This is probably an indication of where the Republican Party is going. I shouldn't be surprised, yet I am.
Dede Scozzafazza is a moderate Republican Assemblywoman who was running for Congress in the 23rd Congressional District against Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. She's been under intense fire from Republicans, including Sarah Palin, who label her as too "liberal" in her stances on gay rights, abortion rights and fiscal issues.
She has now pulled out of the race as a new poll shows her too far behind to catch up and she says her campaign doesn't have the money necessary to do an advertising blitz. She hasn't endorsed either candidate. Really - how could she?
The blogs are buzzing today; this could be the sign of things to come. Republicans who don't toe the line that the Rush Limbaugh set have drawn way over to the right may be bumped aside by third party challengers who are willing to stand way over there.
"I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices," said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, who had endorsed Scozzafava.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/01/MNOI1ADFLE.DTL&type=politics#ixzz0VcQqtRUJ
Fred Thompson (you remember him, don't you?) is already putting his truly significant support behind Hoffman.
And here's what Scozzafazza had to say: It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.
On Election Day my name will appear on the ballot, but victory is unlikely. To those who support me – and to those who choose not to – I offer my sincerest thanks.
Dede
If the Republican Party is going to be taken over by the hard line Right Wing, I can actually envision a viable third party emerging; a place where those blue dog Democrats and moderate Republicans can meet. But they'd better hurry up and do it.
Glenn Beck, The Cheney Clan, Rush and Sarah P. are very effective at getting the word out and somehow many people are buying it.
I have a growing sense that the ultra right is growing more and more paranoid and the rhetoric I'm hearing is designed to frighten any sympathetic listener into believing the new mantra: If you're not with us, you're with the Devil.
It's going to take not just liberals and progressives, but moderates to show them for the fear-mongerers they are.
11 comments:
Oh. My. God. What amazes me about this post is that an intelligent person like you can actually believe this collection of distorted facts and (sorry) arrogance. I almost don't know where to begin to address all the nonsense on display here.
Let's start with the Scozzafava stuff. First, to call her "moderate" is absurd on its face. She supports Obama's stimulus, Card Check, abortion, Cap and trade, ACORN, etc; virtually the entire radical Obama agenda. She is the most liberal member of the Republican caucus in the NY State Assembly. Her allegiance to positions supported by the far-left was pretty much made clear when she hinted that she'd switch to the Democratic party should she be elected. And when she stepped down she threw her support to the official Democratic candidate. She is, in fact a Democratic in all but name only.
And it isn't like she was forced out after having won a primary. In fact she got the nomination after winning on the third vote taken by the 11 Republican county chairmen within the 23rd Congressional District. In other words she was chosen by 11 Republican Party bosses, NOT by the people in her district. Her nomination was NOT exactly a shining example of democracy at work. And she dropped out after she saw that her polls (which indicated her level of support among the voters in the district) were so low it was apparent that she couldn't win. This means that the PEOPLE in the district disagreed with the Republican bosses who nominated her. I can only imagine if, say a small group of Party bosses had nominated oh, say Senator Tom Coburn to be the Democratic nominee for President. You want to tell me that the Left wouldn't try to dump him in favor of some Leftie who actually, you know, AGREED with them?? Would this be a sign of narrow-mindedness?
Now you apparently believe that the voters turned against her, not because they learned of her positions and found that they didn't mesh with their own, but because (and this is a real gem of condescension and elitism) but because Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck etc TOLD them not to vote for her!! And it does take real condescension and elitism to believe that other people couldn't disagree with you unless they (poor, mind-numbed robotic dolts that they are) basically had been hyp-NO-tized by a group of evil Svengalis. Wow. What contempt that shows for other opinions and those who hold them.
This loathing that the Left has for Rush et al has always struck me as a rather pathetic example of denial on the part of the Left. You folks hunched over there on the leftward corner of the political spectrum simply can't explain how so many people could not agree with you unless *AHA* they've been brainwashed by the supernatural vocal emanations of evil masterminds like RUSH LIMBAUGH! *AHA*
(continued...)
Let me help bring some understanding to you here by explaining why I listen to Limbaugh. As a kid and all through early adolescence I, like most people my age, heard about the events of the day solely through the filter of CBS, NBC, ABC, the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. All-liberal-all-the-time. As I got older and heard their take on the world I realized that much of what they said didn't make any damn sense. I discovered National Review in college, started watch Bill Buckley on Firing Line and started becoming aware of Milton Friedman and other conservative thinkers. And I found that I agreed with them. But I rarely heard them in the greater media culture. One day in 1988 I turned on the radio and heard Rush Limbaugh and found, my God here is somebody funny, irreverant, smart and saying things I never heard in the mainstream media. You see I didn't listen to Limbaugh and fall under the sway of his hypnotic powers. I didn't start agreeing with him. I listened to him because he agreed with ME! And I wasn't the only one. Millions of people, who never heard there opinions in the greater media finally had someone who agreed with THEM! The previously voiceless now had a voice.
Now you folks on the Left can continue to hallucinate that everyone would agree with you if you could only rid the world of these wicked hyponists (you know, like Obama is trying to do with his Nixonian (only worse) assault on talk radio, Fox News, etc) but by doing so you totally miss the reality of what is going on.
Anonymous,
Rush isn't all that important. It's the style he's perfected that bothers me.
My dad loved Rush. My uncle still does. My ultra-conservative cousin, whose comment will follow this, is convinced that his views are unassailable by any logic.
I don't think Conservatives are from some other planet; I'm related to them.
And some of what Rush says DOES make sense. I can understand how great it must have been to hear someone speaking from what you felt was your point of view.
Here's the part I can't abide from either side: the nastiness. The inability to debate, to discuss, to try to find a place of commonality from which to build solutions.
Rush isn't the only one guilty of this. It's not just Fox News. It's MSNBC. It's anyone who gets shrill and starts to label opposite points of view as either stupid or evil. And yes, I include the Obama administration's attacks on Fox News in this. Fox is no more slanted than MSNBC.
Discredit them both as propaganda machines if you want to discredit either one.
But if there are rational arguments to be made, why can't we listen to them? And where is the place for moderates? This health care debate has been the last straw for me. I have lost patience.
I've tried very, very hard to understand the view that mistrusts a plan to extend Medicare to all. I've heard the arguments and I've spoken with experts who know every problem with a government run health care plan. I am lucky that my job puts me in direct contact with people who know. The Center for Medicare Advocacy, the group that gives free legal aid to seniors who are having problems with the government run health insurance program, is fully behind a government run health insurance program for all.
It is, the director tells me, cost efficient. It provides, for the most part, excellent care. It generally offers better coverage than most employers' plans.
Yet I'm still hearing shrill screams about a government takeover from the very people who are benefiting from Medicare right now.
That's when I realize logic has nothing to do with this. If you want to scream it's Obama's fault, I can't dissuade you. If you want to say he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I can't dissuade you from that, either. Both sides are entrenched. Stuck.
And the 23rd district Congressional race shows where the GOP is going - it's moving farther into extremism. That leaves out a lot of Republicans who have a more centrist view. Blue Dog Democrats are facing a similar problem.
Maybe it's finally time for that viable third party. That's where I'll be going.
Nocomme1, (had to revise to make clear I was answering you)
I appreciate that you give a nod to my supposed intelligence. Very kind of you.
So 11 Republican party bosses chose this donkey in elephant's clothes to be the nominee? Why would they do that? Or did they consider her a viable, centrist Republican candidate who might appeal to both moderate Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats?
She did endorse the Dem. Really, how could she endorse the Conservative, now Republican candidate whose views were so far right of her own?
As for being disdainful of the people, that's a specious charge and if you read again, you'd see that what I said is that Rush, Fox (and yes, MSNBC, too if you asked my opinion) play on fear. If you can convince me that my liberties are in danger, that my children's future is in danger, that our ability to make a living in this country is in danger, you'll scare me. And I'm supposedly an intelligent person. But I was frightened by the direction the last administration was taking. And Fox and Limbaugh are trying to create that same fear among Republicans about this administration. It's working. You're scared to death. You're convinced your freedoms are at risk, despite the fact that you've already lost many of them thanks to the Patriot Act. You're convinced that we will never get out from under this massive debt that was created by the Bush Administration and added to by the Obama White House.
I'm covering election news tonight. The NYS Republicans are challenging college students going to the polls in a contested district because they need to cut into the liberals' majority in the region. It's politics as usual and if I ask about it, I'm told it's being done to "protect the voters".
So much for the PEOPLE.
At random:
"My ultra-conservative cousin, whose comment will follow this, is convinced that his views are unassailable by any logic"
Golly, I don't think they're "unassailable". Geez. They're assailed all the time. I just think he's right, most of the time.
"Discredit them both as propaganda machines if you want to discredit either one." From your keyboard to Obama's enemies list.
You say that the director of The Center for Medicare Advocacy thinks Medicare is swell? I wouldn't exactly think his opinion would be that it sucks eggs. It costs much more than was ever anticipated, of course but what's a little fiscal unsustainability, anyway?
I've worked for the government for close to 15 years, working with the poor, disabled and indigent and I can tell you firsthand the govt is a wasteful mess. I'm looking to get out. It is just depressing and frustrating and sad. I have seen Obama's future and it doesn't work.
"And the 23rd district Congressional race shows where the GOP is going - it's moving farther into extremism. That leaves out a lot of Republicans who have a more centrist view." I heard the same thing when Reagan ran, you know, right before he won in two landslides. That dog don't hunt.
"So 11 Republican party bosses chose this donkey in elephant's clothes to be the nominee? Why would they do that? Or did they consider her a viable, centrist Republican candidate who might appeal to both moderate Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats?" Yes, the NY Republican Party is known far and wide for its wisdom. All four NY State Republican officeholders are big fans. LOL
More randomness:
"I appreciate that you give a nod to my supposed intelligence. Very kind of you." Hey, I wasn't just saying it. I think you're smart as hell. Smart but really, really wrong. Happens all the time. Smart people have held strange notions since the dawn of time. It is a time honored tradition.
"And where is the place for moderates?" I'm glad you brought up moderates. The media is in love with them (well, when they disagree with conservatives, that is) but frankly I've never been much of a fan. I respect liberal true-believers far more than I do moderates. My problem with them is that I think they're generally lazy, haven't taken the time or made the effort to form a consistent philosphy. They choose positions like they choose items from a Chinese menu: One from column A, one from column B. "Oh, that sounds good. Oh and so does that one there." There don't seem to any underlining principles. They're fickle. They don't arrive at their positions through any consistent thinking process. I wouldn't think of limiting their input in any way but I have no use for them.
"If you can convince me that my liberties are in danger, that my children's future is in danger, that our ability to make a living in this country is in danger, you'll scare me." There is nothing wrong with being scared. Bad policies have destroyed more lives in more countries than any one person could ever count. I'd be crazy if I wasn't scared that Obamacare will ration care, which I think it will. I'd be crazy if I didn't think that Cap and Trade will cause energy prices to "skyrocket". I think it will. Obama told me so.
I really get fed up with politicians who rail against the other side trying to scare people. They ALL do. Obama's entire campaign was based on scaring us into thinking McCain would gives the same "scary" policies as GWB. OOOOO Scaring people is only wrong when you are actually lying about what the other guy will do. Sometimes politicians think the other guy will pass harmful legislation. A lot of the time though, they know what they're saying is bunk and they're just cynically trying to frighten the booboisee. But almost all of them do it. Yeah, THAT kind of "scaring" is pathetic and wrong.
Politics get nasty because people think the other guys are going to screw up their lives. Yes, people should be nice, more rational etc. The human race is very flawed, sadly. I mean I think I'm pretty nice but I'm often kinda stinky myself. LOL Hey, at least I'm working on it!
We have to agree to disagree as usual, nocomme1. But at least we do it civilly. And that's heartening.
"You say that the director of The Center for Medicare Advocacy thinks Medicare is swell? I wouldn't exactly think his opinion would be that it sucks eggs. It costs much more than was ever anticipated, of course but what's a little fiscal unsustainability, anyway?"
You don't seem to get what this organization does. They're lawyers who fight the gov't pro bono for elderly and disabled clients. And its director, a woman who knows every wart on the sytem, still says its great, cost-efficient insurance that beats private insurance on every level.
I'm not discounting your experiences. You've undoubtedly seen a thousand horror stories. But so has this organization; that's all they see. And yet they still think it's a damned good system.
As for your view of moderates, I couldn't disagree more. Who said I cannot pick and choose which issues I agree with? How does being thoughtful and not a knee jerk "I'm with them" person make me a waffler or someone with no underlying principles?
Give me a moderate any day. Give me someone who thinks about each issue and decides it on its own merits, not someone who just swallows a message that pretty much fits his beliefs.
Underlying principles don't have a blue or red color. My congressman, for example, is a hard line progressive who supports the NRA.
The world isn't black or white yet we want labels that paint it that way.
I'll wear one label. I'm a humanist. And whichever stances from either end of the philosophical spectrum fit with my definition of that, I'll support.
And I fully support you in your efforts to not be "stinky". :)
"Who said I cannot pick and choose which issues I agree with?" Nobody. Certainly not me. Because I disagree with moderates doesn't mean I would deny them the right to do anything they want to do, hold any positions they want to hold. I have no desire to force anybody to do conform to my way of thinking. I just wish they'd be more thoughtful.
"How does being thoughtful and not a knee jerk "I'm with them" person make me a waffler or someone with no underlying principles?" There have been enough books written about the underlying philosphies of liberalism and conservatism to fill whole libraries. How many books have been written about the philosphy of moderation? Very few. That is because it isn't really grounded in any consistent philosphy. It is inconsistent and built on shifting sands.
A philosphy grounded on the principle that that government which governs least governs best for example would lead a person to disagree with the kind of government interventionism that is the hallmark of Obama-ism. But a moderate could easily hold the inconsistent belief that he doesn't believe in massive taxes and yet also believe that we should have universal government-run healthcare and Cap and Trade. It isn't consistent and doesn't lead to effective government.
What consistent principles underlie "moderation"? Can you point me to any good books on the subject? Who do you think are the great moderate President's of history? Who is in the pantheon of great moderates in history?
Moderates aren't the solution to anything. They're part of the problem. It has nothing to do with "labels". It has to do with clear thinking.
As far as your progressive congressman who supports the NRA, I'd be willing to bet that his district has a high percentage of NRA members. My guess is his NRA support is based more on political considerations than any particular principles. Or maybe he IS just a moderate.
Ah. We need books by others to validate a viewpoint? Not for me.
I may hold a basic liberal philosophy, but on some issues I don't agree.
I have a basic distrust of anything that expects me to swallow it whole. I don't care who wrote the books.
Presidents? Most of them are moderates of one stripe or another, with a philosophical bent in one direction or another. But political reality is that nothing gets done if you're too radical in either direction unless the stars are aligned just right.
My congressman? Progressive, through and through. And I'm sure you know his district well enough to know that the NRA is vastly outnumbered by liberals. But he was threatened with violence, and that led him to value the right to carry a legal weapon.
Violence can breed strange bedfellows.
"We need books by others to validate a viewpoint?" Who said anything about validation? Is that why YOU read books? I read them either for pure enjoyment or to learn something. Books about political philosphy explain things. I'll either buy into it because I think it makes sense or I won't. But liberalism and conservatism have produced so many books because they represent certain schools of thought. Moderation isn't a school of thought, it is an impulse, untethered to anything but what sounds good without much reflection.
"Presidents? Most of them are moderates of one stripe or another, with a philosophical bent in one direction or another." Sadly you're right which is why most of them are such nonentities. The truly great ones however? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Reagan: not a moderate in the bunch. Each one was an "extremist". Which was my point in the first place.
Post a Comment