Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Instant Sunrise
Jedi Knight
Posts: 945
Joined: 2005-05-31 02:10am
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
Contact:

Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Instant Sunrise »

Looks like the GOP Civil War is finally going to happen.

Say hello to the "Conservative Party"
The Associated Press wrote:Palin backs 3rd-party candidate in NY House race

By VALERIE BAUMAN (AP) – Oct 23, 2009

ALBANY, N.Y. — Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has endorsed a third-party candidate over the GOP-backed contender in New York's congressional special election, saying her own party has abandoned its core values.

The former Alaska governor, who was Arizona Sen. John McCain's running-mate last year, said Thursday she was backing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava in the 23rd Congressional District race.

Palin said Hoffman, a businessman, stands for Republican principles — smaller government, lower taxes and a commitment to individual liberty — and that Scozzafava is more aligned with Democrats.

The offseason race to replace former Rep. John McHugh, whom President Barack Obama named as his Army secretary, has drawn national attention to a growing splinter between Republican moderates and conservatives who say they want the party to return its core values.

"The Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race," Palin said in a post on her Facebook page Thursday night.

Democrat Bill Owens, a Plattsburgh lawyer and retired Air Force captain, is also running. An Oct. 15 survey by Siena College showed Owens with 33 percent, Scozzafava with 29 percent and Hoffman with 23 percent. The poll of 617 likely voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Scozzafava has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, but she's been criticized by some conservatives for her support for abortion rights, same-sex marriage and other issues.

Scozzafava spokesman Matt Burns said a vote for Hoffman hurts Republicans.

Hoffman has been labeled a spoiler by some, but he's looking more like a contender lately, with support from prominent Republicans, including former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, who endorsed Hoffman on Friday.

"The other candidates in this race are far too similar in their records and stated support for much of the Democrats' agenda in Washington," Forbes said.
Dick Armey, one of the organizers behind the Tea Party movement has also given his endorsement to the Bull-Moose Party Conservative Party candidate.
The Dallas Morning News wrote:Dick Armey to endorse 3rd party candidate over Republican in NY House race

The special election to fill New York's vacant 23rd congressional seat is perhaps the earliest test of the GOP's chances to reclaim the House in 2010. Yet the GOP candidate, Dede Scozzafava, has struggled to line up Republican support, and has taken a pummeling from conservative groups that assert she's liberal. The Club for Growth and Eagle Forum, among others, support her opponent, Doug Hoffman, who's running on the Conservative Party ticket.

Add North Texas' Dick Armey to the list of conservative stars backing Hoffman. The former House Majority Leader has confirmed to the Hoffman campaign that he'll spend Thursday with them, said Rob Ryan, a Hoffman spokesman. "He is with us almost all day Thursday," Ryan told me. "There will be a bunch of different events." Armey's endorsement of Hoffman is personal and wasn't offered on behalf of FreedomWorks, the conservative foundation he chairs.
I've been expecting something like this to happen for a long time now. The batshit insane wing of the Republican party has been blaming everybody but themselves for the losses in 2006 and 2008. Now that their republican leaders are unable to give them everything what they want, they're threatening to vote them out and split the party. But it looks like the last vestiges of the big-tent conservatism that kicked into high gear in 1980 and 1994 is finally trashing and wailing its way into irrelevance.
Hi, I'm Liz.
Image
SoS: NBA | GALE Force
Twitter
Tumblr
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Patrick Degan »

Destructionator XIII wrote:Economically, she's a little to the right of Barack Obama; conservative, certainly, but not really bullheaded about it. I see why the big-c Conservatives don't like her.
Surely you've just answered your own question. She not a free-market absolutist.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
CarsonPalmer
Jedi Master
Posts: 1227
Joined: 2006-01-07 01:33pm

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by CarsonPalmer »

Effectively, this is really an anti-Bull Moose Party, considering that Teddy's party was progressive and pushing the country ahead, while the Conservative Party is trying to have the opposite effect.
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Coyote »

And these are the chowderheads threatening a "big comeback" in 2010. :roll: They're splitting into their 'Jesus Freak' and 'Business, Business Uber Alles' camps. I'll be surprised if they have their feces conglomerated in time for any significant gains in 2010; as it is they might have a chance to stop losing ground to the Democrats-- and that would only be because the Democrats have been branded as" all talk, no action" on some fronts.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Axis Kast »

The Conservative Party is a mainstay of New York politics, and has been for decades. It typically throws its lot in with the Republican Party in virtually every race. This is interesting, but has none of the implications being touted in this thread. In fact, nationally, the stated agenda of Doug Hoffman is consistent with those of most Republican candidates. By comparison with Republicans elsewhere in the state, Hoffman is unremarkable.

The only thing he has going for him is if he is honest about fighting earmarks, we might finally lose that god damned army base.
Which base? Fort Drum? Why would that be a blessing, and not a curse?
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Molyneux »

Palin said Hoffman, a businessman, stands for Republican principles — smaller government, lower taxes and a commitment to individual liberty — and that Scozzafava is more aligned with Democrats.
Those are all core conservative values, she's quite right.
I would like to know, though, how the hell she can reconcile any of those with banning gay marriage! I wrote for a conservative college opinion paper, and we had no fucking problem with this; individual rights -> I don't give a damn what you do in your own bedroom or your own life, as long as it doesn't hurt other people -> if there are any legal benefits to marriage, let people enter into that contract with whoever the fuck they want.

If that's easy enough for college Republicans to understand, how on Earth has it apparently escaped the entire national party?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Axis Kast »

In this instance, I really do believe that it is because Republicans are fundamentally concerned that (1) they should not have to stand by while people do something which is "disgusting" within their field of vision; (2) their children will be exposed to homosexuality, and therefore may be influenced to "discover" themselves as homosexuals, dashing any hopes of respectability and biological grandchildren; (3) it has been neatly presented, again and again, as infringement, or potential infringement, on the rights of the church to exclude those who do not meet certain criterion. Lately, conservative friends have been suggesting that approval of gay marriage would mean, in time, a series of laws forcing them to issue such marriages in their churches. Never mind the unconstitutionality of it.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12269
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Surlethe »

Scozzafava drops out:
NYT wrote:A moderate Republican whose candidacy for an upstate New York Congressional seat had set off a storm of national conservative opposition, abruptly withdrew on Saturday, emboldening the right at a time when the Republican Party is enmeshed in a debate over how to rebuild itself.

The candidate, Dede Scozzafava, said she was suspending her campaign in the face of collapsing support and evidence that she was heading for a loss in a three-way race on Tuesday involving Douglas L. Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party line, and Bill Owens, a Democrat.

Ms. Scozzafava had been under siege from conservative leaders because she supports gay rights and abortion rights and was considered too liberal on various fiscal issues.

The Republican National Committee, which had strongly backed Ms. Scozzafava’s candidacy, issued a statement applauding her decision and announcing it was now supporting Mr. Hoffman.

“Effective immediately, the R.N.C. will endorse and support the Conservative candidate in the race, Doug Hoffman,” the party’s national chairman, Michael Steele, said. “Doug’s campaign will receive the financial backing of the R.N.C. and get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat Bill Owens on Tuesday.”

But other prominent Republicans expressed concern that Ms. Scozzafava’s decision seemed likely to unsettle the party going into next year’s midterm elections, raising the prospect of more primaries against Republican candidates that they deem too moderate. Party leaders — including Mr. Steele and Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker — had argued that local parties should be permitted to pick candidates that most closely mirror the sentiments of the district, even if those candidates vary from Republican orthodoxy on some issues.

“This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we’ll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama’s re-election,” said Mr. Gingrich, who had endorsed Ms. Scozzafava.

“I felt very deeply that when you have all 11 county chairman voting for someone, that it wasn’t appropriate for me to come in and render my judgment,” he said. “I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices.”

Ms. Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman and former small-town mayor, was nominated this summer by Republican county leaders who quickly found their choice second-guessed by the party’s conservative wing. Many officials in the district, a vast expanse from the Vermont border through the Adirondacks to Lake Ontario, were deeply resentful of the outside involvement.

“They’re trying to bang 435 elections across the United States into the same mold,” said James Ellis, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party. “It’s a detriment to democracy.”

Ms. Scozzafava’s withdrawal leaves a clear two-way race between Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Owens, a Plattsburgh lawyer. As such, the contest on Tuesday could offer a test of the debate that Republican leaders are having: whether it needs to adjust itself ideologically to expand its appeal to places like New York.

Mr. Hoffman, though running as a Conservative, had been endorsed by some Republican luminaries, including Sarah Palin, the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a likely candidate for president in 2012. The swell of opposition to Ms. Scozzafava was reflected on conservative radio talk shows and in a heavy diet of television advertising supporting Mr. Hoffman that was financed by conservative groups.

Ms. Scozzafava did not say whom, if anyone, she would endorse. Polls in the district showed that Mr. Owens and Mr. Hoffman were each drawing about 35 percent of the vote; several Republicans said that at least in theory, her withdrawal should help Mr. Hoffman as Republican voters join his campaign.

The district has been solidly Republican since the 19th century and had been represented by Representative John M. McHugh, who stepped down after Mr. Obama named him secretary of the Army.

“In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be,” Ms. Scozzafava said in a statement. “The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money — and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record.”

The decision by Ms. Scozzafava to suspend her campaign is a clear victory for conservatives in the party at a time when there has been a pitched battle among party leaders over whether Republicans needed to change their ideological appeal as part of an effort to recover from the losses of 2006 and 2008.

Ms. Scozzafava fit the model of candidate advocated by Republican leaders like Mr. Steele and Senator John Cornyn of Texas: one whose views might not be in keeping with much of the national party, but are more reflective of the district in question.

A primary is unfolding in Florida, where Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running for the Senate, is facing a challenge from a conservative, Marco Rubio, the former Florida House speaker. Mr. Crist has come under fire from conservatives for, among other things, supporting Mr. Obama on his economic stimulus package.

Republican officials said that Ms. Scozzafava decided to drop out after reviewing private and public polls that convinced her that she was going to come in third place.

One Republican who had spoken to Ms. Scozzafava about her decision said that she was concerned her candidacy was too divisive for the party and that the decision was hers alone.

“She didn’t want to be labeled as a spoiler,” said the person, who requested anonymity because private conversations were involved.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Crossroads Inc.
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9233
Joined: 2005-03-20 06:26pm
Location: Defending Sparkeling Bishonen
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Crossroads Inc. »

and THIS is what I am afraid of here.... Oh sure everyone talks of this "splitting" the republicans, of elections going to Democrats because of a GOP candiate and a "conservative" candidate.. But thats not what is going to happen in most cases.. In most cases once the witting is on the wall, more likely then not this will happen; The GOP candidate will simply drop out, leaving the Crazy Conservative candidate to step up and even win. What this means is soon ONLY Wacky Conservatives will be getting to the primary election. This might not seem a bad thing to most, But I'd like to not think about a Republican party made up of teabaggers, Trutheres and people like Glenn Beck.
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan
Read "Tales From The Crossroads"!
Read "One Wrong Turn"!
User avatar
D.Turtle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 2002-07-26 08:08am
Location: Bochum, Germany

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by D.Turtle »

Except that you can not win national elections that way.

The Republican Party is fast becoming a regional party:

Code: Select all

REPUBLICAN PARTY
  	       FAV UNFAV 	NO OPINION
ALL	       21	68	11
NORTHEAST 	 6	89	5
SOUTH    	48	37	15
MIDWEST	  10	78	12
WEST	     12    77	11
If they continue radicalizing (and so far every indication is that they will), they will become even less relevant. After all, they are currently only relevant because the Democratic Party leadership is allowing them to be so.

If you wouldn't have such a strong winner take all system, and it was possible to actually have more than two parties on a national level, you would probably see a three way split, with a progressive and a conservative party splitting off from the Democrats and the Republicans, respectively.

Instead, for now the Republicans will become increasingly marginalized, while the Democratic Party will continue to move farther to the left. After all, most of their gains in the last few elections have come from more liberal/progressive people being elected. If the Harry Reid loses his election, it will be quite interesting to see who will replace him.
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Coyote »

Molyneux wrote:
Palin said Hoffman, a businessman, stands for Republican principles — smaller government, lower taxes and a commitment to individual liberty — and that Scozzafava is more aligned with Democrats.
Those are all core conservative values, she's quite right.
I would like to know, though, how the hell she can reconcile any of those with banning gay marriage! I wrote for a conservative college opinion paper, and we had no fucking problem with this; individual rights -> I don't give a damn what you do in your own bedroom or your own life, as long as it doesn't hurt other people -> if there are any legal benefits to marriage, let people enter into that contract with whoever the fuck they want.
That's the big dichotomy with the Republicans these days. They make a lot of talk about "states rights" because they somehow just assume that the states are all clamoring for Creation to be taught in schools, to ban gays from access to oxygen, and let everyone go to church on Sundays.

They don't really consider that many states are also willing to ban guns, let gays marry, allow abortion or assisted suicide, or create welfare systems. States Rights, or as I hear a lot "County level government", would mean that Berkeley, California could ban all military recruiting and activity (which they tried) and there'd be fuck-all the Talibangicals could do about over in Sodomy Creek, Arkansas.

Conservatives only really support States Rights when they know the states will follow "Christian Values". Note how eager they were willing to step in during the Terry Schiavo case in Florida. No states rights there at all, no sir! They were all for using the power of government to enforce what was, essentially, a religious opinion that didn't even reflect the religious beliefs of the people involved.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Axis Kast »

Let me repeat.

Only a curiosity of New York politics allowed a Republican candidate to be "outflanked" by a third-party upstart. This is unlikely anywhere else, both because of the general attitudes of the Republican Party, which are not reflected in Scozzafava, and because the Conservative Party exists only in New York.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Axis Kast wrote:In this instance, I really do believe that it is because Republicans are fundamentally concerned that (1) they should not have to stand by while people do something which is "disgusting" within their field of vision; (2) their children will be exposed to homosexuality, and therefore may be influenced to "discover" themselves as homosexuals, dashing any hopes of respectability and biological grandchildren; (3) it has been neatly presented, again and again, as infringement, or potential infringement, on the rights of the church to exclude those who do not meet certain criterion. Lately, conservative friends have been suggesting that approval of gay marriage would mean, in time, a series of laws forcing them to issue such marriages in their churches. Never mind the unconstitutionality of it.
And yet you come into threads and protest people characterizing conservatives as morons when their politics is based on massive ignorance of the subjects that they feel strongly about. I.E:

1) is a poor argument, because it could easy turn around on them. Without demonstrateable harm of the "disgusting" thing, there is no reason why it should be illegal. There are people who find hunting "disgusting" too and want it not legal, but I doubt the Republicans we are talking about would do anything but sneer at them, regardless of the argument being self-consistant when a certain set of values (the value of the life of non-human animals) is in place.

2) is demonstratably false, and based on gross misunderstanding of homosexuals. I know it's a big thing that amongst conservatives that gay people can "recruit" you or you can learn to be gay, but that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. Case in point, children who are raised by homosexual parents are no more likely to be gay themselves statistically than ones raised by straight parents, statistically, if research has any meaning. I'm assuming psychological research in this case doesn't count, because it doesn't support the conservative position. Hence why some conservative churches have set up those horrific camps designed to beat the gay out of children, hoping to "cure" them by giving them sufficient PTSD and Stockholm Syndrome that they will stop wanting to kiss boys*.

*PS: PLEASE challenge me on the existence of these things.

3) has a word for it in psychology as well. It's called "paranoia". There is absolutely no reason to think that the legalization of homosexual marriage will force their churches to marry gay parishiners, in their church or out of it. After all, an entirely different principle of free association for private institutions still exists, irregardless of gay marriage and as far as I know, the clergy isn't legally required to sign ANYONE'S marriage certificate, straight or gay. They possess that power under the law, but I don't believe they are required to use it upon request. I don't find it convincing in the future that there will be laws put in place requiring the clergy to do so, since it isn't part of the state. People in the courthouse, yes, but they are already required to do so.

In short, straight up paranoid behavior.

Yes, somehow you find the time to defend these people in threads.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Knife »

I'm interested how this will play out with three days left, at the time she dropped out.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
D.Turtle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 2002-07-26 08:08am
Location: Bochum, Germany

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by D.Turtle »

Axis Kast wrote:Let me repeat.

Only a curiosity of New York politics allowed a Republican candidate to be "outflanked" by a third-party upstart. This is unlikely anywhere else, both because of the general attitudes of the Republican Party, which are not reflected in Scozzafava, and because the Conservative Party exists only in New York.
It may be a one-time event that a Republican is outflanked by a third party candidate. However, it is NOT a one-time event that a moderate Republican is being outflanked by right-wing conservatives. That is something that is happening all over the US. Arlen Specter defected because he was being outflanked. Charlie Crist in Florida is being outflanked. And there are more.

It is a very simple fact that the Republican Party is currently purging its ranks of the last few remaining moderates in order to become a completely right-wing party.

And this will make them irrelevant in the long run. They would be irrelevant right now if the Democrats wouldn't make them relevant all the time.
Knife wrote:I'm interested how this will play out with three days left, at the time she dropped out.
Most probably Hoffmann will win. Which is a good thing. Another right-wing conservative in the House will not make a difference. Another useless Blue Dog Democrat would be a nuisance.

Normally this seat wouldn't even be close to competitive. It only is/was competitive because of the split on the Republican side.
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

How can they become irrelevant when these completely right-wing republicans still reflect the core ideals and values of a whole lot of Americans?
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
D.Turtle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 2002-07-26 08:08am
Location: Bochum, Germany

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by D.Turtle »

Because its only about 20-30% of the population.

A lot, but not enough if those are the only ones voting for you.
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Samuel »

Shroom Man 777 wrote:How can they become irrelevant when these completely right-wing republicans still reflect the core ideals and values of a whole lot of Americans?
Because the reactionaries are dying and so the base of support they can call upon is slowly but surely sinking.
xerex
Jedi Knight
Posts: 849
Joined: 2005-06-17 08:02am

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by xerex »

This got GOOD
Linky
Republican Dede Scozzafava today endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, her former opponent, in Tuesday's election to fill the North Country congressional seat formerly held by John McHugh.

Scozzafava suspended her campaign for the 23rd District seat Saturday, citing weak poll numbers and inadequate campaign funds.

In a statement released this afternoon, she called Owens ''an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York.''
Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Molyneux »

xerex wrote:This got GOOD
Linky
Republican Dede Scozzafava today endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, her former opponent, in Tuesday's election to fill the North Country congressional seat formerly held by John McHugh.

Scozzafava suspended her campaign for the 23rd District seat Saturday, citing weak poll numbers and inadequate campaign funds.

In a statement released this afternoon, she called Owens ''an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York.''
Well, at least I know for sure now that I'm not the only New York Republican voting Democrat... :D
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Axis Kast »

Yes, somehow you find the time to defend these people in threads.
I find the time to contend that their positions and motivations are often misunderstood, or else misrepresented.

I don't have any truck with their position on homosexuality, which I find both disgraceful and misguided.

I do assume, however, that Hoffman's appeal to conservatives lies more in his ability to appropriate the all-around mantle of a "social values" candidate than in his position on the singular issue of homosexual rights. I doubt that many Republicans go to the ballot box to vote strictly "in defense of marriage" -- at least not without first deluding themselves that their vote is for a whole outlook on politics and society.
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7956
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by ray245 »

D.Turtle wrote:Because its only about 20-30% of the population.

A lot, but not enough if those are the only ones voting for you.
Where did you get those figures from?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Serafina »

D.Turtle wrote:Because its only about 20-30% of the population.

A lot, but not enough if those are the only ones voting for you.
At least under the american voting system. About time something good springs from that outdated nightmare.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
Dark Hellion
Permanent n00b
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2002-08-25 07:56pm

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Dark Hellion »

Axis Kast wrote:I doubt that many Republicans go to the ballot box to vote strictly "in defense of marriage" -- at least not without first deluding themselves that their vote is for a whole outlook on politics and society.
The main issue with this is that whether or not the opposition notices the nuance of self-delusion because many people do vote on single issues. They may frame it in their heads in a way that allows them to justify it, but this doesn't make their action any less dubious within the framework of democracy.

Further complicating this is that everyone knows this happens so you have candidates who are essentially issueless "issues" candidates, simply saying a bunch of things that single-issue voters will agree with (pro-life, pro-gun, anti-homosexual, etc.) without addressing anything about the actual substance behind them. There is a safety in the knowledge that saying you are against Roe vs. Wade and don't want gay marriage will net you a percent of the vote even if you have no other talking point what-so-ever, as clearly demonstrated by the Palin wing of the Republican party.

This seems to be the point you have repeatedly missed. Even if their opponents are incorrectly characterizing them overall, for the purpose of the debate these people have become card-board cut outs. They may have deep motivations with subtle pretext, but when the time comes they are guaranteed to vote because of single issues. You cannot dismiss the conclusion of an argument if it follows logically from the premises provided, even if further useless premises exist. Just because a single issue voter has a more complex thought process than "I am gonna vote against dem queers" if they are going to vote anti-homosexual no matter what, we can draw conclusions from that that reduces the motivation back to "I am gonna vote against dem queers."

Most people do not have a coherent philosophy with strong axioms which makes determination of the foundational principle for why they hold the beliefs they do to be extremely difficult of nigh impossible to find. You seem to wish for people to establish this before they characterize their opposition but this is not necessary and is mearly and obfuscation on your part because we do not need foundational principals to find motivations. People will drink because they are thirsty without any reference to their axiomatic belief that they should live. Suicidal people clearly don't hold this belief but we do not say this is the cause of their suicide and look for motivating factors else where. We simply do not need to know axioms or first premises to understand that people do things. We can hop on midway through because we can still draw out the motivation from there and when we find the motivation immoral or hypocritical we can characterize the person as such. A group of people deluded into doing an action classified as X are still X even if deluded (so long as they are mentally competent of course). To understand them we may need to understand the source of delusion, but they must be willing to as well, which is were this often breaks down. Many people have political or social beliefs (and often conflate the two) that they simply are unwilling to break their delusion about. And when such a thing occurs it is very hard to construct any rational criticism that will be convincing, so one falls back on ridicule, in the hope of shaming them into finally being willing to drop their wall and listen to the argumentation presented to them.

To put on my arm chair psychologist hat for a second, I think you find many of the people who identify with you politically to be morally dubious (you have said so yourself in this thread) but are unable to break tribal rank, so you wrap it up in a bunch of semantics and obfuscations to avoid addressing the fact that you do not agree with major aspects of the mindset of your tribe. In some ways, I think you're asking for understanding of motivation because you yourself are finding it hard to understand the motivation that American Conservatives now seem to be working under. You want to know why people who you assume reasonable and seem to hold similar axioms to you come to such conclusions that you find so distasteful. Frankly, I think you are assuming too much from a group of people who have long been deluding into belief that thinking with your gut is always correct. The need for such rationalization as you describe in the quote is because they probably wouldn't believe how they do if they really thought down and plotted it all out, but this has been drilled into their brains as bad so they act like the caricatures that their opponents have painted them as to both sides shared delight and chagrin.
A teenage girl is just a teenage boy who can get laid.
-GTO

We're not just doing this for money; we're doing this for a shitload of money!
User avatar
Instant Sunrise
Jedi Knight
Posts: 945
Joined: 2005-05-31 02:10am
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
Contact:

Re: Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

Post by Instant Sunrise »

Axis Kast wrote:The Conservative Party is a mainstay of New York politics, and has been for decades. It typically throws its lot in with the Republican Party in virtually every race. This is interesting, but has none of the implications being touted in this thread. In fact, nationally, the stated agenda of Doug Hoffman is consistent with those of most Republican candidates. By comparison with Republicans elsewhere in the state, Hoffman is unremarkable.
It's the fact that this is coming at the same time as a lot of the far-right that has been complaining about RINO's in their own party. Not only that but you have this local race getting national attention from prominent conservative figures like Palin (who has started her own PAC this year), Armey, Beck and Gingrich.

The Conservative Party guy, Hoffman, does not live in the district and is only popular on wedge issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage. What I am saying this means, Axi, is that the Republicans, on a national scale, are willing to abandon the "big tent" concept and push an extremist third party candidate over a more moderate Republican. This race is a proving ground for that strategy.

Depending on how this race goes we could see a lot more congressional races like this in 2010, with the Republican party splitting between the single-issue candidates and the more moderate incumbents.

EDIT: The New York Times had a wonderful column on this election yesterday:
Frank Rich wrote:BARACK OBAMA’S most devilish political move since the 2008 campaign was to appoint a Republican congressman from upstate New York as secretary of the Army. This week’s election to fill that vacant seat has set off nothing less than a riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war. No matter what the results in that race on Tuesday, the Republicans are the sure losers. This could be a gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats through 2010, and perhaps beyond.

The governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia were once billed as the marquee events of Election Day 2009 — a referendum on the Obama presidency and a possible Republican “comeback.” But preposterous as it sounds, the real action migrated to New York’s 23rd, a rural Congressional district abutting Canada. That this pastoral setting could become a G.O.P. killing field, attracting an all-star cast of combatants led by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, William Kristol and Newt Gingrich, is a premise out of a Depression-era screwball comedy. But such farces have become the norm for the conservative movement — whether the participants are dressing up in full “tea party” drag or not.

The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama. The movement’s undisputed leaders, Palin and Beck, neither of whom have what Palin once called the “actual responsibilities” of public office, would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross of right-wing ideological purity. Over the short term, at least, their wish could come true.

The New York fracas was ignited by the routine decision of 11 local Republican county chairmen to anoint an assemblywoman, Dede Scozzafava, as their party’s nominee for the vacant seat. The 23rd is in safe Republican territory that hasn’t sent a Democrat to Congress in decades. And Scozzafava is a mainstream conservative by New York standards; one statistical measure found her voting record slightly to the right of her fellow Republicans in the Assembly. But she has occasionally strayed from orthodoxy on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) and endorsed the Obama stimulus package. To the right’s Jacobins, that’s cause to send her to the guillotine.

Sure enough, bloggers trashed her as a radical leftist and ditched her for a third-party candidate they deem a “true” conservative, an accountant and businessman named Doug Hoffman. When Gingrich dared endorse Scozzafava anyway — as did other party potentates like John Boehner and Michael Steele — he too was slimed. Mocking Newt’s presumed 2012 presidential ambitions, Michelle Malkin imagined him appointing Al Sharpton as secretary of education and Al Gore as “global warming czar.” She’s quite the wit.

The wrecking crew of Kristol, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the government-bashing Club for Growth all joined the Hoffman putsch. Then came the big enchilada: a Hoffman endorsement from Palin on her Facebook page. Such is Palin’s clout that Steve Forbes, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor (and presidential aspirant), promptly fell over one another in their Pavlovian rush to second her motion. They were joined by far-flung Republican congressmen from Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma and California, not to mention a gaggle of state legislators from Colorado. On Fox News, Beck took up the charge, insinuating that Hoffman’s Republican opponent might be a fan of Karl Marx. Some $3 million has now been dumped into this race by outside groups.

Who exactly is the third-party maverick arousing such ardor? Hoffman doesn’t even live in the district. When he appeared before the editorial board of The Watertown Daily Times 10 days ago, he “showed no grasp” of local issues, as the subsequent editorial put it. Hoffman complained that he should have received the questions in advance — blissfully unaware that they had been asked by the paper in an editorial on the morning of his visit.

Last week it turned out that Hoffman’s prime attribute to the radical right — as a take-no-prisoners fiscal conservative — was bogus. In fact he’s on the finance committee of a hospital that happily helped itself to a $479,000 federal earmark. Then again, without the federal government largess that the tea party crowd so deplores, New York’s 23rd would be a Siberia of joblessness. The biggest local employer is the pork-dependent military base, Fort Drum.

The right’s embrace of Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P. On Saturday, the battered Scozzafava suspended her campaign, further scrambling the race. It’s still conceivable that the Democratic candidate could capture a seat the Republicans should own. But it’s even better for Democrats if Hoffman wins. Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure. That’s bad news for even a Republican as conservative as Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose primary opponent in the Texas governor’s race, the incumbent Rick Perry, floated the possibility of secession at a teabagger rally in April and hastily endorsed Hoffman on Thursday.

The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats’ prospects next year. But the electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we’re seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes. Writing in 1964 of that era’s equivalent to today’s tea party cells, the historian Richard Hofstadter observed that the John Birch Society’s “ruthless prosecution” of its own ideological war often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies.

The same could be said of Beck, Palin and their acolytes. Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode. They drove out Arlen Specter, and now want to “melt Snowe” (as the blog Red State put it). The same Republicans who once deplored Democrats for refusing to let an anti-abortion dissident, Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, speak at the 1992 Clinton convention now routinely banish any dissenters in their own camp.

These conservatives’ whiny cries of victimization also parrot a tic they once condemned in liberals. After Rush Limbaugh was booted from an ownership group bidding on the St. Louis Rams, he moaned about being done in by the “race card.” What actually did him in, of course, was the free-market American capitalism he claims to champion. Limbaugh didn’t understand that in an increasingly diverse nation, profit-seeking N.F.L. franchises actually want to court black ticket buyers, not drive them away.

This same note of self-martyrdom was sounded in a much-noticed recent column by the former Nixon hand Pat Buchanan. Ol’ Pat sounded like the dispossessed antebellum grandees in “Gone With the Wind” when lamenting the plight of white working-class voters. “America was once their country,” he wrote. “They sense they are losing it. And they are right.”

They are right. That America was lost years ago, and no national political party can thrive if it lives in denial of that truth. The right still may want to believe, as Palin said during the campaign, that Alaska, with its small black and Hispanic populations, is a “microcosm of America.” (New York’s 23rd also has few blacks or Hispanics.) But most Americans like their country’s 21st-century profile.

That changing complexion is part of why the McCain-Palin ticket lost every demographic group by large margins in 2008 except white senior citizens and the dwindling fifth of America that’s still rural. It’s also why the G.O.P. has been in a nosedive since the inauguration, whatever Obama’s ups and downs. In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 17 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 30 percent for the Democrats, and 44 for independents).


No wonder even the very conservative Republican contenders in the two big gubernatorial contests this week have frantically tried to disguise their own convictions. The candidate in Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a graduate of Pat Robertson’s university whose career has been devoted to curbing abortion rights, gay civil rights and even birth control. But in this campaign he ditched those issues, disinvited Palin for a campaign appearance, praised Obama’s Nobel Prize, and ran a closing campaign ad trumpeting “Hope.” Chris Christie, McDonnell’s counterpart in New Jersey, posted a campaign video celebrating “Change” in which Obama’s face and most stirring campaign sound bites so dominate you’d think the president had endorsed the Republican over his Democratic opponent, Jon Corzine.

Only in the alternative universe of the far right is Obama a pariah and Palin the great white hope. It’s become a Beltway truism that the White House’s (mild) spat with Fox News is counterproductive because it drives up the network’s numbers. But if curious moderate and independent voters are now tempted to surf there and encounter Beck’s histrionics for the first time, the president’s numbers will benefit as well. To the uninitiated, the tea party crowd comes across like the barflies in “Star Wars.”

There is only one political opponent whom Obama really has to worry about at this moment: Hamid Karzai. It’s Afghanistan and joblessness, not the Stalinists of the right, that have the power to bring this president down.
Hi, I'm Liz.
Image
SoS: NBA | GALE Force
Twitter
Tumblr
Post Reply