The conservative infighting in the race for New York’s 23rd congressional district could not come at a worse time in the fight to stop a government takeover of healthcare. After seeing the battle between GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava and Conservative Party challenger Doug Hoffman in what was previously a safe Republican seat, the Democrats are getting the message that there is not much to fear from the GOP and the recent resurgence of the public option may be a sign of the Dems restored morale.
The only thing that stands between us and a government takeover of healthcare (which, according to Mark Steyn, may well lead to the permanent death of conservatism) is low morale amongst congressional Democrats. The president’s popularity has been dropping, Congress itself has lower approval ratings than used car salesmen, the unemployment rate is rising, the dreaded midterm election is just a year away and everyone clearly remembers how the previous healthcare reform attempt played out.
Retaking the House in 2010 has always been a very long shot for Republicans, but depending on how events develop (especially with the economy), a disciplined nationwide campaign by a unified GOP might have had a chance to succeed. One could not invent a better morale booster for the Democrats than managing to steal a previously safe Republican district. Even if that does not happen and Hoffman somehow pulls it off, enough damage is already done and the Democrats may be emboldened to push for stronger reforms.
Yesterday, in her endorsement of Doug Hoffman, Sarah Palin wrote that “there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race.” In the end though, the Democratic candidate will vote for Pelosi for Speaker and to keep Rangel, Frank, Waxman, Conyers as chairmen of key committees. The Republican (assuming she’s not actually going to switch parties) would vote against them. Despite Palin’s claim, that difference alone is real enough. Furthermore, even when the House majority is not at stake, the outcome of the organizing resolution still matters, because the numbers of Republicans and Democrats determine the split in committee memberships.
28 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:31 am
The Dems can read the polls. And they know history. They know that the President’s party often loses a significant number of congressional seats midway through his term. And they know that impatience is building out there for real change.
The NY-23 election has little to do with that. It’s a special case, where the national GOP hand-picked a real liberal Republican, without regard for the feelings of actual Republican voters in that district. AFAIK, that’s not the rule in most other districts.
I don’t expect the GOP to win back the House in 2010. But I wouldn’t be surprised by a pickup of around 30 seats. That would stymie Pelosi from then on. Good enough for me.
2 balconesfault // Oct 25, 2009 at 11:14 am
And they know that impatience is building out there for real change.
That is the key. One reason that polls have been showing poor support for existing health care plans were because of the lack of committment to a public option (and the complete lack of committment to the idea of a universal healthcare system), eroding support for Baucus plan in particular from the progressive side.
If healthcare passes with a public option – even one with a state “opt out” clause – the storyline of a “do nothing” Congress will be smashed.
3 Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 11:54 am
There is no “conservative infighting” in NY-23, there are two liberal candidates and one conservative.
4 jwpegler // Oct 25, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The GOP establishment isn’t too bright. During the Bush administration, they undertook a drunken orgy of spending that would make most Democrats blush. They did this under the delusion that they could buy votes just like the Democrats. They got booted from office instead. We don’t need two socialist parties in the U.S. People who believe in big government are going to vote for Democrats.
Dede Scozzafava is not a conservative. She’s not a “moderate” either. She supported Obama’s ruinous stimulus package. She also supports card check, which would allow union bosses to bully workers and employers with impunity. I quite frankly don’t give a hoot about what she believes on social issues. She’s a leftist on economic issues and therefore she has business being in the GOP. People like her will never get my vote.
5 Wizard // Oct 25, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I do not believe this is a fair representation of voters. This woman is an idiot and should not be elected as dog catcher. I would never vote for a candidate because of party affliliations alone – and this is a prime example. Dede Scozzafava would only serve to embarrass the Republicans, not help them! She is a bleeding heart liberal trying to capitalize on the failing Dems.
6 Reason60 // Oct 25, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Hoffman winning in NY-23 is like McGovern winning the 1972 Democratic nomination; a Phyrric victory by radicals within a party, pulling the party further out of the orbit of mainstream American thought, spelling disaster for a generation.
7 Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 3:22 pm
reason60, what is radical or non-mainstream about Hoffman’s ideas?
8 TMLutas // Oct 25, 2009 at 3:57 pm
You know what’s really helped by NY-23? Card check, which both the Democrat and Republican candidates support. On a large number of supposed GOP priorities, the local powers that be that picked the GOP nominee shafted the GOP position.
Safe GOP seats need to go to harder edged conservatives who can keep the conservative base satisfied and provide intellectual leadership to form GOP alternative policies to the media/liberal consensus. It’s in the marginal seats that might have a GOP rep every generation or two that moderate compromisers should be emerging from.
The GOP leadership blew it.
9 ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 11:54 am
“There is no “conservative infighting” in NY-23, there are two liberal candidates and one conservative.”
…….So speaks the voice of modern Republican realism
10 ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 4:51 pm
The public option was only ever dead, on life support, fighting for survival, and any of the other myriad of cliches; in the minds of teabaggers, conservative spinners, MSM script writers trying to maintain the suspense, et al…….NY 23 has nothing to do with it…….it has however everything to do with the schism in the GOP……..other symptoms of schism are Rubio’s candidacy in Florida and the third party candidate in the NJ governors race………this is going to persist for years
11 ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 4:53 pm
wizard // Oct 25, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“She is a bleeding heart liberal trying to capitalize on the failing Dems.”
……..These folks are so funny.
12 Arch // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:33 pm
trying to capitalize on the failing Dems.
Lets at least be honest with ourselves on this site. The dems are kicking ass currently. They’re close to getting a public option and bad as their poll numbers are, they’re way better than the republicans.
I think the “party of no” image is mostly to blame. Instead of lining up against any health care reform a few republicans should have engaged and traded their votes for some influence on the bill. Clearly this whitehouse is willing to go far hobbling their own bill for even one GOP vote. A couple more republicans could have had a huge impact.
13 ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:46 pm
arch // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“Lets at least be honest with ourselves on this site. The dems are kicking ass currently. They’re close to getting a public option and bad as their poll numbers are,”
……..Actually they are not that bad in an off season……….Obama is in the low to mid fifties which is where he was when elected……on the generic congressional they are 5-10% ahead in most polls and on all the big issues they are massively preferred to deal with them……meanwhile by just about every measure the Republicans are in the tank……..and just before anyone mentions the congressional approval……well congressional approval is always in the tank………the healthcare bill is going to pass and it will almost certainly have a public option…..it always was going to…….there’s a schism in the GOP and if Obama introduces an immigration bill after healthcare it’s going to erupt…….likewise if they don’t do too well in next years mid terms…….the basic response of Republican true believers is the pretend none of this is happening…….which is why for the medium term they are doomed…….a serious political party can’t deny reality forever
14 sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 6:44 pm
arch:
Not clear.
Obama made a deal with some pharmaceutical companies–and then Pelosi announced she didn’t consider herself, or the House, bound by that deal in any way, and proceeded to trash it. Over on TMPCafe and Huffington Post, the liberals are high-fiving each other over how Pelosi is managing to backstab those of the opposition who thought that Obama could be negotiated with.
Right now, I suspect that Sen. Olympia Snowe has about a 50% chance of being shafted the same way: Her careful negotiations with the Senate Dems will be trashed in conference after Pelosi has her way on the bill.
The problem is that Obama has refused to exert authority over the health care bill. And Pelosi cannot be negotiated with. She’s a true believer.
15 sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 6:45 pm
ottovbs:
So put your money where your mouth is:
On Intrade.com, they’re still giving 5 to 1 odds against it. You could stand to quadruple your bet at least.
16 MFarmer // Oct 25, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Applying principles often has consequences, and this is what separates the principled from the merely pragmatic. A principled person doesn’t act on principle only when it is self-serving — there’s really no principles involved there — acting on principles means doing what’s right in spite of whether it produces immediate benefits or not — and the act might not produce benefits, period, except the benefit of integrity.
17 Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Another cloud for which ottovbs will show us the silver lining:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20091024president_obama_tough_race_ahead_for_gov_deval_patrick/srvc=home&position=0
18 Arch // Oct 25, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I think Pelosi is pushing her agenda in part because of Obama’s unwillingness to risk some reputation and actually lay out what he wants for his party to try to push for. She’s just filling the vaccum left by his lack of leadership.
19 hhr // Oct 26, 2009 at 4:06 am
First I find it odd that people attak her for being “Pro Union” when Sarah Palin and her hsuband are more pro union than she is. Sarah Palin is a former Teamster and SEIU member and a Freelance Union member her husband is a Steelworker. Palin received an “honorary” membership in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Dede Scozzafava: Setting The Record Straight (NY-23)
By Dennis Sanders
Since there are many conservatives that have flooded the blogosphere with basically falsehoods about Dede Scozzafava, the GOP candidate for NY-23, I thought I would repost in its entirety a blog post I found on the liberal blog called the Albany Project. Since many conservatives hard argued that Scozzafava is a radical leftist, you might think this blog would love her right? Well, read on and find out.
A lot of people, including people here in New York, have made the same argument. Part of it has to do with a lack of research on Scozzafava. The other half of it is a lack of information on the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who conservatives call “liberal” and some progressives like Markos have called a “Blue Dog.”
After reading Markos’ post multiple times, it seems he uses the following as important points for his “liberal” labeling of Scozzafava.
robert.harding :: NY-23: Scozzafava’s Record At A Glance
- She has been endorsed in the past by the very progressive Working Families Party.
- She is pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, which puts her at odds with the conservatives in the Republican Party.
- She voted to raise taxes when budgets required it.
First, those three points. The Working Families Party does endorse Republicans and allow them to run on their line. It happens, but they are more likely to back a Democratic candidate. Living in New York, my state senator is George Maziarz. He has been endorsed by the Working Families Party in the past because of his connections to people within the WFP.
For Scozzafava, being backed by the WFP can be contributed to a few things. She ran unopposed in 2008 and was not on the Working Families line when she ran for re-election in 2006. She also was not on the line in the 2002 general election. The only times since redistricting in 2002 that she appeared on the WFP line was in 2004 and 2008. In both elections, she ran unopposed. Therefore, the WFP endorsements were more by default than anything. It’s not as if she had to fight for those endorsements with another candidate.
The pro-choice and pro-marriage equality positions are very good and is a breath of fresh air for a Republican. But just as we don’t like it when Republicans try to define us based on social issues, we should not be guilty of the same when it comes to determining whether someone is progressive or not. Is she progressive on these issues? No doubt. But don’t judge a book by its cover.
The last point of Markos: She voted to raise taxes when budgets required it. In New York, that can be seen as a good and/or bad thing. There are good taxes and fees, bad taxes and fees and others that are somewhere in between. Any good progressive in New York will tell you that not all taxes are good and that not all taxes are bad. There is a middle ground. The problem in New York is that we have had too many regressive taxes and not enough progressive taxation. So giving Scozzafava credit for being liberal on this is misguided for the reasons I have shown.
But aside from Markos’ points, I also wanted to address some of the past votes Scozzafava has cast in the Assembly .
- An important issue for progressives in New York has been Rockefeller Drug Law Reform. A bill (A.6085) was passed in the Assembly and a deal was reached with both houses to reform the broken drug laws that led to extreme sentences for some of the most minor offenses. The roll call vote shows that Scozzafava voted against these reforms.
- Earlier this year, the Assembly passed a comprehensive gun package to combat gun violence and put laws in place to provide for better tracking of guns and provide for more accountability. The package includes 13 bills that were passed in the Assembly. Of those 13 bills, Scozzafava voted for only one. That bill was A.7733 and its purpose is to “Authorizes courts to revoke firearms license and seize the weapons of certain individuals.” Essentially, if the person is a threat to the public, courts could take away the firearms license and weapons of that person.
It is safe to say that Scozzafava is pro-gun and clearly anti-gun control of any kind. (I would give her credit for the single “Yea” vote, but it was a unanimous vote in the Assembly. Every Republican voted for it.)
Also, keep in mind that the package came after the shootings in Binghamton, which was a national news story and led to immediate action in the Assembly.
- Scozzafava’s record on the environment is mixed, at best. She voted against the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, but voted for the Green Jobs bill that was unanimously passed in the Assembly. The Assembly passed a package of environmental bills earlier this year. Of the 14 bills included in the package, Scozzafava voted for six of the bills and against eight of them. These were bills that were supported by progressives and the Democratic conference in the Assembly.
- Scozzafava voted against the Farmworkers Bill of Rights that passed the Assembly. This was seen as a pro-labor and pro-worker bill to support farm laborers who face unpleasant conditions in some instances.
- Voted against a bill that would provide additional compensation for police officers in New York City that use a foreign language in the course of their duties. She also voted against legislation that would give the attorney general jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute police misconduct.
- Voted against regulating the use of “no-knock” warrants and monitoring the use of all search warrants.
- Cast a vote against the 2010 Campaign Finance Reform Act, which would provide “for optional partial public financing of certain election campaigns in this state.” (Here is more on this legislation she voted against.)
- Voted against a bill that would require restaurants (with 15 or more outlets in the U.S.) to post the caloric information of menu items. Also voted against a bill banning trans fats in restaurants.
- Voted against legislation that would strengthen New York’s laws against unfair debt collection practices. Also voted against “legislation requiring debt collection firms to provide consumers a written “Debtor’s Bill of Rights” along with their initial debt collection communication.”
- Voted against expanding foreclosure protections. This bill included protections for tenants in property that is being foreclosed.
- Among the many areas, one area that Scozzafava seems to have a consistent record of voting “no” in is housing. This year, the Assembly has passed 20 pieces of legislation related to housing. Of those 20 bills, Scozzafava voted against several of them. The bills she voted against include: A rent increase cap, rent increases linked to inflation rate, Section 8 housing being included in rent regulation, landlord rental unit recovery, affordable housing preservation, excessive rent increase shield and expansion of the Loft Law.
The reality is this: When people say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, you should take their advice. The “cover” on Scozzafava was that she was this progressive Republican because she was backed by the WFP, supported a woman’s right to choose and has been a supporter of marriage equality. But the “book” tells the whole story (as it usually does). Scozzafava has a few positions that are more liberal (on abortion and marriage equality) but most of her positions are, at best, moderate-to-conservative. More often than not, however, she is a conservative.
One more thing: This statement on Scozzafava’s website came after President Barack Obama’s health care address a couple of weeks ago. One of the ideas she pushes? Tort reform. Not exactly the progressive approach to solving the health care crisis, but it’s one of the first (if not THE first) things brought up by Scozzafava.
The conclusion I draw from looking over numerous pieces of legislation is that Scozzafava on most issues is nothing more than your average Assembly Republican. Most of the votes that she did support the Democratic (or progressive) positions came when the whole Assembly voted unanimously for a bill. Scozzafava’s conservative positions are not reflected in the mainstream media, where she is labeled a “liberal” because of her stances on two social issues that, while important, should never define any candidate and should never be the sole indicator of a candidate’s ideology.
I see Scozzafava as someone who is far from the Glenn Becks of the world. But that doesn’t mean she is not conservative. The modern-day conservative is a different breed, but a lot of what Scozzafava stands for resembles an old school conservative. At best, she’s a moderate with conservative leanings. At worst, she’s a conservative Republican whose liberal stances on two social issues have given her an inaccurate label.
Would she be a Susan Collins-type, as Markos suggested? Probably not. Her record has shown that she hasn’t really been willing to buck the GOP party line on big issues (unless the whole GOP goes along with it). There are worse Republicans than Scozzafava, but she isn’t someone I would depend on to cross party lines and vote on a Democratic (and/or progressive) issue.
http://republicansunited.us/2009/10/ny-23-hopefuls-need-to-discuss-vital-issues/
20 Cforchange // Oct 26, 2009 at 11:18 am
Reason60 @ 6, don’t waste your breath… hhr right on
So Scozzafava isn’t the conservatives dream – get over it and yourself. If you read the Watertown paper – the constituents like her. Read what real NY Staters had to say about this, someone sane please find relief that they are reasonable independent thinking for themselves people.
No American likes anyone meddling in their business. The outside effort really is ridiculous. The meddling – telling others what is good for them has got to stop. It is no different when it comes from the mouth of the right or the left – it stiffles the freedom of individual choice and the GOP mainstream is now limiting this freedom in many regards.
Remember, those in the middle are no longer permitted in the GOP – every day this becomes more clear – the GOP wants you out if you’re not in lockstep. Frum forms this site to examine this problem but then he is guilty himself of chasing out thoughts that aren’t quite his. One can conclude that DF is not capable of tolerating a new majority himself.
Don’t think that the average citizen isn’t just plum sick of the the cash rolling into the community to stage a fight. Too bad these fat pocketed donors can’t pledge funds for cooperative community development efforts. It’s sickening – that’s what people are sick off – the staged division so the only thing that can survive is the political machine. The “people” want to advance peace and prosperity not war. Keep pushing this crap and the 2 party system will be history.
21 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 11:30 am
sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 6:45 pm
” On Intrade.com, they’re still giving 5 to 1 odds against it. You could stand to quadruple your bet at least.”
………..I’ve explained to you before how intrade works……..I haven’t the time to do it again
22 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 11:35 am
Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“Another cloud for which ottovbs will show us the silver lining:”
………I know nothing whatever about the MA governors race nor am I particularly interested, I try to restrict myself to facts and empirical evidence unlike yourself who feels compelled to comment on matters where your knowledge is clearly limited.
23 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 11:38 am
arch // Oct 25, 2009 at 11:14 pm
“I think Pelosi is pushing her agenda in part because of Obama’s unwillingness to risk some reputation and actually lay out what he wants for his party to try to push for. She’s just filling the vaccum left by his lack of leadership.”
……….Have you NO understanding of the political process
24 Churl // Oct 26, 2009 at 4:21 pm
ottovbs, to me the interesting part of the “cloud” article was Obama’s inability to fill the seats of a fund raiser in perhaps our bluest state.
Given your frequent and prompt response comments on anything having to do with Obama’s popularity and poll standings, I thought you would have much to say on this interesting situation.
I’m disappointed.
25 sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 7:07 pm
And this has now happened.
Reid shafted Snowe (who worked harder on health care reform than many Democrats), and went with a public option with a phony opt-out clause, over her strong objections. This he sent to the CBO for scoring. Even worse, Reid didn’t even bother to send Snowe’s alternative–the trigger for a public option–to the CBO for scoring. According to Sen. Durbin, the left-wingers in Congress forced Reid’s hand. And they’re high-fiving each other right now over having shafted Sen. Snowe. To them, she’s just another Republican, the enemy.
arch:
This validates the GOP’s refusal to have anything to do with the health reform effort. They would have just ended up shafted the same way.
Oh well, at least now we can dismiss Obama’s “change the tone in Washington” claptrap as lies.
It’s pretty clear now what we’re facing: A rabidly partisan left-wing Administration which doesn’t give a damn about anyone else’s point of view.
So be it.
26 agentprovocateur // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:54 pm
It’s pretty clear now what we’re facing: A rabidly partisan left-wing Administration which doesn’t give a damn about anyone else’s point of view.
Rabidly partisan left-wing? Hahahaha. Tell that to anyone who wants a single-payer health care system, or even a full and robust public option. Hell, to the left, a public option is the comprimise to what they really want. But keep telling yourself that the Obama Administration is just so very “left-wing”.
27 Arch // Oct 26, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Sinz:
Call me wide eyed but I don’t think it had to go down this way. The whitehouse would have loved a bipartisan bill if they could get maybe ten republicans. Ten republican votes would have gotten a lot of concessions because it would have been genuinely valuable. Ten votes would have let the democrats free their more conservative members to vote against the bill and Obama would love to claim a bipartisan victory and imply he is the post-partisan candidate his supporters thought he was. Hell he wanted to do so with only one republican. Instead the offer was just (maybe) Snowe’s vote and maybe she’d bring along Collins. To win those two the far left of the democratic party gets snubbed. Of course this implies that the whitehouse would actually have gotten involved in the bill instead of leaving it to the congress to come up with it’s own version.
28 Addie // Oct 27, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Republican party is tying too hard to be like democrats. They NEVER should have named Dede BUT…someone knows someone who knows someone and they nominate a liberal democrat to act as a “republican” and the GOP tucks it’s tail, pees all over the floor, and rolls over on it’s back showing it’s ever growing inferiority!
As a former life long republican, I have no sympathy for the republican party. It’s moves like this (Dede) that tells me the republicans don’t care about this country any more then the democrats do. Unfortunately I can’t vote for Hoffman but I can happily send him a donation while tearing up the donation request envelopes from the republican party.
Wake up republicans or 2010 will allow the dems to have a 75% majority in the next election because I am not alone when I say, I would rather waste my vote on a 3rd party then EVER give it to a RINO. If there is no 3rd party, I will vote for the democrat, at least he isn’t the fraud in the race.
I didn’t leave the republican party, the party left me!
You must log in to post a comment.