What Dan said!

Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?

And is smack-dab in the middle of this issue.

I still would put up a staunch conservative against a liberal any day. Conservativism always wins in the debate of ideas.

All politics is local and local people know best. I am ofen puzzled by people who make a decision based on a paper review of their conservative convictions. As if that is thee only thing that matters.

Just because someone is conservative on paper doesn’t mean they are competent, a good candidate, or that they excel in constituency services. Sometimes its just an idiom; an ability to connect. Some conservtatives are just as phony and opportunistic as rinos.

I tend to defer to local conservatives with politcal experience, as they are better positioned to determine who can win and who is credible and who is better suited for their districts. Give them the keys to the gate.

Thoughtful analysis and strartegtic and tactical planning is needed and posts like this are welcome. Emotion and optimism can carry a movement only so far.

that is as bad or worse than the Democrat…. like was the case with DoDo. And I am still irked hearing the BS from the MSM that DoDo is a MODERATE… hogwash!!!! DoDo makes Snowe, McCain, Graham, Collins, etc… all look like the Conservatives they want people to see them as, only when it comes time to get elected by Republicans, which is why those Moderate-Republicans (often RINO) hopeful she would have done better as it furthered their argument that the GOP should be more McCainist…. Again, utter Hogwash!!!!! Whitman (then, remember her) and Christie (now) aren’t ultra-Conservative, but they are more than sufficient for any chances regarding NJ — for now, but hopefully move the State in the Right direction by awakening a few folks.

But, again, NEVER A LIBERAL, a choice of a Republican that is equally as (or too close to caving into via Bi-Partisanship Disease the) Liberal as that other Party is never any real choice…. hence Dole, McCain, etc…. election outcomes.

I completely agree with the piece. I’m now a Florida resident, and thanks to Charlie Crist, we paid about $250 more to register our vehicles than we would have a few months ago (but hey, it’s a “fee” and not a tax…). Florida still loves Jeb, so a conservative can win, Rubio can win. I will probably be voting for Marco come August 24th next year (yeah, it’s going to be a long primary).

Chuck DeVore is seriously the only Republican I will vote for in the CA-sen race. As for the Governors race, I refuse allow Campbell to have my vote, he’s a democrat RINO if I ever saw one. In 2006 I didn’t even vote at all in the governors race, because Arny has sold his soul to his wife.

I will seriously be disappointed if Ovide Lamontagne, Chris Simcox and Marco Rubio don’t win their respective senate primaries in 2010. I’m glad Rubio has some traction though, but I hardly hear anything about the NH and AZ primary.

THe McCain Wing of the party is what is making us loose elections, and it needs to die.

I don’t believe there are good times to nominate a ‘moderate’ instead of a Conservative. Sure, if you’re just a plain old Republican, looking to get to 218 and 51 by any means necessary, then I agree its true, throwing Conservatives under the bus sometimes has tended to be an effective way for them to get there. But for Conservatives, its a really bad deal. What happened the last time Republicans (but not Conservatives) had a majority in Congress? Can you say ‘Record defecits and debts, digging a massive financial hole for America’? I know I sure can. The difference between them and Obama is only one of degree, theres no real difference. I don’t consider that a ‘win’. If you do, then by all means throw Conservatives under the bus, nominate a bunch of ‘moderates’ and get to 218 so you can maybe spend a little less, and delay America’s bankruptcy for a couple months or so, but I’m not really interested in that. I’d rather the Dems stay in charge and take full responsibility for what they’re doing to America. When Republicans take back control of Congress I want us to take over when we’re actually a Conservative party with enough Conservative votes to really start to turn things around, not just go off the cliff at 90mph instead of 100mph. Return control of Congress to ‘Moderate’ Republicans? Thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.

It’s the same here in Juneau and everybody I know who’s worked in executive agencies around the Country says the same thing. At the top are people who hold elected office and who have held elected office. They live in their own officeholder world and pretty much look down on everybody who hasn’t held office. They have their entourage of staffers, clients, and contributors who can bask in their radiated glory but it is a lot like the house slaves looking down on the field slaves. An officeholder will kiss a big contributor’s butt on the Capitol steps and give him two weeks to draw a crowd, but he’ll still look down on him. The second tier is those who hold or who have held appointed positions. They, too, have their retinue and it works about the same as it does with elected office holders. Elected office holders need appointed office holders but they fear them, look down on them, but will associate with them if there’s something in it for them. There’s an elaborate interlocking web of connections and dependencies between office holders, Party people, big contributors, government players, lobbyists, etc. But it basically follows the same rule; status is determined by who knows your name and will return your calls personally rather than palm you off to a staffer. When I was a director, I had a standing rule; the head of our biggest union could NEVER call and get through to me directly - NEVER, and maybe I’d call him back or maybe I wouldn’t.

Everybody who doesn’t fit into the officeholder class or the clients, used in the Roman sense, of the office holder class are simply nameless, faceless, unimportant plebians. Noblesse oblige requires one to be nice to them and pretend to listen and care, they do vote unfortunately, but they don’t count. Only the patricians who hold or have held office and those directly linked to them count.

not being as big an issue as in the past. The Tea Party movement has united social conservatives and liberterian types to a common cause.

While working the Harmen campaign yesterday (CA10), it amazed me to see catholic school moms and Harley Davidson live free or die types working side by side.

We conservatives here in CA need to be more affective around election time when it comes to countering all the fear mongering that the left throws against our candidates. The old back alley abortion stuff still seems to work here.

As a conservative I’m not sure I can fully explain what it means to be a conservative when I see some of the litmus test sometimes floated out by the so-called gatekeepers.

Being a conservative is sometimes on a sliding scale depending on where you are in the US. A New York City conservative may look a little different than a rural Texas conservative. Political purity is a little hard to define, it depends who is doing the defining.

There was no primary in NY-23, and you had a candidate who agreed with us on *nothing*. Essentially there was no Republican in the race. This wasn’t some third party movement, it was an attempt to put an actual Republican in competition. Any group has to have some boundaries and the citizens deserve an actual choice in policy.

In the upcoming races, there are primaries. We endorse whoever reflects our values the best. In the elections, we should get behind the Repub. candidate UNLESS they are actively opposed to conservative values. We’ll argue about it on here forever, but the place to get as close to purity as you want is in the primary. In the elections, no matter how bad our guy may be, their guy is worse.

good article. Get involved locally!

http://www.lohud.com/article/2009911040362

This is a very important County in NY. It has a lot of vulnerable House seats surrounding it. This was a huge win against huge odds.

Of the issues that are important in relation to the office. We can do it broadly, and individually.

Two examples:

1) Fiscal Prudence - this should be high on the list AT EVERY LEVEL, from dogcatcher to POTUS, as far as I’m concerned. It’s our money they’re spending, after all.

2) Abortion - I know I’m going to irritate a lot of folks here (but it is a good example for the individual lists), but it just doesn’t matter in most races, so we can de-emphasize it as a major plank and focus on the issues that will get us in a position to eventually get there, as we have no chance under a Democrat administration.

Hear me out. For a Congressional Representative, it just doesn’t matter where he or she stands on that issue - they have very little power to stop it (except occasionally at the margins). The state of play, thanks to Roe v. Wade, is that it can only be handled in the Supreme Court. This means, as a “litmus test”, abortion is only important for you in 3 races - POTUS and your Senator, in that order (and then it’s still a crapshoot, as SCOTUS judges have proven to not act as expected). Playing longer ball, it’s important to consider for your governor and legislature if you eventually want to ban it outright in your state. But for now, it it okay to leave it alone as long as the candidate is acceptable in other important areas.

BTW, I’m a pro-life Catholic who would love nothing more than everyone agreeing with me.

A fusion of the two would have a pro-life Republican (or even Democrat) who would not expend government monies for abortion or to “family planning” groups who do them. I would have absolutely no problem with that politician as things stand today.

Those are just two - one we probably agree on 1000%, the other there is a lot of differences, especially because of the political climate.

…A Nazi.

The point I’m trying to make here is that the CA-GOV’s GOP primary race is *totally different* than the CA-SEN GOP primary race:

In the latter, it is a true moderate-v.-conservative race.

The CA-GOV’s race is *nothing* like that - in that race, there’s not one, not two, but *three* moderates (I’d actually call all three of them “more liberal than moderate”), and NO CONSERVATIVES. So, on that race, your analogy breaks down some - it’s not moderate-v.-conservative in the CA GOV’s race: it’s three moderates!

So the deciding factors in the CA GOV’s race have pretty much nothing to do with ideology (they’re all virtually the same!!), and everything to do with ancillary factors like spending capability and executive experience.

So, really, there’s no ideological reason to choose Poizner (or Campbell) over Whitman anyway.

You were spot on with it. In particular-

“And local dynamics were a significant factor: the state GOP had lost credibility with voters for its tax hiking, big spending ways, so running moderates would have only underlined the extent to which the party hadn’t learned its lessons.” Amen Amen Amen.

There was a Virginia Republican website set up at the request of Jeff Frederich, now replaced. One of the moderators wanted no part of McCain bad talk. His idea was in keeping with Reagans 11th commandment, you don’t ever speak bad about any Republicans, even McCain. I know, I was told. And, the really great Hispanic coaalition on that site, also had no time for bad talk against McCain. As of today, that same moderator is now not talking so nicely about McCain. The old guard in Virginia politics, who is far to involved, and far to vocal on what Virginia wants and needs. The Virginia elite Republicans you refer to above. What a difference an election makes.

McDonnell and Cucinelli are unappologetic conservatives, Bolling may be as well, I just don’t know much about him. They both, as you know, did in fact have ideas, plans, and goals for Virginanians. That is why they were elected!!!! There is so much talk about the party of NO. There is so much talk about how the Republicans shouldn’t bring policies, ideas, and plans forward, lest they be criticized, or God forbid called racist. I think that, not only is conservativeism on the rise, but, you can’t attract voters without telling them what you will/can do to help them.

You were spot on with it. In particular-

“And local dynamics were a significant factor: the state GOP had lost credibility with voters for its tax hiking, big spending ways, so running moderates would have only underlined the extent to which the party hadn’t learned its lessons.” Amen Amen Amen.

There was a Virginia Republican website set up at the request of Jeff Frederich, now replaced. One of the moderators wanted no part of McCain bad talk. His idea was in keeping with Reagans 11th commandment, you don’t ever speak bad about any Republicans, even McCain. I know, I was told. And, the really great Hispanic coaalition on that site, also had no time for bad talk against McCain. As of today, that same moderator is now not talking so nicely about McCain. The old guard in Virginia politics, who is far to involved, and far to vocal on what Virginia wants and needs. The Virginia elite Republicans you refer to above. What a difference an election makes.

McDonnell and Cucinelli are unappologetic conservatives, Bolling may be as well, I just don’t know much about him. They both, as you know, did in fact have ideas, plans, and goals for Virginanians. That is why they were elected!!!! There is so much talk about the party of NO. There is so much talk about how the Republicans shouldn’t bring policies, ideas, and plans forward, lest they be criticized, or God forbid called racist. I think that, not only is conservativeism on the rise, but, you can’t attract voters without telling them what you will/can do to help them.

Everyone has said what needs to be said about NY-23 and Erick’s analysis is cogent. There are reverberations from Obama’s over-reaching that are affecting elections all over the country, not the least of which is Rockland County just outside Manhattan (commuter suburb). for example, Orangetown was a victory for the Pubs and we managed to throw out two very lib/ACORN /WFP associated legislators–Kleiner and Barkley. Kleiner knows how to raise taxes and how to try to, w/WFP help, bring in “organized workfoorce housing” or, import-a-slum, and he was roundly defeated on a proposal in Sept. on such. If he had not tipped his hand he might have survived, but that move combined with the alarm from Obama stuff at the national level, with the ties being exposed between ACORN and WFP sharing space in Manhattan, etc…, absolutely got him and his acolyte Barkley creamed. Thank the Lord. I think the fascist moves on the part of Pelosi Obama and Reid are a gift to conservatives –in the large sense however painful it is now—because it has energized most of America who needs to correct this before the tipping point in terms of demographics/tax payers is reached. 2010—the bloodbath the Dems have been deserving for years will come.

For the most part, your analysis of these contests is fairly accurate, but I would add some points:

NY-23

Being familiar with NY politics, I generally keep 2 things in mind. The first is, many left leaning voters in any of New Yorks voting districts, will register in the party that will give them a vote in either a primary or caucus, which ever party seems to dominate in that district. Therefore, you may have liberal Republicans, such as Scozzafava, on a ticket in what may be considered a Republican district. In reality, it could very well be a Deomcratic district in voting, but a Republican one in registration. Secondly, when an avowed Conservative, such as Hoffman, runs in these districts, the voters tend to run from them, associating Conservatism with Barry Goldwater instead of Ronald Reagan. Knowing this fact, this makes Hoffmans run all that more significant because for any Conservative to do that well in any NY district, even in a loss, says that even moderate Republicans and Democrats alike are fed up with not only the path the country is on, but the lack of representation they are feeling in their districts. One other point on NY politics is, many go to the polls to vote a straight party line without researching any of the candidates before hand.

NJ-GOV

Agreeing totally with your analysis, I would only add that NJ citizens were completely fed up with the status quo and a third party Independent candidate who leaned more left than right wasn’t the answer. These people truly were seeking change. His task is VERY daunting and it will be interesting to see how Christie addresses the problems facing that state.

Virginia

Being one of those Virginia voters who voted for McDonnell, I think I can trace his victory to 2 underlying facts. The first is voter turnout. Virginia, like many other staes, has been noted for a poor voter turnout on the Conservative side. Be it apathy, or a lack of confidence, they just didn’t believe their vote would matter. The present Administration changed all that. Virginian Conservatives have fully embraced the Tea Party movements and for the first time in a long time, came out to vote. In this state, as in NY, when voter turnout exceeds 50%, Republican and Conservative candidates see a marked increase in their support. I think after this year, you will not see those numbers decline. The second underlying fact is Tim Kaines apparent sellout to a corrupt Washington administration, something Virginians, even moderate liberal Virginians cannot countenance. You see, in Virginia, it is Virginia first, especially when you are talking of a Governor.

On the rest of these contests, you seem to be reasonably accurate. When reviewing these districts, it is important to take into account the makeup of that district.

I think this is a very good post and I commend you on your research and your informative analysis.

I listend to Newt on Hannity last night. Newt didn’t so much as endorse “Scuzzy Fava” as simply rubber-stamping whatever the local Republican committee did, without messing around with what’s a local issue.

Newt said had he known what a solid Leftist Ms. Scuzzy was, he would’ve said something. All he had to go on was nonsense like how she’d signed some fiscal responsibility declaration, even though she has voted consistently to raise taxes and spend, spend, spend. As if signing onto that thing somehow cleansed her soul.

Next time, hold a primary!

But primaries cost money. if you can avoid one, you save money.

The conservative should’ve been given a fair chance at representing himself in a primary.

Next time, hold a primary!

This won’t be the last we hear of Hoffman.