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.

This “reorientation” is pure invention.

And you cannot advance gay marriage without expanding government power; it is being imposed by the courts.

Elections 2009, Get Yer Dog On, RomneyCare, College Football Power Rankings, Scary Barry, Apple TV Network? and MORE: Morning Intell, Wednesday November 4, 2009.
……

Elections 2009, Get Yer Dog On, RomneyCare, College Football Power Rankings, Scary Barry, Apple TV Network? and MORE: Morning Intell, Wednesday November 4, 2009.
……

As John Edwards said, There are two Americas. There are also two “civil wars,” one the concern-troll media is forever nattering on about, and the other they paper over and attempt to obscure to avoid problems for their precious Darling……

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

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.

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.

This reminds me of something I kept hearing a couple years ago….

Now I remember: You know who this helps? Mitt Romney!

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.

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

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.

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

I’m a two fisted conservative: I’m mad as hell and I’m taking my country back! 2010 begins now!

a GOP sweep

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?

supporting civil unions or gay marriage
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

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.

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.

Mary Beth Buchanan (Federal Prosecutor) is interested in his seat. Hart could beat her easily in the primary, IMHO.

MB4 on November 3, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Hey now, hippie!!

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,…

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.