a) good news for conservatism, because it shows that conservatives are fed up with the same old same old from the Republican Party, and are willing to vote third party when given the chance.
b) bad news for conservatism, because it shows that conservatives are willing to throw their support behind someone who is ideologically correct even if he knows little or nothing about the practical issues relevant to a constituency (and, similarly, good for liberalism because it shows conservatives have no intention of allowing candidates appealing to moderate voters rise).
c) irrelevant beyond the 23rd Congressional district of New York, because Scozzafava was such a flawed candidate no broader lessons can be drawn from her being driven humiliatingly from the race by Conservative Party insurgent Doug Hoffman.
If I were a voter in that district, I'm not sure what I would have done. Granted, I haven't been following that race much, but from what I know, it would have been difficult for me to have voted for Scozzafava, given her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage views. On the other hand, it would be hard for me to have pulled the lever for Doug Hoffman, given that he doesn't seem to know much about his district, and skipped debates; I don't want to reward Palin-style candidates, because I don't want to encourage Palin-style candidates. I agree with Marc Ambinder:
One lesson that conservatives shouldn't take from the Hoffman example: running unprepared candidates who don't know their districts very well is the way to harness populace [populist? -- RD] energy. That's not true. Hoffman is an exception; unless the GOP is prepared to descend into its Bush twilight anti-intellectualism again, they'll need to recruit smart candidates who, as one Florida GOPer says, can read the New York Times even though he disagrees with it. This is too serious a time for shallow candidate.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Mostly b, but a bit of c. Hoffman is Palin without the high heels, and is unchivalrous, to boot. He has refused to distance himself from Rush Limbaugh's disgusting remark about Scozzafava -- here is a link to a Youtube video of him replying to a question on the subject: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/hoffman-laughs-doesnt-denounce-limbaughs-bestiality-joke-about-scozzafava.php?ref=fpblg
Oh, for gawd's sake, get a sense of humor, Catherine. Limbaugh's crack was funny and appropriate. She did screw over the RINO wing. She legitimated every criticism of liberal Republicans by running to the Democrats once she screwed the pooch (oh, dear, how unchivalrous of me to mention the pooch!). It's obvious to anyone with a double-digit IQ he wasn't being literal when he was making a wordplay off of RINO. The only response Hoffamann should have given the twerp was F.O.
No point in berating Catherine. Humor is subjective and reactions to it can’t be commanded. And then, there's the Golden Rule. Consider the liberal joke that conservatives only care about babies from the moment of conception through birth, after that, they’re on their own. The implication is, after they grow up, they somehow lose their humanity as far as conservatives are concerned. Subject them to the death penalty (even if there are questions about guilt or innocence), kill non-combatant women and children as collateral damage in wars such as Iraq, so what, stuff happens. Wingers and centrists might find that joke about caring only about life in the womb to be funny and spot on. I think many Crunchy Con readers would bristle if liberals commanded them to get a sense of humor if they didn’t laugh at it. Whatever happened to do unto others?
Limbaugh’s listenership is estimated between 15 and 25 million. We’re a nation of 307,852,240 so that leaves many millions more who aren’t drawn to his schtick or don’t listen to him for any number of reasons. Some people hang on his every word, applaud his analysis and perspective and see him as a spokesmen. That’s their choice. But I’ve seen and heard plenty of other people (some of whom always vote R) describe him as insecure, strangely hung up on issues such as neutering, scared, crass, crude, juvenile and immature. That’s their choice, too. There’s enough to criticize him to tell me that he’s never going to appeal to everyone, not even among Republicans.
If everyone had the same taste, we’d all hang out with the same huge circle of friends. But we don’t so we don’t.
Yes, this about sums it up for me: "But I’ve seen and heard plenty of other people (some of whom always vote R) describe him as insecure, strangely hung up on issues such as neutering, scared, crass, crude, juvenile and immature." And I do almost always vote R, when I'm not voting the Conservative or Right-to-Life party lines.
Your readers might be interested in knowing that I have formed brand-new Centrists groups on both Linked In and Twibes at Twitter.
As you might expect, the reception at Linked In has been superb. Twitter will be a harder sell, since it now seems to be 99 percent PR-firm-run script bots, catering to both the Far Left and the Far Right.
No matter. Actual Americans, particularly my own extremely disaffected Baby Boom generation, aged 46-63 in 2009, are moving fast towards the Center, no matter whether we formally identify ourselves as Republicans, Democrats, or Independents.
If you're interested in what Boomers are thinking right now, please take a look at my popular new series, Baby Boomers-The Angriest Generation.
And if you're at Linked In, especially, consider joining the new Centrists group. I think we're going to become a source of important information in the months and years ahead.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.