Video: Glenn Beck goes all in for Doug Hoffman — and third parties

posted at 7:55 pm on October 26, 2009 by Allahpundit

“I am no longer going to throw my vote away by giving it to the party,” he vows, confirming Gingrich’s fears of independent challengers splitting Republicans in purple districts into conservative and moderate camps next year and handing the district to the Democrat. In fact, I thought of Beck and his “In or Out” litmus test (which he touched on briefly tonight) while writing this post last week. Given his activist ambitions, it’s easy to imagine him using his show to encourage and promote a variety of third-party congressional candidates, and while they’re unlikely to win, they could bleed enough votes from Republican nominees to make life easier for The One. Beck would shrug that off by claiming that there’s zero difference between the major parties anyway and, a la his assertion that McCain would have been worse for America than Obama, that another GOP loss next year might actually be good for the country in preparing the ground for his brand of libertarian Republicanism. Which makes this a perfect place to quote Doctor Zero’s rejoinder to him last month:

During the campaign, disgruntled Republicans often said it would be better to have Obama in office, showing everyone just how horrible Democrat policies are, than tolerate a RINO like McCain pushing the same policies in low gear, with bipartisan fingerprints. Glenn Beck’s slap at McCain is a retroactive expression of the idea that conservatism is just one crushing defeat away from total victory. Anyone who thought it was worth putting Obama in office, as some kind of object lesson for the American voter, gravely underestimated the amount of damage he could do. Look at how far we’ve sailed past the edge of fiscal sanity, in only nine months. It would take decades of careful, moderate reform just to get us back to where George Bush left us… and that wasn’t exactly an enviable position. Freedom is an endless voyage, while tyranny has far too many points of no return. The course we steered away from President McCain has taken us perilously close to those terminal waters.

One crushing defeat away from total victory, in perpetuity. A question for Beck fans, borrowing a line uttered here by the man himself: What is the endgame? There’s a sense I get from watching Beck that he thinks there’s a supermajority out there willing to return to Founders-style libertarianism if only he and other conservatives hammer the message hard and long enough. I don’t think there is. And if I’m right that there’ll always be at least 40 votes or so in the Senate and 45 percent among the population for progressivism, how does he presume to enact the libertarian agenda while confronting the realities of congressional compromise? In a perfect world, Doug Hoffman wins and all the purple districts break for “true conservatives” and all federal entitlements are repealed and the income tax is abolished etc etc etc. Assume hypothetically now that the world isn’t perfect. What is the endgame?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4

The National GOP Trust Pac is backing…Guess Who?

mizflame98 on October 27, 2009 at 12:28 AM

ewhat is the endgame?

Why the same end game of the libs. to move the country towards your thinking. the libs want marxist rule. conservatives what a represenative republic that cares about its citizens and country more than they do their own power.

the end game is the federal government becomes leashed again and the american people enjoy the fruits of individual freedom.

unseen on October 27, 2009 at 12:31 AM

Beck can say we are better off with Obama than McCain, but that is insane. McCain was not perfect by a long shot, but he would not play games with our foreign policy, or bankrupt the country, or apologize for the United States and do most of the really scary stuff Obama is doing.

Terrye on October 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, proof positive that Terrye doesn’t have the ability to comprehend the simplest of things.

Of COURSE we are better off with Obama than McCain, and I’ll explain why. Now this is involved, so I’ll type slow for you.

First, on many of the core domestic issues, both Obama and McCain are in total agreement. They would both do roughly the same thing, and the end results for either man’s policies would be a total disaster.

When the wheels come off the wagon, who would you rather blame, Obama the communist, or McCain the”Republican”?

The Republican brand was in the toilet going into the election. After 4 years of McCain being McCain he wouldn’t be re-elected, and worse than that, it would have finished Sarah Plain’s career for being part of that disaster.

The way it is now, Obama and the communist Congress OWN this fiasco.

If this is done right, and CONSERVATIVES are able to recapture the Republican party, and sit the “moderate” losers down, we can absolutely make the democrat party irrelevant for a generation.

In order to do this, we need actual conservatives who will stand by their principles.

This stuff isn’t rocket science. It’s very simple to understand, for most folks.

gary4205 on October 27, 2009 at 12:43 AM

The end game is a break of the stranglehold the dem and repub parties maintain on the electoral process, financing system and electorate, returning a representative republic to the people.

Screw party politics. Vote Third Party or vote “NONE OF THE ABOVE” in 2010 and 2012. Force the republicans to return to their true conservative/libertarian roots or get flushed down the toilet of history.

rotorhead on October 27, 2009 at 12:44 AM

In Robert Heinlein’s Revolt in 2100, the US is run by a Messiah like president with total control of the media and a highly controlled population. The rest of the world laughed at the US but no one here could hear them.

Sound somewhat familiar?

What is hopefully happening here and now is a paradigm shift. THAT is the end game. Either a majority of Americans see that a major shift must occur, and soon, or the end game is The Fall Of The Roman Empire.

GnuBreed on October 27, 2009 at 12:56 AM

Endgame is 1776 friend. Wake up. Millions of people just like me, just as angry, and just as willing to die for freedom.

LOL! LOL! LOL!

rightistliberal on October 27, 2009 at 1:31 AM

If this is done right, and CONSERVATIVES are able to recapture the Republican party, and sit the “moderate” losers down, we can absolutely make the democrat party irrelevant for a generation

Like folks who follow a recovering alcoholic?

Libertarians are a joke. They have never build a country. Not one.

rightistliberal on October 27, 2009 at 1:33 AM

The end game is to make the GOP so afraid of a third party happening that they start articulating some coherent conservative arguments and principles and nominate candidates who are not liberals. Then the third party will go away.

That will leave the GOP perfectly free to nominate conservative candidates who are electable and are not nutballs. The GOP has to learn that “conservative” doesn’t mean “nutball” unless they make it so.

If they take the other route and continue with the “Liberal Republican Party” then a third conservative party will form and split the vote in 2012 giving Obama a second term. Then in 2016 the third party will replace the Republican Party and the US will return to a two party system in which the GOP is just a memory.

westerncanadian on October 27, 2009 at 2:05 AM

Like folks who follow a recovering alcoholic?

Libertarians are a joke. They have never build a country. Not one.

rightistliberal on October 27, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Nice ad hominem attack, nonresponsive to content and based on the premise that people are *following* Glen Beck. I disagree. Beck is just saying things that many of us have been thinking for years. He’s saying that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. That kind of talk doesn’t introduce new ideas so much as it gives others permission to also speak their minds. And there seems to be an awful lot of people doing just that.

Peer pressure is a powerful tool that can be used to control people. So an important part of the leftist agenda is to change the public conception of the norm by moving it ever leftward. I think that the media generally cooperates unconsciously, but there are undoubtably true believers in its ranks who move the agenda forward systematically and deliberately. There may even be moles planted in internet forums to do the same thing by posing as conservatives while spouting nonsense….

The Republican Party is now part of the movement to marginalize conservatives and characterize them as “the fringe,” but it is doing so in the face of polls showing that conservatism is the leading ideology in the nation. They may convince a few sheep to follow, people who care more about party than principle, but it appears that they have a rebellion on their hands.

Good. I’m all in favor of taking the party back or destroying it; I don’t really care which. And it appears I have a lot of company. Something’s changed in the past few weeks. We’ve passed the tipping point, and there’s no going back.

Venusian Visitor on October 27, 2009 at 2:23 AM

Sorry, AP, but you’ve completely lost it. Are you trying to say that no “true” conservative can ever win an election? Dude, you have hit a new beta low. Forget Glenn Beck. You’re obsessed with the guy. No one is trying to elect Glenn Beck. The issue is standing up for one’s CORE principles. Stop trying to make it a “pristine” conservative issue. That’s ridiculous. You either have a line that you will not cross or you surrender. Period. CORE PRINCIPLES. NOT YOUR “PRISTINE” BS ARGUMENT… DUDE. You’re so beta it’s crossing into omega territory. I guess you believe that “true” liberals like Obama can be elected but not “true” conservatives like GOVERNOR Palin. Is that what you’re trying to say? Either grow a backbone or you might as well go full bore CJ on us and ban away.

munchnstuf on October 27, 2009 at 3:09 AM

Tne crushing defeat away from total victory, in perpetuity. A question for Beck fans, borrowing a line uttered here by the man himself: What is the endgame?

I’m a conservative first. Libertarian second.

ANY VICTORY OF LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PARTY IS JUST LIKE THE VICTORY OF SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY. BOTH WON’T BRING ME AND THIS COUNTRY ANYTHING GOOD!

Why is Allahpundit still here at HOT AIR?

Michelle Malkin, where are you?????????????

TheAlamos on October 27, 2009 at 3:29 AM

munchnstuf on October 27, 2009 at 3:09 AM

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

But, in practice, there is.

— (of unknown authorship)

As conservatives, very few of us agree 100% of the time on every issue we consider to be a matter of principle. When supporters of ideological purity obtain power, the ideology tends to become less important than suppressing freedom, and it most often shifts focus to a specific leader. It becomes anti-democratic, oppressive, intolerant, and dangerous.

So, ideological purity works in theory, but not in practice.

In the United States, we have a system designed to diffuse power. This makes it difficult to get things done. We have to build coalitions and convince doubters of our ideas. yelling at people who have different opinions, berating them, and trying to exclude them, doesn’t work very often or very well or for very long in our system. So, for us to win elections, I believe it would do us good to try to mend fences between our various factions and reach out to those opposed to Obama, even when we disagree with them on many things, to find those areas where we can work together.

To me, this is not betraying my core conservative principles, because supporting the American form of democracy is my most important core conservative political principle.

Loxodonta on October 27, 2009 at 3:51 AM

As conservatives, very few of us agree 100% of the time on every issue we consider to be a matter of principle…trying to exclude them, doesn’t work very often or very well or for very long in our system…. So, for us to win elections, I believe it would do us good to try to mend fences…. To me, this is not betraying my core conservative principles….

Loxodonta on October 27, 2009 at 3:51 AM

Um, but you DO believe there are CORE conversative principles, right? Can you agree on limited government, fiscal discipline, and a strong national defense? Or am I being too “exclusive” in thinking they are a necessary part of conservatism? And who, exactly, are “us”? And what do you consider “winning”? I consider it a loss if the person elected is totally unacceptable to me. Do you? Some fences and factions are meant to be. They SHOULD be. Now is the time to STAND UP. YELL! SCREAM! I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE! (Or comfort yourself in your meaningless civility.)

munchnstuf on October 27, 2009 at 4:33 AM

What is the endgame?

I know what Allah’s endgame is: beta gets tragically crushed under the weight of two massive RINO boobs + Andy Warhol book.

rinohumper on October 27, 2009 at 4:51 AM

newsflash: Hoffman ahead in poll…..hmmmmmm. Will caucus will GOP…hmmmm

What if Newt and Allah are wrong? The world said we could never beat the British army in 1776….hmmmmm.

davecatbone on October 27, 2009 at 5:10 AM

I went through this same phase as Glenn Beck. I am guessing we all did. And of course Beck is actually correct in this particular case.

But for Congressional seats or for the Presidency, ya gotta go with party.

We all start voting for the best person… then we realize we sometimes get saddled with a real ass. So THEN we vote party, then we realize sometimes we get saddled with a real ass. THEN we finally get it, and contour our vote to maximize efficiency and in non-Congressional races, we vote for the best person and in Congressional races we vote party. You still get asses in office, but the least number.

Some things just take experience to know…

Danzo on October 27, 2009 at 5:54 AM

AP, read this. The Other McCain puts it in a perspective you need to understand. This is not about a 3rd party! The consequences of a Hoffman win would be huge!

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/10/stop-bumming-me-out-man.html

Doug Hoffman is a sworn opponent of ObamaCare. If a guy like that wins, in an underdog third-party bid where nobody gave him a snowball’s chance two weeks ago, what’s the message?

The message is that Democrats had better watch out in 2010. If a guy like Hoffman can win in a district that went 52% for Obama less than a year ago, it will be like a flare shot skyward from a ship on a moonless midnight. Add in a victory for Bob McConnell in Virginia (which also went for Obama last year) and any Democratic senator or congressman with half a brain is going to start thinking, “Ruh-roh. This kinda looks like 1994 all over again.”

If Hoffman can pull off a miracle upset victory in NY23, it would be a shot across the bow of Obama, Pelosi and Reid that they won’t be able to ignore.

The Blue Dogs will freak out, and the RINOs will start wondering about the possibility of a Tea Party/Club for Growth/Sarah Palin convergence in their GOP primaries. They’ll find an excuse to pull the plug on ObamaCare and start looking for opportunities to denounce deficit spending. Heck, you might even see some of them work up the gumption to suggest a vote to extend the Bush tax cuts.

All of this is possible, if Hoffman wins. But a Hoffman win isn’t a random hypothetical we can postulate and discuss like we were in some damned poli-sci grad-school seminar. The battle for NY23 is the kind of desperate tooth-and-nail fight that doesn’t lend itself to dispassionate theoretical discourse.

At such a time as this, to waste pixels pondering ridiculous fourth-bong-hit-in-the-dorm-room questions — “Hey, wow, wouldn’t a third party be cool?” — is such a complete waste of time, it’s almost a complete waste of time explaining what a waste of time it is.

You’re bumming me out, man. Honest to God, you guys are bumming me out.

True_King on October 27, 2009 at 6:33 AM

Like folks who follow a recovering alcoholic?

Libertarians are a joke. They have never build a country. Not one.

rightistliberal on October 27, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Why should there be any monopoly over the use of force aka government? There should be a free and open marketplace for that kind of thing.

Libertarian Joseph on October 27, 2009 at 7:14 AM

Fight vote splitting with run offs!

- The Cat

MirCat on October 27, 2009 at 7:22 AM

Why is Allahpundit still here at HOT AIR?

Michelle Malkin, where are you?????????????

TheAlamos on October 27, 2009 at 3:29 AM

1. Because she wants it that way. 2. Signing his paychecks. See #1, and deal.

Pablo on October 27, 2009 at 7:52 AM

The US has been a center right country politically as at least since the 1950′s. Over the past 20 years republican politicians have moved left of center until now they are no longer considered moderates. For the republican party this is most apparent in domestic policy. Take for example GHWB and his tax policies and GWB and his medicare drug plan. Both of those items are not normally associated with conservative values. Then there is McCain. I do not agree with Beck that McCain would be worse than Obama in the arena of foreign policy ie; the war on terror. On domestic policy I think John McCain would be a disaster certainly for the republicans but more importantly for the country.

A third party could be the ultimate saviour of conservatism. I am considering a switch to the conservative party as only the conservative party is more likely the party that truly represents my political philosophy. The Libertarian party has some merit as well but for me personally is a bit to extreme leaning toward anarchy.

Many Republican candidates have left the conservative movement behind and are only slightly to the right of the liberals in their actions after they are elected. A majority of republican incumbants is beholding to the party first at the expense of the electorate. That is what Newt is saying. He needs the party if he is to run in 2012. He has no choice but to support their candidates. He would be a better choice in 2012 for the republicans than almost anyone else. I applaud his willingness to try. I understand why Newt must support and endorse the party candidate even as I feel let down by him for doing it.

For now, we conservatives need to support conservative candidates like Hoffman even if it means losing an election to the democrats. This will be a message the republican party can not ignore.

kanda on October 27, 2009 at 7:59 AM

I love Glenn Beck, think he’s a great guy, have bought 2 of his books, listen and watch the shows almost every day, BUT HE IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE WRONG ON THE THIRD PARTY CRAP.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: at some point, (certainly when it comes down to the communist who’s in the White House now) but preferably with some of these local guys as well) we will have to vote for whoever can beat these evil socialist/Marxist/communist/Maoist Democrats. Levin is right-for people to say there is no difference between the Republicans as a whole and the Democrats is LUNACY! Sacrifice a few here and there maybe, but not all.

I don’t like it any more than anyone else, and I hear where Beck and these “third party” people are coming from, but the reality is they (3rd parties)will not win in most if not all cases. History has always shown us this. If you think this country can stand another 4 years of the communist running the country right now then go ahead and play your “pride and principle” games.

For me, I don’t care if RONALD F’ING MCDONALD, COMPLETE WITH CLOWN MAKEUP WHILE SQUEEZING HIS HORN ON STAGE is running (and winning) he’s getting my vote. That’s right, like the person or not, whoever’s in the lead against Barack O’Communist should get your vote. This communist bastard MUST be stopped. We’ll be lucky enough if we survive his first 4 years. There is NO OVEREMPHASIZING THIS. THIS IS THE FUTURE OF YOUR LIVES AND COUNTRY LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER KNOWN.

Ignore the MSM this time when *THEY* try to pick our candidates for us. The people they criticize most are probably who you should be looking at and voting for, and YES THAT MEAN’S PALIN. Like Rush and others have said, the lib media TELLS YOU WHO THEY ARE AFRAID OF. They did it this last election and gave us McCain and Obama-we all know there were much better choices on BOTH sides. The media will surely will try this crap again.

dave_ross on October 27, 2009 at 8:00 AM

Beck isn’t arguing for a third party as much as he is a NEW party.

I don’t think anyone can argue that, even though Beck rants that both parties are wrongheaded and corrupt – most of his piss and vinegar is reserved for Democrats.

Beck’s problem with the GOP is the leadership doesn’t “get it” and he doesn’t think they are capable of leading us out of this mess. I myself, and millions of other Republicans agree with him.

Beck would have NO problem if the Republican party were “born again” and “refounded” on it’s principles – and neither would I.

Fortunately – I think we will be able to re-take the GOP but it’s going to be a pitt-fight to wrestle the controls from the old GOP Ayatollahs who wrecked the party.

The GOP is OUR party – it doesn’t belong to the Ayatollahs. The Ayatollah’s unwisely talk us down and tell us that they are “just trying to rebuild a majority”. What they don’t realize is that we have no doubt they can rebuild a majority – anyone can. Hell, Raum Emmanuel did that and he’s an idiot. The problem is – once you’re in the majority and you look around – and find that everyone in your “majority” are weak-kneed egomaniacs who are only in it for themselves. The GOP’s built majorites folks – and most of them have been very crappy.

You need the right people in there – not just a majority. 60 Republicans in the Senate that includes two “Olympia Snowes” concentrates all power into the hands of that two-person minority. That is just a fact. We need to start thinking of majorities differently. We need to think about banding conservatives together to work with blue dogs if necessary. Isolate the Olympia Snowes and by all means don’t support their reelection campaigns simply because they “call” themselves Republicans.

By the way – part of the reason that Republican party identification is so low is that most Conservatives like myself aren’t loyal to the Republican party – we’re loyal to the ideals of Conservatism. We vote and support the GOP as long as they support our ideals. When they stop doing that – we’ll look to other alternatives – including Third Parties.

The Republican party has no base. The Republican party RENTS the Conservative base. Once they stop paying rent – they lose the base.

HondaV65 on October 27, 2009 at 8:22 AM

Ignore the MSM this time when *THEY* try to pick our candidates for us. The people they criticize most are probably who you should be looking at and voting for, and YES THAT MEAN’S PALIN. Like Rush and others have said, the lib media TELLS YOU WHO THEY ARE AFRAID OF. They did it this last election and gave us McCain and Obama-we all know there were much better choices on BOTH sides. The media will surely will try this crap again.

dave_ross on October 27, 2009 at 8:00 AM

We can blame it on the MSM but that is too simplistic. The truth is the republican party is selecting and endorsing candidates who are more liberal than the conservative base will support. It is getting more difficult to tell them apart from the democrat. The Republican party EXPECTS even COMMANDS us to vote for their candidate and usually we do. What we end up doing is electing a republican who is sometimes more liberal than the democrat. To continue to expect us to vote for a the candidates who we do not honestly support because they are GOP is hogwash. The party has ignored us for far too long. If the party bosses continue to marginalize and alienate the conservative base that is their choice. The republican party should know we conservatives are angry as heck and we’re not going to accept it anymore. Our vote will go to the candidate who believes as we do regardless of party affiliation. We gave the Republican Party a chance in 1994 and they squandered it. Never again will we accept anything less than a conservative republican.

kanda on October 27, 2009 at 8:24 AM

I think we will be able to re-take the GOP but it’s going to be a pitt-fight to wrestle the controls from the old GOP Ayatollahs who wrecked the party.

By the way – part of the reason that Republican party identification is so low is that most Conservatives like myself aren’t loyal to the Republican party – we’re loyal to the ideals of Conservatism. We vote and support the GOP as long as they support our ideals. When they stop doing that – we’ll look to other alternatives – including Third Parties.

The Republican party has no base. The Republican party RENTS the Conservative base. Once they stop paying rent – they lose the base.

HondaV65 on October 27, 2009 at 8:22 AM

Bravo, well said and worth repeating.

kanda on October 27, 2009 at 8:27 AM

Better to lose in pursuit of what you believe than to win having compromised your soul.

hogfat on October 27, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Two quick points:

1. You keep supporting the RINO method of gaining and holding seats for the Republicans, even as that method has caused them to lose seats for a number of cycles and in a number of different seats across the nation. So, the question may really be- who is crazier, Glenn or you?

2. Why is it that I’m wrong on pushing to have the Republican part move to fiscal conservatism and you are right to support people like Dede? You are saying that the Republicans who vote on principle are wrong at heart, while you supporting a democrat in an (R) clothing is a good idea?

It is time to maybe admit your system isn’t working and maybe be willing to change? Try supporting decent, honest and conservative candidates to begin with and that way draw that part of the party to you?

Hmmm…. common sense.

archer52 on October 27, 2009 at 8:40 AM

hogfat on October 27, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Noble sentiments, admirable, yet most Americans are at the point they don’t care about the finer points of nobility when their house is in foreclosure because they’ve lost their job because the government yanked funding for a fighterjet, or because their company downsized due to “market reasons”. We can’t afford to take the “high” road these days in all instances. So I’ll say yes I’ll vote for a moderate if said moderate is fiscally conservative, socially not so much. My question is this: do you all call such (fiscally conservative/socially liberal) RINOs? I’m not being snarky, I really want to know.

Annietxgrl on October 27, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Annietxgrl -
Hasn’t that been the trouble for the past century? No one is fiscally conservative. These days it seems as if that simply means you try to look like you’re sympathetic to the taxpayer. No politician these days is truly fiscally conservative.

RINO is just that: they SAY they’re fiscally conservative.
libertarians ARE fiscally conservative.

hogfat on October 27, 2009 at 9:11 AM

If you want to blame anyone, blame the Republican leadership for openly declaring that conservatives are no longer welcome in the party.

MarkTheGreat on October 27, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Obama wanted the govt to take over health care. So did McCain.
Obama wanted Cap and Trade. So did McCain.
Obama was in favor of a govt stimulus package. So was McCain.

The best that could have been said for McCain, is that he wasn’t quite as bad as Obama.

Had McCain been the president pushing Cap and Trade and Health Care reform, both might have passed by now. The Democrats would still support both plans, and the Republicans would have been pressured by the party big wigs to support their president.

MarkTheGreat on October 27, 2009 at 9:17 AM

What is the endgame?

It isn’t the slow bleed strategy you advocate.

“One crushing defeat away from total victory”?

Uh, no. The operative quote is, “one more victory like this and I am undone.”

You would have us bleed out conservatism to Blue Poodles. You would have us bleed out conservatism to liberal GOP party hacks. You would have us bleed out conservatism for minor wins here and there. In the end, the GOP will have a working majority and the political will to, well, be Democrats.

Many scrubby victories away from debilitating ennui. Well played, AP.

spmat on October 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM

I’m growing weary of reading how conservatives who stand on principle are wrong and trying to excommunicate moderates and liberals from the party. We are doing no such thing. This is a common complaint among “moderates” and beta males to shame us into going along with them or drive us into silence. Won’t work anymore. We are happy to have you stand with us and we welcome your input. What we are not willing to do is shuttle our principles into a closet for you and acquiesce to your demands for our silence while you slowly tilt this nation toward fascism or worse. As was said by others before: The Republican Party is a big tent, but some of you have turned it into a circus tent with the clowns running the show.
You want my vote, Republicans candidates? Earn it, or bite my fat, pasty white a$$.

SKYFOX on October 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM

The message is that Democrats had better watch out in 2010. If a guy like Hoffman can win in a district that went 52% for Obama less than a year ago, it will be like a flare shot skyward from a ship on a moonless midnight. Add in a victory for Bob McConnell in Virginia (which also went for Obama last year) and any Democratic senator or congressman with half a brain is going to start thinking, “Ruh-roh. This kinda looks like 1994 all over again.”

If Hoffman can pull off a miracle upset victory in NY23, it would be a shot across the bow of Obama, Pelosi and Reid that they won’t be able to ignore.

The Blue Dogs will freak out, and the RINOs will start wondering about the possibility of a Tea Party/Club for Growth/Sarah Palin convergence in their GOP primaries. They’ll find an excuse to pull the plug on ObamaCare and start looking for opportunities to denounce deficit spending. Heck, you might even see some of them work up the gumption to suggest a vote to extend the Bush tax cuts.

I love that other McCain!!!! We can not elect another Spector again. That will truly be a wasted vote–WHAT PART OF THIS ARGUMENT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?

lovingmyUSA on October 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Allah when Republicans run liberals they deserve to lose.

When liberals win regardless of party affiliation and maybe especially when they are endorsed by the more “conservative” of the two partys we lose.

The question in this race isn’t who Hoffman will spoil it for. It is instead, who will Scozzafava will spoil it for?

jpmn on October 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM

…they could bleed enough votes from Republican nominees to make life easier for The One.

Or AP, and this is a novel idea, we could have true conservative Republicans run and they would win.

Such an easy solution. For too long we’ve let TPTB run the Republican party and look where it’s gotten us. There are only about a handful who are truly conservative. It’s too bad that Newt and people like him don’t comprehend that the people make the party not the politicians, and the people are taking the party back.

moonsbreath on October 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM

YES, YES, YES! Stick to our principles. Look at what staying with the party has gotten us–liberals in disguise. Beck is absolutely right, as much as I love and respect Rush, I disagree. It is time for another party if the so called Republicans continue to push the RINOS. If the party won’t remain true to its principles, then they can cross the aisle, which is what many of them need to do also. Newt has sold out-Goodbye, Newt.

In regards to comments made on Hoffman’s dull personality: Just look at what the slick and shiny politicians have gotten us. I’ll take someone who loves this country and wants to do what’s best for it over those shallower posers any day!

texanpride on October 27, 2009 at 12:07 PM

One major problem with party politics is the fact that as soon as a person gets elected they forget who they represent and think they represent a political party.

Here is my campaign finance reform:

1. If you can’t vote for them you can’t give them money. Unions and Corporations can’t vote. People who live outside the district can’t vote for them or give them money.
2. Campaigns must report donations weekly.
3. The reporting much be 95% accurate on the day it is reported and 99.5% accurate after seven days.
4. Those who cheat are removed from office.
5. Elected officials who lie in campaigns are prosecuted for false advertising.

The Rock on October 27, 2009 at 12:12 PM

I used to think the way Allah does, but where has that ever gotten us? Farther Left, as a country, I’d say. It’s no longer working to accept those whom the Republican party picks. The GOP can no longer pick winners, nor do they have a clue how to defend potential winners (Palin, Bachmann, etc) from the gnarling maw of the MSM and lying Left Wing blog machine. It’s a joke.

When you get calls from the atate and national Repub parties, let them know that you are no longer sending donations to the umbrella group, but rather to individual candidates who are more in line with your conservative values. Money always talks…eventually.

Conservatives have the momentum now (according to recent polls) and wasting it on non-Conservative Republicans is only asking for more of the same.

The point is that the GOP has forgotten how to run small government, fiscal conservatives which is exactly what most people who vote Republican believe in. We have to strike while the Dems are making a colossal mess of things and put true Conservatives in office whenever and however we can. It seems to be the only way to truly take back the country, and we can hopefully put the GOP’s wheels back on the Right track in the process.

PoodleSkirt on October 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM

One major problem with party politics is the fact that as soon as a person gets elected they forget who they represent and think they represent a political party.
Here is my campaign finance reform:
1. If you can’t vote for them you can’t give them money. Unions and Corporations can’t vote. People who live outside the district can’t vote for them or give them money.
2. Campaigns must report donations weekly.
3. The reporting much be 95% accurate on the day it is reported and 99.5% accurate after seven days.
4. Those who cheat are removed from office.
5. Elected officials who lie in campaigns are prosecuted for false advertising.
The Rock on October 27, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Brilliant. You can add “No anonymous donors” to the list as well. The One never would have made it past Go had this been in place.

PoodleSkirt on October 27, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Since most of us here are all for free market principles, then I do not understand the thought that I must “purchase” (ie, vote for) a particular candidate I do not agree with because the Party tells me that I have to. Talk about not being treated like a free person with principles. That thinking is borderline Nanny State stuff. I consider the political arena a market and I will spend my voting dollars on the candidates I want. A Conservative will vote for conservative ideals. A RINO will too often vote for liberal ideals. According to all of the free market banter I hear on HA, I should be able to decide how to spend my vote.

Just like in the free market, if the Republicans want to put out a mediocre product and very few want to buy their product, then they should either fail or compete, improve, and flourish. It is their choice. Don’t put their survivability on my shoulders. Just like in the free market. I don’t spend my dollars out of pity. I spend them at the businesses who earn it. It is time for the Republican Party to compete for my vote or fail.

If the Republican Party wants me to purchase what they are selling, then they should provide a product that will attract my vote. Otherwise, all I am hearing is the I must support Rino’s for some National Party Reason and not because the Party cannot provide a product that I want. Great, instead of me being a free person, I am told what to do for my own good and that of the Republican Party. It is very sad to see Free Market Advocates change their opinion of competition and its benefits when it comes to a political party. Suddnely, Free Market support becomes support for subsidized failure.

frizzyb on October 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Beck is right on this, by giving your vote to the party – which in essence is what most Americans seem to do – you give power to the party instead of the people they represent. Then it begins with “well they don’t represent my beliefs here” – “No, but do you really want the other guy?”

Then you vote for the party b/c if you don’t, the worse party will win – and you find yourself where we are now – cornered by parties that know they control the power in Washington. You have to be willing to throw it out there – hope the parties either 1) come to their senses and move in your direction 2) parties fail, and then clean house

The problem is: what have the Republicans done for conservatives? Other than remain steady on the war and some moral values…what? They’ve spent us into oblivion, they’ve grown the size of government, and heck, McCain is a “Moderate” Democrat, RINO.

It will get worse before it gets better, but you have to put things in the right direction – here’s one for you: we need real change…never thought I’d say that one, but change that doesn’t come from a party – b/c neither of the main parties is offering it for real.

charlie36r on October 27, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Honestly, look at Gingrich – brilliant strategist, smart man – however – his allegiance is to the party. The party supports Snoopy (or whatever her name is), while Hoffman is running as something that Gingrich would support for his ideas – but since the party is supporting Snoopy – he’s supporting Snoopy – do you really win if your team is not on the same page? If a Republican puts an (R) by their name, then acts like a democrat – is that really a victory? This is how you get people like Olympia Snowe

charlie36r on October 27, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Libertarians are a joke. They have never build a country. Not one.

rightistliberal on October 27, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Um….they built THIS country.

nazo311 on October 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM

The idea that an independent conservative (IC) can never get a seat is preposterous. I’ll call your skepticism that there cannot be a constitutionalists super majority with my skepticism that ICs will never win seats.

ICs likely won’t feel the same pull to go along with progressive elements snuck in to avoid “embarrassing the party” or “splitting the party”. ICs can vote with the GOP, when the GOP is closer to conservative goals, but they can serve as dissenting voices–on the other side–when the GOP is feeling the pull of the progressive. Thus it promotes incrementally true conservatism which couldn’t give a damn about “hurting the party”.

We’re in a situation right now where the Dems want to disqualify the “born again” pubs, simply because Bush and Co spent a lot. If Bush “got” to spend 700-billion on TARP, Obama “gets” to spent it within a few short months on the phony-stimulus package. You want to argue them on social spending–well Bush passed a major increase in Medicare and “where were you?”

Let me take you back to the Bush years. We had this Shangra La of GOP leadership under Bush. We once walked on the promised land of maintaining a majority. And they increased spending trying to alter the GOP image, people–including marginalized conservatives, lost belief that the pubs were any different, and the energized dems easily swept back into power. (HOW could Bush’s approval have sunk so low except that he was losing people on this side of the political divide–and for all his centrism–he wasn’t gaining a thing on the entrenched left.)

Because we cannot justify what was spent under Republicans, there is an argument, used by the dems (who don’t need much to convince themselves of the truth of a party proposition) that ANY spending by Obama is justified.

Your call is to let us walk again in the Promised land of a titular “Republican majority”. The thing is, it’s not the “get along” Republicans that have been the strongest voices against Obama–it’s been the Tea Party voices, who just may have voted GOP for years simply because there was no alternative. Enough GOP leaders dutifully held their Obamacare townhalls until they saw that the people weren’t receiving it.

I have not seen a GOP-lead opposition to Obama, it’s a conservative-lead opposition amongst voters–who have traditionally voted GOP because they view the GOP as the closest to conservative principles!

Meanwhile, the GOP has been happy to make Obamacare-lite proposals, and amend legislation to make it a “safer” national health care. The opposition to which the Obama administration is self-destructing by overreaction started not with the GOP, but rank-and-file conservatives.

Now, you want us to go back to the party that doesn’t see that big a problem with Obama–except maybe he might spend more than they did on social programs, and not be as serious about controlling the cost of national health care with tort reform. Because recapturing the halcyon days of 2006 are so critical to our republic?!!

Axeman on October 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM

AP wrote:

…there’s a supermajority out there willing to return to Founders-style libertarianism if only he and other conservatives hammer the message hard and long enough. I don’t think there is.

I say

There IS a supermajority out there willing to return to Founders-style conservatism if only Glenn Beck and other REAGAN conservatives hammer the message hard and long enough JUST LIKE REAGAN DID. I believe there is.

FIF(AP)

Blacksmith8 on October 27, 2009 at 2:07 PM

nazo311 on October 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM

That was my thought too.

Blacksmith8 on October 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM

I know others have said it, but let me chime in:

The endgame? To get a conservative in office.

You see, my parents actually come from an older generation–they were born during the Great Depression. I might be quite young (in my early 30s), but the values that were instilled in them were also instilled with me, despite the opposing views that grew from the “Me generation” of the children of the 60s…

Why is this relevant? My parents knew–just as I know–that if it takes a short-term sacrifice for a long-term substantial gain, it’s well-worth it. I, like many, voted for McCain–or rather, voted for the lesser of two evils. Looking back, I totally threw away my vote. If Obama won, I (and American) would lose. If McCain won, I (and American) would have lost.

As Beck suggested, I should have voted for a conservative first, their party affiliation be damned. Heck, if it was McCain vs. Zell Miller, I would have opted for Miller.

And if we’re so focused on parties rather than ideals, and we can’t endure a single term under another party….then the game’s over before it even began, and any vote cast–no matter for who–is wasted to begin with.

The endgame is to win, AP. Not every throw will be received for a touchdown, and you can’t make every play a Hail Mary.

CatsGodot on October 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM

If this is done right, and CONSERVATIVES are able to recapture the Republican party, and sit the “moderate” losers down, we can absolutely make the democrat party irrelevant for a generation.

In order to do this, we need actual conservatives who will stand by their principles.

This stuff isn’t rocket science. It’s very simple to understand, for most folks.

gary4205 on October 27, 2009 at 12:43 AM

I want more than one generation. I’m thinking FOUR at least.

Blacksmith8 on October 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM

I’m all for a third party.

1) Conservative, true conservatives not RINOs, need to stop saying ‘third parties don’t win’. If the ‘third party’ represents more people than the repubs and enough people fall in behind it, including conservative commentators, then the GOP can become the ‘third party.’

2) At the very least, the GOP losses due to third parties should force them right, to stop nominating and supporting the Scuzzyfavas and McCains of the world and get behind the Pawlentys and Palins of the world.

PastorJon on October 27, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Um….they built THIS country.

nazo311 on October 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Randian co-optive nonsense. Thomas Jefferson oversaw laws that had people put into the stocks overnight for “lewd” conversation.

Madison and Harrison were far from purists, and if you read the Federalists closely you’ll see not a plan for the one-true government, but arguments for a strategies that they believed would deliver a real-world government closer to the principles of freedom. They did not seek the ideological purity that libertarians read into originalist writings. Along with this, while Madison thought that army chaplains were “unconstitutional” he made no effort to purify the army for his interpretation, but gave deference to the tradition of chaplains in the army, based on his respect for the intellects of men who felt otherwise.

Axeman on October 27, 2009 at 2:18 PM

I know that I’ve written enough, but I would like to examine Allah’s take. His concern is that there may not be a constitutionalists super-majority “out there”.

And thus appealing to a majority of whatever is out there, is precisely the wrong strategy. What if it is ever the case of a marxist majority “out there”? Does that mean that the GOP wants the endgame to be that as near-Trotsky-ites, the GOP slows down the Stalinist fringe “out there”.

There is a strong suggestion in the framing of views “out there” that the views just are, they cannot be changed. They cannot be enlightened. That it is just the role of a majority that the can appeal to more of them than not. If that is the case, then why bother. You’ve already surrendered enough to the opposition–let alone nihilism.

Axeman on October 27, 2009 at 2:24 PM

This is a false story. THIS IS NOT A THIRD PARTY SITUATION. There was no primary and a bunch of “wrong minded” Republicans picked this Dede babe. Doug Hoffman is a Republican and had there been a primary, he would have run and most likely won that primary. If he wins, and is up for re-election next year, he will run in a Republican primary and be a Republican. The Conservative Party in New York stepped in when the Republican picked a radical liberal pretending to be a Republican. Normally, the Conservative Party does not get involved, unless there are situations that call for it. Shame On Allah – the bomb thrower.

suzyk on October 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM

I have more COMPETITION in my CHOICE of ice cream at the local supermarket than in politics.

Pepsi or Coke? How about Root beer, Dr. Pepper, Sprite, 7-Up, Mello Yello, etc.

The problem isn’t a viable third party, but a lack of viable fourth, fifth and sixth parties. Just one third party will always draw votes, but maybe that’s what Republicans need to see happen to get their shiat straight, cause apparently losing to Obama wih their RINO in Chief didn’t do it.

Let’s see, Republicans keep proposing RINOS and keep catering to the Left, yet it’s either socialists to the left of me and RINOS to the right, and if I request something else, I’m a “Glenn Beck whack job”.

Like Dennis Miller once joked, “Of course Eskimos are gonna eat blubber, it’s the only thing on the Arctic buffet”.

Sure Obama is a walking catastrophe, because he is the a huge dose of leftist poison all at once. Instead, with RINOS, we get a small dose of the same shiat daily for years until we build an immunity to knowing any better.

It’s simple – Republicans wake up to the DEMAND expressed by the people and SUPPLY what is asked for, or they lose out in the political marketplace. I’m tired of being blackmailed into a lesser of the two evils “d0uche v. turd” contest.

You’re right – it’s far too serious now to deal with limpd!cks himming and hawwing over how best to “win the middle” by weakening the right, and standing by, watching while they do it, waxing academic. Be a man, grab your b@lls, and profess your conservatism. Don’t apologize for it, teach it, preach it, and win people over to it. Advertise (for the right) and antagonize (the left).

Better to be who you are and fail than sell out your beliefs to win.

Saltyron on October 27, 2009 at 3:41 PM

PastorJon on October 27, 2009 at 2:14 PM

You are absolutely right. The GOP BEGAN as a third party. Does anyone remember the “Contract With America”? Those were ROSS PEROTS ideas, a third party candidate, written NOT by Newt Gingrich, but by Larry Hunter, Dick Armey, Bob Walker and Bill Paxon.
Isn’t it strange that Hoffman has all of these endorsements from CONSERVATIVES like Palin, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Pawlenty, Ken Blackwell, Peter King, Steve King, Dick Armey, and a host of others, yet Scozzafava is endorsed by Planned Parenthood, ACORN, SEIU, Teamsters and oh yeah, Newt Gingrich.

nelsonknows on October 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM

One more thought for you Free Market advocates (except the Republican Party): I guess you think that the GOP is too big to fail just like GM and that I should be bullied into supporting an entity that couldn’t read the writing on the wall, adapt, and compete. A sluggish, poorly managed GM needs to be bailed out just like a sluggish, poorly managed Republican Party is what you Free Market In Name Only people are pushing. Adapt or Fail. The burden lies with the GOP, not me.

frizzyb on October 27, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Assume hypothetically now that the world isn’t perfect. What is the endgame?

The endgame is the relegation of both the Democrat and Republican parties to a plurality-only status, permanently.

Elect roughly 20% of the legislative branch as common-sense independents, not beholden to a third party or any party. People who seek to act as a buffer against bad ideas no matter where in the political spectrum they arise.

With a 40-40-20 split, neither party can ram hot-headed legislation through. Both sides are forced to work with the sane middle in order to get anything done. These folks can act as a bulwark against bad legislation, no matter how rapidly the political winds shift. Instead of having to wait years to correct for short term surges in political stupidity, these independents can compensate immediately.

With such a split, there’s far less damage that a Democrat or Republican President can do. No third party needed (or, for that matter, wanted).

Simple, really.

VekTor on October 27, 2009 at 4:21 PM

What is the endgame?

AllahNewt

Obviously, slavish obeisance to the GOP party candidate no matter their actual public policy positions would be ideal. And yet Hoffman seems to be playing this election game to win office based on his conservative political philosophy.

Yes, AP — what on earth can he be thinking?!

Jaibones on October 27, 2009 at 6:00 PM

The Republican party has no base. The Republican party RENTS the Conservative base. Once they stop paying rent – they lose the base.

HondaV65 on October 27, 2009 at 8:22 AM

That is an excellent observation.

Blacksmith8 on October 27, 2009 at 8:57 PM

The fact that Markos Moulitsas is supporting Scozzaflava over Owens This troubles even me as as I defend Scozzaflava. I want a reasonable moderate Republicanism, but I have been disappointed recently. Particularly, a few votes for the “stimulus” bill and its economic insanity. I still have faith that moderate Republicanism can be done right: hard core economic conservatism plus social liberalism plus some flexibility on other issues.

thuja on October 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM

The left’s version of Operation Chaos? This is the dems only option in 2010, run out 3rd party candidates to split republican support, recently used for Bill Clinton and against Al Gore.

We MUST demand the republican party elect ONLY conservatives or we will not vote for them PERIOD. They will take our advice.

dthorny on October 28, 2009 at 6:41 AM

And if I’m right that there’ll always be at least 40 votes or so in the Senate and 45 percent among the population for progressivism, how does he presume to enact the libertarian agenda while confronting the realities of congressional compromise?

Maybe you need to hit the books to learn what the word “Progressivism” actually means. Read Holmes, John Dewey or Herbert Croly, or Cass Sunstein, Jonathan Chait, or Jeffrey Rosen, or any of dozens of others. These people were or are representative of Progressives. They are not garden variety liberals by any reasonable definition. Equally important, not all Democrats are Progressives by a long shot.

There isn’t 45% in favor of that philosophy today, even after 100 years of leftist propaganda. There is a considerable difference even between a garden variety liberal and a Progressive.

Progressives represent between 5-20% of the population in the country, depending on how generous you want to be with the definition, but nowhere near the nearly half you are asserting. Even those numbers have fluctuated – much smaller during the 50s, growing from the late 60s through the present.

There is nothing inevitable about Progressivism nor about political support for progressive policy. It is a battle of ideas and individuals have the choice of which ideas they will accept. Which they accept is a complex function of education and circumstances but in the end an individual decides what to believe. There is nothing fated about it.

JDPerren on February 20, 2010 at 11:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4