NY 23rd - Republican Drops Out of Race

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/BREAKING_Scozzafava_drops_out_of_NY_23.html


Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her bid in next Tuesday’s NY 23 special election, a huge development that dramatically shakes up the race. She did not endorse either of her two opponents -- Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman or Democrat Bill Owens.

[MRoCkEd]

now have a libertarian run against these two.. lol

[New York For Paul]

Just goes to show you what a little grassroots agitation can do.

[winston_blade]

So this could be the first third party candidate to go to congress in a very long time, eh?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So this could be the first third party candidate to go to congress in a very long time, eh?

Yep. Since Ron Paul. We all know Ron Paul is a Libertarian, he even ran as their President nominee in 1988! :D He is, like us, trying to change the GOP from it's neo-con ways to libertarianism and a return to the Howard Buffets and Charles Lindbergh's.

This is the best time since the 70's for third parties. If the LP flounders this, I'll be severely disappointed. We need to run libertarian GOP, Democrats (Larry McDonalds), and LP members in every race.

[klamath]

I don't think I care that much about this conservative party candidate but I love the fact that the GOP leadership got slapped in the face. Maybe they will realize the that "fringe extremist" group is big and the long time party faithful are fed up

[Imperial]

The last time an independent was in the House I want to say was 2000 with Virgil Goode (when he wasn't a Republican). Not sure though.

I know there was a Conservative Party Senator in the 1970s who wasn't a Republican- he ran in a 3 way race where a liberal Repbulican and a Democrat split the vote. When in 76 he ran as a Republican and Conservative he lost majorly.

[boat6868]

I think this is so huge. I also think it is to Dede's credit to step out of the race and avoid splitting the conservative vote. But I think we got lucky here. Third party is not the way to go...we've got to take back the Republican party. 3rd party may work against the cause of Liberty in New Jersey. (I know Christie may not be the ideal for many of you but he is much better than the alternative in what is a very liberal state)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think this is so huge. I also think it is to Dede's credit to step out of the race and avoid splitting the conservative vote. But I think we got lucky here. Third party is not the way to go...we've got to take back the Republican party. 3rd party may work against the cause of Liberty in New Jersey. (I know Christie may not be the ideal for many of you but he is much better than the alternative in what is a very liberal state)

Ladies and Gents. This is the kind of thought process that got us into this mess in the first place. We have to avoid this pitfall with every fiber in our body. No, 3rd parties do not work against liberty. We have to take back both parties, or at least try AND promote and work with the LP. We need more than a duopoly. Besides, when we start to interject the ideas of third parties (Libertarian Party) into the national view that will be a huge victory.

Remember, Ron Paul ran as the LP Presidential Nominee in 1988. He got about 1% of the vote. Then we had Perot in '92.

There is no such thing as "better" when both advocate trampling on our rights. That's not better if one person just does it less than another. What kind of crap shit is that? Is there a LP member running for NJ Governor? What are his stances? If they are better than both the D and R then vote for him/her. People wake up, the two party system doesn't work. (That isn't to say don't try and work within, but from the RLC members getting purged, to matt getting purged, to the fiasco with Ron in NV and other primaries, it isn't looking too great right now)

[erowe1]

I think this is so huge. I also think it is to Dede's credit to step out of the race and avoid splitting the conservative vote. But I think we got lucky here. Third party is not the way to go...we've got to take back the Republican party. 3rd party may work against the cause of Liberty in New Jersey. (I know Christie may not be the ideal for many of you but he is much better than the alternative in what is a very liberal state)

Dede wasn't splitting the conservative vote. She was splitting the liberal vote. Hoffman already had the entire conservative vote. Now, with Dede out of the race, her support will overwhelmingly go to the Democrat. Thus, her bowing out was the best way to endure Hoffman's defeat. It was quite shrewd on the part of the Republicrats, really.

[boat6868]

Austrian Econ Disciple... OK what do I know...I'm just some smuck in PA who missed the 2008 Ron Paul Revolution. I should just walk away from this argument because I am no great student of politics and political history...but you know what, I can't...because your purist attitude just totally pisses me off.

You apparently live in an ideal world where only a candidate who meets EVERY ONE OF YOUR BELIEFS is worthy of your vote...and on that you will stand...WITH NO STRATEGIC REGARD TO WHO IS ACTUALLY GOING TO GOVERN THE NEXT 4 YEARS. I want conservatives/republicans to win these elections next week because I want the blue dog democrats to be SHITTING THEMSELVES with worry whether they will be re-elected if they chose to go along with all of this radical left crap.

I don't believe we have many election cycles left in order to get the country back on the right track and my immediate concern is that the agenda of the left be dramatically slowed down because if it is not slowed down it is going to be that much harder for good men like Rand Paul to actually right the ship when they arrive in 2011.

What is your point about RP running for pres in the LP in 1988 and then Perot in '92. Are you saying that was momentum? I actually liked Perot (from a fiscal perspective...frankly, I don't remember what his other positions were) but the reason he was able to get the votes he did is not only because of his ideas but because he spent a tremendous amount from his personal fortune. It takes money and it is hard to go against the money of the machine. I read about good liberty candidates on here and elsewhere who have a hard time coming up with $10,0000-$50,0000. Ron Paul and Rand Paul are smart enough to make their runs from within one of the two parties because they know that otherwise they would likely just be voices in the wilderness who would never have the opportunity to cast a vote as a member of congress. What if Ron Paul had run every race as a Liberterian party candidate? Would he have ever gotten to cast a vote as as member of congress? How many more people would never have heard of him? I'm not saying running as a third party candidate is not possible...but it has to be in the right district. In New Jersey there is a possibility that the third party candidate will take away enough of the Christie vote so that Corzine will be re-elected...but I guess that doesn't matter to you because one is as bad as the other in your eyes since neither of them meet all of your criteria.

As to your assertion that there is no "better" when people are trampling on your rights...well, I may be just a simple country boy but I totally disagree with that. I think there are many shades of gray and if we can keep ourselves from getting farther down the wrong path by going one direction than another then I say one is better than the other.

I would like to see people who share at least SOME of my ideals back at the wheel to try to keep this country from going over a cliff.


erowe1...that's not how I'm hoping it goes down...we'll know in a couple days.

[TinCanToNA]

Austrian Econ Disciple... OK what do I know...I'm just some smuck in PA who missed the 2008 Ron Paul Revolution. I should just walk away from this argument because I am no great student of politics and political history...but you know what, I can't...because your purist attitude just totally pisses me off.

You apparently live in an ideal world where only a candidate who meets EVERY ONE OF YOUR BELIEFS is worthy of your vote...and on that you will stand...WITH NO STRATEGIC REGARD TO WHO IS ACTUALLY GOING TO GOVERN THE NEXT 4 YEARS. I want conservatives/republicans to win these elections next week because I want the blue dog democrats to be SHITTING THEMSELVES with worry whether they will be re-elected if they chose to go along with all of this radical left crap.

I don't believe we have many election cycles left in order to get the country back on the right track and my immediate concern is that the agenda of the left be dramatically slowed down because if it is not slowed down it is going to be that much harder for good men like Rand Paul to actually right the ship when they arrive in 2011.

What is your point about RP running for pres in the LP in 1988 and then Perot in '92. Are you saying that was momentum? I actually liked Perot (from a fiscal perspective...frankly, I don't remember what his other positions were) but the reason he was able to get the votes he did is not only because of his ideas but because he spent a tremendous amount from his personal fortune. It takes money and it is hard to go against the money of the machine. I read about good liberty candidates on here and elsewhere who have a hard time coming up with $10,0000-$50,0000. Ron Paul and Rand Paul are smart enough to make their runs from within one of the two parties because they know that otherwise they would likely just be voices in the wilderness who would never have the opportunity to cast a vote as a member of congress. What if Ron Paul had run every race as a Liberterian party candidate? Would he have ever gotten to cast a vote as as member of congress? How many more people would never have heard of him? I'm not saying running as a third party candidate is not possible...but it has to be in the right district. In New Jersey there is a possibility that the third party candidate will take away enough of the Christie vote so that Corzine will be re-elected...but I guess that doesn't matter to you because one is as bad as the other in your eyes since neither of them meet all of your criteria.

As to your assertion that there is no "better" when people are trampling on your rights...well, I may be just a simple country boy but I totally disagree with that. I think there are many shades of gray and if we can keep ourselves from getting farther down the wrong path by going one direction than another then I say one is better than the other.

I would like to see people who share at least SOME of my ideals back at the wheel to try to keep this country from going over a cliff.


erowe1...that's not how I'm hoping it goes down...we'll know in a couple days.
Be careful on this forum. There's a lot more passion than intelligence floating around here, so be wary.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Be careful on this forum. There's a lot more passion than intelligence floating around here, so be wary.

I consider myself to be fairly well educated, thanks.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Austrian Econ Disciple... OK what do I know...I'm just some smuck in PA who missed the 2008 Ron Paul Revolution. ... I may be just a simple country boy but I ... would like to see people who share at least SOME of my ideals back at the wheel to try to keep this country from going over a cliff.


erowe1...that's not how I'm hoping it goes down...we'll know in a couple days.

I'll always rather hang with the country boyz. Both are important, but country boys are much better at alerting the sleeping giant... (People like Tom Woods are the exception rather than the rule) I am real glad you found your way here. We are a rowdy bunch and tend to bicker like family at times, but great folk for the most part. There is an ignore feature, though I've never used it and don't know how off hand...


Be careful on this forum. There's a lot more passion than intelligence floating around here, so be wary.

That is not to discount the intelligence, I hope ;):)

The crucible of r3VOLution :D

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Austrian Econ Disciple... OK what do I know...I'm just some smuck in PA who missed the 2008 Ron Paul Revolution. I should just walk away from this argument because I am no great student of politics and political history...but you know what, I can't...because your purist attitude just totally pisses me off.

You apparently live in an ideal world where only a candidate who meets EVERY ONE OF YOUR BELIEFS is worthy of your vote...and on that you will stand...WITH NO STRATEGIC REGARD TO WHO IS ACTUALLY GOING TO GOVERN THE NEXT 4 YEARS. I want conservatives/republicans to win these elections next week because I want the blue dog democrats to be SHITTING THEMSELVES with worry whether they will be re-elected if they chose to go along with all of this radical left crap.

I don't believe we have many election cycles left in order to get the country back on the right track and my immediate concern is that the agenda of the left be dramatically slowed down because if it is not slowed down it is going to be that much harder for good men like Rand Paul to actually right the ship when they arrive in 2011.

What is your point about RP running for pres in the LP in 1988 and then Perot in '92. Are you saying that was momentum? I actually liked Perot (from a fiscal perspective...frankly, I don't remember what his other positions were) but the reason he was able to get the votes he did is not only because of his ideas but because he spent a tremendous amount from his personal fortune. It takes money and it is hard to go against the money of the machine. I read about good liberty candidates on here and elsewhere who have a hard time coming up with $10,0000-$50,0000. Ron Paul and Rand Paul are smart enough to make their runs from within one of the two parties because they know that otherwise they would likely just be voices in the wilderness who would never have the opportunity to cast a vote as a member of congress. What if Ron Paul had run every race as a Liberterian party candidate? Would he have ever gotten to cast a vote as as member of congress? How many more people would never have heard of him? I'm not saying running as a third party candidate is not possible...but it has to be in the right district. In New Jersey there is a possibility that the third party candidate will take away enough of the Christie vote so that Corzine will be re-elected...but I guess that doesn't matter to you because one is as bad as the other in your eyes since neither of them meet all of your criteria.

As to your assertion that there is no "better" when people are trampling on your rights...well, I may be just a simple country boy but I totally disagree with that. I think there are many shades of gray and if we can keep ourselves from getting farther down the wrong path by going one direction than another then I say one is better than the other.

I would like to see people who share at least SOME of my ideals back at the wheel to try to keep this country from going over a cliff.


erowe1...that's not how I'm hoping it goes down...we'll know in a couple days.

I live in a world where I only vote for candidates who espouse a liberty platform. Christie is just as bad as Corzine. If there is a LP on the ballot then you should vote for that person. Simple. I vote my principles, not of the lesser of two evils. Your way is what has gotten us to this point.

By the way, I'm a country guy. Lived have my life in a town of 1,000 residents. So you can stop the condescending attitude and check it at the door.

What strategic decisions? That you will vote for Christie because he only takes away 80% of your liberties and not 100% like Corzine? How wonderful.

Republicans are JUST AS BAD as Democrats. Haven't we learned nothing of the past 8 years? There are some gems in the GOP, of course, but the party as a whole is just as god awful as the Democrats. Notice how Obama is continuing the same policies as Bush? The goal isn't about getting Republicans elected, it's about getting liberty candidates elected. Liberty candidates are not social-conservatives. Liberty candidates are libertarians like Ron Paul. The Conservative title has been taken over by the Irving Kristol's of the world. If you want to get back to traditional GOP views, then it is libertarianism. Check out what the GOP was like from 1900 to the late 1940s. It was pretty libertarian.


"As to your assertion that there is no "better" when people are trampling on your rights...well, I may be just a simple country boy but I totally disagree with that. I think there are many shades of gray and if we can keep ourselves from getting farther down the wrong path by going one direction than another then I say one is better than the other."

This is quite shocking. I guess you were just fine from 2000-2008 because afterall, GWB was better than Al Gore. Have a nice day.

[jmdrake]

I don't always agree with A.E.D., but he's 100% right on this one. Yes the general strategy is to try to reform the GOP from the inside, but that doesn't mean with throw the third parties under the bus. boat6868 since you missed the 2008 Ron Paul revolution I'll bring you up to speed. After the republican party went out of their way to fight Ron Paul from getting the nomination and totally snubbed him from having any role in the convention, he endorsed 3rd party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president. He also told his followers to vote for the the third party candidate of their choice and had a joint press conference with 3rd party candidates Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney. (Bob Barr was invited too but he decided to be a jackass).

You want to reform the two major parties? You'll NEVER do that if they are sure they can count on you to "hold your nose and pick one" of their two controlled puppets. The NWO isn't hurt when Republicans who support the bailout, universal healthcare (like Dede apparently does), wars of aggression etc get elected. Switching from democrat to republican brought us George Bush and more death to America. Switching from republican to democrat brought us Barack Obama and more death to America. Just "switching" again, without getting people with principles elected, is simply rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

[bobbyw24]

As they campaigned together across Virginia on Thursday and Friday, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele praised Robert F. McDonnell, the state's GOP gubernatorial candidate, as an innovative leader.

McDonnell was just as enthusiastic.

"Thank you to my largest donor, Michael Steele," he told a crowd outside a train depot in Culpepper on Friday, referring to the millions that the RNC has poured into the contest. And seeming to realize the potential double meaning of his words as Steele's 6-foot-4 frame towered over everyone, McDonnell joked, "And also my tallest."

Steele smiled at the rhetorical embrace by McDonnell, who polls show is leading in Tuesday's contest against Democrat R. Creigh Deeds -- a reality that could mean as much to Steele as if he were the candidate himself.

Once heavily embattled because of a series of gaffes that infuriated his fellow Republicans, Steele is already taking steps to cast strong showings in Tuesday's races in New Jersey, Virginia and New York as signs of both a Republican comeback and his own successful leadership.

The chairman didn't miss a beat Saturday when the Republican candidate, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race in New York's 23rd Congressional District, bowing to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. In a statement, Steele said he "respects" Scozzafava's decision, then noted that the RNC would endorse Hoffman.

His statement did not address that Scozzafava's decision was a reflection of the internal struggles within the party as it faces pressures from its more conservative wing.

The money race

In a party memo Wednesday, Steele touted the strong fundraising year that allowed his committee to pump $13 million for television advertising and other expenses in the two governor's races -- in Virginia and New Jersey. More than $9 million was spent in Virginia.
ad_icon

Fundraising has turned out to be a major strength for Steele. Overall the committee has raised more than $68 million this year, about $6 million more than Democrats. It's an unexpected turn for the party's first black chairman, who campaigned on a pledge that he would help rebrand a wounded GOP, get back members who strayed in 2008 and bring in more minorities.

But beyond finances, there are some in

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/31/AR2009103102031.html?hpid=topnews

[ronpaulhawaii]

This is such a fine, squirrelly line it ain't funny. I found something disagreeable in all the choices. I liked Baldwin, can't stand the CPs platform (and I'm a Christian). I held my nose and voted for Barr to try to help the LP get ballot access in NY. Thought about writing in Chuck, but saw no reasonable point. So, I can be accused of voting for one of the greater of the lessor of many evils. I don't care, my intentions and reasoning were sound in my mind. I think they're are as many reasons for the final vote as there are people, and declaring support for one or the other candidate will usually necessitate putting on the asbestos long johns, but judging from afar, is rarely helpful.

[Akus]

This is the best time since the 70's for third parties.What was so good about the seventies?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What was so good about the seventies?

Pretty much the same set of circumstances we find ourselves in today.

[Ethek]

Two party systems like ours are a symptom of a government that is incapable of being representative in its current form. We do not have a representative government. All of these points made are how to get candidates into office. Our current system makes in almost a pointless process in small numbers. Once they are there, how do you keep them there an what good does it do anyone?

'Article the first'
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
The original first amendment. This concept, sovereign state legislatures who seek to preserve 10th amendment powers once again designating senators, and constitutionally amended term limits (3 terms congress and 2 terms for Senate) would break the back of the two party system and return 'the peoples house' to the people.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I'm intrigued by the 30k project...

A bit of history regarding parties for perspective

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=178085

[angelatc]

So this could be the first third party candidate to go to congress in a very long time, eh?

Maybe to the House, but there are 2 in the Senate. Lieberman and Saunders.

[erowe1]

Maybe to the House, but there are 2 in the Senate. Lieberman and Saunders.

I'm pretty sure both of them are independents. The last third party guy I can think of was another one from the Conservative Party, William F. Buckley's brother, also in the Senate and not the House.

[klamath]

I don't really care if people elect a third party or not. But for myself I don't think it is the awsome panacea to solving our problems like many people on here do. I am not real fond of european style elections and I think that is the way third parties here would turn out. All I see it as another step removing my voting decision in another layer of political back room deals. I am not that fond of caucuses for that reason.
No one has ever proved to me that if you are a third party you are politically pure. There has been some good ones and some pure awful ones just as there a good democrats and good republicans as well as some awful ones.
In this house race the primary process was skipped because it is a special election and some liberal party leaders made the choice for all the republican voters. They got their a** kicked.

[georgiaboy]

Dede wasn't splitting the conservative vote. She was splitting the liberal vote. Hoffman already had the entire conservative vote. Now, with Dede out of the race, her support will overwhelmingly go to the Democrat. Thus, her bowing out was the best way to endure Hoffman's defeat. It was quite shrewd on the part of the Republicrats, really.

Yes.

Nonetheless, it seems now the voters have a much clearer choice in front of them, though admittedly I don't know much about Hoffman to know if he is that good of an alternative to the Dem.

Regardless, the indication that conservatives are waking up and not wholesale voting "lesser of two evils GOP" is good to see.

That's been the biggest jolt I've experienced myself, that of no longer trusting whoever the GOP throws out in front of me. Seeing evidence that more voters are beginning to look past just party and look at the policies, principles, etc., is very encouraging. Especially after just having seen so many many votes for McCain in the presidency. People seem to be catching on that one can't just blindly vote GOP and expect smaller gov't, fiscal restraint, etc.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes.

Nonetheless, it seems now the voters have a much clearer choice in front of them, though admittedly I don't know much about Hoffman to know if he is that good of an alternative to the Dem.

Regardless, the indication that conservatives are waking up and not wholesale voting "lesser of two evils GOP" is good to see.

That's been the biggest jolt I've experienced myself, that of no longer trusting whoever the GOP throws out in front of me. Seeing evidence that more voters are beginning to look past just party and look at the policies, principles, etc., is very encouraging. Especially after just having seen so many many votes for McCain in the presidency. People seem to be catching on that one can't just blindly vote GOP and expect smaller gov't, fiscal restraint, etc.

The Government has not reduced it's budget in the last 100 years. Neither party has ever been for fiscal restraint. Sure, the GOP talk a nice rhetoric, but that is all it is. Who votes for talk? :rolleyes:

Even the most conservative of President's in the past.....100 years Ronald Reagan didn't reduce the budget. Year over year it increased. At the very least if I was President if I did not receive a budget that was at least balanced AND cut 10% per year, I would veto every budget. I suspect Ron would do the same. If I was fortunate to get two terms, that would be an 80% decrease in Federal profligate spending. We would have 1885 back again. :D:D

10-15% Annual economic growth, liberty, and freedom. Once people get a taste of liberty they won't relinquish it so easily.

PS: I'm glad many people are starting to wake up. Let's see if people may actually look outside of the two party system to find their principled candidates....that will be the true test. (I don't count CPoNY as a third party, or independant) As an aside, we need a new generation of intelligent, articulate, staunch classical liberals and An-Caps to take over the political sphere in America. This means fighting the entrenched tenure in our Universities and transitioning from public to wholly private institutions. It also means, self-education as a core principle and not blind obedience to the State funded "teacher". I see good signs on the horizon. This is a very hopeful time for this country. As ol' Rambo said 'Don't let a crisis go to waste'.

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/31/what-happens-to-scozzafavas-supporters/


Consider the Siena poll out this morning, which has all sorts of useful cross-tabs. Scozzafava’s supporters in this poll:

– Have a favorable view of Barack Obama by a 64-31 margin.
– Have an unfavorable view of Hoffman 15-57.
– Have an unfavorable view of Democrat Bill Owens, 19-50.

It’s not quite so clear how Hoffman stands to benefit from this. Although a majority of Scozzafava’s supporters are Republican (about 62 percent, by my reckoning), it is safe to assume that they are mostly rather moderate Republicans, because almost all the conservative Republicans had already gone over to Hoffman. To wit, two-thirds of Scozzafava’s supporters say they like Barack Obama. While moderate Republicans are an endangered species elsewhere in the country, that is not true in upstate New York, where a lot of voters are registered as Republicans and vote that way in statewide races but often vote Democratic in federal races. (NY-23 supported Barack Obama 52-47 last November.)

The reality is that a lot of Scozzafava’s ex-supporters, many of whom don’t like either Hoffman or Owens, simply won’t vote. And some of them will still wind up casting their ballots for Scozzafava undaunted, as she’ll still appear on the ballot and may have made herself something of a sympathetic figure.
(…)

If I had to guess, I’d think that of Scozzafava’s support, one-quarter of people don’t vote, one-quarter vote for Scozzafava anyway, 30 percent defect to Hoffman and 20 percent defect to Owens. Extrapolating from the morning’s Siena poll, that would produce a result of Hoffman 43, Owens 42, Scozzafava 5, with 10 percent of the voters still up for grabs.
In short, this race is far from over yet and Hoffman could still find himself on the short end here.

My prediction ? I’ll release that Wednesday morning around 9am.

[IamPersistent]

I'm sure she just bowed out to save face for the Republican party. Too bad really, they could use the egg in their faces (or is that feces?)

[specsaregood]

//

[LittleLightShining]

The local news had a piece on this last night. The people on the street they interviewed pretty much all agreed that this was a good thing for Owens because his position is so much closer to Scozzafava's than Hoffman's. Also, the commercials have been interesting. Hoffman has some good ones pointing out Owens' relationship with Nancy Pelosi. Owens' commercials paint Hoffman as a millionaire who doesn't understand the problems facing working people.

YouTube - Hoffman Spelling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmBWUsgfhq4)

YouTube - Doug Hoffman: Looking Out for Himself (NY-23) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15L_TaolOqg)

[cindy25]

this was a unique situation, because there are no primaries in by-elections; had there been a primary Hoffman would have won, and no one would have heard of NY23; also NY has small parties established-from Conservative to Acorn (working families)

this district will be eliminated in 2012 anyway, and split up.

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091101/OPINION01/311019918/-1/OPINION


During the day Saturday, she began to quietly and thoughtfully encourage her supporters to vote for Democrat William L. Owens.

A RINO sheds its tusks after halloween and reveals an ass...

[Peace&Freedom]

The Conservative Party has a history in NY of generally endorsing the Republican candidates, while staying strong enough to often bolt from the GOP (when they go off the deep end) by supporting somebody else, thus keeping the latter in line. The 23rd District is the latest example, and if Hoffman loses it will only underscore to the Republicans that they need to be on the same page with the CP to ensure victory.

Otherwise, in terms of trying to win elections, it is well to remember there is a third option for pro-liberty people in the post Paul 2008 era, beyond "work within the GOP" or only vote third party traditional choices. We should simply focus on supporting strong pro-liberty candidates to run as either Republicans or Democrats, for the major nominations of whichever party the district or state trends toward.

Run Paulite Democrats in Democratic leaning districts, and Paulite Republicans in Republican leaning districts. Upon winning the major nomination, the liberty candidate will naturally have the inside track on getting elected. This simple approach bypasses the twin problems of the structural suppression of thid parties, and the likely failure of the 'save the GOP' efforts.

[ronpaulhawaii]

The Conservative Party has a history in NY of generally endorsing the Republican candidates, while staying strong enough to often bolt from the GOP (when they go off the deep end) by supporting somebody else, thus keeping the latter in line. The 23rd District is the latest example, and if Hoffman loses it will only underscore to the Republicans that they need to be on the same page with the CP to ensure victory.

Otherwise, in terms of trying to win elections, it is well to remember there is a third option for pro-liberty people in the post Paul 2008 era, beyond "work within the GOP" or only vote third party traditional choices. We should simply focus on supporting strong pro-liberty candidates to run as either Republicans or Democrats, for the major nominations of whichever party the district or state trends toward.

Run Paulite Democrats in Democratic leaning districts, and Paulite Republicans in Republican leaning districts. Upon winning the major nomination, the liberty candidate will naturally have the inside track on getting elected. This simple approach bypasses the twin problems of the structural suppression of thid parties, and the likely failure of the 'save the GOP' efforts.

I can go for that. Pro-liberty and integrity are my two prime issues... While I self identify with the limited gov't "right", many of the current positions [of those who call themselves social conservatives] are out of whack - IMO - and many might mistake my positions as leftist...

looks like Dede has formally endorsed the dem


It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.
(http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2009/11/gop-supported-rino-formally-endorses.html)

:rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

The thing about this that bothers me is that it has everything to do with "social values", not fiscal conservatism or spending. This is the social conservatives splitting off, not the financial conservatives. This does not represent the "tea party" issues one bit; but it is being spun as representative of the "tea parties"....

[ronpaulhawaii]

jus musin...

I wonder that the tyrants are feeling a bit more pressure than they were expecting and reacting a bit more than acting. Is the "reaction" a classic divide and conquer strategy done on the fly? It don't matter where and who gets divided, everybody everywhere, anyway... Divide the moderates, at all costs.

The tea-parties (jr.) rose as a response to Bush's Bailouts and were non-partisan. It was quickly made about Obama and HealthCare, peeling off most of the dems. If I were a tyrant I would be thinking how to further divide... Theistic beliefs are remarkably vulnerable and the first bulwark of such cowardly liars. Sadly, these [embarrassments to heaven and earth] are well entrenched and wisdom would dictate a considered approach.

I see rumors, and evidence, in different organizations, of people attempting to force theistic beliefs to the forefront, and hear the complaints of other faiths... A moment of silence (for personal quiet contemplation with [whatever it is one contemplates with]) and no more - IMO. (Unless the group is started around a theistic belief, of course)

The best we will ever do regarding "social issues" is localism, as envisioned by the founders. Turn the conversation back to restoring the balance of power in this country.Returning the power over our families/communities back to the people. That line of reasoning works with most people and brings us together. Anything more I, generally, find divisive in the big picture.

Be wary of those who divide.

[angelatc]

Maybe I am wrong, but IMHO the thing that drove most people away from the GOP was the Iraq war.

If you ask me, the GOP is doing a pretty good job of cashing in on the fiscal disenchantment and managing to avoid addressing that.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Maybe I am wrong, but IMHO the thing that drove most people away from the GOP was the Iraq war.

If you ask me, the GOP is doing a pretty good job of cashing in on the fiscal disenchantment and managing to avoid addressing that.

Yes, war and flag waving patriotism (Nationalism?) is probably next down the list from theism. This is another bulwark of the traitors and best approached diplomatically - IMHO.

I wonder that true "American" patriotism is enthusiastic reverence for those that have fought, and died, for Liberty, (which prevents many from even considering their position.)