Thoughts on NY-23
I think Michelle Malkin sums it up well:
Here is one of the loudest messages of the 2009 off-off-year elections: Conservatives in America will no longer let their opponents define them out of the mainstream. They will not submit to Democrats. Or to the media. Or to Beltway Republican capitulationists. They will not “rebrand.” They will not sit down. They will not shut up.
Donors or doers; Country Clubbers or grassroots; power vs principle; moderates/squishes or Conservatives. For years we have heard about extending the tent leftward to "attract" the middle. The problem with that is far too often in doing so, the principles of the Republicans have been so watered down, they just dried up.
And we ended up with a Republican so Liberal, so much in the middle, so against the tenets of the tent poles of the Republican Party, and in the case of Dede Scozzafava, the tent collapsed. Yup, forever she will be the Billy Buckner of the Republican Party - except Buckner never went over and sat in the Mets' dugout.
So for me, here's the deal for the take away from NY-23 is not that the Conservative lost:
- the Liberal Republican screwed the RNC out of $900,000 and THEN endorsed the Democrat.
- The 5% she held in the votes, if combined with Hoffman's total, would have beat Owens.
- Yes, the Democrat won. In this frightful no-primary scenario, the Republican was more Liberal than the Democrat - but still called a Republican
- If Conservatives and TEA Party folks had not rushed in, Pelosi would have had a real ally instead of the more Blue Dog she got. And Owens knows that he is on real shaky grounds if he goes any further left.
- The Republicans blew $900,000 that should have been spent elsewhere
- Shame on the Party bosses for setting up this nightmare and then exasperating it.
Rather, like the NY Stonewall riots by the gays in the late 60's, the TEA Party, Conservatives, and others said "no further" and "no more". Instead of just hearing "you have to moderate to be inclusive", these folks said "no, we can show you what happens when you alienate us".
Result - in a short few weeks, the Republican nominee FAIL (who philosophically has been shown to never have been a Republican at all - not even a 30%er). The TEA Party supported Candidate almost made up all that ground...
...and the moderate Liberal Republican acted just like a Democrat (by supporting the Democrat in the end). Just like other moderate Republicans when push comes to shove.
And given who I am, I just cannot resist this piece from NRO written by Michael Graham. Key graph (emphasis mine):
So is Charlie Bass, the moderate-to-liberal Republican incumbent Hodes defeated in 2006. Bass is the sort of GOP squish that drives conservatives crazy: in favor of cap-and-trade, in favor of gay marriage, voted to let minors be transported across state lines for abortions, and so on. He also held that seat for the GOP for twelve years.
I can go with the 80%er - but please tell me how ANY of those issues that Bass supports to following the main tenets of Republican philosophy of Limited Government, less taxes, more self-responsibility?
- BIGGER government (cap N trade)
- MORE taxes (cap N trade)
- More intrusive government (against parental notification means less responsibility)
Yes, a bigger tent may be needed, but that is not possible if you are kicking out the tent poles of Limited Government, lower taxes, self-responsibility that hold the tent up? So again, how broad is your definition?
Given his stances, I will fight Bass's election with every bone in my body and fingers on keyboard as Cap N Trade alone gives Government to regulate every aspect of my life - I won't even be able to sell my house without Federal approval!
That said, here's the money question - given what Graham wrote about those issues, what separates Bass from a Pelosi Democrat? With stances like those, how is Bass different than Scozzafava in legislative temperment? And given that, how does ruining the Republican brand FURTHER help any other Republican gain any elected office?
If any political stance is permissible, why bother having a political philosophy - it is reduced to mere mumblings. Being a Republican then means nothing - something that IS driving this conservative crazy!
If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing....that should be the lesson.
