind of research where they murder the embrio on the chance there’s some “greater value” to be gained from those cells, funding the procedures with taxpayers’ funds? Yeah, I’m against that kind. It’s plain and simple infanticide.
There is absolutely no medical evidence that embrionic cells provide any greater potential for the cures you cite, than those cells taken from the embelical cord at birth.
You’re speaking on behalf of Dr. Mengele, I presume. Sarah’s right; it’s already about “death panels.”
During the Reagan Era, we had a major recession, the Cold War, major tax overhauls, and many other things that can easily be considered more important that things like religious freedom and stopping abortion. yet, Reagan didn’t shy away from those issues. He embraced them and worked for them.
For what it’s worth, gun control is a social conservative hot button that is as prominent as abortion.
TexasDude: “Why is abortion soo prominent?
It is the taking of human life. That is not a religious belief, but a scientific fact.”
It’s no more “a scientific fact” that abortion equals taking a human life than breaking a fertile egg equals taking a chicken’s life. A newly fertilized egg is arguably not a chicken unless you insist on religious doctrine claiming they’re endowed with chicken souls at conception.
A reasonable case can be made on either side of when fetuses should receive constitutional protection so both are far from “scientific facts”.
I am not buying it for a second, Roger. This is an easy one.
It’s more accurate to say that there are many fiscally liberal voters who are also socially conservative. An example is Obama’s candidacy itself. It helped defeat Prop 8 in California. The African-American Obama vote there turned out a tidal wave of socially conservative voters that swamped Prop 8.
Notably but not surprisingly, African-Americans in California were insulted with racial slurs by the very unhappy Prop 8 supporters.
I don’t think rural, white, fiscally liberal Republicans and Democrats in Maine are not all that different, after all, from urban, fiscally liberal, nearly-exclusively Democratic blacks in Los Angeles.
And let’s not forget that 5% of the voters in NY-23 voted for a candidate who was no longer in the race.
And where’s the evidence that Hoffman was a less “soft-sell” conservative than Reagan was? They both put fiscal constraint and resistance to government growth at the forefront of their campaigns. But Reagan didn’t shy away from the social issues, and I can’t find any evidence that Hoffman particularly pushed them.
Reagan understood that, just as fiscal restraint and responsibility are essential to liberty, personal responsibility is as well. And abortion is absolutely not a “morality” issue. Neither is gay marriage.
In other words….
SO-CON EPIC FAIL.
Steve @128
It’s very unfair of you to throw facts into Roger Simon’s It’s the So-Con’s Stupid little fantasy play.
And he’s doing so well here, at times, what with the support of Mandarin David S. and the gay marriage/pro abortion folks who breathlessly claim: You nailed it Roger.
“It’s no more “a scientific fact” that abortion …”
Human embryology textbooks for cryin’ out loud clearly state that human life, human development, starts when conception ends. Not with implantation, not when the heart starts beating, not when brain waves can be detected and not when the baby is born, and not when theologians tells us, but with conception.
“Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama’s term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.”
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/03/even-msm-admits-embryonic-stem-cell-research-unnecessary/
Funny how Social conservatives are so horrible when its the thoings the LEFT has FORCED on America that has led to many of the social ills. ABORTION-say whatever, all conservatives EVER have asked for is to return it to the states. Abortion is also responsible for the callous attitude towards death these days, the fact is(IE, the scum filth rapist/murderer in Cleveland) abortion has led to a lack of shame about such crimes. Other social ills-Bubba Clinton lying to out faces and we ACCEPT IT? Obama has connections to some of the lowest of the low(we know all the suspects-Jeremiah Wright just ADMITTED his church has ties to COMMUNIST CUBA). Hoffman lost because he basically was an unknown. Little else, until 2 weeks ago no one knew him. Put him up again in nov 2010-Id bet he will win. After all-in neighboring Westchester county(very blue county) a down the line republican CATHOLIC who hosted a local CATHOLIC radio show won his race by 16 points. Two conservatives with strong social views won in Pa judgeships. I agree with the point that social issues should be locally handled. Too bad the left wont look at it that way. FORCED BUSING-WHO DID THAT? THE EPA/OSHA-WHO DID THAT? WHO STARTED THE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BS? THE LEFT. Thats why we need social conservatism.
It now seems that I have actually not been alone all along. Yes, I am a fiscal and homeland defense conservative who supports a more libertarian view on people’s private lives. Who am I or the government to tell honest, working, taxpaying adult citizens what they can do in their own homes?
Let’s find a common thread so we can work together to stimulate the economy, create jobs and create affordable healthcare for all using mostly free market solutions with a dose of reasonable regulations.
(And let’s leave wacky indoctrinations out of schools)Parents need to parent their kids.
I should have thought that the issue of abortion, involving as it does the life of a specifically actual even if pre-natally developed human being, would not be solely a question of the government’s intruding into the bedroom, but apparently the majority have been duped into believing otherwise. The Big Lie has taken on Hitlerian (as in “genocidal”) proportions, enabling the killing to progress from first trimester to the threshold of birth, with voices clamoring to push it even farther.
So-called pro-choice Americans are as blind about the meaning of abortion as ante-bellum Southerners were about the meaning of slavery. The correction came not by argumentation but by calamity.
MK, I agree with much of what you said.
“Who am I or the government to tell honest, working, taxpaying adult citizens what they can do in their own homes?”
On the other side of the coin:
Why do honest, working, taxpaying adult citizens need to tell everyone what they do in the privacy of their own homes and try to make it public policy?
Roger:
There is no need to agonize over the reasons for Owens victory.
Thirty days is simply not enough time to anyone to win an election starting from zero recognition and with zero party funding.
Blaming it on a candidate’s socially conservative positions in a Republican district is balderdash.
OFF-TOPIC:
Roger,
“The Meaning of the Republican Victory” by Ron Radosh
isn’t working? I can only read the first page and page 2
won’t load. I tried it on a couple different browsers and the same thing happened.
I wasn’t sure who to write about that? Is there a tech
person to write to for PJM website issues?
Thank you!
Roger:
Three things.
1. Gay marriage – Maine
2. Gay marriage – Washington
3. County Exec – Westchester. Westchester is as blue as Jay Rockefeller’s blood, and the republican who won there last night is not only a vociferous social conservative, but he runs the Catholic channel on Sirius radio and counts the Cardinal among his friends.
He beat the long-time dem incumbent. By 16 points.
Wholeheartedly agree. If Republicans are smart and want to capture that large independent vote that is center-right, and which is critical to capturing the White House in 2012 and swing states in 2010, it needs to focus on a message that is fiscally conservative, less government, and more hawkish/principled on foreign policy. We need to avoid shoving religion and puritanical social issues down people’s throats. Where I live in Pennsylvania, Obama won because the center-right independents and registered Republicans in the Philly suburbs were not comfortable with the conservative social values preaching coming from the right.
Unlike some, I found no real surprises in these election results. I congratulate the Republican party on their victory, specially in New Jersey. However, the new Republican governor of New Jersey will now (like Obama) find out what it is like to lead in a place where most…just cannot wait to dislike him. His party is in a minority, however, if he plays the cards right, it can work out to be a real advantage. And this governor will be aware that he could be a real powerbroker at the convention in 2012. As for the Republicans in New York? no matter what…they must face it…and work it out within their party or the split between the fiscal cons and the so cons will cost them several seats in 2010 and any chance to return to power in 2012. Good Luck to them !
#175 Ken Dallas
Exactly.
And THREE days since Scozzafava renounced AND jumped ship.
The Conservative’s performance in these conditions must be considered a full and complete success.
Without traitors, he would have won.
Let’s get rid of the traitors and of the leftists that try to infiltrate the right to destroy it.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
TexasDude: “Human embryology textbooks for cryin’ out loud clearly state that human life, human development, starts when conception ends…”
Similar textbooks would probably state that the life of a chicken beings with fertilization or the life of a oak begins with an acorn formation (whatever that process is called.) But there is a clear difference between a new egg and a chicken, an acorn and an oak and an early term fetus and a baby. So the differences are distinguished with different names: chicken egg, oak acorn, human fetus [notice that the nouns are emphasized].
I doubt textbooks routinely imply that destroying an egg is taking a chicken life, destroying an acorn is taking an oak life, or aborting an early term fetus is taking a human life. So unless you can show otherwise, embryology textbooks don’t support your claim that it is a scientific fact that abortion is taking a human life.
Roger is correct.
Republicans can win on a fiscally spendthrift platform that also advocates for limited government. Separation of church and state is the largest issue in gay marriage. The abortion genie is out of the bottle. You can’t put it back in. However, by advocating for judges that embrace individual rights and private property rights over the government right, you will in effect begin limiting abortion in ways that society would agree with. (Banning late term abortions, parental/guardian notification under the age of 18, no public money for abortion)
Gay marriage is a battle that affects 3.5% of the population. By going along with gay marriage under the guise of the right of the individual over the right of the state-you do nothing to threaten marriage as a religious institution, you strengthen the rights of individuals over the state, and you might even get a big enough faction to switch parties as most gays are also democratic. 3.5% is big enough to win elections.
Another issue is creationism being taught in school. It should not be taught. There is no hard science behind it. Darwin has hard science behind it. Until you can apply the scientific method to creationism, it should be left to the churches, private schools, and homes to teach.
Will you lose the hard right conservatives? Great question. How big is that faction? Don’t know. But they really can’t go an caucus with Democrats. They could stay home, but I don’t think their psychological make up would dictate that they do that.
181. Sure they do. It’s just that no one makes a big deal out of it because killing a chicken or an oak is not illegal (unless it doesn’t belong to you, in which case it’s destruction of property, which is generally a civil matter). Why don’t you break some bald eagle eggs and see what happens. I bet you get arrested by the Feds for violating the Endangered Species Act.
As for gay marriage, this is not a case of government out of the bedroom. Government out of the bedroom means no laws against sodomy, save those we already have prohibiting rape and public lewdness. Gay marriage, however, goes one step further by endorsing, and not merely tolerating, these actions.
The right does not need to worry so much about why Hoffman lost, actually he did quite well…considering..
But,…WHO put Dede up for the position?????
Who else will they put in a campaign?
Why did they put her in the campaign as a Republican with her leanings? Some one got lead astray!!
What you are arguing elfman2, by your own previous admission, is not when life begins, but what value we give that life.
Why in this context, abortion, basic, sound science is eschewed for sophistry and ill-formed opinions?
By the way, Moveon.org is attempting to defeat any Democrat candidate that will not support Obamacare (TM).
You’re wrong. Social conservatism, packaged correctely, is a winning issue. See Maine and McDonnell in VA. The truth is that Hoffman isn’t an attractive (physically, verbally) candidate, and Owens is more so. Hoffman doesn’t live in the district, and he wasn’t ‘up’ on district issues. Owens was, as was Scozzafava, who endorsed the Democrat and siphoned off 6,000 votes. Finally, Hoffman was a nobody a month ago. For him to have gotten 45% of the vote is a positive for all conservatives, social or fiscal.
“The abortion genie is out of the bottle. You can’t put it back in.”
Reagan likened the battle to ending slavery.
Slavery even had ties into the Constitution (counting slaves as property and as persons). Heck, slavery’s genie on the continental US was out of the bottle long before the US was a country.
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its
strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations
of society.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/jefferson_g_01.html
“abortion equals taking a human life than breaking a fertile egg equals taking a chicken’s life.”
Abortions are the destruction of ova? Interesting.
The issue is not one of human life, as even honest pro-abortionists will concede that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life-the issue is personhood, i.e., the status of said zygote/embryo/fetus under the law. The pro-abortionists who try and argue that a fetus is not a human life are much like creationists, in that their beliefs are much more important to them than any sort of empiricism.
The viability of the GOP requires a stable marriage between social and economic conservatives.
There’s some love there, as many of us fit both descriptions.
For others it’s strictly business. “I’ll acquiesce in your agenda if you’ll acquiesce in mine.”
That means we each have to bite our tongues and not issue “put downs” against our business partners.
Roger, you make some good points but I’m afraid the truth is much more boring. A big lesson on this race is that campaigning and party support does matter. First, for all intents and purposes Doug Hoffman’s campaign was all of 30 days long. That’s not going to cut it when running for a national office. Second, the Republican Party actually ran ads against him. Third, Owens and Scozzafava were on the ballot twice each, getting support from two other fringe parties, while Hoffman’s name appeared once.
I’m a libertarian, but I can honestly say that Hoffman’s loss had little if anything to do with social conservatism and more to do with tactics and bungled party leadership.
If we insist on looking at these election results through our own ideological blinders from the wishing-well, the center-right middle will be won in 2010 by the slick marketing and MSM bias of the Democrats.
It’s a mistake to read too much into NY’23. There were a number of local factors, and the whole process was mis-handled. What it does show is that even in a conservative district, we can be vulnerable; after all, Obama won here in ’08. We’ll get it back in 2010, but this shouldn’t be viewed in any way as a model for strategy next year.
The wins in VA are very significant. In the congressional districts, 9 out of 11 went Republican; 4 of these were turnovers to the Democrats last year. So McDonnell swept nearly the entire ticket. Is he a social conservative? You bet he is. Should that have been emphasized? Definitely not. The issues now are the economy, jobs, taxes, govt takeover of health care, and cap-and-trade; McDonnell offered specific proposals on these while hammering the contrast with DC. These should be our themes next year. We can deal with abortion and gay marriage when once again in power; if we lead with that, we will lose. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Delia,
I absolutely agree with your other side of the coin commentary. Thus why I commented that wacky indoctrination should be left out of schools. I saw on a TV special that SF elementary shools show an animated video promoting/protecting tranvestites to the tune of “HE Wore an Itsy Bitsy Teeny Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. Parents are not allowed to opt out their kids from this class!
Sorry, but that’s too much public policy PC for me.
If your thesis is true, Roger, why did Maine overturn gay marriage?
By the by, it isn’t social conservatives that forcing its values on the country. It is progressive liberals who are forcing its values on everyone else. I can careless what gays do in private or whether a woman wants to kill her baby. But when you start trying to force gay marriage down my throat and have me fund a heinous act with my tax dollars then I have an issue with you.
I wish that social libertarians would finally realize who is their enemy and it is not social conservatives who actually support their position of having government “stay out of the bedroom”.
And one more thing, before I get crazies attacking me: I am more fiscally conservative than I am socially conservative, but I can be more socially conservative if people don’t leave me the F alone.
Why did he lose?
Lemmeeesee …..
The RNC poured millions into the scuzzy campaign with specific actions designed to destroy Hoffman and aid Owens.
In the waning hours, Scuzzy “quit”, threw her “supoort” to Owens, complete with robocalling (pruchased with RJNC bucks, one assumes.
In the waning hours, the RNC brough in experts to “counsel” Hoffman to make shere that at every turn he did the wrong thing.
Dang.
I have no idea why he lost. Maybe he didn’t have enough cars parked around the area with ballots in the trunk to be found as needed.
Sorry, Roger. Goy nailed it.
The establishment needs to be asking itself how a Democrat endorsed by his Republican rival can come close to losing to a third party candidate.
The answer is simply we don’t want and can’t afford what they’re selling. I’ll stop my seething here, before I’m banned.
Nice try, Roger, but I must disagree, passionately.
I scrolled down the comments section until I found just the right one, by Mr. Ogletree it happens, to illustrate my reasoning. Here it is:
“Gay marriage and abortion inspire a lot of passion, but don’t imperil the future of the republic. Creeping socialism and national bankruptcy are a clear and present danger and should be hammered on relentlessly.”
And here’s my, hopefully concise, conclusion: The only reason that “creeping socialism and national bankruptcy” pose imminent danger to our Republic is because they are the FRUITS of a century of focused effort by the left to usher in a marxist (anti-God)utopia — which has as its precondition the destruction of the family, historically the milieu in which morality, self-reliance, and respect for FOUNDING principles (natural right) are nurtured.
As the family goes, so goes the nation. Mr. Simon, someone’s morality will be dictating legislation. If it’s the so-called morality of secular humanism and the worship of the state, then this Republic is on its way out.
Contrast NY-23 (where Hoffman beat the drum on social issues), to the Virginia governors race, where Deeds entire campaign came down to attacking McDonnell as a social conservative. McDonnell wisely didn’t rise to the bait and stuck to economic issues and won by 20 points.
What’s the lesson? To my mind, for 2010 the winning strategy is for conservative to focus like a laser beam on 3-5 really big issues…things we can realistically make progress on that really need to be addressed NOW. For my money, those would all be on the economic, rather than the social side of the mix. Once we have those issues, pick the races. Don’t waste money and effort running a social conservative against Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco. It might make you feel good, but it isn’t smart. We don’t need to beat Nancy Pelosi. We need to pick off a couple dozen liberal in relatively conservative districts.
Identify conservative-leaning districts with liberal congressmen. If the liberal is a Republican, make sure he has an opponant in the primary. If the liberal is a Democrat, make sure he has a conservative running against him, either in his primary or in the general election. Ignore the liberal districts. Ignore blue-dog democrats who can be persuaded to back us up on the 3-5 key issues. Ignore (for now) gay marriage, abortion, school choice, and all the other neat issues that are not front and center to the immediate battle.
We don’t need to defeat all 435 Congressmen. We need to replace about 30-40 liberals with conservatives. Don’t worry about party labels. If we get it close, we can work on making a deal with the blue dogs for control of the house. Frankly, I think we’d probably be better off cutting a deal in a nearly evenly divided chamber to put a blue dog D in the speaker’s chair and break the seniority system for the key committee chairmanships. Build the third party AFTER the election, until then, support the most conservative candidate possible in each race and try to recruit better ones. Force primaries whenever possible. Push for non-partisan reapportionment after the 2010 census.
I think the reasons Hoffman lost were much simpler:
1. He didn’t run as a Democrat or Republican
2. He doesn’t live in the 23rd District. This may not be important to more urban districts but is in the country.
I agree with you, Roger. I think most Americans want government out of both our private lives and our wallets. We are a more libertarian country than I think people have acknowledged. The social conservativism would do well to approach their convictions (which I share) from the standpoint of “let’s keep the government OUT of it.” No federal funding for abortions (or Planned Parenthood), but not making them illegal on a federal level either. I think the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. The government should provide a means for enforcing contracts, but shouldn’t be in the business of social engineering. Leave that to churches, or other private organizations. I’d love to hear conservative candidates that respond to questions about abortion and gay marriage by saying that, no matter how they feel about it personally, the fact is that it’s none of the federal government’s business. All of those issues are the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. If we want to have control over people’s conduct in one area, we’d better not bitch when other people want control over our behavior in another.
Hoffman accomplished more as a conservative then any candidate ever. The Republican party lost the election not becuase of Hoffman. Scozzafava who was a fraud-republican was even more liberal then the Democrat. Can one trust the Republican party in area 23 putting up this candidate actually supported by the Working Party(Acorn)?
This is a significant reason for Conservatives to Rally behind conservative candidates, not retreat. The more conservative a candidate is the better they do. McCain was not a conservative and got his clock cleaned. What it shows overall with wins in NJ & VA and the showing by Hoffman is that just the opposite is true. The Democrats are way to radical. They ram radical ideas through and then say the Repubs do not have a big tent. Conservatism is truly erupting across the U.S. and its tremors & quakes look like they are rumbling all across the U.S.
I am here to propose a:
VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP FOR REASONS OF:
1.)Incompetence.
2.)Lack of vision.
3.)General ignorance of the needs of the American people.
PLEASE REPLY BACK TO THIS MESSAGE AND LETS TALK ABOUT IT!
The author is ABSOLUTELY correct. I’m a libertarian who almost always votes Republican because of economic issues (and national defense), but I will not register as a Republican because I disagree with the GOP platform on a few social issues… or, at least, to a degree. The glue that holds a GOP majority together is fiscal conservatism. The reason the party fell apart at the end of the Bush admin is because, neither, Bush nor McCain were fiscally conservative enough (since they both voted for TARP, bailouts, etc).
But this theory, that more social conservatives in Government will cure the ills of socialism and fiscal irresponsibility is disproved by George W. Bush’s presidency. I admire his, voted for his twice, am proud to have done so, and think history should look kinkly on him. But his administration contributed significantly to the creeping socialism and national bankruptcy. And he was nothing if not a social conservative. George W. Bush is clearly a social conservative and a man of solid moral character.
And yet, his adminstation ran ruinous deficts, he signed away important First Amendment rights, contributed to the expansion of faceless government bureaucracy with the creation of Homeland Security and the TSA, partnered with Ted Kennedy to increase the socialist, Godless, Liberal role of the Federal Government in our children’s education, and at the end allowed his Treasury Secretary to loot the taxpayer of a trillion dollars to bail out Wall Street cronies.
All this from a social conservative. Sure, the flaming liberals in the Obama adminstration and the Reid/Pelosi Congress are far worse, but the main point is electing staunch social conservatives is clearly not guranteed to shrink Leviathan government or roll back socailism. It just isn’t. A staunch social conservative and good man was in office for eight years and not only did none of that, he went along with Liberals in Congress who did the exact opposite.
To roll back creeping socialism and restore fiscal sanity we need to elect people who’s first priority is, surprise surprise, rolling back creeping socialism and restoring fiscal sanity. Those people don’t have to be social liberals. They don’t even have to be social moderates. What they have to be are fiscally responsible and dedicated to fiscal responsibilty and limited government.
And that’s a winning position. Hint, if you want to elect people who are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, run people who are pro-small government, pro-financial restraint, anti-political corruption. And who also happen to be social conservatives, but who run on the small government part. Let them clean up and shrink down the government, shrink the debt, remove the shadow of the socialist nanny state from our lives. If they do that, they’ll earn the trust of people on the other issues too.
Right now, social conservatives have lost that trust. No one is going to allow them to govern until they regain it. Grumble about that all you want, it is what it is. There are no quick fixes on the problems we face. A century of damage isn’t going to be fixed in a single election. We need to take a long term view and dedicate outselves to patiently restoring our Republic. It’s worth it. There is a path forward, but it doesn’t invovle suicide charges against high-profile morality issues.
Rush talked about this today and he made the point that for most of the election, Hoffman had the republican establishment against him, even running adds against him. At the last minute they come to back him and are surprised that he didn’t come out the winner. Just like Mccain, they sabotage themselves, then blame Sarah Palin, the one person who almost got Hoffman elected.
As I recall Reagan told members of his administration living unmarried with mates to “get married”. He was also vehemently opposed to abortion and the starving of babies born prematurely by hospital staff even issuing orders to prosecute those who participated in that action. Reagen was definitely a social conservative. Liberals have provided many social experiments that have failed much to the detriment of the young:Education, sexual confusion/permissiveness,
the constant and relentless push for legalizing drugs etc., etc. Responsiblity is tied inextricably to Republicanism and conservatism. Social conservatism will win when the people understand what libertinism is and how it’s been disguised as liberalism.
They wanted their pork, and Hoffman wasn’t willing to give it to them. Ironically, the 10th Mth Division, which is headquartered at Ft. Drum is heavily involved in Afghanistan, so lets see how Obamas’s actions in the latter, affect the former.
MKH wrote: Making conservatives in Texas, Utah and Kentucky cheer for Hoffman didn’t win votes in NY-23 however.
I think you hit the nail precisely on the head. Playing to your base doesn’t get the job done. You not only have to sell a message that middle America will buy, you also have to do a credible job of selling it. Perhaps a portion of the electorate is starting to get sick of all the spin and misdirection, and connect with candidates that seem real, even if they sit a little farther to the left or right of their own views.
I was Barry Goldwater in my jr. high school’s mock ’64 election, so you know where I come from (and probably how old I am.) However I’ve reached the point where I’d rather vote for someone to my left whom at least I know where the candidate stands rather than someone to my right whom I fear I can’t trust.
And Mr. Simon, thanks for posting an interesting article.
“But Scozzafava failed the teabagger purity test by supporting abortion rights and gay marriage, and thus became the target of right-wing Doug Hoffman on the Conservative Party ballot line.”
Straight from Kos himself re NY’23. And by the way, not only the MSM but Fox categorized Dede as a “moderate”. Hoffman is the “extremist.”
This is how we will always gets framed if we emphasize social positions over the core conservative principles. And if the electorate is concentrated on other concerns – as it most assuredly is now – then we will be perceived as unworthy. We will be perceived as wanting to force a social agenda rather than first dealing with the most critical issues – in the mind of the electorate – immediately at hand.
But that is the issue, isn’t it? You *want* the primary focus to be over-turning abortion and preventing gay marriage, don’t you? Why else would you make that your primary emphasis?
Thankfully, the Founders did not let religious controversies dominate their thinking or their approach – other than freedom thereof and the prohibition of forcing religious views on others.
Yes, liberals have forced their anti-family and anti-life values on the country. Through the courts, going around the people. And they were able to do that in part by painting you like Kos does above. So . . . don’t get mad, get even! Lead with the core conservative strengths, get the levers of power, and then lead (not force) the country in the right direction.
Roger is right!
I want a social conservative, even a social conservative extremist, as a friend, but not as a legistator if he is a passionate advocate for imposing his values on others.
The problem with libertarians and the Libertarian Party is that they hold an unrealistic, almost utopian, view of man and the world in which he lives.
I quote from the Libertarian Party platform: “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”
To paraphrase, in the libertarian world, a person has “sole dominion” over his life and can live any way he chooses as long as he does not “forcibly” interfere with that same right in others. To the libertarian there is no standard higher than the individual and the individual is completely free to choose his own course as long as he is willing to live with the consequences. This is the very definition of anarchy and will lead to the breakdown of civilization and culture. The individual is not a self-contained entity whose life choices only impact himself. His actions will have an impact on others even if he does not “forcibly interfere” with their personal autonomy. A dad addicted to drugs or pornography will negatively impact his family even if he carefully avoids “forcibly interfering” with their autonomy. Look at the data on single moms and the impact failed fatherhood has on children. The choices individuals make have a larger impact than just upon the individual making the choice; therefore, individuals have a responsibility to society to make the right choice. A nation of people selfishly choosing to gratify themselves will lead to the crumbling of society.
Although some individuals will choose to use their personal autonomy to do the right thing, many will not and why should they if personal freedom is the ultimate goal. Our Founding Fathers defined liberty as the ability to do the right thing not as the ability to do whatever the individual wanted. They considered that to be licentiousness. Conservatives hold with the Founding Fathers.
Conservatives are not libertarians. We want liberty but liberty as defined by the Founding Fathers. We recognize that man is flawed and must be guided by morality, tradition, and law to make the right choices. Man does not have sole dominion over his life because he was created and thus was created for a purpose. Dominion over his life belongs to God who bestowed life upon the individual.
Libertarians are not conservatives. What do they want to conserve but personal “liberty” and personal “liberty” cannot be conserved when the individual is exalted above everything else. Left to his own nature, such “liberty” will give way to licentiousness and the individual will find that his pursuit of unfettered “liberty” will have enslaved him.
Like the individual, government is a creation of God and only serves its true purpose when it submits to His headship and precepts. Only God can take away the inalienable rights of men and define reality (truth). Only God is an authority unto himself. Mr. Obama and the Democrats, in infringing on the rights of men, redefining truth, and setting themselves up as the final authority, are claiming the authority of a god. Conservatives and Libertarians can work together on these lines but a libertine society is not the solution to our larger problems.
Because Hoffman – clearly – is not a Republican.
David Thomson:
I concur with all of your conclusions, but I can’t help but wonder how much of the North Country’s (and Jefferson County, in particular) miseries are self-inflicted.
We have a summer place in Henderson, 22 miles SW of Watertown. Big issue in the town election was the opposition to a proposal by a NJ firm to build a number of wind turbines in the area. The opposition was so fierce that the company finally gave in and pulled the plug on the project.
Although my local contacts have told me otherwise, that the opposition was home-grown, over the past fifteen years I have observed that while large numbers of local young people have left the area, they have been replaced by the types that have made Vermont and Oregon what they are today: havens for hippies living in genteel poverty (at least as long as those trust fund checks keep coming in) who can afford to get “back to the earth” in their fake authenticity. Hence Bill Owens, hence state Sen. Darrel Aubertine, and (blech) hence DeDe Scozzafava.
#212 With all due respect, I knew Kipling (or read him) and you, sir, are no Kipling. You are also no Shakespeare (“Brevity is the soul of wit,” etc.)
I think that we’re over analyzing this. The Conservative candidate is awkward looking and acting and is simply not telegenic. He seemed almost goofy.
His opponant is much stronger looking and acting and in the final analysis not that far left. He was certainly to the right of the Republican dropout.
Wow, Roger – you sure stepped in it here, and predictably, the flies have gathered….
Seriously though, at the end of the day, here’s what happened: a goofy-looking guy from outside the district, who couldn’t talk his way out of a wet paper bag, ran a 30-day campaign as a 3rd-party candidate, and still got 45% of the vote in New York.
Nothing to sneeze at.
Lessons:
“Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman: “The fierce out-of-district support that Hoffman generated from grassroots conservatives caused a backlash among many voters who felt as if outsiders were meddlesome and dismissive or ignorant of myriad local issues.”
“A key moment came during a difficult editorial board meeting with the Watertown Daily News in which visiting Hoffman supporter Dick Armey, the former House Majority Leader, assured the board that “parochial” issues such as federal funding for Fort Drum or repair of the Champlain Bridge to Canada shouldn’t matter in the race. The newspaper responded with a scathing editorial against Mr. Hoffman that deplored the criticism Hoffman supporters had heaped on Ms. Scozzafava, a popular local state legislator.”
Many of the above posts, no offense meant, are nonsense. A “big tent” doesn’t mean everyone being the same, doesn’t mean passing narrow litmus tests, it means sharing the same fundamental principles – which happen to be those which the country was founded on, no more, no less.
And by the way, the Founders focus was on creating a system that would protect individual liberty, without establishment of religion, thank you very much. Social value issues should be determined at the local and state levels, to the extent that govt should even get involved in such – that is what the Founders designed.
In-fighting over conservative vs libertarian around social issues will only condemn the Republican Party to oblivion, and with it, the country.
Cris Bolts Sr. wrote, “But when you start trying to force gay marriage down my throat and have me fund a heinous act with my tax dollars then I have an issue with you.”
Down your throat? How’s that?
TexasDude:
What you are arguing elfman2, by your own previous admission, is not when life begins, but what value we give that life.
Not at all. I’m arguing against your claim that calling abortion “the taking of a human life” is a “scientific fact”.
The only fact is that it’s killing a human embryo or fetus. The humanness of an embryo or fetus is as philosophical as the acorn/oak and egg/chicken example I mentioned, not scientific. Promoting one religious/ideologically charged opinion of that as a scientific fact after being shown why it’s not is “sophistry” as you say.
MKH (#27) has it right. If Doug Hoffman had been a little bit more astute on the local issues, he would have won. His unwillingness to talk about things like the St. Lawrence Seaway cost him the endorsement of the region’s most important newspaper, the Watertown Daily Times. The paper went for Owens. Its criticism was also picked up by others, and the Owens campaign capitalized on it to the max. If the paper had advocated for Hoffman instead of Owens, at least 2500 votes would have swung Hoffman’s way, and we would be celebrating.
Alternatively, if Hoffman looked and spoke like Bob McDonnell instead of a CPA, he would have won even without help from the local publishers.
Nevertheless, in terms of the distance Hoffman’s campaign gained in just a month, against all sorts of negatives, it was a great success.
Roger,
I disagree with your premise.
Prolife conservatives are the vast bulk of those American citizens who oppose big government and civil hedonism.
If we as a people are so self-indulgent and narcissistic to devour our own children by killing the weakest and most vulnerable of our race in order to comfort ourselves with material excess then we are doomed to lose our liberty. To live free we must struggle to be virtuous people. If we don’t or can’t do that we will lose our great nation of ordered liberty.
Your analysis is fundamentally lacking in recognition of the truth that we are bound to be morally just in order to be free. Killing the least and most defenseless among us is a fundamental social evil.
It is no coincidence that our political and cultural decline has accelerated exponentially during the age of abortion and pornography.
gkerr fort scott kansas
Roger L. Simon writes:
“Your faith and values may not be the same as mine (maybe they are – who knows?). But I don’t want to take those judgements into the public arena. Leave it to the priests, rabbis and whatever.”
Your definition of social conservative is really narrow. You would do better to call your position “personal conservative.”
Your memories of Reagan have faded more than you know, or maybe they are just selective. Don’t you remember Reagan’s visit to Bob Jones University and his personal and lengthy fight for tax-free status for a university that refused admission to blacks. He did that while he was president. Now, that is social conservatism. Know anybody today who would have the balls to do something similar? I didn’t think so. Something has been lost. You need to think about it.
There are three problems with this theory:
- Being against gay marriage IS the government staying out of your life, as the government doesn’t have to do anything to keep gay marriage from happening. It’s already defined out of our concept of marriage.
- Most of America is against gay marriage.
- And even if Hoffman is against gay marriage, that’s ultimately meaningless: it would be decided by the voters. The sad thing for proponents is that every time it has come to a vote, they have lost – which is why they want to cheat and force it.
The real reasons Hoffman lost were that the race was confusing, the ‘Republican’ muddied the water (which is what she intended to do), and people didn’t know Hoffman well enough. It’s not difficult to decipher.
Ratatosk:”If I can choose a fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidate, I will. If I can’t, I’ll pick the socially liberal candidate, because fiscal policy seems to be a joke from either side of the coin.”
This makes no sense. Obviously, both parties have screwed the pooch on fiscal conservatism, yet this time around and in future elections there will inevitably be a decision between “flawed” and “scary” on fiscal matters. Certainly most of us here want someone who really gets what limited government means. But the difference we usually see can actually affect people’s lives at all income brackets (eg, small business yields 2/3 of the new jobs, including jobs to those in lower brackets). If you are, as you claim to be, really a fiscal con, they you’d understand this, and therefore also understand that voting for the super-lib who is massively fiscally liberal is a huge price to pay for getting a social lib in there.
216. Keith MacRae:
“I think that we’re over analyzing this.”
Gee, ya think?
I don’t want any cons. No matter what kind.
“I’m with you, artark. No “cons,” no “ives,” no “ials,” no “ians”. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I wouldn’t join a club that he would have me as a member.
“Prolife conservatives are the vast bulk of those American citizens who oppose big government . . . ”
Wrong, when big govt goes awry as it usually does and certainly is now. You fail to include independents, which are a larger block than either conservatives or liberals. It is independents that now decide elections in this country, more and more so. It is independents that swung hard last night, and it sure wasn’t because of social issues. If you cannot win over independents, regardless of how righteous your values or views, you will lose.
An interesting note from Pat Cadell, long-time Democratic strategist and pollster:
“What we’re seeing is the suburbs that drifted away from Republicans in the 1990s over social issues, and were even further estranged by the economic strains of the last few years, are coming back to” the GOP.
Hold your high ideals strong in your hearts, and insist that those you help elect use those to govern. But to get the opportunity to do so, you must first win the confidence of independents, and the reality is that campaigning (as opposed to governing) on social issues will not do so. That is the bottom line, period.
I really think the problem stems not from Republicans Socially Conservative views but rather their focus on such issues on the national stage.
There is not a real constitutional role for Congress on most social issues. When Republicans campaign on small government, government reform, strong national defense they win.
The real issue with the Northeastern states is that every Republican elected promises fiscal conservatism and limited government but in office they are the ones who support the convoluted spending bills, unions, exc. The fiscal conservative, socially liberal moderate is the biggest myth of any demographic.
Conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1. Self Identified moderates tend to have views that tilt right toward limited government. Yet the GOP keeps losing because they so often put social issues in the forefront while at the same time conservative and moderate Republicans alike expand government and spending and support Democrat’s socialist positions.
National candidates simply need to focus on their libertarian side and then walk the walk and they will be fine.
Let’s be clear that Hoffman was hobbled in more ways than just his alleged fixation on social conservatism. Not only an uncommonly incoherent candidate who got a very late start, he was not even a resident of the district and certainly was not helped by Scozzafava’s endorsement of his opponent. Accordingly, I cannot buy your analysis that social conservatism derailed an otherwise promising candidacy. It was, in fact, an incredibly unpromising candidacy.
What it did accomplish was keeping a candidate who would have been an embarrassment out of Congress. She was the stuff of which phony “bipartisanship” claims are fabricated…more liberal than her Democratic opponent. And this liberalism is not limited to social issues: she is out of step on stimulus, healthcare and card check. No, both the Republican Party and the residents of NY-23 will be far better served by a blue dog Democrat who will toe a careful line to avoid being a one year wonder.
Challenge all you want, but my view is not based on anything religious.
Religion will get you that a human is human after the soul enters the body. That argument was used as a supporting argument in Roe v. Wade.
Nope, I’ll use basic science.
I am not going to the research for you, look up William J.Larsen’s textbook, heck the cover should dispel any your ill-informed notion (thing is, dogma a lot times trump truth) …
That is just one human embryology textbook that demonstrates just how human a fertilized egg is.
But, really, your acorn/egg to tree/chicken analogy is truly atrocious and very, very wrong.
An oak tree is not a human. A chicken is not human. You can’t use this comparison with honesty unless you are into genocide and cannibalism. You see, we easily eat the chicken, the egg,and the acorn, but not the human.
That is the value thing that was referenced above by another poster and by Reagan. You don’t value human life in it’s most earliest stages of development. Why in the world should we expect you to value human life in a more advanced stage, say 2 years of age or even 80 years of age, when you refuse to value it at it’s most earlist?
But, let’s put that aside. What is an oak tree? Isn’t the normal connotation a mature oak tree? What is a human? Well, by your definition that means anything from a child to the aged, but not the unborn. What about saplings? Are they oak trees or just advanced acorns? If the analagy is to hold, then the sapling must be an oak tree, just as the acorn is an oak tree. Thusly, a human being is a zygote, a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a child, a pre-teen, a teen, and an adult. If you want to say a sapling is not an oak tree, then a baby, a toddler, a child, a pre-teen and a teen are not humans.
A human is a human no matter what stage of development the human is in. Basic science, basic reasoning.
I can’t believe it .. someone finally agrees with my assessment! One candidate campaigned on jobs, the economy, the dangers of the debt, anti taxes and against the public option in Obamacare. The Conservative hammered that scazza favored federally funded abortions, gay marriage,and was endorsed by the unions and ACORN.
I also think the locals didn’t like the heavy handed way we did this. Outsiders came in and told them their candidate didn’t have enough values. Outside money poured in. A lot of people threw their votes away, voting for Scazza .. and I suspect it was a protest vote. “How dare you come in here and tell us who we should vote for!”
Since last night I’ve seen comments similar to Wally’s at both Ace of Spades and Ann Althouse from voters lving in or adjacent to NY-23. Hoffman wasn’t addressing local concerns and didn’t come across as well as the Democrat both in person and on the TV ads.
I read early on- at NRO online, I think -that one reason Republican county chairs had given the nod to Scozzafava was that when they queried Hoffman on local issues during the candidate interviews, he wasn’t prepared to answer and acted like such issues didn’t really belong in a Congressional race.
Many voters tend to care more about fixing a problem than the niceties of federalism. Even if a candidate doesn’t believe the issue should be addressed at the federal level, they still have to appear knowledgeable about the problem and offer alternative solutions.
Wished I’d seen this earlier, really bears on this discussion . . .
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/north_and_south_in_the_republi.php
@232
Excellent post. Expect it to fall on deaf ears though, pro-abortion ideology isn’t based on anything that can be verified in the objective world, only in ideas taken to the extremes of abstraction.
So I guess to the fiscal con/social lib crowd here ,Ms. Scuzzyflava (sorry couldn’t resist) was a perfectly acceptable candidate. Whatever Hoffman’s flaws and shortcomings, he at least articulated principles. What is the point of electing “Republicans” who vote with the Dhimmicrats on their socialist big government agenda? How many more Spectors,Snowes, etc. will it take before the GOP realizes how marginalized it has made itself. I say this to you party geniuses, be careful what you wish for; you might get it. Without the social conservatives, the GOP tent is a pup tent. Hope you enjoy the next 40 years in the wilderness. I’m sure the prophet Gingrich will lead you to the Promised Land.
I agree with Rush…Palin almost got Hoffman elected, despite the Republican/demo party putting negative ads out about him.
At least she had some common sense.
Scuzzy was not looked at very well (politically) by the people that put her up…or was she?
Argus to Peter the Bubblehead:
I did not mean to infer that child rearing is the only reason for marriage. Nevertheless, it’s the essential reason through 12,000 years of civilization and probably an additional 50,000 years of prehistory. Variations on the theme do exist; some work better than others. Extended families add a support system for the married couple. That’s a good thing. Polygamy as practiced in Muslim societies creates competition in the harem, sometimes resulting in murder as wives scheme in favor of their male offspring. Not good.
What you have with your wife is yours, and I make no criticisms. Companionship, emotional support, friendship, business partnerships, they’re all good in my book. May you and yours find the fulfillment you seek. Nevertheless, your personal reasons are entirely secondary to the needs of society at large. Child rearing is the prime reason (primal, if you prefer) for marriage. On this point I will not back down. You can choose not to procreate. In this day and age it’s optional. But I would ask you as a conservative to support marriage as the best option for those who do procreate.
When liberals trot out the line “we’re doing it for the children,” my response is “oh, you mean marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising properly socialized and psychologically healthy children?” No one yet has been able to convince me that the so-called alternatives are better. My personal experience informs me the alternatives are almost always worse.
Go your way, sir, and enjoy your life with my blessings. But think deeply on what I have said.
My take on NY-23rd is this; it was a bad pick by the the local GOP and since there isn’t any primary, it left open the only opportunity for Hoffman (who was the better candidate for the GOP) to run as an independent. This pitted the “Traditional GOP” (local GOP, NRCC & RNC) to back an otherwise weak candidate, which left a vacum for a more conservative candidate in Hoffman, who was supported by “out of towners/non-locals/carpetbaggers” (I may add, I fully supported Hoffman as a lifelong conservative). This in turn ticked off the local electorate which gave Owens the victory. I certainly hope that in the future, in lieu of a primary in NY, the vetting process for candidates is more rigorous than what we saw here.
While I agree with the Roger, like any complicated situation there are multiple causes, and multiple lessons. One cause that cannot be left out of the equation is that local Republicans nominated someone so far to the left they actually endorsed the Democratic candidate over the independent. From a Republican perspective her endorsement meant a double loss, not only did their candidate loose, but the opposition gained another seat (as opposed to an independent who would be more likely to side with Republicans). One lesson here is for Newt Gingrich who asked conservatives to show loyalty to the Republican party when the candidate he endorsed didn’t even show it. The other is for the Republican party where the message is: if you continue to run candidates who want to substitute government control for individual choice in a country which prizes it’s liberty and freedom you will continue to hand victory to the opposition party.
I disagree that Americans are not “socially conservative” as regards gays.
“Hoffman’s … campaign, however, tried to separate itself from the majority parties by making a big deal of the social issues. He was upset that Scozzafava was pro-gay marriage…”
Hoffman is not the one making a “big deal” of social issues. The gays are.
I don’t want to know what your sex life is like. Why should I? I am not a voyeur and I am not a cop.
But gays WANT to make this a public issue. They want to say “I’m Gay!” in the workplace, in school, in every facet of public life. They want to pervert the very definition and meaning of the word “marriage.” This word has had one definition for the last 2000 years.
So tell the gays to get out of my face.
Not too many other people like it, either, the gays making their sex life a public issue – they’re 0 for 31 so far when a state puts “gay marriage” on the ballot.
If gays want to be “married,” fine.
But don’t call it “marriage.” Don’t desecrate the Christian Church.
Call it “gay partnership,” call it “same sex togetherness” call it Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer, but don’t call it “marriage” because it is not “marriage.”
TexasDude: I am not going to the research for you
You made a claim that a philosophical argument is scientific. I suggested that it was absurd with the acorn/egg example. You didn’t address it, just repeated your claim and now refuse to support it. If that’s what you think is a persuasive argument, I’ll leave you alone.
An oak tree is not a human. A chicken is not human.
Right, and did you notice that an acorn or an egg may not be either of them? Did you notice that was the analogy or did you just assumed that I was saying killing acorns or eggs was like abortion?
You can’t use this comparison with honesty unless you are into genocide and cannibalism. You see, we easily eat the chicken, the egg,and the acorn, but not the human.
Guess that answers my last question…
But, let’s put that aside. What is an oak tree? Isn’t the normal connotation a mature oak tree? What is a human? Well, by your definition that means anything from a child to the aged, but not the unborn. What about saplings? Are they oak trees or just advanced acorns? If the analogy is to hold, then the sapling must be an oak tree, just as the acorn is an oak tree. Thusly, a human being is a zygote, a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a child, a pre-teen, a teen, and an adult. If you want to say a sapling is not an oak tree, then a baby, a toddler, a child, a pre-teen and a teen are not humans.
A human is a human no matter what stage of development the human is in. Basic science, basic reasoning.
OMG! You actually focused on our original discussion! Was that so hard??? All this floundering about with accusations of ignorance and sophistry could have been avoided if you just went there first. Okay, let’s begin….
Unlike a sapling, an acorn bares little resemblance to an oak tree. It survives by feeding off a gift from its parent rather than through photosynthesis. Unlike a sapling, it bares little if any resemblance to a tree. No one I’m aware of refers to an acorn as an oak tree, but saplings may be called trees. If I made a bet with you that my dog cold eat a tree and I pulled out a sapling, you might laugh and agree that I got you. If I pulled out an acorn, you’d probably just deny it was a tree and demand your money. You’d probably be right.
But maybe in a sense an acorn is an oak tree and an early cluster of dividing stem cells is a human. In both examples, they share DNA of a common species, but not the same taxonomy characteristics of the family they supposedly belong to. Hmmm… it’s a question of identity. What makes them similar, what distinguishes them and how do you weigh those similarities and differences? That’s not completely science. It includes opinions largely based on one’s epistemology, and in the case of embryos – largely influenced by morality/(religion) and politics. So neither of those claims are a scientific fact.
That’s my only reason for correcting you TexasDude. I’m not challenging what I presume is your belief that early abortion is murder (although I don’t share it), just your claim that your belief is scientific.
I am a NY-23 resident. It is not particularly conservative or ideological district. The Republican candidate was selected by 11 County Republican chairs. Mr. Hoffman went through the process too and was not picked. At first he agreed to back Dede Scozzafava, the reneged, bolted the Republican party and to run on the conservative line. Those who criticize Dede for later not backing Mr. Hoffman and backing the candidate of another party need to hold Mr. HOffman, Mr. Pataki, Sarah Palin and others to the same standard. Dede is well within the mainstream of the Republican party in our district and our state. She was selected for being a whip in the NY Assembly and her 10 years of Legislative experience. In a two way race with Bill Owen, she would have won with 60% of the vote just like John McHugh.
244. Fairbro:
But don’t call it “marriage.” Don’t desecrate the Christian Church.
Divorce is a larger threat against “traditional “marriage and yet I don’t think you care as much about divorce as you care about gay marriage.
Dennis#229,
Yes independents may outnumber both Republicans and Democrats. However don’t think that all pro lifers are Republican -they aren’t and don’t think that most Independents are for limited government and social liberalism-they aren’t.
I am a traditionalist conservative, but even though from kansas, don’t belong to either party and haven’t for 20+ years. The vast majority of conservatives I know are religious social conservatives who are Independents as well. Most conservatives don’t trust government and don’t trust Washington elites of either party. Most Republican politicians in DC are very compromised by the spoils system and cannot be trusted on either the social or fiscal front.
The upshot is this. Politicians as a class are fickle and slick- Republicans and Dems(more so) both. Therein lies the importance of Independents remaining independent so as to vote against the fickle and slick as they reveal themselves.
Remain Independent and vote for virtuous people that is the only way to get the best out of this City of Man we call America.
Tadpole’s dead-on with the analysis @241. There WAS resentment of Hoffman for the fact he didn’t live there (tho’ he has business interests in the district) and it’s quite true that others from out-of-state were seen as interfering with their election.
But Mr. Simon couldn’t be more mistaken about what happened there yesterday & more off-base in the utterly mystifying conclusions he draws.
As MKH @27 and Steve @ 128 have already pointed out upthread, the Representative [McHugh] whom all three of these candidates were trying to replace was a rock-solid social conservative, with a 100% pro-life rating, who’s been easily re-elected time & again in that district since 1992 with voting percentages in the upper 60′s BECAUSE he was a pro-life SoCon in a pro-life SoCon (Catholic) district.
Voters there had a choice between 1) A Republican candidate ‘chosen’ for them by a crazy cabal of GOP county chairs (for reasons only their crack dealers can probably explain) whose social & abortion views were wildly out of synch with the local voters’ own majority so-con pro-life views and whose support started sinking like a stone once the public there became familiar with her ultra-’progressive’ positions, and 2) a more conservative Blue Dog-style democrat & finally 3) a more acceptably socially & fiscally conservative independant who nonetheless did not live in the district & showed some ignorance about local issues during the campaign.
The electorate ended up just barely giving the homegrown Bluish Dog Dem the nod over the SoCon ‘carpetbagger’ for what everybody understood as they pulled the lever was only a 10-month job anyway, so Mr.Simon’s ‘solution’ is that Republicans should run another candidate like Dede Scozzfava there next time?
Huh?
LOL!
How about instead the nutty NY GOP & national social conservatives and fiscal conservatives just let that district select their OWN damn candidate next time? I guarantee you Mr. Simon, if they get that chance to replace McHugh themselves, that candidate will be pro-life.
Listen, I’m more laissez-faire about civil unions for gays (actually I’d prefer to see the government out of the marriage business entirely)and consider myself a pragmatic conservative, although I am pro-life (It ain’t a ‘bedroom issue’, hon, it’s a civil rights issue). Still, I’m only too painfully aware that we NEED coalitions of factions willing to compromise for any of the conservative agenda to have the chance to prevail.
But for anti-So-Cons-fisc-cons to say yesterday’s results means Social Conservatism is poison based on NY 23 is INSANE! The exact OPPOSITE lesson needs to be drawn in that particular (albeit demographically somewhat unusual) district, for pete’s sake.
And hey, as long as we’re drawing wacked-out conclusions from yesterday, let’s just TOTALLY ignore the defeat of gay marriage in liberal Maine, why don’t we? We certainly wouldn’t want that contrary indicator to interfere with Mr. Simon’s threadbare thesis here, either.
Give me a Break! The RNC and “official” party spent a lot of money AGAINST Hoffman until 3 days before the election! After their “loyal Republican” candidate dropped out, they said “we support Hoffman”. This is typical – supporting a lousey candidate that is no different than the Democrat, because he or she is a “Republican” instead of a good candidate that really believes in conservative fiscal and social ideals! If there is no ideological difference in the candidates, party does not matter. A Liberal is a Liberal regardless of pary affiliation.
Well you may have a point about the whole social conservative deal but then how does Maine’s OK to blow doobs but not dudes vote fit in?
It was not social issues that made the difference, rural Americans are pretty socially conservative. It was a crummy candidate that was put out there initially, who had no business running as a Republican. She waited too long to back out and ended up on the ballot where she got enough votes to sink Hoffman (straight ticket voters or absentees voting in advance perhaps?).
Hoffman had to come from nowhere and was not an experienced candidate. He was not well spoken and not very telegenic. He was a nice guy who was right on this issues and he got REAL close. His opponent is a pro-gun, anti-public option candidate who seemed comfortable running, hardly a lefty or social liberal.
There is this tendency for certain people to want to downplay social issues because they think they are losers, but the fact that traditional marriage is winning at the ballot box everywhere it is up for a vote says something about traditional values. What the libertarian types fail to acknowledge is that many societal problems begin with social problems. Unwed mothers, the breakdown of the family, promiscuity, crime, drug use, have all been devastating to the fabric of this nation.
Take any major domestic issue and follow it back to the root cause and you realize that social issues matter greatly. Hispanics and African Americans are quite conservative on social issues as well, these issues are not losers, they matter.
Roger, once again I find that you have posted my thoughts.
The Republicans need to focus more on fiscal conservatism and less on social conservatism in order to win. Some people don’t care about winning, they only care about being right.
To A.N. Pierson @215: Brevity can be the soul of wit or it can mirror the fact that you have nothing constructive to say and have not thought deeply about the issues at hand. Which is it with your post at 215?
So what is your favorite writings by Kipling? Do you go for the poetry, the short stories, or the longer works of fiction?
Would you care to elaborate on where exactly Kipling and I would disagree? Shakespeare? I can assure you they were not libertarians.
The assertion that Republicans should avoid social conservative issues – abortion, gay marriage, etc. – “like the plague” is dead wrong, both politically and morally.
Politically, public opinion now favors the social conservative position on these issues. More than 50% of Americans favor the pro-life position and over 80% favor protecting traditional marriage. Just because the main stream media and the Democrats attempt to use these positions against Republican candidates is no reason to go silent on the issue. Instead, Republican candidates should be taught how to respond to these media interrogations by presenting not only the moral argument for these positions but the conservative and constitutional argument as well.
In addition, the social conservative position on abortion and gay marriage is just the bridge we need to reach out to African Americans and Hispanics. African Americans provided the votes to pass Prop 8 in California and they consistently disagree with their party and Mr. Obama on the issue. Hispanics are overwhelmingly Catholic and pro-life. Here are two issues that will gain us traction with traditional Democratic voting blocs. Why would we want to go silent on the very issues that may win us the minority votes everyone claims to want?
Morally, it is reprehensible to ignore the murder of unborn children for political expediency. Social conservatives have consistently pushed the GOP to victory since Nixon and we have received little in return. Abortion is still legal and gay marriage is now on the liberal wish list. How long will conservatives stay apart of the GOP when it fails to honor their wishes? Where will they go you might ask? They may just drop out all together rather than support or simply turn a blind eye to evil. After all, what is a higher utility bill compared to the life of a child?
I also think you commit a grave error when you separate the economic and security issues from social conservative issues. A government that can kill the unwanted and redefine the oldest tradition known to man is a government that has no problem with cap and trade or socialism. What is taking over a car company compared to redefining social institutions and determining who lives and who dies?
One final question, would you fiscal conservatives be okay with the death panels and rationing if these practices made the current health care bill revenue neutral?
Roger – Hoffie ran as a conservative against the Repub and Dem parties without name recognition or party endorsement and almost won!! Remember, Dede got the millions to spend…. I won’t necessarily disagree with your comments about the social side of things, but…. Anything seems to be better than the establishment pols – from either party. For the first time I heartily endorse term limits. Establishment should not describe our reps.
Have a good one everybody!!
Not to divert the current discussion,
Anyone else remember the day the +17 poll appeared?
I cynicly wonder what effect this poll had, if any, on the grassroots mobilizing that had been swelling last week?
Regardless the answer… well, you see the tactic. With so few polls, its not super crazy.
I am still under impression that the electorate heard extensive use of ‘carpetbagger’ in the final few days. And given that proven vulnerability, it’s seems logical that ‘grassroots’ anything would have been pointless.
That being said, I wouldn’t put it past axelRahm to have made that phone call too. God knows they weren’t laying in bed at night thinking about the soldiers they have hanging out to dry in a foreign land.
–
I found myself just now again disturbed by my own cynicism. Such unredeeming thoughts and you know who I hold responsible. The one thing this administration is sure to do is to breed distrust. And what about those who have better things to do than process through this cr@p?
Eventually they WILL give up. A stewardship defered.
There is a saturation point now and it might be useful to pay special attention to pace. Hey, come to think of it, anyone follow rush over past months…
The natural leaders of the R party are Social Conservatives. Think back to our Party Founder, Abraham Lincoln, who was elected to deal with the divisive social issue of the day, the notion that certain people (slavers, pregnant women) could use other people (blacks, babies) as property.
The ‘clever’ folks of the day, the businesslike twerps, the Whigs tried to dodge the Great Issue of the Day. Now they’re a trivial pursuit question. The Republicans can join them.
I know a NJ guy who probably would vote Dem sometimes, but he’s against abortion.
Right now, we have to admit millions of illegal immigrants to destabilize our society because we’ve murdered tens of millions of our children. That is a threat to the Republic.
This notion that some morality being enforced (like private contracts, and freedom) is ok, but other morality being enforced (like the right to life) is not a matter of choosing the morality you want to support is not correct.
I could go on, and on, and on. This is so stupid it requires ten thousand words of rebuttal. Suffice it to say that the proper response to this is ‘talk to the hand’.
It is an outrage that articles like this, that have been so thorougly rebutted in the past, are wasting everyone’s time. You insult the intelligence of your readers with this propaganda, Mr. Simon.
Kipling: “One final question, would you fiscal conservatives be okay with the death panels and rationing if these practices made the current health care bill revenue neutral?”
I have no problem with “death panels” and rationing on my private plan. As a “fiscal conservative”, I understand that it’s not the rationing, it’s that no one has the right to determine what medical care I can contract and pay for.
To elfman2 @251: So you do have a problem with rationing and death panels on your private plan because “no one has the right to determine what medical care I can contract and pay for.” Rationing and death panels make that choice for you. The question is not what you can contract and pay for but whether the resources, as allocated by the state, will be available.
Not to speak for anyone, I don’t claim any colors. But I felt compelled to respond to this question:
“would you fiscal conservatives be okay with the death panels and rationing if these practices made the current health care bill revenue neutral?”
No. In fact, I am offended by the question.
The federal budget has nothing on our humanity. Not going into it right now but, start with the idea of how we can not ‘get’ more than we produce.
These ideas will always evoke a rebelious spirit.
If this was asked of Jesus, I think he would puke.
A couple of thoughts on the subject:
#1 Institutional Republican support for Hoffman was tepid at best. The Fulton County Republican Women’s Club for example publicly endorsed Scozzafava on October 21, long after her extreme liberal stand on every subject save gun control had been exposed. In fact, as late as Saturday October 31st, the Chairwoman of the Fulton County Republican Committee in a letter to the editor was urging readers to “Vote Row B, and together we will move forward to a brighter future…”
To an extent the action or inaction of the party leaders is understandable. No one likes to be second guessed or be publicly denounced as a complete screw-up. When it happens, it is human nature to either “double down” or sulk in a corner while giving lip service to having seen the error of our ways. It is my belief, that the bulk of the Republican establishment choose this second alternative.
#2 Democrat operatives did an excellent job of making this a race that turned on scaring the bejesus out of the elderly (Hoffman and his outsider friends want to take away your Social Security) and the socially conservative issues as opposed to conservative fiscal issues.
The 23rd is traditionally fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal. Counties within the district have had the highest or nearly the highest rates of illegitimacy and venereal disease in the state of New York for years. Folks up here like their sexual freedom. A conservative who wishes to win needs to tread lightly on the social angle and pound away on the issues that do him the most good – jobs, guns, taxes and limited government. (It is not necessary to compromise one’s principles, but neither is in necessary to nail them to your forehead.)
Lastly, Hoffman is a nice guy but a frail reed. There is no question that his heart and mind are in the right place but his inability to articulate his position was his downfall. Sarah, Fred and all the others can carry a candidate just so far, at some point the individual must stand on their own feet. If you can’t comfortably speak for yourself in your own district, people are bound to wonder how you can effectively speak for the district once you arrive in Washington.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp
Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions – October 1798
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol23.html
Letters of delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 23, November 7
1785-November 5 1786
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Records_of_the_Federal_Convention_of_1787
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html
“Resistance to Civil Government”
By Henry David Thoreau, 1849
Read. Learn. Do.
Right on the button. But I think Owens is a half-term incumbent. A year hence, he’ll be gone.
Triple dittos to Kipling, and Jayker as well.
But sad to say, most of you have been brainwashed by a hedonistic, atheistic, and blasphemous culture. Moreover, your libertarian views seem quite the vogue in such surroundings, don’t they, and you are praised for your PC approval of license.
Not so our Founders, as Kipling reminds us. To the Founders, our present-day libertarians and liberals would be seen as men without honor and therefore easily corrupted by the vices of human nature — in short, not men to whom the pledge of their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor would hold any appeal.
When you libertarians want to push conservatives to the sidelines, complaining about not wanting government to be used by them to impose their morality on YOU personally, you merely betray your ignorance about what it took to make this grand experiment in government a reality in the first place.
And you personally are responsible for this nation’s decline as you turn a deaf ear to what is good and prefer to have your itching ears scratched by miscreants only too happy to lead you and “this Republic, if you can keep it” down the garden path to the dumpster.
Conservatives are not the extremists. We’re the normal ones — all you others are the radical despoilers — and I’m sick and tired of your attempt at trying to marginalize and demean us.
It’s not philosophical when human life begins. It’s not a religious question either. It is a scientific fact when human life begins.
http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0721694128
“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male.
…
Although most development changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood.
…
Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in changed environment.”
- “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology”, 7th Edition, 2003, Keith Moore and T.V.M. Persuad
That’s from page 2!
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Embryology-William-J-Larsen/dp/0443065837
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual”
- “Human Embyology”, 2001, William J. Larsen
There are more, but why bother. You will ignore factual evidence and rely on your faith. Yes, elfman2, you are relying on faith and nothing more. It is with faith that you assert what you do. You don’t have any underpinnings other than a belief.
The argument has been, as Reagan clearly stated, NOT about when life begins, BUT how we value that life!
In response to: “would you fiscal conservatives be okay with the death panels and rationing if these practices made the current health care bill revenue neutral?”
Never. When Im old and sick I dont want to have to worry about Congress’ self-control in addition to my own. Mine, I at least have some say over.
I may be out of the loop, but is Christianity ok with rationing?
Here’s a bit more of that philisophical evidence …
(eyes rolling in heavy duty sarcasm)
http://64.106.143.169/collections/hdac/anatomy.htm
“The first eight weeks of human development are called the embryological period. After eight weeks the embryo becomes a fetus, and after birth a neo-nate.”
- National Museum of Health and Medicine, an element of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology on the campus of the Walter Reed
Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
Human development is a continuous process that ONLY begins after fertilization (conception). THAT is the starting point of human life. There is no way around that scientific fact.
The issue you bring up, elfman2, is what VALUE you want to give this new human life.
Someone else above state that you need to be honest about your position and I agree.
Even Aristotle understood that a pregnant woman was carrying a human being and not just a bunch of cells destined to be human at some magical point …
“As to Man’s growth, first within his mother’s womb and afterward to old age, the course of nature, in so far as man is specially concerned, is after the following manner.”
- Aristotle, Historia Animalium, Book VII, Part 1
HELLO, McFly! We have known for a very long time when human life begins. We know it now. It is not a philosophical question, but a question of scientific, medical fact!
Why have I gone on this long about human development and abortion?
I haven’t proved anything for it is has already been proved long ago that abortion is the destruction/killing of human life be it natural or by man.
That’s not why I have carried on this long. It is also not due to arguing for arguing sake.
My harping on this one social issue, abortion, more than anything else was to demonstrate why it is foolish to not only diminish social conservatives or opponents of abortion, but foolish to diminish, deny, or attempt to hide what is actually going on.
Social conservatives are concerned about religion, but as I have proved don’t have to use religious beliefs to back up other concerns such as abortion!
To Distraught @ 253 and 259: I think you may misunderstand my point in asking the question. I in no way meant to imply that I approve of rationing or death panels or to imply that Christianity approved of them. I asked the questions because, as I read through the thread, people who claimed to be fiscal conservatives argued that the Republican Party should abandon the social conservative issues and focus on the fiscal issues. The question, and the offense it provoked, was designed to show that to separate the two is impossible. Balancing the bottom line is hardly the greatest good.
When a government can kill innocent life in the name of choice and/or cost prevention or when it can redefine one of the oldest social institutions known to man (marriage), then it is not a limited government. Fiscal restraint is not the only definition of a limited government.
Kipling:
I think I understood. Probably just bad at explaining. elfman2′s answer @ 260 said it it better than I.
Forgive me for not reading far enough up to understand your general argument, and at the risk of mis-understanding completely, I’ll throw out a response to your later question too:
261. Kipling:”So you do have a problem with rationing and death panels on your private plan because “no one has the right to determine what medical care I can contract and pay for.”
I do not have a problem with that because if something agregious happened I could take my business elsewhere.
If something agregious happens in a universal governement plan, not only is there no other option, you can’t even sue them.
Exactly!@138: Exactly!
TexasDude: Your entire argument is based on your belief that a human life is more precious than the life of a chicken, egg, acorn, oak or any other living being on the planet. That is fundamentally a religious belief.
Delia: The paper you cited (PLOS Medicine, Feb 2009) utilized human neural stem cells not human embryonic stem cells. Please educate yourself about the two distinctly different cell types before drawing anymore erroneous conclusions.
The only difference between the two of you and the Taliban is the God you choose to worship. I do, indeed, want government out of my wallet and my bedroom. But more so than anything else, I want your God out of my government!
“The only difference between the two of you and the Taliban is the God you choose to worship.”
realitycheq, the Taliban shoot women in the streets and put lye in the eyes of schoolgirls. You take my breath away that is such a despicable statement. I almost never ban people from my site, so I invite you to refrain from such hideous ad hominems in the future. And I happen to be an agnostic.
Maybe the social conservatives are politically anathema (esp on east coast). However, to the extent that a segment of the GOP abandoned their party to vote for Obama, I’d wager it was the fiscal conservatives more than the social conservatives. Consider, the role of Wall St in Obama’s election…and it wasn’t only Wall St among the business community than broke ranks.
I believe it is Buddhism that makes a point that ALL life is sacred.
I have not a quibble with that kind of thinking. Matter of fact, that would mean abortion would be considered wrong no matter the rationalization.
I am no way saying that my religious/moral beliefs should be imposed on you, but at some point we all should be able to agree on some basic principles especially if they are backed up by science, by observing our natural world, by seeing repeatable events, and by coming to some kind of conclusion due to the same.
That is the scientific method, my man, and that has occurred long ago about the question of when human life begins.
I don’t agree with everything about social conservatism. Things like creationism is not backed by science, but backed by many a social conservative. However, many a cause that a social conservative feels strongly about so do I.
At one time I considered myself a liberal, a Democrat. I come from a heavily Democrat family. My uncle, who not long ago died, marched with Ceasar Chavez, knew Jimmy Hoffa, was a WWII and Korean vet, and was considered an elder statesman in Texas Democrat/labor politics.
I consider myself today a conservative. Not long ago I considered myself a Republican, but have seen that a lot of the times Republicans can be more concerned with party than conviction and even stated platform.
What happened in New York was that the Republicans were more concerned about party than about convictions. A man with convictions almost won the election and soundly trounced the Republican candidate.
That man, apparently, has a strong social/cultural conservative conviction and was blasted both by Democrats and Republicans for that conviction. Yet, he almost won.
You can’t idly dismiss social conservatism. it just won’t work.
To speak generally about issue…
I think the “problem” is largely that the problem is just not well-defined. A plethora of agenda items surround us, each of which is apparently dispensible, yet all necessary (to prevent thousands from dieing every day). Seems just as likely its a juggling act trying to satisfy some additional constraint, it is politics after all, and thats the real problem.
So many new questions have been swept by us already: health care is a now a right, insurance (alas) mandatory, the euthanization ‘bending the curve’, and what about a federal medical record system with your life, digitized and searchable as well as open to distribution by whichever civil employee cares to ‘misplace’ a laptop… now that itself is a nightmare.
This issue can seem very complicated at times. But I wonder if thats not the name of the game and so I don’t how useful it is try to find ‘solutions’ to this moving, and possibly fake, target. Clearly, it would be great if health care was cheaper and less people used the FREE health care we already agree to offer in the emergency room, but I don’t feel this is likely with this congress, and am mostly concerned with averting disaster and the irreversible seeds they are trying so hard to sow.
Could the situation not be made clearer with a definate goal? After 911, having a dollar cost in billions, we formed an independent commision, yet for a trillion dollar institutional change that will directly affect everyone, this is apparently not the prudent thing to do.
The conclusion I draw so far is this: they do not want to find the right solution to a particular problem, but rather find the right ‘problem’ for a particular solution.
I will propose to you that insurance itself is just a game. Here is my definition:
In-sur-ance (noun): A form of betting in which the LOSER wins.
Just remember that. In fact, I have sometimes wondered if a global risk pool might make the most sense financially. Since it is all a scam, we might as well ensure equal screwing so no one can complain; however, there is zero chance the government could run this without debilatating overhead and gross incompetance. Furthermore, I think the financial issue should be secondary.
Oh, and what about the question of pre-existing conditions? how is that a rational idea. Its like forcing someone to bet on a crippled horse. Im not saying it might not work, nor that its not popular. I will say that I do recall hearing that its not so much a probablem of the condition, but moreso whether the person had been paying insurance up to that point; they all share costs at some level. Anyone, its moot really. My point here is just that we DO want these businesses to succede… don’t we?.
TexasDude
I’m curious, is abortion your only litmus test or do you have other standards you require for political and social support? Where do you draw the line, rape, incest, life of the mother? What about birth control without using abortion? How about the killing of children during war, justified? An example, Nazi Germany and our area bombing campaign lots of kids died even some pregnant women. How about end of life, if someone is brain dead pull the plug or maintain their life at great expense because of their humanity? Let us talk science, how ’bout we use the same criteria to determine human existence that we use to determine if someone is brain dead.
Speaking of Texas, what do you think of Annise Parker for mayor of Houston? Being a fellow Texan I didn’t think we let any Dudes cross the Sabine or the Red rivers. I guess I didn’t get the memo.
Otherwise very passionate comments, but being a “dude” I don’t think I’ve got a dog in this fight maybe when men can become pregnant I’ll feel different.
I don’t see anything in this election result that is discouraging for small-government conservatives. A very conservative candidate, much more socially conservative than I am, ran essentially as an independent without the support of the Republican party or even the Republican candidate and almost won. We don’t have to win every election. Doing very well in an election where we didn’t even have a candidate a few months ago seems like a positive result, consistent with the Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey.
263. Paul ADK: good stuff here.
Assuming thoughts were about election outcome, I wonder about the significance of the first, regarding the lack of GOP support. Only because he rose to the lead without any. Or maybe it says something about the importance of support in the last days, specifically to defend against the final onslaught.
And on the speculation that his demaenor was a factor… yeah, that is unfortunate. It is not unlikely things will need to get worse before they can get better.
The reason he lost isn’t because he’s a social conservative. But because he isn’t very charismatic as a politician. He’s soft spoken, geeky and looks more like a lab technician than a congressman. He also got thrusted into the spotlight and became the official right wing candidate only days before the election. The right was split over the two right wing candidates and didn’t know who to support. The lesson for the right is if you’re going to chase off all liberal Republicans then you might want to do it months before the election rather than a couple days…
There are several words and at least one anagram all having very similar meanings that quite efficaciously describe fiscally-conservative (il)liberals.
“Democrat” and RINO spring immediately to mind.
And then there are communist and fascist and socialist and “Labour-ist” and progressive, imperialist, colonialist and “libert(ine)arian.”
Words like “Reagan” and “Palin,” on the other hand, are used to describe actually conservative conservatives. Who as often as not win 49 states in presidential elections or enjoy 90% popularity ratings.
“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.”
-John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.” 1859
http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm
That’s the problem with social conservatives and social liberals. Their definition of ‘self-protection’ is so broad that limiting the freedoms and actions of others is presumed to be valid, in spite of the historical evidence that leads any rational man to conclude that such behavior is the road to hell for any society, and leads only to the death and destruction of all that they claim to hold dear.
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
-Thomas Paine
“Dissertation on First Principles of Government.”
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/paine_dissertations_on_first_prin.html
The notion pushed by “TexasDude” that all abortion is murder is vicious nonsense — for the simple reason that an embryo is only a potential, not an actual, human being. An embryo, a fetus and a baby are three different things. The fact that the first two have the potential to develop into the third does not mean they possess the rights of the third.
Rights are not a function of one’s “potential”. Every human being is a potential serial killer — yet we do not deny anyone’s rights and put them into prison because of this potential. Likewise, every human being is a potential inventor, yet no one is granted patent rights until this potential becomes an actuality. We are all also potential corpses, but we don’t surrender any rights until that potential becomes an actual.
Thus, there are simply no grounds whatsoever for assigning any sort of rights to a mere potential. But the anti-abortion position is even more absurd than that — for it asserts that not only does this potential have rights, it has extra-special rights that trump the rights of the actual human being carrying this potential.
Nothing justifies such a notion. Even actual human beings do not have the right to use another person’s body, in whole or in part, without their permission and against their will. Yes, parents are obligated to provide a certain minimal level of support for a child they choose to create, but if, say, the child needs a heart transplant, no one would argue that the law should require one of the parents be put to death to provide that heart for the child.
Thus, the anti-abortion position is doubly flawed. It not only assigns rights to potentials, it elevates those rights into a special, superior status that trumps the rights of the actual human being involved. There can be no such thing as the right to violate the rights of others — and there sure as hell can be no such thing as the “right” of an undifferentiated mass of cells that trumps the right of the woman to control her own body.
Women are not sacrificial animals who can be sentenced to being a biological incubator who must bear all the risks and discomforts of carrying a potential human being to term, no matter the costs, no matter what this may do to her professional or private life, no matter what the long term consequences my be of bringing a child into the world.
The choice to sustain — or to terminate — a pregnancy is strictly the woman’s choice. It’s her body. It’s her life. It’s her choice.
To demand the sacrifice of an actual human for the sake of a potential is a vicious inversion of the meaning and purpose of rights. Leave it to the Taliban wing of the Republican party to campaign for such a noxious notion.
The Talibanesque demand that government prevent the marriage of gays, that government prevent the use of drugs, that government stop the teaching of evolution and require the teaching of creationism, that government prevent abortion, that government impose prayer in public schools, that government limit the distribution of birth control — all of this is in direct contradiction to the alleged advocacy of “limited government” and “freedom” and it completely destroys the credibility of the Republican party. The religious right’s hijacking of the Republican party has done more than anything else to chase voters into the hands of the Democrats and thereby hand power to the left in this country.
No advocacy of freedom, capitalism and limited government can succeed as long as it includes a contradictory campaign to violate individual rights based on religious dogma.
A baby, a toddler, an adult are all different things also.
So, what is human potential and what is not? A baby can’t reason like an adult. Likewise a toddler, but a toddler has more intellect than a baby.
What is a baby, though? Is it in the womb or just out? Is it just with viability, that ever decreasing line of when the supposed non-human entity can supposedly be self-seficient, nevermind a baby is never self-seficient in the first place.
What is pontentiality of human life? What does that mean? Humans are self aware till much later after birth. Couldn’t you then assert that a 1 year old is really human because the are still in a potential state of being?
This potential argument is one of the lamest ones used to justify abortion. The only thing that is truly potential is the egg and the sperm. THEY are potentially human beings, whereas the fertilized egg is a human being. The zygote, the fetus, the unborn baby will never be anything else but a human being.
By the way, ask a woman who is glad to be pregnanct, even if they have some trepidation, what they have inside her and I’ll bet they will answer back … a baby!
Late term abotions aside, does it have to require such intricacy? Can not their sins be left for God to judge?
Speaking of sins, I am going to commit an agregious one right now, if allowed, that of double posting, again last one I thought rejected, Im new to making an ass of myself online, this one I’m just desperate for an opinion. I would really appreciate if someone to tell me whether the general concept (way) below is crazy or not? just a word, “crazy”? or “not-crazy”?
And I will add I have a deep respect for conservative traditions and now how crucial they all are to the fabric of the country, I feel more they need to be self-consistent and gays do exist, because they say they do, and so a full plan for government has to, in eventuality, be in accordance with that. If it is to be rational, I guess. One can dream.
– Unions for All — would anyone be open to it?
I want to throw this idea out there, at the risk of it being old, as it is the most rational solution my feeble mind can come up with, I feel its the least I can do. It really is just a logical extension of the separation of church and state. That being said, in my attempt at objectivity I suspect there is a risk of alienation. In defense, I’m Californian; yes, horrible. Imagine being stuck in an elevator with ‘Fresh Air’ playing over and over. How did I become? It is complementary so think Ill make this an even longer post.
I did not care so much about politics till I realized it had failed to do the one thing it was created to. That is when I saw someone in a suit one morning have to decide between ending up extra thin or extra crispy. Preventing this kinda thing is more or less all I really expect from the fed, all else is secondary. It was obvious to me, as I thought it was to everyone , that this attack had to require many years and multiple institutional failures, and I further thought it obvious that even if GW could move mountain and earth (which he ended up in some way doing), its not reasonable to expect any president in 8 months to undo 8 years of institutional destruction. Imagine if he had… it would have been seen as a witch hunt.
So the Left is hopeless, as it would take a disconnect from reality to hold Bush, and not Clinton, accountable (that birth certificate, on the other hand, looked rather crisp for a 40+ year old document – all I will say). And watching closely over the next few years I came to view Democrats as largely reactionary, and severly questioned their ability to provide complete rational arguments for most of their positions. Specifically, I could not help but feel that they often oppose things just because they don’t want to be on the side of the Republicans, and that it may in part be their nature. It was also clear to me that the Republicans do this less often and never in matters of national security… but actually this gets to what I want to talk about. I am not a hack but I do know what is meant by the “Republican Brand” and I can tell you that there are many people who would probably be supportive of positions if only they were not ‘tarnished’ by GOP support. Rather than try to think of ways to change the spin, I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, there is not a small concillation that can be made in exchange, not necessarily for a larger tent, but for one less susceptible to disdain. I do not want to imply their lifestyle is right or wrong, nor that the GOP is the only future, but if they asked, this would be my two cents. Of course, I am not being asked. I’m posting this because it is a plea. As a registered non-afiliated distraught american who aches for a return to the age of reason, I would implore the GOP to consider it.
At the risk of over simplification, I think we just need to distinguish between tax/living status, and the document used to certify it. This has always been the touted “Marriage Certificate” and so, not surprisingly, everyong wants one. But it’s not like they are asking for acceptance into the catholic church, right? So we solve it here, at the interaction.
Playing devil’s advocate, it would appear ‘we’ want to have a religious institution of marriage and yet ‘we’ are trying to get the state to protect it…. sound right? Now clearly the church has dibs on the term itself, and as much as the left wants to demand open access to this club, it is futile, for acceptance can never be imposed, only given. While, their feeling of rejection might never subside, I don’t believe that gripe alone will have any legs.
We need to separate union from marriage. Leave ‘marriage’ to religion. The government should define it’s own concept of a ‘union’ and apply that in tax and civil legislation. Our government has piggy-backed upon the ancient “tradition” of the uniqueness of the union of a man and a woman, and its hand of equality is now being forced. we find there are others who hold a different bond sacred and are asking “how equal is the equality?” I for one think they deserve an answer, whatever it may be. To be honest, Im tired of hearing them ask (I know I should move). And I am under the impression that we all desire equality under law and taxes. Lets not forget that equality can mean the freedom for a state to choose, in which case no one could complain. And this says nothing about social equality, which is irrelevant and not a matter for government to concern its legislation with.
Furthermore, I don’t think this has to mean any substantive change in our lives. Quite the contrary, we, and the media, can call it whatever we so please, and most likely that means not much will change, you would still see “gay marriage” in the paper and hear it on TV. It might be as inconsequential as a unique lexicon for DMV and whatnot. In fact, this change is largely semantics, legal terminology, which, once we fix will no longer be a Legal issue and the prospect of it becoming a less political one. No one could say the Republican party is against gay marriage and be accurate. Does the GOP really want to exist in perpeptuity excluding, BY NAME, a permanent segment of voters? what kind of long term plan is that. as this stuff is un-ending fodder for the left and they run the media. You know, to the point of Republican brand management, how on this green earth did it NOT come to be identified with the end of slavery.
This needs to become a state and local issue, freeing the image of the GOP from geographically varying politics of it.
You will always have to decide where you live, how you raise your kids, and what you believe. But it seems to me if a society is to claim equinamity AND enjoy restricted institutions, then those instutions can only be defined BELOW the federal level. In other words, they can’t exist at all levels… that would be a total societal exclusion. I am assuming here we do not want to exclude gay and lesbians from living in our society… That is another rational solution; whether its moral or inline with the Declaration of Independence is more a subjective question, but it would not be in dialectal conflict as ours is.
I can’t help but perceive that while the left is trying to impose government intrusion in all aspects of our lives, the right, while aware and sounding the alarm, would also like our doors open, if only just a crack.
Also, I do not want to imply this should be easy. For example, the word “marriage” appears in DOMA, which would put that bill at odds with this thesis. Yet DOMA was needed, and in-line with public opinion, as the polls even today will show you. So its not yet clear to me exactly how to get there, or exactly where ‘it’ is, but I think one sign will be that something like DOMA would never be needed again, nor any federal legislation including the m-word.
The m-word has been rigged with explosives. The GOP might consider a change in it’s legal significance to render irrelevant the calls for a change in its definition.
Correction … “Couldn’t you then assert that a 1 year old is NOT really human because the are still in a potential state of being?”
No one has ever stated that the life of the unborn trumps the life of the mother. However, it has been made clear some like to assert that the life of the mother clearly trumps the life of the unborn and not only trumps, but has god-like control over it.
What has been asserted, though, is that the life of the unborn should have the same basic right to life that the born have.
Why do those that support abortion continue to be dishonest about the act? Why do you have to hide behind false logic?
Aristotle did think that abortion was warranted in certain circumstance, however he knew exactly what was happening.
In Historia Animalium, Aristotle noted that if a male embryo was aborted around the 40th day and examined you would observe that “all the limbs are plain to see, including the penis, and the eyes also, which as in other animals are of great size.”
285.
When society condones the sin(s) of the individual, God judges the society as well as the individual.
I just re-read that and… ummm… believe it or not, I’m actually not gay. Not that it matters.
(Continued)
The entire argument is not when life begins, but all about what value we place on that life.
THAT is the philosophical question that is at hand as Reagon long ago noted.
Sigh … the Religious Right is not Talibanesque. Not even close.
The Religious Right, which at one time or another was most of the America, had things like the Blue Laws, not having shops open Sundays, not having the ability sell alcohol and the like.
The Religious Right in no way, not even in the remotest sense, is Taliban like, lite, or esque. The Taliban will not pause before beating you senseless for being out without a male companion if you are a female.
Whether you like it or not, the Republicans will not win much of anything without social conservatives. The opposite is also true. To be like Reagan is embrace both, not just one.
285.
When an individual’s sin is condoned by society, then God judges the society as well as the individual.
the two Republican statewide candidates who won this week — Christie in New Jersey and McDonnell and Virginia — wanted nothing to do with Palin, while the high profile conservative candidate who embraced Palin — Doug Hoffman in NY23 — lost in a district that hadn’t elected a Democrat since the 19th century.
290: “When society condones the sin(s) of the individual, God judges the society as well as the individual.”
I think there is a difference between ‘allowing’ and ‘condoning’. no? Adultry… proof.
Roger:
Roger:
I think there have been adequate comments to provide food for thought.
I think its highly proable that Doug Hoffman runs again next year. He certainly now has name identification and (without Scuzzofava the votes. A little brush up on public speaking techniques and he’ll be a shoo-in.
Ken
296.
When courts rule to “legalize” abortion, sodomy, etc. that is condoning. Not placing a camera in your bedroom is allowing.
If you cannot see the difference, then it is clear why you are distraught.
Social conservatism is the reason I will ALWAYS vote for the Democrat, be it a House, senate, or presidential election….I’m so sick & tired of social conservatives going off on how Hollywood & Howard Stern are the root of all evil….Shut up already..People are able to make the choices best for themselves as to what they listen to, read, & watch..And, as far as abortion, gay marriage, etc. who cares…If a woman wants an abortion, that’s her choice…If 2 women or 2 men want to marry that’s their business..It does not affect me in the least…..
What an irony…Conservatives love to talk about limited govt., yet social conservatism (at least the brand that has been sold since the Reagan years) is overly invasive & intrusive..
298. rance
Actually, I did wince pressing submit. Apologees. I did not do justice to my feeling, which is that I am not willing to hold my salvation up for ‘society’ to have a say in. I hastily spit out adulty as an example of something that occurs, like abortion, but is not condoned. Which to me, proves the idea in principle. Nonetheless, adultry is illegal… that being said many things are condoned that are illegal… anyway.
I think your analysis is overreaching a bit. First, Dede Scozzafava and the RNC share quite a bit of blame in Hoffman not getting more traction. After all, the RNC ran attack ads against Hoffman in Dede’s behalf, making it awkward to impossible for them to turn around and run ads in Hoffman’s favor after Dede dropped out. To add to the insanity, Dede, supposedly a strong and loyal Republican even if liberal on most issues, strongly endorsed Owens, the Democrat and even taped phone calls for him. Both of these had to have a negative impact on Hoffman and with a margin of loss of 3%, it didn’t take much to make a difference. I imagine your article would have been different if there’d been a 3 percent swing the other way and Hoffman was victorious. Hoffman can do much to improve his knowledge and handling of local issues before next November and I expect he’ll challenge Owens on the Republican and Conservative lines instead of just the Conservative ticket, that is if the Republican party doesn’t go and find another RINO.
@273
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html
Those that are starting their medical careers are taught that human development begins with conception and, ipso facto, human life thusly begins with conception.
That is as sound as the science that dictates that the Earth is round and the Earth rotates around the Sun.
To deny something as factual as this is to throw oneself into a self-imposed dark age in regard to abortion.
Well over a couple of thousand years ago, we knew that killing the unborn was killing the life of a human as Aristotle observed.
However, this was ignored and today we have a society, worldwide, that relies on Midieval beliefs about pregnancy more than modern science.
What’s ironic about this is that social conservatives on this topic, abortion, side with sound, basic science with those who support abortion/choice side with ancient false beliefs.
It would be funny it if wasn’t so serious. We are dealing with human lives, not just human appendages.
Ridding the GOP of its social conscience would be tantamount to making the GOP irrelevant and just a shill for the libertarian movement which has not a clue about morality or even justice. The individual is her game, forget about society consequences.
TexasDude,
I think you said that the social conservatives need the moderates as the moddies need the socons.
Not really true.
We can do without the libertarians (yeah, it will be harder).
And the moddies are probably at least a half-dozen different strains, and most of them are not caring. In other words, the activist moddy has less following than the activist conservative (theoretically).
In other words, if you took someone of Mr. Simon’s prominence and a Conservative blogger of the same stature, the CB would probably have more influence at the ballot box.
Also, an enthused base can bring those uncaring moddies to our side, and leave the moddy activists high and dry with no followers.
So…
It would be harder, but I’m not sure we really need the moddy activist types who are yelling ‘bad socon, no biscuit!’ on this website.
Just a thought.
TexasDude claimed:
The only thing that is truly potential is the egg and the sperm. THEY are potentially human beings, whereas the fertilized egg is a human being.
This is nonsense. An undifferentiated mass of cells is not the same thing as a human being — it is, in fact, not a “being” of any sort.
A “being” is a seperate, biologically-independent, individual organism, capable of self-generated, self-sustaining action (such as breathing its own air, digesting its own food, etc.). An undifferentiated mass of cells attached to the wall of the womb is a body part, not a “being”.
TexasDude also wrote:
The entire argument is not when life begins, but all about what value we place on that life.
No, the issue is not what value we place on “that life”. The issue is whether “that life” is a human being or not, which means, the issue is: What constitutes a human being?
The essential defining characteristic of human beings is that they are animals that possess the capacity of reason, reason being the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the data provided to the mind by our senses.
A newborn infant meets this definition. The infant is a biologically-independent entity — a being — that possesses sense organs, a mind (which is blank at the beginning but has the capacity to learn) and — most crucially — possesses the faculty of reason.
Granted, the newborn does not know how to use its reason and does not know what to make of the sensory data flooding its consciousness from the moment of birth onward — the lights, the sounds, the touch, the colors, the smells, etc. — indeed, the infant’s first task is to learn how to differentiate the different sensations and learn that what it is perceiving are discrete entities. By all accounts, learning even this most basic information takes months — but the learning process can begin once the infant is out of the body and its empty but-waiting-to-be-filled mind is in touch with the world.
An undifferentiated mass of cells is obviously incapable of any of this — it does not possess sense organs or a mind or even the most basic capacity to begin dealing with sensory data. To treat this mass of cells and a new borne infant as if they are the same type of entity is ridiculous. The term “human being” loses all meaning when stretched to cover such disparate things.
There is no rational argument to support the notion that a mass of undifferentiated cells must be treated as a human being, for such a mass is clearly not a human being. Only a massive evasion of the distinction between the potential and the actual makes it possible for the two radically different entities to be regarded as one and the same.
Right, except for the inconvenient fact, that she did get out the vote calls for McDonnell at least, and possibly Christie. Howard Stern,
how long has been out of the picture. Look the people of the 23rd wanted their pork, Owens was likely to give it to them, end of story
An human infant is entirely dependent on the mother or an adult human being for survival. A live born human infant is able to be separated from the mother physically but it is not ‘independent’ yet.
“No, the issue is not what value we place on “that life”. The issue is whether “that life” is a human being or not, which means, the issue is: What constitutes a human being?”
Yeah, like a woman would have goat or something.
Puhhhhleaze.
Newborns can’t reason. Heck, they won’t even realize what they are till aroud 2 years of age or so. This fact is why Peter Singer publicly believes “parents” should be allowed to kill their own young children without repercussion due to the children not being “human”.
This is just an arbitrary line that has no basis in anything other than a belief.
On and on it goes with the hard fast line being drawn at conception.
Next.
“The essential defining characteristic of human beings is that they are animals that possess the capacity of reason, reason being the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the data provided to the mind by our senses. ”
Reason in what sense? Sea Otters have enough intelligence to figure out that they need to use rocks to crack open shells. That’s reasoning, but are Sea Otters human beings?
Newborns doen’t reason. They rely on reflexes such as the Moro Reflex, Sucking Reflex, or the Rooting reflext to survive.
There is not an ounce of reasoning involved.
Why do we have to resort to such contrived explanations for such a relatively easily explained event that is called abortion?
Yep, it is to make those that believe in the ancient evil feel better about their beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fiscally conservative? No, we like to say we are. Much easier than actually doing it.
Texas Dude, I’m not sure where to go with this. You’ve traversed across more than a dozen subjects except the one I chose to discuss with you. You presented a mountain of evidence for something I never challenged, rolled through a few disparaging assumptions as to my character and motives and then topped it off by calling me dishonest again. I’d be angry if it wasn’t so absurd. It was like being called a racial slur of the wrong race.
I’ll try to refocus this one last time from what I can mine out of those posts… Of course life begins at conception. My focus was never that. It’s your statement that “It’s a scientific fact” that abortion is the taking of a human life. To show you how absurd that statement is, I asked you if it was a scientific fact that destroying an egg is taking a chicken’s life and if destroying a acorn is taking an oak’s life. That was not a trick question. You didn’t have wonder through every other aspect of your abortion views or my assumed character flaws to address it.
OTOH, I understand your passion. If I thought that early term abortion was murder, I’d be at least as passionate and want to jump ahead and address every assumption I had about someone who disagrees and sell my case ASAP. But you need to control that impulse in order to have a reasonable discussion. I asked a question – acorn, egg… Is it a scientific fact that destroying them ends the life of a chicken or oak?
I’m guessing that if I just end this here, you’d refuse to answerer. You’d just assume that you’ve made your point and drop a few more insults rather than be led by me. So I’ll let you know where I was going with it.
None of those are “scientific facts”. Scientist don’t talk like that. They don’t agree to premises and call them scientific facts. Life at conception is overwhelmingly recognized. But “science” no more makes the leap to call a fetus a human than it does to call an egg a chicken or an acorn an oak. It’s no more science’s role to declare it a fetal human rather than a human fetus than it is to declare it an egg state chicken rather than a chicken egg.
You clearly believe it’s a fetal human rather than the other way around, but that’s just your opinion. It’s developed though your values (which ideology/religion plays a role). I think that if you had answered the acorn and egg question right away (and consistent with your abortion views) rather than sprinting through every other aspect of your thoughts on abortion, it would at least have indicated that the moral/political component of your ideology didn’t dominated how you reached your conclusion.
You may not believe me, but I want to tell you that I sincerely respect people who after doing their best to investigate abortion conclude that it’s murder, even though I don’t agree. I just don’t tolerate them misrepresenting it to support their conclusion.
I’ve spent more time on this than I can afford. I doubt that what I said will ever change your mind, but I think that saying it as best that I could was the right thing to do nevertheless. (BTW, my father was a politically active populist attorney in Texas too, in Beaumont. I like to think that if it weren’t for his early experiences in Depression Era Arkansas, his ideology would be closer to Objectivism like mine.) Regards.
If your mother decided to rid herself of the fertilized egg that you started out as does that mean you would not exist?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say “yes”, you would not exist if your mother had scraped those cells out of her uterus that you began as.
P.S. FYI: Mammals aren’t chickens or acorns.
Point 1. The analogy is false and misleading. It attempts to turn humans into trees or chickens. We don’t lay eggs and we don’t drop acorns on the ground. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work. But lets go with your analogy. If you squash the acorn, the tree won’t exist. If you crack the egg, the chicken inside will die. If you let sperm die, you just might still exist because it takes just 1 sperm to fertilize. If you let one human egg die, you still might exist because another egg takes its place. However, if you kill an embryo, you won’t exist at all! I thought the absurdity of this analogy was addressed earlier. We are not trees nor are we chickens.
Point 2. I point out what is being taught to beginning medical students, but that is ignored.
Point 3. In conjunction with Point 2, it is assumed I am working from a religious perspective even though I don’t bring up religion in regards to abortion or when human life begins.
Point 4. Human life is recognized by science, human embryology, as beginning with fertilization. Even you assert as much. What you do, however, is devalue what that human life is. You deny it humanity and turn it into something akin to a skin cell. It is not. Embryos are full human beings that are at an early stage of development. When, pray tell, does this entity become a human being? Birth? When air hits the lungs and we take are first breath? When we implant? During the quickening? When? You haven’t answered that and I doubt you will be able to cogently.
“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male.
…
Although most development changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood.
…
Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in changed environment.”
- “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology”, 7th Edition, 2003, Keith Moore and T.V.M. Persuad
…
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual”
- “Human Embyology”, 2001, William J. Larsen
I am not sure how much more clearer it can be stated.
The problem is that political ideology is like a circle, head far enough right you eventually run into leftist ideas and they begin to blend to indistinguishably.
Why is abortion so heinous? Because it is human sacrifice, to the idols of money and convenience. Why is this a big deal to society? Besides the obvious fruits, which are violence, debt, and sexual deviancy, all of which eat away at society from the inside, there is Leviticus 20. In Leviticus 20, God commands the death penalty for being involved in child sacrifice, and excommunication for those that tolerate its existence. That means that this crime is so heinous, that refusing to execute your brother, sister, father, mother, son or daughter for their involvement in child sacrifice was an excommunicable offense.
“The problem is that political ideology is like a circle, head far enough right you eventually run into leftist ideas and they begin to blend to indistinguishably”
the truth has a ring doesn’t it…
“Why is abortion so heinous? Because it is human sacrifice, to the idols of money and convenience. Why is this a big deal to society? Besides the obvious fruits, which are violence, debt, and sexual deviancy,”
First, earlier you expressed desire for laws against sodomy. How do you enforce that? Ineffective, unenforceable and inconsistent laws have a whole lot to do with where we are today… have we not grown out of that?
The threat of persecution is also destructive to a sociery. I am wondering why does no one just propose what is desired… to expel them (to an institution?)… but you won’t. You won’t because everyone knows how the KKK approach would turn out. So now you sit and throw stones… and pout.
- I have not directly taken up the issue of abortion yet… and will not here [so I thought]. I could never fully approve, for human potential is unbounded, but can see situations where I would not stand in their way, nor harass them. What the quote says is true, I guess, on the tippy-toe extreme end of the sliding scale – not that it is an effect argument, as surely a large Large majority do not see it from anywhere near that… angle. However, I will pose that there are certain situations, and this is the big problem today, where the child, if born, is luckily to incur a life of predictable suffering and all to often, inflict one on theirs; thus the cycle perpetuates, and grows… as the community declines.
Unless you are gonna go into those communities and give parenting classes, or impose castration, then I find it awfully convenient for you to dictate from far away atop your altar. Either way they have sinned. For some, they see it as the only way to salvage what they are able to give to their MANY other children, who of course all suffer the more there are. And seeing what I’ve seen I won’t say its impossible, so I don’t see how I could judge. (are we gonna go into those communities? why not? are they are in dire need of charity?…. can’t yet, something else has to happen first. Alas, they have closed their circle and the scapegoating prevents any penetration. (in an odd coincidence, I have before posed to myself if it is so that: “When I society can not explain its problems through reason, it first resorts to scapegoating, and then sacrifice” – though here sacrifice is off topic…well, for most.)
Abortion is horrible and a sin against God. The guilt must be unbearable. Its purveyance surely degrades society. But it does not have a monopoly. I am willing to let them suffer there choice and their ‘day before God’. And as I think harder about it now, would you not agree that problem is not so much the pennatent man. He would suffer greatly, so you must be somewhat amenable to that. Maybe the problem is the values ingrained in those who you imagine in this act… maybe its just the lack of values instilled by their parents? maybe they just don’t feel guilty about anything?
Does this (extreme, you say) description not sound at all like banning hand-guns to stop violent crime, because I can sure see how it would to everyone else… remember their ‘delusion’.
- Is social conservatism not Totalitarianism by another name?
If not, where does it have give? Because Mother Liberty could use a pinch about now. Are we not all just mystified by Islams inability to show any temperance whatsoever? Temperance, yes that is a good word. That is what this line of thinking lacks. It is also ironic as I always saw temperance a fruit of the man who walks with Jesus. At the end of the day, can you not be content with your own salvation? Just vote no against it in your state if it comes up. If it passes and you don’t move, I promise that God won’t mark it against you. Go ask your pastor.
And if you happen to pass a clinic, assuming you haven’t moved away, and see a young women walking in or out… unless you have the money she needs or the home for the child, or the magic to get her clean, then maybe you could just look on her with compassion, maybe even a “God still loves you”, as she is likely to suffer so very dearly the rest of her life. And if not then pitty her parents… for they will require the Lord’s. There is one particular passage that comes to mind, to me of enigmatic solace, and you might try reflecting on it, if anger and hate enter your heart. Not sure what exact wording is, it didn’t happen to end up in the bible or was changed, but it is something to the effect of:
“Bless-ed are children… for from the Lord they came, and to him they shall return.”
I wonder if this is a good way to state the facts of the situation, as it is why I am pressing on this so…
- Teaching temperance to a Christian is infinitely more likely than UN-teaching gay to a gay.
@distraught:
Abortion is bad enough but abortion for birth-control is just beyond sick.
It’s not only poor people that get abortions. Supposed ‘well-educated’ people do too. That’s doubly sick.
For the poor, welfare sure as heck hasn’t helped and nor has public education. Maybe ‘abortion’ has become far too ‘acceptable’ for many.
Killing abortion doctors (even the late-term ones) is stupid though because murdering a murderer is for the law and not a vigilante, there will be another abortion doctor to take his/her place anyhow so people have to change the laws or change people’s minds and not go around trying to take law into their own hands.
P.S. I’m fairly certain you can’t ‘teach’ someone to be gay.
“Abortion is horrible”
Yet, …
“However, I will pose that there are certain situations, and this is the big problem today, where the child, if born, is luckily to incur a life of predictable suffering and all to often, inflict one on theirs; thus the cycle perpetuates, and grows… as the community declines.”
I don’t what to do, laugh or cry.
TexasDude, excuse me for not responding earlier, I had no time to put something of quality together until this afternoon. I then began to verify what I’d written and found myself changing my understanding and approach to this (involving the definition of human).
I’ve spent 3 hours on-line, researching all sides, and am out of time again for today. I’ll work on this tomorrow. Sorry for the delay, but I think you’d agree that this is better to get right than to get timely.