Muddled message in New York’s 23rd Congressional District
November 4th, 2009 at 12:53am Chuck Sweeny
Before anyone starts crowing about Democrat Bill Owens’ win in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, he did win with 49 percent, a large minority, but still a minority.
This was more a grudge match between moderate and conservative Republicans for the soul of the party; Owens was the beneficiary by default.
This district, closer to Montreal, Quebec than to New York City, has been reliably Republican since there were Republicans, which was just before the Civil War. (1861-65)
When the Republican congressman John McHugh resigned to become secretary of the Army, party leaders in the district selected Dede Scozzafava, a state legislator, to be the Republican candidate in the special election to fill the remainder of McHugh’s term.
But Scozzafava was too liberal for many national Republican chiefs and opinion leaders to stomach. From Sarah Palin to Tim Pawlenty to Dick Armey, the rightist pundits and poo-bahs weighed in with support for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Over the weekend, Scozzafava dropped out and threw her support to Democrat Owens.
Hoffman, who does not live in the 23rd district, came close to winning but couldn’t do the job because Scozzafava, whose name remained on the ballot, took about 6 percent of the vote. Other Scozzafava fans certainly followed her lead and voted for Owens to punish the GOP for essentially kicking her out of the party.
This fight isn’t over, just taking a break. In 2010 I think Hoffman will be back, with full GOP backing, trying to defeat Owens, who will no doubt have strong funding from the Democratic Party. Certainly this will be a race to watch. Conservative Republicans are boasting that they banished a liberal from their ranks in NY23, and promise to run primary candidates against other GOP’ers who don’t pass the conservative test.
Someone who is skeptical of this purge of moderates and liberals is Newt Gingrich, who supported Scozzafava because she was the pick of the local GOP in NY23.
Gingrich knows something about winning: He led the House Republicans to a 52-seat pick up in 1994 and returned the party to majority status after 40 years in the wilderness. He knows that to win nationally, the Republican Party has to be attractive to enough voters to attain 50 percent plus one in most elections. If every candidate is required to run the Rush Limbaugh-Glenn Beck-Sarah Palin gauntlet, the GOP will become a mighty small party in the future.
That’s a shame, because the country really needs a robust, market-based alternative to the Democrats’ programs. If the Democrats do not have to fear losing control of Congress because Republicans have become too extreme, the donkey party will do whatever it wants, which means enacting a plethora of job-crushing new taxes, regulation and other nanny-state laws that stifle creativity and curtail liberty.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
9 Comments Add your own
1. Mr. Funfsinn | November 4th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Newt has it backwards, though. The issue is not that a social conservative would not win in that district since Maine voters overturned the gay marriage law in that state, but voters are willing to back a Democrat who represents or at least appears to represent their own values. In that case, they are not afraid to switch parties. Second, Barack Obama carried this district.
I wrote this on another blog, but I believe that it is relevant in this Congressional District since, like the New York 23rd, Obama carried this district while actually losing the districts that cover most of the downstate, south of the Illinois River:
“First, this district elected Barack Obama last year. Second, it is the neighbor of Vermont. Third, Republicans, or should I say Republites, need to get beyond the Civil War. That horrible point in history should not be dredged up for the millionth time, but Republicans seem to think that all that ever matters is slapping the Republican label next to their name because of the Civil War. That is just so backwards since so many people that would be in the Party DO NOT identify with 150 years ago, which is just silly especially when that was such a bad point in our nation’s history that was more susceptible to personalities than rationality. I am actually glad that the 23rd district was consistent with their support for Obama, but I expected the switch from the Democrats to the Republicans in the Tennessee legislature, for the first time since the Civil War, to also be reported. Several weeks ago, Tennesseans elected a Republican to a formerly Democrat seat that switched the majority in the legislature of Al Gore’s home state.”
2. Chuck Sweeny | November 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am
The reason people refer to the Civil War when describing Republicans is because that was when the party elected its first president, A. Lincoln. The party had begun just a few years earlier as a coalition of Whigs and Free Soil advocates..
3. Mr. Funfsinn | November 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I\’m well aware of that, but Germany still has the position of Chancellor notwithstanding some of its prior Chancellors. The point is that the actions or thoughts or views of prior Chancellors concerning the duties of Chancellor are irrelevant to what the current Chancellor does. A lot has been said about the Republicans making too much out of Ronald Reagan and not developing new ideas and new leaders, but might it be that the Republicans have made way too much out of Abraham Lincoln when continuing to identify with a past political figure actually weakens the party when they lose these races, which are otherwise irrelevant since the northeast, but particularly New England, has been losing political power for decades and now only resembles maybe the electoral strength of a single state? My response is that the Republican Party DOES NOT need New England Republicans and can probably get by without northeast Republicans assuming that the census is done properly.
4. Chuck Sweeny | November 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Speaking of German chancellors, I I have a somewhat scratchy 45 of Johnny Horton’s “Sink The Bismarck.” And I’m keeping it.
5. Mr. Funfsinn | November 4th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
What I describe would be like if the Democrats ran on Andrew Jackson in Manhattan thinking that because Andrew Jackson, and every Democrat who followed, won Manhattan that they would never lose there without ever changing as a party or emphasizing different figures. Just because the use of some figures will no longer work does not mean that the Party is dead or that it should radically change just to be able to use that figure again. It also does not mean that the party has shifted too far in any direction, but it simply means that people change. attitudes change, views change, and sometimes demographics change so much that it is more appropriate to relocate your party and perhaps even your residence in this grand system of multiple states than to ever abandon your own beliefs. If losing New England were so damaging to the Republican Party, then why isn’t losing Texas so damaging to the Democrat Party? And could either loss be balanced with victory in the other region and why is that necessarily a bad thing if it prevents the destruction of a party’s core beliefs?
6. snuss | November 4th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Newt said that he had supported Scozzafava, because she had been chosen by the local Republican committeemen. He admitted on Fox News, that, after having seen her reveal her true Liberal self, he had made a mistake in supporting her.
In spite of all that turmoil, Hoffman came within a whisker of winning.
IMHO, 2010 has the potential of becoming a Democratic bloodbath, especially if they continue with their healthcare debacle.
7. snuss | November 4th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
BTW, Chuck, I have a Johnny Horton album. 2010 could be a repeat of “The Battle of New Orleans”, with the Leftist Democrats playing the role of the British.
8. Milton Waddams | November 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
If Hoffman doesn’t live in the 23rd district, how was he able to register to run to represent it?
9. Chuck Sweeny | November 5th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
You are required to live in the diestrict once you are sworn in.
NOT when you run.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed