 |
| Moderated by: Wingie, VT-R, Terry, S., nNeo, mb, Lynne, kC, Heel, Freaks1932, dcbl, D |
|
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
docray
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 913 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 05:32 pm |
|
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/BREAKING_Scozzafava_drops_out_of_NY_23.html
Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her bid in next Tuesday’s NY 23 special election, a huge development that dramatically shakes up the race. She did not endorse either of her two opponents -- Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman or Democrat Bill Owens.
The decision to suspend her campaign is a boost for Hoffman, who already had the support of 50 percent of GOP voters, according to a newly-released Siena poll, and is now well-positioned to win over the 25 percent of Republicans who had been sticking with Scozzafava.
|
Big_Mike
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 05:48 pm |
|
Now that's interesting.
High marks for Scozzafava here, imo. Rather than split the conservative vote and let the Dem have a shot at winning, bows out and puts country ahead of personal ambition. Very big of her.
Is it too much to hope that John McCain might do the same when he comes up for re-election?
|
loxy3
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3039 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 06:57 pm |
|
Big_Mike wrote: Now that's interesting.
High marks for Scozzafava here, imo. Rather than split the conservative vote and let the Dem have a shot at winning, bows out and puts country ahead of personal ambition. Very big of her.
Is it too much to hope that John McCain might do the same when he comes up for re-election?
yep and here is a little history on her, seems shes not quite what one would consider a conservative -
But as a state assemblywoman, she voted for massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package—which every House Republican voted against.
More troubling, Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party—a socialist outfit whose political DNA is intertwined with scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN and the WFP have shared office space in New York City, Arkansas and Illinois. ACORN head Bertha Lewis, a close Scozzafava friend and political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”
Under fire for her cozy relations with organizations that have shown lifelong hostility toward the Republican Party, Scozzafava now claims she would have voted to de-fund ACORN in the wake of the multiple BigGovernment.com sting videos showing ACORN employees advising undercover journalists on how to evade tax laws, lie on housing applications and smuggle underage illegal alien prostitutes.
But there’s another inextricably linked ACORN and WFP affiliate that Scozzafava would not likely disavow: Big Labor.
Refresher: The Service Employees International Union is co-located with several key ACORN offices across the country. ACORN founder Wade Rathke founded influential SEIU Local 100. As John Wilson reported in the New York Post this spring, the WFP’s largest donors are the SEIU, which pitched in more than $300,000, and the teachers union, which donated $200,000. These organizations have worked together to increase left-wing political clout, undermine capitalism and ensure “social justice” on the public’s dime.
Scozzafava’s husband is a leading upstate New York union organizer. She supports the federal “card-check” legislation that would massively boost union rolls—and Democratic voting rolls—at the expense of rank-and-file workers’ free choice. And for that matter, at the expense of Republican electoral prospects. Card check is the key to a Democratic majority in perpetuity. Big Labor bosses have said as much…
|
lightoftruth
Member/DJ
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
This should be the first win in the "C" column. Are we watching the birth of a viable national third party????
|
Dr B
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 07:45 pm |
|
Ouch for Gingrich! Wonder what he has to say.
**Looks like Gingrich endorses Hofmann
Last edited on Sat Oct 31st, 2009 07:46 pm by Dr B
|
Tsalagi1
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 08:10 pm |
|
lightoftruth wrote: This should be the first win in the "C" column. Are we watching the birth of a viable national third party????
Not really..the Conservative Party of New York is precisely that...New York..and has in previous elections backed Democratic candidates as well as Republicans.
|
Big_Mike
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 12:28 am |
|
Big_Mike wrote: Now that's interesting.
High marks for Scozzafava here, imo. Rather than split the conservative vote and let the Dem have a shot at winning, bows out and puts country ahead of personal ambition. Very big of her.
Is it too much to hope that John McCain might do the same when he comes up for re-election?
I take this back.
Now that Scozzafava has backed the Democrat, which in my opinions is a sore loser kind of move, I have to rescind my comments about her bigness.
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 12:46 am |
|
I wouldn't have backed the Dem that way, but I can sure understand being sore about the idiot right pulling what they did on her. In fact, I would argue that elements of the GOP, currently controlling elements, first betrayed her.
|
Big_Mike
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 01:50 am |
|
tom_in_sac wrote: I wouldn't have backed the Dem that way, but I can sure understand being sore about the idiot right pulling what they did on her. In fact, I would argue that elements of the GOP, currently controlling elements, first betrayed her.
As a conservative who also happens to support a third party, the bickering amongst Republicans only provides amusement to me. This wasn't a move that was based on political ideology, but one based on pettiness and spite. Another signal that the death knell of the liberal Republican establishment is pealing.
This sort of action is one of the reasons why I'm excited to see the polls for the GOP's favorability falling.
I'm tired of this partisan, for-power-only nonsense we've seen from the Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have spent this country into a sad, sorry state of affairs, and while I hold out little hope that the current "conservative revival" will continue once the new crop reaches power, it's at least comforting to hear the slimy leeches mouthing insincere platitudes towards my beliefs, rather than the open support they've been giving power hungry statists for the last decade...
But to see a "Republican" throw their weight behind the Democrat in some weird attempt to support the two-party monstrosity, which is actively trying to crush this country, in an effort to continue to empower the government to rule without heed of the voices, will, and needs of such a vast segment of the population as the 40% of people who claim to be a conservative? No, this was a low move by the power hungry, and buoys my spirits about the future of the current two party structure's supremacy. It's high time that both parties got kicked to the curb, and that the rise of individual liberty and fiscal responsibility came back to DC.
We need to continue to focus our efforts on bringing the spirit of 1776 back to DC, and to hell with the feelings of the disposed statists in either party. Our children deserve no less.
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 02:10 am |
|
In 1992, I was all about a third party to shake things up a bit. And for the first time, it looked like a viable third candidate was forthcoming, in the form of Ross Perot. That year was the first in a long time that someone was elected to POTUS with less that 50% of the vote, namely William Jefferson Clinton.
This time, instead of a viable third candidate, we're lacking a viable second party because you have ideologues on one side applying their insipid little litmus tests as their own little self-appointed Kangaroo Courts of Conservative Compliance. If you let these miserable cretins, these Palins, these Pawlentys have their way, we'll be stuck with a Dem House, a Dem Senate, a Dem POTUS and eventually a hard-left SCOTUS.
All the BS about GOP resurgence is just that unless you find a way to stop their miserable McCarthyist inquisition.
|
Big_Mike
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 02:14 am |
|
tom_in_sac wrote: In 1992, I was all about a third party to shake things up a bit. And for the first time, it looked like a viable third candidate was forthcoming, in the form of Ross Perot. That year was the first in a long time that someone was elected to POTUS with less that 50% of the vote, namely William Jefferson Clinton.
This time, instead of a viable third candidate, we're lacking a viable second party because you have ideologues on one side applying their insipid little litmus tests as their own little self-appointed Kangaroo Courts of Conservative Compliance. If you let these miserable cretins, these Palins, these Pawlentys have their way, we'll be stuck with a Dem House, a Dem Senate, a Dem POTUS and eventually a hard-left SCOTUS.
All the BS about GOP resurgence is just that unless you find a way to stop their miserable McCarthyist inquisition.
Hmmm...
You do realize that, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that McCarthy was right?
I am all for taking big spending/big government/ big taxation politicians out behind the woodshed for a good, ol' fashioned spanking. Failure to do so will result in unavoidable ruin of our country, while success will offer at least a glimmer of hope for the American Dream.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-- Alexander Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:10 am |
|
Big_Mike wrote: You do realize that, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that McCarthy was right?
No, I'm in possession of no such knowledge, and I'm reasonably, I say reasonably sure nobody is. He made some correct accusations, and he made a few misses that cost people, and in no circumstance should he or any other Senate POS be allowed that kind of kangaroo court. No true Libertarian would be able to stomach that.
|
Big_Mike
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:23 am |
|
tom_in_sac wrote: Big_Mike wrote: You do realize that, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that McCarthy was right?
No, I'm in possession of no such knowledge, and I'm reasonably, I say reasonably sure nobody is. He made some correct accusations, and he made a few misses that cost people, and in no circumstance should he or any other Senate POS be allowed that kind of kangaroo court. No true Libertarian would be able to stomach that.
I support the right of an individual to believe whatever they want, and if that's communist, so be it.
But I have a right to live in a country free of communism's more horrendous tendencies, and the systematic methods by which the avowed communists work to further their agenda (not always an American agenda) stinks, imo.
|
AlterEgo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 166 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 11:47 pm |
|
Big_Mike wrote: Now that's interesting.
High marks for Scozzafava here, imo. Rather than split the conservative vote and let the Dem have a shot at winning, bows out and puts country ahead of personal ambition. Very big of her.
Is it too much to hope that John McCain might do the same when he comes up for re-election?
Mike,
Interesting? Not likely! She didn't do this because of some altruistic reason like not splitting the republican vote. She did it because she dropped to 20% in the polls and Doug Hoffman went up over 35% in the last two weeks.
After she dropped out, she endorsed the democrat Bill Owens.
It had nothing to with avoiding splitting the republican vote.
Her endorsement shows what party she really felt loyalty to.
|
Big_Mike
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 12:11 am |
|
AlterEgo wrote: Big_Mike wrote: Now that's interesting.
High marks for Scozzafava here, imo. Rather than split the conservative vote and let the Dem have a shot at winning, bows out and puts country ahead of personal ambition. Very big of her.
Is it too much to hope that John McCain might do the same when he comes up for re-election?
Mike,
Interesting? Not likely! She didn't do this because of some altruistic reason like not splitting the republican vote. She did it because she dropped to 20% in the polls and Doug Hoffman went up over 35% in the last two weeks.
After she dropped out, she endorsed the democrat Bill Owens.
It had nothing to with avoiding splitting the republican vote.
Her endorsement shows what party she really felt loyalty to.
:-) An illustration of hindsight, I adopted this stance later in the thread. :-)
|
AlterEgo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 166 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 12:16 am |
|
lightoftruth wrote: This should be the first win in the "C" column. Are we watching the birth of a viable national third party???? No NO NO NO NO NO third party.
What we need is a conservative take over of the republican party. We need to exorcise the RINO's from the party, kick out the current leadership, force them to switch to the dem party. because that is where they belong. They have more in common with the dems than they do with us.
|
Big_Mike
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 12:28 am |
|
AlterEgo wrote: lightoftruth wrote: This should be the first win in the "C" column. Are we watching the birth of a viable national third party???? No NO NO NO NO NO third party.
What we need is a conservative take over of the republican party. We need to exorcise the RINO's from the party, kick out the current leadership, force them to switch to the dem party. because that is where they belong. They have more in common with the dems than they do with us.
Why have a public fight over control of a stupid brand name?
The media and the Dems would use it to denigrate the conservative movement, people (especially those who lost) would be dissatisfied with the result, and for what?
A name? A color?
If the Republicans want to play "Coke v Pepsi" with the Democrats, let them. Real conservatives should just all switch to Faygo.
|
Lynne
S. Moderator
| Joined: | Fri Oct 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Good Times |
| Posts: | 2043 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 12:44 am |
|
We should all start voting for our leaders based on their own voting records rather than simply the letter behind their name. In this case, there was a liberal and a bigger liberal running against either other, a lose-lose situation.
Go Hoffman (C)
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 12:49 am |
|
Lynne wrote: We should all start voting for our leaders based on their own voting records rather than simply the letter behind their name. In this case, there was a liberal and a bigger liberal running against either other, a lose-lose situation.
Go Hoffman (C)
Madness. The number of GOP seats held determine the composition of the various committees and whether the Dems even have to worry about GOP objections at all.
There's absolutely no reason why the GOP can't reassert itself, other than the internecine idiocy of the type we're seeing now. If the scat-for-brains hard religious types take over the GOP, the GOP fails to have any relevance, end of story.
|
Tsalagi1
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 01:25 am |
|
AlterEgo wrote: lightoftruth wrote: This should be the first win in the "C" column. Are we watching the birth of a viable national third party???? No NO NO NO NO NO third party.
What we need is a conservative take over of the republican party. We need to exorcise the RINO's from the party, kick out the current leadership, force them to switch to the dem party. because that is where they belong. They have more in common with the dems than they do with us.
Sooo...we moderates must leave a Party because we're not idealogically pure? I am proud to follow in the footsteps of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Eisenhower. We're to be ostracized because we believe in that governing our country is more important then falling in lock-step with the goose-stepping far right wing of the GOP?
Moderates don't want to be Democrats, they want to actually do what they are elected to...govern the entire country, and to do that, one must realize we are dealing with a Majority-pretty-much-everything Democratic stranglehold. Politics is the art of negotiation...and right now, we're in the minority..and the Democrats aren't evil demons, they are merely the opposition...and yes..some of their policies want to make me tear my hair out, but they represented 53% of the American public. We can't run away from them...we can't govern without them..so one must exercise our influence to temper the worst of what a Democratic Administration has in store..
Because one day that pendulum may swing back, and I'd rather not have Democrats trying to suckerpunch our legislative agenda when it's their turn to revert back to the minority.
|
Current time is 01:46 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|
|
