Quotes of the day
posted at 10:55 pm on October 27, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Now the establishment Republicans are beginning to panic. Establishment Republicans think that principled conservatives’ taking a stand in this contest will weaken conservatism and the Republican party. The Wall Street Journal recently suggested that ‘Tea-Party Activists Complicate Republican Comeback Strategy.’
“They’re wrong.
“As William Kristol has said, the truth is exactly the opposite. It is the ‘GOP establishment’ that stands in the way of a conservative comeback.
“Our goal should not be a Republican majority. It should be a conservative majority. If the Republican party will not be conservative, then we are going to run against them … and we’re going to win.”
***
“Are we saying that as Americans you’ve got to have an ‘R’ by your name before you vote for them? Where do you draw the line? If somebody with a record like this gets our seal of approval, regardless, only because she’s got an ‘R’ by the name… You know, just because we’re Republicans doesn’t mean that we’re deaf, dumb, and blind.” (Audio here.)
***
“You know, the Republican Party, I really do not know what Newt Gingrich was thinking. Maybe he hasn’t gotten over the budget battle of 1995. I don’t know, but this is stunning. I ruined two hours of my day when I saw that the Republican Party was running ads against Hoffman. They have a death wish. The Republican Party has a death wish. Gallup: 40% of Americans now say they are conservative, 20% say they’re liberal, 36% say they’re moderates. And of those three groups, which one is being ignored — not just ignored — which one is being attacked by the Republican Party? The conservatives!
“It’s worse than I thought. I thought this was just based on elitism and Northeast moderate liberalism, and embarrassment of the people that the social issues attract to the party. But now it’s just plain stupidity. The Republican Party, as constituted is as dangerous to this country as the Democrat Party is.”
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 »
Same picture from last night,is it groundhog day again!
canopfor on October 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!
INC on October 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Quick! Someone name me 5 races where the Republicans COULD HAVE WON with a ‘moderate’ but LOST because our candidate was ‘too conservative’
Can’t do it?
Yeah, me neither.
If 40% of America is conservative, we only need 51% to win.
So obviously, we should bow down to the 11% of the Frums to win elections?
W
T
F
battleoflepanto1571 on October 27, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Rush is so right here. I’m always attacked by both sides. It gets annoying.
deidre on October 27, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Wait, CANDIDATE DOUG HOFFMAN wrote that?
Where do I donate???????????
battleoflepanto1571 on October 27, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Party uber alles.
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Yep…beyond stupid…sub-moronic, in fact. But they’ll get the message soon.
AUINSC on October 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM
This will be remembered as the day the ocean levels began to recede and the planet began to heal.
DeweyWins on October 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Conservatives won’t be prodded to support something we don’t believe in, not for clever “strategic” reasons or because of party labels. We see that the danger to our nation posed by unrestrained government has become fiercely urgent, and we have stopped accepting excuses from those who won’t stand strong to stop it. We have declared independence from party politics because too many people in both parties either have been complicit in creating the danger, or have shrunk from challenging it.
===========================================================
Interesting!!
canopfor on October 27, 2009 at 11:02 PM
There having serious issues….Suppose that Micheal Meyers will be hounding their sleep?.
hawkman on October 27, 2009 at 11:03 PM
The Conservative Party…
d1carter on October 27, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Conservatives are at the Red Sea. The blue-blood Pharoes are closing quickly. Y’all know how this story ends.
SouthernGent on October 27, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Our goal should not be a Republican majority. It should be a conservative majority. If the Republican party will not be conservative, then we are going to run against them . . . and we’re going to win.
===========================================================
Leadership qualities me thinks!!
canopfor on October 27, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Yep.
ernesto on October 27, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Someone name me 5 races where the Republicans COULD HAVE WON with a ‘moderate’ but LOST because our candidate was ‘too conservative’
Probably every House seat lost in 2006 and 2008.
crosspatch on October 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Conservatives are at the Red Sea. The blue-blood Pharoes are closing quickly. Y’all know how this story ends.
SouthernGent on October 27, 2009 at 11:04 PM
SouthernGent:Well,SarahCuda could be Moses,but,the 40 years
of wandering is what worries me!!:)
canopfor on October 27, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Where’s Mr. Steele?
mjbrooks3 on October 27, 2009 at 11:09 PM
“20% say they’re liberal, 36% say they’re moderates…”
The BS Detector is howling at that one. Liberals hide behind “moderate, centrist and progressive” labels because if they told us what they really think and really mean, they would have a hard time fooling us. A bunch of liberals are hiding in that 36% category.
perroviejo on October 27, 2009 at 11:09 PM
crosspatch on October 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Probably not. Remember, the theme in 2006 was GOP “corruption,” which the Dems were going to “clean up.” 2008 was the Obama wave.
In neither of these elections can you show me a half-dozen GOP candidates with reputations for honesty, conservative principles and voting records, etc. who were defeated by Dems who attacked them as “too Conservative.”
Go ahead, list them and prove me wrong. If you can.
cs89 on October 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM
For my Dallas/Texas friends: about had it with Mark Davis? From his 180 degree turn her did subbing for Rush yesterday from his Friday show, he did another 180 degree turn today from subbing for Rush:
“HOFFMAN CAN NOT WIN. But I hope he does. HE WILL NOT WIN, IT’S IMPOSSIBLE! I can see y’all’s point, though. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH DEE DEE, THEY CHOSE HER THERE! She would never win here.”
That guy is planning a “see, I told you so” on Wednesday morning no matter what. Wish his competitor Glenn Beck wasn’t on such a weak signal station for me here, but tomorrow I start to put up with the background static.
Marcus on October 27, 2009 at 11:11 PM
The 2006 story was pretty simple. The Senate came up with a bipartisan immigration compromise that independent voters supported by a huge margin. The House Republicans dug in their heels and refused to compromise in conference. Many of those House Republicans were tossed out of office (albeit on thin margins) in the 2006 elections. More of them were tossed out in 2008.
The independents threw those Republicans out because they were “too conservative” and refused to compromise on legislation that their constituents wanted passed. They cut off their noses to spite their faces. Now they MIGHT get their jobs back because of the usual Democrats screwing up the economy by robbing the taxpayer and blowing it on crap we don’t need. But it is really still going to be a “lesser of two evils” play for most independent voters.
crosspatch on October 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM
He’s having a late dinner and planning meeting with Dede and Newt.
E T Cartman on October 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM
They ran as SOCIAL Cons… there was no FISCAL Con messege.
If you go back and read the Contract with America, which Newt got even Moderates to sign, was primarily a smaller government Fiscal Con type of Contract.
Repubs need to go for a LIMITED Federal Gov messege, and then leave the Social Issues for the States…. its a winning strategery.
But the GOP is not doing that… they are still running RINOs who are NOT talking about limiting the Government, and going back to an origional type of interpretation of the Constitution… ie… limited Federal Government.
Romeo13 on October 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM
These guys like David Frum, who say “we must have a bigger tent,” that bash conservatives over it, aren’t really advocating a bigger tent.
They just want to move it. Left, as they see it.
If they wanted a bigger tent, they wouldn’t cross the Eleventh Commandment as publicly as they have.
JeffWeimer on October 27, 2009 at 11:16 PM
They all sound like Glenn Beck! Why, that’s just crazy!
Pablo on October 27, 2009 at 11:19 PM
I’m with you brother. Fiscal is where we belong Federally – social should be a states issue….
JeffWeimer on October 27, 2009 at 11:19 PM
I thought that was Glenn Beck! That was El Rushbo!
GOP is losing it. How can we recapture the GOP if they continue to suppress us? This is going to take major work or a third party. GOP is not getting a cent from me as well as other conservatives. We are taking the bull by the horns.
cubachi on October 27, 2009 at 11:19 PM
The Republican Party needs a good bitch slapping. It’ll come, don’t worry.
EMD on October 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Why Hoffman can win:
1) Scozzafava’s vote is beginning to crumble; one guess where it is going-Hoffman.
2)Hoffman only has to win by 1%-a 43% (Hoffman), 42%(Owens), 17% (Scozzafava) is possible
3)Momentum is always key to races. And so is intensity. Why is intensity so important? Because intense citizens vote.
4)Sarah Palin endorsement; look what it did for Saxby Chambliss
5)The district is not a “Leftist” district.
technopeasant on October 27, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Bingooooooo…. Newt is still shell-shocked and got tired of being painted as Satan.
ddrintn on October 27, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Um, What?
Something like 40% of the house seats that we lost in 2006 were from Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, and New England ALONE.
They weren’t exactly offering up Pat Buchanan in Long Island!
In 2008, half of the losses were from Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida
Ring any bells? – those are the 3 southern states that OBAMA carried due to black turnout. Jim Jeffords would have lost those races
TRY AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
battleoflepanto1571 on October 27, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Take back the party, and they will come.
Hening on October 27, 2009 at 11:27 PM
If you notice when you see pictures of revival meetings or attend one it is often held under a big tent.
Is there talk of turning people away? No. Do the speakers lament that some people chose not to enter the tent? No.
What they say to themselves: “It is what it is.”
Why? People who decided to plant their bodies under the tent came for a reason. Those who did not chose not to come.
In political terms if someone doesn’t want to walk in under Sarah Palin’s tent it is up to them but Sarah is not ever going to exclude anyone from the opportunity to find out what happens under her tent.
technopeasant on October 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I donated my spending money for a month to Hoffman!
margategop517 on October 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
huh? 2006 was about immigration?
no way.
2006 was about IRAQ+CORRUPTION+SEX SCANDALS
MarkFoleyMarkFoleyMarkFoleyMarkFoley was on the news 24/7.
Add to that ghoulish death counts in iraq, jack abramoff, etc…..
oh yeah immigration was a hot button issue that depressed some R turnout in certain districts, im sure, but the republican party lost independents in 2006 for the other things, not immigration
battleoflepanto1571 on October 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I’m a Conservative. Always have been. I didn’t realize it until TARP. I’m wide awake now. And I am taking down names. They’re either with us or against us.
TN Mom on October 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
what? social conservatism in 2006? i must have missed that. i thought it was a tepid defense of iraq + ‘security’ issues
battleoflepanto1571 on October 27, 2009 at 11:30 PM
I don’t think Rush himself could have said it better. The establishment Republicans need to be forcibly retired.
I heard Newt last night and I knew that he was lost. Conservatives had better get ready to fight hard, because the old guard ain’t gonna go without a fight. Power has a very addictive effect on people.
hachiban on October 27, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Here’s the deal GOP: we’re ALREADY out of power. When we go back in, we want to do it with CONSERVATIVES. We don’t want to have our congressional leadership be a bunch of lindsey graham whiners!
battleoflepanto1571 on October 27, 2009 at 11:31 PM
crosspatch on October 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM
I asked you to list “too Conservative” candidates, instead you blow smoke about 2006 turning on immigration.
Bull.
I’ll give you a chance to prove me wrong, though. Show me 3 newspaper or TV ads by Democrats who won by attacking their GOP opponent as too “right-wing” on immigration.
Go ahead. Back it up.
cs89 on October 27, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Someone name me 5 races where the Republicans COULD HAVE
I think you got that bass ackwards pal.
t.ferg on October 27, 2009 at 11:33 PM
I like the cut of your jib.
t.ferg on October 27, 2009 at 11:34 PM
2010: No Conservative Left Behind!
TN Mom on October 27, 2009 at 11:35 PM
OT: Yahoo has a one-question poll on how Obamao is doing on the economy.
onlineanalyst on October 27, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I’ve admired Newt in the past, but now he appears like a modern-day Alcibiades.
PackerBronco on October 27, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Where’s Mr. Steele?
mjbrooks3 on October 27, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Eating waffels and penning his next entry into “Whazz Up”.
txag92 on October 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Conservatism is on the ascendancy as Rush often says.
It is extremely important to get Hoffman elected.
Then it is important that conservative candidates win in GOP primaries for Congress.
After it is vital the GOP take a conservative message to the country in the 2010 midterms.
And finally above all as conservative we must not allow a RINO to win the GOP nomination. We must now allow the MSM to marginalize conservative candidates (eg Sarah Palin). That would be self-defeating and undermine all the efforts of miilions of volunteers to give the conservative movement legitimacy.
technopeasant on October 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Me three.
By the way Steele was here for Fall Fest conservative message and he has always been a fiscal con (from his days on fox). Get him in a speech and he’s incredible.
Somehow he being stifled and I wish the idiots with the moderate ideas would get a damn clue.
At this time we need fiscal conservatives. People that will sign fiscal contracts with constituents that the elected will not go to Washington and run around spending money like Drunken Sailors.
Gracelynn on October 27, 2009 at 11:39 PM
right on, right on, right on!
cmsinaz on October 27, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Conservatives can run as “pure” Conservatives and win. Sure, go ahead, if you can.
When they don’t win, the usual excuse would be that the candidate was not conservative enough. Because not only he has to be fiscal conservative, he has to hate gay people, call abortion murder and think Christianity should decide policy. Wait, we should also not teach evolution because it is an elitist invention. What else?
I asked this before, and I ask now: Why did not Conservatives nominate a real conservative in the last election? Who stopped them? As Brooks has said, Limbaugh barks all the way to bank but he is essentially powerless except among the wingnuts.
rightistliberal on October 27, 2009 at 11:43 PM
I honestly can’t think of very many candidates who ran as “social cons” or who made abortion, gay marriage or any other social issue the centerpuece of his/her campaign. I know it hasn’t happened in my locality.
ddrintn on October 27, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Yeah, but with them highfalutin assembly lines, automo-thingermajigs buzzin’ around the roads and electric lights and telimaphones, everything moves faster these days.
FloatingRock on October 27, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Funny..? Beck has been saying this for a looong time and taken a bit of grief for it. Good to see eyes are opening!
katy on October 27, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Conservatives hoist the Skull and Crossed Bones!
ronsfi on October 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM
When the fringe Conservatives run and lose badly I guess you can always blame the “Liberal Mainstream Media”. Of course Fox News is bragging everyday about their ratings. Aren’t they part of the “Mainstream Media” now?
Conservatives want their cake and to eat it too.
Decider on October 27, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Are you talking about shamnesty? Because if so, the polls at the time indicated that about 80% of Republicans apposed it, along with around 70% of independents and 60% of Democrats.
So you can’t be talking about shamnesty!
FloatingRock on October 27, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Per latest RCP poll averages, Obama’s “spread” now only 7.7% (approve 51.7% – disprove 44.0%)
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 11:53 PM
So did Thomas Sowell in his piece linked in Headlines earlier today.
FloatingRock on October 27, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Again, I think what Newt has been doing is trying to head off a circular firing squad at the pass. His fear (and I share it) is that arch-conservatives feeling their oats can seriously overreach and blow 2010 by demanding unelectable stances and unelectable candidates for purple states and purple districts. Also, if candidates go under the bus for changes in the political winds, who wants to run under the GOP banner under those conditions?
Scozzafava was likely decided upon back in May or June, or even April—back about the time the guy who used to represent NY-23 knew he was being nominated for Secretary of the Army. Back then, 0bama’s approval, even with Rasmussen, was floating around 55 percent or so and looked flat.
If 0bama had stayed in that range, a candidate like Hoffman would not have had a chance in Hell, and you and I both know it. What happened was the precipitous late June-early July collapse in Presidential approval ratings along with all the amateurish bumbling and bullying so typical of this White House. Now that Hoffman looks like the better candidate, folks want to believe he would have been the better candidate back in early June, but was ignored because of New York elitism, and want Scozzafava to dive under the bus.
Sekhmet on October 27, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Conservatives hoist the Skull and Crossed Bones!
ronsfi on October 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM
ronsfi:The U.S.S Hot Air is ready!:)
canopfor on October 27, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Obama’s only strength going into the 2012 election is the insane notion that making the Republican party into the party of right-wing extremism is a good strategy. If the people who blog were the Republican Party, I’m pretty sure I’d be voting Democrat, since Obama looks moderate by comparison. Luckily, most Republicans haven’t drunk the kool-aid. It was the rank and file of the Republican Party who voted for McCain despite the disapproval of our intellectually elite bloggers.
thuja on October 27, 2009 at 11:55 PM
http://doughoffmanforcongress.com/
https://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/donate3.html
And hurry up…. This is a rcae that matters.
antisocial on October 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Maybe he was talking about some poll done in Mexico.
MB4 on October 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Yeah, but with them highfalutin assembly lines, automo-thingermajigs buzzin’ around the roads and electric lights and telimaphones, everything moves faster these days.
FloatingRock on October 27, 2009 at 11:45 PM
FloatingRock: Hehe,ya,if only government did as well!:)
canopfor on October 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM
I’ve been waiting many years for the CONSERVATIVES to wake up to the Rino elites that have owned the Party. Took a while, but if it results in retaking our party, it will have been worth the wait.
jainphx on October 27, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Back in 1970, Jim Buckley was elected to the Senate from New York as a Conservative running against a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat. He was helped by VP Spiro Agnew, who called the Republican the “Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party.”
The slight supposedly boosted the Republican’s standing with liberals, splitting the liberal vote between the Republican and Democrat and paving the way for Buckley’s victory.
Perhaps the support of the Palins and Bachmanns of the GOP for Hoffman will have a similar effect on the newest “Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party.”
PS: This is not an attack on Dede Scozzafava’s appearance. Unless you want it to be.
Red Cloud on October 28, 2009 at 12:04 AM
SIGH….
Moderate McCain vs.
Conservative (somewhat) Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Hunter, Tancredo
=
Moderate Victory.
It’s called VOTE SPLITTING, you fool.
Ever hear about the ’92 election? Where Bill Clinton “won” — with 43% of the vote? Thank Ross Perot.
Hear about ’96? When a ‘popular’ Clinton was ‘reelected’ – with 48% of the vote? Thank Ross Perot.
Two party race=51% wins. Three party race=34% wins.
McCain won a 9 person race. He basically won florida by a whisker, and thus won the nomination.
Don’t blame me.
battleoflepanto1571 on October 28, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Yelling into the void is a lonely act.
Saltysam on October 28, 2009 at 12:06 AM
LOL!
FloatingRock on October 28, 2009 at 12:08 AM
A simple way to restore the Republican Party to conservative principles without the onerous task of creating a third party:
The true conservative Republicans should begin to specifically call themselves that- Conservative Republicans.
A party within the party that eventually becomes the party.
Imagine:
Fred Thompson-CR.
justltl on October 28, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Oh, I thought Conservatives did not have enough choices. That’s what I hear here all the time. Turns out they had too many and the “fools” could not figure out which one to support.
rightistliberal on October 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Santorum’s reelection?
Speedwagon82 on October 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Still LOL!
FloatingRock on October 28, 2009 at 12:12 AM
The ironic thing here is that the son of the “Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party” is the main person who forced the St. Louis Rams’ group headed by Dave Checketts to dump Limbaugh from their group three weeks ago.
jon1979 on October 28, 2009 at 12:13 AM
McCain says he wants to remake the republican party? Looks like he is too late. WE CAN TAKE IT BACK BY VOTING IN AND DEMANDING CONSERVATIVES ONLY in 2010.
dthorny on October 28, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Ding, ding, ding, the light comes on, at least for some people.
Speakup on October 28, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Don’t think so. He lost 59-41. The same year “moderate” Lynn Swann lost to Ed Rendell for Goveror 75-25.
Unless Santorum’s “conservatism” is worth -19 points?
The thing with Santorum is, he won in the ’94 gop revolution by a hair, and wona squeaker reelection in 2000 when bush came within 2 points of WINING pennsylvania. he had 2 sets of coattails— then in ’06, reality hit.
battleoflepanto1571 on October 28, 2009 at 12:16 AM
DO not believe for a second the dems would not place third party candidates in these elections, see Ross Perot.
DEMAND the republican party run conservatives ONLY as candidates and throw out the moderates, we will win just a surely as Reagan won by a LANDSLIDE against the first Jimmy Carter. Now, we have another Carter and the same result can happen.
dthorny on October 28, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Good response. … and just to add on here, what suppressed the R turnout in certain district was the RINO support and near-passage of the amnesty bill — a bill that was strongly opposed (not supported as the OP stated) by the majority of Americans across party lines.
The 2006 elections were lost by the Republicans being to “moderate” and accommodating to the Dems (remember that “reaching across the aisle thing?) They came across as Democrat-lite. Why go for lite when you can have the real thing. The OP has no clue of which he speaks.
AZfederalist on October 28, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Simple truth of the matter is:
Whenever elections heat up, candidates try to out conservative each other.
Now that the country is in shambles, Americans are in no mood for moderation. They want the real thing.
They know what “change” means now. They know that it’s do or die for the future of America. They know the s&^t is hitting the fan. They don’t want mediocrity.
They want America.
Saltysam on October 28, 2009 at 12:21 AM
You must be joking, right?
Presidential campaigns have about a dozen serious conteenders each cycle.
The “not enough choices” is about D-R races where THE PARTY endorses/buys tv air time for/sends volunteers to knock on doors for the moderate (crist over rubio!) or the liberal (scozzafozza over hoffman!) or the soon-to-be-democrat (specter over toomey!) or the….
Get my point?
The typical thing is this: NRC says “gee, only a liberal gop can win in District X, let’s endorse the liberal GOP”
Voters have a choice beetween deem and dem-lite. Choose dem-lite every time
NRC says “we should be MORE liberal!”
It’s pretty easy to see: we want a conservative choice in the ‘R’ column. IF you can’t be jim demint in new haven, connecticut, we’ll talk about that later, but for crying out loud, endorse the CONSERVATIVE in the primary — OR DONT ENDORSE A PRIMARY CANDIDATE AT ALL!
I’m guessing you’re just pulling my leg comparing an OPEN presidential primary -the first without an incumbent or vp in 100 years- to the NY 23rd special election (no primary!). Surely you’re not that dense!!!!!!!!!!
battleoflepanto1571 on October 28, 2009 at 12:21 AM
That and the early primaries were mostly open and the media was hyping McCain. The fact is, that because of the heavy weighting of the early primaries and caucuses — cross-over voters and the media picked our candidate.
AZfederalist on October 28, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Me being a sailor, might resemble that….;)
FCCS(SW/AW) Jeff Weimer
JeffWeimer on October 28, 2009 at 12:25 AM
That reads like he was not one of the ones considered by the GOP, so those (Frum, Newt) that keep saying he was passed over by the GOP for Dede, are wrong.
WoosterOh on October 28, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Nope, and my guess would be that it’s because he employs illegal aliens….
FloatingRock on October 28, 2009 at 12:28 AM
and yet, even if he WAS passed over by the gop — is that such a bad label?
who that the gop has “selected” from a group in recent memory is a good decision:
crist over rubio?
specter-D over toomey?
mccain staffers over palin’s reputation?
heck, let’s take it back: supporting ted stevens 100%?
not pushing huck to run for senate?
not running ANYONE in some senate races last year?
minimal funds for the PA barletta-kanjorski race last year?
i’d think “having the gop leaders rubber stamp” isnt a great thing altogether
battleoflepanto1571 on October 28, 2009 at 12:32 AM
It is true to the point of redundancy that the idealogical divide is where the battle lines are drawn. To remain a productive republic it is best when clear and concise differences between the candidates are offered. This promotes healthy debate which consequently gives a purposeful mandate as to the direction the country. Ideally, this is supposed to happen between the two Parties. It hasn’t been the case of late.
A paradigm shift is needed in the power brokers of one of the two Parties. It just so happens to be, albeit not coincidentally, the Party that has been under the influence of the more moderate flavor. By definition, moderates do not represent the maximum of idealogical or platform purity. That is the real meaning of the base. The base also happens to be (in both Parties) the bulk of the raw numbers. How is it that the GOP gave in to those who do not define itself?
It seems to me that until this is addressed and corrected our choice will not be about idealogy but about which logo (elephant or donkey) is represented. And to this I wonder, why does it matter to a moderate? It also stands to reason that when the moderates have their way we as a nation slide left.
We are now to the point that a hardcore push to the right would still land us in the squishy middle. Yet the moderates don’t even want that. They are unyielding in their ‘moderation’ (so called) that they really aren’t such. They are, for all intents and purposes, leftists. There is already a Party for that. Clean them out. It’s certainly not a loss in any practical voting sense. Get back to your basics. Offer that contrasting difference and win people over with ideas; not logos. This NY-23 race could be another morning bugle call or a swan song.
anuts on October 28, 2009 at 12:34 AM
When I was a Libertarian a several years ago, it was because the Libertarians at that time presented a more conservative platform than either the Republicans or Democrats. My take of the Republicana and Democrats was that they were more interested in power than principle.
docdave on October 28, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Rush get’s it right… par for the course.
Palin and Rush have the right idea. This is less about third parties and more about winning back the soul of the Grand Old Party. Reagan would’ve said it. Palin has acted like it. Rush gets it.
Problem is, Newt and Steele don’t.
Chaz706 on October 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Hey Newt, how does it feel to be a speedbump on the road to a conservative renaissance?
Ironic.
Cicero43 on October 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Well it didn’t help that he made himself the posterboy for social conservatism in a state that isn’t that socially conservative. An 12 year incumbent who isn’t a child molester shouldn’t lose by 19 points. He definitely should have used his time better to build up his popularity in the state.
Speedwagon82 on October 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
No, but they are saying he is bitter, he should except not being selected.
Newt says he supports the GOP selection, but Hoffman was never passed over, so Newt would just be supporting the best candidate, right?
WoosterOh on October 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
I like how they have it “Hoffmam (C)” wonder how many people will go “Hmmm he’s running as a communist?”
Times like this I feel the GOP is acting just like the DOJ, we need to have (R) next too her name or else people won’t know who to vote for. Lets hope everyone finds out before hand that R stands for ruse.
Rbastid on October 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Isn’t the guy who beat Santorum a pro-lifer?
ddrintn on October 28, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I’m reminded of a scene from an episode of Futurama where the two political candidates are identical clones whose only disagreements stem from the order of the words they chose to voice their identical arguments.
This is like the fourth time in the past few years that I’ve wanted to link to the scene but I still can’t find it on YouTube. Someday I’ll have to upload it myself, I guess.
FloatingRock on October 28, 2009 at 12:43 AM
If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. I realized last November that the person I was voting for could not win. I held my nose and went ahead anyway. I will never again vote ‘against’ anyone. If I can’t vote ‘for’ a candidate, I will abstain.
Lummox on October 28, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Probably every House seat lost in 2006 and 2008.
crosspatch on October 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM
that’s funny since the majority of Blue dog dems that won ran to the right of the GOP on immigrationand fiscal policy. And many of them ran to their rights on social issues too. Thus the 40 NO votes in the house on the dem side for public funding of abortion.
unseen on October 28, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Dude, I am merely pointing out what conservatives here parrot: That they have no real choices. Not since Reagan apparently because Bush was a false conservative too. And how “we” were force to select McCain and he lost.
According to your own estimate, there were like 5 on the ballot last year and none of them won. No one forced you to vote for McCain in the primaries; he won despite the opposition of conservative heroes. What does that tell you? Surely, you are not too dense to get that. (And no, I am not comparing it to NY-23)
The argument that the votes split is nonsense. If anything, two of the strongest candidates–McCain and Romney–were RINOs. Conservatives never even got close.
But you can try again next time. Palin can run for GOP nomination and I say it with all seriousness, hopefully, win. (Though, even this time, despite what all the conservatives here claim, she is still trailing RINO Romney among the GOP voters.) Because I would love to see her walloped in the elections by Obama.
But I am sure after that I will hear from folks here how even she is not conservative enough. If only we had nominated someone conservative enough…
rightistliberal on October 28, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Elections are won by many factors, not the least of which is GOTV which is based on money and enthusiasm. By and large, moderates do not generate enthusiasm among the electorate. Before Palin arrived, McCain could’ve packed his rally into a phone booth.
If the GOP wants a good GOTV efforst, they need their conservative base happy and enthused. Right now conservatives are solid against Obama, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into GOTV for the GOP.
PackerBronco on October 28, 2009 at 1:19 AM
That yahoo Obama and the economy poll url didn’t work. Here’s one that will:
http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=46067
67% “Not well at all. His plans are hurting more than helping.”
Go vote, folks.
techno_barbarian on October 28, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »