Rogue Stars Rising
posted at 12:15 pm on October 25, 2009 by Doctor Zero
Two stories are unfolding out in the 23rd Congressional District of New York. In the foreground, we have the three-way contest between hapless Republican Dede Scozzafava, upstart Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, and some generic Democrat whose name no one can remember. This race is a microcosm of our strange politics, which have become like a speeding car with jammed door locks, cut brake lines, a dead steering wheel, and air vents that pump nitrous oxide. Everyone is dimly aware the country is heading for the edge of a cliff, but no one can muster the energy to search for alternatives.
The President took time away from his losing wars against Fox News, the Taliban, and economic reality to endorse the Democrat, who would doubtless prove a useful ally in the only war Obama is winning: the war on the American middle class. He probably should have endorsed Scozzafava instead. She’d only be marginally less useful to him – does anyone see her leaping to the well of Congress and declaring her iron-willed opposition to ObamaCare in all its forms? Does anyone have difficulty imagining her sudden decision to support a bill that will address her “concerns” while guaranteeing “affordable access to insurance” for the twenty, thirty, or forty-seven million Americans, legal and otherwise, who will surely die without a government health plan?
At least Obama would have been doing something interesting and unpredictable by endorsing Scozzafava. She clearly shares his views on the use of state power to suppress annoying journalists. Instead, he flew into the district to cough up some more empty rhetoric nobody will remember tomorrow, on behalf of a candidate no one cares about, but who stands a good chance of winning by default.
The other story, playing out in the background, is the second act of one political saga beginning, even as another draws to a close. The rising star of Sarah Palin passes over the melancholy ruins of Newt Gingrich, who spent the last of his credibility endorsing Scozzafava. The Republican Party of Gingrich dies, unloved and irrelevant. Something else is replacing it. The new opposition party is not guaranteed of victory – such guarantees are issued to no one. Palin may never choose to campaign for an office beneath its banner, but she’s an integral part of its identity. She’ll certainly never be a governor, or anyone’s vice presidential candidate, again. For the Republicans, it will never be 1996 or 2006 again. There’s no more room for school-lunch debacles, government shutdown miscalculations, Trent Lott, George Allen, Mark Foley… or Newt Gingrich.
It pains me to say this about Gingrich. He accomplished some amazing things, in the mid-90s. He’s a smart man who has offered some interesting ideas, in his second life as a conservative intellectual. The problem is that Newt is a political tactician, and in the final stages of a losing war against collectivist ruin, the time has come to focus on grand strategy, rather than tactics. The second decade of this century will be an existential war for the American soul, not a police action.
Gingrich is always thinking about the tactics of the moment, trying to win on points that will never be awarded fairly. He spent far too much of his time as Speaker of the House shouting in vain for media referees to throw penalty flags that remained stuffed in their pockets. Meanwhile, the political battlefront has shifted into the fatal terrain of essential liberties and economic freedom. This is the time for courage, conviction, and bold action… not whining about “big tents,” while pushing a product of the Pataki machine with a Margaret Sanger award dangling around her neck. A Republican party that embraces Scozzafava over Hoffman isn’t a “tent.” It’s not even a lean-to.
The most urgent task for conservatives is building a logical, consistent vision to place before the voters. They’re looking for a comprehensive explanation of why Democrat policies are wrong. They can see Obama’s failures all around them, but in the absence of a compelling narrative from the opposition party, they’re likely to conclude those failures were inevitable, and learn to accept them. If no one presents a coherent alternative to socialism, it wins by default, because too much of the political and media culture desires it. We’ve already tumbled far past the point where anyone views the Constitution as even a speed bump, let alone a barrier to socialist ambition. The principles embodied in that incredible document will perish, if they are not respected, explained, and defended.
A party that supports Scozzafava over Hoffman cannot mount that defense. They can’t run candidates to the left of the Democrats, then expect a spellbound audience when they explain why the Democrats are wrong. This is not a question of rigid idealism, or remaining a “perfect minority.” The voters, including the fabled “moderates,” need to be persuaded, not pandered to. Running a liberal squish in a largely conservative district will not cause moderate voters to squeal with excitement over the billowing expanse of the GOP’s enormous tent, and rush to see what other wonders might be hidden inside.
In her endorsement of Doug Hoffman, Sarah Palin said:
Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a “time for choosing.”
The federal government borrows, spends, and prints too much money, while our national debt hits a record high. Government is growing while the private sector is shrinking, and unemployment is on the rise. Doug Hoffman is committed to ending the reckless spending in Washington, D.C. and the massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government. He is also fully committed to supporting our men and women in uniform as they seek to honorably complete their missions overseas.
And best of all, Doug Hoffman has not been anointed by any political machine.
Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty.
She’s clever to throw in that jab at political machines. Dede Scozzafava rolled off the conveyor belt of such a machine, to stand blinking in confusion outside Hoffman’s headquarters, drowning in a sea of his campaign posters as she babbled about how she finally wanted to debate him. Voters impressed by political machines will be unable to tear their eyes from the stupendous contraption of media wiring and corrupt money that grows from Barack Obama. Those who are still capable of independent thought need to hear Palin battle cries, not Gingrich apologies.
The GOP is doomed if it holds the course Newt Gingrich set for it, in the waning days of his troubled tenure as Speaker of the House. It should set a new course, following the rogue stars rising to starboard. Palin and Hoffman are among the first of those stars. She’s taking a risk by endorsing him, since her detractors would savor his defeat. That’s good. America needs risk-takers, not undertakers. Newt Gingrich conceded far too many defeats before the race in New York-23 had even begun, by settling for a candidate he could live with, instead of backing the one New York – and America – really needs.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
If the GOP is to become a viable party again its time we throw open who gets control of the RNC and party leaderships.
Michael Steele was a mistake. I think most of the right blogs and Right politicans should push for a true conservative to take over the RNC.
I think we need Fred Thomspon there. Or Liz Cheney. It would go a long way in restoring the trust our party has lost to use conservatives.
William Amos on October 25, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Amen, Dr. Z!
sandee on October 25, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Newt has hurt himself worse than anything he has said or done in past 15 years with his stance on this. What he will understand is that this doesn’t help book sales!
bluegrass on October 25, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Doctor Zero is right on the money with this comment:
Courage, Conviction, Bold Action. This is how we can regain our conservative vision. Do we have the courage of our conviction as conservatives to take bold action and take our party back from the pretenders?
kanda on October 25, 2009 at 12:24 PM
This special election might well be a good test case for those of us who want to see a third party, a conservative party, arise and the Republican party reduced to a historical footnote.
This might also explain the rage of the GOP leadership who feel their personal political futures threatened by the out of control populist masses. This would then explain the scorn directed at the GOP base from the party leadership.
It certainly appears to be a critical moment for all the various factions; the democrat party splintering, the news media’s credibility, the GOP leadership, and the conservatives whether democrat, republican, or independent.
Skandia Recluse on October 25, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Dr. Zero, the anti-Allah.
Gingrich has taken the same path as O’Reilly. Once a republican the conservatives could count on to go on the attack, now it is all about him, his ego, his giant brain and above all “being fair”.
Screw that.
I don’t want fairness, I want someone with cojones and sealed-in-concrete principles. Someone who never bothers to see which way the political winds are blowing, rather, someone who is the wind beneath the sails of the Good Ship Conservative.
Sarah suits the bill perfectly.
Damn those RINOs, full speed ahead.
fogw on October 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM
All one has to do is to hear Newt speak on precisely the items (card check, abortion, the Stimulus, and healthcare) where the two candidates differ to understand which candidate ought to be closest to Newt’s heart, but, for lack of an “(R)” after his name on the ballot, isn’t in Gingrich’s heart at all.
unclesmrgol on October 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I don’t see the issue on these smaller races. Competition in a primary should be a good thing. The point is to represent the real people in that real district, not fullfill some national scheme.
AnninCA on October 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM
And when the Democrat wins you will say…..?
Sekhmet on October 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM
as a recovering lib who voted GOP last time round, I keep telling Repubs do NOT change to attract mods like myself. We are coming TO YOU already because of who you are. do NOT try to be a weak left, please! then Americans will have NO PLACE to turn!
ginaswo on October 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I agree Fred would be great as chair of the RNC
kanda on October 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Don’t worry about making the tent “big enough” to cover enough voters. Make the right tent and prompt it effectively and voters will flock to it.
rbj on October 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM
and also this is an issue with many parties, here we have the Republicans acknowledging Scozzafava is NOT their kind of candidate but they wont run a REAL GOP person because then the Conservative party would have juice
this is why I worry about Daggett in NJ, it would be a helluva a wakeupcall if tChristie wins NJ and Daggett may be a spoiler
BUT we HAVE to primary people fer sure!
in NY notice the working families party assists the Dems on oh i dunno, VOTER FRAUD!!! see FOX report on that today, while the GOP and Conservative parties are working AGAINST each other@
I say multiple party states like NY need REALLY STRONG leadership in those parties to ENSURE the GOP and Conservatives work TOGETHER to field the BEST candidate, not fight each other for petty power and leave the consituents hanging!
ginaswo on October 25, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Conservatism is dead. There’s no money to be made, no revolving doors to walk through, no bureaucracy jobs for friends with conservatism. It’s in the politician’s best interest to screw the citizenry and take them for all they’re worth. Hence our current predicament.
The Calibur on October 25, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Just figured you forgot one.
katy on October 25, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Then the Dems represent the views more of the people in that district.
I have no problem with endorsements, etc., but districts where the traditional GOP candidate isn’t really exciting people are already, frankly, in trouble. They could lose to the Dem anyway.
AnninCA on October 25, 2009 at 12:34 PM
At least the supporter of card check, backed by acorn and dailyKOS has a D by their name and not an R.
jhffmn on October 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Ouch
Kataklysmic on October 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM
The outcome of that war is most probably going to be determined within the next year, before the 2010 elections. The major assault by the leftist enemies of America is occuring right now.
On top of that, the insanely savage nature of this feral government is something that cannot be undone. Trust in our major and fundamental institutions has been totally destroyed, and while there is a very slight possibility that that trust can be restored, it is a 100 to 1 shot. Trust is easily discarded but so very difficult to build. What has been done cannot be undone, and no one who has seen the return of our government to a state of nature can ever really think that it will just be, once again, domesticated through an election or two.
progressoverpeace on October 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM
YOu know I like Micheal Steele. He made some missteps at first but… he seems to be a reasonable man.
I hope Hoffman can get the third or so of Scozzafava’s vote.
But even if not… she is just another camouflage of bi-partisanship for the whitehouse. When she votes with the Dems… they can say they are bi-partisan.
I have no problem with pretty liberal Republicans if is accurately reflects the views of the district. But my understanding is that this is a pretty conservative district.
I
petunia on October 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM
word up
or should i say
“What up?”
HEHEHE
blatantblue on October 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I do agree that we need more politicians who have less to gain. In CA, apparently the payoffs are the perks and sex with lobbyists. *haha
AnninCA on October 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Ann is right. Choice is what primaries are all about. This race is going to be one to watch. It is shaping up to be a battle of conservatism vs the Republican party machine. Real conservatives of all political persuasions should vote for hoffman to prove the point and send a message to the RNC and GOP.
This is the grassroots level that I keep harping on. It is the way to take out party (GOP) back.
kanda on October 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Wow I should have slept more last night, I can’t even see all those mistakes…. bear with me please…. and read my mind… it is so helpful when you can do that.
petunia on October 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Good lord, I love Doctor Zero. Please get this guy a regular slot and a promotion. Witty. Smart. And always on point.
Kudos.
watchmen on October 25, 2009 at 12:37 PM
ginaswo on October 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM
THANK YOU! Independents and the few intellectually honest liberals “out there” aren’t looking for “democrat lite”. Gingrich has become the problem, not the solution.
Oh, and thanks, Dr. Zero. Brilliant, as usual.
oldleprechaun on October 25, 2009 at 12:38 PM
The other problem I see is one of boundaries. Local races, and I do consider this local, involve issues that don’t interest people on a national level. I saw this as the best reason for Palin resigning. The national focus was derailing an entire state. Alaska had become a media football.
Endorse, fine, but both parties would be better served to steer clear of making any single race at this level into some kind of national fishbowl.
AnninCA on October 25, 2009 at 12:41 PM
This is the central, crucial principle that Reagan understood, and the McCains, Grahams, and now, apparently, the Gingiches never will.
Thanks Doc, for another brilliant analysis.
Cicero43 on October 25, 2009 at 12:41 PM
NOW THAT’S WHAT I’M TALK N BOUT
BRAVO BRAVO
donabernathy on October 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM
What conclusions can be drawn before the facts, before the data has been examined, before the results can be dissected?
Why would you presume that there is a conclusion to be drawn before the facts are known?
Skandia Recluse on October 25, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Without Hoffman, the district gets its choice: Liberal or Liberal. With Hoffman, there’s a third choice: Conservative. Therefore, if Hoffman loses, we get the same outcome as if he had never run. The interesting thing is to see if the electorate is paying attention.
Kafir on October 25, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Great read. As long as the 15% RINO establishment is in a position to shake the 85% conservative dog, we lose…The base is tired of losing.
JIMV on October 25, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I don’t think this is right- the Taliban are our friends now, aren’t they? There shouldn’t be any war on them./ sarc
VanPalin on October 25, 2009 at 12:50 PM
This isn’t a primary. There is no primary — it’s the real election to temporarily fill a seat. The candidates with the (D) and (R) after their names were chosen not by caucusing or by primary, but by their party elites. Hoffman himself filed as an independent to run in this race.
As for your concept that these smaller races party affiliation shouldn’t matter, that would have been true once upon a time, but now that the DOJ has stepped in and stated that smaller races must be partisan, that is no longer a valid position to take.
I personally see that effect on local races here. When campaign flyers for city council or school board candidates land on my doorstep, they all tout the candidates’ party endorsements. My son registered as a Democrat when he lived in my home, and his name, identical to mine, is still on the voter rolls. One day, while I was out watering the lawn, one of these candidates showed up on a precinct walk. He engaged me in conversation, and it came out that I disagreed with his politics completely. I finally stated that I am a Republican, at which point he examined the voter list he was carrying on a clipboard. He pulled out a yellow marker and marked through my name, exclaiming “funny, the registrar must have made a mistake!”. Seeing the list, I was able to determine from the absence of certain addresses that my neighbor several doors down was also a Republican. The candidate skipped his house and several others as he moved down the street.
So, regardless of what you think, here in California party affiliation does matter in these “small elections”; I’ve apparently saved myself from dozens of precinct walkers because of mine.
unclesmrgol on October 25, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I only wish I could write like that.
Great article, Doctor Zero!
David2.0 on October 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM
The big problem with the Newt Gingrich coalition style of winning is when you get your majority by having a majority of “moderates” in power. All you end up with is a majority that disagree on some aspect of conservatism, and the only issues you can scrape enough votes together on are liberal ones. The people who become the ‘backbenchers’ are the conservatives. The problem grows worse when the “moderates” get in leadership positions or you end up with a weak kneed leader who would allow liberal bills to get to the floor because they would just hate it if nothing got passed during their leadership.
clement on October 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM
You’re right. I forgot about that.
AnninCA on October 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I guess I don’t relate. I don’t have to talk to anyone if I don’t choose to do so.
I just say, “No thanks.”
AnninCA on October 25, 2009 at 12:55 PM
My point is that the only interest the blogs or media has in this race is to impose a national perspective on what is, in fact, up to local people living in a very real place.
That approach isn’t good for any of us, regardless. This isn’t a One size fits all society.
AnninCA on October 25, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Right ON, ‘Z!!!
rtsidedragon on October 25, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Brilliant, Doctor :)
beatcanvas on October 25, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Thanks DZ, it needed saying. Now someone tell Newt to head back to Georgia and write his historical fiction novels. He’s done.
aigle on October 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Doctor Zero- you are the best.
You say what I think, but cannot put into words or type.
P.S- anti-AP, heh!
jjshaka on October 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Republicans have been running as Dem-lite for far too long. One of the primary reasons for Newt’s and the Republican’s failures has been their refusal to roll-back the growth of government. For too long Republicans have been happy simply to slow down the growth of government. Betraying their constituents and conceding that the liberal view of government expansion is inevitable.
Conservatives have to crush the myth that the only thing immortal in this life is a government program. Conservatives have to directly approach the citizenry and explain why such a large intrusive government is bad, and a small government is good. And they have to do it in an environment where most of their constituents have not been educated and are inundated with the liberal message daily.
Too many conservatives feel that the war in politics can never been won. That our political system will always be this “swinging pendulum” with either side gaining only temporary ascendancy. They think that things are cyclical and will even out over the long term. But that’s not how the libs see it. They seek victory. They want to remake our society into their version of perfection, (and they’re well on their way) and they have no compunction about delegitimizing and destroying us.
The Chicago way is the leftist way. We’ve all seen the examples, How libs keep forcing votes until they get what they want, and then never have another vote again.
Liberalism must be defeated. We need to get leaders who are unafraid of making the hard choices to roll liberalism back. Who are unafraid of stripping the yoke of government off its citizens, no matter how much the citizens might think they want it.
But until we start to get leaders who can really explain how cutting government will benefit the citizens, its gonna be a long dark night.
Iblis on October 25, 2009 at 1:01 PM
and one of the problems we the people of this great nation face is too many individuals have lost sight of the national interest. Too many people don’t care about the national interest. Too many people want their share of the national pie to get larger by taking something from everyone else.
Skandia Recluse on October 25, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I do agree that we need more politicians who have less to gain. In CA, apparently the payoffs are the perks and sex with lobbyists. *haha
AnninCA on October 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Would that explain why Olympia Snowe is a Republican, the lobbyist just wound’nt WORK with her.
heshtesh on October 25, 2009 at 1:02 PM
unclesmrgol wrote out a thoughtful post and made good points. Your reply is so typical of your never ending snarky, holier than thou, snot rot.
Keep up the good work Ann…
“sigh”
katy on October 25, 2009 at 1:04 PM
My guy (Hoffman) lost. But I’m a conservative and if it comes to that, I see no reason to care whether he loses to Mr. Generic Dem or to Ms. Generic DIABLO.
PackerBronco on October 25, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I hope I’m not ticking anyone off by posting a comment this big, but, here we go:
1. The purpose of the Federal Government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, both from internal and external threats, and to coordinate action between the various states of the union.
2. To that end, the bulk of the expenditures of the Federal Government should be on our military, and to a lesser extent our law enforcement and regulatory apparatus. Infrastructure should be left to private industry where feasible, and the privatization of infrastructure currently under federal control should be explored and encouraged. Charity should be left entirely to the private sector, or to local and state bodies at their own discretion. The Federal government should not subsidies individuals, corporations, or local and state governments, nor should it use the tax system to that effect.
3. Our Foreign policy should, in addition to safeguarding the rights of Americans at home and abroad, work to spread the guaranty of the rights of life, liberty, and property to other nations. Recognizing that democratic institutions are only a part of securing these rights, we should encourage the development of constitutional and representative governance, as well as helping allies resist the suppression of these most basic rights by even democratically elected majorities. Recognizing that the ability of the individual to defend his own rights is a key factor in protecting the rights of all, we should encourage the nations of the world to recognize individual self defense, and the appropriate means thereof, as a vital part of these rights. We must also resist the trend to dilute the importance of the basic rights of life, liberty, and property by labeling such other things that we enjoy as “rights.”
4. Whereas we have seen great turmoil in our markets resulting from attempts by the government to force them into a state more to the governments liking, the implicit backing and guarantying of assets by the treasury, and by the use of government funds and regulations to artificially select winners and losers, egregiously in the doctrine of “too big to fail”, we should review the regulations and powers of our regulating agencies, with an eye toward extracting the Federal Government from such entanglements. Additionally, the Federal Reserve should be discouraged from insulating risk takers from the consequences of their actions with its monetary policy, which should be geared more toward maintaining a stable and reliable currency.
5. Whereas our federal tax system should exist to derive revenue only to fund such actions as protect our rights, but has become a means by which our government rewards or punishes the behavior of individuals and corporations, we should restrict the ability of congress to design elaborate taxation schemes. The federal tax system should move to a single rate, un-graduated (flat) tax on all types of personal income, including capital gains dividends, and other forms of compensation, with no deductions or credits, and repeal corporate taxes and tariffs. If necessary, a constitutional amendment should be passed to this effect, and capping the tax at a rate no higher than 20%. Any graduated, progressive, system of taxation on individuals or corporations should be left to the states at their discretion.
6. Recognizing that Social Security and Medicare represent promises made to workers, both active and retired, and that the contributions that they made have in fact been spent by the government behind the guise of the purchase of Treasury bonds, the funding of those promises must necessarily come out of the general fund. However, the Social Security payroll tax, as well as the accrual of benefits, should be ended as part of the reform of our tax system. Any further government intervention in the realm of retirement planning should be done by the states or not at all.
7. Though much of the current issue of health insurance would be largely resolved by the proposed reform of the tax system, in general the Federal government should stop favoring employer based health insurance. Additionally, steps should be taken so that insurance can be sold across state lines, and that health insurance acts as insurance, such that conditions developed while the consumer is insured will be paid for in the event the insurance is later canceled. By no means should the federal government enter the insurance market itself, set requirements for levels of coverage, or mandate insurance for any person.
8. The two basic questions to be answered on the issue of the abortion are 1) “At what point in gestation is the developing human granted the right of life?”, and 2) “Past this point, under what circumstances can abortion of this person be considered justifiable homicide?” As the answer to neither of these questions can be extracted directly from the constitution, the restrictions on all levels of government regarding regulation of abortion, as passed down by the “Roe v Wade” decision, represent an overreach by the Supreme Court. Though it is the Federal Government’s duty to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, this should only be done to the extent that there is a majority consensus about the answer to those two questions at the federal level. No effort should be made by the Federal Government to prevent State and Local Governments from further protecting these rights within their jurisdiction, as prescribed by public consensus at the respective levels.
9. Whereas collective bargaining is effectively monopolistic price fixing, federal laws forcing such collective bargaining on individuals and corporations should be repealed. Additionally, because such bargaining is effectively an extortion of the people when applied to government employment, the government itself should be prohibited from engaging in collective bargaining with its employees.
10. Whereas the minimum wage serves only to exclude the most needy from productive work, inflate the prices of products intensive in low-level labor, and encourage the violation of other labor laws, and the Federal minimum wage only to protect states with irresponsible minimum wage laws from competition, the minimum wage laws should be repealed.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Excellent essay, Doctor Zero.
AZCoyote on October 25, 2009 at 1:06 PM
This is a “One Federal Constitution determines the specific limits of the federal government” society.
progressoverpeace on October 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM
And, even with that, I missed two of them. Sheesh.
11. The Federal Government has sufficient discretion and motivation to set broad standards in terms of requirements for levels educational achievement, but should not be involved in the funding of individual schools. Most particularly, it should not be favoring community and State funded schools over private schools with federal funds. Until such time that funding for schools can be properly shifted back to the State and local governments, any federal funds allocated for the education of students should apply to any private schooling method that meets the standard requirements.
12. Inherent in the duty of the Federal Government to protect its citizens from outside threats is to secure our boarders against individual trespass, and to enforce all current laws regarding immigration. As proficiency in English is vital to the productive contribution of immigrants, steps should be taken to give priority to prospective immigrants who can demonstrate proficiency in English, as well as technical skills.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2009 at 1:08 PM
There will be small defeats before the big victories. NY-23 is a good battleground, even if our cause loses. Principles defended, even in defeat, have a heroic echo. Palin is a great inspirational figure, even if she doesn’t run, but anyone that thinks she’s destined to be a cheerleader doesn’t understand this movement.
Newt was on Laura Ingraham last week, and Laura gave him every opportunity to explain his position. He resolutely continued to box himself into a corner. He has no one to blame but himself.
He has reached that sweet sleep of irrelevance. Writing historical fiction is now his specialty.
EMD on October 25, 2009 at 1:11 PM
This is an interesting read
Conservative Rebellion Explodes in New York over Extreme Liberal GOP Candidate
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102314.html
kanda on October 25, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Dr. Zero, I don’t know who you are, but your words are magic!! You are writing things that most of us here are thinking.
More Please!!!
yoda on October 25, 2009 at 1:12 PM
If I had a pet weasel his name would be Newt!
MCGIRV on October 25, 2009 at 1:15 PM
AnnInCA – I’d like to say I agree with you, but we can’t go there anymore.
This is why we need another thousand House reps; right now it’s a mini-Senate full of a bunch of mini-Senators, far too many from carefully gerrymandered safe districts who need to pay little or no attention to issues back home.
A House seat matters a lot from a national-policy standpoint, and until we do something to dilute the influence of individual Representatives in national politics we’ll have to treat them as a quarter of a Senator.
JEM on October 25, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Count to 10
Looks like an excellent start to a political party platform.
Skandia Recluse on October 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM
If Hoffman wins it won’t be reported in the State run media. If he loses, it will be reported in a drumbeat demonstrating how conservatism is dead.
Mojave Mark on October 25, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Beautiful, Dr. Z.
Count me in the group that would rather lose than win with someone like Dede.
Conservatives can’t keep electing
DemocratsSocialists-lite and whining over the results.The Democrats are rushing the country towards socialism. The GOP leadership wants to take us there too, but slower.
BFD. Slower isn’t any better.
Throw da bums out!
Chris of Rights on October 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I originally started it as a set of principles, but I guess it is more of a platform at this point, isn’t it?
Count to 10 on October 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Just because Scozzafava herself is hapless does not mean that every single unorthodox Republican is. Daggett in New Jersey, for example, would be winning in a landslide if he was the Republican candidate. If we are forced to nominate a liberal Republican, it should at least be one who radiates confidence.
Speedwagon82 on October 25, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Newt, you can get on the train, get off the train, or keep standing on the tracks getting run over by the train. Your choice big guy. We do not care what you have to say. Your judgment is questioned.
Mr. Joe on October 25, 2009 at 1:27 PM
…and therein lies the rub. If S’fava were just a run-of-the-mill squishy GOPer, I’d be fine with it.
But policy-wise she’s indistinguishable from any random center-left member of Pelosi’s caucus. She’s not even Blue Dog material, really.
If the GOP is going to nominate candidates of her mindset in fairly reliable right-leaning districts then the Democratic Party may as well go out of business, they won’t be needed.
JEM on October 25, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Jem (1:15)
I would suggest to you The Federalist Papers (Chapter LV)
Skandia Recluse on October 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM
If Scozzafava was being run in some liberal congressional district to challenge a more liberal democrat, fair enough. But instead we have a conservative to moderate district, with a republican who is more liberal than the democrat. That is a big big problem. It shows the GOP is not only rudderless but stupid.
Mr. Joe on October 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d kinda like a ride in a car like that…
Dukeboy01 on October 25, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Not to mention how much it’s going to hurt his book sales.
Dr Evil on October 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM
The line in the You Tube below for Newt isn’t exactly like Levin’s was: out the store out the shopping mall and extending down the street for 3 or 4 blocks, is it.
Marcus on October 25, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Nice line. Great post Dr.Z. The Republican party needs conservative leadership that doesn’t apologize for what it is. Giving an inch to the MSM and libs in general will get you absolutely NOTHING. All that does is move their ball down the field.
Dongemaharu on October 25, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Dr Z, fantastic perspective, as usual. Just great stuff.
gary4205 on October 25, 2009 at 1:46 PM
“And when the Democrat wins you will say…..?
Sekhmet on October 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM”
I want to say that I have always voted Republican starting with my vote for President Reagan, and I am now at my wits end. Sekhmet, this is not a football game or a game of chess. This is about our children’s and grandchildren’s future. About whether they live free or enslaved to a Government machine, financially endebted for generations to come. It is time for those beholden to the Republican party, regardless of what the party stands for to get a clue. You might win and and feel all smug and satisfied but still end up losing your freedoms and property in the end. Either the party stands for what we want it to stand for, or we move on and find another. Regardless what the Democrats may think about Republican voters, I was never your “sheep” and I refuse to become one now. If you are not the party of Christian beliefs, such as fairness, freedom, liberty, hard work and personal responsibility then I will be moving on.
SGinNC on October 25, 2009 at 1:49 PM
More Zero, less Allah!
thebronze on October 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Great post, Doctor Zero, and a very important one. I’m looking forward to Palin’s book. If she goes third party, I’m going with her.
My blog used to be called “Why Mommy is a Republican”. When the establishment went after her, I changed it to “Mommy”, but everyone still names the link incorrectly. Today, I start fresh at LisaGraas.com
The Republican Party stopped being a big tent a long time ago. You’re right that it’s become a lean-to. I’ll see what Palin wants to do and go from there.
I’ve endorsed a Reagan conservative running for U.S. Senate in my state against “Son of Ron Paul” and an establishment candidate. Last I knew, my candidate was polling at 1% despite the fact that his values most closely resemble those of the voters in my state. Two machines are going after Kentucky. I bow to no machine.
gocatholic on October 25, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Would that the world were so simple! Should these people win election, I’d rather be on cordial terms with them.
I am the only person I know who’s outlasted a covey of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The two made the mistake of asking what religion I was, and then gave me the “Oh, we used to be too, before we found something better…” line. They spent almost two hours skewered in a theological debate before another of their members showed up to say “Sir, I’m sure you’d love to hear more about us, but we need to visit the other houses in your neighborhood.” They’ve never come back.
unclesmrgol on October 25, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I find those more of American values (well, for a certain definition of “fairness” anyway). Christians in the rest of the world mostly don’t share them.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Exactly. Newt said that in ’93, the GOP swept the elections for governors. 3 were liberal RINOs and one conservative. The lesson for him was that the Big Tent wins majorities.
I say he’s wrong. Voters were looking for conservatives, but all the GOP could offer was Dem-lites. At that time, we’d already experienced Pappy Bush’s anti-voodoo economics – more taxes, and along came Perot.
Bush lost, not because Perot peeled voters away from the GOP, but that the GOP didn’t offer a Reagan Conservative. If voters really wanted liberal policies, why bother voting for Bush when you could get the real deal in Clinton. What Bush lost in that election was both Reagan Democrats & Conservatives.
In ’94, Newt won the battle of the houses – the first time in decades that the GOP held majorities in both houses. But as time would prove, the GOP lost the war by packing the GOP roster with liberal RINOs.
I contend that had the GOP stuck to conservative principles and fielded a conservative field, we wouldn’t have had to sit on our hands, or felt forced to hold our noses and vote the ‘lesser of two evils’ – evil is still evil, even if you slap lipstick on it.
The GOP elites are so stupid that they don’t realize that they are the reason why the rolls diminish in ever increasing frequency. It all started with the erroneous lesson Newt learned in ’93 and seemingly validated in ’94. Contract w/America, bah! Try “Back to the Constitution for America” if you want to win.
Looked at another way, the votes that Hoffman gets are the votes that could have just as easily sat on their hands, rather than vote for the lefty scum posing as a RINO.
Frankly, I’d be
finedisappointed if in 2010, the Dems win again due to the GOP being split by 3rd party Conservatives. But I’d accept it as vital & necessary for the hard slog towards turning the Ship of State 180 deg around and pointed back up the river in 2012.To hope that a GOP majority of squishy get-along RINOs will put the brakes on Obambi in his last two years is not a change I can believe in. To believe Newt is the definition of insanity.
AH_C on October 25, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Natural Fake spotlights a 1941 cartoon, ‘The Little Mole’ that is apt for Obambi mistaking a junked economy for a fairy palace
AH_C on October 25, 2009 at 2:05 PM
The only way any conservative can come out behind in this would be if Scozzafava wins.
Maybe King Emperor has asked one of his benefactors, Lord Soros, to pass many shekels to her campaign under cover of darkness.
MB4 on October 25, 2009 at 2:09 PM
DZ … this post almost made me cry. Dude – you are ON this thing bro – you completely understand the stakes and what has to happen to save this nation.
Great stuff brother!
HondaV65 on October 25, 2009 at 2:12 PM
A good entry for the Federalist Papers of the 21st Century.
ray on October 25, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Remember one thing, Joe Lieberman won his seat after the Dem Party snubbed him for backing Bush on the Iraq war. He even spoke up for McCain and still has his job. My point is, don’t count Hoffman out, not just yet. Stranger things have happened when people have become so disaffected and disillusioned by pols.
Never give up, Never surrender.
elclynn on October 25, 2009 at 2:20 PM
This is exactly right – this nation is about to run aground.
In the Navy, a “RED SOUNDING” is a report from the fathometer that the ship has only feet remaining between the keel and the ocean bottom and is imminent danger of running aground.
The fix for a RED SOUNDING … and this comes right from the Navy SOP … is “Bold and Decisive Action”.
This nation has a RED SOUNDING. There’s no time to play around with politics and niceties. This is the time to be bold – for someone to step forward and say … “I’M IN CHARGE”. This is NOT the time for politicians.
Newt proved he’s just another politician. The RNC and NRCC has proven they are merely politicians. Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Rick Santorum, and a host of others are stepping forward to LEAD.
We need to follow them!
HondaV65 on October 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I’m still stuck on the way the skunk that sold him the glasses is portrayed as the villain.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I am currently reading Good to Great by Jim Collins and there are strong parellels here. Gingrich is over and it is too bad. The big tent thing is over and it is too bad but the Beltway Republicans or the elites let egos or greed or something get in the way and refused to see that it was not about them.
The leader that will emerge has to be someone who realizes it is not about them.
ORconservative on October 25, 2009 at 2:31 PM
“
RobCon on October 25, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I’m disappointed in all the “leaders” of the Republican party.
Newt’s position is laughable (why did he get involved at all once he saw what Dede is all about?), T-Paw looks like a deer in the headlights, Mitt and Huck – MIA.
Sarah Palin, Fred T, Dick A etc – at least we know who they are, what they believe in and that they will NOT compromise in the face of what’s convenient/expedient.
Last time I checked that’s called LEADERSHIP.
Frankly, even if we go down in flames, AT LEAST WE’LL KNOW WHY and WHAT IT WAS FOR.
Stephanie on October 25, 2009 at 2:38 PM
In the contest between Scozzafava, the Republican, and Owens, the democrat, if the democrat wins I’ll have to say the more conservative candidate won, because that will be the truth. So what’s the downside? Of what use is a GOP win if that candidate will vote with the dems more often than the democrat candidate will? Is this really hard for people to understand?
Rational Thought on October 25, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I’ll say we lost and we’ll be back next year with an actual Republican. But a democrat is still preferable to a counterfeit republican who would only further degrade the party brand. And I’m tired of this BS sword of Damacles raised over our heads. What is “winning” if the candidate stands to vitiate your party’s reason for being?
rrpjr on October 25, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Dr. Zero is Dr. Zero. No need to compare him to anyone else. He’s great in his own right and s/b a paid syndicated columnist.
Our land needs a capable, trustworthy, calm, determined, steady and reliable leader, one with a proven record. Here he is.
Schadenfreude on October 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MICHELLE MALKIN THRE ALLAHPUNDAH UNDER THE BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALLAHPUNDAH IS REPLACED BY …………….
DOCTOR ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT A GLORIOUS DAY FOR HOT AIR!
THE REVOLUTION IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FREEDOM AND CONSERVATISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheAlamos on October 25, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Another great post by Dr. Zero. KUDOS!!
The problem that needs to be overcome is who leads the Republican party. I have been an Independent for all my life, but will probably join the Republican party. The party needs to be reformed from the inside out, not the outside in. Like it was previously said, the “moderates” need to be convinced to be more conservative.
Case in point is in NY-23. The choice was made by the party elites in NY, not the people. That has to change in order for this country to become more of the republic it was founded on.
ny59giants on October 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM
You’re describing a sort of fractured approach to political parties that possibly brings the Independent party to the forefront…provided Independents stand for risk-taking, a strong middle class, fiscal responsibility, and small government. Interesting article, Z. I have spent several minutes reading the comments over on Newt’s blog…99.9 percent of them blast him.
Another excellent post Dr. Z
MainelyRight on October 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM
As much as I like Dr. Zero, there is room for AP here. AP has some good analysis, even when we do not want to hear it. AP prevents groupthink. Plus, he has the chops for the takedown. Mom genes anyone.
Dr. Zero writes brilliantly about how the theory of America’s greatness applies to today. Descriptive, not prescriptive. IMHO, room for both.
We are faced with our nation’s back to the wall. Another step to the rear (left) means oblivion.
Just passing Obama care will mean a larger number of premature American deaths than both atomic bombs dropped on Japan. [> 200,000 dead based on partial analysis of death differentials by disease between UK and USA; 2007 data]
So we need everyone we can get to stop the madness.
NaCly dog on October 25, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Excellent Doc, as always.
beachgirlusa on October 25, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Amen to that.
beachgirlusa on October 25, 2009 at 3:32 PM
You can say that again….
Seven Percent Solution on October 25, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Rumors of its demise are premature. Don’t bet on it.
beachgirlusa on October 25, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »