Reading Election Night Tea Leaves and Wearing Lucky Neckties
by Frank DeMartiniChris Christie was obviously wearing his; as was Robert McDonnell. The GOP is officially breathing again. It was a great day for Republicans Tuesday. It happened exactly one year after we took our worst shellacking since the 1960s. And, what did President Obama do while his party was getting whooped in two states which voted for him last year? The official statement from the White House is that he did not even bother to watch any of the results as “they just didn’t matter and didn’t reflect on him: They were locally driven.”
For the past year I have been saying the current President is one of the biggest megalomaniacs in history. And Tuesday night he proved it again. While the state of New Jersey, which is one of the bluest, was falling and the State of Virginia was being swept by Republicans (which has not happened since Reconstruction), the President refused to acknowledge any of it mattered. I wonder if he was wearing his lucky tie.
However, we all know who definitely was not: Doug Hoffman. This is the man who ran on the Conservative ticket in NY-23, a district in Upstate New York that has been Republican since the Civil War. Well, in the immortal words of Jacques Clouseau, “Not Anymore!” Doug Hoffman was defeated garnering only 46% of the vote. The projected winner, the Democrat Bill Owens, garnered 49% and the liberal Republican who withdrew last week received 5%. She proved to be the spoiler.
I find this race in NY-23 to be very disturbing. It is a race that garnered national attention when Sarah Palin, the Queen of the Far Right, decided to support the Conservative Candidate and not the Republican. Before that, the race was hardly being looked at. NY-23 is a district which borders on Canada and Vermont. It is more than 90% white and skews Republican by a margin of more than five percentage points. The area has been Republican for as far as anyone can remember. But, last night, it elected a Democrat. Why?
The Republican Party nominated Dede Scozzafava to run without a primary. Ms. Scozzafava is one of the most liberal Republicans in the history of the Party. She is not pro-life, supports same-sex marriage and has strong ties to Labor — positions which are opposed by the majority of the Party. She does support the Bush tax cuts and is against Cap-and-Trade. It was rumored during the election that she hinted she might caucus with the Democrats if elected.
Obviously the nomination of Ms. Scozzafava was a big mistake. By nominating her, the Party allowed a three way race to occur thereby guaranteeing a Democrat victory. Of course, it did not help, that upon quitting the race five days ago, Ms. Scozzafava gave her support, not to the Conservative Hoffman, but to the Democrat Owens. The Party should have run a primary before nominating Scozzafava or, at the least, seen the power of the conservative movement and nominated someone more in line with the mainstream Republican platform.
But, that is not really what disturbs me about the race in NY-23. What disturbs me is the ramification of what happened there to the rest of the country and to the 2010 election The Republican Party seems to be splintering into two halves, the conservatives and the moderates. The Conservatives are being supported by Ms. Palin and a large group of right-wing pundits. They are represented by the Tea Party organizations and the States’ Rights Groups. I am probably one of them.
However, without the moderates; the center of the political spectrum, the Party will not regain control of the Federal Government. There is simply not enough on the Far Right to support a majority anywhere in the country. The moderates and independents win elections. And, boy was that clear last night.
All of the exit polling shows that McDonnell and Christie won because there was a major swing in the independent voter to the Republicans. These swing voters stated they were against huge government spending, the failed stimulus package and were in fear for the future of their children. The majority of these independents voted for Obama in the last election.
We need them, these independents. We must do whatever is necessary to maintain their support. We cannot swing to the far right and expect to do anything in 2010. If we do, there will be a lot of Democrats wearing their lucky ties. If we continue to attract the moderates and independents as happened Tuesday, it will be a large group of Republicans wearing theirs.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
53 Comments
This is exactly what happened in Canada in the 90s with the Reform party.
I'm speaking without even a hat, if you believe the Texas adage all hat and no cattle.
I would ask you to reverse your theory that the Republicans can not win without the moderates.
I ask can the moderates win without the conservatives. My anecdotal experience is a lot of
conservatives are not going to vote for McCain style candidate again. I agree a third party is no answer
certainly not a winner. Where does that leave us?
Democrat lite is a losing hand. If there had been a primary, Hoffman would have won. Moderates will support our side.
However, without the moderates; the center of the political spectrum, the Party will not regain control of the Federal Government.
True enough, but who are these moderates, Scozzafava and Specter? Does this argument apply to liberals that purge their moderates like Lieberman? This whole notion of appealing to moderates is how we end up with spineless RINO's. Make the Conservative argument and you will draw in those in the middle. Even liberals understand this which is why in the general election they campaigned as center-right candidates, but when they win the revert to their leftwing tendencies as we've witnessed with obama's election. How can they get away with this? Because their stupid constituents rarely hold them accountable.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood and Fernando Colon, Michael Chavez. Michael Chavez said: Reading Election Night Tea Leaves and Wearing Lucky Neckties http://bit.ly/2S53tP [...]
I object to the implication that Independents and "moderates" are interchangeable. The Independents I know are simply people who didn't want to declare a party affiliation but are either decidedly liberal or conservative in their principles and vote accordingly. Moderates, on the other hand, as defined by the likes of Scozzafava to McCain, claim party affiliation but seem to go out of their way to prove how little principle means to them by siding with our opponents for political purposes. Independents will flock to a candidate who will stand for conservative principles and moderates will throw tantrums, support the other candidate and get press time. But when the dust clears, the conservative ideals will win out. It'll take time, we didn't get here overnight but iIt's happened before, it'll happen again. So-called moderates are nothing. They only have status because the MSM gives it to them and the inside-the-beltway mentality of the GOP establishment goes along with it.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by bighollywood: Reading Election Night Tea Leaves and Wearing Lucky Neckties http://bit.ly/2S53tP…
Didn't we try the moderate thing last election? Uh–it didn't work.
What you call the right wing was about where John Kennedy stood, and the "moderates" and independents will not hesitate to support those candidates over socialists any day of the week. What needs to happen is the Republican party needs to quit being afraid of ideas, and get solidly on the side of limited government and individual rights. If the party doesn't do that it's less than useless, it is a tool to help the socialists divide their opposition. If the Republican Party doesn't get serious about ideas it deserves to fail quite as much as the liberals.
And I'm writing as an atheist and socially middle of the road kinda guy.
The United States is a conservative nation, overwhelmingly. This nonsense of coddling the far left's lunacy that's destroying this nation and calling it "Moderate" is insane! Why the NYS Republican Party selected a liberal moron that made Obama look like a skinflint Sunday school teacher is beyond me. NitsnBolts is right, the Republican Party MUST get serious about ideas, and here's number one: Any politician in favor of CardCheck MUST be wearing a thick coat of tar and feathers.
Frank DeMartini:
There is always mention of, "the Big Tent", and how Republicans should always try to include everyone under that tent, a tent defined and encouraged by the statist liberal. The same statist liberals that are currently gleefully destroying the Nation, sir.
Sir, could you please tell me WHY we should always do what our political enemies tell us to do? If I were the enemy of a conservative, I would certainly spend time trying to get them to so dilute their political culture that they become unpalatable to both the conservative or the independent, and ease the way for my candidate. And every time we have followed that model, we have LOST! Every time!
Mr. Hoffman suffered the worst position imaginable…after assessing, (correctly, I may add), that the Republican candidate Scozzafava was actually worse than the RINO label, (earning the sobriquet DIABLO), he leaped into the political vacuum, with bare weeks to go, and very near pulled off a minor miracle.
That, sir, is not to be disparaged. It is to celebrated.
The conservative and more centrist candidates won in New Jersey and Virginia. And not by squeakers, but fairly well, and in Virginia, handily.
Mr. Hoffman has next year to develop his candidacy, and Owens to develop a record to try to defend. No loss there, and abundant opportunity, to my eyes..
California continues to shackle itself to the decaying body of liberalism; if we need to have an example of statist failures, I would much rather have a volunteer than a victim…
The "need" for moderates is Machiavellian. We cannot offer respect for moderates, because they are, by definition, our sunshine patriots. On our side when they're tired of taxes, and on their side when they want more convenience. Where is the strength in that?
Conservatives are getting on their feet now. They are learning to speak without the help of the media. They are learning to act, without the help of concerts and tabloid-celebrities.
Sure, they must continue with personal lives that show moderates that we are good people – we're for real. We live under a philosophy that doesn't condone greed, indifference, or hate. If we demonstrate that, the Left will be "left" looking like liars, just like their father.
Our lives should make it obvious to the moderates that the left simply hates us, that they lie about us. And their support will come without us having to compromise. We need to work to make "conservative" take on new meaning. A meaning free of the negativity that the left has been pumping into it since the '60's.
This means learning how to communicate in a sound-bite world. It means knowing how to be firm in an "easy" world. It means knowing how to be a Jedi when the Empire is at its peak. "Do or do not . . . there is no try!" Yoda would definitely have avoided the moderate route.
So, in my opinion, we need to take advice dolled out to a dozen men, thousands of years ago. "Be innocent as doves, and wise as serpents." That's how to win. Clean and smart.
Besides, Machiavelli would have taken sides with the Left. What are we listening to him for?
[...] the original post: Reading Election Night Tea Leaves and Wearing Lucky Neckties This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
We need more moderates… to vote for republicans.
We need more conservatives… on the tickets.
Let's not confuse the two ideas.
The Republican Party can be a Big tent…For everyone Center and Right Ward.
Honestly, there is a time and a place for moderates. We need moderates in crucial areas, and we need Moderates to fill out the party, but there is no room for actual Liberals in the Republican Party. We can win without those, and lord knows the Democrats have more than enough without us.
Now, I'd give a fair warning to anyone who wants to purge the party of Moderates. Doug Hoffman would have won without a primary, and the GOP candidate was a real RINO. Dont see it as a mandate to run against anyone who accepted stimulus money, or happens to be a social liberal but a fiscal conservative or vice versa.
I'll agree that swinging to the far right, where I am, won't attract people and won't win big. But I'm confused as to how swinging to the far left is able to do just that. The BIG liberals have been the BIG winners. Don't agree? Check out our Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe the ignorance of the average American, by far our country's largest liability, makes us deserve the big government takeover we're going to end up with. Well, at least the C-SPAN Saturday-night programming let me know it was coming.
Re: Bill Owens newly installed congressman from NY-23…He campaigned against the Health Care bill. The next day…..drum roll please….wait for it….he declared he was for it to help the people of his district. The vote just confirmed it. Even though Hoffmans' vote would have made the final tally 219-216, at least we'd know he wasn't a turncoat/traitor to the will of the people. I hold the RINOs responsible and am considering whether to withdraw from the Republican Party and swiutch to the Conservative Party. I may as well confirm to these "really smart, educated, elites" that i 'm just a yay-hoo unsophisticated, Bible beliven', common sense human being. Our work is "only just begun". Ladies and gentlemen, 2010 is now 7 3/4 weeks away……
There are no moderates. There are conservatives who consider placating liberals a viable political option. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that 'moderates' swing votes. The votes in California and Maine to ban gay marriage is more "proof" that even "moderates" are conservative when it comes to social values, reconstruct your thinking. There are no moderates.
The economy had a lot to do with that loss.
40% of the country calls themselves conservative now. If moderate is halfway between them and liberals, then moderate is still left-of-center, and that's unacceptable, and also a losing strategy. McCain was considerably left of the center of America. But Beltway Republicans are surrounded by Progressives for years and years and it skews their understanding of what the middle is.
Palin could easily win the Presidency being 100% clear and honest about who she is and what she believes. They ought to give her Steele's job and let her fix the party.
The left convinces moderates to vote for leftists, why can't conservatives convince moderates to vote for conservatives?
While that is partially true, the candidate was also a big part of the loss. My vote went to moderate John McCain only because Sarah Palin was on the ticket. The conservative family and friends that I have spoken with felt the same way. The economy has gotten worse and I am tired of the Obama/Pelosi, etc. antics. I, personally, am longing for a conservative (very conservative) candidate, not one who can play footsie with the left.
Queen of the Far Right? You've bought the Democrat media complex spin. Palin is the Queen of the American center right. Nothing about her is extreme. Get a clue, Frank.
Dede was not just a social liberal, she was a fiscal liberal. Abortion is not going to be radically curtailed unless there is a consensus in the country about it; gay marriage is not going to bankrupt us. Massive spending, borrowing and corruption in Congress and on Wall Street are a threat to the republic. The liberals don't want to talk about that. They would rather push emotional buttons about abortion and being mean to gays, etc. Your analysis of NY 23 is a joke from the start.
I seriously will consider not voting if Palin is the Candidate in 2012. I will vote for every other candidate happily other than her. Give me a candidate who doesn't talk in anecdotes and cliches please.
Maybe if Palin tried using something other than Anecdotes and Cliches I would consider voting for her. I will be a 1st time voter in 2012. For the Love of God I hope its not her.
Make mine Freedom
watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfBj2H6oxog
I haven't quite decided what I think about Palin. She is a politician, but she hasn't done anything too horribly disappointing. I think voting for her would depend on how many degrees she's earned since last time/how much she's learned, and who the democrat is.
You're just plain wrong, Mr. DeMartini.
Most of us don't want to commit political suicide. However, there's a point beyond which we won't go.
If it comes down to it, I'll take another four years of left-wing oppression over a conciliatory John McCain-style candidate. McCain would've been much better than Obama. However, Obama has energized me in a way that McCain wouldn't have, simply because Obama is so very, very disgusting.
You got it wrong this time, Mr. DeMartini. No more going along to get along. There is a point beyond which we will not go.
Good comment, NutsnBolts.
You're on the money when you said, "What you call the right wing was about where John Kennedy stood…" I hate tyranny, and the left has full intentions of establishing an oppressive machine that will crush the spirit of liberty.
That's my two-cents' worth, from a human person, junior grade, who also happens to be an atheist.
I agree with TheBigLebowski. I like Palin, but not as a presidential contender.
So you're sayng to us moderates that it's your way or the highway? Just asking?
I respectfully disagree Tennessee. The way I see it is that the social liberals/fiscal conservatives have no home. They swing right to left depending on the candidate. In my opinion, if the "moderate" Republicans and the "centrist" Democrats would each chuck their respective parties and form a third, Independent Party of social liberals/fiscal conservatives, they'd take the country in a landslide. While I agree a third party appearance on a ticket is a recipe for disaster, what if that third party already was in existance: Lieberman, Bayh, Collins, Snowe, Graham, Nelson (NB), Warner (VA), Webb (VA) and a slew of others already are in office and wouldn't have to kowtow to the extreme of either party. I know this view won't be popular here, however, NY 23 shows just how far a Conservative got even in a conservative district. I was rooting for Hoffman to pull it off, but, in the end, all that happened was the Dems got another Pelosi vote. Some victory, eh Sarah?
I'm no Specter fan, but driving him out of the party only got you another Democrat in the center. Maybe that looks like victory to you, but it looks like 60 votes for them to me.
I am an independent and consider myself a moderate and it really ices me when Rush Limbaugh and conservatives (who need our votes) disparage us as not knowing what we think. I know exactly what I think. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative which means I don't have a party (ergo "Independent"). A Joe Lieberman would get my vote; so would a Lindsay Graham. I voted for John McCain but preferred Rudy Guiliani. I would have trouble voting for Sarah Palin though I like her and think she got a raw deal from the propaganda media. (cond)
cond
I don't care who sleeps with whom, I just don't want to pay for it. I believe abortion is a sin, not a crime. I am in favor of welfare for the truly needy, but opposed to welfare becoming a career (as it is now). I would have bombed the snot out of Afghanistan, but I wouldn't have set foot anywhere near Iraq. I'd never send the military into harm's way without the orders: WIN! I don't have an opinion on gay marriage one way or the other and whatever the majority decide is okay with me. I could argue both sides. I do think there should be a legal way for gay men and lesbians to form permanent bonds recognized by the state so as to avoid legal problems should one die or become incapacitated. I suspect there are a lot of Big Hollywoodites with the same views.
I get flamed by both right and left.
McCain had other problems than being moderate:
1. He looked old as Methusaleh.
2. The propaganda media trashed his VP nominee.
3. When he was ahead, he "suspended his campaign" and raced back to DC to "fix" the economy. (As if the Dems would let him even if he could). That ended his campaign.
4. He's naive. He thought the propaganda media liked him.
5. The country wanted a black as president to show the world we've changed from the knuckle dragging Neanderthals they think we are. (They haven't changed their minds and now we're stuck with Bozo the clown).
6. He might be a war hero but he won't fight politically. The Dems (including the propaganda media) beat the snot out of him.
Being "moderate" had nothing to do with it.
AMEN!
Americans don't want the government sticking its nose into their bedrooms and sex life any more than they want the government sticking their hands in their pockets and withdrawing their hard earned wages.
A John Kennedy Republican would have cleaned Obama's clock.
I basically agree. The GOP should concern itself with fiscal responsibility and fighting creeping socialism and let the social issues go. When women hear "overturn Roe v Wade" what they really hear is "you want to stuff me in a burqa – to hell with that". When African-Americans hear "end affirmative action" what they really hear is "you want to return to Jim Crowe" days. It isn't logical but emotion and gut reactions are not logical. Instead, the GOP spent like drunken sailors when they had The House and Senate and Presidency and spent most of their time scaring the snot out of women and blacks. And they're surprised they lost. Go figure.
I guess I'm a pragmatist. All Hoffman achieved was give the Obama Admin. a claim to victory. Since Dede (and I agree she was NOT a Republican but rather a liberal Democrat passing) was filling a seat, and would have to defend in a year, why attack and demand a doctrinaire Conservative? What not take what you can get, then defeat her in a primary next year with Hoffman, a conservative Republican. Seems to me Republicans constantly shoot themselves in the foot in pursuit of purity in politics. How'd that work out for you in 2008?
Before anybody attacks me as a troll, I've voted Republican since 1984 and this time voted to throw out an excellent representative in my district just because he had a D after his name. That's how mad I am about Democrats!
Moderate Guiliani vs Conservative Palin vs Leftist Obama. Wonder who'd win.
EXACTLY.
In VA this time, moderates and Independents voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Republican who campaigned on fiscal responsibility and left his conservative viewponts at home or at his church. Do not underestimate McDonnell. He is presidential material. Unless the propaganda media can destroy him (as they did George Allen) ya'll will likely get a chance to vote for him for president at some future time.
Well, nothing quite so bold, I just don't see moderates winning anything alone unless they vote the other side. The last election had a moderate candidate and the moderate lost. A lot of people, conservatives, didn't vote because they didn't want McCain. I just don't see another moderate
candidate winning. We can't change the damage being done to us currently by a moderate that wants to get along with the other party and compromise our values in the process. I think we need each other but to be frank another McCain isn't the type of candidate to bring us together. More than a few conservatives have said much the same on this site and others as well. I just wanted the writer of the article to know both sides of that argument is possible.
My nearby small library didn't have the books you recommended on hand. I'll round them up in time.
Thanks.
Interesting post. Liberals have been BIG WINNERS mainly because they disguise their true ideology. Obama appears to have definite Marxist leanings but the propanda media managed to keep that out of the news. McCain wouldn't take him on on that. Besides McCain was an awful debator. Sarah Palin was an attractive candidate, but she was toast when Gibson and Couric destroyed her on TV and Tina Fey piled on. We cannot correct that, but we CAN boycott any advertiser who advertises on SNL, ABC or CBS. Will we? No. Too much trouble. And that's why Democrats win. Besides, they get all the dead people's votes.
Wrong.
Good question. I'd say the biggest obstacle is the propaganda media. Until that is addressed, the Lefties will keep power. How to address it? The only way I know is to boycott advertisers on Propaganda outlets. BH does a lot of that with Hollywood, i.e. not going to films with lefty stars and/or produced/directed by lefty wackos.
Propaganda media always conceal the Lefty's real agenda and pound any Conservative Republican. May I remind you of the Washington Post's hit job on George Allen for saying the word "macaca" which isn't in the dictionary.
Dede was a liberal DEMOCRAT passing as a Republican. Smart move on her part, dumb move on the Republican Party's part to nominate her.
As reported on Drudge the demo candidate broke 4 campaign promises the day he got in.
Somehow that isn't a surprise. You can't share the covers with a party that thinks like that.
The reason he won is varied and we'll get another chance soon.
To rely on those you mention above is foolish as they are going to vote more times then not, as past history indicates, as a democrat. As the man said democrat lite is not where I am at politically.
Growltiger – you raise some interesting issues, of course. Personally I tend to be a rock solid fiscal conservative while being all over the place on so called "social issues." I suppose I tend to generally be more libertarian, e.g. "live and let live" on most social issues. It is the fiscal part that has always caused me to vote Republican, and losing there way on fiscal issues has caused me the most angst with congressional Republicans. I'm not sure NY 23 can really be viewed in terms of overall ideology, however. Here is one interesting opinion published in "Conservative Thinker."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/who_lost_t...
"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."
Jerry Garcia
I think we're both libertarians. Unfortunately the Libertarian Party is wacko. I was a card carryming member until 9-11 when their pacifistic tendencies got the best of me. Afghanistan YES, Iraq NO. They were against BOTH.
So far as those who say choosing between two evils is still choosing evil, I'd argue that there are degrees of evil. The savage who beheaded a living, screaming Daniel Pearl on video cam was evil. So, too, is Bernard Madoff who robbed hundreds of people of their livings. So was the judge who sentenced dissenters to the gulags in the old USSR. There are always the lessor of two (or three) evils. What would you choose? Having your head sawed off on television, losing your life savings, or dying slowly of starvation being worked to death.
That's why I say voting for the lessor of two or three evils sometimes is the better choice.
Reagan Did. Anybody that is smart can.
You must be logged in to post a comment.