What Did NY-23 Mean?

[Disclosure: I worked with the Doug Hoffman campaign. However, the views here are my own. I have not discussed this at all with the Hoffman campaign.]

The bottom line on NY-23:

  • Doug Hoffman just won the Republican Primary. The general election is next year.
  • There are two broken, corrupt, arrogant political parties we need to defeat.  We beat the Republican establishment in 2009.  We'll beat the Democratic Party in 2010.
  • NY-23 is not really about Conservatives VS Moderates.  It is about the Establishment VS the Movement.

What happened in NY-23:

For years, the conventional wisdom has been that blue state Republicans had to nominate a "not too hot, not too cold" candidate - what my friend Max Borders called a Keynesian political strategy of tweaking the policy variables until you get a candidate whose positions seem most appealing to the most people.  Like Keynesian economic tinkering, it all works very well....until some fundamental shift reveals the underlying artificiality, and it all falls apart.

Political parties gain power by standing for something appealing.  But when a party gains power, it loses definition.  Rather than standing for something appealing and well-defined, they try to stand for anything appealing enough to win.  But you can only tinker so much before you destroy the brand that people had elected, and then you become the minority again.

The minority is where Parties and movements go to be reborn.  There, they have to figure out who they are, and what their mission is.  You can't storm the castle until you're all facing the same direction and focused on the same goals.  Sometimes - as in NY-23 - that involves telling the establishment "Thank you, but our mission is in another castle" (If I might borrow political wisdom from Super Mario Bros).

The establishment GOP - the NY GOP, the NRCC, the RNC and a few prominent Republicans - got behind another establishment GOP type in Dede Scozzafava. In any other recent year, she would have sailed through.  Not in 2009.

The public - including moderates, libertarians and alienated Republicans - has grown much more nervous about Democratic governance.  The Tea Party movement is just one manifestation of the sparks that are flying, but it goes far deeper than that, and the establishment GOP has been oblivious to, or dismissive of, these sparks. With Dede Scozzafava, the establishment Republican Party threw gasoline on top of the sparks and a brushfire erupted.  The result was the quintessential "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" campaign of Doug Hoffman.

What NY-23 Is About

The story of NY-23 is not "conservatives beat moderates" or "conservative loses to Democrat".

The story of NY-23 is "the Right starts dismantling the Republican establishment."  This is about how the Republican Party is defined and who defines it.

Right now, the movement wants the Republican Party to be defined by opposition to big government. Gradually, as new leaders arise, we will demand that the Republican Party be defined by its own solutions, as well, but rebuilding is an incremental process. We can hammer out the policy agenda and the boundaries of the coalition later.

For now, our job is to disrupt the establishment GOP.  If we beat Democrats while we're at it, great. But the first priority is to fix the Drunk Party - the Living Dead establishment Republicans. They're history. They just don't know it yet.

NY-23 was the first shot in that war.  It was a direct hit.  Next year, we start storming the castle.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (6 votes)



Here's the problem.  You define "conservatism" as "whatever elected Republicans agree with" and "whatever garners high ACU ratings".  I don't.  I define conservatism as adherence to core principles of limited government, personal responsibility and strong national defense.

That's how the ACU defines it, as well.

Here's another look at McCain's lifetime ACU ratings.  His rating puts him in 39th place.  This isn't exactly a stellar performance.  Are you of the impression that a rating of 80% means that he's 80% conservative?  Wrong.  ACU, like everybody else, cherry-picks votes that are important to them and rate candidates accordingly.  So a politician that receives a rating of 80% doesn't mean that they are 80% conservative, it means that they only voted according to the wishes of ACU (which does not encompass the totality of conservatism) on 80% of the votes that ACU chose.  You have merely substituted one form of cherry-picking for another.

Oh, and let's also point out that McCain  received a mere 54% rating from Club for Growth, a 75% rating from National Right to Life Committee (which is low for a Republican) and an ACLU rating of 50% (which is high for a Republican),  If McCain is such a rock-star conservative, why did he receive these ratings?

McCain was not well received at CPAC.  He is reviled for his pro-amnesty views.

At what point will you wake up and realize that despite whatever you read about McCain's ACU rating, we conservatives don't count him as being among us?

I see you did not want to address any of my other points with regards to conservatism.  I don't understand you.  You think you already understand conservatism without knowing anything about it.  You won't listen when one tries to tell you what conservatism is.  I would not deign to lecture a nuclear physicist on what nuclear physics is.  I would not dictate to a composer on what constitutes a great symphony.  But you are here to tell me, a conservative, what conservatism really is?  The arrogance is astounding.

But who am I kidding.  You are the guy who thinks conservatives are pro-police state.  As if it's the Republicans who are in favor of throwing you in jail if you don't have health insurance.

All of these orgs cherry

All of these orgs cherry pick--I've been writing about that for about 10 years. The difference is that, while you pick three or four votes out of decades-long careers (and misrepresent many of them), the ACU looks at a much broader cross-section of a candidate's overall record, and they do it every year, year after year. Their "lifetime" scores often encompass hundreds upon hundreds of votes, spanning decades. That's a more accurate picture than you've even attempted to paint anywhere, and it's so dishonest to even suggest otherwise that it amounts to a complete lie.

Elsewhere in this thread, I've been dealing with insane claims by you and others that the Republican "establishment" is run by "moderates" or "RINOs" or even "liberals" and are supporting such candidates over conservative ones. By way of doing so, I've been pointing out that the Republican party is as far to the right at this moment as it has been in the lifetime of anyone reading these words. By noting that McCain's 82.3% ACU rating only lands him as the 39th most conservative Senator, you helped make that case for me. He only disagreed with the ACU--hardcore conservatives--17.7% of the time, and even that only puts him at #39. Thanks for the assist, even if you did just utterly shoot yourself in the foot yet again.

Your run-down of McCain's other interest-group ratings is just as ill-informed as most of the rest of what you've written.

McCain "only" getting 75% from the National Right to Life Committee is, you tell us, "low for a Republican" (again, helping make my point about the Republicans' present extreme conservatism), but what you fail to mention is why he isn't 100%. It certainly isn't because he's pro-choice on abortion--McCain has a zero rating from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL. The source of NRTL's disagreement is McCain's support of stem-cell research, and of campaign finance reform. As Charlotte Allen noted in the Weekly Standard, "theyr'e not fighting about abortion." McCain was, in fact, "far and away the most consistently anti-abortion of all the top contenders."

McCain's 54% rating from the Club for Growth in 2008 is largely based on his support of the bailouts that year--the Club wanted the government to allow the economy to collapse, instead. My feelings on the bailouts are probably closer to the Club's, but those were tough votes on which any fair observer would have to allow that people can legitimately disagree. McCain received a 100% rating from the Club in the previous year.

McCain's alleged 50% rating by the ACLU doesn't exist at all.  The ACLU issues ratings every two years for every new congress. McCain's actual ACLU rating from the 110th Congress was 17%--he voted with them a grand total of once in two years. He did slightly better, at 33% in the 109th Congress, but it was for such radical things as voting to continue the 1965 Voting Rights Act (it was passed by the Senate unanimously), and on voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which was certainly no pro-gay-rights vote. McCain is simply an old-shcool state's rights conservative who believes in leaving such matters to the indiviual states. The same issue helped give McCain a 22% rating in the 108th Congress. In the 107th, he didn't vote with the ACLU once. His lifetime ACLU rating is 19%, which means he averages no more than one or two votes with them a year.

The same can't be said for his voting record with George Bush. As I've already pointed out, McCain voted with Bush on practically everything (Bush's staunchest ally in the Senate), and Bush had an overhwhelming approval rating from conservatives throughout those years.

McCain has also drawn a rating of 80%-100% from the Christian Coalition in all but one year of this century, and has a 100% rating from Americans For Prosperity--that's one of the two major astroturf groups behind the teabaggers for both the 109th and 110th Congress (which is as far back as those ratings go). And so on.

Once again, any assertion that McCain is anything other than a staunch conservative is delusional, and representative of the insane mindset of those making the claim.

...which brings us nicely back to the actual subject of these exchanges, the delusional nature of those among the conservatives who think the Republican party isn't conservative enough, and that the most important thing they can do right now is crush any deviation from "purist" notions. You've done nothing to dispell that characterization, and a great deal to prove it.


Sigh.  You completely miss the point about these ACU rankings and the like.  Suppose there are 10 votes in the Senate on socialism, and Senator X votes against all of them.  Senator X would receive an ACU rating of 100% because ACU is also opposed to socialism.  But that 100% rating says nothing about Senator X's true views on socialism.  It could be that Senator X simply disagreed on slight details, or that the Senator does not support hard-core socialism but supports instead "socialism-lite".  Sorry, that's not a conservative senator, despite the 100% rating.  Here is one more example.  When has there been a vote on instituting a flat tax?  To my knowledge there has never been a vote on this in Congress.  Republicans talk about it but they don't even bring it up.  So it never even enters into the ACU rating because there was never any vote held.  Why didn't elected Republicans bring it to a vote when they were in charge?  Because, I believe, they don't fundamentally agree with it.

Again the ACU rating is not an absolute scale of conservatism.  It is relative to the votes ACU believes are important, and it is also relative to the votes that have taken place, notnecessarily the votes that conservatives want to have been held.

Besides, your characterization of "hard-core conservative" doesn't pass the self-consistency test.  If McCain is such a rock-ribbed conservative, why is he booed at the CPAC convention?  Why does he get, at best, lukewarm responses from other solid conservatives?  Why is he, and Lindsey Graham as well, so proud to admit, publicly, that he is a "maverick" and that he diverges from mainstream conservative views on stem cells, global warming, amnesty, campaign finance, etc., etc.?  If McCain was such a hard-core conservative, you'd think he'd be embraced by other hard-core conservatives.  But he's not.  Maybe, JUST MAYBE, he's not as hard-core as you claim he is.  Maybe, JUST MAYBE, we conservatives are better than you at defining what conservatism is.

Furthermore, in your scheme of categorizing conservative purity, you have yet to demonstrate how the policies of "hard-core conservatives" like Bush and McCain are consistent with conservative principles.  Precisely how is cap-and-trade (supported by McCain) a conservative view?  Precisely how is expanding federal entitlements (Bush's Medicare Part D) or declaring amnesty for illegal immigrants consistent with conservative principles?  How is enlarging the federal education bureaucracy (NCLB) consistenw with conservative principles?  Explain that one.

So your decision to base your entire assessment of a conservative's "purity" on ACU ratings is fatally flawed.  THAT is why I bring up my personal experiences with conservatism.  If you want to know how to make a meal, you ask a cook; if you want to know how to mix chemicals, you ask a chemist; if you want to know how to play the piano, you ask a pianist.  Similarly, if you want to know about conservatism, you ask a conservative.

OK, let's ask conservatives

 OK, self-identified conservatives, what would you do if you were in control?

January, 2009, WaPo: Overall, 68 percent of Republicans approve of the job the president did, but partisan views on Bush are further split by ideology. Among conservative Republicans, he is a resounding success: 82 percent approve, 53 percent strongly. 

In other words, if they had a chance to do it all over again and inflict another divorced-from-reality eight years upon the nation, they would.

Putting the conservatives in charge fits Einstein's definition of insanity.

Who decides?

ClassicLiberal2 is right.  Henke is trying to have it both ways.  He wants to decide who is and is not conservative. 

A lot of people here seem to be missing the point.  This isn't about hitting litmus tests and being sufficiently "far right".  I thought I made that pretty clear.

You did say it, then you made it clear you didn't mean it, as CL2 pointed out.  Right away, you continue with:

This is about some definition of the GOP that doesn't amount to "as fuzzy as we need to be to win."

The GOP is a club, defined by its members.  You didn't agree with the local GOP decision -- it wasn't a decision you would have made -- so you sabotaged their candidate. 

The bigger picture, Henke, is that you are full of %^&*.  You say you want "new ideas" but you can't produce a single one.  You say you want some diversity of opinion within the Republican party but you can't produce a single "non conservative" position you would tolerate.  Is there a place for someone who is a fiscal conservative and supports small government and yet supports unions?  Is there a place for someone who believes in "Christian" values (anti abortion, anti gay marriage) and yet thinks Christian forgiveness requires an amnesty for illegal residents?  Not in Limbaugh/Palin land, which is what the Republican party is becoming.


I've written a good deal about new ideas and policies.  Particularly about tax policy and transparency.

I support Unions.  I think the right to voluntary association and voluntary collective bargaining should be inviolable in a free market.

I also support gay marriage, and I believe we should distinguish between civil and religious conceptions of marriage - with neither imposing obligations on the other.

I also support much more free, easy, streamlined immigration for any non-violent people.  If somebody wants to come to the United States to work hard and pursue a better life for themselves and their families, I think that's terrific.  That's the most "American" behavior I know.

I also believe that anthropogenic global warming is well-supported by scientific evidence, and that government has a legitimate role in addressing an actual commons issue.

But yeah, I "can't produce a single "non conservative" position you would tolerate."  Spot on observation, lgm.

However, the fact that I differ with some Republicans on those issues does not mean that I support the Democratic policies on those issues.  And I don't intend to bend to any "if you believe A, then you must support Democratic solution X" browbeating.

But yeah, I "can't produce a

But yeah, I "can't produce a single "non conservative" position you would tolerate."  Spot on observation, lgm.

Honestly, though, while you may take those positions, you support politicians who are utterly opposed to all of them, which makes them distinctions without much of a difference. A Republican candidate who gave voice to opinions such as those would face the same fate as Scozzafava, which brings this all full circle, because you supported the jihad against Scozzafava over these very things. Though it hardly helps your argument here, you could say those issues you've outlined aren't important enough for you to break with your conservative comrades, but then, in order to rationalize the Scozzafava thing, you have to come up with something that sufficiently outweighs your professed desire for greater diversity to justify support for the jihad. Unfortunately, in this case, there isn't anything--heavy, light, or anything in between--that weighs on the other side. As I've already noted, you were battling an imaginary enemy in this "Republican establishment" that goes all over the country backing "moderates" and "RINOs" and "Democrat-lite" candidates, instead of conservatives. All you did was cost the Republican party--which, in the real world, is farther to the right now than it has been in the lifetime of anyone reading these words--a set it has held for 150 years.

Now, I don't come here to beat up on you. I think you have an interesting experiment, and a noble goal in trying to sever the nuttiest of the nutcases from the party. You can't be both for them and against them, though, Jon. I think you need to rethink some things.


Pointing out that somebody disagrees with a politician on some issues but supports them anyway is slightly less remarkable than pointing out that somebody doesn't enjoy waking up in the morning, yet they do it anyway.   I'm pretty sure you vote for politicians with whom you disagree sometimes, too.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that I liked Scozzafava or supported her views.   I'll let you beat the hell out of that strawman all by yourself.

Pointing out that somebody

Pointing out that somebody disagrees with a politician on some issues but supports them anyway is slightly less remarkable than pointing out that somebody doesn't enjoy waking up in the morning, yet they do it anyway.   I'm pretty sure you vote for politicians with whom you disagree sometimes, too.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that I liked Scozzafava or supported her views.   I'll let you beat the hell out of that strawman all by yourself.

Jon, I refuse to believe what I outlined above went this far over your head. I'm not here to beat up on you, but do be serious.

Dude, Scozza was endorsed by Kos and Working Families Party

There was a reason for the revolt. 

Dede ran to the Left of Owens. Had there been no Hoffman, Palin and others would have been within their rights to endorse the Democrat. Owens is a Blue Dog. It's not as if the Democrats were running Barney Frank in that district. 

She would probably have done a Specter on us once in the House. That just is what it is.

Let me help you out, Jon.

Let me help you out, Jon. Having worked in the Doug Hoffman campaign, you are to close to understand what a disaster that venture really was.

(1) Never pick a candidate who does not live in the district, it will automatically turn a segment of the population off…<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

(2) Do not pick a candidate who is unable to discuss local issues. Not only was Hoffman from outside the district, but he repeatedly displayed ignorance as to the major issues of the 32nd District. That was best summarized during his conversation with the Watertown Daily Tribune.<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

(3) Do not make your major campaign issues ideological purity. Once Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, and Family Research Council take over the ship, you may have increased cash flow, agitated segments of the population to become vocal, but you have constrained your ability to broaden the issues that will need discussion.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Why a disaster? You took a functioning Republican Party and destroyed it. The odds it will cave to the Conservative Party in 2010 are zero, and rest assured that Doug Hoffman without out outside money is non entity. And this is nonsense:

Right now, the movement wants the Republican Party to be defined by opposition to big government. Gradually, as new leaders arise, we will demand that the Republican Party be defined by its own solutions, as well, but rebuilding is an incremental process. We can hammer out the policy agenda and the boundaries of the coalition later. (My italics, OP)

This will come as shock to you, Jon. Ideological purity has set the policy agenda, and the boundaries have been set to ensure no coalitions can possibly take place. The portal for entry has been narrowed, any solution to our problems that involves government is excluded.<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->


Psst 1#: If you crawl into the same ideological tunnel as Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann, and the air waves hateful twins, you may get stuck down there, and find out that it will be impossible crawl back out...<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

Pssst 2#: Bad news, Lindsey Graham, has once again shown that he is not a true lockstep conservative, to wit:

“To those people who are pursuing purity, you’ll become a club not a party,” Graham told POLITICO in the Capitol Wednesday. “Those people who are trying to embrace conservatism in a thoughtful way that fits the region and the state and the district are going to do well. Conservatism is an asset. Blind ideology is not.”

Sigh, if you are in the stands, it is hard to keep score as to who is a despised RINO…


The link to the Watertown Daily Times can be found here:


Linsy Graham's interview with Politico can be found here:



But, John, most who agree w/you on those issues vote Democratic,

 even if they have small gov't, conservative tendencies . . . 

Original, new idea

Mr. Henke, your "new ideas" are like the recent Republican "balanced budget bill".  You talk about them but they don't exist.  "opt out" was an idea.  Dean's "50 state strategy" was an idea.  Even "cash for clunkers" was an idea.  What's your idea?  As near as I can tell from reading this blog for a while, it's to start a blog and see if anyone has any ideas.

You say you're a heterodox conservative because you support gay marriage and card check and global warming.  But these are exactly the views that made Scozzafava a RINO.  You agree with Scozzafava but support Hoffman --- why?  Pardon the analogy, but that puts you in the "Roy Cohn" wing of the Republican party.  Cohn was the guy who helped McCarthy hound gays while being gay himself (to avoid taking this too far, I wish you long healthy life).

You seem to agree with Scozzafava, support heterodoxy, and federalism (local control of local affairs), yet you supported a candidacy that violated all three of these principles.  Outside orthodox ideologues sabotaged the choice of local Republicans. 

It's not just me who thinks you are nuts.  Newt Gingrich is maybe the only living Republican who organized a winning movement based on a new conservative idea -- the "Contract with America". 

You say you're a heterodox

You say you're a heterodox conservative because you support gay marriage and card check and global warming.  But these are exactly the views that made Scozzafava a RINO.  You agree with Scozzafava but support Hoffman --- why?  Pardon the analogy, but that puts you in the "Roy Cohn" wing of the Republican party.

That's a pretty harsh way to put it, but maybe more harshness is appropriate. I tried to spell it out for him earlier; he just pretended as though he didn't understand. I don't think brother Henke is nuts. I just don't think that, like most conservatives (particularly young ones), he too often doesn't give a great deal of thought to what he sometimes says and does. He favors a bigger tent for conservatives, then he's trying to bump off a moderate Republican in the name of ideological purity. He's against the nutters, birthers, WorldNutDaily-ists on some days, then he's backing those same elements in their jihad on others. He favors gay marriage, believes in science, rather than voodoo, when it comes to global warming, and so on, but casts his lot with those  for whom those issues are an excommunicable offense. Some people will inevitably look at what he writes and sense a crude shell-game. I suspect it's just a young conservative who doesn't quite know what he is yet, and who is publicly arguing with himself over the matter. Could be wrong. The only other alternatives are that he's either nuts or a complete imbecile, and I don't see a particularly strong case for either of those. Still, he needs to figure out who he is soon. I think he's doing harm to himself with these sorts of things, and I'd rather he be effective.

We Movement Conservatives remain off target, however...

...and out of phase. Why? We know something is drastically wrong and, for certain, we, our Constitution and our Nation are under attack/siege by the left.  We're fighting hard but we have no winning  "Grand Strategy" - which is why we're steadily losing ground.  Lets not be in denial about that - we are losing. Tuesdays victory was for establishment Republicans - not Movement Conservatives.  Doug Hoffman, a good man and conservative, was too vague and general in his message.   U.S. voters want  specifics.  No generalizations!  Yet all we get are vague sound bites from conservatives.  Why?  Because we don't want to progress to the next  logical (and higher) level of conservatism.  Which is?..... DD

Not uncommon

Movement Conservativism is rabidly anti-intellectual.  That's why you lack a grand strategy- you've systematically driven the people capable of strategy out of the movement. 

"you've systematically driven

"you've systematically driven the people capable of strategy out of the movement...."  

I agree with this portion of your statement.  Not the other. The problem is we are top-heavy with intellectuals who's priority is to protect their little patch of turf at all costs. 

Care to name a few?

Let me list a few of the guiding lights of movement conservativism:

Sarah Palin.

Michele Bachmann.

Joe Wilson.

Erick Erickson.

Glenn Beck.

Rush Limbaugh.

Ann Coulter.

That's a list with exactly no intellectuals.  Demagogues, sure, but those aren't the same thing.  Not even close.

The closest you have to actual intellectuals are people like Rove (who only seems intellectual because he's actual thoughtful, rather than reactionary, about electioneering but he's not remotely a policy guy).  When National Review editors are viewed as too intellectual you're way below hoi polloi.  

Must work harder

The problem is that we must work harder.  After all, if we can't win a district that we won every year since the Civil War, then we must apply the strategy in more competitive districts! If we can't win a district that was gerrymandeded to corral the republicans, then we must hire more conslutants to give us bad advice.  Its not like we won the district by 40% in 1996, 40% in 2000, 40% in 2004, and 30% in 2008! These were close elections! We should have won by 50%!  We must work harder!

Let's run candidates that don't even live in the district they want to represent.  Hey, voters are so stupid they dont' get this representational democracy thing! They'll just vote for him anyway!  Know the issues? You don't betcha! Just say that Obama is a black Kenyan nazi that wants to kill your grandma and be done with it!  Our base sucks that up hook line and sinker!  We'll fabricate some birth certificates found by fake pimps and hos and be done with it.  Fox News will broadcast it.  They broadcast anything.

Splitting the vote is a great strategy too. We should do that more often.  Maybe the problem is that we only ran 1 competing candidate. Next time we should run 2! Or even 3!  That'll divide up the money and give us twice or even three times the odds of winning! It's kinda like buying lottery tickets, the more you buy the more chances to win you have!  Right?  Think you can get me a job with one of your campaigns?  I think I got at least what Palin has, maybe more. At least I can name the last book I read.  Hop on Pop!  A page turner!


Sooo clever

 Nice to see liberals are still getting a thrill using the word teabaggers. Pathetic.

The funny part

is that you had all these stuffy conservatives who were just dying to be taken seriously and they go out and call themselves by a term that's used for a sexual act they never even thought of.

That's where the humor comes from.  These people are so out of touch with popular culture that its comical.  By the way that's something that comes from insisting that you have your own tv channel, your own youtube, your own search engine, and your own wikipedia.  You become divorced from the overarching society by a self imposed apartheid.

Makes me giggle.


 Gay sex practices are not part of any popular culture I'm familiar with. But hey, at least YOU'RE amused.

Teabagging is a 'gay sex practice'?!


Like 'anal sex' is a 'gay sex practice'?

I get it--they aren't christian conservative sex practices. So they must be gay practices!

The joke is on culturally miopic, insular people like you; and you prove it.


The Scary Bit about NY-23 and RINOs

Thank you for nicely summarizing the situation. However, one thing you said terrifies me.

"The establishment GOP - the NY GOP, the NRCC, the RNC and a few prominent Republicans - got behind another establishment GOP type in Dede Scozzafava. In any other recent year, she would have sailed through.  Not in 2009."

So, let's suppose the year is any other year and the Scozzer sails through. Next primary season, Hoffman comes along and successfully unseats her. (Like Tim Walberg did here in MI.) Then the RINO endorses the Democrat in the general election. It isn't as if we haven't seen this scenario played out a half-dozen times with other RINOs.

The scary bit is that the RNC has to figure that every RINO is only Republican as long as it's convenient. B/c s/he's a "moderate" there's plenty of room for her in the Democrat party. Going Arlan Specter is no big deal. Conversely, if you're a conservative, there's no conservative alternative for you to endorse to whom you can throw the election when you lose a primary.

Thus an RNC who doesn't like the feeling of knife blades between its shoulder blades should think twice before foisting a centerist on the party. I'm not saying we should kick moderates out of the Repubican party, I'm saying that if you back someone she had better actually be a Republican.




"there's no conservative alternative for you to endorse"

Actually, there are several. Golf. Football. Trips to Florida. You just bail out from politics for the autumm and see how the RINO runs without us. Usually not well.

Who voted in NY-23

The Democratic win in NY-23 should be put in the context of the swing to the left over the past few elections of areas close to the Canadian border. This dates back to 2004 and is responsible for Kerry carrying New Hampshire.

I blame Canadian illegal aliens.

Dede Scozzafava speaks out

An interview with Dede can be found here:


Its all about ideological purity and who can play in the sandbox. And if you are going to limit who plays in the sandbox, you need a bully to close down access. This is what you cannot be:

  • Any libertarian who believes the government should not intrude in private matters. Believe that abortion is a private matter between a women, her physician, and faith counseler. Sorry, no entrance.
  • Favor government regulation of commerce, sorry buddy, go someplace else.
  • In time of impending depression the government should step in to stimulate the economy and extend unemployment insurance. Keep moving Mister, we really do not like that kind of thinking.
  • Regulate the Health Care Insurance Industry to reign in spirriling cost and consumer rip offs. What are you some kind of a nut...
  • etc...

Read the interview with Dede and you will understand that her views are Libertarian/Republican. Rejoice, the same crowd that destroyed the Republican Party in upsate New York is moving into Florida's Cristi vs. Rubio contest. Got problems facing our Nation, do not come here, we are surrounded by RINOs that we have to get rid of. And then, we will shrink the government, ignore health care and cut taxes!


Crist vs Rubio, Perry vs KBH, CA races...more Red matter please


Drill, baby, drill!