Ousted Republican Speaks About New York 23 Race

Dierdre Scozzafava was run out of the race to replace Secretary of the Army John McHugh when he vacated his seat in New York’s Congressional delegation. Scozzafava was characterized as being a loony leftist and an Republican in name only. Largely, the characterizations were based on a great deal of misinformation. Some of them were not. When it comes to social issues such as abortion and marriage equality,

[RalphB]

This woman is a product of the old-school Republican Party of which I was a member. I don't know if there a enough of them to take the party back, but I hope there are. Otherwise, she and they will end up in limbo, unable to serve, and the Republican Party will go the way of the Dodo.

[Curteese]

From what I have read and seen on the news, this was such a disaster for the repubs. This woman probably would have won, but all of a sudden Sara Palin has become the new scribe and elder scholar of the repubs. If she doesn't like someone, then they are OUT.
I also think that Ms. S...can't begin to spell that name!..would have been a good choice. Are the repubs so out of control now that they reject anyone not rabid right wing?
It is like they WANTED to lose that district...which I see has not been democrat in like 120 years or so. What the heck are they up to?
Frankly, I like it!

[Sei]

Curteese wrote:

I also think that Ms. S...can't begin to spell that name!..would have been a good choice.

Scozzafava is how it's spelled. Don't worry, i misspelled her name repeatedly as Scozzofava. It's actually pronounced more like 'Skazafava'

Right now, there is a faction of the Republican Party that wants ideological purity. This means no fetters on business, but severe intrusion into people's lives. Ms Scozzafava is a true Libertarian Conservative- minimal government in all aspects.

[aRodeojock]

Sei wrote:

<quoted text>Right now, there is a faction of the Republican Party that wants ideological purity. This means no fetters on business, but severe intrusion into people's lives. Ms Scozzafava is a true Libertarian Conservative- minimal government in all aspects.

That's not quite correct. Idealogical purity in the true sense of conservativism (Barry Goldwater style) means government doesn't intrude into your private lives either. What these people want is a bastardized version of that where they place their so-called christian values above their true conservative ones, which does mean intrutions into peoples daily lives... i.e. anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-anything-that-doesn't-fit -into-their-happy-little-close d-mined-box.

[Sei]

aRodeojock wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not quite correct. Idealogical purity in the true sense of conservativism (Barry Goldwater style) means government doesn't intrude into your private lives either. What these people want is a bastardized version of that where they place their so-called christian values above their true conservative ones, which does mean intrutions into peoples daily lives... i.e. anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-anything-that-doesn't-fit -into-their-happy-little-close d-mined-box.

I am talking about their version of ideological purity. As I pointed out, Scozzafava is more pure than they are. I am sorry if my wording was a bit awkward.

[DustyShadow]

http://www.topix.com/news/gay/2009/11/ousted-...

From the article: "In large part, Ms Scozzafava was ousted from the race because she is a pragmatist and a social progressive. She exists in one of those odd places along side small government Liberals where labels do not really work properly. Part of the problem is that many of these labels have been so twisted into knots that they do not really have meaning anymore, but the drive to purge the Republican Party of their more pragmatic, socially accepting voices is something that could, in the long run, result in the Republican Party being stuck in the political desert for some time to come."

I don't think so. What a lot of b.s. Mrs. Scozzafava got herself out because very few supported her. Very few supported her because she does not represent anything the people want. We know what social progressives are now. It is certainly not a Republican. The only thing that might return the Republicans to their past integrity is getting rid of people like Scozzafava who are Republican in name only. People do not want a choice between progressive non-conservative Republicans and progressive anti-conservative Democrats. We want at least one side to support the Constitution and work to get BIG GOVERNMENT out of our lives. If we wanted somebody to be a social progressive, we would simply go for a Democrat.

The fact that Hoffman made so much progress in such a short time speaks loudly for the screaming need in American politics - we need candidates who represent the wishes of the people, the majority of which are conservatives no matter how they voted in the last election. People are awake now. No more social progressive sneak attack stuff.

[Sei]

DustyShadow wrote:

http://www.topix.com/news/gay/ 2009/11/ousted-republican-spea ks-about-new-york-23-race
From the article: "In large part, Ms Scozzafava was ousted from the race because she is a pragmatist and a social progressive. She exists in one of those odd places along side small government Liberals where labels do not really work properly. Part of the problem is that many of these labels have been so twisted into knots that they do not really have meaning anymore, but the drive to purge the Republican Party of their more pragmatic, socially accepting voices is something that could, in the long run, result in the Republican Party being stuck in the political desert for some time to come."
I don't think so. What a lot of b.s. Mrs. Scozzafava got herself out because very few supported her. Very few supported her because she does not represent anything the people want. We know what social progressives are now. It is certainly not a Republican. The only thing that might return the Republicans to their past integrity is getting rid of people like Scozzafava who are Republican in name only. People do not want a choice between progressive non-conservative Republicans and progressive anti-conservative Democrats. We want at least one side to support the Constitution and work to get BIG GOVERNMENT out of our lives. If we wanted somebody to be a social progressive, we would simply go for a Democrat.
The fact that Hoffman made so much progress in such a short time speaks loudly for the screaming need in American politics - we need candidates who represent the wishes of the people, the majority of which are conservatives no matter how they voted in the last election. People are awake now. No more social progressive sneak attack stuff.

Let me see...The fact that the national GOP didn't give her squat while Doug Hoffman, basically, had his run bought and paid for by Dick Army?

I'm sorry, but, before you start screaming here, try learning what the fact are. Everything I pointed out in there was accurate.

[DustyShadow]

Sei wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me see...The fact that the national GOP didn't give her squat while Doug Hoffman, basically, had his run bought and paid for by Dick Army?
I'm sorry, but, before you start screaming here, try learning what the fact are. Everything I pointed out in there was accurate.

So? The woman was pro-abortion and endorsed by ACORN. Why should the GOP give her anything. She was a bad representative here. The real question is just how on God's green earth did she become the candidate in the first place. Somebody failed to do proper screening. Dick Armey is a true American who knows how the Republicans and our country are supposed to be run. I have no doubt he would help Hoffman. However, Hoffman had lots of support from all over the country.

[Resist Ignorance]

After their defeat in the 2008 elections, the republicans were advised to move a little more toward the center and away from the far right extremists. Good advice!

But, in response, Palin suddenly quits her job as governor mid term to go on the national circuit with her far right views, Limbaugh declares himself the de-facto head of the republican party and Newt Gingrich comes back from the dead.

Hello? Is anybody in the RNC listening to the people?

[Sei]

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
So? The woman was pro-abortion and endorsed by ACORN. Why should the GOP give her anything. She was a bad representative here. The real question is just how on God's green earth did she become the candidate in the first place. Somebody failed to do proper screening. Dick Armey is a true American who knows how the Republicans and our country are supposed to be run. I have no doubt he would help Hoffman. However, Hoffman had lots of support from all over the country.

ACORN has no bases in NY23, and Ms Scozzafava has never endorsed nor worked with them. She is pro-choice and pro-marriage equality. Those are values that reflect her district. Most Republicans up in this neck of the woods tend to be social moderates compared to the Republicans from, say, Alabama.

Yes, Hoffman had a lot of help to lose New York 23. In fact, the very fact that he tried to buy his seat is why he lost. The shift into the Reactionary/Radical end of the political spectrum is what is fueling the exodus of Republicans from the North. The extreme social agenda supported by men like Hoffman is why there is one and only one Republican left in the New York Congressional delegation. There are none in Vermont. New Hampshire may lose their last remaining Republican in Congress. Only Maine, where Snowe and Collins are more socially liberal, has any Republicans left, really.

Add this to the bleed out of the Republicans in the Mid-West and along the West Coast, and the picture becomes increasingly bleak for the GOP.

And do not try to talk about how the 2010 midterms are going to be some kind of political blood bath for the Democrats. Unfortunately for you and others, the situation going into 2010 is still very messy. While people are leery about the Democrats, they are also leery about the Doug Hoffman type candidates.

There will be some seats lost and gained, and we'll see a shift in locale for the two parties, but I do not believe, even now, that the GOP can climb to the top given the distrust that they have fostered towards the political system in the country today. In many ways, the GOP is suffering badly, and this internal war on the Moderates is going to slaughter them in the end.

One GOP pundit put it- they're looking at short term gains and long term decimation.

[DustyShadow]

Resist Ignorance wrote:

After their defeat in the 2008 elections, the republicans were advised to move a little more toward the center and away from the far right extremists. Good advice!
But, in response, Palin suddenly quits her job as governor mid term to go on the national circuit with her far right views, Limbaugh declares himself the de-facto head of the republican party and Newt Gingrich comes back from the dead.
Hello? Is anybody in the RNC listening to the people?

You know nothing about the Republicans! They aren't losing their support because their too far right; they are losing it because they act too much like Democrats. No, they aren't listening very well to the people, but the proof for that has nothing to do with the stuff you listed.

[DustyShadow]

Sei wrote:

<quoted text>
ACORN has no bases in NY23, and Ms Scozzafava has never endorsed nor worked with them. She is pro-choice and pro-marriage equality. Those are values that reflect her district. Most Republicans up in this neck of the woods tend to be social moderates compared to the Republicans from, say, Alabama.
Yes, Hoffman had a lot of help to lose New York 23. In fact, the very fact that he tried to buy his seat is why he lost. The shift into the Reactionary/Radical end of the political spectrum is what is fueling the exodus of Republicans from the North. The extreme social agenda supported by men like Hoffman is why there is one and only one Republican left in the New York Congressional delegation. There are none in Vermont. New Hampshire may lose their last remaining Republican in Congress. Only Maine, where Snowe and Collins are more socially liberal, has any Republicans left, really.
Add this to the bleed out of the Republicans in the Mid-West and along the West Coast, and the picture becomes increasingly bleak for the GOP.
And do not try to talk about how the 2010 midterms are going to be some kind of political blood bath for the Democrats. Unfortunately for you and others, the situation going into 2010 is still very messy. While people are leery about the Democrats, they are also leery about the Doug Hoffman type candidates.
There will be some seats lost and gained, and we'll see a shift in locale for the two parties, but I do not believe, even now, that the GOP can climb to the top given the distrust that they have fostered towards the political system in the country today. In many ways, the GOP is suffering badly, and this internal war on the Moderates is going to slaughter them in the end.
One GOP pundit put it- they're looking at short term gains and long term decimation.

You don't know what will happen in 2010, and neither do I. I know, however, that the folks I listen to and talk with are disaffected with both Democrats and Republicans. They are too much alike. We independents are calling for a return to the Constitution, and we're looking for people who will embrace the principles of the founding fathers and get us back to the type of nation we used to have. Our numbers are growing, not that I expect to find any of you here on gay Topix.