How about the option of I'm a Democrat and think it's a good idea for both parties to have a little of everything to appeal to more people, but more importantly be able to just do their job once they are elected!

I agree with you Laura, Let it be fair for both parties. I just want someone who is going to be professional, and honest, with the best interests of the people the forfront of their term. Im not a fan of party lines anyway. Have a great Day!!

What is best for the people is opinion based and is the heart of why there are different parties.

This poll comes out of a lot of chatter nationally where GOP activists are blasting "liberal" Republicans, and most specifically in the special election in the NY 23rd Congressional District has become a national issue with a non-local candidate running on the conservative line has been able to force out the GOP candidate, but primarily with non-local backing. People such as Sarah Palin has criticized NY 23rd Republicans for being "parochial" for suggesting that local concerns should be more important than a national political agenda.

There's been a tremendous amount of outside interference in this race.

Here's an interesting interview with Newt Gingrich, who supported the former Republican candidate.

The NY 23rd former candidate Scozzafava mirrored what we as Republicans were given as a presidential candidate in John McCain. The party has lost its conservative footing and finally some are waking up to the fact. Newt Gingrich's support of Scozzafava in the beginning represents what is wrong with attitudes that we must abandon our core ideals just to make sure the "party" candidate gets elected.
This is why it is important to vote for candidates who best represent the fundamentals of your party and not just the one who has been force fed to you through questionable motivations.

Jeff, Scozzafava had the backing of local Republicans, winning key endorsements, before outside interference from national political operatives. It's none of Sarah Palin's business who the NY 23 elects. That's just offensive. Newt Gingrich is right on this point -- these so-called conservatives are hypocrites for always complaining about the size of government, advocating for home rule and then interfering in a local election.

I agree Howard, just as President Obama should not interfere with who runs or who does not run for NY Governor next year. Even though I'm no fan of Patterson, it is not Obama's or the DNC's business. I think there is far too much emphasis placed on party politics and not enough on the individual politician anyway, if a voter thinks a certain person is good for the constituency, then their affiliation shouldn't matter. I know it's good to be represented by someone who belongs to the party in power, but that is part of the problem in my opinion.

NY State - you can't tell a Republican from a Democrat without a scorecard. If you want to vote for a conservative, vote on the Conservative line - and I'm not always sure of those candidates either.

I'm not a Republican or Democrat. Voters register party affiliation; the party has no right to purge those who are not an ideological match. Republicans aren't alone prefering homogeneous support for the platform. Democrats have suffered from "big tent" syndrome for decades. I would be surprised if the Republicans abandoned their moderates. Moderates may not be the ideological helm- they certainly are the keel and account for significant campaign contributions. Aside from "Log Cabin" Republicans, theocrats and the Right wing extreme; what would remain without the moderates? Can Republicans afford to alienate their loyal "Silent Majority?"

You can try and blame Palin for the hoopla by getting involved, but Gingrich was the first to jump in.

Candidates always want big times names to back them. Its how it works. Obama has been doing campaign stops for many defeatocrats.

Secondly, the is a major indicator of a shift in political alignment in one of the two major parties of the country. The republicans (the people of the party, not the figureheads) saw what happens when you get closer to purple in color. The results of this election will show those figureheads that conservatism wins over being purple. This will let the conservatives comes back to power so long as they have a bright conservative leader emerge such as Jindal or Palin (when not held back by McCain and ready for the national scene).

There is no reason conservatives should give up some of their values when those values are the overwhelming majority of those held by the people of the country.

I'm sure that Scozzavava was chosen by the Republican Party to run because she was a "good fit" to replace John McHugh, who was considered somewhere between moderate and conservative.
This race makes the Republican tent more like a pup tent. I suspect that the national numbers of self identified Republicans may shrink even smaller than 20% after the purging in NY 23.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/the-incredible-shrinki...
Sounds like this confirms Palin, Malkin, Beck and Rushbo are the "real" leadership in the Republican Party. They reached into NY 23's race when they had no business getting involved. Good luck to them with their new "leaders".

We can only hope that they end up as the leaders.

And if it wouldn't take him off the front line, add Sherrif Joe Arpio (sp?) of Arizona to the list of leaders.

Howard, I couldn't care less who Palin endorses for anything, but it did bring much needed attention to a candidate who on two big issues directly opposed traditional Republican fundamentals. Shame on 23rd district Republicans for throwing the endorsement to her in the first place. I don't have a whole lot of respect for Newt anyway, after championing "family values" then cheating on his wife. He IS a hypocrite and a political nobody to me.

Jeff, the 23rd Republicans, like a lot of upstate New York Republicans are pretty moderate. They have a right to be represented by a moderate Republican if that's what they want, regardless of what Michelle Malkin thinks.

Chris Lee isn't exactly a burning bush social conservative. Do you think Palin, Malkin, Armey should organize opposition to his re-election?

Howard,
I certainly do if there is a better conservative candidate available.

Scozzafavas drop out was based on the polling of the constituents. It sounds like they ARE getting what they wanted. You don't give enough credit to the voters of that district if you think they were starstruck by the likes of Palin and Co. And I have written Chris Lee several times in the past few months and even had a half hour phone conversation with his Washington legislative director. Conservatives have only themselves to blame for elected officials we have to put up with currently, but I think politicians are being served notice that we are watching, listening, learning, and are not going to be complacent anymore.

Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat after she dropped out this weekend..What does that tell you..Polling data showed that she isn't what people in the 23 want..Biden is up there helping out the democrat...Obama is all over NJ and VA..Talk about outside meddling..

Mark,
What did you call it when Bush, Reagan, etc. went out and stumped for those running for office, nationwide, during the off election years?
Did you consider that meddling too, or is it only when Obama does it?

I'm not sure this whole meddling thing is all that relevant anymore. Biden showed up to stump for Owens in Watertown and the event which was open to the public, free, and didn't even require an advance ticket drew aroung 250 people. People are educated and far more issue focused than they used to be and not as swayed by big name endorsements. Voters don't care who backs a candidate, they care what the candidate stands for.

I agree, Jeff.
The point is that stumping isn't new.
The outrage because those in the White House is doing what has been done for many years just seems little farfetched.

I also agree, some of what we jump on our current administration for is many times simply Washington-as-usual politics. I for one am glad to see that people are becoming more issue driven and less influenced by their parties talking heads.

Bea...My point was why make a big deal that outside people are stumping for the conservative candidate.Obama does it ..Bush did it ..who cares..I personally don't think that the President should do it weather Republican or Democrat..He should be out leading the country,not tring to drum up votes for some one.I though the President is spose to represent all of us...Just because the Heads of these parties tell us to vote for a certain someone is what is wrong with the whole thing..People need to think for them selfs and vote for who they want..Know the issues,be informed..or don't vote at all.........

That is one thing the suprised me about those that want the at large council seats..Balbi and Wallace weren't up on some off the issues of the day in front of council..They even said so in there interviews..Which was honest,but makes it seem to me that it is more spur of the moment to run ,not something they gave alot of thought too..Just my impression..

Mark,
You're right about Balbi and Wallace. They have been in the race since July and actually a bit before. They had all summer to learn what was going on.

They knew the interviews were coming also, so they should have been ready.

There is nothing unusual about political parties purging the impure. It happens all the time. They forget that the margin between a win or a loss is very small. Both parties need everyone to stay in the tent to win but, usually have trouble understanding that till election day.

Mark, what's going on in the 23rd is far more than just stumping. It's downright interference.

The conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, doesn't even live in the district and doesn't know district issues.

We're not talking about Republicans coming in and making benign appearances for Republican candidates, nor Democrats coming in and shaking a few hands for the Democratic candidate.

We're talking about right wing conservatives (presumably mostly Republicans) ACTIVELY and AGGRESSIVELY working to defeat the hand-picked (by local leaders, because she fit the tradition of the district) the Republican-endorsed candidate.

I'm just curious if other conservatives/Republicans would support the same kind of outside-interference-purge going on in this area.

Read the Watertown Daily Times Piece above. Or just this part, which is particularly frightening:

"A flustered and ill-at-ease Mr. Hoffman objected to the heated questioning, saying he should have been provided a list of questions he might be asked. He was, if he had taken the time to read the Thursday morning Times editorial raising the very same questions."

"Coming to Mr. Hoffman's defense, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who accompanied the candidate on a campaign swing, dismissed regional concerns as "parochial" issues that would not determine the outcome of the election. On the contrary, it is just such parochial issues that we expect our representative to understand and be knowledgeable about, if he wants to be our voice in Washington."

The backers of Hoffman care nothing about Upstate New York in general or the NY23 in particular. They're not trying to help just some local conservative get elected -- they're trying to use a purely local election to push a national agenda.

Mark makes an excellent point about the President being the leader of all Americans. Once elected, a President should be neither Democrat or Republican in the affairs of those campaigning for office. I would be in favor of disallowing a sitting President from endorsing, or campaigning for others seeking election.

Jeff, if he should be the president of All America, should all of America support him and not launch partisan attacks on him?

So - the President of the U. S. should not have the right to Free Speech?

Posted by Jeff Allen on November 2, 2009 - 8:52pm
Mark makes an excellent point about the President being the leader of all Americans. Once elected, a President should be neither Democrat or Republican in the affairs of those campaigning for office. I would be in favor of disallowing a sitting President from endorsing, or campaigning for others seeking election.

When did you come to this conclusion? Was it when Bush, Cheney, Rove and gang were roaming the country fundraising? When President Bush, the leader of ALL Americans was at a fundraiser while HIS citizens were dying in New Orleans - and not one word of "presidential concern" came from him or his office? Could it be when President Bush, the LEADER of ALL AMERICANS, stumped the oountry stating that if we weren't a member of the Republican party we were unAmerican?

The office of President is an office supported by the tax dollars of all Americans regardless of partisan affiliations. And yes Wayne the President has every right to the free speech we all enjoy, however when all of our tax dollars pay for the security details, Air Force One, and all expenses for the President to take part in partisan political activity, then yes, I have a problem with it. Bea, you must stop living in the past. It always has been a partisan waste of non-partisan tax-payer dollars. Presidents past and present have important agendas to fulfill, stumping for others in their party can wait until they are out of office.

So, Jeff -- Republicans should attack President Obama, since he shouldn't be involved in partisan politics himself, right?

Howard, where are you coming up with this stuff? I believe we have been talking about the President taking part in formal campaigning for others. The kind of campaigning that requires the President to travel at tax-payer expense to take part in partisan political activities.

Jeff, I'm not living in the past. If we don't remember our history (no matter how recent) we are doomed to make the same mistakes.
The point I will continue to make whenever the right attempts to make this out to be new and, yet, turned a blind eye when GOP Presidents did the same thing.

I didn't like it then, for the very reasons you cite, the cost to the tax payer and I don't like it now.

The difference is I didn't believe that President Bush or Reagan instituted the practice. They were following the tradition that the President is the head of the party and thus has a responsibility to that party.

Should we institute laws that prevents THIS President from endorsing candidates? Do we repeal the law when the GOP is in power again?

The one thing we can agree upon is that by looking back we know going forward the party in power will change over and over. I've witnessed the administrations of
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D
33. Harry S. Truman (D)
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
35. John F. Kennedy (D)
36. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
37. Richard M. Nixon (R)
38. Gerald R. Ford (R)
39. James Carter (D)
40. Ronald Reagan (R)
41. George H. W. Bush (R)
42. William J. Clinton (D)
41. George H. W. Bush (R)
42. William J. Clinton (D)
43. George W. Bush (R)
44. Barack Obama (D)
So, I don't apologize for looking back in an attempt to go forward.

Jeff, if the president is going to exercise his right to free speech, there is no choice for him to travel any other way. It strikes me as a contradiction to say he can't engage in partisan politics (and you know how I feel about partisan politics), that he is "president of all American," but not to hold equally as strongly that all of American should treat him as president of all America.

Bea, your assumption in your remarks is that I had no problem with it when other Presidents did it. Howard, I understand the the President will engage in political politics and will necessarily do so in the implemantation of his agenda, but to waste tax-payer dollars travelling to political fundraisers is something that maybe should be put in the past. As far as Americans treating the President of all Americans...He took an oath of office and his job description calls for it, I did not and mine does not.

Bea like Jeff says why bring up New Orleans and what Bush did or didn't do..What about the Mayor or the Governor of the state,even the people of New Orleans..They can take some blame in that fiasco ..thats not the point here..I've always felt this way about the President running around the country trying to get votes for their party..Seems like half the time the President who ever it is out campaigning.
Why not leave up to others...He represents all of us..This your guy did this so our guy can do that is all BS...That goes for the right or the left..It gets old and we get nowhere..

If the people in the 23 district of New York don't want this so called outsider they will not vote for him and he will lose..Like i said earlier in this post must be Scozzafava was more in line with the Democrat because she is endorsing him..So what was their choice.The conservitive
candidate is there only option..Maybe if Scozzafava didn't sound like her democratic opponent,she'd be leading the race..But she quit...They say quiters never win..

Jeff, not you per se, but some on this site seem to think that a sitting president, fundraising, is either new or wrong because the party isn't thier's.
On that note, my friend, I'll wish you a good night. Tomorrow is going to be a busy day. I drew the short straw and will open our little snack shop at 6am - when the polls open and people looking for a cup of tea to go with the great baked goods we have available at our baked good sale.
While I'm at it, a former co-worker, in California, suffered a fall on his halloween birthday, the prognosis isn't good. He is in the head trauma unit at a hospital in San Jose. The family was told, this afternoon, not to hold out hope.
But prayers are hope and I'm asking for prayers for my friend, Louis. As you pray, visualize the pressure subsiding on his brain.
Thanks

Mark, she was leading in the polls until all of this outside money and support started pouring in.

It's pure manipulation.

The National Chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, endorsed Bill Owens, the Democrat. Is he a closet Democrat, as well?

You can't escape the fact that a bunch of right wing zealots are trying to hijack this election for their own purposes, screw the district, screw New York.

Sadly, there are a lot of Republicans who will vote as Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote. It has nothing to do with what's best for the NY23. The argument that "it's what the people wants" doesn't hold water because they're being manipulated by sterotypes and appeals to emotion (that last bit is a reference to Walter Lippmann's 1922 book Public Opinion, which is a primer on how political propaganda in the US works). Hoffman is explicitly Lambaugh's man.

And courtesy of Robert Harding form the Albany Project Here is a compilation of quotes and quips from the NRCC

http://www.thealbanyproject.com/diary/7506/flashback-nrcc-attacks-hoffma...



"Fortunately, the local Republican county chairs had the foresight to see that Doug Hoffman lacked the integrity and qualities needed to be elected to anything - let alone Congress," Lindsay added. [The Hill, 9/28/09]

The national GOP acknowledges Hoffman and his moneyed supporters make their job harder, but they emphasize Scozzafava is still the favorite.

Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the NRCC, said Hoffman's political calculus doesn't add up.

"We're pleased that the Republican county chairs in New York had the foresight to not even consider Hoffman among the final three candidates, and the Washington-based endorsements and misleading political ads that are meant for his benefit will ultimately backfire on his futile sour-grapes campaign," Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/03/09]

The National Republican Congressional Committee bristles at Mr. Hoffman's campaign, with a spokesman arguing that he's "running a smoke-and-mirrors campaign that has absolutely no path to victory and is based entirely on Washington-based endorsements that carry no weight among voters in central and northern New York."

NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said Mr. Hoffman doesn't even technically live in the district and also said Mr. Hoffman had promised to back the Republican candidate before withdrawing that support and deciding to run.

"At the end of the day, we could not be more pleased that Dede is the only candidate who possesses the principles and cross-party appeal that is needed to win in this swing district," Mr. Lindsay added. [Washington Times, 10/06/09]

"There is still a path to victory, and we will continue to support [Scozzafava]," NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/26/09]

Some conservatives support Scozzafava, insisting that a one-size-fits-all strategy isn't a good approach to districts such as New York 23.

"Outside endorsements will not change the fact that she's the only candidate with the cross party appeal that can win this swing district," said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. McClatchy, 10/30/09

Bea, I am adding your friend, Louis, to our prayer list.

Bea, I will certainly pray for your friend in California (priority one, priority two...politics)
Howard writes "Sadly, there are a lot of Republicans who will vote as Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote."
Sadly, there are many Democrats who will vote as Bill Press, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Stephanie Miller, Paul Kruggman, etc. tell them to vote.
I stand by the fact that it was not the personalities that swayed the opinion of NY23 but the exposure of Scozzafava as a RINO and her endorsement of Owens is proof that they were right.

Yesterday when I commented on the poll, it was not clear that the poll was tied to the 23rd District Republican candidate endorsement. Obviously there is a mammoth difference between party purging of voters and party purging of endorsed candidates.

Although top-down meddling in grassroots politics is neither unusual nor illegal, ejecting the locally anointed favorite for an ideologically-correct, more-party-friendly version would appear to be a two-bladed sword. It may appease ditto-heads like Sarah Palin, but it alienates grassroots organizations. The Republican party elevated itself from mirk of Watergate by building strong grassroots organizations. It can't afford to undo its base by undermining (overmining?) local confidence.

I don't understand how people can keep implying that she was somehow forced out. She quit when she realized that the tide of public opinion had turned against her. If she were truly the locally annointed favorite then the constituents would have rejected outside influence and she would have the poll numbers to show for it. All the voters need is the truth and the truth was is that she was further left than the average voter knew and after she buckled and endorsed the Democratic candidate, the point was proven.
Let me use Judge Arrington as an example. I don't know the man but the overwhelming support on this site tells me he truly is a locally annointed favorite. By some peoples logic, if high level officials from an opposing party came into town and threw their support behind an opponent, then am I to believe that all these wonderful comments that people left would ring hollow as Judge Arrington was forced to drop out of the race?

Jeff, there has been a high-priced media blitz against her. Not even Judge Arrington or Ronald Reagan himself would withstand that kind of onslaught. She was most certainly forced out, and forced about by people who don't have the best interest of the 23rd or New York State at heart.

Public opinion is very easy to sway, given enough money to repeatedly pound the same message at people who largely maintain a facile understand of actual issues or pay close attention to the actual people involved in the race.

I think you give too little credit to the constituents and their ability to make educated decisions in spite of outside influence.

Well, at the moment Democrat Bill Owens is winning.

And Owens has won but that is not what this discussion was about. It was about the influence of outsiders vs. the education of the constituent. Given the close margin of victory considering Hoffman was a late-coming, outsider I think the message was loud and clear. Republicans are saying don't send us RINO's. Given that there were 3 candidates in this race and Scozzafava threw her support behind Owens it became a 2 on 1 race and Scozzafava handed the Democrats their slim victory. Shameful on her part if you ask me.
Given the results in Virginia and NJ am I to believe that Limbaugh and Palin are responsible for Republicans overturning Democratic governorships in those states even though President Obama "interfered" and personally campaigned for Corzine and Deeds?

I think the message is loud and clear -- the local Republicans knew who better could win the district. If not for the meddling interference of outsiders, the GOP would have maintained a seat in an area that has been a moderate-GOP stronghold since at least 1993.

Scozzafava is a hero for putting local concerns over party and sacrificing herself to help block outside extremists from misrepresenting her friends and neighbors.

Robert Harding has a good take on this race and its outcome.

Good take if one is a moderate Republican. I would never call someone a hero who accepted a party endorsement along with nearly $1 million Republican support dollars then turns around and endorses the Democratic candidate. Those actions are disgraceful and I'm surprised you would hold that up as heroic.
It could also be argued that since Scozzafava still received 5 1/2% of the vote endorsing Hoffman would have secured the seat for the GOP. She betrayed her party, plain and simple.