Tag Archives: new york


Its Not Time To Party On Dude

No PartiesSo…on November 3, we had another election day…

And what did we gain?

Unfortunately, I think we may have seen a bolstering of “R” vs “D” politics.

Apparently, the RNC believes it gained some momentum and can say, “Whew! We’re baaaack!”

Sorry, it’s not time to…Party…or more correctly, it’s not time to break your arms patting yourselves on the back, Republican Party. So don’t go listening to those TV anchors and talking heads who, on the teasers prior to commercial breaks, were promising to “tell you what it all means at the top of the hour”.

Thanks, Shep, but I can interpret what happened yesterday without any help from you.

I don’t need the guys who read the teleprompters or the inside the beltway types who  give us the “that’s the way it works in the sausage factory” interpretations. Results were couched in the typical “R” vs “D” lingo. It was supposedly jobs and economic concerns. Pocketbook issues, as they always say. I do believe that has been typical of the electorate and is likely still too true.

But I don’t believe that is what happened yesterday.

As the RNC establishment crowd talks about how they are coming back, etc., etc., they and the pinhead analysts fail to mention the “little” GOP disaster in New York’s District 23.  Their candidate, Scozzafava, whose history, connections, and voting record (NY State Assembly) echoes Barack Obama’s more than Ronald Reagan’s, actually dropped out of the race and endorsed…the Democrat. Endorsed the Democrat over a fellow who was running as a Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman.

Prior to Scozzafava pulling out, the RNC thought they’d test drive Newt Gingrich’s political capital by having him officially endorse her…and found out that they might need to look under the hood some more.

About 48 hours in front of election day, there were GOP talking heads suddenly blathering enthusiastically about New Jersey, Virginia, and New York as if they were all GOP races. As if no one had noticed anything they’d done in New York – or the phenomenon that was taking place there.

Money poured in from around the country to Hoffman’s campaign. He didn’t win, unfortunately, but pulled in 45% of the vote – within 4 points of the Democratic victor.

Did people send money to Doug Hoffman because they were concerned about their pocket book? NO!

Here’s the message they were sending in New York:


They were telling the RNC: Support good candidates (you know, the ones that have actually read the Constitution?) or we’re taking our money and votes elsewhere.

I think New Jersey and Virginia voted Republican not because they had that “R” behind their names, but because they were “not Democrats” or “not joined at the hip to Barack Obama” (kinda of like the “Not Bush” votes of 2008).

I don’t like the idea of “Not ______” votes because that kind of movement is not sustainable – it isn’t the necessary sea change.  I don’t know about anyone else, but I would like to vote FOR someone.

For now, people are stilling clinging to the two party system – so they went with the Republican.

The RNC should go check some party affiliation statistics if they’re going to ignore what happened in New York.  There is a mad rush…away from attachment to either party…towards registration as Independent.

But all of this should be a wake up call to the Democratic Party, too. Robert Gibbs tried to play pin the tail on the elephant – by talking about how “George W. Bush lost Virginia and New Jersey in 2005″ – while saying that the results wouldn’t change anything about the President’s agenda. Message to Mr. Gibbs: If you’re going to pin the tail on the elephant in 2005, you have to pin the tail on the donkey in 2009.

Also, getting whopped in two out of three key races and having a close contender from a third party in another…is a shot directly across the bow of the President’s agenda.

Also, memo to David Axelrod: If you think in the current political environment, people are going to buy such nonsense as you were spewing Wednesday like “the only race that is indicative for future elections is what happened in that Congressional race in New York”, then you’ve been hoping a bit too much for too long.

People only hope for change for so long. They will only “give him a chance” for so long. The “different kind of politics” coming from your candidate aren’t different after all. And like so many, Mr. Axelrod, you are finding out campaigning and winning an election is far different from governing. Especially when your candidate had no real experience in doing it before and doesn’t understand how to lose.

I don’t have much in the way of suggestions for a party that was hijacked a century ago by collectivists. But I think we’ve reached the limit on how far the pendulum can swing.

I do have a suggestion for the RNC establishment. Since they don’t appear to be getting the message from the voters,  I think the Republican Congressional leadership ought to take some very swift action. Better put one of the myriad federal programs to work bailing out the party, quick!

They should invoke the Endangered Species Act.

If the Elephants don’t start taking a skewer to the RINOs…they’re both going to end up extinct.

(That donkey’s looking a little peaked, too, I think)


Of Turkeys Pied Pipers and Newt Gingrich

turkeyA friend contacted me yesterday and with no preamble said, “Have you been following the New York District 23 race? You can say I told you so.”

About thirty seconds later when my brain finally kicked into gear  I responded with, “Ok, I told you so.”

The friend was referring to New York’s November 2 Special Election for Congressional District 23, and the fact that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is backing Dede Scozzafava, the “Republican” in the race. The word “Republican” is in quotes because she isn’t really a Republican…oh, wait a minute…I guess the voting record of Scozzafava is basically in line with most Republicans today…so never mind the quotes.

As yesterday’s Wall Street Journal editorial piece pointed out, Scozzafava’s voting record has allowed the Democrat in the race to accuse her of raising taxes too much as a member of the New York State Assembly.

And Scozzafava’s voting record is plenty good reason to run screaming in the other direction IF you give a good gosh darn about limited government, fiscal restraint, or…dare I say it…the Constitution…but there are apparently a whole truckload of other questions about the GOP’s choice, ranging from her connections to ACORN front Working Families Party and, from what I can glean, pro-choice position.

Yeah, Republican…she fits RIGHT in.

Does the fact that the New York GOP is backing such a loser come as any surprise? Of course not!

Is it a surprise that Newt Gingrich would back her?

NO…and yes.

On principle, it’s not a surprise at all. Yes, I repeat, on principle, not a surprise.

It is only a surprise from a point of  view of political savvy. I think Gingrich has exposed himself far too early on. I’m actually a bit stunned. Maybe Newt Gingrich is not as smart as I thought.

Why did he do this? Who really knows? He didn’t need to. Even though the candidate is a stinker – a real stinker – he had to go step into it. Apparently he and more importantly the RNC and the GOP of New York think that if they take a currently very popular figure “from the right” and have him endorse this stinker, the people of New York are going to continue to be stupid enough to look the other way and vote for her.

Clearly, there are some people who think Newt Gingrich has a lot of political capital to spend. Maybe they are testing the waters on the Gingrich endorsement power…early.

The RNC is still playing the game. And they are counting on the American people to play along…as they have been doing for years.

I wonder if they will.

How in the hell did Gingrich manage to re-invent himself in such a manner that anyone was listening to him in the first place?

Newt Gingrich should have never again graced the political stage based on personal conduct alone.  Anyone attempting to lead who leaves his wife in the manner Gingrich did ought to go gently (or otherwise) into that good night.

Yes, character does matter. Character in a representative republic is everything.Gingrich Cartoon

Even if we could lay that aside, Newt Gingrich is not someone anyone with a love of the Constitution or “conservative values” should be listening to.  For confirmation,  all one has to do is listen to him over a period of time – closely – and he will reveal that himself.

Gingrich believes that government should solve every problem.

After having my own eyebrows raised one too many times in listening to speeches and TV appearances, I discovered a 1996 video on Google that detailed things about Gingrich that are more than bothersome.  Related, a series of articles that includes quotes from Gingrich himself on “The Third Way”, his affinity with “Conservative Futurism”, etc. Again, these gems were discovered after I saw red flags on my own.

The bottom line is, Newt Gingrich is “down” with the whole global governance thing. And, any blathering from him about bi-partisanship lasts about as long as it takes to cuddle on the couch with Nancy Pelosi to do a commercial about global warming or to sidle up to Al Sharpton to talk about education.

As usual, when push comes to shove, as in New York’s District 23, Newt is backing the Republican. The stinker Republican.

Why was I granted one of those rare opportunities to tell someone “I told you so”? I’d talked to the friend months ago when I was tearing my hair out over the fact that Gingrich had official endorsed the Tea Party movement and the  brain trust that was the “National Tea Party Coalition” in control of “Tax Day Tea Party” sent out an email blast crowing about it.

The decision was so popular with Tea Party organizers that the idea was quickly swept under the rug and Gingrich proceeded to co-opt from the sidelines.  I wonder how many Tea Party “packs” American Solutions ultimately sold?

In any case, Gingrich has been touted around for a while now as the next  GOP-Messiah and it’s just plain disturbing.  Mr. Gingrich is a fixture on Fox News Channel these days. He’s giving speeches every other day it seems.

I and others have gone several rounds with people over the whole subject of Gingrich. The reaction to any statements that Newt Gingrich is not the answer? Kill the messenger usually proceeded by lectures about not attacking “our own side”. Newt Gingrich is not on my side because he’s not on the side of the Constitution.

One of the most helpful things that could happen is for everyone to wake up and realize that it is “our own side” that is doing more damage to us than the other. The Leftists are easy to figure out, easy to spot. Their agenda is clear – to most of us. If we don’t clean house on “our side”, we’re dead in the water.

But people don’t want to hear about it. Or at least they don’t want to hear about it until someone with some “cred” says it. Trouble is, the people with “cred” don’t speak up at all or until things are pretty far down the pike.

Take for instance, Michelle Malkin. She is an excellent writer, extremely witty and often hits very hard where it counts. While I in some ways do appreciate her piece on Gingrich, I must ask…where has she been all these months? Where was she in March and April of this year? Where was she when the Tax Day Tea Party leadership team announced Gingrich’s endorsement of the Tea Party? Michelle was one of the four original “sponsors”, from March 2 going forward.

Gingrich’s history is available for anyone to see.  The travels with Al Sharpton and cuddling on the couch with Nancy Pelosi are not NEWS. The “We Care” (buying into the global warming nonsense) comfy couch commercial ran in 2007.  Why write an article about it in October, 2009?

Is Gingrich’s endorsement of Scozzafava really the worst sin he’s committed?

Or was it finally safe to call Newt out…under cover of all of the other articles? And why didn’t Malkin’s article spell out more facts about Gingrich?

This whole little drama makes me want to ask a lot of questions. Who on earth are we listening to? Who are we following? Why have we all succumbed so much to the culture of celebrity that we will only listen to the recognizable…regardless of their prior history? Why doesn’t plain good sense and fact have any appeal anymore? Why aren’t we all using more discerning judgment on our own or asking more questions?


Furthermore, why is it a cardinal sin to point out the bad boys within our midst? Why must we all walk in lock step?

The same friend who offered me the I-told- you-so opportunity gets really hot under the collar every time we talk politics and I point out what’s wrong with so many Republicans.

It’s not my fault that there is so much wrong to talk about. And it is really the worst kind of nonsense to state that by calling out Republicans you’re driving people to the Democrats.

How about driving away from all of these dunderheads who are leading us all off of a cliff?

I’ve had a couple of theories for a while now. Like my opinion on Gingrich, they’re not a bit popular, but I have them just the same. The first one is that as a country that is rather dangling on the edge of a precipice it’s clear that it’s taken us a while to get to this state. It’s taken a lot of people in power to get us to this point. The leadership in Washington and in most states, the political parties that have been in existence, BOTH of them, and long-standing alphabet soup groups…all have helped to drive us to the edge of that cliff. We the people, we’ve helped drive to the edge of the cliff, too.

It might be time to step away and rethink a lot of things. And  most of the establishment is worthy of more than a passing amount of suspicion.

It might be time to start over.

Again, I know it is an unpopular theory. I take a lot of heat for it.

I can call out Democrats and Leftists all day long. But I should hush up about Republicans, alphabet soup groups, or even other activists who propose to retread all of the tried and true tactics used so “effectively” in the past.

I have another theory. This one has to do with going along to get along and bi-partisanship. In other words, working with people who are not on your side. Compromising.

And this one takes us full circle back to Newt Gingrich. Again, Gingrich has been blathering about bi-partisanship for the last few years. He’s spoken of it in defending the company he keeps. And he defends his own compromising.  Compromising on standards.

Gingrich is very fond of Reagan these days. He’s been successful of late in painting himself as a Reagan-like figure. He even quoted him in defense of his Scozzafava endorsement:

“If you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority,” says Gingrich. “That’s not how Reagan built his revolution or how we won back the House in 1994.”

Bi-partisanship, compromise, wiggle room on standards, they all strike me as about effective as the former policy of detente in breaking the back of Communism. And we can harken back to Reagan for how smart an idea that was:

“Detente – isn’t that what a farmer has with his turkey until Thanksgiving Day?” - September, 1978

I don’t know about anyone else, but I think we’re at war at this point. I’m not interested in detente, bi-partisanship, or compromise. I want my country back. Back to the way the Founders intended.

I don’t want to be the turkey.