What Does Dede Scozzafava’s Withdrawal Mean For Other Republican Races?

Proof • November 1, 2009

Some are hoping this means a brave new era of candidates chosen on principle and not political expediency. Others, like Ace, are worried about spurned conservative candidates running on third party tickets or as independents and guaranteeing Democrat victories.

“Does this prompt a spate of third-party conservative challengers who wind up drawing just enough support from GOP candidates to give the House to the Democrats?”
The answer: There’s a good chance of that. This was the danger, and this was what Newt Gingrinch was worried about.
…there are two conflicting camps here: The Rush Limbaugh camp, which recognizes this danger and doesn’t seek to encourage it — not enough to harm our chances, anyway — and the Glenn Beck camp, which seems to, at least rhetorically, call for near-complete purity, or else, the thinking goes, there is no difference between Republican and Democratic candidate, and we might as well drive Republicans to defeat until they “listen.”
I hope the Limbaugh view prevails.

This is a tricky issue. On one hand, nothing gets done without winning elections. Conservatives need politicians representing them in office to advance a conservative agenda.
On the other hand, backing less-than-conservative candidates is not just detrimental to the conservative agenda but is also cancerous to the overall limited government movement. After all, how do you tell rank-and-file members of the movement that we stand for limited government, but that we have to support candidates who aren’t consistent advocates of limited government because that’s what’s best politically.
There’s a certain tolerance for that within a political movement, but too much of it and you lose the base. That’s, I think, what has happened to Republicans.
So it’s a balancing act. There’s no hard and fast rule for how these things should go.
For conservatives, I think the Hoffman race illustrates that you needn’t always just support whatever candidate the Republicans throw out. Sometimes there are viable third party candidates who are worth taking a look at.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics

sayanything-4416

Nothing.
sayanything-42

Rob,

It should always be a case by case decision at the voting booth.
jimmypop

rodney is right. i have happily voted for a FLAMING liberal before. the defeated republican was WAY WORSE.
sayanything-81

The hard-core right is setting itself up a permanent minority party. Heh.
robert108

Real Americans aren't "hardcore right", sparkie. Back away from the pipe.
Maybe from your extreme left wing perspective, our Constitution is "hardcore right"; it that it?

Or maybe you're just doing what weak minds do; "assuming the opposite".
http://Array sayanything-9974

it means the Dems will have one less vote.
sayanything-7948

to much emphasis is put on party lines of republican and democrat. america is a two party system, liberal and conservative. since i've read that a majority of america is center right i believe the upper hand goes to the conservative perspective. maybe this is a sign of how the american voter will begin to select its politicians in the future. of course, i could be wrong, my first wife certainly thought so.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

There are often 3rd party candidates running in elections. It's just that

this time the Republican nominee was so left and the conservatives are

worked up.

I don't see this changing things that much except that Republican insiders

should have learned something. I won't be surprised if they didn't.
sayanything-1254

Whistler… Do you, or anyone, know what has happened to Neiman?
sayanything-45

If your priority is limited government and you're not bound forever to a party label then you vote for the candidate who advocates limited government. If, as some apparently believe, the majority of Americans share your point of view then you should eventually get the government you want. If your point of view does not have majority support, then you're better off voting Republican and working within the party to get as much of what you believe into the platform. This implies that conservatives need to honestly and critically examine what they stand for and whether the American public is prepared to follow along.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Mike your analysis is based in the political feelings of the public at large remaining static. Which is fairly facile analysis.

The whims of the mob change over time. If conservatism isn't in favor the goal is to educate and win over the public not start supporting more liberal candidates.
Though I'm sure that last is what liberals like you would prefer us to do.
robert108

Another flaw in your reasoning is to believe that political promises are meaningful. I find it significant that all candidates(including Obama) promise fiscal conservatism(lower tax rates, reduced govt spending) in order to secure election, but then govern otherwise. In Obama's case, the difference couldn't be more extreme.
Americans are becoming more skeptical of promises, and so are more open to candidates who have the overall philosophy of limited govt, rather than a history of socialist thinking(like Obama and the Clintons) with superficial promises to do otherwise.
Lifelong conservatives are thus becoming more electable, and understandably so.
At this time, all the real conservatives are either in the Republican Party or associated with it, as Dems are intolerant of even a whiff of real American values.

BTW, limited govt is not a "priority"; it's a Constitutional requirement.

Obama's obvious socialist/Marxist plans for our country have mobilized people who would otherwise just be "going with the flow" but are now spontaneously mobilizing to eliminate the threat of Obamunism.
sayanything-81

ROb/Mike
If this was a limited government move, you'd have something. This is the SOCIAL right. They are not for pluralism or limited government. Their objection is merely that they are being forced into someone else's morality and not forcing others into their morality. The limited government case could be made, but the diff between the GOP candidate and the conservative candidate in re: limited government is negligible. She is a RINO for SOCIAL reasons. This is just the right combating the left's populism with their own brand of populism.

Pretending its on economic or structural principles is disingenuous. One need only examine the social and emotional vitriol that motivated the situation to see that right-wing moral populism is behind this.
robert108

Thanks for sharing your glue-fueled delusions with us, sparkie.

Dede was a radical leftie masquerading as a Republican; when that was revealed and the people were given a choice to support a real conservative, they made that choice.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Your grasp on reality is really pretty tenuous I think. Why don't you lean back and have another sniff of glue and let the grown ups talk.
Palin2012

We need to stick to our guns and vote for the most conservative candidates no matter what. We cannot give up our ideals for some party affiliation.

SayAnythingBlog.com

What Does Dede Scozzafava’s Withdrawal Mean For Other Republican Races?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments