I think the Dems should listen to MoJo's advice and purify their party by eliminating all the Blue Dogs. Clearly a Democrat in NY should be identical to a Dem in Texas, just like a Republican should be. There's no difference between the states after all. BTW Teddy Roosevelt was a Socialist. He was after all the first President to push for national health care.
From NPR on Friday: [rquoter] Mr. DAVID BROOKS: Well, I'm looking at the House race in upstate New York, in New York 23, where you've got a moderate Republican named Dede Scozzafava, who's running not only against a Democrat, but running against a third-party, more conservative candidate, a guy named, Doug Hoffman, who is a - who was a favorite of the tea parties of the Rush Limbaugh-types and increasingly of a lot of people who want to run for president for the Republican nomination, including surprisingly Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor. And basically, this is a race for the soul of the Republican Party. Scozzafava has a voting record which puts her at the exact middle of the political spectrum. And the question is: Can Republicans have a centrist and still be a Republican? Newt Gingrich thinks so. He thinks you need moderate Republicans. A lot of Republicans apparently don't think so. And so she's in real trouble. ROBERT SIEGEL: This is a race that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have talked about it -they don't see her as being centrist. They see her as a liberal. Mr. BROOKS: Well, maybe from their point of view, but people have actually done voting analyses of her voting record and it's almost exactly in the center of the national spectrum. In New York state, it's probably a little right of center. And so, really it's an attempt to define the Republican Party as almost a permanent minority party. It's a narrow casting of the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich is on the right side, a lot of people are not. SIEGEL: E.J.? Mr. E.J. DIONNE: I basically agree with David on this. I think it's a fascinating race because of the national import and the - some of the more moderate Republicans up there are trying to gain some traction for Scozzafava by saying, look, these are national guys coming in using our district to make a national point. But that doesn't seem to be a working. And right now, Doug Hoffman, the conservative, is closing the gap with the Democrat, Bill Owens. Owens hoped to win on this Republican split. The paradox, I think, is if Hoffman wins, conservatives will hail it as a great victory. But I think it'll send exactly the wrong signal to the Republican Party. What you've got - the right signal is McDonnell, the right-winger who's moved to the center in order to win. And if they take out of this that tea-partyism(ph) is the way of the future, I think it'll be a long-term problem for the Republicans. SIEGEL: Well, in the not so long term, but near term for the Republican Party, 2010, David, would you expect to see lots of conservative challengers of any Republican who would mention the center as a desirable place to be? Mr. BROOKS: It seems that. I mean, there will be a strong reaction against Barack Obama in it. And there will be a temptation ago further and further to the right, which will - may pay off in the short term. There is a reaction against Obama in the country. If you look at the number of the people who call themselves conservatives - all-time high. Public opinion is clearly shifting to the right in reaction against Obama. It's a short-term gain and out of 2010, the victories they do pick up will probably, and I agree with E.J., send the wrong message nationally when you get a younger electorate, a more representative electorate than you get in a midterm. Mr. DIONNE: You know, I was looking at some numbers this morning. And yes, this Gallup number shows a slight shift toward the conservative side in the ideological question that they ask, but it wasn't a big shift. But what I was struck by is a really sharp divide between opinion in the South and opinion in the rest of the country. And I think that the south really has turned - the white South, obviously - has turned negative on Obama. And I think when we analyze 2010, we're going to have to look at, you know, Southern Democrats are probably going to be in some trouble. But outside a few states, the democratic numbers and the Obama numbers are holding up pretty well in the rest of country. Mr. BROOKS: Yeah, I would say on issues, on abortion, there's been a significant shift to the right, on gun ownership, on attitude toward business, on hostility to labor unions. There's been this interesting phenomenon where people are reacting against the Obama administration. Not only on party ID - in fact, not on party idea. Conservativism would be doing great except for the Republic Party. And that's essentially it's problem. But there is a conservative tie. [/rquoter] It is interesting to me that in objective measures, Scozzafava was actually right down the center, and right of center by NY standards, but she's been turned into a commie pinko liberal by the true believers.
So now David Brooks is a commie pinko liberal, who is in the tank for the left? Maybe you could start by providing us with a list of who isn't ideologically unsound, and we can go from there. The list of who is is clearly too long for you to transcribe in a single lifetime. Is Newt Gingrich a secret ultra-deep cover liberal stooge?
I'm betting that these names have no ideological bias whatsoever: Charles Krauthammer Bill Kristol Neil Cavuto
RobObama [rquoter]Democrats admit paying for pro-Daggett call; Obama records robocall for Corzine By MATT FRIEDMAN, PolitickerNJ.com Reporter The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett. A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon. Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment. The call angered Republicans and further fueled conspiracy theories that Daggett is in cahoots with the Corzine camp. A disclaimer at the end says it was paid for by Victory ’09, “a project of the NJDSC” (Democratic State Committee), and gave the committee’s Trenton address. Daggett, for his part, disavowed the call. “Voters hate robocalls. This is just another instance of the dishonest ways Democrats and Republicans use to win campaigns and to fool voters,” he said in a statement this afternoon. “It is little wonder more and more voters are rejecting these kind of desperate dirty tricks and turning to my campaign for a positive message about how to make New Jersey more affordable and competitive.’’ Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story. "Yesterday, Jon Corzine's party boss Joe Cryan said that 'No, zero, nada, no,' when asked if he had anything to do with the robocalls," said Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for the Republican State Committee. "Today, it's clear that Cryan is an outright liar. Corzine's party boss knows what we know - Jon Corzine's record is so dreadful that they feel a need to try to trick voters into a second term." In other robocall news, the Democratic State Committee is calling voters with a recording of President Obama imploring residents to “get out and vote on Tuesday, and vote for my friend and your governor, Jon Corzine.” The Star-Ledger has audio of the call on the website.[/rquoter]
If the Democrats lose two of the three major races today, that will be a rude awakening for the Democrats. The polls suggest that they will probably lose the governor's race in Virginia and the NY-23 congressional race. The New Jersey governor's race looks like it is going to come down to the wire. If the Democrats lose in New Jersey, a solid blue Democratic stronghold, then it will be time for the Democrats to wake up and smell the coffee. The tide will have officially turned.
unfortunately, i think the democrats will buy the election in NJ, unless Christie can put together a margin of victory "outside the margin of fraud." in NY-23 I think Hoffman will win, but you can bet SEIU and the WPA will be busing them in from Burlington. but if Hoffman can hold on, this will be a major rebuke to Obama, who has put his personal prestige on the line.
Not really. VA always elects a gov. from the opposite party as the President, and the Dems never had a shot in NY-23. This time they have a tiny shot there. The only awakening for the Dems would be to lose NJ.
What? Obama, like most Democrats will be delighted if Hoffman wins. It will basically mean the GOP is hanging "Moderates and Centrists need not apply here" signs on their doors.
The Blue Dogs are likely to see it differently. Obama won in Virginia by 16 points, and in NY 23 by five points. Many of the Blue Dogs won their seats while riding this wave. They know they can lose their seats just as easily if the electoral wave recedes. That is what the Blue Dogs will be watching out for today, and that is what it appears they are likely to see. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats serve conservative districts. They won their seats by promising that they would serve the conservative interests of their districts. So now they will be between a rock and a hard place. Do they go along with Obama on public option healthcare reform, and cap and trade legislation? Or do they want to keep their seats beyond the November 2010 elections? The Blue Dogs are being backed into a corner.
This is a "no-lose" for the Dems and a "no-win" for Republicans. If Owens pulls it out somehow, the upset will boost Dem morale across the board and make Republicans look like buffoons. If Hoffman wins, kook Republicans gain a stronger grip on their party. To say Obama's personal prestige is on the line in this contest is complete nonsense, which is typical of your exaggerations.
This is exactly right. I'm definitely pulling for Hoffman. Giving the Beck/Malkin/Limbaugh wing of the Republican party more leverage is full of win.
I disagree - anything that encourages the GOP to go more extreme does nothing good for country. It just pushes the GOP to be obstructionist and more ridiculous, and that just creates a more hyper-partisan Congress. None of that is good for anyone.
This is where we part ways Major. I think the Republican party has been so toxic for at least the last 3 decades that the country is best served by having it wither into an irrelevant rump party. Then we can focus on Democratic primaries and electing representatives that aren't in the tank to business interests.
That will never happen, though. This isn't and has never been a one-party country. People have an inherent "anyone but so-and-so" tendency. No matter how extreme the other party is, eventually people will get tired of the Dem party and move towards the opposition. It's in the Dem's best interests to have rational people in that opposition party. Even now, when the Dems have basically as much control of Congress as they can have given the demographics of the country and the anger over Bush, the GOP can still stop things. Imagine if there were less Snowes and Collins, and more Joe Wilsons.
Major, I think you're probably right taking the long view. But even in a short window where the Republicans are more marginalized than they they are now, some some signifcant, valuable legislation could be passed. Just imagine, with just a few more Senators right now, we could have really powerful, long term healthcare and energy policy reform. I know. I'm dreaming.
i'm trying to understand how a hoffman win marginalizes the republicans? who do you expect he will caucus with in congress?
Certainly true - looking to 2010 and 2012, having some kooks in charge of the GOP could help the Dems, and that could help pass some of the Obama agenda. But my fear would be 2016 or 2020, having those kooks in charge of the country. I look at it sort of like the Christian Coalition (purely the political movement - nothing about the faith itself). They helped the GOP win when they were in the minority, and the GOP became hooked to it, and even now 20+ years later, they can't shake it and you have people like Palin becoming actual national political figures. If these crazy tea party people take over the GOP, I think bad things will come of it in the end.
