If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to receive our daily email. Thanks for visiting!
Bill Owens has become the first Democrat in over 100 years to be elected to Congress from northernmost New York*. And folks, that’s all that matters in the end.
Let’s recap.
Nine county chairmen gather to select a candidate to carry the GOP banner in a race to replace John McHugh, who is leaving to become Secretary of the Army.
After multiple ballots, they select Dede Scozzafava, the Minority Leader Pro Tempore of the New York Assembly. Scozzafava holds positions out of sync with her party on many issues, including:
- Abortion
- Gay Marriage
- Taxes
- Spending
- Labor Issues
- Environmental Issues
In general, she is a train wreck of a candidate. She’s the exact kind of candidate Republicans need to win districts which are 3-1 Democrat or better. But in upstate New York, in a district where Republicans have ruled the roost for 100 years, she is a terrible choice.
Seizing on the weakness in the Republican candidate, the Conservative Party nominates businessman Doug Hoffman, who espouses across-the-board modern conservative viewpoints. National arch-conservatives rally to his cause, including Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Club for Growth, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson and others. They do this despite the fact that:
- Hoffman is from outside the district.
- Hoffman admittedly knows not one thing about the issues inside the district.
- Even though he toed the party line on eliminating earmarks, Hoffman sat on the board of a hospital that sought and received a federal earmark,
Despite Hoffman’s obvious shortcomings, national modern conservative leaders used him as a proxy for their war to purge the GOP of anyone who doesn’t meet their standard absolutist religious conservative model. As the national media attention poured in and the Club For Growth money poured on, Hoffman rose and Scozzafava fell. Eventually, Scozzafava would withdraw from the race and bitterly endorse the Democrat Owens.
And last night, the voters of the district rejected both the liberal Republican and the extreme Conservative and went instead with the first Democrat in 100 years. And that’s all that matters.
I think the best thing for the GOP to do is forget the whole thing ever happened. This has no real bearing on 2010 primaries in my opinion, because the archconservatives in those races are well-funded candidates with strong records like Marco Rubio (former Speaker of the Florida House), Chuck Devore (Republican Whip of the California Assembly), and Rick Perry (Governor of Texas). And the infidels in those races are also well-funded and solid candidates like Gov. Charlie Crist, Sen. Kay Hutchinson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. So both the center-right candidates and the far-right candidates are of a higher quality and pedigree than both Scozzafava and Hoffman. And they will all be occurring at the same time, more or less, diluting the strength of the torch-and-pitchfork crowd.
And I can’t take anything positive away from a situation where a bad candidate wedges out a terrible candidate and they both lose in the end.
*-Edited to remove factually inaccurate statement. Parts of the 23rd district had been in Republican hands for over 100 years, but those parts did not include the three northernmost counties of Franklin, Clinton & St. Lawrence.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 41 comments }
What’s interesting to me is that NY-23 was a race that should have never been on the radar. The fact it became so prominent was due to the National Republican Party – basically interfering in local politics. Immediately this upped the stakes.
NY-23 was, imo, the race to watch. McDonnell was always going to win Virginia. New Jersey was a crap shoot at the end, but I wasn’t terribly surprised given Corzine’s popularity. But NY-23, a race nobody should have paid attention to (well, unless you lived there), was suddenly all anyone was talking about.
NY-23 was the arena Tea Partiers chose to make their stand, and they lost. Owens won by default. Actually, I think Mickey Mouse would have won, because the fight wasn’t between the D and the R. This was R on R crime.
And in a district that hasn’t elected a Democrat in 100 years, a district where, it seems, people automatically vote Republican something shifted. Voters broke there pattern. It’s worth noting.
Also worth noting… I fully expect the tea partiers to claim victory in NY-23. They’ll also up the rhetoric. Republican primaries are going to be very interesting.
First of all, I love “R on R crime.” Stealing it. Keeping it. Expect no attribution.
I also expect the tea partiers to claim victory. Cause that’s what you do. But it is very significant that they ran a blank canvas who hit all the check marks and he lost to a Democrat. They can not run from that, and it reinforces what has always been said: an Alabama conservative can’t win in New England. Now it’s been proven.
As I said above, most of these other races are vastly different because of the caliber of the challengers.
“The fact it became so prominent was due to the National Republican Party – basically interfering in local politics.”
I disagree with this. The ‘national republican party’ in the form of the RNC and the NRCC did what they were supposed to do: they backed the choice of the state and local committees. It would have been MAJOR news had the RNC not done that. A lot of money got wasted by the party, though.
So it was the national modern conservative movement, not the party apparatus, that really got involved in the race. The mod-cons like Beck, Palin, Armey, etc. were the ones who caused the race to rise in awareness.
The problem is people like me can’t say “you people cost us a seat,” because Scozzafava was such a disaster on matters of policy. So I don’t know that I would have wanted her, either.
Just a bad scene all around.
Note: when a republican says “I’m through with labels” it has as much truth as them saying that they are for fiscal responsibility, respecting human rights, and less government, not more.
This post above negates just about everything you wrote in your first post on this blog.
I’ll take your unique opinion under advisement and go on being a fallible human being.
Please enjoy your time here. I’m extremely happy to provide you an opportunity to sit in a position of superiority and judgment. Do come back.
Oops! Meant to say the “national modern conservative movement” but you’ll have to forgive me. I’m becoming very confused over who’s a real Republican these days!
That’s a big problem, btw.
That’s alright, Pan. A1 wouldn’t like it if you used too many labels anyway.
“I’m becoming very confused over who’s a real Republican these days!”
I don’t think anyone should really be judging who a “real” Republican is anyway. A “real” Republican in Maine is very different from a “real” Republican in Texas and a “real” Republican in Montana. And that’s okay, for the most part.
pan is already echoing what the headlines in the MSM are saying — that NY-23 was really the race that “makes a statement” on Obama. For some reason, the chief execs of two blue states (one very blue one, NJ) are not a statement.
LOL …
pan: What’s a “real Democrat?” Is Joe Lieberman a “real Democrat?” (Or was?)
Funny, Hube, but I don’t remember mentioning Obama. At all. So I don’t think I echoed anything.
Perhaps you could tell me why NY-23 received so much attention? (Hint: It had nothing to do with Obama or the Dems.)
And as far as the “real” adjective… that’s an Far Right Conservative creation.
pan: Let’s not beat around the bush. All such elections are largely statements on the national incumbent.
And perhaps you could answer my question: Is/was Joe Lieberman a “real” Democrat?
Aside from Hoffman, although some will consider him a victory, my concern is the (false) emboldenment (I think I created a word there) of the wingnuts. I do not at all see last night as a Republican comeback. I see a backlash against INCUMBENTS and nothing more. It just so happens that most of the incumbents are Dems. If anyone aside from the victors, their families, and their volunteers relish in these results, they simply are nothing more than gullible fools.
Since I’m a bigger person than you
, I’ll answer your question – even though you spun what I wrote to suit your narrative.
Lieberman was a real Democrat. (Gosh, it was really strange writing the “real” descriptor. I don’t know how you guys (generic you guys) do it.) There are blue dog dems and progressive dems, but all are dems… for better or worse.
Smitty makes a good point. All of the incumbents and members of the incumbent party underperformed dramatically last night. Virginia, New Jersey & NY23 all switched, and Bloomberg barely won.
The mod-cons are spinning away today that this is a victory, that they defeated the GOP establishment, that the GOP either “wins with us or loses without us.”
They still refuse to admit that a candidate who espouses all of the ‘correct’ principles and ran as a titular Conservative with mid-six figure backing from the CFG just got beat by a Democrat in a GOP district.
Re-reading a1′s 8:13 comment, I see a legitimate point that needs addressing. I have edited my initial post to clarify the intended point of that statement.
I spun? Because I disagreed with your MSM-ish “the Hoffman race was the REAL race to watch”? That’s pure spin in and of itself.
But thanks for answering my question. I know it puts you at odds w/your DL buddies.
Smitty: If Obama was extremely popular, would the Dems have won those two gov. races last night?
Hube — Obama is still very popular. His policies are what drag him down. The bloom is off the rose, though, and people are not as fired up as they were last year.
I know personally he is popular. I meant what you said — his policies.
Hey, if you don’t believe me, how about Erick Erickson of Red State?
So… NY-23 was the trial run. And still no mention of Obama or Dems. Like I said (and Dave will steal!) R on R crime.
Actually, pan, I think Dave — and even moreso Roger Simon — have it right. I’ll have a post up later today on that.
Um… okay… so we’ve agreed all along? I did say in my first comment, “NY-23 was the arena Tea Partiers chose to make their stand, and they lost. Owens won by default. Actually, I think Mickey Mouse would have won, because the fight wasn’t between the D and the R. This was R on R crime.”
Now maybe you have a problem with some of my terminology, but the tea partiers are pretty much the Conservatives (IMO), and it seems the voters of NY-23 were uncomfortable with a lot of their positions.
Pan – I referenced Erick in my 9:01 comment. They of course, ignore the loads of cash CFG put in and the six figures in earned media from the endorsements and Glenn Beck.
They had a chance, straight up, to run a Conservative against a Democrat in a GOP district. And they lost. When they reconcile that, let me know.
Dave wrote
“Scozzafava holds positions out of sync with her party on many issues, including:
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Taxes
Spending
Labor Issues
Environmental Issues
In general, she is a train wreck of a candidate. She’s the exact kind of candidate Republicans need to win districts which are 3-1 Democrat or better. But in upstate New York, in a district where Republicans have ruled the roost for 100 years, she is a terrible choice.”
After reading that, why would anyone think that you are anything but about repubs holding on to power regardless of their policy positions? Just because she is “out of sync with her party on many issues” makes her a “train wreck of a candidate”? That is exactly the kind of rhetoric that your party leaders Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh espouse.
It isn’t a question of sitting “in a position of superiority and judgment.” It is a question of looking for consistency in your blog posts. From what I have read so far, you’re not a “right of center” conservative, you’re still a small-tent partisan republican.
pan: The tea partiers exemplify fiscal conservatives more than their social counterparts, in terms of total numbers I’d wager. I could be wrong, ‘tho. But I didn’t see a whole heckuva lot of social protest placards like I did with fiscally oriented ones. I think NY-23 had a lot more to do w/Hoffman’s own views.
Oh boy, are we gonna disagree on that, Hube. I don’t think tea partiers exemplify fiscal conservatives… unless they just discovered the term the night Obama was elected. (Again, not all the tea partiers.)
And I remember A LOT of signs questioning Obama’s citizenship, along with Hitler mustaches. A lot more that said “socialism.” Now… if the tea partiers had appeared before Obama became President I’d give you the point. But we never heard a word from them.
That said, I’m not even sure the protests were mostly about Obama. I think he was just a symbol they used to say Republicans need to be more conservative.
I could be wrong (I know – gasp ) but when I venture over to Delaware Politics I see tea partiers with a lot to say about social issues.
These labels are driving me nuts! Okay, open question: What percentage of tea partiers are…
1. fiscal conservatives only
2. social conservatives only
3. both
I’m leaning towards 15% fiscal only, 15% social only, and 70% both. And didn’t “no earmarks” Hoffman run on both?
a1 — The idea that I’m going to conform to your idea of acceptable in any way, shape or form is not something you should be hoping for. The idea that I would allow you to determine what I should and should not say is also something that will not be happening.
By the way, Scozzafava was a train wreck of a candidate by campaign standards: despite an influx of party cash, she wasn’t able to raise enough money; she did not resonate with voters outside of her regional base; and she was unable to successfully beat back any criticism. And then she quit, and endorsed a Democrat.
By the way, if you were to poll Republicans in NY23, you will find that the majority of them hold different positions on the listed issues than Dede Scozzafava.
pan: The idiots who questioned Obama’s citizenship and/or had signs w/him depicted as Hitler were distinct minorities. If you think otherwise, then I’m sure you’ll agree that most anti-war protesters are 9/11 Truthers and thought Bush was Hitler, too.
The fact that tea partiers (and thanks for calling them that and not “baggers”) question the socialist tilt of Obama directly ties in to the fiscal area. And why would you hear about tea partiers before Obama? Yeah, Bush was fiscal train-wreck, but he didn’t do (or want to do) a fraction of what Obama has done (and/or wants to do).
TARP? Medicare part D? Didn’t see a lot of tea parties then. And wasn’t the first tea party in February? Funny, how they were late to one game and early to another.
BTW, I’d like an answer to my percentage question (11:59).
There were plenty of conservatives miffed at Bush for those (and more, like for NCLB). But as I said, the comparison of those to the almost trillion “stimulus” bill, as well as the potential healthcare takeover, is piddly.
As for your question, I don’t know. I’d say most are both like you, but most are more concerned w/fiscal (and constitutional) matters.
As for being late to one game and early to another, it’s the reverse w/many of Obama’s war/foreign policies now, ain’t it? Where’s the anti-war protesters now? Where’s the protests against rendition, wiretapping and terrorist right to counsel? Etc.?
I’m against rendition and wiretapping, and for terrorist right to habeas corpus. Since Obama is continuing these Cheney/Bush policies, I’d like him to justify these highly questionable practices.
I’d also like to see Cheney prosecuted.
Dave: “By the way, if you were to poll Republicans in NY23, you will find that the majority of them hold different positions on the listed issues than Dede Scozzafava.”
Then why did the Repub cigar smoking back room boys nominate her to begin with? Makes me wonder if a deal/conspiracy was put together to have Hoffman come in to run, as a purging effort by the right wingnuts up there in NY 23. Just guessing/fishing for a logical explanation for the Repub behavior.
Regardless of the explanation, the R’s blew this one big time!
I’m genuinely confused by this statement, which is being repeated all over the Internet:
“Bill Owens has become the first Democrat in over 100 years to be elected to Congress from northernmost New York.”
What about Michael R. McNulty, Samuel S. Stratton, Peter A. Peyser, Jonathan B. Bingham, Charles A. Buckley, Jacob H. Gilbert, Isidore Dollinger, Sidney A. Fine, Walter A. Lynch, Frank A. Oliver, Richard F. McKiniry, Daniel C. Oliver, Joseph A. Goulden, Henry W. Bentley, John T. Spriggs, and Scott Lord?
Am I missing something?
Sloppy writing. From wikipedia:
“The 23rd Congressional District of New York is New York’s northernmost congressional district …”
I assume the folks you mentioned were from other districts. Scott Lord died in 1885. Go check the rest of your work yourself.
You’re right, Patrick. That is not a correct statement. I was under the understanding that St. Lawrence, Franklin and Clinton counties had been under GOP rule for 100+ years. I’m not entirely sure what part is being referenced in the national media.
I’ve edited the post. Thanks.
Oh… sorry, I didn’t realize Patrick was quoting your original post, I thought he was quoting a news story. Otherwise I would have used something more tactful than “sloppy writing.”
I like to save my incivility for the really important stuff.
I’m not trying to stir up trouble, I’m just confused. The names I listed are all Democrats from NY-23, dating back to the 1870s, yet the national media keeps repeating Nancy Pelosi’s statement that Owens is the first Democrat to be elected to that district since the Civil War.
You even state that “the voters . . . went instead with the first Democrat in 100 years.” I assume you are referring to the voters of NY-23. I don’t understand how this can be a true statement.
As can be seen in Wiki, , NY-23 has been all over NY State over the years, near NYC, near Albany, and now finally, since 2003, in the Adirondack region, the northernmost part of the state bordering Canada and Vermont.
The accurate statement then is that since the Civil War, there have been no Democratic Representatives to the House from the northernmost district in the State of NY.
NY-23 has been all over NY State over the years
LOL, no wonder it has been in Republican hands for 5000 years – gerrymandering. As soon as Dems get it to hold still, we take it.
Didn’t the Dems just take it?
Honestly, I’m not sure what the accurate statement would be. Happy to take suggestions. It’s only a sidebar to my main point, though.
Comments on this entry are closed.