This Just In: Dede Scozzafava Drops Out

[The T]

Really? I'd say the truly liberal Democratic Party ceased after Grover Cleveland.

There may be some truth to this...but I was thinking more to the 20th Century to which I didn't go back far enough...and that would have been Woodrow Wilson.

Grover Cleveland | The White House

Woodrow Wilson | The White House

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, not a liberal. The Democratic Party rejected liberalism for progressivism and Wilson followed the party line rather than sticking to any principles.

Odd. Isn't 'Progressive' what DemocRATS call themselves now? (Other than the fact they have 'progressed into Socialism/Marxism/Statism)?

Interesting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well what I meant was that it's good for third parties because it will hopefully open up some more doors for them in general. That's the only thing I'm happy about.

Except it won't. Now that the Republican is out, it's essentially a Democrat vs a Republican. The only reason that Doug Hoffman is running with this party is because he lost the Republican nomination. This is just politics.

All this does is encourage those who are supposedly further to the right and believe they are true "Conservatives" to run any Republican moderates out of the party. Which, of course, will result in the GOP shrinking further while any sort of Conservative movement is plagued with infighting.

Probably it won't, but I like to remain optimistic.

 

[Oddball]

I hope so, if they want me to continue on supporting them they ******* better get rid of the garbage!

As the republican tent gets Smaller.....and smaller

Did it ever occur to you that the "tent Poles" were that of the Conservative base?

The poles have been pulled. That happened a long time ago.

Heh-heh-heh....You said "tent pole"

 

[Modbert]

Quite frankly we're told that expanding the "Two Party System would be BAD...and give it to ONE or the other 'Major' Parties...

I'd frankly like to see the hold relinquished, for as I see it? THEY are responsible for the MESS we are in now, and no new blood is allowed in with fresh ideas due to this fact.

And precisely WHY this NY23 Election is being watched so closely.

Don't ignore my question here.

How is Hoffman fresh blood? How is he different from the rest of the pack? Because he has a C next to his name instead of an R?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There may be some truth to this...but I was thinking more to the 20th Century to which I didn't go back far enough...and that would have been Woodrow Wilson.

Grover Cleveland | The White House

Woodrow Wilson | The White House

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, not a liberal. The Democratic Party rejected liberalism for progressivism and Wilson followed the party line rather than sticking to any principles.

Odd. Isn't 'Progressive' what DemocRATS call themselves now? (Other than the fact they have 'progressed into Socialism/Marxism/Statism)?

Interesting.

Only when they're being honest. For the most part they refer to themselves as liberals, though they bear no resemblance to true liberalism. As to the word "Progressive" itself, it's a misnomer. There's nothing progressive about Progressivism. It's simply a return to statism that the liberals rejected.

 

[Modbert]

Probably it won't, but I like to remain optimistic.

It's fine to remain optimistic. It's the only thing that keeps us going. However, we must face reality. This does nothing for the 3rd party movement. All this does is encourage a group of people to say "You're not being right enough for me, I want someone who is even further to the right." It's not like a group of Democrats not voting for an actual Liberal but instead a Government take over Socialist. (Irony I know.)

This does nothing for bipartisanship, all it does it further separate us.

 

[Oddball]

This does nothing for bipartisanship, all it does it further separate us.

Bipartisanship is overrated.

Gimme that gridlock any day of the week.

 

[Sinatra]

I hope it precedes driving anti-American, anti-free market, anti-traditional values liberals out of the Republican Party. I am probably about as conservative as anybody in this forum, but I consider my views to be both moderate and mainstream. And I am frustrated that there is no viable political party representing me and my views at this time.

As those visionary Republicans of 1994 left Congress to go on to other things, they were replaced with the old guard who, by the time we were into the Bush 43 administration, are not true conservatives but are more Democrat light. Many of us are sick of and resentful of the push for bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government and the idea that government is the solution for all of humankind's problems. Many like me want a party that represents the universal truths that we know preserve hope, prosperity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Very true - the 1994 Republicans, which had been a youngish group highly influenced by Reagan a decade earlier, either moved on to other things and left DC after 4 - 8 years, or themselves became corrupted by the special interest party system. When Bush came to the White House, the old guard party system was back in power, and Bush was either too weak, too trusting, or eventually too overcome by the post 9-11 challenges to bother with trying to alter that. The Congressional Republicans of the Bush era did great harm to America - the Pelosi era Democrats then simply doubled down on that destructive big spending habit, and since Obama, have taken even that legacy to all new levels of national economic suicide.

NY23 is perhaps, the much-needed symbolic resetting of the clock - a revitalization of conservatism in America.

I am hopeful for 2010...

It should be interesting in 2010 as the republicans attempt to regain seats based on strictly Conservative candidates.

That is a too narrow and simplistic description of what is going on within the centralized two-party power structure right now.

Watch for news of some very rough n tumble Democrat infighting in the coming days and weeks. They are are a party teetering on outright chaos.

2010 is going to be fascinating indeed...

 

[The T]

This does nothing for bipartisanship, all it does it further separate us.

Bipartisanship is overrated.

Gimme that gridlock any day of the week.

Absolutely. Anytime that stupid-ass LAW is blocked is a good day indeed.

 

[The T]

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, not a liberal. The Democratic Party rejected liberalism for progressivism and Wilson followed the party line rather than sticking to any principles.

Odd. Isn't 'Progressive' what DemocRATS call themselves now? (Other than the fact they have 'progressed into Socialism/Marxism/Statism)?

Interesting.

Only when they're being honest. For the most part they refer to themselves as liberals, though they bear no resemblance to true liberalism. As to the word "Progressive" itself, it's a misnomer. There's nothing progressive about Progressivism. It's simply a return to statism that the liberals rejected.

So in short? The Democrats are constantly re-inventing the language to suit the cause du jour? Got it. And I agree.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Probably it won't, but I like to remain optimistic.

It's fine to remain optimistic. It's the only thing that keeps us going. However, we must face reality. This does nothing for the 3rd party movement. All this does is encourage a group of people to say "You're not being right enough for me, I want someone who is even further to the right." It's not like a group of Democrats not voting for an actual Liberal but instead a Government take over Socialist. (Irony I know.)

This does nothing for bipartisanship, all it does it further separate us.

You don't think a third party getting into the U.S. House will add a bit more credibility to third parties in some people's minds? I think it will. I also don't have a problem with Republicans rejecting a neocon, but it would make more sense if they weren't rallying around a different neocon.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Odd. Isn't 'Progressive' what DemocRATS call themselves now? (Other than the fact they have 'progressed into Socialism/Marxism/Statism)?

Interesting.

Only when they're being honest. For the most part they refer to themselves as liberals, though they bear no resemblance to true liberalism. As to the word "Progressive" itself, it's a misnomer. There's nothing progressive about Progressivism. It's simply a return to statism that the liberals rejected.

So in short? The Democrats are constantly re-inventing the language to suit the cause du jour? Got it. And I agree.

Certainly, but so have the Republicans. To call the Republican Party the party of conservatism is a joke.

 

[Modbert]

You don't think a third party getting into the U.S. House will add a bit more credibility to third parties in some people's minds? I think it will. I also don't have a problem with Republicans rejecting a neocon, but it would make more sense if they weren't rallying around a different neocon.

You hit the nail on the head right there at the end, all they're doing is rallying around more of a neocon.

I don't think this third party getting into the U.S. House will add more credibility to third parties because Hoffman is just another Republican. And personally? I think he is a screwup. So if he wins, and does a horrible job. Do you think that those who voted for him the first time around are going to vote for that party again? Of course not, they'll go back to the first two.

One of the biggest problems with third parties is that their candidates are not always the best. And their credibility is hurt by candidates who couldn't get their way out of a paper bag.

 

[rightwinger]

Very true - the 1994 Republicans, which had been a youngish group highly influenced by Reagan a decade earlier, either moved on to other things and left DC after 4 - 8 years, or themselves became corrupted by the special interest party system. When Bush came to the White House, the old guard party system was back in power, and Bush was either too weak, too trusting, or eventually too overcome by the post 9-11 challenges to bother with trying to alter that. The Congressional Republicans of the Bush era did great harm to America - the Pelosi era Democrats then simply doubled down on that destructive big spending habit, and since Obama, have taken even that legacy to all new levels of national economic suicide.

NY23 is perhaps, the much-needed symbolic resetting of the clock - a revitalization of conservatism in America.

I am hopeful for 2010...

It should be interesting in 2010 as the republicans attempt to regain seats based on strictly Conservative candidates.

That is a too narrow and simplistic description of what is going on within the centralized two-party power structure right now.

Watch for news of some very rough n tumble Democrat infighting in the coming days and weeks. They are are a party teetering on outright chaos.

2010 is going to be fascinating indeed...

The healthcare debate is fracturing the Democratic Party
The battle between Conservatives and Moderates is fracturing the republican party

2010 should be fun to watch

 

[Oddball]

So in short? The Democrats are constantly re-inventing the language to suit the cause du jour? Got it. And I agree.

Socialized medicine > single-payer > universal coverage > public option > choice & competition.

 

[Modbert]

Socialized medicine > single-payer > universal coverage > public option > choice & competition.

He who controls the definitions, controls the debate.

 

[The T]

Only when they're being honest. For the most part they refer to themselves as liberals, though they bear no resemblance to true liberalism. As to the word "Progressive" itself, it's a misnomer. There's nothing progressive about Progressivism. It's simply a return to statism that the liberals rejected.

So in short? The Democrats are constantly re-inventing the language to suit the cause du jour? Got it. And I agree.

Certainly, but so have the Republicans. To call the Republican Party the party of conservatism is a joke.

At this point-in-time in history would bear that out. And as I have said? Republicans, until they get RID of the*[ Democrat wannabes] in the party will continue to suffer.

* Footnote: [Democrat Wannabes], will heretofore be referred to by me as Repubicans.

 

[Sinatra]

New Siena poll -taken before Dede dropped out of course, shows a virtual dead heat between Hoffman and the Democrat Owns - but with the vast majority of momentum in Hoffman's favor. The trend for Hoffman would have been considerable right up to Election Day as it was, but now with Dede's announcement, should prove even greater.

Prediction - Hoffman wins by a 3-5 point margin on Election Day. And much gnashing of the entrenched Party elite will commence...


The Daily Politics - NY Daily News

 

[Terry]

When others consider my political leanings as being FAR RIGHT that tells me how far left the Republican party has become.

 

[The T]

So in short? The Democrats are constantly re-inventing the language to suit the cause du jour? Got it. And I agree.

Socialized medicine > single-payer > universal coverage > public option > choice & competition.

Agreed. And don't look now, but someone just told you this: "He who controls the definitions, controls the debate. "

Which is entirely correct. And which is WHY the Democrats cannot be HONEST, (even with themselves), about who they are and what they belive. They are constantly moving the goalposts, and are disingenuous as the day is long.

Now who was it that said that?