This blog is not dead. It's just been a tad neglected.
OK, rather more than a tad. Thanks to Paladin for keeping things going in my negligence.
For those who might be interested, my legislative campaign continues apace. I collected more than twice the required number of signatures, and filed them with the other requisite paperwork with the Board of Elections in Springfield on the first day of filing, last Monday. I have a number of activities coming up this month, with more details on my campaign website, where donations to a comprehensively conservative candidate are still being accepted.
The NY-23 race proves one thing: liberal Republicans are liars. In this respect: they tell us that the purpose of a political party is to elect its candidates. This is not true, and they know it. The real purpose of a political party is to advance its principles. When the party nominates candidates who don't believe in its principles, it is defeating its own purpose. But the liberal Republicans understand this fully well; given a choice between endorsing a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, the liberal Republican will choose their principles over their party every time.
If you're in the Chicago area tomorrow and love good music, you could certainly do worse than a visit to St. John Cantius Church, where they'll be celebrating the Feast of All Souls with the Mozart Requiem Mass as a solemn high mass in the Extraordinary Form with full choir and orchestra. 7:30 pm.
More soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Paul, was thinking of your situation as I read about NY-23. Keep up the fight.
PS speaking of principles over party did you notice that alledged Republican Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat Owens?
Also Toby Harnden of the Londoon telegraph said the same thing: "Scozzafava has now endorsed the Democratic candidate Bill Owens – an act of noble principle (if you’re a Democrat) or peevish betrayal if you’re a Republican) that underlines the reason so many voters were suspicious of her in the first place."
(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100015382/ny23-race-show-that-republicans-must-avoid-going-obama-lite/ )
For politicians, the purpose of a political party may well be to get candidates (= themselves) elected. Just as for employees, the purpose of a company is to provide them with jobs.
In both cases, the only way the organization would provide benefit to the people working in it is if it provides benefit to its customers. A company's customers want goods/services at a reasonable cost. A political party's customers want their principles advanced (or financial benefits from the government, in some cases).
Politicians that forget that are like unions that forget that. Bottom feeders who can only keep their jobs until they destroy the organizations that provide them.
I don't think it is good or bad, it is just political economics at play.
People and districts are on a political spectrum. Sometimes a party needs to present a moderate candidate to get elected. The party might not be able to advance all objectives with moderates, but they can often pass some objectives.
However, sometimes the party base finds the moderate too moderate, and/or believes they can win with a traditional candidate. In that case, you'll have a coup. Like in NY. Nothing wrong with that either. It is just the process working itself out.
I don't think it can be determined if moderates are always good or always bad. If the moderate agrees on the most pressing issues in the legislature and disagrees on non-priorities, why wouldn't a party consider backing them.
For example, imagine a moderate Republican in Massachusetts that believes in small government, eliminating abortion, gay marriage. Since gay marriage is settled law in Massachusetts, their support for it is not nearly as significant as there small government convictions.
On the flip side, the Democrats backed many moderates that do not believe in any government involvement in health care. Yet the biggest legislative priority for them is health care. They have a 60 vote majority and can't seem to get anything through. The success of this candidate barter is definitely up for debate.
BTW, you might be interested in this article about NY-23. I'll certainly be interested to read what you think about it.
:) :) :)
Woo-HOO!! Welcome back, Paul!
(I imagine you're still furiously busy... but it's good to see you up and about!)
Hi there! Welcome back!
When you were standing in line at the State Board of Elections, did you happen to see a well-aged maroon Buick circle the block just before the doors opened at 8 o'clock? That was me, on my way to work... just had to check out how long the line was!
In retrospect maybe you should have come today and filed to be LAST on the ballot...you would have had much better weather :-)
A conservative win in NY-23 would be great but the real icing on the cake will be if the GOP's Christie knocks off Dem. Gov. Corzine in NJ. If Christie can pull it off in a deep blue (and also notoriously corrupt) state like Jersey, there may be hope for us yet!
Welcome back. You were missed.
Looks like Republicans will get a whole term to contemplate whether it was worth giving up NY-23 to a Democrat in order to avoid a very moderate Republican.
I'm sure the Governor races and Maine's Question 1 will give them plenty of solace.
I have to question your characterization of Scozzafava as "very moderate". She was so liberal, the Daily Kos and Planned Parenthood endorsed her above the Democrat.
The lesson to be learned from NY-23 is this: Yesterday, Republicans only lost when they didn't nominate a conservative.
It's not the duty of the GOP base to vote Republican no matter who the GOP puts up. It's for the GOP to appeal to its own base, lest they go elsewhere, or nowhere.
Paul, I agree the base can make up their own mind. Read my post above.
It is all about political economics. I've voted third-party before because the moderate was too moderate. At some point the base has to decide whether pragmatism to gain independents is worth the loss of their idealism. I think the answer depends on context.
The legislative costs, if any, will be realized over the next term for NY-23 Republicans.
The GOP insiders are generally crackerjack at calculating the independent vote. If they hadn't lost the base, NY-23 would have been won by a narrow margin. They are also good forecasters of future legislation. There must be something the GOP insiders thought Scozzafava could deliver over a Democrat.
Whether those things matter to the base at all is something the base gets to contemplate over the next term.
I think you may be too generous with "the GOP insiders". They're on the verge of driving half or more of their base into the "independent" column.
I also strongly suspect that "the GOP insiders" at the national party, and at the state level in NY and certainly here in Illinois, as well as the county where I live, tend to be liberals themselves, and are only pretending to be neutral regarding the social issues.
I don't think we are disagreeing here. I say the GOP insiders had a calculated interest in Scozzafava. You say those interests didn't align with the base. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas.
I believe that most GOP insiders are pro-business and don't care about social issues. That is how they get the capital and influence to be insiders. Their truce with social conservatives is theirs to maintain. They nearly blew it with Harriet Miers.
Post a Comment