The dust in NY-20 has finally, officially settled and state Assemblyman Jim Tedisco has lost the first election of his 26-year career.
By virtually all accounts, this special Congressional race had all the ingredients for a decisive GOP victory. The district had more Republicans than Democrats—70,632 more. Tedisco was a popular conservative commodity, while Democrat Scott Murphy was unknown, flawed, and liberal, unlike his Blue Dog predecessor Kirsten Gillibrand. Furthermore, by the start of the race a slew of liberal legislation had been signed by President Obama and was wholly embraced by Murphy—a surefire blunder in the eyes of conservative upstate New Yorkers, right? Wrong.
To begin, voters in NY-20 actually like Barack Obama, who enjoyed 65% of their approval at the time of last month’s special election. In fact, they supported Obama over John McCain (not to mention Gillibrand over well-known Republican challenger Sandy Treadwell) last November. This is not an excuse for the GOP’s recent loss. In fact, it is yet another layer to a distressful truth that the party must still face.
Furthermore, despite his new status as Congressman-elect, Scott Murphy was not a very impressive candidate, and least in the traditional perspective. And unlike for many races in New York, this Democrat wasn’t “destined to win” anything. It’s worth recalling that upon being introduced to his future constituents less than three months ago, only 25% of voters preferred him over Jim Tedisco.
This was not shocking. Against a challenger with household name status and a record of public service to his fellow upstate New Yorkers, Murphy had neither. In a time of populist resurgence in close-knit rural American settings exactly like NY-20, Murphy debuted as a rich businessman who made his fortunes elsewhere. Right out of the gate, Republicans exposed him as a tax delinquent ala Geithner, Daschle and Rangel. Later on, his anti-ROTC activism at Harvard was revealed while a radio host got him to publicly oppose the death penalty for al Qaeda terrorists. How could this guy ever win?
By far, the better question is actually: How could Jim Tedisco possibly lose? As the Albany Times Union accurately put it last week,
Tedisco had cultivated a public persona that people could relate to: an ordinary guy proud of saying he would never be a millionaire, a scrappy fighter who nevertheless cried at the memory of his hard-working, blue-collar dad.
For voters, if you weren’t one of the thousands that have been reelecting Jim to the Assembly since 1983, you were probably proud to watch him stand up to Eliot Spitzer on everything from “Dirty Tricks” to driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. It’s a testament to Jim’ values and priorities that, unlike Murphy, the only capitalist venture he’s ever embarked upon was when he authored his own book in 1996. On missing children. The only thing that could be considered remotely scandalous in Jim’s past? As rare and implausible as it sounds: Absolutely nothing.
So the question remains: How did Jim Tedisco go from leading his opponent by 21 points to losing the election by at least 400 votes? There are two reasons, and one leads to the other.
If “all politics is local,” as Tip O’Neil famously admonished, then the first half of the blame must be placed on the shoulders of the Tedisco campaign. Having grown up in upstate New York and having worked with members of Jim’s inner circle on many past campaigns, I regret to admit that it was generally painful to watch their decided strategy unfold from here in Washington.
To get a better idea of the Jim Tedisco that I (and thousands of others) knew, watch this quick clip of Jim responding, completely unmanaged and off the cuff, to Governor Paterson’s state of the state address. To get a good idea of the candidate that ultimately ran for Congress, see here. The difference is in substance and style, tenor and tone, and above all else, confidence and authenticity.
While a hefty back-and-forth is currently going on right now throughout the ten counties of NY-20, there are clearly a lot of negative feelings toward the RNC and NRCC. A friend of mine from Warren County was appointed a ward chairman and reports being told by an NRCC strategist from Kentucky (most came from out of state) that his ward “was all taken care off” and implored him not to arrange for any more mailers to be sent to voters. By one week before the election, not a single resident had received a single piece of pro-Tedisco/anti-Murphy literature. Others are still reeling over the embarrassingly awful TV ad the NRCC initially put out, insisting it’s what began repelling voters towards Murphy.
Meanwhile, those who crafted Tedisco’s general message deserve particular criticism. Waiting two weeks to take a stand on the $787 billion stimulus was cowardly and naïve. Trying to depict Scott Murphy as more of a Republican than Jim by labeling him a Wall Street millionaire and attacking his business credentials was weak and ineffective. While constantly shifting gears, Republicans allowed Jim to be absurdly portrayed as “an Albany career politician,” a stale tactic that could’ve been easily countered. But instead of turning the tables and declaring Jim a “lifelong public servant” and attacking Murphy as, perhaps, a “limousine liberal trying to buy an election from a district of voters he’s never served,” the Republicans did nothing.
Overall, Jim’s narrative in this race was inconsistent and constantly lacking enough meat on its bones. To the regret of many, a genuinely conservative citizen politician and noble street brawler unafraid to defend upstate needs against any liberal Goliath was turned into a plastic action figure with an artificial new pose for each passing week. In short, far too many strategists and competing ideas spoiled Jim Tedisco’s broth.
On the other hand, Scott Murphy’s almost-robotic and overplayed message of “jobs, jobs, jobs” actually, to the surprise of many, ended up catching fire. As one lifelong Democrat told me, Murphy was “ruthlessly on message to the point of annoyance.” He said that after attending several Murphy rallies, he actually worried whether the Democrat would last until Election Day on such a tired campaign theme. In the end of course, he didn’t have to worry. Endorsements from every imaginable Democrat, especially Barack Obama, coupled with a super-impressive support network left behind by Kirsten Gillibrand, was more than enough to carry him past the finish line.
But even if, as Skidmore College government professor Bob Turner put it, “300 Manhattan liberals with summer homes up here voted absentee and put Scott Murphy over the top,” why was this race even close to begin with? Why was this congressional seat already in Democratic hands for two terms? 2006 may be explained as a bad year with a heavily flawed Republican incumbent, but why didn’t the GOP win it back two years later with a much cleaner candidate at the top of the ticket? Better yet, why did this district—one of the most conservative in the country—turn its back on well-known and well-liked men such as Jim Tedisco and John McCain and elect liberal Democrats like Scott Murphy and Barack Obama?
The answer is that the Republican Party has lost its once-loyal majority to the Democrats in NY-20, as well as in many other parts of America. Voters who are still registered Republican have simply stopped voting with their party in recent years and cannot even be convinced to come home for strongly assumed “safe candidates” like McCain and Tedisco. In fact, 25% of registered Republicans in NY-20 voted for Barack Obama while 26% claim they would support Andrew Cuomo over Rudy Giuliani for Governor in 2010.
It is because of these lapsed Republicans, in New York and elsewhere, that Washington looks the way it does right now. Yes, these “Obamacans” (or whatever we call them) should be focus-grouped and their reasoning thoroughly analyzed. And yes, the Bush-to-Obama transition has breathed vibrant new vitality into the Democratic Party that has not yet subsided. But beyond NY-20 and George Bush and Barack Obama lays a party and a movement in a coma, dying on life support, in emergency need of new doctors and new treatments.
While we hold therapeutic tea parties and keep looking to the past for inspiration and much-needed energy, liberal Democrats are winning once-unthinkable elections. In Washington, the left is succeeding at turning our country into a drastically more liberal state than the one that made us a global superpower and economic envy of the world. Through it all, the right is barely mounting a credible challenge. It doesn’t have to be like this.
Almost 100 days into this new liberal era, modern conservatism and the movement behind it is still tossing and turning in its sleep, still suffering from a new kind of nightmare. Here’s to NY-20 being the cold splash of water that finally wakes it.
27 responses so far
1 krove // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Here is part of the reason. Party identification.
As of yesterday Party ID is
Dem 35%
Ind 38%
Rep 21%
So I am guessing that the 76,000 advantage whenever that was measured is no longer 76,000
When your party is in third place and there is a 14% gap to your opponent then that is a good reason.
The middle is growing and the right is shrinking. Not a lot more to say.
2 Brutus1776 // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:40 pm
My dearest Tom,
Perhaps instead of contemptuously talking down on those “therapeutic tea parties” we should embrace our new-found grass roots movement and allow for it to regrow like Ivy in the spring time. I read Mr. Bruce Bartlett’s piece on the Tea Parties and found it lacking in understanding. Surely he would take the time to analyze all of the reasons why people protested that day and not just the Taxation part. I also wish he had addressed the issue of state taxes and some of the new underhanded ways Democrats have found helpful in taxing (the speed camera’s in my current home state of Maryland for example). He fails to address the fact that people may have been wary of government spending and intrusive government as well.
I am against un-regulated populism, as you are well aware, but their is a waft of supercilious effluvia rising from some of the posts on New Majority, especially that of Mr. Frum’s article.
We have given our precious movement a mere 100 days since the President began, to rise like a phoenix. And now we are crying because we didn’t win a NY not even half a year after the election of President Obama. I understand that the particular district in question was a conservative one, but I fear that this past year was not about “traditionally conservative” districts, or even states (Virginia, North Carolina, etc) but rather the mobilization of the volkgeist on the side of “Change” (Progress) which gave us a progressive president.
Please my friend, encourage and embrace many of the people who are trying to build Conservatism as a movement up from the stable foundations on which she was built to begin with. We asked people to have patience with Iraq, we need to head our own advice and have patience while we build a movement that has been suffering from factions ever since Mel Bradford was derailed for his NEH position in the ’80s.
3 bloodstar // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:47 pm
There’s more to think about, and that’s that honestly Tedisco didn’t run the best campaign. And with the voters already in a negative mood towards the Republican party, it doesn’t take much to push enough people over to vote for someone else. Ironically, Pushing the Libertarian candidate off the ballot probably cost Tedisco the election in hind sight. The Libertarian candidate and the libertarians voting, were angry enough to vote for the Democrat out of spite.
Less than 1000 votes is not a lot. anything could have pushed the voters over. Any combination of things could have pushed the voters one way or another.
During the AAR, I’d love to see if Libertarians voted for Murphy by a wide margin, and if that was enough to push the election.
Seriously, I know you want to maximize your voters, but I can promise you that people don’t think rationally when they’re angry, and chopping smaller parties off the ballot on what are perceived as technicalities, often times will result in a net loss of votes for the candidate.
4 // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I don’t understand all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth by conservatives. They act as if it’s a mystery why they are failing politically. They act as if being conservative, in and of itself, is a reason to remain in office.
Conservatives and Republicans have suffered major defeats simply because they do not offer any solutions for the problems that concern most Americans. Their ideas have been tried over the course of time, and most people have concluded that those ideas will not solve today’s problems.
Conservatives/Republicans will continue to fail until they come up with new ideas or until Obama’s ideas have had a chance to work and then fail.
5 ditka // Apr 27, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I have to disagree with you about Murphy having an overplayed message. As someone who grew up in Saratoga County, I can tell you that “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” is the only message people care about. For years that area has been losing jobs as the paper mills and GE have left and closed plants, and added to the economic mess we are in it only makes sense that he talk about that issue.
6 ditka // Apr 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I have to disagree with you about Murphy having an overplayed message. As someone who grew up in Saratoga County, I can tell you that “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” is the only message people care about. For years that area has been losing jobs as the paper mills and GE have left and closed plants, and added to the economic mess we are in it only makes sense that he talk about that issue.
7 Bulldoglover100 // Apr 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm
This Republican did not turn her back on McCain until he turned his back on my safety and the future of this country by playing politics and expecting the women of his party to be stupid enough to vote for Sarah Palin. Lay the blame where it belongs or this party will repete the same mistake in 2012 when the majority of people in this country have already dumped Palin once.
We WANT and NEED answers to the problems that affect this country TODAY, not 30 years ago! If the people in office cannot give us a viable party to lead, and only sit like monkey’s and chant NO? Then our numbers will continue to decline. LISTEN to REAL people out here in AMERICA, we are fed up!
8 mlindroo // Apr 27, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I’ll give Tom Qualtere credit: he tells it like it is.
That’s the first step to recovery.
MARCU$
9 realconservativ // Apr 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Congratulations Frum! New Minority generated about 20 comments today. What tremendous growth. You have conservatives are shaking in their boots. Meanwhile, real conservative blogs (e.g. bejohngalt.com) have started without any fanfare and are are generating several hundred comments a day. At least New Minority is a great place for RINOs like Bulldoglover100 to hang out.
10 ottovbvs // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:00 am
Some interesting background here. I’m not awfully familiar with the candidates but I did see interview snips and Murphy was by no means the dud as candidate that is suggested here. He was good looking, very articulate and had a very straightforward message…I’m with Obama. Tedisco looked like a typical Republican hack. I know it’s judging a book by its cover but that was the appearance. While a narrow win for Tedisco wouldn’t have been earth shattering he should have won this thing. The fact that he didn’t really confirms Schmidt’s comment that the GOP is virtually extinct in the NE and West coast. Since these are the financial, political and artistic heartland of the country it’s a pretty dire commentary. It’s very clear the party is in denial both about its own status and the appeal of Obama and his policies.
11 ottovbvs // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:02 am
realconservativ
5:15 PM
Fox News is the leading cable channel and yet it’s views are totally out of kilter with mainstream America. Your confusing an energized minority, Republican party ID is at thirty year lows, with and effective electoral coalition.
12 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:51 am
“krove” is right (for once).
The GOP is selling itself on a false theory: That the reason they keep losing elections is that the GOP base stays home and doesn’t vote; and they stay home because the GOP base is dissatisfied with the GOP leadership abandoning traditional GOP principles. And so in pursuit of these “traditional GOP principles,” the GOP keeps moving further and further to the right, hoping to satisfy their base.
Everywhere I look, I see self-flagellation by the GOP base about NY-20 (and the 2006 and 2008 elections as well) that GOP turnout wasn’t high enough. That’s false. I’m betting all the Republican voters voted for Tedisco. It’s just that there aren’t enough Republican voters anymore.
The GOP won past elections when the number of self-identified Republican voters was roughly equal to the number of self-identified Democratic voters. Then they could employ Karl Rove’s strategy of mobilizing the GOP base to turn out to vote in larger numbers than the Dem base, while appealing to the Independent voters on issues like taxes and foreign policy.
That strategy is now dead, but the GOP doesn’t yet realize it’s dead.
13 RightNow09 // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:11 am
“sinz54″ and “krove” are almost completely wrong.
As the link in the second paragraph clearly points out, the district had a whopping 70,632 more registered Republicans than Democrats *as of November 1, 2008.*
14 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:32 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 19 minutes ago –
All I know is that when I don’t vote for Republicans… Republicans often loose.
The year I didn’t vote for D’Amato… he lost.
The year I didn’t vote for GHWB… he lost.
The year I voted against my RINO former Congresswoman Sue Kelly… she lost.
Last year when I refused to vote for McCain… he lost.
No, Sinz, I’m not saying there’s causation… but you and folks like you ignore the correlation.
I think part of the problem is how we define “base.”
Lots of folks – the majority, actually – look upon politics as “sport.” It’s “our” team vs. “their” team.
Looking at the ideological scale as more of a circle than a straight Left to Right line, it’s my contention that when it comes to a straight Republican vs. Democrat, the libertarian leaning elements of the GOP base tend to be more willing to cut their electoral noses off to spite their faces than the most liberal elements of the Democratic base.
Oh, sure… you’ll get liberal Democrats who will vote “Green,” vote Nader, just as you have conservative Republicans who will vote Buchanan, Barr, even Perot back in ‘92… but going back to the “cut off your nose to spite your face” mentality, attitude and personality wise it just seems that there are larger portions of the GOP “base” willing to do so in the service of principle as opposed to lesser portions of the Democratic base who place greater emphasis on the pragmatic pursuit of political power.
In any case… I say “all hail principle.”
And… speaking of principles… as I’ve noted before, I believe that you and your ilk offer exactly the wrong remedy to what ails the GOP. Moving Left, deserting principle, becoming more, not less hypocritical is a recipe for disaster for the GOP. Why vote “Democratic Light” when you can vote “Real Democrat?”
While their are plenty of supposedly “conservative” policy positions where I’m on the other side (mainly social issues where I’m more libertarian and trade issues where I’m more of a nationalist), when it comes to basics like fighting for less government, more individual freedom with individual responsibility, less taxes within a framework of less spending… issues like this.. what some consider “compromise” on principle (like Bush turning away from supposedly “failed” market principles), I consider suicide – political, electoral suicide.
BILL
15 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 9:32 am
April 28, 2009
Statement by Senator Arlen Specter
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvanias economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans.
Unlike Senator Jeffords switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedys statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
16 InTheMiddle12 // Apr 28, 2009 at 9:51 am
Senator Specter is no fool. He sees the blue wind a blowing in PA and is rejecting the right wing base, knowing that they’re too closed minded to accept him as a moderate. This move, on the Sentaor’s part, is very significant for the GOP. Not just for the obvious close-to-60 vote majority the Dems have, but more for what it says about the state of the GOP.
I’ve always found Senator Specter someone I could vote for, if I lived in PA. I’m glad he’s following his conscious and taking a risk to stay elected. I think it will pay off.
17 Brutus1776 // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:05 am
InTheMiddle12 said: I’m glad he’s following his conscious and taking a risk to stay elected. I think it will pay off.
I hope you don’t take offense if I find this comment hysterical. Following his conscious and taking a risk, ie. switching Parties because he is down in the polls to Toomey and would likely loose the Primary.
Might it pay off? Yes. Is it as honorable a move as I feel you are making it out to be? No. In the end, a politician doing what he could to retain power. All politics (non-Schmittian application). All the world’s a stage.
18 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:14 am
Wow… nothing from Frum on Specter yet.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
19 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:25 am
So, Sinz… great job cutting and pasting… what’re your thoughts?
“My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans.”
You buying it?
Hey… I’m COUNTING on it. Recall, I’m the guy who wanted to expel Specter from the GOP.
(*SHRUG*)
Re: Brutus1776; wrote 9 minutes ago –
It is indeed amusing what a tin ear some folks have with regard to irony.
Regarding Specter’s character… I basically agree with you. Bottom line, Specter is for Specter. Normal? Understandable? Human nature? Sure. But let’s not try to make it anything other than what it is.
Question… with the PA Dem establishment lie down for Specter as the NY Dem establishment did for HRC when she and Bill decided Hillary should become a Senator?
Another interesting question is how many of Specter’s staff will follow him and how many will resign.
(*SHRUG*)
Bottom line… it’s now out in the open – what I’ve always said – that Specter is a Democrat. As such, I hope and pray that he actually does exhibit the integrity and bravery many credit him with in terms of bucking his “new” Party and moving it to the Right. (Relatively!)
BILL
20 Brutus1776 // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:43 am
barker13: You raise a really interesting point (especially for someone who know what working on the staff is like). What WILL the members of his staff do? Especially in this “economic climate?” Who will walk away principled? Who says “screw it man I got a job…”
21 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:48 am
Brutus1776: The question is, Why would the GOP base try to defeat an incumbent Republican whom even the Dems conceded would be a shoo-in in the general election in November?
Answer: Because he’s a “RINO,” and not conservative enough for them. So instead, they’ve thrown their support to Pat Toomey, who is so far to the right that he has no chance whatsoever in the general election, against Specter or against any other Dem.
The GOP no longer wants a “big tent.” They want a tiny phonebooth, as long as that phonebooth is occupied by hard-core true believers. They really think that the public will honor them for sticking to their principles. They just don’t understand that the public believes that their principles are wrong.
22 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:51 am
Brutus1776: Anyone on Specter’s staff is just as much of a moderate Republican as he is. He picked them.
They won’t desert him for switching parties. Heck, they may switch parties too, if they haven’t already.
The GOP base wanted to kick Specter out of the GOP. Go to RedState.com and see for yourself. What are they complaining about now. Their wish came true.
23 Brutus1776 // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:52 am
Sinz54: To answer the former of your two posts regarding my own: they would try to defeat him because they disagree with him and his views as they have trailed further left. Let us not forget, we owe the good segments of Republican rule (Reagan’s and then 1994) to a firm articulation of Conservative fundamentals. Not by being more ‘moderate.’ What is it that upsets people most these days? President Bush. People are blaming President Bush for a lot, right or wrong. It is safe to say that President Bush ended up being far from a traditional Conservative. Perhaps Conservatives need to better explain that we are not an ideological fringe or wing. Libertarians are (no offense) the furthest wing. Conservatives are the anti-ideological. Some people felt it necessary to marginalize the Gottfrieds, M.E. Bradfords and Claes Ryns from the movement, erstwhile they have a very moderate Conservative message.
Your second point: might I borrow one of barker13’s many body language quotes *SHRUG*
He picked them, no not necessarily so. The Chief of Staff most likely hires and fires. Please spare me a lecture on how office politics work in an area I am very closely associated with.
Who’s complaining??? I said we shouldn’t act like he was a martyr for principle. Hell, if they get the 60, then let Sen.s Snowe and Collins follow him on out the door
24 ktward // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Brutus1776 wrote:
“We have given our precious movement a mere 100 days since the President began, to rise like a phoenix. And now we are crying because we didn’t win a NY not even half a year after the election of President Obama.”
Your ‘precious movement’ has had a solid 6-8 years to demonstrate it’s efficacy.
Failed. Miserably.
Your strategically mysterious migration even further Right, most recently demonstrated today by Specter’s party switch, suggests you’re really getting comfy in the Wilderness.
Good luck, Modern Conservatism. Unfortunately, you’re still battling the archaic Republican party, nevermind the Dems.
25 Brutus1776 // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:57 am
ktward: I can’t help but wonder if you have anything better to do than to insult people and their ideas on a board dedicated to Conservatism? Can I do the same to you on the AmericanProgressive message boards? Obviously I would need to write essays around your ill-advised “solid 6-8 years” comment, but this topic has been touched upon in other sections. And was that a hint of superciliousness I detect!
That’ll do.
26 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Re: Sinz54; 4/28/2009 10:48 AM –
“The GOP no longer wants a “big tent.” They want a tiny phonebooth, as long as that phonebooth is occupied by hard-core true believers.”
Nonsense. This website is proof of that. The fact that Specter, Collins, and Snowe weren’t expelled from the Party (as I would have liked to have seen) puts paid to such hyperbole.
Jeez, Sinz… perhaps you’ve forgotten, but JOHN MCCAIN was the 2008 Republican presidential nomineee!
(*SNORT*)
Let me ask you (though you’re not much on actually ANSWERING direct questions), in your mind, to your way of thinking, is there such a thing as “too big” of a tent?
Are there any lines that can’t be crossed… and recrossed… time and again?
Let’s say you had a Republican Member of Congress who voted with the Democrats 51% of the time… would he or she also be welcome in “the big tent” as designed by… er… you?
“[Conservatives] really think that the public will honor them for sticking to their principles. They just don’t understand that the public believes that their principles are wrong.”
Again. NONSENSE.
If that was true Gingrich and the class of ‘94 would never have taken over Congress in the “Republican Revolution” and even after Gingrich was long gone the GOP was able to retain its hold on Congress through 2006.
And speaking of 2006… again… s l o w l y… it was the fact that RINOs had strayed from our conservative principles – having been corrupted by power – that caused their downfall.
In 2008 very few people were voting for liberalism per se. They were voting for “hope,” for “change.” They were voting against Bush. They were voting against McCain as “Bush Light.”
BILL
27 ktward // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Barker 13:
“The fact that Specter, Collins, and Snowe weren’t expelled from the Party (as I would have liked to have seen) puts paid to such hyperbole.”
Your own admission (“as I would have liked to have seen”) supports Sinz’s point. This website, sad but true, is a teensy voice in an otherwise cacophonously self-destructive Party.
You don’t REALLY want to get into the internal culturally-driven Republican drama surrounding McCain’s nomination, do you?
Brutus1776:
My genuine apologies if I appeared arrogant- bad day. Though, your ‘Precious movement’ comment seemed, on its face, overly melodramatic rhetoric to me. ‘Gathering Storm’ kind of stuff. You’re of course free to message wherever you like, and hopefully you do indeed expand your blogging et al horizons beyond NM; one should frequently tread outside their own comfort zone.
I will admit that I’m center-left, but I consider a well-informed opinion to be born from learning all sides of an issue. I engage on this website because the rest on the Right are absurdly myopic. I always appreciated (not to be confused with ‘agreed with’) Frum’s intellectual prowess in his NRO days, so I followed him here.
I strongly believe our democracy works best with (at least) two viable parties. Right now, those two parties are Left Dems and Centrist Dems.
Is that okay with you guys? If not, you’d better get it together already. Dems won’t do it for you.
You must log in to post a comment.