RSS Feed MenuDede Scozzafava’s sudden and surprise withdrawal from Tuesday’s special congressional election has spurred renewed calls for third-party candidate Chris Daggett to do the same in New Jersey.
At National Review Online, for instance, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum argues that “Daggett should follow the Scozzafava lead.”
“Like Scozzafava [in New York], Daggett is not going to win [New Jersey’s Gubernatorial] election on Tuesday,” Santorum writes. “Scozzafava withdrew because she put what is best for her district and her country above her personal aspirations. Let’s see if Daggett can exhibit the same selflessness.”
Newt Gingrich and Hugh Hewitt, likewise, are angry with Daggett because, they say, he is a spoiler with no chance of winning. Daggett, these conservatives whine, is simply siphoning off votes from the Republican Party candidate, Chris Christie; and, as a result, the dreaded leftist Democrat, Jon Corzine, may win yet again.
But of course, if Christie were such a great candidate, then Daggett wouldn’t be registering double-digit polling numbers.
Christie’s problem has been that he’s run, as the Wall Street Journal points out, a “content-free” campaign. Indeed, he’s offered few ideas for substantive change in a state (New Jersey) that is rife with corruption.
“To the extent that Mr. Christie has deigned to discuss taxes at all,” laments the Journal, “it’s usually been to criticize the reform proposals of others.”
Adds Karl Rove: “Neither major party candidate in New Jersey has offered a compelling or comprehensive agenda. [And] at times,” Rove notes, “the independent candidate, Chris Daggett, has appeared the only contender with an agenda to rein in property taxes.”
Daggett, in fact, appears to be a far more compelling candidate, with a pledge to cut property taxes by 25% for all homeowners, according to the Journal. Christie, the party apparatchik, has denounced Daggett’s tax-cutting proposal as a tax increase; but as David Frum reports, this really isn’t fair or true:
[Daggett’s] proposals for balancing the state’s books are detailed and workable. He’d extend the state’s 7% sales [tax] to cover services as well as goods.
He’d end the hodge-podge of property tax rebates. He’d then use the money gained to finance an across-the-board property tax cut and also reductions in corporate income taxes.
The lesson in this election cycle is that campaigns and issues matter. Substantive ideas matter. Being responsive to voters’ concerns matters. And sometimes, pace Gingrich, Hewitt and Santorum, party loyalty demands too much.
Scozzafava withdrew from the congressional race precisely because she was, like Christie, a weak candidate. She was a poor fit for her district and yet, the New York GOP party bosses made her their anointed pet candidate. Thus, they denied Hoffman the right to participate in a primary against Scozzafava.
But Hoffman has ideas, passion, and popular support. He also is on the ballot as New York State’s Conservative Party nominee. And so he drove Scozzafava from the race. Consequently, Hoffman may well be the next congressman from New York state’s 23rd congressional district.
New Jersey’s Christie did win a primary battle; however, he has run a lackluster general election campaign that should serve as a cautionary warning to the GOP.
Indeed, as the Journal reports, “Daggett’s appeal has grown because he’s offering voters precisely what Mr. Christie isn’t: a specific plan for controlling runaway taxes and spending.” As for Christie, his “idea of a brilliant campaign idea is to tell the press that he’s attended 120 concerts of [Bruce] Springsteen, who may end up endorsing Mr. Corzine.”
For these reasons, the New Jersey Republican Party may well deserve to lose: because it hasn’t offered voters real change. Chastened by defeat, perhaps next time the Jersey GOP will run an issue-oriented reform campaign aimed at improving the quality of life for Garden State residents.
Seen in this context, Chris Daggett is performing a useful public service, which ultimately will help the Republican Party.
Doug Hoffman performed this same public service in New York state’s 23rd congressional district and realized success much sooner than anyone ever expected. He knocked out of the race a weak and non-substantive candidate, who had been selected by the party bosses, and not the people or voters.
Successful reform of the New Jersey GOP surely will take longer than one election cycle, but is still worth pursuing.
That’s why conservatives and Republicans should embrace Hoffman and Daggett: because both men are helping to rectify and clean up a brain-dead and all too often corrupt Republican Party.
Moreover, free-market conservatives should welcome competition, especially substantive political competition: because it makes everyone better and stronger.
Of course, the GOP party bosses don’t like competition. That’s why they conspired against Hoffman; and that’s why they’re angry at Daggett.
It’s also why they have conspired against Marco Rubio in Florida: by siding with Rubio’s primary opponent, Charlie Crist, in the race for Florida’s 2010 Senate seat.
Again, the party bosses fear substantive competition; but we voters should demand it, for competition is the surest route to real and sustainable political success and true reform.
ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 9:58 am
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 9:10 am
“And winning the state races in traditionally Republican Virginia are just going to convince them further that Obama is on the wane.”
………..Absolutely right(the politics in the VA race seem very local), and the same goes for NY 23 that Hoffmann is probably going to win…….the effect is going to be to lure them ever further out onto thawing ice……..on Obama’s numbers Pollster has him at around 56 % which is where he was when elected but a loss of 10% from inauguration so basically he’s holding his coalition together and there’s no viable competition on the horizon……Palin the tea baggers darlin has appros of 29%!……I’ve no doubt if they re ran Obama/Biden v McCain/Palin he’d probably pull around 60% of the vote …….Judging by David Frum’s comments where he announces the name change(a smart move btw) he clearly recognizes the seriousness of the GOP’s predicament but as a generalisation they are in total denial…….my electoral memories go back to the fifties and I’ve never seen anything like this on the Republican side …….even in 1964 when the Goldwaterites grabbed the steering wheel nobody gave a damn because they knew LBJ was unbeatable in 64…….but as I said who are we to stand in their way
sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:14 am
ottovbs: she may be liberal by your lights but not by the lights of New York state Republicans apparently
But for NY-23, Scozzafava was much more liberal than her predecessor, McHugh. McHugh got a rating of 71 from the American Conservative Union. And in 2008, when Obama won a big victory, McHugh won with 65% of the vote.
Hoffman is closer to McHugh’s political views than Scozzafava is.
Some reporter should have asked Scozzafava if she agreed with McHugh’s stands on issues.
sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:17 am
balconesfault: And winning the state races in traditionally Republican Virginia are just going to convince them further that Obama is on the wane.
The Dems were also worried about a loss in VA being bad publicity for them.
Politico.com reported that the reason why the Obama administration took such a big role in the Deeds campaign, is that they were worried that a double loss (NJ and VA) would have all the pundits talking about erosion of Obama’s support. Instead, they will now do their best to spin NJ as an endorsement of Obama and VA as meaningless.
And you’re helping them with their spin. Why am I not surprised.
sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
balconesfault: Frum changed the name of the blog. I hope this doesn’t signal surrender on the goal of a “New Majority”, in the face of so many on the right who are quite happy with a smaller but more ideologically pure minority
Frum was always vague (perhaps deliberately) as to what his envisioned “New Majority” would look like. He didn’t start off this blog with a manifesto explaining just what he would like to see happen to American conservatism. Whereas Buckley was quite specific when he launched National Review: “Standing athwart history and yelling STOP!!!”
So what’s the point in continuing to wave one’s hands about a “New Majority” without ever explaining what it would look like.
ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:14 am
……..Scozza voting recocrd was middle of the road in the NYS Republican caucus……whether Hoffman is closer to McHugh is purely your personal opinion there’s not quantitive way of knowing…….McHugh’s vote was the consequence of this being a solid Republican seat and years of incumbency…….why do you keep producing non sequiturs.
ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:26 am
34 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:17 am
“Politico.com reported that the reason why the Obama administration took such a big role in the Deeds campaign,”
……..Actually the Dem in VA has notoriously run his campaign on local issues….and not well…..but who are we to stand in your way if this is what you want to believe
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:40 am
The interesting thing about the Hoffman – Scozzafava challenge is that it is a very instructive lesson to Blue Dog Democrats … don’t even think about crossing party lines, because you don’t have a home there.
I know there will be attempts to compare this to Lieberman-Lamont, but one should remember that Lieberman was actively attacking other Democrats on the issue the Democratic Party considered the most important of the time in 2006 – the nation accepting what an error it was to invade and occupy Iraq. This issue was enough of a litmus test for Dems that I truly believe it is what cost Hillary the nomination, and thus the Presidency.
It is not unreasonable for parties to have litmus tests, no matter what the Broderian/Brooksian pundits might say.
But the Hoffman race illustrates that for Republicans, potentially EVERYTHING is a litmus test today. Their litmus test isn’t an issue, but an SAT where anything but a perfect score means you’re not qualified to bear the GOP standard.
So if you’re a Nelson … a Baucus … a Schuler … you might be aggravated by DailyKos attacks on your character and ideology – but you know that as long as y0u stay with the Democrats on procedural matters, you will still be supported by the party. A Republican now has no such assurance, and thus any Blue Dog knows that crossing the aisle will mean the end of their political career in a very short time.
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:54 am
sinz: And you’re helping them with their spin. Why am I not surprised.
Hard to call it spin. I’m glad that Obama made an effort for Deeds, because the Democratic Party in Virginia definitely busted their butts for him in 2008, and he owed them for that. But there was nothing ever particularly compelling about Deeds, except that he was a far better candidate than Terry McAuliffe, who gives most people I know the creeps.
I don’t think NJ will be an endorsement of Obama, or Virginia a repudiation. Both races are far far deeper in the weeds than that – they really have everything to do with local issues, and nothing to do with national ones, particularly since none of the candidates involved are considered serious candidates for national office in the short term.
So what’s the point in continuing to wave one’s hands about a “New Majority” without ever explaining what it would look like.
I’m with you. This site has done a far better job simply of providing a relatively abuse-free public square for cross-ideology discussions, than providing any kind of a road map for how Republicans might reverse the erosion in their base.
otto whether Hoffman is closer to McHugh is purely your personal opinion there’s not quantitive way of knowing
I think there’s a very simple intellectual exercise here – does anyone believe that Hoffman, as a sitting Congressman, would accept an invitation to come work for the Obama Administration?
I suspect that if Hoffman is elected, he will end up with a 95-100 rating from the American Conservative Union … and that Scozzafava would have been more in the 50-60 range, depending on what votes are scored that year. Now which would be closer to McHugh’s 71?
Moderate // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:22 am
Has anyone read which positions made Scozzafava a bad fit for the district?
Was the conservative uprising primarily motivated by:
1) fiscal issues (her support for tax/budget increases, card check, etc.)
2) social issues (gay marriage, abortion) or
3) anger stemming from the lack of a primary?
I realize that all three played a role, but is there specific issue polling available?
sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm
balconesfault: I don’t think NJ will be an endorsement of Obama, or Virginia a repudiation. Both races are far far deeper in the weeds than that
I’m hoping there will be some exit polls, that will tell us whether national or local issues were more important to the voters.
However, off-year elections are usually where the activists predominate, due to apathy among the ordinary non-activist voters. So if nothing else, these elections will be a test of whether the GOP organization, and/or the conservative movement, can still get its act together to turn out the vote for Republican candidates in VA.
sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:26 pm
balconesfault: thus any Blue Dog knows that crossing the aisle will mean the end of their political career in a very short time.
Doesn’t matter.
Nobody wants to risk their political necks to join up with a loser anyway.
The GOP’s brand is still so tarnished with the public, that even if Scozzafava had fended off the Hoffman challenge and gone on to win the election, no Blue Dogs would give a moment’s thought to switching to the GOP. What’s in it for them? The GOP, being a minority party, can’t give them committee chairmanships.
Those Dems who switched or endorsed Republicans (Campbell, Miller, Lieberman) did so at a time when the GOP seemed ascendant.
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:36 pm
So if nothing else, these elections will be a test of whether the GOP organization, and/or the conservative movement, can still get its act together to turn out the vote for Republican candidates in VA.
Well, I would hope that they would. Given that the Dems don’t really have much to write home about yet (ok, slowing the free-fall in the economy is nice, but it’s nothing to campaign on) and the rally to the ramparts by Republican activists in 2009, failure to win at least the governorship in Virginia would be a sign to call the Priest for last rites.
But there are so many balls in play right now that I think taking any meaning from this weeks election and projecting them to 2010 is a serious longshot, akin to predicting who will win the World Series based on who had the best month of September in the previous season (actually I read some NFL pundits touting SF this year based on their winning 4 of their last 5 last year … we see how well that worked).
ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 3:30 pm
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:36 pm
………..I don’t know too much about VA other than I’ve read in places like the WSJ or NYT but quite a lot about NJ which is definitely all local…..From what I’ve read VA seems to have a particularly crazy GOP party organization down there and after year of dominance now only control one house (I believe)…….Governors are limited to one term and they’ve had two or three democrats in a row and the Dem seems to have been a weak candidate……so with a bit of luck there will be some serious over reaching down in VA just in time for 2010…….. I’m sure if they notch up to or three wins in these elections the right will claim a deluge is about to happen but then what would they say that wouldn’t they….strategic thinking is not their strong point these days……..I will say the Democrats are going to have to get energized next fall if they want to stay on top as the base of the Republicans certainly will be coming out……but they probably will, the environment in congressional election years is fairly intense these days
John Guardiano // Nov 5, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Arch and Balconesfault,
Thanks — I enjoy many of the comments and like to take the time to engage — especially when responding can help to clarify or elucidate the issues. However, I must confess that I simply cannot take the time to respond in full to most comments. I have to work still for a living! However, it seems that many of the commenters are retired or live lives of leisure! : )
Regards,
John