Scozzafava is a Loyal Republican

I applaud and support Diedre Scozzafava’s decision to withdraw as a candidate in the special election in New York’s 23rd district.

Scozzafava was the Republican Party candidate. However, an insurgent campaign by Doug Hoffman (Conservative Party), and her own grave mistakes, lead to a collapse in her support and gave home to the Democratic challenger.

Especially in these times, when Obama is socializing our economy and destroying the free market system, it is important for Repulicans to hang together. Republicans must uphold the party line and the principles of democratic centralism. Republicans should stand firm against obama’s political maneuvers. Our country needs and deserve it.

However, Scozzafava’s serious mistakes made it impossible for her to survive as a credible Republican candidate. Her character would not allow this to happen. Instead, Scozzafava put her principles above herself.

Scozzafava stood up for the Party. She stood up against Obama. She did the right thing.

Thank you, Diedre Scozzafava, for helping us maintain a United Front against the socialist who is our President.

Thank you for withdrawing from the mistakes.

Your mistakes are correctible. Life is about learning from mistakes. However, your character will be with you for the rest of our career — and your character is strong.

Thank you.

18 thoughts on “Scozzafava is a Loyal Republican”

  1. I was impressed by this too. She should be rewarded for this, as this is not typical behavior from politicians. If Hoffman wins, this will probably be the first time someone from the NY Conservative party has made it into national office? It will be different seeing a “C” next to someones name instead of R, D, or I.

  2. Nothing like nominating in a spasm of rage an outsider who knows next to nothing (1) about even the simplest and most obvious of local issues:


    The farther right the Republicans go, the more benefit to Obama and the Democrats. Newt Gingrich tried to warn people you need a big tent party, but they won’t listen, and they’ll pay heavily for it in 2012 and beyond, barring some sort of economic collapse before then. Hoffman will win something like 30% of the available voters, as most of DeDe’s voters are pro-Obama (2) (while supporting her) and will likely sit out or vote for Owens.


  3. Seerov,



    Army is right. Americans who care more about national policy than being bribed by Washington hand-outs are acting our of concern for our country. This is more than I can say for parochial interests (the UAW, the NEA, etc.)

    As I first became aware of this election after Scozzafava called the police on a reporter [1], it is clear the local GOP chose a candidate incapable of running for office. All actions in that district have occurred in that context.


  4. So a congressional district is supposed to give up its deeply vested interest in getting its fair share of tax dollars back into the district via needed projects and (yes, pork) so the Republican Party (which is in the midst of a civil war in the district and outside of the South in some cases) can feel better about not working with Obama. Interesting.

    Consider the district voters (a Republican district since the 1800’s) have a majority favorable opinion of Obama, thought not one of Congress (neither the GOP nor the controlling Dems poll well). So it can’t be about “stopping Obama” for their opposition to the established party candidates of both Dems and the GOP. Its likely the very relevant and heartfelt rejection of this failed Congress felt on most aspects of the political spectrum. You can imagine it as a “national policy” interest on these voters’ parts but that doesn’t seem to be born out in the polling.

    You have a very well-funded third party candidate from outside of the district leading an insurgency against the Republican and Democratic status quo. Now the status quo has united (1), so we’ll see if the district decides to commit suicide by death of federal funding or not. I gather they will, but I don’t expect much from people who are going to vote based on what a radio host or the avalanche of negative advertising tells them.

  5. PS,

    She is a conservative by NY standards. Rick Moran of Rightwingnuthouse describes her voting pattern:

    “Scozzafava was no “radical leftist” as I point out here. No one who gets the endorsement of the NRA can, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed a “radical leftist.” And someone who opposes cap and trade, Obamacare, and much of the Obama agenda cannot be considered much of a leftist. Her support of card check is a natural given the number of union voters in the district which speaks more of her bowing to practical political realities rather than any deep, leftist ideological commitment.”

    I just don’t see how you are going to grow as a movement if you instill ideological requirements for everything, especially for candidates in states and districts that are not conservative.

  6. Eddie,

    Neither of your comments are serious, so neither are worth replying to any depth.

    Smitten & Purpleslog,

    Her endorsement of a Democrat of course negates my post. She did the right thing, before she did the wrong one.

    I wonder if the Democratic Party outbid the GOP for her support, or if the local party was going to de-endorse her at the last minute?

  7. In this post Dan seems to live in the tea party world where America’s future is at stake and all common sense must be suspended by voters, even when their own district’s interests are at stake in a way that could cost them jobs, investment in their decaying infrastructure, and receiving their fair share of their tax money back from the US gov’t.

    My posts aren’t serious?

    You don’t want to recognize reality when its staring you in the face?

    Read the polls and look at how Republican voters view your preferred candidate, an out of district guy who by his own admission knows next to nothing about local issues that matter to people in the district, their jobs, and their futures. Only half of them as of this time want to vote for him. That’s astounding for a Republican-esque candidate.

    Her voting record is conservative for a NY Republican (indeed, almost as conservative as Hoffman’s views apparently, barring a deviation on gay marriage and the stimulus).

  8. Eddie,

    Stop trolling.

    Your most recent comment begins with an ad hominem attack.

    Your next most recent includes a ludicrous reduction of American politics to stance on gun rights. (I assume, therefore, you view the New Black Panther Party as part of the conservative right?)

    Your comment before that makes a stupid claim that some are advocating election strategies with the objective that they “can feel better about not working with Obama.”

    If you’re not going to take your own comments seriously, there’s no reason for anyone else to, either.

  9. Her voting record:

    A statistical analysis of her voting record as a NY State legislator places her to the right of many of her fellow elected Republicans in NY.

    What passes for a Republican in NY is different from other states. Hoffmann is only getting half the votes of Republicans in the district at this point, who do outnumber Dems significantly, so he may win out between getting some of the anti-Congress Dem votes and some of DeDe’s supporters (the rest of whom probably stay home with a few voting for Owens according to the pollsters).

    I will ask this time since maybe I haven’t been clear. What’s the benefit to a Congressional District of voting for a person who has no inkling of your district needs and issues? Part of successful constituent services is a representative who knows the district and knows what is needed to help reduce problems for most people. How will Hoffmann do that with a largely out of district team and little policy experience?

    I thought we voted people in office to represent us, not make national points for political parties.

  10. Eddie,

    Thank you for your substantive comment.

    As to her voting record — I do not know or care. I am sure many others do, as I have heard it argued both ways. From the perspective of using the Party in the service of the country (a high form of charity indeed!), democratic centralism here matters far more than who would have been the best Representative in a vacuum.

    I will ask this time since maybe I haven’t been clear. What’s the benefit to a Congressional District of voting for a person who has no inkling of your district needs and issues?

    A zillion dollars.

    If you can use imaginary units of measure, like inkling, I can use imaginary units of measure, like zillion. 😉

    More to the point, there is a bizarre meme (that I have only heard used by those attacking conservatives) that it is stupid if one’s political priorities are not entirely parochial and material. I think it originated as a CNN-quality (in the sense of awful and superficial). I have no idea why anyone would think this.

  11. Eddie – There have always been a mix of compulsive pothole fillers and intellectuals obsessed with national issues in Congress. One or the other may not be your personal cup of tea but it betrays a certain narrowness of vision to not recognize that Congress needs both.

    I suspect that we’re going to see Congressman Hoffman-C for the rest of the session and see him get re-elected for a full term under the GOP label. It is unusual for GOP chairmen to vote against their delegation but that is what it took for Dede to get the nomination. There was a failure of the normal GOP system to nominate and the GOP got a flawed candidate out of that failure.

  12. TM,

    Agreed. The consequences to a district can be severe though if you get the intellectual obsessed with national issues (or as we’re discovering here in NC when you have a governor and lt. gov way in over their heads and not representing the state’s interests well at all, which we will suffer for). There are far too many ways for a state/district to lose various sources of funding, and I think people sometimes forget that when they vote to “punish” somebody or “send a message”.

    One of the beauties of politics is of course the ability of skillful propagandists to convince people to ignore their interests (like small businesses donating to Jon Corzine) in a time of crisis.

  13. This meme keeps getting repeated, and I don’t know why:

    One of the beauties of politics is of course the ability of skillful propagandists to convince people to ignore their interests (like small businesses donating to Jon Corzine) in a time of crisis.

    It seems to me to be a mindless version of Public Choice Theory — without any of the substance or predictability.

    “Interests” are not strictly parochial, material, or patronistic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *