Republican Party

[leftysergeant]

Some of the top democrats are also a little too tolerant of dingbats in their own party. Pelosi railed against antagonizing the debate recently within the last couple of months, and she's apparently not stepping her foot down on politicians like Grayson.

Are you calling Grayson a dingbat? The only thing I have seen him do wrong so far is to make one appearance on Alex Jones to plug his position on health care and to zing the republicans. Aside from that, I like the sound of those big brass ones clanging. We need more like him to stand up to the neoclowns and the Blue Cross Dems.

As far as the republican party is concerned they still need to get their priorities straight.

Yeah. Time to go back to defending constitutional rights instead of corporate profits. Until they do that, they are useless in the loyal opposition role, and they were, as far as I can see, never good for much of anything else.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Objectively saner, of course. That's why the conservative (term is synonamous with insane, apparently) currently has the polling lead.

Care to cite some polls for me? I haven't seen any yet on this race since the Republican dropped out.

In counterpoint to Newt, here is Jonah Goldberg:

Yup, the GOP sure is unified!

 

[Dr Adequate]

In counterpoint to Newt, here is Jonah Goldberg:

Arguing that "the idea that there's a "civil war" within the GOP" is "nonsense".

As a "counterpoint" to Newt Gingrich.

Commenting on a race where Sarah Palin endorsed the third-party candidate.

No, no civil war here. Nothing to see here ...

 

[Unabogie]

As Brainster pointed out, the 23rd has been red since Jesus was in swaddling clothes so the analogy might be extended there. Or not. I did not mean to draw a strict parallel between Kos and the Tea Baggers; politics is not (or, should not) be amenable to such simplistic analysis.

From what I've read, the district is not so much red as it is "purple", and the Republicans there have always steered clear of the hot-button social issues. To quote from the blog Balloon-Juice, "they're not wingers". In that tradition, they've been fielding candidates like Scozzafava and those candidates get elected. I think that she was actually quite in line with the community and the national Teabaggers decided to flex some muscle. I'd be horrified if folks on my side of the aisle engaged in purity purges like this.

It's just bad political strategy and it only results in polarized caucuses on both sides.

I actually like that there's such a wide debate in the Democratic Party on health care, for instance. It's not a weakness to be forced to defend your bill. I hope Hoffman loses this thing, not because I want to score points but because Scozzafava would have been a decent Republican and perhaps I wouldn't agree with her on much, but she'd be willing to work together on the stuff we do agree on.

Hoffman sounds like BAC would if he ran for Congress.

<shudder>

 

[Brainster]

Ooh, did Jonah Goldberg say that?

Really?

Let's quote it again.

Yeah, it's working so well that the Republican candidate just dropped out of the race.

If this is success, one wonders what failure must look like.

Well, I can see you haven't been paying attention. Hoffman has already said he will caucus with the GOP, and will run on both the Republican and Conservative party lines in 2010 (assuming he is elected). That Obama took the district in 2008 means very little; Obama also took Virginia last year, and yet the Democrat is getting clobbered in that race.

Somebody said this is a purple district and that the GOP has somehow won every race there since Reconstruction by nominating social liberals. That is not true. McHugh, the former representative had a lifetime 71.55 rating from the American Conservative Union. Much more conservative than, say, Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, let alone any of the Democrats from NY.

 

[Unabogie]

Govtrack.us says:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400264

McHugh is a moderate Republican according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, I can see you haven't been paying attention. Hoffman has already said he will caucus with the GOP, and will run on both the Republican and Conservative party lines in 2010 (assuming he is elected).

So, basically, hooray that the Republicans can't even keep their dog in the fight. Zipadeedoodah, Zipadee-A!

Success!

 

[Brainster]

Govtrack.us says:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400264

Moderate Republican, which makes him one of the most conservative members of Congress in the Northeast. He was also reliably anti-abortion, unlike Scozzafava.

And let me say that nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that Hoffman is some wild-eyed right-winger. This seems to be assumed by everybody; after all he did get the conservative line on the ballot. But is it wild-eyed to be anti-abortion? I'm pro-choice, but it's one of the compromises I accept, especially since I see little chance that abortion will be severely restricted in the US even if Roe is overturned (as it should be).

Aside from that I would love to hear the awful positions Doug Hoffman supports that I should be concerned about.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you calling Grayson a dingbat? The only thing I have seen him do wrong so far is to make one appearance on Alex Jones to plug his position on health care and to zing the republicans. Aside from that, I like the sound of those big brass ones clanging. We need more like him to stand up to the neoclowns and the Blue Cross Dems.

I don't know about you, but I personally prefer politicians who can layout their concerns without calling people "K Street whores," and screaming Republicans want sick people to "die quickly." You know; the sort of polarization that Pelosi was discouraging from the republican party but has said nothing about such activity coming from their own party lines... Just a point of disagreement I was getting at w/Tricky... not entirely part of the thread...

Yeah. Time to go back to defending constitutional rights instead of corporate profits. Until they do that, they are useless in the loyal opposition role, and they were, as far as I can see, never good for much of anything else.

Everything about the party to you has some connection to class warfare... :\
No... I actually agree with Brainster on this one. The party is split between groups that are complete radical dingbats, and those getting a little too monotonous with the democratic party.

 

[gtc]

o/t but Grayson seems to be doing it for the campaign contributions. I would be surprised if he actually believes his rhetoric.

 

[Unabogie]

Moderate Republican, which makes him one of the most conservative members of Congress in the Northeast. He was also reliably anti-abortion, unlike Scozzafava.

And let me say that nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that Hoffman is some wild-eyed right-winger. This seems to be assumed by everybody; after all he did get the conservative line on the ballot. But is it wild-eyed to be anti-abortion? I'm pro-choice, but it's one of the compromises I accept, especially since I see little chance that abortion will be severely restricted in the US even if Roe is overturned (as it should be).

Aside from that I would love to hear the awful positions Doug Hoffman supports that I should be concerned about.

Well, I don't know you, so I'm not sure what you mean when you ask what you should be concerned about. I don't know how moderate you are in your own views, so you may think Hoffman is as sane as Michelle Bachmann. But on his website, the only issues he discusses are ACORN, gay marriage, abortion, bank bailouts, guns, and taxes. Aside from that, he has nothing else to say apparently. He just hits all the boilerplate wingnut talking points. If you are running for office and you think ACORN deserves an official "issue" bulletpoint, you're a teabagging ideologue, which explains why the fringe of the party flocked to his campaign.

 

[Unabogie]

o/t but Grayson seems to be doing it for the campaign contributions. I would be surprised if he actually believes his rhetoric.

I feel the same way about Glen Beck, but I still think this is a dangerous trend towards such binary thinking.

 

[Cleon]

Moderate Republican, which makes him one of the most conservative members of Congress in the Northeast. He was also reliably anti-abortion, unlike Scozzafava.

And let me say that nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that Hoffman is some wild-eyed right-winger. This seems to be assumed by everybody; after all he did get the conservative line on the ballot. But is it wild-eyed to be anti-abortion? I'm pro-choice, but it's one of the compromises I accept, especially since I see little chance that abortion will be severely restricted in the US even if Roe is overturned (as it should be).

Aside from that I would love to hear the awful positions Doug Hoffman supports that I should be concerned about.

*sigh*. Intellectual laziness.

From the Conservative Party's web site:

We support efforts by President Bush to involve faith-based organizations in the delivery of social services. We support profiling in the screening for potential terrorists. We oppose affirmative action, support the right to life, and oppose gay rights. We believe that we must fight to maintain the Judeo-Christian values that have been the basis of our Republic. We oppose the campaign to enshrine multi-culturalism as the foundation of our nation.

More:

Even though this campaign is contrary to the will of the people and the United States Constitution the anti-religious forces have won significant victories because of federal judges who have decided to ignore and misinterpret the law of the land.

This has forced local communities to accept homosexual marriages, abortion, the elimination of prayer in public schools, and the banning of religious displays on public property. In the 2004 elections many voters had the opportunity to express their views on homosexual marriages. Post-election analysis agrees that people from all ethnic, economic, and racial groups resoundingly expressed their support for traditional man and woman marriages. This confirmation of our religious moral system is consistent with what our Founders believed.

But I'm sure he's one of the "moderate" CPers.

 

[funk de fino]

We support efforts by President Bush to involve faith-based organizations in the delivery of social services. We support profiling in the screening for potential terrorists. We oppose affirmative action, support the right to life, and oppose gay rights. We believe that we must fight to maintain the Judeo-Christian values that have been the basis of our Republic. We oppose the campaign to enshrine multi-culturalism as the foundation of our nation.

If that is moderate, then just cripes.

 

[Brainster]

Oh, my goodness, he supports faith-based initiatives? The horror! Let's all agree here and now that we will not support any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who supports faith-based initiatives! Are you with me?

I thought not:

1. Under Obama, the faith-based initiatives office will be significantly expanded in scope from the Bush years. Its portfolio will include abortion reduction, promoting responsible fathering, and engaging in global interfaith dialogue, particularly with the Muslim world.

The guy must be a fundie!

ETA: Somebody asked for a poll:

In a three way contest with Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava Hoffman leads with 51% to 34% for Owens and 13% for Scozzafava. In a head to head contest with Owens Hoffman holds a 54-38 advantage.

 

[Cleon]

Oh, my goodness, he supports faith-based initiatives? The horror! Let's all agree here and now that we will not support any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who supports faith-based initiatives! Are you with me?

*sigh* Pathetic. You single this out, and just ignore the inconvenient parts that do make the CP look like fundamentalist lunatics.

Did you simply not read beyond the first sentence, or do you really think people wouldn't notice?

 

[Brainster]

*sigh* Pathetic. You single this out, and just ignore the inconvenient parts that do make the CP look like fundamentalist lunatics.

Did you simply not read beyond the first sentence, or do you really think people wouldn't notice?

Let's look at the other ones then. I oppose affirmative action, at least as it's practiced today. I support old-style affirmative action, which involved looking harder for qualified candidates, rather than lowering standards to ensure proportionality. I am (reluctantly) pro-choice, but that's an issue where I understand I disagree with most conservatives, and Hoffman being pro-life is hardly a controversial stand within the GOP. Gay rights is a loose term; I support some sort of civil union short of marriage for gay couples. I see nothing wrong with Judeo-Christian values, and am not big on the multi-culti BS.

I also note that you assume Hoffman agrees entirely with the CP's positions; but we know that Scozzafava does not agree entirely with the GOP's positions, and from the grumbling from Kos and others I think we can assume that Owens does not toe the line on the Democratic Party platform either.

 

[SezMe]

... I think we can assume that Owens does not toe the line on the Democratic Party platform either.

That part is true based on the reading I've done. He'd be a Blue Dog if he was in the Senate. All he does is keep the Dems in the majority but he does not appear to be a guy pushing hard for the Dem platform.

 

[SezMe]

I don't know about you, but I personally prefer politicians who can layout their concerns without calling people "K Street whores," and screaming Republicans want sick people to "die quickly." You know; the sort of polarization that Pelosi was discouraging from the republican party but has said nothing about such activity coming from their own party lines... Just a point of disagreement I was getting at w/Tricky... not entirely part of the thread...

I generally agree with Grayson's positions but have to agree with Grizzly that he too often reaches into the leftysergeant Grab Bag of Euphemisms for his rhetorical flourishes.

 

[Thunder]

I just don't like the idea of any party believing that there cannot be regional differences in how party members should believe. Yes, there should be a few core issues that all or most Republicans agree on, such as dealing with taxes, less government, regulations, etc etc. But to demand that ALL Republicans, from Texas to Maine to New Jersey to Oregon, all follow lock step on all issues, is asking for trouble. If they keep this up, they will end up forcing a mass defection to the Democrats, or the creation of a third party made up of socially moderate/liberal fiscal conservatives.

And that could cut the current Republican party in half.