Republican Ex-Candidate Endorses Democatic Former Opponent
November 1st, 2009, 9:26 PM EST
Republican Dede Scozzafava, who dropped out of the NY-23 congressional race because all the national money was going to her conservative opponent Doug Hoffman, has endorsed Democrat Bill Owens for the seat vacated by John McHugh.
“I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same,” she said. “In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.”
They called her a “radical leftist” when she was in the race against Owens. I can only imagine what they’ll call her now.
Scozzafava is a radical leftist, but she is to be admired for her ideological consistency. Since she is a liberal it makes more sense for her to endorse the more liberal of the two candidates, if it weren’t for the conservative challenge she would still be in the running. And the likelihood of keeping the seat out of Democrat hands is higher with her out of the race, whereas if everyone had followed Gingrich’s lead Owens would probably have sailed to victory. It just goes to show that Rahm Emmanuel knew what he was doing in 2006 and the NRC made a critical misjudgment that fortunately was corrected by the constituents. Thats why its called “democracy,” of the people. May the candidate who will best serve the interest of the people of the 23rd district of New York win, regardless of party.
EricG Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 am
She is endorsed by the NRA.
Geez, you folks are just gone …
November 1st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
It is an extremely Republican district.
It would be quite a feat for the Democrat to win, even though Hoffman does not live there and has demonstrated no knowledge of the local issues.
And Scozzafava is a radical leftist like Olympia Snow is a radical right winger.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 11:49 pm
maybe I missed something. What did Hoffman do to prove he has no knowledge of the local issues?
piffle Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Oh, Hoffman didn’t know all the nuances of some local affairs in a few interviews. Which primarily means he didn’t know who to promise to bring home the pork for, if he were running for governor that might be disqualifying but congress is a national office.
And OldLefty, Scozzafava is to the left of the president on some issues. To keep referring to her as a moderate is like calling Christine Todd Whitman a market anarchist.
EricG Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
This rejection of the facts around Hoffman’s inability to answer questions is a good real-life example of what I am saying about conservatives ignoring the facts and just blindly supporting anyone who repeats their talking-points.
The same is true of Meg Whitman running for Republican Governor of California in 2010.
She didn’t vote in a score of highly important local issue elections, including the recall of Governor Davis.
Now she wants to talk about “cutting spending” and “creating jobs” and she is “pro-business” … that’s all code-speak and nonsense to me.
Who is she going to fire? What industry can she make hire workers? Who is anti-business, exactly?
I imagine the Hoffman campaign has many of the same elements of non-answers and crafty language.
Sometimes I think maybe conservatives just love getting conned. They must just love getting taken for a swindle because they keep setting themselves up for it in never holding even candidates to any sort of standards.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Piffle said,
“ Hoffman didn’t know all the nuances of some local affairs in a few interviews. Which primarily means he didn’t know who to promise to bring home the pork for,”
………….
He couldn’t come without Dick Army…. There is no evidence that he has thought beyond dog whistle talking points for the religious far right.
We can do this ALL day, but to keep referring to Hoffmann as a conservative is like calling Alan Keyes a ‘Secular Progressive’.
“Scozzafava is to the left of the president on some issues.”
…………………..
Issues that most libertarians, (who I place on the right), do not consider left wing at all.
It really IS all relative, in the sense of: Reagan could be said to be to the left of Wilson, Eisenhower to the left of subsequent presidents.
Was Bush to the left of Clinton in expanding government?
As for;
“When you guys start nominating low tax pro-life pro-second amendment people who don’t think defending this country is evil maybe you can start lecturing people on the “small tent,” seems you accuse Republicans of seeking purity within their own party while you demand the whole damn country adopt the San Francisco board of supervisors platform.”
………………………………
One doth PROJECT too much, methinks.
(Heard this phrase before.)
By the way, YOU don’t get to decide for the rest of us what constitutes “defending this country”.
Many on the left wish that the right would defend this country instead of merely lining the pockets of defense contractors, and CALLING it defense.
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 am
Lefty, you ever come up with anything original? Your constant rant against American corporations is really getting pretty old and worn out.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 am
Daddio,
I guess when we stop allowing them to keep doing the same old things, I will stop ranting about them.
That sounds like the cheating spouse who repeatedly got caught keeps demanding more trust, every time they get while screaming, “why do you keep bringing THAT up!?”
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:30 am
You should apply your logic to our leaders in Washington Lefty. You should hold their feet to the fire like you do corporations…all 537 of them.
Congress demands our trust while they are screwing the American citizens. Obama demands our trust while he is screwing the American citizens.
I don’t trust any one of them.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:34 am
Actually, I have contacted the Whitehouse and MY congress people, AND others leadership, stating that I would work as hard to get them defeated as I did to get them elected.
How many Bush supporters did that in his first term when he and the Republican Congress were screwing the American citizens?
You guys seemed to pretty much demand obedience.
karthiks030977 Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:38 am
Not to forget, OL, the same Willies were telling us to trust BushCo everytime we protested his excesses, his unnecessary wars, etc…a neutral observer would say this “I dont trust” that appears magically when Obama wins is just a reflection of underlying RACIST mistrust.
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 am
Selective memories Lefty and Karthiks? I have stood against Bush on many issues and I have stood against the spend crazy GOP during Bush’s two terms.
Bush screwed Americans by failing to weild his veto pen during his first six years. He screwed Americans when he signed that first 700 Billion dollar bailout. He was misguided with his Medicare prescription bill and his no children left behind.
Where our you two on your obedience demanded by Obama?
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:50 am
karthiks030977 ,
There was a strong, trust the authoritarian leader complex coming from the right.
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Going for the old liberal tactic K by calling me a “racist”? It doesn’t surprise me.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 am
“Selective memories Lefty and Karthiks? I have stood against Bush on many issues and I have stood against the spend crazy GOP during Bush’s two terms.”
……………
We are talking BEFORE his approval ratings became irretrievably low.( that was actually before this site was up and running, so we will never know).
I already told you where I am on Obama.
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
You are assuming that I am not being truthful with you Lefty?
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 am
I’m, saying, I don’t know, Daddio….Nobody on the right spoke against Bush until his numbers dropped.
I only know what I see.
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
How can you make that statement Lefty? If this site wasn’t up and running at the time how can you say that “Nobody on the right spoke against Bush until his numbers dropped.”?
All I am saying Lefty is you don’t know.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
What conservative pundits, (the only source we have), spoke against Bush before Katrina?
I can give you TONS of liberals bashing Obama, from Krugman to Rich, from David Sirota, to Glen Greenwald, to Howard Zinn, to Rachael Maddow.
Where are the corresponding critics on your side for Bush this early?
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Hannity to Limbaugh. Beck to Cunnignham. O’Reilly to Scarbough (sp). Washington Times to Heritage Foundation. Human Events to National Review.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Hannity to Limbaugh. Beck to Cunnignham. O’Reilly to Scarbough (sp). Washington Times to Heritage Foundation. Human Events to National Review.”
……………..
Show me how critical they were in the first year.
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 am
You first said Katrina and now you are down to the first year? I don’t have a photographic mind Lefty. I don’t know what they said the first year. I give you examples of conservatives who were critical of Bush during his first term. Same as you give me a list of liberals criticizing Obama.
Mostly the out of control spending by Congress and Bush failing to take control with his veto power. Tax cuts and a strong stand against terrorism took priority during his first term. That is what I remember most vividly.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
“Tax cuts and a strong stand against terrorism took priority during his first term. That is what I remember most vividly”
…………
That WAS the pro government, you are either with us or against us, just trust us, tax cuts for the rich at a time of war…that I am talking about.
It was only after Katrina that his numbers became abysmal.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Every person a conservative has ever run against is a “radical leftist.”
Usually they throw in “proof” the person is “the most liberal” and is a “militant” and is a secret commie.
Shouldn’t be long before thyey find a picture of Scozzafava where she’s not wearing a flag pin….
jasperjava Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a “radical leftist” to these rabid right-wing extremists.
If Reagan were alive today, he’d be denounced as a RINO.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“Shouldn’t be long before thyey find a picture of Scozzafava where she’s not wearing a flag pin….”
………………………..
A flag pin made in China.
burqa Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Anyone seen Scozzafava’s birth certificate?
EricG Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 am
I heard she was a closet Muslim.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I think the whole thing is a win-win for the Democrats.
If their candidate wins, it is an obvious victory.
If Hofmann wins, it will enncourage the Taliban wing of the GOP and further marginalize the party by encouraging it to continue to appealo to a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate
piffle Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“If Hofmann wins, it will enncourage the Taliban wing of the GOP and further marginalize the party by encouraging it to continue to appealo to a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate”
Only if GOP party bosses block primaries and nominate people to the left of the Democrat. Grassroots won’t be able to focus the resources and national endorsements for the other 430 or so house seats on top of 33 Senate contests and the numerous governor races so with a proper primary contest thats no concern. Marco Rubio ahs already said if he loses the Florida primary he won’t pursue an independent run and will encourage his supporters to defeat the Democrats. Thats how it works yo, the people just want a voice.
When you guys start nominating low tax pro-life pro-second amendment people who don’t think defending this country is evil maybe you can start lecturing people on the “small tent,” seems you accuse Republicans of seeking purity within their own party while you demand the whole damn country adopt the San Francisco board of supervisors platform.
EricG Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 am
Partisan blather and poorly educated perspectives on The U.S. Constitution … do did say you were a right-winger, right Piffle?
Just making sure. Because it seems to me it’s always the right coming up with the wild nonsense that gets rather hard to repeat once you actually read books and use evidence in your arguments instead of pure conjecture.
Only around 28% identify with “Republican” anymore and conservatism and Republicanism have long been deeply connected.
There is no question that the ideology of conservatism is not only failing but fading fast.
The people want a voice alright. A voice that states rather clearly they are sick of conservative policy and non-solutions from the right.
piffle Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“conservatism and Republicanism have long been deeply connected.”
Only for about 30 years.
“There is no question that the ideology of conservatism is not only failing but fading fast.”
Dont agree with polls that don’t support your preconceived notions?
“The people want a voice alright. A voice that states rather clearly they are sick of conservative policy and non-solutions from the right.”
I would hardly say multi-trillion dollar spending and trying to change social policy through executive orders and expanding the judiciary with court packing are solutions. Being a leftist is easy, if you spend all the money and nothing changes, you just say spend more. If people don’t do the things you want then you just write a law saying anyone who disagrees goes to jail. And you just repeat fact free talking points about evil corporations and graft instead of isolating problems in the government.
Wasn’t Sarbanes-Oxley supposed to protect everyone from short selling in the market? Wasn’t the progressive income tax supposed to end deficits? Was’t the Department of Education supposed to raise test scores and the EPA supposed to save the planet… oh yeah, they never get enough money. Never ever never. If the state is the solution to everything then why hasn’t NASA put a man on the moon in over 30 years?
jasperjava Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
If the state is the solution to everything then why hasn’t NASA put a man on the moon in over 30 years?
Has the private sector put a man on the moon lately? Talk about a non-sequitur. There are other objectives in space exploration, you know. The moon is kinda “been there, done that”, dontcha think?
We’ll go back to the moon when it makes sense from a scientific and economic standpoint.
If people don’t do the things you want then you just write a law saying anyone who disagrees goes to jail.
That’s sounds more like the M.O. of the B*sh/Cheney regime. Except that they don’t write a law, they just ignore the laws that are already in-force.
Wasn’t the progressive income tax supposed to end deficits?
In classical Keynesian theory, governments ought to run deficits in times of recession to stimulate demand. In good economic times, they are supposed to run surpluses. Clinton put that into practice for a change.
The Friedman supply-side theory has been proven unsustainable, and has almost resulted in catastrophic economic failure. We are still in the smoking embers of that wreckage, and yet there are still some who believe in the right-wing dogma. It’s a bit like people teniously hanging on to lifeboats in freezing Atlantic waters, proclaiming that the Titanic is unsinkable.
Lee Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“Wasn’t Sarbanes-Oxley supposed to protect everyone from short selling in the market? Wasn’t the progressive income tax supposed to end deficits? Was’t the Department of Education supposed to raise test scores and the EPA supposed to save the planet”
No, none of the above.
But they’ve all had some degree of success in their actual respective mandates. Why don’t you find out what those are?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
sarbanes-oxley is a thorn in the side of every CFO in the country. The intention is good, the execution is lacking.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Scozzafava sure jumped on the liberal bandwagon awful fast…or has she been a closet liberal Dem all this time? Awful suspicious, supporting your opposition all of a sudden.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 am
Perhaps she is afraid of the same kind of “radicalism” you accuse the left of…or she is angry at what she sees as a snub.
Anyway, REAL liberals don’t see her as liberal anymore than Conservatives see Olympia Snow as conservative.
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
Pro abortion, pro union, pro gay rights. Sounds like a liberal agenda to me.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 am
Also sounds libertarian to me.
The same type of examples can be found about Leiberman.
John Galt Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
Also sounds libertarian to me.
Nah. Libertarians are pro-life, ant union but pro gay.
Think of it in terms of extending liberty to the individual.
karthiks030977 Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Nah, I dont think so. I think you’re projecting your beliefs on Libertarians and wishing there’s a consensus.
I believe more libertarians are “pro-choice” than “pro-life” in the sense of the abortion debate.
Also,more Libertarians are “pro-life” than “pro-choice” in the sense of unnecessary war.
John Galt Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I believe more libertarians are “pro-choice” than “pro-life” in the sense of the abortion debate.
It may even feather out one more degree. I think they are pro-choice when it comes to “victim of crime” and “health of mother/child”
Pro-life when abortion is sued as birth control.
Or you could be right and I am just pasting my beliefs on theirs; hard to say.
Also,more Libertarians are “pro-life” than “pro-choice” in the sense of unnecessary war.
I am certain you are right on this one.
flap Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I think most libertarians are probably pro-choice, at least from my understanding.
Ron Paul is an important exception…he’s pretty much anti-government everything, but he also recognizes that abortion is murder. Has nothing to do with government, really. Good for him.
John Galt Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
<i.I think most libertarians are probably pro-choice, at least from my understanding.
I fall into that split category; it’s okay in some cases and not in others. Some time ago I listed myself as pro-choice.
See, when you make it okay in some circumstances and not in other, there is going to have to be rules established and some form of government is going to have to decide. Because I strongly feel that the government is neither fast enough or correct often enough, I felt I had to default into the choice side.
I recently have decided that we just have to make the governmental process better and not simply punt.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
from the official party platform of the Libertarian party.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 am
She is a RINO, plain and simple. Glad she is out of the race on the GOP ticket.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 am
Well, then Lieberman is a DINO, and I hope he loses his chairmanship.
Imagine if Spector lost to Toomey in 06, then campaigned FOR Obama, and McCain and the GOP in congress won , ….imagine that the GOP would let him keep his chairmanships?
Daddio Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Dunno….gotta go. My crystal ball broke the other day.
piffle Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Lieberman has acted against the party lately, no denial there. He isn’t a “Democrat” anymore, Lamont voters.
The fact Scozzafava jumped ship so fast and started campaiging for the other side jsut shows what all conservatives knew all along, she has an agenda and the letter by her name doesn’t nullify that. It isn’t a bad thing she stands by her convictions, people just get sick of being told to compromise their own because you guys hate democracy since it doesn’t turn out the way you want it. Like whining that 2000 was stolen, instead of saying “Gore sucked as a campaigner,” and then going insane about 2004 when there was no fraud.
And any right winger yelling how ACORN stole the election in 2008 or Obama is ineligible because of some birth certificate insanity is just as equally nuts and looking for reasons to hate a political opponent, but they constitute about as small a percentage as the leftwingers who thought 9/11 was a government conspiracy or the Iraq war was some Zionist imperatum. Point is, if you’re a liberal then run in the liberal group. If you’re a conservative run as a conservative. If you’re a moderate then consider which party best reflects your views, liberty or statism, and then consider whether your constituents are amaible to your proposals. John Kasich and Dennis Kucinich come from the same state, its possible.
jasperjava Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Like whining that 2000 was stolen, instead of saying “Gore sucked as a campaigner,”
Just because Gore sucked as a campaigner doesn’t necessarily mean that the election wasn’t stolen. Anyone with any intellectual honesty ought to admit that there were problems with the Florida election, including the illegal disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legitimate voters whose names were somehow added to a bogus list of “felons”.
Dubya “won” by less than one ten-thousandth of the total vote (despite getting fewer votes than Gore nationwide). The only intellectually honest position to the Florida vote is the agnostic one: nobody really knows who won Florida in 2000, and the Supreme Court’s intervention is and was questionable to say the least.
and then going insane about 2004 when there was no fraud.
Of course there was fraud. The vicious attack on Kerry’s war record was totally fraudulent.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Gore DID win more votes than Bush
Before your talk about 2000, you have to explain the popular vote, and how in Bush v Gore the “unequal counting methods would harm Bush and not Gore, and why it was a per curium decision in a 5 – 4 ruling, and why it was “not” to be precedence.
Imagine if, GW Bush won the popular vote, and it came down to ONE state.
And imagine if, the voting was suspect in that one state, (with very conservative evangelicals crying that they may have voted for Cynthia McKinney).
Imagine if, Al Gore’s brother was the governor of that state.
Imagine how happy Bush supporters would be if the Supreme court of that state then ruled for a recount in counties where Bush thought the results were suspect.
Then imagine if, a bunch of angry citizens of that state started pounding on the glass at the election board chanting, “STOP THE FRAUD!!”, and it was later found that they were NOT state residents at all, but DNC operatives.
Now, imagine that the SCOTUS was leeebrul, and voted 5 -4 to stop the recount, Al Gore is president……and stated that their ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent.
Imagine if he then packed the Pentagon with people who had views that were 180 degrees opposite those he ran on.
Then you have to imagine that 9/11 happens on his watch, he sits, paralyzed in the classroom for 7 minutes, runs away for the rest of the day, then bills himself as the leader who is “tough on terror.”
Imagine if he sold the nation on a pre election plan for war, claiming grave danger and WMDs and spent and lost tons of money on it, put all requests for money in emergency supplemental spending bills, only to have it come out from every investigative group that there were no wmd.
Imagine if he increased the debt ceiling 5 times, lost the surplus, the WTC, ALL the lives to 9/11, anthrax, the wars and Katrina, New Orleans, and our respect,( abu Ghraib)….
Now look back at the Clinton Chronicles, the “murder of V1nce Foster”, the Whitehouse Christmas tree decorated with crack pipes and sex toys, then jump ahead to Obama is not a citizen, death panels, radical, Christian Muslim, …..
Now after EVERYTHING that is laid out above had happened, imagine if the Democrats had dismissed the concerns of those who were increasingly anxious about Gore, as “Gore Derangement Syndrome”.
One more piece of evidence that OFTEN, the truth is EXACTLY the opposite of what the GOP says it is.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Al Gore lost because he gambled incorrectly in his lawsuit. IF he would have called for a statewide recount, he may have won. (depending on how the chads were counted) however he petitioned for a selective (and illegal) recount and it was struck down (as it should have been) but not only was it illegal, but he still would have lost under the scenario he was fighting for because the counts were already in his favor in those counties. More miscounts in his favor were found in counties he was not petitioning for, than the ones he was petitioning for.
I also find it hilarious that democrats rest their fate on people who can’t properly punch a ballot…
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
Gotta go. Falling asleep at my desk. Have yourself a very nice day Lefty.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:26 am
And the American Taliban Repubikkan party continue to goose step their march off the cliff.
karthiks030977 Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
Lemmings.
William Britting Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Well the Taliban and the GOP both have something in common.. They both want America to fail
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am