Civil war: Blue Dog warns liberals that GOP wins tonight will mean a lot
posted at 5:01 pm on November 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
For all the hubbub over a rebirth of conservatism in NY-23, you can make the case that the two biggest beneficiaries of a GOP sweep tonight will be moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats. Why moderate Republicans when Scozzafava just got blown out of the water? Because: As this piece at Big Government shrewdly explains, the reason grassroots conservatives are animated about Hoffman is because he represents a return to fiscal conservatism. The big problem with Scozzafava is that she wasn’t socially or fiscally conservative, which is why all of us could credibly argue that she was no better than the Democrat. Many moderate Republicans are fiscally conservative, though; to the extent that a Hoffman win reorients the GOP towards a fiscal litmus test rather than a social one, it’ll actually end up expanding the tent by creating room for libertarian types who adamantly oppose expanding government while, for example, supporting civil unions or gay marriage.
As for how it benefits the Blue Dogs, let Altmire connect the dots. Now that Virginia’s gone with the wind and NY-23 and Jersey are on the brink, they’ve obviously got more leverage on ObamaCare. No wonder MoveOn’s starting to grumble about primary challenges. Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d say this looked eerily like … a civil war:
MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute “to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform.” Today, MoveOn reports that it has received $2 million in pledges in less than 24 hours. “It’s a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform,” MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben writes in the new email.
“The larger the war chest we can offer a potential challenger, the stronger the signal we’ll send to conservative Democrats,” Ruben continues. “So we’re setting a huge new goal: $3 million in total pledges by the end of the week. That’s plenty to launch a serious primary challenge.”
Your fun fact of the day, which simply couldn’t come at a better time: According to the new Rasmussen, those who say Bush is responsible for the economy versus those who say Obama is responsible is down to a measly 49/45 split. By the end of the year that’ll be reversed. Vote wisely, Blue Dogs. Click the image to watch.
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 »
Bodacious.
Daemonocracy on November 3, 2009 at 5:02 PM
That’s some big tent diversity – CNN
BadgerHawk on November 3, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Because Scozzafava isn’t a moderate Republican…she’s a liberal Democrat.
flipflop on November 3, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Go Christie!
PhoenixUniversal on November 3, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Democrats: MSNBC Party!
lorien1973 on November 3, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Purge!
Jim Treacher on November 3, 2009 at 5:06 PM
And these are exactly the types of candidates the GOP can get elected in the northeast. It’s an important lesson that hopefully does not go unnoticed.
I’ll take all the fiscally solid RINOs we can get.
BadgerHawk on November 3, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Here’s a great idea for the lefties: Forget the blue dogs and start nominating state versions of Ned Lamont. They’re called blue dogs for a reason, you fools.
Bishop on November 3, 2009 at 5:07 PM
The thermometer is going lower, more than it went higher before.
Time there was warmth and plenty, but that cup soon runneth no more.
Though we could not caution all, we still might warn a few:
Dont lend your hand to raise no flag atop no Ship of Obama Fools.
Ship of Obama Fools on a cold cruel sea
Ship of Obama Fools sail away from we.
It was later than we thought, when we still might have believed as you,
Now we can no longer share your delusions, Ship of Obama Fools.
MB4 on November 3, 2009 at 5:07 PM
EPIC
alexraye on November 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM
I’ll bet they don’t have 2 million in donations unless it is two million from a very few donors.
There are more conservatives than socialists and the numbers are what is going to throw this game. Not money, at least until next year.
ORconservative on November 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Moveon will never win elections by kicking moderates out of the tent!
lorien1973 on November 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM
More blue-on-blue bloodletting, please.
OhioCoastie on November 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM
MSNBC is the tacit leader of the democrat party.
lorien1973 on November 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Which is why the “gay marriage” vote in Maine will be interesting to watch.
SouthernGent on November 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Nice ‘Big Tent’ you got there…
… it would be a shame if anything happened to it.
Seven Percent Solution on November 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Howabout candidates that explain that these are NOT federal issues. Ones view on these issues, and include abortion, should not matter as long as the candidate position is to allow the state to detrermine the laws on these matters.
WashJeff on November 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Isnt just the blue dogs who are whining
William Amos on November 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM
It’s the economy stupid!
right2bright on November 3, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Moveon has to kick moderates out of the tent. They are in serious trouble. They need the numbers but don’t want their values.
Pass the popcorn, again.
ORconservative on November 3, 2009 at 5:10 PM
titular leader?
WashJeff on November 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Rebirth? Those conservatives were not “reborn” they were always there. They simply stood up to the McCain wing of rat bastard political traitors and the liberal agenda that is akin to that of the filthy lying coward in the White House.
It was not a rebirth but a revolution. Words have meanings and you chose the wrong one. Real conservatives are ready to fight back for the soul of the party from people like McCain, Snowe, and pundits like Kristol.
highhopes on November 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM
I agree to a point, AP. The problem with the fiscal social divide, when a pol attempts a shorthand description of himself, is that we end up with someone like the Gov. of California. He has turned out to be neither socially nor fiscally conservative. This is why we really need to press the candidates in our districts, and not let them get away with shorthand descriptions of themselves. We need to ask: “What makes you a ‘Reagan conservative’?” “Why is reducing taxes the morally good thing to do as well as the fiscally right thing to do?” “Why should states have a greater exercise of their sovereignty over the federal government?” “Why did our founders consider government a necessary evil?” “Why should the federal governement be limited?” etc. No more allowing these guys to get away with simply saying, “I’m fiscally conservative”. We get burned when that happens.
Weight of Glory on November 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Yes. I like the idea of saying that right now all fiscal conservatives are welcome regardless of their stand on social issues.
blink on November 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM
There’s only one issue on the ballot today and it’s Big Government.
BigD on November 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM
As Rush Limbaugh said today… Conservatives do have a big tent. It’s the moderates–McCain, Grahmnesty, Ssssssscccozzzaaaffffaaavvvaaaa, Powell, and the rest who have LEFT the tent.
Enoxo on November 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Tacit: unexpressed, informal
It’s a joke on: Rush is the tacit head of the Republican party.
lorien1973 on November 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM
And they’ve left the tent because they really like the Dem one better.
ORconservative on November 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM
i am pro choice, pro gay nups and pro pot.
i wouldn’t vote for scuzz in a million years.
hoffman must win.
fiscal sanity is priority #1.
screw the mealy rinos. we need hard core conservatism that will ultimately, IMHO, lead to libertarian ideals.
rickyricardo on November 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Okay, apparently big tent is the cool phrase of the day.
And that’s just wrong…
MobileVideoEngineer on November 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I get it, but with the small viewership (Fox has more dems watching then MSNBC), I think they are actually just trying to find some way to stay alive.
They can’t go toe to toe with Fox, they can’t out muscle CNN, so the only niche is a small one that no one else wants…a leftist/liberal arena. Kind of like someone has to work at the garbage dump…They are the gals at 2 in the morning who want to be taken home…the guy who follows the parade of elephants with the shovel…few want to do it, and the ones that do, can make a living.
right2bright on November 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I don’t think 3 million is going to be enough. I am not impressed. But it may be because I don’t believe them. I just raised 4 million for my homeless dog washing program. See how easy that was!
Cindy Munford on November 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM
My feelings about Move-On’s threat.
Cindy Munford on November 3, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Yep. Fiscal reponsibility plus national security on the federal level and social issues at the state level.
a capella on November 3, 2009 at 5:18 PM
NY-23 and the Virginia fiasco should be Obamas “firebell in the night” moment and adjust his political reality.
Of course ,that would require him possessing the humility,dexterity and intelligence of say, Bill Clinton.
jjshaka on November 3, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Fiscal restraint is the only way I will vote from now on. I don’t give a flying f*ck what letter is behind your name. If you vote for tax increases and the expansion of new or existing programs, I will not vote for you. Social issues just give another in for the govt. to intrude on our lives. Get them out of politics. States can decide most social issues on their own.
JAM on November 3, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I agree, a moratorium on all “social laws”.
The next several years just focus on putting America back to work…
right2bright on November 3, 2009 at 5:19 PM
MSNBCMSDNC is the tacit leader of the democrat party.lorien1973 on November 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM
FIFY 8^)
milwife88 on November 3, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Look, the social fight can go on and on if the country survives. Let’s get that done first. Young folks, you will make the changes you want, let’s get the fiscal mess taken care of.
Cindy Munford on November 3, 2009 at 5:19 PM
A better more defined answer…but then it sound vaguely familiar to a 200+ year old document…
right2bright on November 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM
We are all familiar with the three legs of conservatism — fiscal, social and defense. The litmus test to qualify as a conservative candidate used to be standing on at least two of the three legs.
The Reagan coalition was comprised of fiscal and defense conservatives who were Republicans, disaffected Democrats, like-minded libertarians and independents. Via the Moral Majority, social conservatives elevated their profile during the Reagan years, although Reagan himself didn’t seem to favor one of the legs over the others.
I am a three-legged conservative, but I can live with a two-legged fiscal/defense standard.
Terrie on November 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM
That is some heavy-duty B.S. You still campaigning for John McCain or what? Either that or you don’t know what moderate means. Believe me; no one went to a tea party to rally around the John McCains of the world.
Ronnie on November 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Ditto to what you say. The regular folks are broke and out of work and the social issues need to take a back seat for a while.
Knucklehead on November 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM
The big tent is for voters not for politicians. Let’s stop letting the Grahmestys and McCains pull the darned thing apart when they should be helping to hold it up.
Laura in Maryland on November 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Meaning, for ever.
Chris_Balsz on November 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I like the way you think.
And I like the way you think, too.
John the Libertarian on November 3, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I wouldn’t mind if the social issues were back seat forever. in my mind they are wedge issues used by the libs to control. Get rid of them and you have a big part of the Dem playbook neutered.
ORconservative on November 3, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I bet all the libertariany comments in this thread are making Allah very happy.
BadgerHawk on November 3, 2009 at 5:25 PM
No, coming from MoveOn.Org I would say it was spot on…
Seven Percent Solution on November 3, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Smaller government, lower taxes, and balanced budget. DUH!
Fiscal sanity is needed.
cubachi on November 3, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I was making this same argument earlier. The Dems have been very successful in convincing people that social issues somehow play a larger role in their life than fiscal ones.
The Dems can’t possibly win on fiscal issues alone (yet). There are still more taxpayers than not, so they can’t buy enough people to win outright. Hence telling the poor in inner cities that the GOP will re-segregate the nation and women that control over their bodies is in constant danger.
BadgerHawk on November 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I guess you missed
Jeremiah Wright’sObama’s speech…Seven Percent Solution on November 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Yet, all the media harps on the idea that the Republican Party is becoming exclusionary. lol
joedoe on November 3, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Well, like it or not, social issues are part of the national discussion and always will be. Do you care about what your kids are taught in school? Do you care about what educational/arts initiatives your tax dollars fund?
For that matter, what do you think healthcare “reform” is if not a social issue?
BigD on November 3, 2009 at 5:32 PM
It’s on.
Johan Klaus on November 3, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Dem lite?
Johan Klaus on November 3, 2009 at 5:34 PM
They left the tent a long time ago…
And I don’t want them back in. Period.
TXUS on November 3, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Moveon is being stupid just like they were several months ago when Rahm had to call them off of blue dogs. Do they really think threatening primaries on these guys matters to them? If they vote for it, they are out anyway! What the stupid lefties don’t seem to realize is that the blue dogs come from RED areas so if they vote for this liberal crap they are gone. They act like they are being somehow against their voters wishes when in fact they are some of the few there who are actually representing what their people want.
And if Gene Green in Houston votes for this junk after the town halls we gave him, I can promice him he WILL be gone!
patriotparty1 on November 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Um, promising to provide free healthcare to everyone in American is most definitely a FISCAL issue if ever there was one.
blink on November 3, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Yeah, pickin’ when you die, baby, is a social issue.
BigD on November 3, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Let’s stop pretending people are smart. We’ve all seen “Jaywalking” and those people vote. We need to define some of the words used in political conversations so we can all understand each other. Do any of these numskulls
ruiningrunning the GOP understand the difference between socialist, moderate republican, libertarian, and fiscal conservative?Laura in Maryland on November 3, 2009 at 5:40 PM
If we had a Congress and White House full of Cheneys, I think most of us here would be thrilled. Bush was the big spender and social conservative, not Cheney — who is probably the best political example we have of a conservative libertarian Republican. Although he describes himself as a social conservative, in reality I think Rush Limbaugh is the best ideological example of a conservative libertarian Republican.
Terrie on November 3, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Let everyone send their young’uns to any school that we want to will solve the school problem and stop tax payer funding of the arts will solve the other problem.
Johan Klaus on November 3, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Then wouldn’t it hurt your cause to reject social conservatives?
Ronnie on November 3, 2009 at 5:47 PM
A Congress and White House filled with older guys with heart problems? That wouldn’t thrill me! :-0
Seriously, you are correct. The GOP needs more conservatives like Cheney and fewer of the go along to get along type, and none of the McCain wing of the party.
highhopes on November 3, 2009 at 5:49 PM
BO will surely be hit’n that bowl tonight, eh?
jbh45 on November 3, 2009 at 5:51 PM
The problem is not ‘moderate republicans’ in the party. It is this tiny minority trying to run the party and control candidates…Rather a democrat than a back stabbing RINO. I can respect a good enemy, but not a treacherous sell out.
JIMV on November 3, 2009 at 5:53 PM
I’m confused, is it the “Moderate Republicans” or the “Conservative Democrats” who are in the “big tent”, but are baby killers?
Jeff from WI on November 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM
So if Bush and Obama are both to blame, who can the voters actually take it out on?
tom on November 3, 2009 at 6:04 PM
An up-or-down vote would probably send Obama/Pelosi/Reid-Care down in flames. Those MoveOn losers just want to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are the ones standing in the way, when it’s really the Dems’ own complete incompetence.
KS Rex on November 3, 2009 at 6:05 PM
AP,
I am beginning to believe the other posters who routinely bag on you. Like an old Air force buddy of mine used to say, you could reach into a sack full of pussies and pull out an a**hole.
Lighten up and live a little, why not?
VoyskaPVO on November 3, 2009 at 6:07 PM
I’ll believe it when it happens. Remember these are democrats.
jukin on November 3, 2009 at 6:07 PM
I agree that a win on the right by conservatives helps strengthen those in the middle by balancing out the left leaning fed.
ted c on November 3, 2009 at 6:08 PM
What’s Pookie think about all of this?
ted c on November 3, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I am totally A-okay with that.
bitsy on November 3, 2009 at 6:11 PM
What did you expect him to say — that Rush Limbaugh is right?
BigD on November 3, 2009 at 6:12 PM
How is that? Hoffman a baby killer or into gay marriage?
Jeff from WI on November 3, 2009 at 6:13 PM
THANK YOU!!!! Allah falls right into the trap of letting the left and the media define what is a moderate republican. It’s really starting to piss me off. They call far left RINOS moderate republicans so anyone to the left of Scosovlavvaancasa is by definition a far right republican.
I consider myself a moderate republican because I am far right fiscally but pretty moderate socially. Scosovalavorasa is FAAAAAR to my left though.
Ampersand on November 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Where are the trolls?
Schadenfreude on November 3, 2009 at 6:24 PM
The Left once again shows its true colors:
All Animals Are Equal. Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
The pigs rule.
warbaby on November 3, 2009 at 6:27 PM
The solution is easy. Trade the RINOs for the Blue dogs and start all over. Americans all over the country who have never been involved with politics now see that the liberals will never leave them alone until they own them like the rest of the brainwashed lemmings that support them.
volsense on November 3, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Fiscal Con’s the meat
Social Con is the gravy.
Back to basics time…
Haiku Guy on November 3, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Obamao is not going to like the three a.m. phone call about the election results.
Jason Altmire should be a tad nervous about the current bill. Conservative Melissa Hart, who held the seat before him, will look more and more attractive to the voters in his district.
onlineanalyst on November 3, 2009 at 6:35 PM
What’s up Move On? I thought all the libs and media were saying that the Republican party is dying because the NY Rino got booted. Doesn’t sound very BIG TENT of the Dems if you do this.
jack herman on November 3, 2009 at 6:35 PM
AP makes a good point here. The GOP is a big tent holding Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and National Security Conservatives. You can be moderate to even vaguely liberal on the social policy front in the GOP as long as you’re a fiscal conservative and national security conservative. You won’t be successful at winning the GOP presidential nomination or a statewide office in a deep red state, but in purple to blue states/districts you can represent the GOP. I affiliate with the GOP because although I’m moderate on the social stuff, I’m a fiscal conservative & national security hawk. I’ll vote for more right-wing GOP candidates as long as they don’t waste my money or support weak behavior on national security.
Jill1066 on November 3, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Hey now, hippie!!
JohnGalt23 on November 3, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Altmire voted against cap and tax and he will vote against this bill as well if he wants to keep his seat in a conservative district where a LOT of veterans (VA services in the area) and senior citizens live.
Mary Beth Buchanan (Federal Prosecutor) is interested in his seat. Hart could beat her easily in the primary, IMHO.
Philly on November 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Second of all, the social conservatives aren’t just going to evaporate because the Republican Party refuses to listen, if you hadn’t noticed. Maybe you also noticed who feels it worse in that situation.
FIRST of all, the distinction between social and fiscal cons is an amatuer appellation by private citizens. To the judges and politicians, it’s all one: does the Constitution limit government or not? The perceived necessity of judicial innovation and invention behind Lemon and Roe, led to Kelo. My brother bought a top-tier legal seminar on tax law, and came out of it explaining how the role of a tax lawyer is usually to help the court find an equitable solution to a tax dispute. He was truly shocked to hear me say that taxes are a de jure obligation, not having any basis in equity, and that where the law did not require payment, no judge had authority to order it. Hoyer may have put his foot in it by claiming an Article I “general welfare” basis for Obamacare; a harder nut would be legislation based on an asserted Ninth Amendment freedom to secure ‘affordable health care’–if you hold the Ninth Amendment to REQUIRE whatever smart lawyers invent for it.
Chris_Balsz on November 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM
I thought that was a picture of Lindsey Graham ???
crash72 on November 3, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Agreed. I’m a social con, but I would vote for a candidate who will go on record unequivocally that they are not federal issues.
evergreen on November 3, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Just out of curiosity, how will we be spinning this into a GOP sweep when one of the races doesn’t even have a GOP candidate running?
Ronnie on November 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM
I’m a two fisted conservative: I’m mad as hell and I’m taking my country back! 2010 begins now!
TN Mom on November 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Because the Democrats do have candidates in all three, and all three have had White House support, if not outright personal campaigns by the President.
Chris_Balsz on November 3, 2009 at 7:07 PM
That’s fine, but there’s a lesson for the GOP in this as well. I’d hate for them to come of this thinking they did a bang-up job in NY.
Ronnie on November 3, 2009 at 7:16 PM
This reminds me of something I kept hearing a couple years ago….
Now I remember: You know who this helps? Mitt Romney!
tom on November 3, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Maybe we should just abandon Conservatism altogether to avoid those Democrat-created wedge issues. Wouldn’t want to fight for what we believe or anything.
Anyone willing to sell out on social issues won’t think twice about selling out on fiscal ones to get elected either.
xblade on November 3, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Yeah, it’s awful conveeeenient that the political destruction of a recipient of the Margaret Sanger award heralds the irrelevance of abortion. Just as Obamacare stalls over DEMOCRAT objections to taxpayer-funded irrelevance.
Chris_Balsz on November 3, 2009 at 8:02 PM
If you get rid of social issues you might as well be a Democrat. To abandon conservative ideas would be a huge mistake on the Republicans part. I am fiscal conservative but also a SOCIAL conservative who belives in the traditional family values, also am pro-life. I could never vote for someone who would take the life of a baby.
Why do people think they have to give up what they believe in just to get somebody elected ? Stand true to your beliefs-don’t be some weak kneed moderate!
Bullhead on November 3, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »