76 Comments

1. Instapundit » Blog Archive » MORE ON NY-23, from Roger Kimball….:

[...] MORE ON NY-23, from Roger Kimball. [...]

Nov 5, 2009 - 7:58 am 2. NC Mountain Girl:

People from the area have also noted that he did not speak about issues of local economic importance- roads, bridges and the St. Lawrence seaway.

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:18 am 3. Maynard Thomson:

Of course no sane man or woman thinks it prudent to be neutral as between the coarse and the fine, the true and the false, the right and the wrong. The elites’ insistence that we must, that we may not judge, that we must be at least silent, if not positively approving of vile behavior, is a formula for suicide.

Yet that doesn’t mean that appropriate judgment and discrimination need be government policy; the mistake is assuming that Stephen’s apt observation should inform the conduct of government. In fact, involving government at that level is likely to be counter-productive, implying approbation for that which isn’t legally condemned. It is the individual, and the various small battalions, that must make these judgments, pronounce them with full throat, and act on them consistently.

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:19 am 4. Dennis:

It will be very dangerous for 2010 if NY’23 is mis-read. A closer look reveals that:

1. Hoffman lives outside the district and is virtually unknown.
2. Hoffman took broad ideological positions, particular on social issues, while knowing little and expressing little interest in local bread-and-butter issues. He cratered in an interview with the district’s largest paper.
3. Outsiders such as Dick Armey tried to nationalize the local election, going so far as to describe local issues as “parochial”. The same newspaper wrote a scathing editorial against Armey & Hoffman because of this and Hoffman’s awful performance.
4. Locals strongly resented being strong-armed, causing a backlash.
5. Dede, regardless or despite her liberal views, had still paid her dues to the Party and local citizens. She has been a mayor and a member of the Legislature. Many locals felt she was treated disrespectfully and without appreciation for her past contributions.

In short, it’s a mistake for outsiders to try to nationalize and strong-arm local elections. The way to deal with overly liberal Republicans is through the *local* grass-roots and primary process. Wielding a social-issue litmus test like an ax is a disaster. And it’s undemocratic – if social conservatives don’t want fiscal conservatives who happen to be socially liberal, in the Party, they will get their wish. And with it, permanent minority status.

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:20 am 5. bgates:

moral vision is not something that can be completely privatized and survive – what do you mean by “privatized”? If “divorced from the government”, how do you reconcile that statement with your aversion to nanny-statism? If “hermetically sealed within each individual’s bosom, unable to affect his actions” – who is arguing for that?

Simon seems to see more reflection of himself in the great and good American people than is justified. Hoffman was running to fill the seat of a man with a 100% pro-life rating. He ran against gay marriage on the same day it was outlawed a few hundred miles further east in Maine.

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:34 am 6. Boyd:

My 2 cents.

Many of my church friends would like to see the return of the bible to the classroom. So would I but the difference is that they would like to see it be a law that it be so while I would just like to see school systems free to choose to include it if they wish. They wish to see what they believe to be the Truth imposed by our legal system. I don’t believe there is anything to be gained by imposing morals on anyone since, like Christian conversion, there is nothing real about it unless it comes from ones heart.

My point here is that labels are useful and I don’t think Large C and small c are accurate. In the example I give and I think in the example Roger gives, Large C and small c are inaccurate in that they are too contradictory to be thought of as just a matter of precision. Either you believe in the authority of law to rule every aspect of our lives or you don’t. No small c allowed. A far better and more accurate set of labels would be Conservative vs Libertarian.

Hoffman lost because the voters were Libertarian and he is Conservative. They chose a Liberal rather than lose control of their freedom to guide their own lives in a manner of their choosing. What is really unfortunate is that (as Jonah Goldberg points out) today’s Liberalism has much more in common with Fascism than Liberal Democracy. In any event I believe the folks in NY are more Libertarian than anything else which makes sense since that is what the tea partiers are all about. The tea parties just settled on the wrong guy (A Conservative) as their best hope to stop the Liberal. Maybe next time a real Libertarian can make a better showing.

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:46 am 7. What Happened in NY-23? | People's Press Collective Beta:

[...] his social conservatism, taking the more nuanced approach of addressing the candidate’s own “heavy-handedness and public persona”. Perhaps, it’s a topic open to debate. But any credible analysis must address the trends and [...]

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:51 am 8. Mwalimu Daudi:

One of the reasons that I left the GOP was the fact that GOP “moderates” have a growing list of litmus tests that they demand Republican candidates meet (must be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-amnesty, pro-cap & trade, anti-Christian, anti-defense, etc.). Demands by “moderates” for ideological purity – left-wing purity – is killing the Republican Party.

Examples of GOP efforts to force conservatives out of the party abound. In 2004 the GOP openly supported the leftist Specter over a more conservative primary challenger (The Republican Senatorial campaign committee is supposed to be neutral, but it most definitely was not in this and many other cases). Specter repaid the GOP by defecting to the Democrat Party. Republican Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat candidate in NY-23, and may pull a Specter of her own by switching parties. Several other leftists (Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, and Mark Kirk) and being pushed by GOP power-brokers in next year’s Senate elections, while their conservative challengers are being marginalized. Ironically, in 2004 the GOP moderate McCain was deserted by other “moderates” like Colin Powell for not being leftist enough.

The reason Hoffman lost was that both the GOP and the Democrat Party Establishments are in competition to see who can be the most liberal. Since 1984 the GOP has nominated an increasingly liberal string of Presidential candidates – with disastrous results for the party. Hoffman could not defeat both the GOP and Democrat Establishments, which is why Democrat Owens is going to Washington.

One final note: on election night Fox news showed a survey that indicated that 80% of self-identified conservatives backed Christie in NJ. Wanna bet that the percentage of GOP “moderates” supporting Hoffman was much lower? So long as conservatives give into the demands by GOP “moderates” for left-wing ideological purity they will continue to get more Scozzafavas and Specters.

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:07 am 9. gullyborg:

I have to question your motives in this post. The real causes of Hoffman’s loss are clear as day to anyone with a thinking brain. Rush Limbaugh nailed it – and his conclusions simply reinforced what I had already surmised (I didn’t get my ideas listening to him like a sheep).

Hoffman lost because of Dede Scozzafava and the Republican Party.

Dede’s name was still on the ballot – TWICE – even though she dropped out. Not all Republicans pay attention to the news. Many who vote simply show up on election day and vote a straight party-line. Same goes for Democrats. That’s why Dede still won 5% of the vote, despite dropping out.

Dede also endorsed the Democrat. Undecideds in the last few days broke heavily for Owens. Had Dede been a little more gracious, and simply stepped down without endorsing, the undecideds probably would have been a more even split. Had she endorsed Hoffman, stating he was the best chance at preventing another vote for Nancy Pelosi, undecideds probably would have gone heavily in his favor.

Hoffman came from NOWHERE to a close second on a third party ticket. He did this with no real party support and no real party campaign apparatus. He did this despite the GOP spending close to a million dollars AGAINST HIM.

Hoffman did NOT lose because voters rejected social conservatism, or because he was a bad candidate, or because he was inept, or because he had bad teeth. Hoffman lost because Dede Scozzafava and the GOP acted as spoilers.

Period.

End of story.

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:25 am 10. J Richardson:

I think you are right about Hoffman and too much emphasis on the social conservative message. Hoffman would have done well to emphasize the fiscal conservative message and play it off his career as a CPA.

One criticism that has been made of Hoffman is that he was socially awkward and didn’t answer questions dealing with local issues that well unlike Owens. Hoffman could have made his social awkwardness an asset or less a liability if he had made jokes about being an accountant in career and in life. “Yeah, I’m a dorky accountant but isn’t that who you want to conserve your money?”

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:47 am 11. willis:

Roger did not make it clear as to exactly what he meant by blue-nose social conservatism. Being opposed to gay marriage does not invite the government into the bedroom. It is not the same thing as being opposed to homosexual behaviour. It has to do with social conventions, not behaviour. Being opposed to abortion does not invite the government into the bedroom. People opposed to abortion believe it is the wrongful taking of a life. Opposing what one believes to be murder is a matter of deep conviction and does not make one a blue-nose.

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:58 am 12. Cathy F.:

I think you might be missing the boat by just a hair. I think it’s more that in practice, in our own lives, Americans are mostly socially conservative. But when it comes to the government deciding social issues, we’re more likely to get our dander up and ask rather rudely who the hell gave those people permission to tell us what to do?

Government is made up of individuals. Very very flawed individuals, for the most part. So when anyone in government thinks it’s their job to “legislate morality” as the phrase goes, then it tends to rub the wrong way.

A libertarian attitude socially does not mean that all things are simply accepted, resulting in social anarchy. Instead it is the philosophy of “private individuals make the choice of shaming or accepting dysfunctional behavior”. It’s a return to the age of social-shaming on a one-to-one basis, simply because when one is faced with a whacked out druggie or a pregnant teenager (or a person who happens to be both) the *only* way to reach that person is through one-to-one human contact, or through individually calling to their conscience through shame, guilt, and love (of the knowing and understanding variety, as opposed to the “unconditional” variety).

Government is either an enabler or a punisher. And generally speaking, “punishment” has little effect on the truly socially dysfunctional. They tend to believe that it’s proof that their way of relating to the world is validated. Those in government tend to avoid the one-to-one loving work that it takes to actually change a life.

I really don’t believe Americans are as completely accepting of all dysfunction as you’re implying society as a whole would be without politicians being involved in spelling out appropriate behavior. I just think Americans trust themselves enough to be able to handle the dysfunctional people in their midst, for the most part, without the government’s “help.” And Americans usually find governmental “solutions” to be nothing but idiotic feel-good exercises for the political class.

It’s more a question of what we ask of government: How ’bout the political types focus on people who actually need punishing and/or killing? The murderers, rapists, and other really sucky, completely lost people. We’ll handle our own standard-issue messy lives.

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:01 am 13. J. D. Lindskog:

ZARD O Z
Deceit, thy name is NY-23.
When the curtain is pulled aside, we witness the masquerade of NY-23 posing as a Republican redoubt with the claim of a century of history. Faced with the prospect of a genuine conservative representative, the polity of the district retreated to it roots.
To extend and project NY-23 as a representation of the nation at large is to commit another error. It’s just NY-23 without the camouflage.
Those cry “We Won”, whom I assume are engaging in a jest, this: if it’s not a jest, you are the joke.

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:04 am 14. Cathy F.:

Adding: My previous comment’s “your”s were addressed to the author of the piece. When I was writing the comment there weren’t any others posted to the board yet. Sorry for any confusion.

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:12 am 15. Cathy F.:

Sigh. This is why I don’t ususally comment on articles. I always feel the need to re-edit myself.

Concisely, though, this quote is the bit that missed the boat, to my way of thinking:

“But moral vision is not something that can be completely privatized and survive.”

Leaving out the examples of predators, which I addressed before (as in… yes, they need punishing or killing) I profoundly disagree. Of course it can survive. It has for thousands of years.

We have many examples of completely privatized morality that work just fine. Usually called “religion.” Aka: “doing the right thing” (for the non-religious).

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:22 am 16. JOHN FRARY:

What part of DeDe is “moderate?” Her hair-do? If she’s a moderate Republican then Van Jones must the model of a liberal Republican. It’s by no means clear whether Owens is more conservative than she. I don’t know his stance on the stimulus, or card check of post-natal abortion but I do know he got an A-rating from the NRA and served his country in uniform.

Let’s keep in mind that Hoffman started as a spoiler with no name recognition and no campaign experience. He turned unexpectedly into a competitor and ended with 46% of the vote.

I have no ideas, no information and no opinions to offer on his performance as a candidate, but it is clear that this was no conservative vs. liberal contest except where DeDe was concerned.

We don’t know yet whether Owens will be a yes vote on the Health Care monstrosity, but we do know that DeDe will not, and we did not know that before.

Nov 5, 2009 - 11:02 am 17. Harris Tweed:

There is much to be said for Conservatives who doggedly stick to their principles, and I grow weary of the RINOs and their call for “compromise” and “bipartisan” solutions to our “problems.”

Remember how the radical Lefties of the 60s and 70’s were always willing to compromise and were forever seeking bipartisan solutions? Neither do I.

Nov 5, 2009 - 11:06 am 18. Mike K:

I think Hoffman hurt himself badly in his newspaper interview on local issues. I suspect the editorial board was hostile to him (They described him as flustered) but you have to be prepared for things like that. He didn’t do the basics, which mean knowing the local issues. Scozzafava was a traitor but he gave her the opening. What we need next year are good candidates who know the issues. Mcdonnell showed the way for a social conservative be resisting the Washington Post’s efforts to get him off message with outrageous and hysterical attacks. he stuck to the issues.

Nov 5, 2009 - 11:08 am 19. Barry D:

Hear, hear, Cathy F.!

I am a libertarian, not a libertine. As a straight, married man who isn’t a drug user, my personal life could be called “socially conservative”, but that does not mean I wish to misuse government to force others to conform to what I find works for me. No matter what I would personally sacrifice to help a friend, say, beat a drug addiction, personal liberty is NOT something I will willingly give up.

I don’t believe that using the power of legally-sanctioned violence (the nature of government) is appropriate at all, in the social realm. Legally-sanctioned violence must exist, to punish murderers and rapists, to defend the nation against invasion, etc.

It is downright dangerous, however, when the police, courts or the army are used to coerce citizens to engage in certain prescribed private behaviors. That’s called absolutism, tyrrany, oppression.

Nov 5, 2009 - 11:42 am 20. Laika's Last Woof:

Fiscal conservatism is a winning issue. Too bad the only fiscal conservatives you can find these days are also social conservatives. Why the Republicans, liberal or conservative, can’t stay focused on the one issue that all of their constituents agree on staggers the imagination. But that’s why we have a Tea Party that calls itself “conservative, not Republican.”

Scozzafava lost because of card check. No sane Republican thinks it’s a good thing for union enforcers to know who voted against the union. After what happened to Ken Gladney, beaten by SEIU thugs for opposing the union’s political agenda, the message to those who would vote against the union is clear: defy the union at your peril.

The secret ballot is the only thing that protects workers from the same fate as Ken Gladney.

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:27 pm 21. A.W.:

Let’s not sugar coat this. My first impression of Hoffman was very poor. i mean he is not exactly photogenic, for starters, and he just has this weird halting way of talking. now maybe if you get past all that the man is brilliant, but i think it is safe to say that this issue alone cost the man 5-6% in the polls.

And bluntly it makes the republican elite’s decision not to nominate him make a certain amount of sense.

The republicans should not think that this man is the only person who can represent the district but should seek the right message from the right messenger. hell, if they can’t find anyone up there, call on me and i will run. i will be a carpetbagger, and i admit i am not the handsomest man, but i am sure i could articulate a message better than this man. and bear in mind, that is not based on egotism, but the belief that Hoffman has set the bar pretty low.

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:28 pm 22. bryan:

Personally I think it is because there was too much national attention given this relatively small community. I think in a way that the voters in NY 23 resented being told what to do by Rush, Palin, Beck etc… Believe it or not, not all conservatives agree with everything these people say. Just look at their popularity numbers. I think many conservatives rebelled, as we tend to do.
If Hoffman, who lived outside the district (something many voters also tend to resent), had been the initial nominee and little national attention was given, he would have won.

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:32 pm 23. fahagen:

The other congressional race Tuesday, California’s 10th District, was a race between conservative, David Harmer, and a Democrat party hack with lots of name recognition, John Garamendi. The RNC refused to give money to Harmer until the last minute. More than 75% of the votes were cast as absentee ballots weeks before election day. Harmer lost the election 43 to 53, but he actually won the 25% of the votes cast on election day. But he lost the absentees, 38 to 57. Had the RNC supported Harmer from the beginning, [giving some of the $1 million they gave to Dede] he could have won. Incidently, the Democrats outnumber Republicans by 18% in CD 10 and the Democrat usually gets 65% of the vote. So Harmer did pretty well even without help from the party.

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:33 pm 24. bryan:

Mike K… well said. He had little grasp of local issues, came late to the party, and lived outside the district.

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:39 pm 25. David Thomson:

I have actually visited Watertown some ten years ago. The town’s economy is in deep trouble—and has been for over thirty years. New York is a blue state and it is paying an awful price for its economic liberalism. A conservative Republican will probably have a more difficult time winning an election contest in the future. I strongly contend that the purple and red states are likelier to get a lot redder, and the blue ones a lot bluer. The latter’s red state voters are leaving in droves. Only those benefiting from government give-aways will freely remain.

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:50 pm 26. cfbleachers:

Look, folks seem to want to put words into other folks’ mouths…and do so with little need to actually know what the hell they are talking about.

Forming your OWN opinion is one thing…even if it is based on nothing but vapors.

Forming someone ELSE’S opinion, and then shooting it down…is a circus act for an audience of one.

The “center” of this country…WHICH DECIDES EVERY MAJOR ELECTION…does not like to be nannied OR evangelicized.

It doesn’t like proselytizing either in its left ear or its right ear.

The “either/or” types with their hard lines in the sand about morality and cultlike fervor, screeching at each other each and every day about issues that have NOTHING to do with self-governing this land of ours, is simply an excuse to bump chests, thump chests and dump chests of money into some political coffer.

Abortion is an abomination as a means of contraception. It is the hallmark of irresponsibility. A very intriguing exercise into when life begins and a troubling lapse in the cultural valuation of life itself. But, in MY “faith system”…as perhaps, opposed to YOURS…one of the greatest gifts we have been given as a species, (and as a country) is the gift of being allowed to be wrong.

We can make wrong choices. Bad choices. We might even sin from time to time. Our spiritual leaders can work to get us back on the right path…but we get to CHOOSE those spiritual leaders for ourselves.

If my Deity instructs me that I can CHOOSE a path…who the hell are you to tell my DEITY elsewise? Do you blaspheme in that way?

I CHOOSE not to abort, that seems the right path for me. I think it is an abomination. But the nanny or evangelical screechers don’t get to tell me that my path is wrong for THEM…therefore, it’s wrong for EVERYONE.

The self-governing idea thing that some people don’t seem to get, is…you can’t replace MY DEITY…with yours.

When there is a legitimate STATE interest in controlling behavior (such as actual crime)…we have it easy to decide. When the tipping point is close to…or on the other side of the ledger…it is not a GOVERNANCE issue, it’s much more of a BEHAVIORAL issue…then the government of this SELF-GOVERNING land of ours…is not the place to wage the battle.

This is MORE true, I believe…in the gay marriage issue. There is NO “crime” in that issue…at all. For those who wish the GOVERNMENT to restrict those folks from being able to use the WORD “marriage”…they are off base, in my opinion.

I’m not asking ANYONE to adopt a pro-abortion stance or a pro-gay marriage behavior. I’m just saying the GOVERNMENT is the wrong vehicle to enforce YOUR opinion of BEHAVIOR onto others.

Marriage as a SACRAMENT…different story. Each church can set its own rules. I can choose to join that church or not join that church. But there is NO “state church”. The Government should not be taking a “word” away from one group…and only allowing another group to use that word. Are there other words I can buy? Is Liberty for sale? How about happiness? Can I ask Vanna for whole words, or just letters?

Isn’t it about time that we stopped using the self-government of ours to impose the narrow constricts of the far left and the far right onto our bloated legislative codes, books and ledgers?

These “hot button” issues have almost NOTHING to do with the self-governing tasks we need to concentrate on…they are just adrenaline rush belly-bumpers used to keep the screaming contest in play…ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

If YOUR Deity forgave sinners…who are you to suggest that forgiveness was in vain? If YOUR Deity allows free choice…the right to choose right or wrong…who are you to suggest a mandate of non-criminal behavior?

The nanny staters are worse than the evangelicals, in this country. They are more dangerous. The evangelicals have a moral underpinning to their views and often have the moral high ground. The nanny staters are often simply troublemakers, looking to impose class, race, gender, sexual preference warfare.

But the extremists on both sides deserve each other. They are hard-liners who refuse to listen to reason or compromise. It’s their way or the highway. They are a turnoff to 80% of the country…and it makes for a crazy political pendulum as the center sighs and votes to “throw the bums out, bring in the new bums”.

And each and every election cycle…somebody misreads the outcome and says “this is what the center thinks”, and “that is why they voted the way they did”…and here’s the basis of THEIR opinion.

Uh…no…it isn’t.

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:58 pm 27. biblio44:

‘I am at one with Roger about the evils of the nanny state. As Marianne Moore said of modern poetry, “I too dislike it.”’

I am at one with Frank Rich about the evils of Beck, O’Reilly, Kimball, et al. As Marianne Moore said of the Brooklyn Dodgers, “They’re a bunch of bums!”

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:03 pm 28. Marc Malone:

3′2 5 & 7 Cathy F and Barry D – You have bought into the Leftist criticism that SoCons are trying to ram their agenda down your throat via the law.

Abortion – It was illegal throughout the land, unitl Roe v. Wade came along and made up a “right” from whole cloth. They usurped the authority of the States, violating the 10th Amendment. This was a result of the avtivism from the Left. The Right wants a return to the status quo ante. We are NOT the reactionary revolutionaries, here. We are the traditionalists.

Gay Marriage – It is not legal in any State in the land. IN 31 States, the reactionaries have tried to legitimize it via any tactic they can think of, and have failed in every single case. We SoCons are not the attackers, here. We are the defenders of traditional America. The opposition are the subversives of our society.

They will never stop trying, and they only have to win once, because every State has to recognize marriages sanctioned by another State. WE have to win every time. We traditionalists, we SoCons, are under siege. Every time they breach the walls, we must fight to beat them back.

The only relief of this siege is for the the Federal Government to pass a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriaqe, so that one State cannot override the prerogatives of all the other States.

We already lost anti-abortion. We can only loudly lament our loss, and plan some future counterattack. Could we overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes. We could challenge the suit, based on the original opinion. That would return the Rights to the States, and all the old laws would go back into effect. We could pass a Constitutional Amendment. Mmm, no, not very damned likely.

The important thing, though, regardless of the laws, is to talk about it and condemn it. If we don’t, then we are tacitly accepting the Libertines. Silence is tacit consent. Libertine behavior will not restrain itself. If people are not told things are wrong, and frequently, then they won’t get that it’s wrong.

So, I want to know where a candidate stands on this issue, and I want it brought up at each election. I want it discussed. I want people to hear that it is wrong. We must continue to defend traditional America against the subversive Libertines. I shall not indulge in silent surrender. I shall not go quietly into the night. If go I must, I shall be kicking and gouging eyes the whole way.

Why would you have a problem with that?

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:06 pm 29. Poor Citizen:

Unlike the left wing stereotype of some rural repuplicans, some folks forget that republicans in the far east and west of the U.S. are educated and quite upscale. And though this district was “targeted” by the far right, the people of this district are more moderate. And they think for themselves. Its that simple. The national folks know this and they also know that in order to win in 2012, they will need the republicans from the far west and the atlantic states along with some states in the midwest, that dont vote on one issue only, if they are to regain the whitehouse. The tea bag folks would do well to listen and learn about these things if they want to join in the future success. If not? The libertarians are always looking for a few good…votes…. Good Luck to the 23rd !

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:08 pm 30. Linda Mae:

Hoffman failed because Dede – knowing that she was failing – quit – and don’t tell me that she hadn’t made a deal with the Pelosi thugs – leaving the field open to 2 choices rather than 3. If she had continued, the votes would have been split differently – Hoffman would have won.

Card check: the stealing of an individual’s right to a secret ballot. Can anyone justify losing this right just to create unions? I think not.

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:14 pm 31. narciso:

Actually if you look at the infamous editorial meeting, Owens who eventually won the seat, wasn’t very informed about local issues and he was in favor of cap n trade for spurious reasons. And it’s unclear what his position on the public option would have been. They wanted
their pork and they weren’t sure that Doug was going to give it to them

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:23 pm 32. BC:

Well, for one thing, the right wing, as is usual, did not do its homework: Scozzafava was indeed a moderate in every sense of the word. As is also their standard operating procedure, a few items in Scozzafava’s background were completely taken out of context to be grossly built up into BFD’s.

The question is: do you really want the Republican party to be certifiably the party only for malicious, knee-jerk right wing morons exclusively? Well, do ya?

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:28 pm 33. bryan:

Marc Malone… so you would have absolutely no problem with “traditionalists” trying to get government to repeal all civil rights laws? Should most states go back to tradition and keep inter-racial marriages illegal? this is just one example of any number of of arguments that DESTROY your “traditionalist” excuse.
your argument is pathetic and holds zero water.

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:37 pm 34. bryan:

Linda… all polling suggests that Hoffman picked up votes when Dede dropped out… how do you justify your argument?

cfbleachers… one of the better posts I have read on Pajamas, thank you.

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:41 pm 35. gracie:

I have a difficult time identifying with either major political party.

Who ever put Scuzzy up for office should be questioned as to why, then drawn and quartered…

If not for Palin, we would never have heard of Hoffman.
The Republicans dissed him, the left dissed him.
What did everyone expect to happen?
He did damned good considering what he was up against!!

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:52 pm 36. David W. Lincoln:

As one who has experience in the political arena
as a Candidate, it is very easy to be painted as
“anti-________”. The years have taught me that cultural conservatism can be sold more effectively as affirming what is good.

The pro-life position in the political arena can be communicated as affirming that life goes through various stages of life, and the initial stages of life take place before birth. In other words, every person alive today has been at the stage of life where all that was there was a collection of cells.

As for the battle over privileges for homosexuality, one can say that heterosexuality does a better job of communicating the reality that men & women are
different, and there is more involved than men
& women. Whereas homosexuality does a better
job of communicating what happens when the good things of the other gender are second guessed far too often.

The same can be said about a common sense approach regarding climate change. The likes
of Lord Monckton, Professor Lindzen, Professor
Plimer, Professor McKitrick, Bjorn Lomberg, and the vast numbers of people smeared as climate change deniers affirm the scientific method because they take more information into
consideration than the climate change alarmists.

Plus, in the dealings with Islam. Those Islam, and those dragooned into supporting Islam’s campaign against the rest of the world, is fighting is simply this: One standard for all for the redressing of man’s
inhumanity to man.

The positive can be communicated, and the positive doesn’t just have to rest on a reflection of the status quo. For the positive can describe what we want the future
to look like, and indeed what the future will
look like as long as we keep our heads. For
doesn’t that tie in with Kipling’s poem about
when a boy becomes a man?

So, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Simply this, “Morning in America” worked because sincerity is the best
way to communicate positivity.

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:54 pm 37. Barry D:

Marc Malone-

You’re the one trying to get us to buy into some pretty significant fallacies, such as the idea that you simply wish to return to the status quo ante. At the very least, you’re selective about your “ante”, unless, of course, you want to return to hereditary monarchy, witch-burnings and slavery.

All of your other rhetorical wanderings aside, though, I ask one question: if all you want to do is “shout from the rooftops” that some behavior is wrong, then what do you care about a legislator’s personal opinion?

The only reason I can see for caring whether a legislator has certain beliefs is that he/she can MAKE LAWS ENFORCING THEM. You want laws enforcing your beliefs on others, or else there is no reason you’d want a Congressman to share them.

Congressmen are by no stretch of the imagination “opinion leaders.” Nobody listens to their speeches to see how they feel. They’re not like preachers, talk show hosts or op-ed writers. Most Americans can’t even name their Representative. Their influence on our society is simple: they make laws.

Do you care if your plumber would rather listen to Thelonius Monk or Harvey van Cliburn? I doubt it.

The only reason you would care what your lawmaker thinks about personal matters is because you want him to make laws forcing your beliefs on everyone else.

If you claim that you just want to influence people to adopt your way of life by persuasion, then you are lying. Your interesting use of the words “gouging out eyes” further betrays you.

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:58 pm 38. Larry Sheldon:

Looks to me things unraveled when the Republican carpetbaggers (there is an old obscenity that still works) started “helping” him, with Scuzzy making ads for Owens, and telling people they should go vote for Owens, while Hoffman was being savagesed by the press.

Can’t prove it of course, but it sure looks like they Palined him–don’t talk to your base, and if you do say this, this way…..

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:00 pm 39. Barry D:

Addendum: Obviously, I, too, care about my lawmakers’ beliefs, at least insofar as those beliefs influence laws. I want a lawmaker who believes in limiting the use of government coercion, for example.

I’m not saying that one shouldn’t care what one’s lawmaker thinks. I’m just saying that, if you care what he/she thinks about something, it’s because you want him/her to help PASS or NOT PASS LAWS according to those beliefs.

There’s just no other reason to care.

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:02 pm 40. Elle:

Gullyborg you are absolutely right!!!!! Conservatism is bounding back as people become disgusted with anti-American Obama’s policies and this detestable Congress.

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:15 pm 41. Cathy F.:

Marc Malone: “You have bought into the Leftist criticism that SoCons are trying to ram their agenda down your throat via the law.”

First, let me gently attest that the way to my heart is not through telling me what I’ve bought into.

In fact, I haven’t “bought into” any leftist criticism. I’ve experienced what I’ve talked about for myself.

I was an enthusiastic tea partier back when the ball started getting rolling. Since then, I’ve seen my local tea party movement co-opted by Christian conservatives who are focused more on the social issues than on what we can all agree about. I became more and more uncomfortable because of their direct effort to evangelicize on issues that I just don’t agree with.

I still do support the movement though, in its original intent… don’t get me wrong. I’ll certainly not be voting Democrat in the near future. But my vote for an evangelical will more than likely be because at least the evangelical sees *somebody* as more powerful than himself, theoretically. Technically evangelicals aren’t supposed to be very Ego-driven, so at least some of them see *some* limit to their authority. In the primaries I’ll be voting for the guy that is most libertarian of course, but if push comes to shove in the General, I’ll go ahead and vote for the SoCon.

Not the strongest of endorsements, certainly, but I’m not someone who really believes that this country is in any way headed for a theocracy. If a bunch of evangelicals suddenly make it to Congress and start trying to impose a theocracy… well, frankly, I just don’t see it working. But if they tried, I’d see revolution in their future. So… no. I haven’t bought into anyone’s giant fear of SoCons ramming their agenda down my throat.

What I do find though, is that the SoCons are very one-note and unwilling to moderate that note at all to bring libertarians into their fold.

I just don’t get it. (Like Laika’s Last Wolf said.) I’ve been on pjm as a lurker long enough to read the final smack-downs issued on the abortion question from SoCons… the “when it’s *life* we’re talking about why should we compromise?!!!” questions. My response has always been to think that the questioner doesn’t seem to trust his/her God at all.

What ever happened to praying for souls? What happened to individual charity? Why are SoCons focusing more on the General Nation-wide OverArching Need For Agreement than on the specific call to service that they could really accomplish by helping the individual mother-to-be who is in a really untenable situation? Hearts and minds are saved, in my world view, on a one-to-one basis.

I personally think evangelicals that push for Federal intervention just don’t want to get their hands dirty, or they’re too busy with their lives to engage in a really heartfelt attempt to help someone. They’d rather work at the Federal level so they don’t have to deal with the mess up close and personal.

Maybe it’s because I was brought up Catholic, but I have always held that God’s ways are fairly mysterious and extremely personal. (And I’m seriously lapsed in my Catholocism, but I really dig the whole “mystery” aspect of the Catholic faith.) At any rate, maybe it’s that, but seriously… can’t we let go, and let God handle the hearts and souls of humans? We can offer our aid if we would like to answer a call to service. We can try to convince, we can offer service, and we can cry for the tragedy of it all. But ultimately setting up human rules (law) based on God’s preferences does nothing to help those who really are in need. All it does is offer an ego-boost to the person advocating for it. And one of God’s preferences, if I remember correctly (it’s been a while) has traditionally been seen to be a humble heart in his servants.

Yes… I agree that we should give those questions back to the States certainly. All of them. Gay marriage, Abortion, etc. Let the States decide what will go on in their borders. Better yet, let the locals in each area decide. Let churches decide who gets to have a religious covenant (aka: marriage) in their faith. Let us *all* have Civil Unions in the eyes of the Government (at any level). Take the Feds out of the picture completely. But none of this is going to happen using the approach that SoCons seem to bring to these questions.

Humility and reason are the keys to winning over the moderates, I believe. And individual work, one-on-one to help salvage the lives that are in danger.

SoCons really need to trust God to understand the hearts of his creatures, and trust individuals to make the decisions that have meaning and import in their lives.

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:20 pm 42. Ratatosk:

Very nice article and some excellent comments.

From my perspective, as someone born in the mid 70’s, most of my peers fall into one of two political camps, liberal, or fiscally conservative/socially laissez-faire. They violently fight over healthcare, bailouts etc…. but there is no fight over issues like abortion and gay marriage. If the conservatives want to win the votes of the 30somethings and 20somethings, I think they need to consider their message.

Roe v Wade is not gonna go away, the argument is just gonna make the anti side look more and more archaic to younger voters. As someone above said “its the traditional view”. In younger eyes, its the ANCIENT view, equated with Jim Crow era thinking (even though they aren’t related).

Society never goes backwards. Until something is accepted in a democratic society, its not gonna pass the vote (hey, gay marriage advocates, pay attention). Once something has been accepted by American society, it is not gonna go away. Abortion is a done issue, the best that conservatives can hope for is strict laws about how its performed and aiming at issues like parental notification. Saying ‘NO’ just makes you look out of touch to my generation.

Gay Marriage will be here soon as well. The beauty of this Nation is that it is capable of evolving beyond what was traditional without being destroyed. Once conservatives get that message (or at least start stating it clearly) votes will come back to their camp and MAYBE we’ll see some spending control and government reduction.

Or, the conservatives can continue to beat the drum of emotional, but not widely held values and continue to experience NY23 Syndrome.

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:23 pm 43. Middleman:

A perfect example of social conservative hypocrisy came out today with the revelation of a Carrie Prejean sex tape. Yet another golden calf tossed down to the ground.

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:37 pm 44. darcy:

Marc Malone, Harris Tweed, M. Daudi: Thank God for you!!!

We’re the defenders of the Constitution, the traditionalists — and WE MAKE NO APOLOGIES, no, not to anyone.

Those who are embarrassed by Hoffman’s social conservatism, or who would ask him to temper his bold assertions of them, YOU follow pragmatists, not the principled.

And you end up not being useful as the counterweight to despotism that this hour requires. You’ve made yourselves complicit in our country’s leftward lurch.

Wake up and arise out of your slumber and recognize the danger confronting us.

Go back and read Marc Malone’s reply, #28.

NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR CARRYING THE TORCH OF OUR FOUNDERS. And be very alert to the fine-sounding arguments of those who would lead you astray.

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:54 pm 45. deguello:

Mr. Kimball :Of course his conservatism did him!Mr Fox said :”Acaben con el”!”My boots can wait”! and Me, Dubya, Jazz Shaw, and Steele,stopped licking,picked up the phone,called our corporate friends,and in no time at all,lots of landscape workers,car wash attendants and acorn thugs were stuffing the ballot boxes for Scozzafava and Owens.Vicente and George(Soros) are both very happy,so happy, that they are actually giving us a plunger to clean out the Hacienda’s toilets.Usually, we use our are hands!OH, gotta go I have to polish the silverware.Vivan Los RINOS!_Newt Gingrich,Fox Hacienda(servants’ quarters),Cancun, Mexico

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:56 pm 46. Skeptic:

Roger: you missed it with Bloomberg. Bloomberg keeps getting elected because he is good at doing what he is SUPPOSED to do — to keep New York City a safe, clean city, like Guiliani did.

In this he succeeds, so far at least. For those voters — the majority — who are old enough to remember how horrible things were before, this is a huge thing. Banning smoking and watching other people’s fat intake? Annoying, yes. But this is not love of a “nanny mayor”. It’s simply the mayor’s mildly annoying eccentricities. As long as he keeps NY safe, he is welcome to them.

As Jay Nordlinger said, Bloomberg can ban ice cream and he’ll still get his vote — as long as he can whine about it on riverside park at 2 AM.

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:57 pm 47. deguello:

#43 MIDDLEMAN Golden Calf? Another libtard troll reveals his sexual preference!I guess it’s better than the NAMBLA types we usually get.

Nov 5, 2009 - 3:00 pm 48. Poor Citizen:

Its kind of like when I was in Israel… I used to notice the folks in the cafe.s and bars arguing like crazy. Common sense and passion …straight out the window. Kind of like the debate you conservatives have… But let an outsider (like I was) throw an opinion or two in…and both sides immediately unite to bite your head off !! So I will just let the republicans have their so con and fis con debate and …just sit back and listen…. now, anyone for health care?…whoops….good luck !

Nov 5, 2009 - 3:06 pm 49. deguello:

#48 POOR EXCUSE FOR A CITIZEN: Conservatives not engaged in health care debate? Are you blind and deaf, as well as dumb? Have you read the Wall Street Journal? ,the Heritage Foundation?,Seen the tea parties?Heard of the demonstrations against Obama-care taking place today in Washington? Saw the election returns? there WAS a health-care debate PC,and you LOST!

Nov 5, 2009 - 3:40 pm 50. Old Patriot:

Hoffman lost the election because too many absentee ballots had already been counted for Scozzafava before election day, and because Dede Scozzafava had just enough sway with “moderate” Repuglycons to get them to vote for Owens. Hoffman also had too much baggage – he didn’t live in the district, he was a poor spokesman, he wasn’t knowledgeable of local matters, and he depended too heavily on outside campaign contributions. He also drew support from Sarah Palin, which is tantamount to treason for “moderate” (I.E., leftist) Repuglycons. The formulation of the 2010 race will be different. I doubt Scozzafava will be a factor in 2010. Bill Owens will have to prove to the NY-23 voters that he’s done something that has helped them – with jobs, with lower taxes, with less government, and more. Otherwise Owens will spend exactly a year in office.

Nov 5, 2009 - 3:52 pm 51. Barry D:

darcy, “traditionalists” and “followers of the constitution” are not one and the same. Sometimes they are, and sometimes not.

I’m not embarrassed by Hoffman’s social conservatism. I think he just kind of sucked as a candidate. He failed to prioritize what is and isn’t important to his constituents. That’s a lousy candidate.

And he’s not exactly a charismatic individual, either.

The problem here is that the SoCons insist on inventing their own “reality” that simply isn’t there, on many levels.

I’m not a “pragmatist.” I doubt I’d agree with any of those who wish to impose their personal morality on me through the courts and the police, but I have my own beliefs. The fact that I disagree with YOU does not mean I don’t have any principles of my own. They’re just not the same as what you pretend are principles. Given the relative incoherence of the SoCon posts here, I can’t really acknowledge them as genuine principles.

Nov 5, 2009 - 4:02 pm 52. deguello:

#48 POOR EXCUSE FOR A CITIZEN Anone for health care?You’re joking, right? Actually, everyone here is for health care which is why they oppose Obama’s Death Care.There WAS a health care debate concerning this atrocity PC,(ever hear of tea parties,the wall street journal) There’s a demonstration inDC today,Oh,sorry. I forgot,not only poor,but dumb, deaf,and blind as well!

Nov 5, 2009 - 4:15 pm 53. Cathy F.:

Returning the “Hear, hear” Barry D! Exactly.

I just don’t see how comments like darcy’s are meant to bring anyone else into the fold. If SoCons want to be so insulting to anyone that disagrees with them on the validity of government intervention on moral issues, it’s no wonder they wind up electoral losers.

Ratatosk hits the nail on the head too, with the reference to young people today. I have a 19 year old son, in college, and he’s an extremely moral and upstanding young man. But I can vouch for the fact that arguments such as Marc’s & darcy’s (Marc Darcy… heh)would have him and most of his peers turning away in disgust. As my son has mentioned to me countless times… it’s really hard to get behind a candidate when they play right into the leftist’s stereotypes of conservatism and seem proud of that fact. He certainly is no Obama supporter, but he’s really turned off by the constant Heavenly-host-trumpet-blaring of the SoCons. Let him be responsible for his own soul, thanks. The ship of state has plowed head-on into an iceberg. We’ve got plenty of reality to deal with right here on earth.

Nov 5, 2009 - 4:49 pm 54. Laika's Last Woof:

“Scozzafava was indeed a moderate in every sense of the word.”
Scozzafava is only “moderate” if you’re Jimmy Hoffa.

What is “moderate” about giving SEIU thugs access to the names and addresses of people who vote against unionization?

Did you see what they did to Ken Gladney?

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:02 pm 55. darcy:

Barry D:

Whether you acknowledge it or not, someone’s personal morality is being imposed on you. And currently that personal morality is the ethos of statism, secular humanism, and atheism as it infuses and saturates our culture and our laws.

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:21 pm 56. Saltherring:

Poor Citizen @ 48,

It’s not you personally, that we reject. It’s your ideas.

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:23 pm 57. spike:

Cathy F

As a SoCon I resent YOU trying to tell US how WE should think, behave or politically co-mingle. Where you’d get that edict to tell US what YOU THINK we’re doing wrong? Your piety is really laughable all things considered.

Nov 5, 2009 - 6:51 pm 58. Spike:

Barry D.

Same thing as Cathy F. Stick it.

Nov 5, 2009 - 6:52 pm 59. Lefty:

Dennis seems to hold a view close to mine on the election. (Don’t worry, I’ll stand a respectful distance) Upstate is and will return to Republican territory. Hillary can carpetbag in New York because downstate has the Dem support in the cities. Forcing an unknown candidate at the last minute in a local race produces well, a historically improbable Democratic win.

I’d like to think that what turned away voters is simply the angry rhetoric and shrill tone that surfaces on the right. These theatrics make for great ratings, but does the average person want to be identified with Rush, Beck or Palin?

The conservative vision of belt-tightening and personal responsibility has tremendous appeal among constituents (myself excepted). However it’s muddled by histrionic fear mongering. Imagine a simple argument on healthcare without accusations of Marxism, Socialism, Nazism or any humorless coined words that begin with the letter O.

We on the left are saddled with the occasional gadfly i.e. the Bush=Hitler folk, economic illiterates who vilify all corporations and Luddites who think anything made of chemicals is evil. You have people engaging in antediluvian bible thumping, thinly veiled racial scapegoating and second amendment enthusiasts who like to open carry around our President. These things may be morally correct, statistically sound or Constitutionally protected, but are enough to push you to the fringe.

Nov 5, 2009 - 6:59 pm 60. Marc Malone:

#41 Cathy F – Nice post. Actually, it’d be a great day in America when the argument is only between the socons and the libertarians, because then the Constitution would be safe. We would be resolving this argument in the context of whether something is actually Constitutional or not. Right now, we are spending our efforts trying to stop those who would subvert our Constitution and American traditions entirely.

As for trusting God, I do. Still, I try, in my own humble, flawed way, to be a good servant. I do not subscribe to Eastern Fatalism, using it as an excuse to do nothing. The Persians are great at this. They have a phrase, “In Sh’Allah”, it will be as Allah wills. If I do not tighten the lugnuts enough, well, it will work out, if Allah so wills. If not, it’s because Allah willed otherwise. Yes, He did, because actions or inacyions have consequences. I believe God helps those who help themselves and others. We must act, because if nothing changes, then nothing will change.

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:24 pm 61. Marc Malone:

#42 Ratatosk – I, personally, do not care what I look like in the eyes of your generation. The 20-somethings nad 30-somethings are, by definition, the least wise and experienced of the voters. I just can’t see myself following their lead. I know that, when they get more knowledgable about the world, they will become more like me.

As for the world not going backwards, that is just inexperience and lack of wisdom and worldliness talking. Of, course it does. That’s what the Progressive, or rather, Regressive, movement is. President Coolidge addressed this, saying that we declare our Rights to be from God. That is final. There is no Higher Authority. One cannot progress beyond that.

There are always those who would drag us back into the darkness of government being the final authority, rather than God. When they do, you lose the inherent human rights which can only come from God being the ultimate authority.

Either God has the final say, or the State does. If the State does, then your rights are strictly transitory. If the State says you can’t have guns, then you can’t. If they determine who has free speech, then, no one has free speech. If the government steps in and abrogates all contracts after the fact, then no one has property rights. If God is the ultimate authority, then your rights are inherent. They cannot be taken by the State.

There are always those who would rather the People get their Rights and Powers from the State, rather than the other way ’round. Which way is forward, and which way backwards? Yes, societies DO go backwards, which is why they fail and fall.

It’s not just in the government. In society as well. Witness the girl being gang-raped while 20+ other students did nothing, except maybe cheer and take pictures for their friends. That was NEVER possible 50 years ago. NEVER. Societies rot. Read your history. Abortion is rot. Gay marriage is rot. Hedonism and licentiousness are rot. Inaction is rot. Fatalism is rot.

After Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the Roman Republic ended. It became an Empire. Bread and circuses ensued. It took another 500 years to die, and we got the Dark Ages. We went backwards. Should we socons then shy away from stopping what we see coming, or should we fight?

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:51 pm 62. Karl wilson:

I like this article. I am looking forward to the continuation since it did not go into much depth.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2145800

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:02 pm 63. Marc Malone:

#51 Barry D – You were gaining my respect, until about halfway through. Then, you dismissed socons as inventing their own reality. Then you essentially claimed a superior moral position, which remained unspecified. Then you labelled our responses as incoherent. This was all a retreat. Your argument was simply, “Well, you’re all poopyheads, anyway!”

As to your previous posts, no socon argues for a return to slavery. It was we who ended it. Nor do we advocate for monarchy or witch-burning. You are setting up Strawmen.

You claim also, that we want Reps who will pass laws enforcing our morality. This is another Strawman. We ask about our candidates’ beliefs, because want to know that they WON’T support laws which will undermine our society, traditions, and beliefs. No reactionaries like Scozzafava, thank you. The Left is trying to change our society, not the Right. We want certain necessary things to be left alone. WE are the defenders, not the attackers.

We do not invent our realities. Socons posting here have shown themselves to be quite knowledgable of mankind and history. We declare our beliefs. We don’t refuse to disclose them. We are not incoherent. You may disagree with our foundation, and thus, our reasoning, but you can’t claim you don’t understand what we’re saying. We are not “incoherent”. (Look it up in the dictionary.)

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:15 pm 64. Marc Malone:

Edit #53 – (typo) inaction. There also seems to be a disconnect in my post. I’m not advocating for change, except in how we fight back. We cannot remain silent. We must not feel ashamed of our views. The info system works against us. Others are uncomfortable with our views, because they have been fed a steady diet of opposite views. They now believe us to be out of the mainstream. We are not. All we have are our voices to counter this. They won’t like it, at first, but it is our most powerful defense against our attackers.

Cathy F, I’m sorry if you find the evangelicals offputting, but they are not bad people. On the contrary, they are some of the best people around. Do not shy away, and you will grow accustomed to hearing what used to be, and actually still is, very mainstram. And remember, they are merely flawed humans, as are we all. They don’t always say or understand it right. Cut ‘em some slack.

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:27 pm 65. uriel:

50) Old Patriot I agree completely with your assessment. Hoffman’s loss was extremely slight to be caused by a backlash against either the “foreign” influences in the campaign or his perceived social conservatism. Both issues probably cost him some votes, which given the closeness of the election was probably not good, but the significant two issues which are brought to light by this are:
1) A D or an R next to the name still matters. Keep in mind third parties are rarely more than spoilers in American politics.

2) Voting absentee can cause lead to some nasty results in these close 24hr media election cycles.

Had there been a primary the Republican candidate would have won the election (Hoffman’s + Dede’s numbers + what ever Dede’s endorsement cost Hoffman). It is quite possible the winner of a primary would have been to the right of Dede and the left of Hoffman local primaries tend to be better selectors of the mood of local people about candidates than either party elites or national influences.

Alas my libertarian friends Social Conservatism does not appear to be in retreat Gay marriage has still not survived a ballot initiative even in Maine (hardly the buckle of the bible belt) while I fervently hope that eventually the Republican party sees that one can’t “legislate morality” and claim to be in favor of small government. I doubt at this time that would disqualify a candidate. Additionally you would have to be a pretty devout libertarian to accept that a Democrat, which is to say a full on statist, is going to be a better guarantor of individual freedoms that a conservative. As Ayn Rand pointed out the Democratic party is lost there is still some hope with the Republicans.

Now onto the issue of Dede as a “Moderate Republican”. She isn’t at least not in the Socially liberal/Fiscally Conservative sense most libertarians would like to pretend that see is. It is not that she supports Gay Marriage or is Pro Choice, while those issues cause consternation in some elements of the base they would be OVERLOOKED COMPLETELY were she a libertarian leaning Republican. But support for card check, cap and trade, and the stimulus, In addition to her social liberalism make her pretty close to a full on Democrat and thus make her an extremely hard sell to the base, especially after McCain, Spectre, and Snowe. She is a “Moderate Republican” according the the MSM which uses this term to mean a “statist” light. The people that argue there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans had this lady in mind when they made that claim. Since that is the definition of “Moderate Republican” according to the MSM they need to be defeated if they are ever so identified. In fact in this case it is probably preferable to have another “Blue Dog” Democrat rather than a statist Republican. It will be much easier to correct Mr. Owens behavior than it would have been to correct Ms. Dede’s

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:31 pm 66. Theocritus:

The embrace of nannying depends on where you are. In Texas Bloomberg would be ridiculed, if he were even noticed.

Nov 6, 2009 - 12:01 am 67. Andrea:

After yhe elections results,the dems are feeling that Obama can be defeated and are wondering and studying new approaches to the people,so it’s important to stay on the offensive to make the difference.
NY23 is old stuff

Nov 6, 2009 - 3:56 am 68. myth buster:

How can anyone but a coward or a child-sacrificing cultist not support the government banning abortion? If the government will not prohibit murder and enforce that prohibition, it has forfeited its reason for existence- securing the unalienable right to life.

Nov 6, 2009 - 9:15 am 69. Now and Then:

49. deguello:
“there WAS a health-care debate PC,and you LOST!”

Sounds suspiciously like “You lost the 23rd!”

Of guello, how does it feel to be so consistently wrong?

Nov 6, 2009 - 9:19 am 70. Cathy F.:

Marc Malone: “Cathy F, I’m sorry if you find the evangelicals offputting, but they are not bad people. On the contrary, they are some of the best people around. Do not shy away, and you will grow accustomed to hearing what used to be, and actually still is, very mainstram. And remember, they are merely flawed humans, as are we all. They don’t always say or understand it right. Cut ‘em some slack.”

Spike: “As a SoCon I resent YOU trying to tell US how WE should think, behave or politically co-mingle. Where you’d get that edict to tell US what YOU THINK we’re doing wrong? Your piety is really laughable all things considered.”

Marc, I appreciate that you got where I was coming from and I agree… if the major issues were being debated from a primarily libertarian vs. conservative point of view, then we’d all be in a better place constitutionally.

So, thank you for taking some of what I said on board.

As to the request to cut the SoCons some slack, may I just point out one gets mighty tired of arguing for focusing on the issues we can all agree on, and getting responses such as Spike’s. At what point does one say “well, clearly there will be no communicating with them” and just back off?

I reached that point with my very small local tea party group. And they wonder why the libertarians don’t want to hang around.

Look, if SoCons have already decided that I’m deluded, unpious (due to my “unchurched” state (yes, that’s been brought to my attention before)), buying into propaganda, and every other unholy “wrong” that they want to label me with… then why exactly should I hang around giving them more rope to hang me with? They’re not even addressing the issues any more… they’re just trying to undo the eternal damnation that they think I’ve brought upon my soul. And if I need saving, I know where my local Catholic Church is very well… it’s very pretty and right there on a road where I pass it frequently.

My point is that with SoCons so often, the discussion veers so far away from political strategy and bringing in more votes, that I begin to wonder what exactly their goals are.

I am not out to Save The World. I do want to Save Our Constitution. If I can’t be worked with, because I am not Holy enough, or because it is arrogant for me to tell SoCons how their message isn’t working to draw others like me toward their goals, then SoCons are building a very small tent indeed.

Directly to Spike and others on that page:

If a libertarian is telling you how you’re chasing him away, it might be a good idea to listen in these perilous times. I am assuming, of course, that your objective ultimately is to get more people voting for constitutional government.

If you just want to preach, judge and tell everyone that they are wrong and you are right, while driving potential voting and/or organizational assistants into the arms of a third party or the enemy… well, then… Carry On! My mistake. I apologize for imposing my interpretation of the libertarian mindset upon you.

Nov 6, 2009 - 9:21 am 71. Charles R. Williams:

Third party candidates in New York state are often spoilers. Nobody expects them to win and to perform their function they do not actually have to be highly qualified for the office they are seeking. While Doug Hoffman is conservative, he was a weak, poorly qualified candidate on other grounds. What is amazing is that the RINO candidacy imploded. It is also noteworthy that Hoffman got as many votes as he did.

On the issue of social conservatism, most people – socially conservative or not – do not put a high priority on these matters. The best strategy for conservatives is to run candidates who are fiscally conservative and favor limited government and a strong defense and run on these issues. They must also be reliable on the issues important to social conservatives. But to run predominantly on cultural issues turns off a large part of the electorate who find the cultural right distasteful and can be paranoid about politicians who seem to be “theocrats”.

Nov 6, 2009 - 9:25 am 72. JMH:

Here’s the lesson from the recent elections. With the economy in the state it’s in and the Dems trying to destroy what’s left of it, Independants aren’t going to vote on social issues. Independants aren’t going to care much whether a candidate is a social liberal, social moderate, or social conservative. They’re going to vote based on the candidates fiscal issues and the priority the candidate seems to give them.

This is great, great news for social conservatives, if we’re willing to listen and get off our high damn horse for a minute. Winning elections requires winning the Independants. Up till now, the debate has been whether to run social moderates to win the Independants. We don’t have to worry about that any more. We can run guys like McDonnell, social conservatives who focus on fiscal issues. They can win.

But they better focus on the fiscal issues, because if they focus on the social issues, those Independants get worried they’ll go the “compassionate conservative” route and spend us into bankruptcy being so compassionate.

This is a golden opportunity to re-establish public trust in the “Conservative” brand. Conservative has to include both fiscal and moral issues though (and honestly, borrowing our grandchildren into economic slavery is hardly a morally upright thing to do). The last decade, we’ve abandoned the fiscal part and lost trust from a significant part of the electorate. Typical Democrat overreach has handed us the chance to make up for that mistake.

Nov 6, 2009 - 12:53 pm 73. Dave:

It didn’t help that Dede drew enough votes to keep Doug from winning.. assuming hers would have gone to him.. not sure about that.. but Doug certainly has all the charisma of a stunned rabbit..

and with all that, he came within 2 percentage pts of winning. RNC money? FORGET IT. Head start campaigning? naaaah. Republican money advertising AGAINST HIM? check.

the conservative movement almost prevented the republican party from shooting us in the foot, but not quite.

that said, Dede would undoubtedly have either switched cauci or parties as soon as a social issue came up. So, nothing lost, really.

Nov 6, 2009 - 1:20 pm 74. Cathy F.:

Awesome commment, JMH @ 72. With SoCons like you, as a libertarian, I’ve got no problem backing you up and adding my vote to the tally. If only you could get through to a majority of your compatriots.

Please spare us from more “compassionate conservatism” which just breaks the bank in a whole other direction from the liberal way.

Nov 6, 2009 - 1:36 pm 75. Now and Then:

Actually, some people are saying that Hoffman has a cameo in Carrie Prejean’s movie. And we know that no Republitives engage in onanism on tape. So . . . he had to go.

Nov 6, 2009 - 3:08 pm 76. vivo:

I tried to tell everyone that the Scozzafava/Hoffman issue was local politics and not a national reflection of Republican behavior, but I got censored repeatedly.

Nov 7, 2009 - 4:21 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: