40 Comments

1. Pajamas Media » The Meaning of the Republican Victory:

[...] Read the entire article here. [...]

Nov 4, 2009 - 10:59 am 2. Dan Maloney:

The idea that Hoffman lost because he ran as a take no prisoners right wing candidate is totally bogus.

He fought a great underdog campaign against BOTH major political parties.

He came within a whisker of defeating them both.

It is not Doug Hoffman who failed to build a consensus. It was the three county leaders and their allies in the RNCC, who tried to force conservatives out of the field, who lost this seat to the Republicans.

Let the lesson be learned correctly.
Do NOT take the conservative base for granted. It will come back to bite you in the Arse.

Nov 4, 2009 - 11:11 am 3. geokstr:

Mr Radosh:

I suggest it is you who is misreading what happened in NY-23, not conservatives.

The idiots who run the NRCC had already wasted nearly a million dollars to back a liberal democrat like Scozzofava before conservatives that “Republicans” like you and Brooks and Frum despise, Palin for instance, came out for Hoffman.

This race was lost because of the RINOs who obviously picked Scozzofava in the first place. If you’ve read the chronology of that process, there were several other candidates, real conservatives, some of which were much more attractive than the nerdy Hoffman, who were betrayed by those RINOs who rigged the process to select Scozzofava at the last second behind closed doors.

Even with that, Hoffman could have won if Scozzofava had done the honorable thing and at least endorsed no one, instead of outright betrayal of her supposed party, or if she had dropped out sooner. Imagine a united Republican party promoting a conservative candidate from the beginning, and I think it’s obvious that would have been a winner.

Nov 4, 2009 - 11:21 am 4. David W. Lincoln:

Here is a Canadian perspective. The saying, “Liberal, Tory, same old story”, or the joke, “The only difference between the Liberals and the Tories are, who their lawyers are on Bay Street” described the same old, same old, that existed for far too long. And then, change arrived. I joined the Reform Party of Canada in July, 2000, and the closest American phenomenon is the Tea Party phenomenon. Because the Reform
party was different, it was regarded as radical by those who got used to the same old, same old, and it profited from the perpetuation of the status quo (I refer to the MSM). Well, to say something is radical simply states the labeller has distanced himself or herself far from that position.

It is rational to conclude that men & women are different, and this is the case because there is more involved than men & women – and for this to be communicated again & again in the political arena.

It is rational to conclude that everyone goes
through various stages of life, and the earliest stages take place before birth. For
example, I was at the stage of life when all that was there was a collection of souls.

Now, there are people in the MSM who do not want to communicate that because they do not have enough of what it takes to gauge what is said in the light of what does not change. So, the usual happens: culturally conservative
positions are viewed as saying “no” to whatever. Not enough people have broken the code which says the communicator says what he,
or she, says because she, or he, does not like
what the culturally conservative message is.

Therefore, people have to put in more effort to get to the bottom, rather than let the likes of Dowd, Couric, and the rest of deformed souls in the MSM who snarl when a culturally conservative message is communicated, make up the minds of each member
of their audience.

Nov 4, 2009 - 1:50 pm 5. Jacob:

So in other words, conservatives need to shut up and let the moderates like John McCain lead us to victor….oh wait…didn’t we try that?

I would rather elect fiscally conservative, socially libertarian politicians over fiscal and social liberals, but please take into account that those of us on the so-called “far right” are voting on conscience issues like abortion when we vote (and advocate) candidates that take a socially conservative stand. I cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate in good conscience against a pro-life candidate. It has nothing to do with political strategy and everything to do with moral and ethical principles. Taking a page from Kirk and Burke, “political problems, at root, are moral and religious problems.”

Nov 4, 2009 - 1:53 pm 6. Marc Malone:

Radosh – You agree with Rosenbaum, huh? All these factors in what is clearly a unique election, and you deduce that it was social conservatism that did in the Hoffman campaign? What simplistic nonsense!

Hoffman is a nerd.

Hiffman was from outside the district.

Hoffman got a late start.

Hoffman had to essentially win a primary and a general all in a single month. He had to develop an organization in no time.

The Pub Party gave him no support. They supported his primary opponent.

The Dems had a huge GOTV machine and boatloass of money. They had powerful unions and carpetbag workers.

Scozzafava turned out to be a Judas.

The list can go on and on.

But, it was the SoCon that was responsible. D’oh! Why didn’t I think of that?

Nov 4, 2009 - 2:11 pm 7. Phineas:

“…deserted the once solid Republican bastion (in that column since the end of the Civil War)…”

This is gaining the strength of myth: NY 23 has not been a Republican lock since the end of the Civil War. In fact, it changed hands frequently, and the Democrats held it for 50 continuous years starting in 1923. The last Democrat from the district before this election was McNulty, who held the seat from 1989-93. See: http://tinyurl.com/yzqenhh

While I tend to agree that large swathes of independent and centrist voters are turned off by the social conservative message (I tend to be a fiscally conservative, socially laissez-faire (as RLS puts it) person, myself), I don’t think that was the big factor in NY 23. Scozzfava’s votes were larger than Owen’s margin of victory, and I have to think that, plus the cluster-frak caused by the local and national Republicans played a bigger role.

Nov 4, 2009 - 2:23 pm 8. David Thomson:

I doubt very much if the cultural war issues had much to do with the NY23 results. Watertown represents the land of my ancestors on my mother’s side. I visited her in 1999 and was stunned by the city’s poverty and sense of hopelessness. The economy has been in an awful recession for roughly the last forty years! Many, if not even most, of its high school graduates move from the area immediately after graduation. More importantly, it is unlikely that Watertown can reverse its downward economic slide. The city is likely doomed. It is part of a blue state that is too far-gone. My guess is that the majority of last night’s voters perceive the Democratic Party candidate to be their best bet to continue getting goodies from Washington, DC.

Nov 4, 2009 - 3:04 pm 9. baal:

There is one message that will unify social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians etc. That is the message of across the board spending cuts. We’re sick of promises, what we need is a restructured republican party that will fire–i.e. kick people out of the party for deficit spending.

Nov 4, 2009 - 3:24 pm 10. Pedrosito:

Give me a F_ _ king a break Mr. Radosh, it is you and Roger Simon that need to read the tea leaves. Do you think social conservatives will say “OK ” kill more babys but balance the budget ? Hey maybe you should reconsider and join the Barbara Boxer brigade. Some ex commies bring their baggage that we can do without!

Nov 4, 2009 - 3:33 pm 11. John "birther" Samford:

The US body politic is divided into thirds. The Right, Left and Center.
With a two party system, the side that ‘takes’ the most voters from the center wins. Since the center is in the center because they have no guiding principals, or maybe even no principals, one side can win with them, but it is a hollow victory. The center is fickle and changes positions with the sun. So after the election is over, checks and balances built into the American governmental system go into effect and nothing much gets done except the normal graft and corruption.
What is needed is a 3rd party, either a Moderate Party, so Repubs can go back to being conservatives, or a Conservative Party, so the Republicans can finish their morph into “Moderates”. Then the biggest party can combine with the smallest party to pound on the party in the middle.
Won’t happen of course.
Moderates are to wishy washy to ever get anything done, which is why they are content with being abused by either the left or the right every few years. The Moderate Party symbol should be someone sitting on the crapper, gruntin and groanin but not getting anything done.

Obama, Ophra and Joe the Plumber were flying from NY to LA together. Obama looks out the window and says, I could throw half a million out of the plane and make thousands of people happy. Ophry, not to be out done, says; I could throw millions out the plane and make millions of people happy. Joe speaks up and says, I could throw both you out da plane and make EVERYBODY happy.

Nov 4, 2009 - 3:37 pm 12. D'oh!:

1. Who cares what Benedict Frum thinks?

2. Stop being a coward. Learn to lose like a grown-up. If “moderates” won’t vote for someone because they don’t believe in, I dunno, cavorting with goats or whatever the next liberal triangulation gambit is, well, so be it.

3. You are a saying that certain social issues shouldn’t be important to conservatives, but what you are really saying is that conservatives should accept your liberal views on social issues, or else.

4. Your way will lead to the British-ization of America, where Democrats and Republicans agree on the liberal world view, but disagree over which party can more efficiently run the Marxist paradise.

5. What you tolerate, you promote. I want my children to live in a better world than I have, especially, a socially better world. There is, after all, no shame in being poor, but there is shame in behaving poorly. And, if you want to behave in a way that makes this a worse world to live in, socially, I don’t mind in the least telling you can’t – or else.

Nov 4, 2009 - 3:42 pm 13. Keith:

In a country whose citizens mostly define themselves as fiscally conservative and socially laissez fare, why the Republican Party would do anything other than promote their Libertarian side is beyond me.

You want to run the country? Drop the social issues and get serious about the economy. That’s how the Republican Party can dominate government for the next 50 years.

Nov 4, 2009 - 4:11 pm 14. Tish:

#4
“This is gaining the strength of myth: NY 23 has not been a Republican lock since the end of the Civil War. In fact, it changed hands frequently, and the Democrats held it for 50 continuous years starting in 1923. The last Democrat from the district before this election was McNulty, who held the seat from 1989-93.”

Finally, someone else did their homework….also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York’s_23rd_congressional_district

Wow – Pelosi starts a rumor and everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

Hoffman’s loss can be analyzed a hundred different ways. the botton line is he lacked the time needed to launch a competitive campaign. In addition, I agree that NJ and Virginia GOP candidates left social issues off the table and that helped land them undeniable wins but ACORN wasn’t able play dirty like they have in the past and we may have actually witnessed a clean(er) election. Hooray for NJ and VA.

Nov 4, 2009 - 4:25 pm 15. Carl Gordon:

I wouldn’t get out sparklers and start shooting off fireworks just yet. Truth be told, this is just a temporary piss stop along the way of the inevitable march to insignificance that is the ultimate fate of the GOP, since you sold what’s left of your souls to the devil or Murdoch orRand or whatever demon seems to control the purse-strings and general downward tenor of what used to be a contender. Yep, you stood a chance with McCain, but you had to kowtow to Palin and now you screwed the pooch, since you’re trying to appease the buck-toothed inbred core of your “party”, or, excuse me, “real amerika”. So after much plunging, I came up with something I believe is honorable and bereft of your victory.

What you need is some kind of parade that truly shows the new face of the GOP. I thought that about a six foot high jelly doughnut, which represents the spoon-fed naiveté and Beckian candy-assed gloss over that we, as a country, have watched you force-feed an ever-grateful body politic that still thinks it’s cool to do the Fonze “thumb-up” thingy. By filling the large doughnut with plastic vacuum-molded life-sized replicas of baby arms and legs and heads, this disenfranchised parade crowd would perhaps contemplate the other-worldly, alien-like gradual osmosis of the skeptical side of the duality of the mind and the true revelation of the “real” republican behind the voices in your head that everybody just assumes is your true self, pardon the contradiction. Obviously, by now, you’re guffawing into your grape nuts, acknowledging my ignorance of the laws of physics, for it does not take a half scoop of fresh brain to realize that after a while, the effects of gravity and the tendency of objects with higher density suspended in a colloidal material matrix would mean that the plastic replicas would eventually start a premature breakdown of the glutens in the already jelly weakened cell walls of the doughnut and gradually break down the electron shells to the degree that arms, heads, and legs would begin to slowly extend, as if they were being shitted, from the bottom, although the appearance would suggest that “they” are holding on to the confectionary mother ship with a passion, grasping dough-like the terra-firma of their doomed existence, as we all must your sinking ship settle to the bottom of the cesspool, and not unlike Ms. Malkin, as we all know it will.

Nov 4, 2009 - 4:30 pm 16. biblio44:

7. Pedrosito: ‘Give me a F_ _ king a break Mr. Radosh, it is you and Roger Simon that need to read the tea leaves. Do you think social conservatives will say “OK ” kill more babys but balance the budget ? Hey maybe you should reconsider and join the Barbara Boxer brigade. Some ex commies bring their baggage that we can do without!’

Yeah, Radosh, you ex-commie! Who the hell do you think you’re writing for, The New Republic!?!?

Nov 4, 2009 - 4:31 pm 17. Tweets that mention Ron Radosh » The Meaning of the Republican Victory -- Topsy.com:

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PJTV, PajamasMedia, Roger Simon, PajamasDeux, C20con and others. C20con said: PJM: The Meaning of the Republican Victory, by Ron Radosh. GOP needs swing voters fed up with Obama’s domestic policies. http://ow.ly/zj8b [...]

Nov 4, 2009 - 4:53 pm 18. David Thomson:

I have serious doubts whether a Republican can win in NY23 in 2010. The blue states are royally screwed. They are damned if they raise taxes—and damned if they don’t. The government employee unions are severely damaging them. A large number of blue state municipalities must eventually declare bankruptcy to get out from under their pension plans. Would you want to start a business in such an environment? Of course not. You will likely decide that it’s best to move to a red state.

Nov 4, 2009 - 4:55 pm 19. rachel peepers:

Americans do seem color blind. If a black candidate means what he says and says what he means, and believes in small government
and peace though strength, he or she can get elected.

Of course, I also admit that a slick snake oil salesman like Barack Obama can also win. Anybody is susceptible to a good hood winking.

Buy after awhile, the sense of smell takes over.

And Americans, in Pelosi, Reid, Obama and company, are starting to smell the unmistakably pungent odor of skunk. Lies. Misdeeds. Reverse racism. Just listen to Holder, Sotomayor, Jones and the rest of the marxist/socialist czars and NAMBLA worshippers. Who can stand to be in the same room with them? Not I.

Add up what happened last night, and anybody with a moderate helping of horse sense will realize that trying to turn the land of the free and the home of the brave into a third rate Euro/Socialist entity is a losing proposition. Eventually, Obama and his merry men will be ridden out on a rail.

In other words, the worst President in the history of the United States better enjoy his Wednesday night cocktail parties for all they’re worth because by 2012 he won’t have a ghost of a chance to snake oil his way to another victory. After nine long months, America senses what he’s up to. The destruction of the free enterprise system. The neutering of our military. The redistribution of wealth. Socialized medicine. The rewriting of the constitution. Not to mention the butchery of 1.5 million unborn every year.

Mr. President. If you have any sense at all, you know who the bell tolls for. Listen, it’s not that far in the distance, Mr. President.

The bell tolls for thee.

Nov 4, 2009 - 5:35 pm 20. Bilgeman:

Mr. Radosh:
“If Republicans want to win, they cannot confuse the views of their most far Right elements with that of the electorate to which they seek to appeal; they need candidates of the center-right who address their constituents’ concerns, and who do not turn away potential moderates and centrists whose margin of votes could guarantee their electoral victory.”

Ummm, I shouldn’t need to point this out, but most elections are contested by at least two partisan campaigns.

You can bet your bottom dinar that the estimable opposition is going to be painting every GOP candidate as a dreaded “SoCon”!

The correct answer to this chrage SHOULD be:

So….What?

Otherwise, the GOP runs the risk of trying so hard to field candidates that are immune from the opposition’s attacks that they end up with condidiates who keep the voting base home in droves.

IOW…they “Scozzafava” themselves.

That works really well, huh?

I wouldn’t worry overmuch about the SoCons label in any event.

In 2010, The Alleged Hawaiian and the Pelosi/Reid Congress will have a solid record of failure to be defending.

The Dems were seated as the majority Congressional party in January of 2007…and it’s been a nose-dive into the toilet since then.

We cement that fact in the public mind and tie the running end around their collective necks, then let the public throw the lot of ‘em out of the window.

Nov 4, 2009 - 5:39 pm 21. ricpic:

That’s right Radosh, the lesson of NY 23 is that Republicans should be Democrats-lite. Lacking the wherewithal to win the battle between the center-left and the hard left for the soul of the Democratic Party you attempt to pollute the Republican Party with your center leftism. Well it won’t work. The Republican Party will thrive only as the home of those extreme neanderthal right wingers you despise. Have the decency to fight to take back your natural backyard not a backyard that is forever alien to you.

Nov 4, 2009 - 6:37 pm 22. Tex Exexpatriate:

Geokstr said it all. To Radosh I say, Conservatives must not become babykillers, too, to win. They must remain Conservative. The RNCC caused an inexperienced but genuine American and Conservative to lose.

Nov 4, 2009 - 7:32 pm 23. Fantom:

Lets see, social conservatism is no way to win. If repubs want to win they need to embrace homosexual rights. Is that the gist of Radosh’s penning?

Well I must ask one simple question. Was it 53% or 54 % who voted against the homosexual mirage in what was it.. Maine? You know, conservative central.

Pulleze , Conservative values are alive and well in the majority of Americans.

Nov 4, 2009 - 7:33 pm 24. John the Libertarian:

Ron, when you use the phrase “fiscally conservative and socially libertarian”, I don’t know what that means, or if I’m puzzled by the redundancy. Is there a single libertarian that isn’t fiscally conservative? Or socially libertarian?

Nov 4, 2009 - 8:39 pm 25. Eric:

I think McDonnell took the right approach, be socially conservative just don’t make it front and center of your campaign. Not everyone cares about social issues but everyone cares about fiscal issues.

It’s the Left that has forced social issues to front and center by challenging thousands of years of human history and constantly and aggressively attempting Americans to accept their new definitions of normal. And many Americans are socially moderate or even conservatives who keep their social views to themselves and their families.

I’ve worked for a homosexual man and had great respect for him and liked him personally but I’d never accept gay marriage as something I want taught to my children. He and I may have disagreed about nearly social issue of the day but we agreed on fiscal issues.

I believe we have lost many many fiscally conservative people to the Dems because of social issues. Some people put those above fiscal issues for some reason. If we deemphasize social issues and strongly emphasize fiscal and small government I think we can build a winning coalition.

I’d rather have a socially Liberal gay man on our side who can help shrink government and reduce taxes than against me because of the party’s position on gays.

I think fiscal, tax, and the proper role and size of government are THE most important issues we face today. The POR cabal wants to take over our lives and I for one will fight to prevent it.

Nov 4, 2009 - 9:12 pm 26. Fantom:

Eric @ 16.

I think you have it backwards. If a homosexual would rather have higher taxes and advance his/her homosexual agenda.. including into your kids school. They vote democrat party.

So far it would seem that is their voting choice.

There really is no need to cave on this. Our latest example has !NO!! on homosexual mirage at 53%.

If fiscal is your mark, than I say you really are only half as much a Conservative as half a Conservative should be.

Nov 4, 2009 - 10:02 pm 27. Marc Malone:

If you want fiscal conservatism, then vote for a SoCon. When we advocate for fiscal restraint, you know we mean it.

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:54 am 28. WestWright:

I tend to agree with Pedrosito, the ex-lefty as well as current lefty bricade that are trying to spin this NY23 election against social conservatism all seem to miss the truth….it is in these writers DNA, something of a Progressive Gene that is always dominant when the rubber meets the road. The common name is R I N O.

Nov 5, 2009 - 4:31 am 29. Msmensa:

Yes, Radosh has nailed it!!!!!! As Reagan did, LIGHTLY support conservative social policies but STRONGLY STRONGLY SUPPORT and discuss conservative fiscal policies!
Otherwise, we’re not gonna win. It’s that simple.

Nov 5, 2009 - 7:50 am 30. Edward A.:

Republicans are becoming fixated on the conservative social fundalmentalists vs the RINO’s issue. As long as this battle continues, the Democrats will continue winning at the national level. Will this end?

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:44 am 31. Dennis:

Why is it that social conservatives have to be so absolutist – and obtuse?

Radosh (and Frum) aren’t saying giving up your values and surrender your causes. They are talking about the best way to serve those, which is by winning elections in a principled way by appealing to a broader group than just yourselves.

Someone who promotes limited govt, fiscal restraint, strong defense, and individual liberty but is “moderate” on issues such as abortion is a RINO that must be purged??? That is a recipe for political extinction. And get off this garbage that anyone not having the most conservative social-issue views are in league with Boxer & company; that is disrespectful, counterproductive, and just plain ignorant.

Hoffman not only couldn’t win, arguably he didn’t deserve to. This is a local district election, not a national one. He doesn’t even live in the district. He doesn’t know or care about the local issues of greatest concern. He led with social positions in a locale badly hurting economically – I’m sorry, but being a pro-life advocate does nothing to create jobs and lower taxes, and that is where the electorate, particularly in NY, is most concerned. Furthermore, the locals didn’t like being strong-armed by national politicians like Dick Armey who told them that their local issues were “parochial” (would *you* like that?). Why is this so difficult to undertand?

McDonnell is the model. He *is* a genuine social conservative, as WaPo reminded Virginians repeatedly. But he focused his energies on the concerns of the majority of the electorate, using conservative principles as his platform. That should not only be sufficient for the base, but be welcomed, too – as it was by the independents who swung hard in response not only to McDonnell but down-ticket, too.

Many comments here and in response to Roger’s earlier post indicate a hard-nosed rigidity that plays right into the hands of the Democrats.

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:02 am 32. myth buster:

Social conservatives are absolutist by nature. If something is objectively wrong, then it is wrong, and must never be endorsed or condoned. One can ask which order multiple problems should be addressed in, but pretending they aren’t problems is a non-starter. Let me be crystal clear, abortion is a non-negotiable issue; that is, social conservatives refuse to vote for any candidate, no matter how fiscally conservative, who is not pro-life in both word and practice. We will stay home or vote third party if the candidate Republicans put forward is not pro-life, and if the Democrat is pro-life, we will give strong consideration to voting Democrat. If that is unacceptable to you so-called libertarians, good bye and good riddance- you will lose America with that attitude, and we want nothing to do with you scoundrels who value money above innocent human lives.

You want to talk about the budget? Let’s talk about the budget, then. Who do you think is going to pay for all this debt if you kill off 1/4 of the next generation? Abortion is the single most important issue for the economy long term, eclipsing even unfunded liabilities for socialist programs. Why? Because abortion is the CAUSE of the unfunded liabilities, or at least a large percentage of them. 1,000,000 abortions per year means a million fewer taxpayers twenty years hence, a poison we are already reaping the toxic effects of. There would not have been a budget deficit during the Bush years if we had 20,000,000 more taxpayers. This doesn’t even take into account the noxious effects abortion has on the culture, the fruits of which are increased crime and more money spent on the criminal justice system.

Nov 5, 2009 - 11:34 am 33. Dennis:

@myth buster,

Thx for your post. And for your frank explanation that “social conservatives are absolutist by nature”. I understand and respect that, although that is not my approach. By the way, I am not a libertarian.

I do concentrate on the core principles of limited govt, fiscal restraint, strong defense, and individual liberty. These are the principles where there is the highest level of agreement and commonality. Personally, I would like to see social issues handled at the state and local level which respects the democratic process and acknowledges that this is a very large and diverse country.

My principal frustration is with the insistence of leading political campaigns with social issues in those locales where the electorate is clearly much more concerned with other issues. This is the takeaway from McDonnell’s win in Virginia. Ralph Reed summarizes it well, IMO:

“The Republican party is not a church. It does not promulgate doctrine and then exclude those who fail to share it. But political parties must stand for something . . . The more likely future for the GOP was seen in Virginia, where a stalwart conservative, Bob McDonnell, won the strong backing of prominent moderates like former Congressman Tom Davis, Bobbie Kilberg, and John Warner. McDonnell never trimmed his philosophical sails and never back-tracked on his pro-family, tax-cutting, pro-growth views, but his moderate temperament and inclusive leadership style attracted the support of not only moderate Republicans and 2 out of every 3 independents, but even prominent Democrats like the Sheila Johnson, ex-wife of BET founder Bob Johnson. I never heard a single complaint from moderates in the party about McDonnell’s conservative views or his background as a Regent University graduate or favorite of the pro-family community. They respected his views and admired his ability to build bridges as a leader and problem-solver. Conservatives should look for more McDonnells in the years to come if they truly want to become a majority again.”

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:22 pm 34. David Thomson:

So-called moderate Republicans are almost aways bad on economic issues. The odds that you will find one who is pro-abortion while still sensible on economic issues are next to zilch. Scozzafava was not just left-wing one the cultural war issues—she was also goofy on the economic ones.

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:11 pm 35. John "birther" Samford:

Truth time. Modern conservatism is defined by social principals, NOT fiscal ones.
Clinton made that change. He was the last POTUS to have a balanced budget, but a White House full of sex and drug addicts. Does that make him a RINO?
No the conservative principals are; No abortion, No homos, no gun control. Since those are all based on words from God, I guess you can throw religion in there also.
If you are willing to give up ANY of those principals for a balanced budget, then you are not a conservative.
There is no reason American Conservatives cannot have a balanced budget as well as their guns, an end to murdering unborn babies and a cure for homosexuality. None of those things are mutually exclusive.
The first step on gaining all those things is getting rid of those politicians that think you have to give up one thing to get another. Those that compromise CANNOT win.
When Tiger Woods tees up on the 18th hole, he isn’t thinking compromise. Neither is Mariano Rivera looking for a compromise when he walks to the mound in the 9th inning.
The Rangers at POINTE DU HOC didn’t have compromise on their mind.
Compromise is for losers. Dare to win.

Nov 5, 2009 - 11:38 pm 36. Paul -Indiana:

Alan Colmes was touting the NY23 election as proof that the Dems won on Tuesday. As usual, he constantly interrupts other speakers. O’Reilly pointed out that, that particular event included about 100K voters, while the Virginia and New Jersey contests involved millions. Self delusion, thy name is Democrat.

Nov 6, 2009 - 6:26 am 37. deguello:

THE MEANING OF THE ELECTION IS SIMPLY THIS: WE ARE NOT EUROPE!

Nov 6, 2009 - 6:26 am 38. The Greenroom » Forum Archive » NY23: Hoffmania Misinterpreted:

[...] in New York’s 23rd District, I overlooked a couple of analyses which I just stumbled across. Ron Radosh wrote: The reason Doug Hoffman lost in the NY 23rd Congressional District is that he ran as a purist of [...]

Nov 21, 2009 - 2:46 am 39. DBKP FLASH Headline News » More ‘Far Right’ Spin Analysis of NY-23:

[...] Robert Stacy McCain was on the ground in NY-23 and refutes liberal spin as regurgitated by Ron Radosh, Pajamas Media. [...]

Nov 22, 2009 - 10:02 am 40. discount tiffany jewelry:

THE MEANING OF THE ELECTION IS SIMPLY THIS: WE ARE NOT EUROPE!

Nov 24, 2009 - 12:38 am

Write a Comment

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