PDA

View Full Version : Can a Civil War Be Good for Republicans?




bobbyw24
11-02-2009, 09:09 AM
David Corn

Democrats have been chortling over the Battle of NY-23, where conservatives last week succeeded in chasing a moderate Republican named Dede Scozzafava out of a special election for a congressional seat in upstate New York so conservative Doug Hoffman, who was running as a third-party candidate, could be the sole challenger to Democrat Bill Owens. The Dems gleefully observe that the GOP is now controlled by Tea Party right-wingers, such as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Dick Armey, who demanded Scozzafava get out of the way for Hoffman. Such spin is predictable and has the benefit of being true. But this cataclysmic clash in the Empire State has also prompted a debate on the right over whether the Tea Party wing
is destroying the GOP or saving it.
After the pro-choice, gay-rights-supporting Scozzafava, who was chosen to run by local Republican leaders, withdrew, following a conservative campaign in favor of Hoffman, Richard Viguerie, a founder of the modern conservative moment, issued a statement loaded with gloating that also rung with right-wing disgust of the GOP establishment that had supported Scozzafava:

The GOP leadership's backing of Ms. Scozzafava was a slap in the face to Tea Party activists, town hall protesters, and conservatives across the country. The Washington GOP establishment's abandonment of fiscal responsibility led directly to the election of Barack Obama as President and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. The American people see the GOP leadership and establishment every bit as much a part of the problem as the Democrats.

Doug Hoffman and NY-23 is an earthquake in American politics, and is the first of many challenges to establishment Republicans that we will see for the 2010 elections and beyond. The stupid decision by Republican leaders to pour $900,000 into the NY-23rd race [to support Scozzafava} against a conservative [Hoffman] has unleashed a fury that will lead to new GOP leadership.

Conservative anger at Washington-establishment Republicans will cost the national committees tens of millions of dollars as conservative money will start flowing directly to the Tea Parties and their candidates.

Even though his side had won, Viguerie was still brimming with resentment. In this fight for the soul of a much-discredited party, there's not much graciousness. (By endorsing Owens over Hoffman, Scozzafava didn't do much for Republican reconciliation.)

In the other corner was Newt Gingrich, who once was the leader of fire-breathing conservatives. He had endorsed Scozzafava, and after her departure from the race fretted aloud (to The New York Times!) that his party would face much trouble regaining a congressional majority if anytime local GOPers nominate a moderate candidate, rabid conservatives rush in to demolish that person:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/02/can-a-civil-war-be-good-for-the-republicans/

LibertyEagle
11-02-2009, 09:13 AM
Anytime a poser is ousted, it is a good thing.

klamath
11-02-2009, 09:17 AM
Boy am I glad that Newt has put himself in this position of oposing the grassroots that are fed up with the big spending republicans of last 10 years.

LibertyWorker
11-02-2009, 09:22 AM
Boy am I glad that Newt has put himself in this position of oposing the grassroots that are fed up with the big spending republicans of last 10 years.

the GOP needs to go down for the sake of America.

I have a hammer just let me know where i can put the last nails in the GOP's coffen.

Hell give me a shovel and ill help dig the hole to toss the stinking carcass in.

erowe1
11-02-2009, 09:24 AM
Anytime a poser is ousted, it is a good thing.

But Scozzafava isn't a poser, she's an unabashed liberal. Hoffman is the one posing as a conservative, and he hasn't been outed yet.

erowe1
11-02-2009, 09:25 AM
Boy am I glad that Newt has put himself in this position of oposing the grassroots that are fed up with the big spending republicans of last 10 years.

How is supporting a big spending third party guy like Hoffman indicative of being fed up with big spending Republicans?

klamath
11-02-2009, 09:26 AM
the GOP needs to go down for the sake of America.

I have a hammer just let me know where i can put the last nails in the GOP's coffen.

Hell give me a shovel and ill help dig the hole to toss the stinking carcass in.

Sorry don't agree, but to each his own.:D

torchbearer
11-02-2009, 09:50 AM
A civil war? it seemed to help them the last time.

jmdrake
11-02-2009, 10:07 AM
In the other corner was Newt Gingrich, who once was the leader of fire-breathing conservatives. He had endorsed Scozzafava, and after her departure from the race fretted aloud (to The New York Times!) that his party would face much trouble regaining a congressional majority if anytime local GOPers nominate a moderate candidate, rabid conservatives rush in to demolish that person:


Newt is clearly the biggest loser in all of this. (No pun intended with regards to the weight loss TV show). At the last "Tea Party" I went to there was a tape recorded message from Newt. Does this mean I can boo next time? :D

UnReconstructed
11-02-2009, 10:08 AM
A civil war? it seemed to help them the last time.

word

klamath
11-02-2009, 10:12 AM
How is supporting a big spending third party guy like Hoffman indicative of being fed up with big spending Republicans?

As I have said before I am not a Hoffman supporter.
The critical issue that shows the rank and file anger is the bank bailout. Newt went along with the bailout, McCain went along with the bailout. This guy at least claims to be against the bailout of the local banks. The rank and file republicans had the choice of three people two of which are into the stimulus and bailouts and one that claims he is against the bailouts and stimulus. They have no choice but to go by the candidates words.
The bailout is the defining issue in the battle against the old GOP.

erowe1
11-02-2009, 11:00 AM
The rank and file republicans had the choice of three people two of which are into the stimulus and bailouts and one that claims he is against the bailouts and stimulus.

Hoffman is avowedly pro-keynesian stimulus according to his own website.


While most economists [i.e. keynesians] agree that spending is required in a recession, government bureaucrats are the worst people to be spending our money. That’s why there are no jobs with this recovery. The economy may be slowly beginning to recover but it is doing so in spite of the stimulus, not because of it. I believed at the time the stimulus passed that it was a bad bill and would not work as promised and I believe that even more so now. What I would have supported is a bill that puts real money in the hands of Americans to spend, not federal bureaucrats… and a bill that spent money on capital projects that would have put people to work now, not in the next two to three years.
http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html#spending

LibertyEagle
11-02-2009, 11:03 AM
Ok, well then, BOTH are posers. But, I do like the fact that Newt aligned himself with the more obvious leftist.

erowe1
11-02-2009, 11:05 AM
Ok, well then, BOTH are posers. But, I do like the fact that Newt aligned himself with the more obvious leftist.

But Scozzafava's not a poser. She's a blatant liberal and honest about it. She even endorsed the Democrat.

jmdrake
11-02-2009, 11:10 AM
Hoffman is avowedly pro-keynesian stimulus according to his own website.


http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html#spending

What I would have supported is a bill that puts real money in the hands of Americans to spend, not federal bureaucrats… and a bill that spent money on capital projects that would have put people to work now, not in the next two to three years.


Tax cuts put "real money in the hands of Americans". Also Ron Paul isn't 100% against "capital projects". See:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst082707.htm

erowe1
11-02-2009, 11:16 AM
Tax cuts put "real money in the hands of Americans". Also Ron Paul isn't 100% against "capital projects". See:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst082707.htm

Hoffman specifies the kind of way he wants to put money in the hands of Americans and it's government spending, which means the exact opposite of tax cuts--even when you superficially cut income tax rates, if you increase government spending at the same time, it's actually a net tax increase. Hoffman makes it perfectly clear that this pro-spending approach is what he advocates, both at the beginning of the quote I gave and again at the end (that's what capital projects are). As for the link you gave regarding Ron Paul, you scared me for a second. I almost believed you that you had evidence that RP actually supported unconstitutional federal spending on such things, which would make him an utter hypocrite. Fortunately, you apparently misread that. The entire thing is an explanation of why putting such things in the hands of the government turns out bad.

Stary Hickory
11-02-2009, 11:36 AM
A big government hack ousted?? Score one for the good guys. We need to do this on every level we can, purge the GoP of all the garbage send them to the big statist left. Maybe we can merge the neocon warmongers with the authoritarian left scumbags and let liberty lovers of both sides come to the other party.

I don't care about party names, but I think it's easier ti purge the GoP of the garbage than the liberal left. For too long have the Necons been using libertarian ideals as a cover for their nefarious expansion of the welfare/warfare state. We need to separate them from the libertarian ideals and let them stand naked before the voters, before America. All they will have to offer is their sickening Necon statist garbage. It's time they faced the music.

jmdrake
11-02-2009, 11:37 AM
Hoffman specifies the kind of way he wants to put money in the hands of Americans and it's government spending, which means the exact opposite of tax cuts--even when you superficially cut income tax rates, if you increase government spending at the same time, it's actually a net tax increase. Hoffman makes it perfectly clear that this pro-spending approach is what he advocates, both at the beginning of the quote I gave and again at the end (that's what capital projects are). As for the link you gave regarding Ron Paul, you scared me for a second. I almost believed you that you had evidence that RP actually supported unconstitutional federal spending on such things, which would make him an utter hypocrite. Fortunately, you apparently misread that. The entire thing is an explanation of why putting such things in the hands of the government turns out bad.

You parsed your quotes wrong.

What I would have supported is a bill that puts real money in the hands of Americans to spend, not federal bureaucrats… and a bill that spent money on capital projects that would have put people to work now, not in the next two to three years.

You ignore the word "and". Hoffman is saying that he supports two different bills. One that "puts real money in the hands of Americans" and "one that supports capital projects". At least that's a reasonable way to parse it. So you can't honestly say he's not talking about tax cuts. And yes I'm familiar with the "tax cuts = subsidies" argument. Ron Paul rejects it.

See:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul348.html

Regardless, I agree that tax cuts should be offset by spending reductions other places because there needs to be spending reduction other places.

Finally you missed the subtle point Ron was making with regards to infrastructure. Private infrastructure is preferred if the private sector fronted the cost in the first place.

The final sentence is what you need to pay attention to. Before any subsidies or welfare payments are paid out, before social security is handed out to illegal immigrants, or health care is given to everyone, before bridges to nowhere are built at home, or entire countries bombed and rebuilt abroad, before any other myriad of exotic government projects are even considered, infrastructure should be attended to and taken seriously.

It's one thing to talk about building new roads and bridges. It's another to fix the ones that already exist. Like it or not they do exist. If they are allowed to fall into disrepair (no pun intended), the taxpayer is stuck with a bigger bill later. And just "turning this over" to "private" hands as in the case of the trans Texas corridor is not a solution as Dr. Paul so eloquently pointed out.

erowe1
11-02-2009, 11:45 AM
You parsed your quotes wrong.

What I would have supported is a bill that puts real money in the hands of Americans to spend, not federal bureaucrats… and a bill that spent money on capital projects that would have put people to work now, not in the next two to three years.

You ignore the word "and". Hoffman is saying that he supports two different bills. One that "puts real money in the hands of Americans" and "one that supports capital projects". At least that's a reasonable way to parse it. So you can't honestly say he's not talking about tax cuts. And yes I'm familiar with the "tax cuts = subsidies" argument. Ron Paul rejects it.

See:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul348.html

Regardless, I agree that tax cuts should be offset by spending reductions other places because there needs to be spending reduction other places.

Finally you missed the subtle point Ron was making with regards to infrastructure. Private infrastructure is preferred if the private sector fronted the cost in the first place.

The final sentence is what you need to pay attention to. Before any subsidies or welfare payments are paid out, before social security is handed out to illegal immigrants, or health care is given to everyone, before bridges to nowhere are built at home, or entire countries bombed and rebuilt abroad, before any other myriad of exotic government projects are even considered, infrastructure should be attended to and taken seriously.

It's one thing to talk about building new roads and bridges. It's another to fix the ones that already exist. Like it or not they do exist. If they are allowed to fall into disrepair (no pun intended), the taxpayer is stuck with a bigger bill later. And just "turning this over" to "private" hands as in the case of the trans Texas corridor is not a solution as Dr. Paul so eloquently pointed out.

I didn't parse your quotes wrong. Hoffman is for keynesian stimulus by way of spending. When you increase government spending, there is no such thing as a tax cut, not even if you cut any one form of taxes when you do it. Government spending = taxes, always without exception. If you cut income taxes and increase spending with deficits, that just means you've shifted from one kind of tax to another (such as an inflation tax) and that you've levied a net increase in taxes in the process. And the one thing Hoffman is quite clear on is that he advocates increasing government spending (i.e. increasing taxes, one way or another) as a form of economic stimulus.

Nothing you quoted from RP shows that he favors unconstitutional infrastructure spending, or that he would vote yes on it, and certainly not that he thinks like Hoffman that it can stimulate the economy. He only says that he hates it less than he hates other government spending. I can't fault him for that. He didn't oppose selling roads and bridges to private owners (in fact he supported it quite clearly). He only opposed the kinds of public-private partnerships which are usually deceptively pawned off as privatization when they really aren't.

klamath
11-02-2009, 02:32 PM
Hoffman is avowedly pro-keynesian stimulus according to his own website.


http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html#spending

That is why I am not a supporter of his but the people feel he is the better of two evils when it comes to spending. The women republican pretty much was seen and accepted as a Obama spender.

jmdrake
11-02-2009, 04:00 PM
I didn't parse your quotes wrong.

Sure you did.



Hoffman is for keynesian stimulus by way of spending. When you increase government spending, there is no such thing as a tax cut, not even if you cut any one form of taxes when you do it.


That assumes that while you're spending money to repair crumbling bridges you don't find places to cut like NASA.



Government spending = taxes, always without exception.


See above.



If you cut income taxes and increase spending with deficits, that just means you've shifted from one kind of tax to another (such as an inflation tax) and that you've levied a net increase in taxes in the process. And the one thing Hoffman is quite clear on is that he advocates increasing government spending (i.e. increasing taxes, one way or another) as a form of economic stimulus.


If you don't repair crumbling bridges today you've shifted an increase in spending to another time. They'll have to be fixed at some point, unless we all move to flying cars.



Nothing you quoted from RP shows that he favors unconstitutional infrastructure spending, or that he would vote yes on it, and certainly not that he thinks like Hoffman that it can stimulate the economy.


LOL. :rolleyes: Nice dodge. Very nice. Now answer a direct question. Is repairing current infrastructure "unconstitutional"? Look at Paul's own record of bringing infrastructure "earmarks" back to his district. Yeah I know. It's better for congress to allocate the money directly than for some unelected bureaucrat doing it. But the money is still spent. I see Hoffman saying basically the same thing. If we're going to spend money it should be for stuff that we're going to have to spend it on eventually anyway. You don't see it that way fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But calling Hoffman "big government" based on your own (mis)interpertation of a few lines on a website is more than a bit of a stretch.

Regards,

John M. Drake

erowe1
11-02-2009, 06:37 PM
That assumes that while you're spending money to repair crumbling bridges you don't find places to cut like NASA.


That's not Hoffman's position. I quoted his statement, and his position is quite clear. He advocates keynesian policies. He believes that government spending can stimulate the economy, and he thinks it is within the purview of Congress to do that. There's no way around it. His own words are right there for all to see. If you want to believe that's not where he's coming form, you're kidding yourself. Just what do you think he means when he says that most economists agree that you need to increase spending to stimulate the economy? You think he means "Most economists believe this, but I disagree with them."? I even heard him again today on Glenn Beck's radio show say that he would like to revote on the stimulus and have that money go to small businesses instead of big ones.




LOL. :rolleyes: Nice dodge. Very nice. Now answer a direct question. Is repairing current infrastructure "unconstitutional"? Look at Paul's own record of bringing infrastructure "earmarks" back to his district. Yeah I know. It's better for congress to allocate the money directly than for some unelected bureaucrat doing it. But the money is still spent. I see Hoffman saying basically the same thing. If we're going to spend money it should be for stuff that we're going to have to spend it on eventually anyway. You don't see it that way fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But calling Hoffman "big government" based on your own (mis)interpertation of a few lines on a website is more than a bit of a stretch.


Ron Paul's earmarks for his district are unconstitutional and he knows it and admits it, which is why he consistently votes no on them, 100% of the time, including infrastructure. Yes. All federal funding of infrastructure is unconstitutional. And Ron Paul rightly supports eliminating the entire federal Department of Transportation.

Hoffman is definitely big government. That's not a matter of opinion or a misinterpretation of anything. It's an established, verifiable, incontrovertible fact. And it doesn't stop with his keynesian economics. He's also for policing the world. And Reagan is his idol.

Also, after Scozzafava dropped out, the RNC endorsed him. Do you honestly think they would have done that if he were a Ron Paul style conservative? And have you noticed that among all his big government conservative endorsements (Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee [who didn't quite endorse him but said he agrees with him on every issue], George Pataki, and now the RNC), Ron Paul is conspicuously absent?

jmdrake
11-02-2009, 08:27 PM
That's now Hoffman's position. I quoted his statement, and his position is quite clear. He advocates keynesian policies.


You take one quote out of context on a campaign website where he criticizes the way the stimulus was spent, says he'd rather have spent it a different way, and then try to turn him into a Keynesian economics professor. :rolleyes: I remember during the 2008 campaign Ron Paul said that if we brought all of the troops home from overseas we'd have the money for universal health-care. That doesn't mean Ron supports universal health-care. But parsing things the way you do one might believe that.



He's also for policing the world. And Reagan is his idol.


:rolleyes: You didn't actually work in the 2008 Ron Paul campaign did you? The reason I question this is because Ron Paul had a "Slim Jim" available on his website that had a picture of himself shaking hands with Ronald Reagan. There was no "I disagree with a lot of what Reagan did" disclaimer on the slim jim. I passed out hundreds of these (at least).



Also, after Scozzafava dropped out, the RNC endorsed him. Do you honestly think they would have done that if he were a Ron Paul style conservative?


After Scozzafava dropped out would they really have another choice? At some point self preservation kicks in. Besides I never said Huffman was a "Ron Paul - let's pull all of the troops out of the entire world" conservative. Not everyone that disagrees with Ron on foreign policy is a "big government" conservative and members of the GOP are desperate to tap into energy of the Ron Paul movement. I've seen this first hand where what you would call "big government" conservatives have worked with us (Ron Paul supporters in Tennessee) because they wanted to screw over some other republican they liked less. Politics makes strange bedfellows.



And have you noticed that among all his big government conservative endorsements (Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee [who didn't quite endorse him but said he agrees with him on every issue], George Pataki, and now the RNC), Ron Paul is conspicuously absent?

See above. And again I never said Huffman was a "Ron Paul conservative". But I doubt he's the neocon "Bush lite" you're trying to paint him to be either.

erowe1
11-02-2009, 09:28 PM
I never said Huffman was a "Ron Paul conservative". But I doubt he's the neocon "Bush lite" you're trying to paint him to be either.

I never said anything about being a neocon (though I have a good feeling he's that too). I said he was a keynesian, which he clearly is. He's quite explicit about it. I didn't take the quote out of context. That quote I posted is his entire section on the stimulus in its entirety. He doesn't say stimulate by cutting taxes (i.e. cutting spending). He says stimulate by spending more, and that his objections to the Obama version are entirely based on how he spent it, not on that he tried to use spending to stimulate the economy, which Hoffman also advocates. But it's funny you should mention a comparison to Bush. Come to think of it, if there's one Republican Hoffman most resembles, both in his policies and in the fans he's drawing, it's probably George W. Bush. You're right, Hoffman isn't Bush-lite. He is all the way Bush. If you liked Bush, you'll love Doug Hoffman.

cindy25
11-02-2009, 10:14 PM
the only good thing about a Hoffman win is the huge blow to Obama. He wanted that seat badly-otherwise no reason to appoint McHugh

libertarian4321
11-03-2009, 01:51 AM
If you removed all the big government guys from the Republican Party, it would probably be about the size of the Libertarian Party...

jmdrake
11-03-2009, 05:04 AM
I never said anything about being a neocon (though I have a good feeling he's that too). I said he was a keynesian, which he clearly is. He's quite explicit about it. I didn't take the quote out of context. That quote I posted is his entire section on the stimulus in its entirety. He doesn't say stimulate by cutting taxes (i.e. cutting spending). He says stimulate by spending more, and that his objections to the Obama version are entirely based on how he spent it, not on that he tried to use spending to stimulate the economy, which Hoffman also advocates. But it's funny you should mention a comparison to Bush. Come to think of it, if there's one Republican Hoffman most resembles, both in his policies and in the fans he's drawing, it's probably George W. Bush. You're right, Hoffman isn't Bush-lite. He is all the way Bush. If you liked Bush, you'll love Doug Hoffman.

To be like Bush Hoffman would have had to support the bailout, the prescription drug benefit, staying in Iraq indefinitely (he made it clear he doesn't support that), the Patriot Act ect.

And once again you are putting words in Hoffman's mouth about how he would "put more money in the hands of Americans". I've pointed this out to you so I'm not sure why you're stuck on this. Hoffman talked about two different items in that quote. One was putting money "in the hands of real Americans". When a republican says that he usually means cutting taxes. (Something Bush did also. And Ron Paul supports making the "Bush tax cuts permanent" even though they weren't offset by spending cuts. I guess that makes Paul a "Keynesian"?)

One thing you seem unwilling to address is the fact that unless all of America's infrastructure is privatized we will have to spend money on repairs at some point anyway. Now maybe you think they should be. Maybe Ron Paul things they should be. So far he hasn't introduced a bill to actually accomplish that. And considering the current climate with the Trans Texas Corridor I doubt that he would. So taking the reasonable position that "If the congress is hell bent on spending stimulus money anyway we might as well spent it on things that will cost us more if we delay the spending several more years" does not make one "big government". Look at it another way. You have a car. The check engine light is on. For various reasons you aren't in a position to go without a car. You can use it as an excuse to buy that fancy new car you always wanted. You can make the repair. Or you can ignore the check engine light and hope it goes away. Option 1 is wasteful. Option 3 is stupid. That leaves option 2.

kathy88
11-03-2009, 05:14 AM
I listened to a radio clip this morning of a GOP run radio ad in the 23rd encouraging people to vote conservative. It NEVER mentioned Hoffman's name. WEIRD. I wonder if the ad was prepared for her and they edited out and left it as is? Cut and Paste Republicans :)

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-03-2009, 05:40 AM
You take one quote out of context on a campaign website where he criticizes the way the stimulus was spent, says he'd rather have spent it a different way, and then try to turn him into a Keynesian economics professor. :rolleyes: I remember during the 2008 campaign Ron Paul said that if we brought all of the troops home from overseas we'd have the money for universal health-care. That doesn't mean Ron supports universal health-care. But parsing things the way you do one might believe that.



:rolleyes: You didn't actually work in the 2008 Ron Paul campaign did you? The reason I question this is because Ron Paul had a "Slim Jim" available on his website that had a picture of himself shaking hands with Ronald Reagan. There was no "I disagree with a lot of what Reagan did" disclaimer on the slim jim. I passed out hundreds of these (at least).



After Scozzafava dropped out would they really have another choice? At some point self preservation kicks in. Besides I never said Huffman was a "Ron Paul - let's pull all of the troops out of the entire world" conservative. Not everyone that disagrees with Ron on foreign policy is a "big government" conservative and members of the GOP are desperate to tap into energy of the Ron Paul movement. I've seen this first hand where what you would call "big government" conservatives have worked with us (Ron Paul supporters in Tennessee) because they wanted to screw over some other republican they liked less. Politics makes strange bedfellows.



See above. And again I never said Huffman was a "Ron Paul conservative". But I doubt he's the neocon "Bush lite" you're trying to paint him to be either.

The GOP doesn't want us Ron Paulians. Florida GOP booted out 5 RLC members. Tennesse booted out Matt Collins, Lindsey Graham and his cohorts actively trying to purge us from the GOP and all sorts of other attacks. They aren't welcoming us into the GOP. Look what Sue Lowden did in NV to Ron Paul.... That's why I'll never join the GOP ever again, with the exception to vote for Ron Paul in the closed primary if he runs in 2012.

The GOP is trying to CO-OPT the movement, not tap into it. Freedom Works says hello.

bobbyw24
11-03-2009, 05:54 AM
WASHINGTON — For Republicans, an election win of any size Tuesday would be a blessing. But victories in Virginia, New Jersey or elsewhere won't erase enormous obstacles the party faces heading into a 2010 midterm election year when control of Congress and statehouses from coast to coast will be up for grabs.

It's been a tough few years for the GOP. The party lost control of Congress in 2006 and then lost the White House in 2008 with three traditional Republican states – Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia – abandoning the party.

So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party's own fundamental problems – divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.

The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor's race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor's contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York.

In fact, 2009 seems to have underscored what may be the biggest impediment for Republicans – the war within their base.

Not that the GOP would casually brush off even a small stack of victories on Tuesday.

One or more wins would give the Republicans a jolt, and a reason to rally in the coming months. Victories certainly would help with grass-roots fundraising and candidate recruiting. And they might just be enough to reinvigorate a party that controlled the White House and Congress through much of this decade, only to lose power in back-to-back national elections.

Viewed from the other side, a GOP sweep would be a setback for Democrats. It could be seen as a negative measure of President Barack Obama's standing and could signal trouble ahead as he seeks to get moderate Democratic lawmakers behind his legislative agenda and protect Democratic majorities in Congress next fall.

Story continues below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/election-day-2009-guide-w_n_341907.html

jmdrake
11-03-2009, 07:41 AM
The GOP doesn't want us Ron Paulians. Florida GOP booted out 5 RLC members. Tennesse booted out Matt Collins, Lindsey Graham and his cohorts actively trying to purge us from the GOP and all sorts of other attacks. They aren't welcoming us into the GOP. Look what Sue Lowden did in NV to Ron Paul.... That's why I'll never join the GOP ever again, with the exception to vote for Ron Paul in the closed primary if he runs in 2012.

The GOP is trying to CO-OPT the movement, not tap into it. Freedom Works says hello.

Ummm...I'm actually in Tennessee working with Matt Collins so I know what I'm talking about on this. Matt received support from people that you might dismiss as "big government insiders" because they didn't like the alternative. That's all I can say on this without hurting our current efforts. It's a lot more complicated than you think.

Regards,

John M. Drake

erowe1
11-03-2009, 07:53 AM
To be like Bush Hoffman would have had to support the bailout, the prescription drug benefit, staying in Iraq indefinitely (he made it clear he doesn't support that), the Patriot Act ect.

What a politician says about how they would have voted on some unpopular thing that happened when they weren't in office from the benefit of hindsight on what voters today think about it is not very helpful. Giving Hoffman credit for opposing the Bush bailout is like giving O'bomber credit for opposing the Iraq war. In both cases voters would be much better served to pay attention to the things that give them an idea of what the candidate will support when it comes to the kinds of things they will have to deal with once in office. Hoffman may criticize the past bailouts for reasons that boil down to technicalities. But he's for a keynesian approach of increasing government spending to fix a hurt economy. It's 6 of one half-a-dozen of the other.

Hoffman is not for repealing Medicare Part D. So on that he's also identical to Bush.

If Hoffman is on record saying troops should not be in Iraq forever. Big deal. So is Bush.

Hoffman is for the Patriot Act and every other aspect of the so-called War on Terror.




One thing you seem unwilling to address is the fact that unless all of America's infrastructure is privatized we will have to spend money on repairs at some point anyway. Now maybe you think they should be. Maybe Ron Paul things they should be. So far he hasn't introduced a bill to actually accomplish that. And considering the current climate with the Trans Texas Corridor I doubt that he would. So taking the reasonable position that "If the congress is hell bent on spending stimulus money anyway we might as well spent it on things that will cost us more if we delay the spending several more years" does not make one "big government". Look at it another way. You have a car. The check engine light is on. For various reasons you aren't in a position to go without a car. You can use it as an excuse to buy that fancy new car you always wanted. You can make the repair. Or you can ignore the check engine light and hope it goes away. Option 1 is wasteful. Option 3 is stupid. That leaves option 2.

You keep trying to change the topic to something that has nothing to do with Hoffman. I'm fine with having a discussion among small government proponents about how to address the obligations our government has taken on in the past so as to diminish them incrementally. And I accept that people who want to get the fed out of the infrastructure business completely can differ among themselves about a plan for doing that. If you want to start another thread where you can peddle your pro-Dept. of Transportation ideas and see who takes the bait, go ahead. But Hoffman is not a part of that discussion. His view of spending on capital projects is not that it's a necessary evil, due to the fed previously taking on something it shouldn't have. His view is that this spending is a positive way to stimulate the economy, and one that he supports completely. He's an unabashed keynesian. When he says that most economists favor more government spending during a recession, that's what he's saying. He's aligning himself with most economists, rather than with the small minority of economists who favor free markets. He's not saying he wants to shift spending from NASA to infrastructure. He's saying he wants to increase the total amount the government spends in order to stimulate the economy. That's his whole point. He's not for stimulus by tax cuts (which only exist when there's a net cut in spending). When he says put money in Americans' hands, he carefully avoids saying the magic words "tax cut" that he knows we'd love him to say, because that's not what he advocates (and even if he did say "tax cut" he'd be lying, because when you increase spending and "cut" taxes, you're actually increasing taxes and just levying them in different ways). He advocates first taking that money from taxpayers and then giving it to the people (small businesses) he thinks will use it to jump start the economy. The fact that he thinks he can pick better places to spend that than Obama is of little consolation to those of us who prefer a free market approach.

jmdrake
11-03-2009, 08:07 AM
What a politician says about how they would have voted on some unpopular thing that happened when they weren't in office from the benefit of hindsight on what voters today think about it is not very helpful. Giving Hoffman credit for opposing the Bush bailout is like giving O'bomber credit for opposing the Iraq war. In both cases voters would be much better served to pay attention to the things that give them an idea of what the candidate will support when it comes to the kinds of things they will have to deal with once in office. Hoffman may criticize the past bailouts for reasons that boil down to technicalities. But he's for a keynesian approach of increasing government spending to fix a hurt economy. It's 6 of one half-a-dozen of the other.

Hoffman is not for repealing Medicare Part D. So on that he's also identical to Bush.

If Hoffman is on record saying troops should not be in Iraq forever. Big deal. So is Bush.

Hoffman is for the Patriot Act and every other aspect of the so-called War on Terror.


And you read all this on his website....where?




You keep trying to change the topic to something that has nothing to do with Hoffman.


:rolleyes: Not true. Try to be at least a little bit intellectually honest. Hoffman talked about infrastructure spending. My bringing that up is not "changing the topic". You're trying to read more into what's on his site than what is actually there. Prime example is your claim that he supports the Patriot Act. Maybe he does? Maybe he doesn't? That's not on his website. Nothing about the Medicare prescription drug benefit. No mention of "Keynesian economics". You've taken one statement, ignored all possible interpretations except the one that fits your view, and twisted it beyond recognition.

One more time. We'll have to spend the money on repair roads and bridges at some point. Suggesting that if congress is going to spend money "now" on stimulus it might as well be stimulus that actually does some good does not make someone "big government". Really I'm done with this conversation. If you're going to just make stuff up without providing any reference then fine. Make your unfounded claims all you want.

Regards,

John M. Drake

GunnyFreedom
11-03-2009, 09:06 AM
Ummm...I'm actually in Tennessee working with Matt Collins so I know what I'm talking about on this. Matt received support from people that you might dismiss as "big government insiders" because they didn't like the alternative. That's all I can say on this without hurting our current efforts. It's a lot more complicated than you think.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Not to mention that right now the GOP is by no means monolithic. Indeed, if there was EVER a time for Constitutional Conservatives and Ron Paulers to sign up and lend a hand it is right now. There is indeed a civil war going on for the soul of the GOP, and the more of us Paulers who stand on the sidelines the more likely our faction will be defeated.

You hear the news out of TN and FL, but the truth is at the moment our victories are outweighing our defeats. We just aren't as loudly reported. ;-)

tangent4ronpaul
11-03-2009, 11:09 AM
Newt is clearly the biggest loser in all of this. (No pun intended with regards to the weight loss TV show). At the last "Tea Party" I went to there was a tape recorded message from Newt. Does this mean I can boo next time? :D

A much stronger message, in the spirit of "Real Genius" and Burrough's "the ticket that exploded" would be for you and a bunch of others to tape record "boo's", set up the recorders in front, and when they hit play - so should you - and leave...

-t

erowe1
11-03-2009, 12:49 PM
One more time. We'll have to spend the money on repair roads and bridges at some point. Suggesting that if congress is going to spend money "now" on stimulus it might as well be stimulus that actually does some good does not make someone "big government". Really I'm done with this conversation. If you're going to just make stuff up without providing any reference then fine. Make your unfounded claims all you want.


I'm not interested in debates over which way to spend stimulus money is better, if Congress is going to pass the stimulus anyway, as if that's just some given that is beyond debating. That question of whether keynesian stimulus spending is good or not IS the debate. I'm against the whole keynesian idea of stimulating the economy by increasing federal spending no matter what the spending is on. Hoffman, on the other hand, is for it, as long as the spending is something he likes. This is not some minor issue. He's a keynesian (like "most economists" to whom he refers). He does not advocate a free market approach to the economy. He's perfectly clear on this. He makes it the top issue on his website. He leaves no room to interpret it any other way. All of your gymnastics about how infrastructure spending could be justified is entirely foreign to his statement, which justifies it on the basis of the claim that government spending needs to be increased in a recession. There's no way around it. If you liked George W. Bush, you'll love Doug Hoffman.

georgiaboy
11-03-2009, 01:16 PM
yeah, this was my real concern, that Hoffman et al were co-opting tea party fervor, but in the end they are big gov't Republicans. if this is the case, then yuk. I'd spend my vote elsewhere.

jmdrake
11-03-2009, 01:44 PM
There's no way around it. If you liked George W. Bush, you'll love Doug Hoffman.

I will take note of the fact that you have consistently refused to back up your claims with any actual quotes from Hoffman's website or anywhere else. For example you have no reference to Hoffman's position on prescription drugs or the Patriot act. Your tactics are best suited for use by people like Karl "John McCain had a black love child" Rove.

Regards,

John M. Drake

erowe1
11-03-2009, 02:46 PM
I will take note of the fact that you have consistently refused to back up your claims with any actual quotes from Hoffman's website or anywhere else. For example you have no reference to Hoffman's position on prescription drugs or the Patriot act. Your tactics are best suited for use by people like Karl "John McCain had a black love child" Rove.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Check his website yourself. Nowhere does he advocate repealing Medicare Part D or the Patriot Act. And check all his interviews with people like Sean Hannity where he proclaims the urgency to keep fighting the so-called war on terror. Or check all his endorsements from people like Pawlenty, Pataki, Palin, and Fred Thompson, or Huckabee, who says the two agree on every issue. It's all out there for people who are interested in the truth and not carrying the guy's water just because he calls himself a "conservative." If you care to find out, you don't need me to hold your hand. And besides, you're the one who claimed that he differed from Bush on those issues. The ball is still in your court to show the evidence. But don't spend too much time trying. We all know you won't find any.

If you liked Bush, you'll love Hoffman.

anaconda
11-03-2009, 03:15 PM
I would say yes indeed. Here's why:

It gives us a chance to clearly distinguish ourselves from all of these people. Representatives of the Ron Paul Revolution will get a high profile chance to comment and then we can go on the record as saying the poser Limbaugh/Palin/Beck "conservatives" are just stumping for the military/industrial/banking complex. It's a great opportunity.

The Deacon
11-03-2009, 05:08 PM
Or check all his endorsements from people like Pawlenty, Pataki, Palin, and Fred Thompson, or Huckabee, who says the two agree on every issue.

If you liked Bush, you'll love Hoffman.

To be fair, our guy got a few endorsements from unsavory people in the Presidential election.

But as a New Yorker, I don't expect much change with this Hoffman. You hope he wouldn't vote for bailouts and would vote to get the troops out of Iraq, but once he starts caucusing with Republicans, even if he believed that stuff, it's hard to see him voting on that conscience after party leaders give him a talking to. You never know, but I don't have a great feeling here..

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 07:00 AM
Check his website yourself. Nowhere does he advocate repealing Medicare Part D or the Patriot Act.


No where does Rand Paul talk about repealing those things on his website either! Goodness! Your argument is just retarded! Rand went so far as to say that he would have voted for war in Afghanistan on his website. Does that make Rand = Bush? Of course not! But it makes it clear that Rand is as interested in "fighting terrorism" as the next guy. There is NOTHING wrong with fighting terrorism. It's HOW you fight that's the problem!

And if you want to hate on someone because of endorsements, Ron Paul got endorsed by white supremacists! So what?

Using your ridiculous analysis there isn't a single liberty candidate that is possibly acceptable because there will always be something that they didn't mention on their website and/or they got endorsed by somebody you don't like.

Anyway, I hope you're happy. Obama has a new ally from the 23rd district. Hoffman lost.

Regards,

John M. Drake

erowe1
11-04-2009, 10:27 AM
No where does Rand Paul talk about repealing those things on his website either!

First of all, you're the one who claimed those were Hoffman's positions, not me. You're the one who needed to provide evidence that he had these great positions that go against everything we know about him, what he says he believes, and those who endorsed him. You provided no evidence. So why not just stick with the safe assumption, which is that when he doesn't claim to differ from the GOP party line that he otherwise toes so closely, he doesn't differ?

Second of all, yes, Rand's website does say that he opposes those things. From Rand's website:


Rand Paul would vote to oppose any and all federal bailouts. Instead, he will fight to balance the budget, pay down national debt, restore the value of the Dollar, and allow the responsible to replace the reckless in the marketplace. America is the land of opportunity, to succeed and to fail. It’s time our government starts promoting responsibility.


The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war...
any military action that takes more than a few days or weeks to organize and is directed against a country’s government should require a declaration of war....
In addressing the reality of our debt-laden economy, we must recognize that every dollar spent on the military is not necessarily a dollar spent on national defense. Were Dr. Rand Paul in charge of the budget, he would first demand that it be balanced. And second, he would make defense spending a top priority. In Rand’s proposed budget, defense spending would represent a larger percentage of the total budget than it does today, while military spending on unnecessary programs and unconstitutional operations would be eliminated.


We need representatives committed to cutting spending, balancing the budget, lowering taxes, and staying loyal to their word.


Whether it’s passing the 315 page Patriot Act without a single member of Congress ever reading the bill, proposing a National ID Card, establishing FISA courts and utilizing warrantless searches, or betraying the medical privacy of ordinary citizens, the Federal Government has overstepped its limited powers as stipulated in the Constitution.

Rand Paul seeks to reassert the rights and privileges of the 50 states and over 300 million Americans. The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights. Rand proposes that America can successfully protect itself against potential terrorists without sacrificing civil liberties. Rand rejects the premise that the Federal Government must be given a blank check in the name of national security.

America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens.

Comparing Rand and Hoffman is like night and day. Rand is clear and unequivocal. He is for the federal government only exercising powers the Constitution enumerates. He is against trying to stimulate the economy by increasing spending. He is for reducing government spending, and cutting taxes, and recognizes that you can't have one without the other. The establishment GOP recognizes these differences between him and them and have actively worked to oppose him, even though he's inside their own party in a contested primary. Meanwhile, Hoffman, even though he ran in a different party still garnered a lot of support from very well-known big government establishment Republicans on account of his agreements with them on the issues. In stark contrast to Rand, Hoffman's attempts to sound small government are filled with loopholes, wishy-washy language, and keynesian thinking. He gives constitutionalists no reason whatsoever to believe that he wants to revert to doing only those things that are enumerated.

The only way you can paint Hoffman as a small government guy is by trying your hardest to weasel something good out of all the places where you have to read between the lines: "Sure, he wants to stimulate the economy by increasing infrastructure spending, but he might mean it like this...", "Yes, he wants to increase spending but he might also want to cut taxes, since he talks about putting money in the hands of real Americans...", "I know that the Bush refund scheme of 2008 also ostensibly put money in the hands of real Americans and wasn't a tax cut, and I know Hoffman doesn't say the word tax cut, and I know that there's no such thing as a tax cut when you increase spending like Hoffman wants to do, but maybe he means it like this contrived explanation I just made up...", "I know Hoffman doesn't say he wants to bring the troops home from Iraq, or stop nation building, or stop policing the world, or that he's against the Patriot Act, or against Medicare Part D, but he also doesn't say he's not for those things, and since I like him I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he agrees with me...", "I admit that he hasn't said a single thing that couldn't just as easily have been said by George W. Bush, but it's not fair to say that he's similar to Bush..." And on and on.

If you liked Bush you would have loved Hoffman.

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 11:43 AM
First of all, you're the one who claimed those were Hoffman's positions, not me. You're the one who needed to provide evidence that he had these great positions that go against everything we know about him, what he says he believes, and those who endorsed him. You provided no evidence. So why not just stick with the safe assumption, which is that when he doesn't claim to differ from the GOP party line that he otherwise toes so closely, he doesn't differ?

Second of all, yes, Rand's website does say that he opposes those things. From Rand's website:


My goodness! How dishonest are you? I say Rand's website says nothing about repealing the Patriot Act and Medicare D and you post a quote about him saying he would have voted against the bailout? Further Rand's statement criticizing the Patriot Act is not the same as saying he would repeal it!

And you are the one who needs to provide evidence because you are the one claiming that Hoffman = Bush and that Hoffman supports positions that he never said he supported! Really, are you channeling Karl Rove? Don't you have to wait until he's dead to do that?



Comparing Rand and Hoffman is like night and day.


I'm comparing websites.



Rand is clear and unequivocal.


Rand's website doesn't say he'd repeal Medicare D.




If you liked Bush you would have loved Hoffman.

More Karl Rove tactics. Keep saying the same unsubstantiated thing over and over again and hope it sticks.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 11:44 AM
I also note that you cut out the part where Rand said he'd have voted for war in Afghanistan. Why is that?

erowe1
11-04-2009, 11:59 AM
I also note that you cut out the part where Rand said he'd have voted for war in Afghanistan. Why is that?

Because it was irrelevant. RP voted for it too.

I was just showing how clear Rand's positions are in contrast to Hoffman's.

erowe1
11-04-2009, 12:03 PM
My goodness! How dishonest are you? I say Rand's website says nothing about repealing the Patriot Act and Medicare D and you post a quote about him saying he would have voted against the bailout? Further Rand's statement criticizing the Patriot Act is not the same as saying he would repeal it!

And you are the one who needs to provide evidence because you are the one claiming that Hoffman = Bush and that Hoffman supports positions that he never said he supported! Really, are you channeling Karl Rove? Don't you have to wait until he's dead to do that?



I'm comparing websites.



Rand's website doesn't say he'd repeal Medicare D.




More Karl Rove tactics. Keep saying the same unsubstantiated thing over and over again and hope it sticks.

Regards,

John M. Drake

You're the one who brought up Medicare D, not me. You said Hoffman opposed it without any evidence. I don't see why any politicians, be they Rand or Hoffman, would go out and say they want to repeal Medicare D when it's not an issue that's even on the table right now. But that's what you said Hoffman's position was, which I find ridiculous.

Rand does clearly say in more than one of the quotes I provided from his website that he only supports government doing things that are enumerated in the Constitution. This implicitly excludes Medicare D. And Rand explicitly opposes the Patriot Act in one of those quotes. Hoffman nowhere indicates that he would only support things that are enumerated in the Constitution, and he says things that make it perfectly obvious that he happily supports the government doing things that are not enumerated (such as economic stimulus spending).

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 12:07 PM
Because it was irrelevant. RP voted for it too.

I was just showing how clear Rand's positions are in contrast to Hoffman's.

It's not irrelevant. Now with the value of 20/20 hindsight one can say we probably shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan either. Rand could go as far as his dad has and say he now supports a pullout from Afghanistan but note that he didn't! Saying he would have voted for a war in Afghanistan years ago says nothing about what Rand would do today. There's a reason why that's a smart strategy on Rand's part. If you understand the reasoning you'll know why I don't throw someone else under the bus for what they don't say.

Regards,

John M. Drake

erowe1
11-04-2009, 12:14 PM
If you understand the reasoning you'll know why I don't throw someone else under the bus for what they don't say.


It's not about throwing anyone under the bus for what they don't say. I don't do that either. But I also don't give them credit for holding a position they never give any evidence they hold, which is what this whole debate is about. You're the one who brought up Medicare D, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War and suggested that Hoffman opposed all of them (in post #27), and you're the one who never provided any evidence of that. I only responded to that claim that you made. You were also the first person to bring Bush into the discussion. I never made the connection until you mentioned it and then I suddenly realized, "That's it! That's who Hoffman reminds me of! He's a clone of Bush!"

I have plenty of reasons to be confident that Rand Paul is a genuine small government conservative based on what he does say. I have no such reasons in the case of Hoffman, and I'm not willing to pretend to, based on all the things he never says, like you are.

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 12:21 PM
ou're the one who brought up Medicare D, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War and suggested that Hoffman opposed all of them (in post #27), and you're the one who never provided any evidence of that.


:rolleyes: Wrong. For the last time. YOU MADE THE CLAIM THAT HOFFMAN WAS A CLONE OF BUSH! I SAID THESE THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE FOR HOFFMAN TO BE A CLONE OF BUSH! YOU HAVE OFFERED NO PROOF THAT THESE THINGS ARE TRUE BUT INSTEAD YOU ARE RELYING ON THE FACT THAT HOFFMAN DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ATTACK THEM AS "PROOF"! YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

erowe1
11-04-2009, 12:35 PM
:rolleyes: Wrong. For the last time. YOU MADE THE CLAIM THAT HOFFMAN WAS A CLONE OF BUSH! I SAID THESE THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE FOR HOFFMAN TO BE A CLONE OF BUSH! YOU HAVE OFFERED NO PROOF THAT THESE THINGS ARE TRUE BUT INSTEAD YOU ARE RELYING ON THE FACT THAT HOFFMAN DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ATTACK THEM AS "PROOF"! YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

You brought Bush into this, not me. I never would have made the connection and realized how much of a Bush clone Hoffman is until you gave me the idea. You mentioned those things that Bush supported and said Hoffman opposed them. You provided no evidence for that. My views of Hoffman are based entirely on what he says. Yours are based on you pretending he holds positions he never claims to hold.