Blame the N.Y. Republican party. What were those local leaders thinking of in choosing Scozzafava as their candidate in NY-23? Were they trying to ease an unloved colleague out of Albany? The state Republican party’s impressive new chairman, Ed Cox, faces a daunting task infusing some sense and life into this broken state organization.
Blame Dede Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman’s third party challenge was the primary Scozzafava should have faced in the first place. When she withdrew because she decided she could not win, she had a duty to rally behind the candidate preferred by the greater part of her own constituents.
The N.Y. Republicans and their offputting candidate set the table for the ensuing disaster – but it was the national conservative movement that actually delivered the district to the Democrats.
Blame Hoffman. Conservatives rallied behind a leaden candidate who could not bother to study the issues that mattered most to his constituents: highways, waterways, and energy marketing; who did not live in the district and did not read the local papers.
Blame Dick Armey. How many votes were lost by that quote of his to the Watertown Times dismissing local concerns as “parochial”?
Blame talk radio and (especially) Rush Limbaugh. As often stressed here, one of the secrets to talk radio’s power is that nobody can vote against a talk radio host. Unless the host endorses a candidate. Then the host has offered a convenient target to people who resent his inflammatory talk.
Blame the Tea Party movement. Turns out that people in upstate New York worry about losing their health insurance more than they worry about a socialist-fascist takeover of the United States. Who knew?
Blame Sarah Palin. Palin helped nationalize the election in the worst possible way, transforming what ought to have been a referendum on Barack Obama’s personalities into a referendum on herself. And outside Appalachia and the white South, those referendums she will almost always lose.
54 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:29 am
……..It’s certainly not Scozza’s fault she had to withdraw…..as several studies have shown her voting record was middle of the road NYS Republican in a state where the GOP now has only two seats so I don’t see where she carries any of the blame……it’s fairly obvious where the blame lies……ironically if the GOP draws the right lessons from this debacle it might help them in the medium terms but judging by the amount of denial around I doubt they will.
2 joemarier // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:45 am
I think the race was lost when Scozzafava was selected, but the ACU crowd acted like the propaganda/spamming operation it is instead of the vote-getting operation it manifestly isn’t. They used the ceremonial battle-ax, and small-town politics is about the stiletto.
http://www.frumforum.com/ny-23-wasted-money-wasted-effort
3 ottovbvs // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:48 am
Joe Marier // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:45 am
“I think the race was lost when Scozzafava was selected”
……….Why?……had there been no outside interventions she’d have coasted home in a typical low turnout off-off year election in NYS…….this would not have been on the radar.
4 DFL // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:50 am
A big part of the reason Hoffman lost was his admitted ignorance on issues pertinent to northern New York. The number of constituents in the NY-23 who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and read National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, Chronicles, First Things or The American Conservative nowhere near reaches a majority of voters. Although Limbaugh and National Review readers may not care about constituency issues, the vast maj0rity of voters do. Hoffman’s willful indifference to the problems of the NY-23 was a big strike against him.
On top of that, Hoffman has a doofy, geeky look to him that lessens him in comparison to Congressman-elect Owens, who not only has a more manly appearance but actually served in the military. That counts.
Republicans can recapture this seat if they nominate a muted conservative who knows the district and is willing to serve the interests of the district. Nominating Hoffman will not defeat Owens in 2010.
5 Stewardship // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:02 am
I’d certainly point a finger at Club for Growth, adding another trophy to its wall mounts of RINO’s, but costing yet another GOP vote on The Hill. One tenet of the Republican Party (and presumably conservatism) is: The best government is that closest to the people. In a way, by trying to trump the decisions of the local Republican Party, the conservatives/national Republicans violated that rule.
6 ottovbvs // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:05 am
DFL // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:50 am
“Republicans can recapture this seat if they nominate a muted conservative who knows the district and is willing to serve the interests of the district. Nominating Hoffman will not defeat Owens in 2010.”
……Agree entirely, the odds are on the GOP retaking this seat next year although now Owens has the power of incumbency and that is a much bigger deal than most conservatives are willing to accept as they spin dreams of winning 30 house seats next year it won’t be as easy as it would have been for Scozza to hold onto it.
7 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:11 am
Blame Frum whose go- along- to -get- along strategy permeates much of the GOP, giving them a false rationale as a guide to selecting candidates. As I said in another thread. The Frum analysis, even this one, is tantamount to blaming the last guy who touched to ball after a resounding defeat.
Who lost this battle? Republicans. Not conservatives. Republicans like Frum. And I’m sure Frum is actually happy this happened because he can pretend that this loss is on others hands and not his own.
This is like the coach blaming his field goal kicker for missing a 59 yarder when the coaches previous game decisions, as well as his whole strategy, were grossly inept.
8 WillyP // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:13 am
So after a big night of wins, Frum attacks Limbaugh. Yes this is the way to a New Majority! We see now the real reason behind that name change.
9 LJS // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:13 am
I believe this is the best outcome for the republican party & our country. We truly need two viable parties to have working democracy. If the right base of the republicans had won by forcing a candidate onto other republicans it set a precedent and would have given the right wings the power of the party, forever granting them the minority status. This lose saved the republican party as it should be. Thank you NY 23!
10 Cforchange // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:42 am
“Who knew?”
Everyone outside of DC. To understand America, one must get out from the bubble more often.
LJS is 100% correct. NY staters are non social conservatives by majority – forcing this upon them made them protest. Thank you NY 23!
11 LFC // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:14 am
Joe Marier said… I think the race was lost when Scozzafava was selected
ottovbvs said… Why?……had there been no outside interventions she’d have coasted home in a typical low turnout off-off year election in NYS…….this would not have been on the radar.
The GOP reason that the race was lost when Scozzafava was selected is that she is not 100% dependable to vote however the Republican leadership tells her to vote. Even if she won and voted with them 80% of the time, it would be a loss.
In the GOP, party purity is now paramount. There is no room for somebody who would agree with them 80% of the time. Loyalty is far more important than ability, as we saw when they controlled Congress not that long ago.
12 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:15 am
The fact that the conservative candidate came so close to winning is the thing that matters here, not the final result. (Keep in mind that had the RINO won the result would not have been seen as any kind of victory for Republicans as the seat was formerly held by a Republican, the seat would have been won by an exceedingly “moderate” R and therefore spun as a non-event, and rightfully so)
A no name guy with no experience campaigning for office, with no party support got so many votes in such a “moderate” district, despite the endorsement of the Democrat by the failed Republican candidate, and the confusion of said candidate having dropped out thus negating absentee ballots.
The party bosses are stung, and in 2010 they may well put up a center right candidate to take the seat back. It is in a real sense a victory. It certainly was no loss for conservatives since the difference between Tweedledum Dem and Tweedledee Repub is minimal.
It must be so difficult for you moderates to have to play this game with those of us who can play without losing. Conservatives have everything to gain and nothing to lose since as far as we are concerned we lose with squishy R’s as much or more than with hard-core Dems.
Your move moderates!
13 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:20 am
LFC
80%? Come on…
and each vote is separate, percentages can be misleading. It is important which particular issues a representative votes with the party and against the party.
14 Oldskool // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:20 am
It’s incredible how far conservatives have come (sunk?) since the days of Barry Goldwater, the guy you could say started it all. If he were around today he couldn’t run as a Republican let alone win support from the base. He would be “too liberal” by their standards of today. Today, the party is overrun with George Wallace-type conservatives as opposed to Nixon-type Republicans.
15 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:37 am
Oldskool,
You are kidding right? Please…
16 Oldskool // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:40 am
15 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:37 am
“Oldskool, You are kidding right? Please…”
Sounds like I struck a nerve. hehe. The fact is, the woman who droped out had much more in common with Goldwater than the guy you support.
17 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:45 am
Now let’s have the spin on New Jersey. Here is the assignment for you little Yalies out there in poli-sci 202:
A pro-life Republican wins the Governorship against a billionaire Democrat “moderate”.
Ok you could say that Corzine is a radical leftist Dem (some will believe this but it’s going to be hard keeping a straight face)
Say that Corzine was a scoundrel, but since when has that prevented Democrats from winning…
OK it was an off-year election with no importance, play it down and don’t even mention it focus on something else…
18 Chekote // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:45 am
Once again the candidate most closely associated with conservative talk shows hosts lost. Like Romney did in 2008. Brooks wrote a piece about the overinflated power of talk shows hosts. Look, Rush is entertaining and offers some insightful political commentary. He needs to stop trying to play king maker.
19 Chekote // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:47 am
Steele and Pete Sessions need to get their act together.. They are not selecting the right candidate for the House. First, Tedisco. Now Scozza.
20 Chekote // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:48 am
Christie’s running mate is pro-choice. Abortions and social issues DID NOT play any role. Christie won by telling voters he would make Jersey affordable again.
21 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:53 am
Because someone responds does not mean a nerve was struck. Is that what suffices for logic in your world?
“Barry Goldwater, the guy you could say started it all”
You could say that, but you would be wrong….
Besides making historical comparisons without accounting for the zietgiest is feeble ; JFK and LBJ have more in common with Hoffman than with Owens, so there.
22 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:58 am
Chekote
Social issues especially abortion issues play a huge role. Where have you been? If it was downplayed or not a central focal point, is huge news in and of itself. The previous R Governors of NJ have all been pro-choice or they would not have won. What has changed in NJ to relegate abortion issues secondary?
Does this mean that a pro life national candidate can win too? I mean, if it wasn’t an issue in blue NJ then all your moderate nattering about social conservatives just took a big hit.
23 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Oldsckool
See 21
24 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Still waiting for the analysis of the NJ race from Frum…..
25 Oneon1isto // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I’m still trying to figure out how state elections factor into tea leaves or a referendum on national issues and leadership.
Because, you know, the exact same people who vote in off-year elections also vote in national elections.
They never have. In fact, NJ and VA regularly switch governors to the OPPOSITE party of the one in power in Washington. Been going on for years.
26 Nitschke // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:39 pm
While I’ve agreed with Newt’s position on this race (stay out de’ Upstate), the VA and NJ races disprove the “it was just local issues” premise of this site, as well as the “social issues are losers for GOP” mantra that is Frum’s mantra.
After reviewing the defeat of gay marriage in Maine, today’s NYT went on: “In another Election Night setback for gay-rights supporters, Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, who supports gay marriage, lost to Christopher Christie, a Republican who opposes it. Many believed the legislature there was close to passing a gay marriage bill, but with Mr. Corzine’s defeat all bets are off.” And this is NJ hardly a bastion of conservative social issues.
27 Moderate // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Chris Christie has said that he personally opposes abortion, but wouldn’t act to outlaw or curtail it.
That’s the same thing Obama said. Hardly a victory for the pro-life movement.
28 joemarier // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm
16 Oldskool // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:40 am
15 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:37 am
“Oldskool, You are kidding right? Please…”
Sounds like I struck a nerve. hehe. The fact is, the woman who droped out had much more in common with Goldwater than the guy you support.
-
You have a point. Goldwater was a big booster of Planned Parenthood in its early days, and he completely bought the People for the American Way line at the end of his career. He was no fan of the public-sector unions though.
29 joemarier // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:16 pm
In HIS early days, rather.
30 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Lefties and Rinos always praise dead conservatives after they have vilified them thoroughly when they were alive. I doubt any of you pansy Republicans would have voted for Goldwater now or then so put a sock in it. Nothing but pure fantasy on your part.
Oh the Great Nixon! Oh the memory of Reagan! Gimme a break..
31 joemarier // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Oh, they were praising Goldwater long before he died (see above).
32 Reason60 // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm
My take on this is that it shows how popular the moderate Republicans still are. The one genuine Tea Party candidate lost, and the two arguably moderate Republicans won, and even then, by holding Palin at arms length and moving towards the center.
The myth abounds that there is a deep wellspring of hunger for “true” conservatism, that if one such animal were to appear, he would acheve victory to thunderous applause. The myth states that “squishy” moderates like Scozzafava only were popular with corrupt party hacks.
Yet it is the VOTERS in NY-23 who were the moderates; they traded a liberal Republican for a conservative Democrat. The VOTERS in NJ opted to give the moderate Republican a slim margin of victory. The VOTERS in VA gave a heavier victory to a somewhat more conservative Republican, who downplayed his social conservatism views.
So I don’t really understand the enduring power of the myth. Americans are unhappy with the status quo, but are not ready to embrace radical agendas from either the left or right.
33 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Goldwater above all was an anti-communist free market libertarian. He would never make it past David Frum, Brooks or any of you moderates.
“Goldwater was a big booster of Planned Parenthood in its early days, and he completely bought the People for the American Way line at the end of his career. He was no fan of the public-sector unions though.”
To take one non-profit in it’s infancy (before the millions and millions of abortions and the overt political nature of PP) and use it as an example of Goldwater’s moderate views is quite a stretch. This forensic sophistry is pathetic.
34 Chekote // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Guadagno (Christie’s running mate) is pro-choice. The GOP needs to give social issues a rest. Rove’s strategy of combining social issues with federal government programs (No child, Part D, faith base) was a total bust. It resulted to the GOP returning to post-Nixon levels.
35 joemarier // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Oh, but PP wasn’t in its infancy. It started in 1900, and it was plenty radical throughout its history (endorsing racial eugenics and suchlike). As was PFAW when Goldwater was essentially endorsing their line that the Religious Right was unAmerican. I’m not playing rhetorical games here. I mean it when I say Goldwater was a bad influence on the party, and remains so.
36 Oneon1isto // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Dittos on Reason 60’s #32 comment.
How the national GOP structure claims this as some unmitigated victory for their brand conservatism is beyond me.
I understand the marketing of it, don’t get me wrong. Take all the victories you can get and crow nice and loud. But this whole “tide is turning” BS, after only what, 3 years in the minority is ludicrous. There is much work to be done.
37 joemarier // Nov 4, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Agreed. Good comments all around!
38 sinz54 // Nov 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm
franco 2:
In politics, the final result is all that ever matters. There are no consolation prizes.
The GOP just lost a seat (temporarily, I hope) that had been held by Republicans for over a century.
A lot of the upcoming votes on health care, energy, immigration, are liable to be close, and Pelosi is happy for any Dem vote she can get. When those votes come up, the bizarre way that Owens won won’t matter anymore.
The only saving strength here is that Owens appears to be pretty moderate, and may not fall in line behind Pelosi on some of these votes–especially if he wants to retain his seat next year.
I wish the GOP base would remember that you never win by losing.
39 sinz54 // Nov 4, 2009 at 2:55 pm
franco 2:
Goldwater wasn’t “moderate”–that’s the point.
Goldwater was a staunch libertarian, which is quite a different thing.
Goldwater had no problem with gays serving in the military. Not because he was “moderate,” but because he thought that sex wasn’t the government’s business.
40 sinz54 // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Chekote:
Christie also won by promising to fight corruption, in contrast to the political corruption that has plagued NJ in recent years. (FBI sting operations have netted half a dozen mayors, and even five rabbis. Some in Corzine’s administration had to resign under charges of corruption.)
This is another lesson for the GOP: Any newly elected Republicans should work extra hard to avoid even the appearance of corruption. The Cunningham and Abramoff scandals severely damaged the GOP brand. The GOP can’t win on a platform of limited government, and then start doling out favors in exchange for actual bribes.
41 CentristNYer // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Thank you, David. I think this pretty much nails it.
42 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Let me remind you who and in what context this Goldwater thing was introduced.
Oldskool:”The fact is, the woman who droped (sic) out had much more in common with Goldwater than the guy you support.”
OKAY?
“The GOP just lost a seat” Yep that’s right… conservatives didn’t lose the seat, the GOP lost the seat by nominating a RINO and turning their backs on conservatives.
You people can’t get it through your heads that conservatives are NOT default Republicans and we conservatives have lost nothing in this election because the alternative was Dem and Dem lite.
Who knows how this RINO would have voted? And who can say at this point whether the Democrat, in order to remain a viable candidate for the next election won’t vote more conservatively than the RINO would? That is the conundrum for you moderates and the reason why conservatives have nothing to lose in disrupting these kind of attempts by the party bosses to retain influence. And by the way, did the previous office holder HAVE to take the appointment by Obama? Any blame there? Of course the intent was to pick up another seat… but the guys personal ambition trumped his party loyalty. Good riddance I say.
By the way, not ONE Republican in the House voted for the last stimulus bill, which went a long way in boosting the credibility of the party with conservatives AND independents, and helped translate into wins in NJ and VA yet this bozo babe was all for it she would have been the only Republican to vote with Democrats on this issue – a couple more like her and we would have heard about the “bipartisan stimulus bill” from the MSM.
Lastly. on every close vote it is better that there be fewer Republicans voting with Democrats and more Democrats voting with Republicans because the perception of the public counts when it comes to party ID. Anyone who has heard the spinmiesters use RINO’s votes to bolster the legitimacy of Democrat policies knows that RINOs hurt the cause of Republicans. They also tend to reinforce the false impression that Republican party is outside the mainstream because they, with the help of the media, portray themselves as voices of sanity and independent thinking and characterize other Republicans, including relative moderates, as extremists.
You guys can’t see the game the Dems and the media are playing, in fact you have bought the whole premise, which is suicide.
Please also tell me what the difference is between a libertarian and a “moderate”. Actually just give me your definition of “moderate”. It means different things to different people for one thing and moderate on what issues?
Or is it just someone who tries to vote somewhere between the right and the left ? Can it also be someone who hides behind the label to merely get ahead in his own political career ?
43 Sorry, But Conservatism’s Still Not Dead « Calvin Freiburger Online // Nov 4, 2009 at 4:00 pm
[...] the conservative third-party candidate Doug Hoffman. Hoffman lost to Democrat Bill Owens, leading the usual suspects to blast the conservatives who rallied behind [...]
44 Oldskool // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:00 pm
42 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:38 pm
” … conservatives didn’t lose the seat, the GOP lost the seat by nominating a RINO and turning their backs on conservatives. ”
My point is that whatever the GOP is today is a far cry from what it used to be, a party with honest-to-god intellectuals. Today most of those thinkers have been ostracized in favor of fire-breathing dragons, which I believe is the point Frum’s been making for some time. You may think the GOP turned it’s back on conservatives but in reality, your party has loses elctions when they spend too much political capital pandering to the not-so-brainy hyperventilators who think yelling the loudest matters more than policies.
45 MI-GOPer // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:32 pm
oldskool, our newest far Left troll, writes: “You may think the GOP turned it’s back on conservatives but in reality, your party has loses elctions when they spend too much political capital pandering to the not-so-brainy hyperventilators who think yelling the loudest matters more than policies”.
OK, that’s a reiteration of the usual DailyKos talking points with just a touch of the demented anger of a MoveOn.org union goon. Frankly, oldskool, you’re the “not so brainy hyperventilator” who always yells the loudest here.
Project much, troll?
46 Oldskool // Nov 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm
oldskool, our newest far Left troll, writes: “You may think the GOP turned it’s back on conservatives but in reality, your party has loses elctions when they spend too much political capital pandering to the not-so-brainy hyperventilators who think yelling the loudest matters more than policies”.
OK, that’s a reiteration of the usual DailyKos talking points with just a touch of the demented anger of a MoveOn.org union goon. Frankly, oldskool, you’re the “not so brainy hyperventilator” who always yells the loudest here.
Project much, troll?”
You make my point for me. When your ideas are bankrupt and you can’t type anything thoughtful, drag eveyone else down in the mud with you… right out of The Hyperventilators/Talk-Radio/Karl Rove Playbook.
47 ottovbvs // Nov 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm
franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:11 am
“Blame Frum whose go- along- to -get- along strategy permeates much of the GOP”
……….Going along to get along is actually one of the cardinal principles of politics in a democratic society……practical politics is about compromise………Not surprisingly the Franco and all the others extreme rightists fail to understand this……the problem with politics a outrance is you end up with regimes like the Jacobins or Bolsheviks.
48 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Um otto, The point is the NY GOP picked a dud…someone who was less conservative than her predecessor and in these trying times ordinary people, that is voters (this is still a democracy, right?) went with someone else who was MUCH more successful and yet somehow fell short for WHATEVER reason. So there was a gross miscalculation. Perhaps Hoffman WAS too conservative for the district I don’t know (or really care) the point is that Dede was WAAAAY too, um .er, moderate and the GOP erred in picking her thinking the local voters, and national conservative would just go along with this chicanery in this environment. And where do they get the idea to nominate a Republican who went on record saying the second stimulus package was a good idea? Making her the ONLY Republican who took that stand?Really …
Now, why
49 Churl // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:51 pm
ottovbs, regarding “bumper stickers”, I prefer to follow Mark Twain’s advice to eschew surplusage.
50 sinz54 // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Oldskool:
Actually, even before the fire-breathing dragons, the soul of the GOP got taken over by the Christian evangelicals (a.k.a. “Religious Right”). The reason why intellectuals have fled is that the evangelicals are factually wrong, scientifically wrong.
No one in the GOP has the guts to stand up for objective facts and scientific truths. I’m not talking about disagreeing with the Religious Right on morals or philosophy; most of the earlier Republican intellectuals were pro-life too. I’m talking about setting the record straight on some basic facts: The Earth really is over 4 billion years old, species on Earth really are hundreds of millions of years old and really did evolve into one another, there really was a Big Bang that began the Universe, the United States only has less than 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves, etc.
These are basic facts that any schoolchild can find out for himself from science textbooks. But a militant faith-based faction have decided to rewrite objective facts to fit better with their preconceived notions.
No intellectuals, no scientists, are going to put up with that.
51 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Sinz54
I’m sorry that you don’t understand that believing in the Big Bang is a belief just like any other belief . It is a mere hypothesis that even the most respected physicists have admitted, is mere speculation.
They really don’t know, and as good scientists, admit to that. It is the drones who take this speculation as Gospel while ridiculing others who are also gullible believers in some other model of creation.. The philosophical question is: Since we really don’t know anything, or, at best, very little, is faith a good thing, and if so which faith best forwards humanity?
You are a default believer. At least people of faith know they are believers, you are in the category of believers who are unaware they are believers.
52 franco 2 // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:02 am
And Sinz,
To address your point about the origins of Earth outside the Big Bang Theory. How many conservatives do you speculate actually believe that the Earth was created recently? I really don’t believe (there is that word again) that many conservatives do. It is a convenient smear. I certainly don’t. And if some people believe these things and yet vote Republican or conservative does not make conservatism wrong just as communists voting for Democrats doesn’t make Democrats communists.
53 ottovbvs // Nov 5, 2009 at 9:17 am
48 franco 2 // Nov 4, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“Um otto, The point is the NY GOP picked a dud…”
……..In your extreme right wing opinion……she obviously looked pretty good to a lot of electors in NY 23 many of whom swithced to Owens
54 ottovbvs // Nov 5, 2009 at 9:20 am
Churl // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“ottovbs, regarding “bumper stickers”, I prefer to follow Mark Twain’s advice to eschew surplusage.”
…..planning a career as humorist are you…….Twain was a classic bumper sticker style writer imho……..the problem is with most issues the devil is in the details and these cannot be accomodated even on the bumpers of one of those 60’s Caddies
You must log in to post a comment.