While the two gubernatorial contests are interesting, the most fascinating race here is the contest in New York's 23rd congressional district. That race pits a Democrat, Bill Owens, against a candidate nominated by the Conservative Party, a New York-based third party.
Also on the ballot is Republican DeDe Scozzafava, but she dropped out of the race a few days ago — and endorsed the Democrat Owens.
|
Advertisement |
The background: in New York, for a special election, candidates are picked by party committee and not by open primary. Republican leaders picked Scozzafava, a leader in the New York legislature, over Hoffman, a businessman.
Hoffman, upset at being passed over, took the Conservative Party nomination — and by some polls is poised to romp to victory. (Other polls show a close race.)
That's because a series of national Republicans and Republican-affiliated groups endorsed Hoffman over Scozzafava, who was seen as being unforgiveably liberal. The National Review:
In spite of its having gone for Obama in 2008, the district’s history suggests that it is basically conservative; Ms. Scozzafava is basically not. Boy, is she not: Not only pro-choice and in favor of homosexual marriage — common if distasteful concessions to the secular liberals’ agenda — she also supports some of the most odious items on the Left’s wish-list, including the “card check” initiative that would put a big cudgel in the hands of Big Labor while effectively disenfranchising millions of American workers who may not desire to become Teamsters, SEIU members, or similar. She signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to oppose tax hikes but immediately declared that she was not bound by having done so. It is no surprise that she is supported by the public-employees unions, ACORN — and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga. (Really.)
In contrast, before Scozzafava dropped out, only a few prominent Republicans backed her: the official party establishment, which exists to support the official party candidates, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich defended Scozzafava, saying that while she's pretty liberal compared to most national Republicans, she's a good fit for her district:
Dede Scozzafava is endorsed by the National Rifle Association for her 2nd Amendment position, has signed the no tax increase pledge, voted against the Democratic governor's big-spending budget, is against the cap-and-trade tax increase on energy, is against the Obama health plan, and will vote for John Boehner, rather than Nancy Pelosi, to be Speaker.
Gingrich, questioend by Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, highlighted Scozzafava's social positions as the source of discontent:
There's no question, on social policy, she's a liberal Republican. ... On such as abortion, gay marriage, which means that she's about where Rudy Giuliani was when he became mayor. And yet Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor.
Political scientist Boris Shor, who doesh is research on political ideology, identified Scozzafava as a mainstream conservative Republican in the New York Republican party:
Scozzafava’s score puts her in the 58th percentile of her party, which makes her slightly more conservative than the average Republican legislator in Albany, so she’s a conservative in her party. ... In the legislature as a whole, she’s in the 83rd percentile, which makes her a conservative in Albany in general.
What makes Scozzafava seem so liberal is that the New York Republican Party is so liberal:
New York’s Republicans (along with Massachusetts’, Connecticut’s, Hawaii’s, and New Jersey’s) are the most liberal in the country, so much so that Democrats in Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are all more conservative on average.
The interesting question here is what's best for the Republican Party and for the conservative movement (not the same thing): a big tent party that includes some people like Scozzafava who hold positions some conservatives see as unforgivably liberal, or a party focused more on ideological purity that maybe loses a few seats in moderate-to-liberal districts but is more cohesive and effective at promoting conservative causes? After all, some conservatives might wonder what the use is of a Republican if they vote for relaxed restriction on abortion and for gay marriage and for the Employee Free Choice Act.
Count Gingrich in the "big tent" camp:
And so this idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests, and all across the country, we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent -- that guarantees Obama's reelection. That guarantees Pelosi is Speaker for life. I mean, I think that is a very destructive model for the Republican Party. ... So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they're from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don't think so. And I don't think it's a good precedent. And I think if this third party candidate takes away just enough votes to elect the Democrat, then we will have strengthened Nancy Pelosi by the divisiveness. We will not have strengthened the conservative movement.
For a counterfactual, imagine what would happen in South Dakota if local Democrats started nominating candidates who agreed with liberal groups like MoveOn.org and conservative bogeywoman Nancy Pelosi for every election? They'd get demolished, absolutely pasted. But some liberals in Congress might say good riddance — what good is a Democrat who's not going to vote for cap-and-trade legislation and who might oppose Democratic health care reform proposals?
One thing's for certain: the political spectrum in the country is pretty broad and the political mainstream varies wildly from state to state. This is a dilemma both parties have faced and will continue to face, and it'll be fascinating how it turns out.
Comments
No comments posted.