NY-23: Conference Call
Tags: Doug Hoffman, NY-23.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Moments ago, Mark and I participated in a blogger conference call with activists and campaign officials in NY-23.
My friend Ali Akbar was hosting the call. He is in NY-23 doing some reporting at 73Wire.com, where they have broken quite a number of stories already.
The first person we heard from was Matt Burns, a Republican Consultant and former spokesman for the Scozzafava campaign. He told us he did not agree with Scozzafava’s decision to endorse the Democrat Owens.He originally joined the campaign thinking that Scozzafava would be a vote against Nancy Pelosi’s reckless agenda, but, now it is clear there is only one candidate in the race who will be that voice and vote Pelosi: Doug Hoffman.
He also noted something that Newt Gingrich said, which I agree with, that in advance of the 2010 election cycle, our party needs to me be able to embrace candidates that fit their districts, even if they are moderates.
Robert Stacy McCain, who was on the call and is stationed now in the district (doing some good reporting too), had asked how the NRCC and the RNC got things so wrong with Scozzafava. Burns noted that Scozzafava was chosen locally. I don’t blame the Republican Party or the NRCC for supporting the chosen Republican candidate. I think activists need to move on from that.
One concern expressed by a Hoffman campaign official, was the number of people coming in. Democrats have a good ground game, and are mobilizing, Also, ACORN and the left-wing Working Families Party are heavily involved… now we all know that ACRON and voter fraud are like peas carrots, buth For those of you outside of New York, and aren’t familiar with the Working Families Party, you probably don’t know that this minor party has had some trouble recently with forged absentee ballots that apparently changed the outcome of an election. The Democratic Party has also put in about a million dollars in attack ads against Hoffman. Joe Biden is coming to town tomorrow. The Democrats are fighting hard, make no mistake about it.
So, we need to understand the forces that are working to get the Democrat Bill Owens elected. The Doug Hoffman campaign, however, wants clean, fair, and legal elections, and they are confident they can win if everything is above board.
So, what can you do?
Go to Doug Hoffman’s campaign website.
Follow the campaign on Twitter.
Join the campaign on Facebook.
If you live in or near the district, they need your help!
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
35 Responses to “NY-23: Conference Call”
Caucus of Corruption
He also noted something that Newt Gingrich said, which I agree with, that in advance of the 2010 election cycle, our party needs to me be able to embrace candidates that fit their districts, even if they are moderates…Matt
————————–
Many GOP officials are of the same mind, Matt. They fear the Party has been hijacked by radicals.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B287C056-18FE-70B2-A88C6D5F0E6061E5
A moderate republican is a democrat, period, so let them be democrats. A true conservative republican believes in the 10th amendment, a smaller, less obtrusive government, lower taxation, and a stronger defense. Leave the social issues for the states. If republicans do that, they will win in landslides, despite what liberals like canadian want everyone else to believe.
Liberals like canadian want an obtrusive federal government which legislate and regulate nearly every aspect of our lives. Believe me, that’s not what the majority of Americans want.
Leave the social issues for the states. If republicans do that, they will win in landslides…..
Cluster, that is the key, IMHO. People tend to forget that Reagan was almost agnostic on social and religious issues. My hope is that the moral-issue voters, (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) would participate at the national level in larger numbers if moral issues were not part of the campaign. It might be wishful thinking, but I think the dynamics of the next 2 or 3 election cycles may undergo a huge sea change. I think you’ll see a lot of religious fundamentalists shove moral issues to the back burner if the survival of the country depends on their votes, but, then again, I may be completely wrong.
Put God first, country second!!! Put God first, country second!!!
Memorize it. Do it!
OT question:- Why post an open thread and then take it away? This has happened on more than one occasion. Just curious as to the motive behind the action.
They fear the Party has been hijacked by radicals.HOGWASH!!
typical libtalk 101 by zer0’s kneepad brigade.
cluster: A moderate republican is a democrat, period, so let them be democrats.
As it relates to Scozzafava, it appears you very well may get your wish. The Democrats’ willingness to co-opt moderate, erstwhile Republicans seems to me to be a risky strategy, though. Then again, it seemed to work well in Iowa, so who knows?
I heard something about NY-23 the other day that caught my ear, and I’m wondering if Matt, or someone else familiar with NY could comment on it: Specifically, I heard that NY-23 was all but certain to be redistricted out of existence after the 2010 census. Is that true?
rico
only if there is a GOP win.
Spook: My hope is that the moral-issue voters, (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) would participate at the national level in larger numbers if moral issues were not part of the campaign.
Huh? How does that figure?
neocon1,
A “radical” to a liberal, is someone who thinks for themself.
rico,
Independents and libertarians are leaving democrat resservation in droves because of Obama’s incessant desire to federally regulate & legislate nearly everything. The hope and change they voted for is not materializing at all, and people like me of course knew it never would. We welcome those indy’s and libertarians into the conservative fold, while at the same time expelling the moderate rino’s who have no spine whatsoever.
Spook,
You are 100% correct.
rico,
Spook is saying that those issues do not belong at the federal level, and if voters were given a chance to vote for a federal government that is more constitutionally aligned, they would turn out in larger numbers.
That concept however, goes against everything the democrats stand for.
Huh? How does that figure?
What is the main thing that keeps pro-life people home on election day? My first thought would be a limited choice of overtly pro-life Republican candidates. Now let’s say that the Dems offer, almost exclusively, candidates who run on protecting a woman’s right to chose, and the Republicans run candidates who run on moral issues being primarily a states’ rights issue instead of trying to be just a little less pro-choice than their Democrat opponent. I think, more than anything, the economic crisis this country is likely to be in next fall will force social issues out of the limelight. Like I said, I could be completely wrong.
neocon1: only if there is a GOP win.
Seeing as how the GOP nominee has withdrawn, you might want to rephrase that, lol! But I catch your drift — and I’m still not sure I agree. Granted, if the Dem candidate somehow manages to pull it out — then wins aqain next year (remember, this is a special election) — that might change the calculus. But really, what are the chances of that? Moreover, my understanding is that NY-23 is one of only 3 that are “currently” occupied by “Republicans” (technically, the NY-23 seat is currently vacant, and technically, the chances are zero that it will be filled by a “Republican” even after Tues, but you know what I mean), so it seems reasonable to suggest that those 3 are the ones most on the chopping block, in whole or in part.
But that brings up a critical issue that is often overlooked — the 2010 regional elections are very critical insofar as their impact on redistricting goes. In that respect I suppose the Democrats’ attempts to co-opt moderate Republicans of any stripe makes sense: even if their ranks are polluted by a bunch of unreliable “blue-dogs”, they still get to set the agenda, and therefore the congressional districts for the next decade.
Rico,
If you’ll remember, some redistricting was done under Bush, and at that time liberals screamed like little school girls.
Yet now, nary a peep at redistrcting efforts now.
And that’s the party you give your allegiance to. Says a lot.
Spook: Now let’s say that the Dems offer, almost exclusively, candidates who run on protecting a woman’s right to chose, and the Republicans run candidates who run on moral issues being primarily a states’ rights issue instead of trying to be just a little less pro-choice than their Democrat opponent.
Okay, that makes more sense. But still, it’s predicated on two assumptions: (1) that making it a states’ rights issue will be enough to enthusiastically engage those who feel such issues are central, and; (2) that the Dems will “almost exclusively” offer candidates who run on protecting a woman’s right to choose. I don’t see either one of those things happening. The first runs contrary to human nature — you can’t get someone riled up by playing down or ignoring the issues central to them. The second runs contrary to the evidence: the Dems have shown no qualms about not making social issues a litmus test for Democratic candidates in strategic races (especially Senate races). What makes you think they’re going to start? Oh I suppose one could always hope they’ll be inclined to over-play their hand, but at this point it’s just a hope. In contrast, the GOP is actively doing it. And that, I would say, is the central problem as it stands now.
RE: I think, more than anything, the economic crisis this country is likely to be in next fall will force social issues out of the limelight. Like I said, I could be completely wrong.
Maybe so, Retired Spook. But one little thing I’d like to point out … the economy is being driven on, and have their basis in morals as much as the issues that we want to separate and call “social” issues. These same social issues, if you’re on the left side turn into subsidizing the wrong or negative side of those issues, ie, abortion, euthanasia, etc. And in education, where our public schools where the immorality starts, as it is taught there.
So, we can say the catch-phraise “Ah, but it’s the economy stupid!” … But that’s not going to help much.LOL!
If we want to help the economy, we must stick to the morals that will set this country back on track again. As it i, we are reaching levels of a cesspool. Albeit, without the necessity of war…at least not yet.
cluster: If you’ll remember, some redistricting was done under Bush, and at that time liberals screamed like little school girls.
Actually, ALL of the last redistricting was technically done under Bush. But it’s also true that Bush was irrelevant. It’s the state legislatures that matter in that regard, and Bush was President by them. It’s also needless to say that members of the minority party (however that is defined — it’s different from state to state) will always scream like little school girls. So hopefully it goes without saying that the best way to avoid straining your vocal chords is to avoid being the minority party.
As I recall, however, there was some extra screaming going on in Texas. But that was because the GOP legislators weren’t content, after the fact, with the way the districts were drawn. But again, that had nothing to do with Bush. It was Tom DeLay that got embroiled in it. What’s up with the DeLay charges anyway? Anyone heard anything? For that matter, what’s the word on William Jefferson?
(2) that the Dems will “almost exclusively” offer candidates who run on protecting a woman’s right to choose. I don’t see either one of those things happening. – rico
Can you name one vocal pro-life democrat? I can’t.
Regardless if those issues are central or not, rico, they don’t belong at the federal level, being legislated by federal representatives. It’s a 10th amendment thing.
It’s how Reagan governed and it’s how conservatives should govern, and when, and if they do, they will win in landslides. Most Americans are tired of liberals like you jamming social issues down their throats, whether that be gay marriage, abortion, or even stripping religious context from the public squares.
Tom Delay is, and never was, guilty of anything. That was strictly a liberal witch hunt, which is again, the ideology that you bow to rico.
You must be proud.
Rico,
The following is a clear example of what I am talking about. Democrats have gone so far off the American reservation, that they don’t deserve to hold office for the next 50 years, and I will do everything in my power to see to that.
In the name of “the environment,” the state gets to regulate everything you do. The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving national “energy efficiency” standards, starting with a 50 per cent reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/gullible-eager-beaver-planet-savers/
cluster: Can you name one vocal pro-life democrat? I can’t.
Really? Even if I limit myself to Senators, I can name two just off the top of my head: Bob Casey and Mary Landreau.
But since you couldn’t, I have to ask… what’s it to you? Since when is that a big issue for you? More to the point, in what sense is it anything more than faux-concern on your part?
cluster: Tom Delay is, and never was, guilty of anything. That was strictly a liberal witch hunt, which is again, the ideology that you bow to rico.
The only thing I that I have ever suggested that Tom Delay was guilty of was bad judgement. After all, several of his top aides have plead guilty to various charges. He has, however, been indicted. Again, how is that going?
cluster: In the name of “the environment,” the state gets to regulate everything you do. The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving national “energy efficiency” standards, starting with a 50 per cent reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer.
Am I to understand from this that you’ll believe anything you hear, without question or contention, just because it sounds like something you want to believe?
Mary Landrieu:
Rated 50% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Not exactly in the “pro-life” camp.
the Pregnant Women Support Act (H.R. 2035, S. 1032), sponsored by Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-Tn.) and 39 others, and by Senators Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Ben Nelson (D-Ne.). That bill does not contain any restrictions on abortion, but there are sections that recognize that there exists such an entity as an unborn child, which makes the bill unacceptable to pro-abortion advocacy groups.
Again, not exactly a staunch pro lifer
Rico,
Abortion is a very minor issue to me, but I am pointing out how dire it is to liberals and how federal democrats must be pretty much in line with that issue to have any chance of party support.
Re: the environment, yea you’re right rico. the cap and trade bill is not about government control. Not at all. In fact, neither is health care. It’s all about saving the planet and providing insurance to the poor .
You are such a rube.
What’s up with the DeLay charges anyway? Anyone heard anything?
Delay was on Huckabee on Fox Saturday night. My daughter called just as he was explaining the status of his legal problems. All I got was that it’s been over 4 years since the original indictment, and there’s still no trial in sight. I’ll leave any conclusion up to you.
cluster: Again, not exactly a staunch pro lifer.
What does a “staunch pro-lifer” have to believe in order to qualify for the title? Whatever it is, on the basis of your own testimony I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t qualify. Thus, it seems you yourself would be sufficiently “in line with that issue” to have a chance at Dem party support. Using the conflation tactics you’re so fond of, you could further be accused of being a closet commie. I think I will start referring to you as komrad kluster, lol!
Anyway, if you insist on somehow trying to strangle the point to death (figuratively speaking, of course) here’s a few House Dems for you to check out: James Langevin (D-RI), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Jerry Costello (D-IL), James Oberstar (D-MN), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Gene Taylor (D-MS).
Spook: My daughter called just as he was explaining the status of his legal problems. All I got was that it’s been over 4 years since the original indictment, and there’s still no trial in sight. I’ll leave any conclusion up to you.
Oh, okay. Anyone else — perhaps someone who actually heard what he said?
All of those dems rate 50% or less with the nrlc, meaning they are quite squishy on the issue, and would side with their party on any crucial vote, guaranteed. That’s what I mean by staunch.
I notice you haven’t addressed the cap & trade article, or my contention of a federal power grab in regards to healthcare.
cluster: All of those dems rate 50% or less with the nrlc…
Can you document that? Okay, let me be more to the point: you can’t document that. Moreover, there is every likelihood that you wouldn’t rise above 50% either.
I notice you haven’t addressed the cap & trade article, or my contention of a federal power grab in regards to healthcare.
Actually, I did address the cap & trade article. Specifically, I asked, “Am I to understand from this that you’ll believe anything you hear, without question or contention, just because it sounds like something you want to believe?” You have yet to answer. I’ve discussed the other extensively on previous posts, and at present I have little else to add on the topic. I guess the question is, how many other topics will you bring up in your attempt to distract from the fact that you haven’t adequately addressed any of the others you have earlier brought up?
Rico,
Asking me a question about what I believe, or don’t believe on an issue, IS NOT addressing the issue, just FYI. And that was covered in Freshman level debate classes. Now if you would like to address the issue of cap and trade on this thread rather than referring to others, and the punitive taxes it would impose, the federal authority it would provide and absolute meaningless impact it would have, then feel free. Really, you’re amongst friends.
Re: nrlc, they actually have a website that you can go to and see Senators records on abortion issues. Imagine that.
Cluster,
Rico is into making money from whatever circumstances present themselves, regardless of the negative effects or unintended consequences of said circumstances, so I’d have to believe that he is planning on making money on trading carbon credits, should that become a reality. I wouldn’t expect an honest answer from him on the subject.
retiredspook says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“Cluster,
Rico is into making money from whatever circumstances present themselves, regardless of the negative effects or unintended consequences of said circumstances, so I’d have to believe that he is planning on making money on trading carbon credits, should that become a reality.”
Are you suggesting that Rico might be a capitalist? LOL
Casper, no “might be” about it, and it was not so much a criticism as simply a statement of who rico is. I consider myself a capitalist too, but I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I invested in something that I knew was based on a fraud, a fraud, BTW, that will cause great economic harm to this country. But, hey; it’s a free country. He certainly wouldn’t be the first capitalist to make money off other people’s misery.
That’s a little catty, don’t you think, Spook? But even if what you say were true about me, it appears it would certainly be true of cluster. To him, business is business, morals schmorals.
What is true about me is that I will invest in things even when I don’t fully agree with what provided the opportunity. I didn’t think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea at time, but seeing as how it happened it made investing in defense-related companies a no-brainer. So I did. Now, I realize that some people believe that some level of fraud was involved in the motivation to invade, and while I didn’t share that view I don’t think it would have made much of a difference if I did — unless I thought the companies I invested in were actively engaged in the fraud.
Likewise, even if I thought global warming was a fraud, it wouldn’t stop me from investing in renewable energy companies — again, unless I was convinced they were actively engaged in it. With that caveat in mind, I only invest in things that I think will make me money. And to my mind, renewable energy is about as big a no-brainer as investing in defense stocks were in 2003. There are, after all, a number of other very compelling reasons to pursue renewable and non-carbon sources of energy besides global warming. Even if you took global warming completely out of the mix, they’d still be pretty darned compelling. And though I’m not suggesting that Spook directly said pursuing renewable energy sources “will cause great economic harm to this country”, I do think that was his implication. I invite him to clarify his meaning if he wishes. But in the mean time I thoroughly reject the idea that pursuing them will cause great economic harm. Rather, I am quite convinced of the opposite — it will be an economic boon! That’s why I’m interested in investing. I mean really, why would I be interested in something that would cause great economic harm? That doesn’t make any sense.
Having said that, though, I have come to appreciate that investing in the renewable energy industry is far more complicated than investing in the defense industry. For one thing, the renewable energy industry, like most other high tech, leading-edge industries, is dominated by small companies. Most of them will eventually fail. That just goes without saying. But those that don’t will grow fabulously and/or be absorbed into larger companies. So in addition to being careful about who you invest in, you also have to be prepared to spread your money around. And that gets expensive. The other thing is that many of the most promising companies are still private, meaning that unless you are a venture capitalist with lots and lots of money, you can pretty much forget about those.
For the record, I have no intention of trading in carbon futures. It’s not because I think it’s a bad idea (although as I’ve said many times before, I’m not keen on it — I think there are better, more efficient ways to go about weighting externalities), it’s because I don’t know enough about it. However, if I felt comfortable about trading carbon futures, I would certainly engage in it. And why not? Again, the entities that trade on the market are not the same entities that set it up. So even if there’s fraud involved in the latter, why should it sully those involved in the former?
Finally there’s a question as to whether I would be inclined to make money off of other peoples’ misery. And again, while I think the question is better posed to cluster, my short answer is… absolutely. The long answer is… I try to make a distinction between those who deserve their misery and those who do not, but oftentimes the evidence required to make that distinction is simply not available — often by law (i.e., laws in many situations are designed to ensure transactional objectivity — you’re not supposed to know too much about those you’re dealing with). I will say this though: if I were ever to buy back a property I used to own at a fraction of the price I sold it for, it would probably put a smile on my face. Is that bad?