I'd be amused to see an alternative scenario in which Hoffman is running on the GOP/Conservative line, and Scozzafava as the third party candidate with only the Independence party, simply to see htmldon's spin in support of Hoffman.
Issue-for-issue, I probably line up more with Hoffman so I suppose you would be right.
I'm sure there are third-party candidates out there that I would agree with more from time to time, but would/should I support them? Hell no. Politics is about coalition-building. If center-right folks start running off into separate ideological camps and leave a united Democratic party, we would have 435 Democratic members of congress.
Scozzafava is certainly to my left on a number of issues - but her position in the Republican party is attacked in the exact same way, using the same methods, by the same people - as my position in the Republican Party. She's for gay marriage, I'm for civil unions - but I assure you that there are large portions of the Republican Party that doesn't want either position represented in the Party. She's pro-choice, I'm mostly pro-life but with some exceptions -- but I assure you that there are large portions of the Republican Party that believe that even a hint of tolerance for pro-choice candidates makes one a RINO. I don't think y'all understand just how bad this sh**t gets.... there is a large and vocal segment of our Party that believes that our most recent Presidential nominee is a liberal that should be thrown out of the Party.
To these folks, many of whom are lining up behind Hoffman's candidacy:
- If you believe in science, you're a liberal Democrat.
- If you believe in Evolution, you're a liberal Democrat.
- If you believe in global warming, you're a liberal Democrat.
- If you support market-based systems to deal with Carbon emissions (like McCain did), you're a Communist.
- If you believe that pro-choice candidates can run as Republicans in moderate districts, you're a RINO and should become a Democrat
- If you're pro-choice, you're already a liberal Democrat.
- If you don't like Fox News, you're a liberal Democrat.
- If you don't attend Church, you're a liberal Democrat.
- If you are fiscally conservative, but are socially moderate, you're a liberal Democrat.
- If you are socially conservative, but fiscally moderate: you're a liberal Democrat.
..... and so on and so forth.
For the citizens of NY-23, this election is about who would make the best Representative in Congress for their interests.
Yet for the nation, and its political institutions, it has broader implications. I'm not endorsing Scozzafava for President, for RNC Chair, for chairman of our Platform committee - but I will proudly stand up for her right to be a Republican.
Alright, all of this must be answered. Starting first with your list:
If you believe in science, you're a liberal Democrat.
-This is the ad hominem attack that liberal democrats always use. It implies two things when a liberal uses it: that a conservative doesn’t support stem cell research and a conservative does not support global warming. It also implies that both of those issues are settled “science” when they clearly are not.
If you believe in Evolution, you're a liberal Democrat.
-More often than not, yes, that’s true. To believe in evolution is to suggest that man is nothing more than animal, and that as such, should not be governed by laws or morals of any kind. Furthermore, evolution has been used to justify both eugenics (as advocated by liberal Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, initially against lower blacks) and genocide (Hitler, a socialist). It has been used to justify all sorts of deviant sexual behavior (Im not talking homosexuality – that’s ok) such as bestiality, and sex with children. Additionally, nearly every claim of evolution, has been debunked as fraudulent – including the taped moths on trees “experiment” that was placed in tons of textbooks. The theory of course sounds good and rational, but there’s still no proof after all these years.
If you believe in global warming, you're a liberal Democrat.
-Or an idiot, see above about science… Even liberals don’t believe in global warming. It is made up so that they can pass legislation to further their control over all aspects of peoples lives.
If you support market-based systems to deal with Carbon emissions (like McCain did), you're a Communist.
-See global warming…and those market-based systems funnel money to Goldman Sachs and GE, so the individual that supports isn’t Communist – they are Corrupt
If you believe that pro-choice candidates can run as Republicans in moderate districts, you're a RINO and should become a Democrat
-It entirely depends on what type of district the individual runs in. Is that a pro-choice district, and if its not, why wasn’t the pro-life candidate selected?
If you're pro-choice, you're already a liberal Democrat.
-See above
If you don't like Fox News, you're a liberal Democrat.
-Yes that’s true too for the most part. Liberals follow party and left-wing blog commands to hate Fox News and try to spread that message. The reason why is because it exposes their corruption and has the only conservative opinion programs out of all of the major networks in addition to its traditional news and liberal opinion programs (Geraldo, Greta).
If you don't attend Church, you're a liberal Democrat.
-There you are just way off. Another whiny claim…
If you are fiscally conservative, but are socially moderate, you're a liberal Democrat.
-Fine, but be full fledged fiscally conservative if you are one of those swinger types. We can run them in liberal areas and that’s great, but most “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” republicans are hardly “fiscally conservative”. See Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, et. al.
If you are socially conservative, but fiscally moderate: you're a liberal Democrat.
-Generally, the members of this group are not considered liberal to even the most right-wing. It all depends on how truly “socially conservative” they are. There’s more to social conservatism than just gay marriage and abortion – its school prayer, its patriotism, its immigration, etc.
Now, you say that you proudly support Scozzafava’s right to call herself a Republican. I do too, but I do not support her claim to represent the party in elective office when she clearly holds the views of President Obama in all, but one issue, gun control. She has voted for tax increases so many times that even her democrat opponent is attacking her for it. She supports the most vile of President Obama’s legislation including card-check, deathcare, stimulus, and Im sure if given the opportunity, it would be even more. The thing though that is most unforgivable about her is that she acts like a democrat. A reporter from the Weekly Standard (a center-right magazine) came to one of her meetings to interview her. She called the cops on him fraudulently claiming that he was screaming at her and that she was in fear of her safety. The reporter did not scream at her at all, in fact he tried to politely ask her questions. Even the cop who detained the reporter apologized wishing he didn’t have to detain him.
I don’t blame Scozzafava, however, for the whole fiasco. I blame the NRCC and the elite republicans in Albany that got together to run her as our candidate in the first place. A primary between her and Hoffman would have clearly rendered Hoffman the winner of that and the district because that district has been represented by a reliable conservative for years. The NRCC’s involvement is what makes this such a poison pill for conservatives. How can we support a party that won’t even run a conservative candidate in a conservative district? And if you’re going to run a socially liberal candidate, then for God’s sake make sure they are completely fiscally conservative. Instead, they chose someone who even toyed with becoming a democrat prior to this special election. It would have been Specter all over again, probably in shorter time.
Poll
