Eh, he can polish up his public persona and run a better campaign next time. How often is anyone really great their first time out?

Steele just threw Palin and Pawlenty under the bus. RedState.com has the write up.

Rather serious error in judgement by Michael if you ask Nixon.

Steele has been underwhelming as GOP chair, but then the Democrats have had a raving lunatic as their chair for years, and they've done okay.

Wow, what gratitude! (But I am not surprised)

I think we need to look into what being a conservative is. We have spent the last week saying what the differeces are between a Republican and a Conservative, but I think there are more than one flavor of Conservatives. There are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. The men who won in Virginia and Jersey ran as fiscal conservatives. Hoffman ran as a social conservative. I think that when you make gay marriage your number one issue, you are going to lose. Don't get me wrong, it can be part of your platform that you don't want homos to marry, but don't elevate it as an issue.

If you talk small governement, lower taxes, and getting the government off your back, and strong national defense you are going to win in 2010. But if your talk is all about abortion and gay rights, you are going to lose. The message is simple, just don't confuse the two sides.

I must disagree with you, Mr. Hawkins.

Bluntly put, the RNC cost themselves this election, by backing Scozzafava. If they had followed Hoffman from the start, I daresay he'd be representing NY-23. Instead, they opted for a 'moderate' — in other words, someone who was a RINO. And it came back and bit them.

And really, Mr. Hawkins — charisma? Are you flipping kidding me? More than a few Congress-critters have all the personal charisma of a wall outlet. I don't really see how that's an issue here.

The RNC needs to wipe the egg off their faces, offer Hoffman an olive branch, and start tackling the elections with an eye to /winning/ with conservative candidates, not just pursuing 'detente' with 'moderate' candidates.

Because as Reagan said, 'detente' is what the turkey has with the farmer — until Thanksgiving.

Owens and Scazzafava appeard above Hoffman on the ballot.

Each of them appeared on the ballot TWICE before the name Hoffman was seen.

He came from an unkown accountant to a kitchen table talk name in thirty-some days. Had Scozza truly dropped out, and refrained from throwing her support to Owens, Doug H might have just won.

For you to tell him "thanks but stay home next time" is rude and very 'political'. We do not need ANY professional politicans. Amateurs can screw it up just as well, perhaps better. At least they are not in it for the pension and health care benefits!

tom

John,

I have to agree with Toastrider, Bolivar and TomW. Since the guy only had 30 days in this horse race, he did extremely well considering he only lost by 4 or 5%. Look what the professional politicians got us last year. John McLame ect. ect.

I would rather go with someone like Doug Hoffman than the "Moderate Repubs". We need more people like Doug Hoffman in Congress. Also we need more people with star power like Sarah Palin. She ignited the conservative base last year like no one else has in the last several years.

So with folks like Sara & Doug maybe we can take our country back from these looney toon liberals.

Hoffman only jump in the polls when Fox News and national figures starting mentioning his name.

Well, it is always refreshing to know that Republicans don’t eat their own, not!! I have just read through all the comments and can’t believe how un-christian like they are. You talk of war and the old slash and burn mentality. Although I am liberal, I support conservative thought and for what it brings to our nation(I’d like any of you to respond in kind, thank you), but let us work to the strengths of both parties, and create a third, or fourth, instead of demonizing each other. The politicians are happy to keep the population polarized and none of them should ever be left unchecked. With that written, I think that you are following the wrong path that will only isolate the Republican party further. The fact is that the world changes and evolves. Once blacks were slaves, women and blacks didn’t vote, the elderly didn’t receive any type of medical or financial support and the gap between the very wealthy and the poor was narrower. All of these steps were met by resistance from the Republican party, as Democrats resist welfare for the rich, but all are considered to be good for our people now. The health care debate is another example of resistance to change that is good for the people. How anyone could place the best interest of the insurance and medical companies ahead of our own population is beyond comprehension, especiall those christians. We have less influence over the corporations than we do our government, which is not evil(anyone who makes this claim is ignorant and should try going one day without government support)!!!
The Republicans are in a tough inner battle and currently are being led by self-absorbed, power hungry reps that do not, and repeat, do not, have your best interest at heart. They are manipulated by money and power. Again, I find it quite amusing that Christians have learned how to justify exploitation through money and power. WWJD? I don’t think that he would own a gun nor would he vote Republican. I will offer some advice to some of you. You don’t have to live your life in fear like your politician and/or preacher is telling you. You don’t have to be afraid of democrats, maybe the politicians, but certainly not other hard working people that have good values, and morals, do not wish the US to turn communist, socialist or be destroyed, as that is a scare tactic. I find it quite nice to hope for a better future for our country and cast the chains of fear behind, at least until another Republican gets in the White House. ha, just a little joke. Enjoy!!

Once blacks were slaves, women and blacks didn’t vote, the elderly didn’t receive any type of medical or financial support and the gap between the very wealthy and the poor was narrower. All of these steps were met by resistance from the Republican party…

Again, I find it quite amusing that Christians have learned how to justify exploitation through money and power.
Posted by NCfellow 2009-11-05 11:31:06

NCFellow, these two obvious lies makes your entire post meaningless. Please try again!

NCfellow, I believe you need to go back to history class, because you just flunked the final with an F-. That’s what happens when you fail to do your own studying and instead try to take a shortcut and read over the shoulder of the guy in front of you. Too bad you were sitting behind the class idiot. If you parrot everything your leader says without question, then only one of you is doing any thinking, and I have news for you, it isn’t you.

Who freed the slaves? The very first Republican president ever (he helped found the party by the way!) Abraham Lincoln.

Who fought the Civil Rights Act in congress? The Democrats. Which party finally managed to get it passed? The Republicans.

Which party has a former KKK member in congress? the Democrats.
Which party appointed not one but TWO blacks as secretary of State? Republicans. One of them was also female I might add.

Which party donates more to charitable causes by a 2:1 margin? republicans. And we do it with our OWN money, not with money we stole from other people.

Once blacks were slaves, women and blacks didn’t vote, the elderly didn’t receive any type of medical or financial support and the gap between the very wealthy and the poor was narrower. All of these steps were met by resistance from the Republican party

Another fine product of Liberal propaganda, I see. It was a Republican President who freed the slaves. The first female Representative was a Republican. The first black Representative was a Republican. The first black Senator to serve a full term was a Republican. The first woman to run for President on a major party ticket was a Republican. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a larger percentage of the Republicans in office voting for it than Democrats — and it was filibstered by several prominent Democrats. Americans have always taken care of the sick and elderly without government interference, thank you very much. The “gap between the very wealthy and the poor” is likewise none of the government’s business.

Posted by NCfellow
2009-11-05 11:31:06

Well, looks like NCFellow is limping home holding his ass that just got handed to him. I will say one thing though, this NC guy’s post is a model of efficiency. There are so many talking points, lies, assumptions, and distortions that even Obama would be hard pressed to keep up. He almost makes me want to keep a running list of stupidity-per-sentence ratios for liberal posts to see if anyone can possibly top this.

You’d best listen, too.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-05 13:47:09

Right, like we shoudl listen to you when you tell us that Republicans shoudl hold open primaries to choose our candidate.

You and your side lost on Tuesday, D-Vega. The only thing you won was a race that you yourself said that no one cared about. Or at least, no one cared about it until you won.

Again, you do not want the Right to succeed or be successful. Therefore, your advise is as worthless and classless as you are!

You’d best listen, too.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-05 13:47:09

To someone who voted for Obama? Are you high?

I didn’t say it was a race no one cared about. I said it was a race that you should have won because it was a conservative district.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-05 14:40:12

I so enjoy pointing out what a lying piece of shit you are D-Vega. It also helps that you do most of the work.
“Likewise for Hoffman, Nixon. Gimme a break. No one has cared for such a district race in my memory. At least NJ is a governor’s race.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-03 09:53:14“

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-05 14:45:06

C’mon, you know using a Liberal’s own words against him is “unfair.”

C’mon, you know using a Liberal’s own words against him is “unfair.”

Especially when you misuderstand or lie about them.

I never said no one cared about it.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-05 15:18:22

You sure have your bowels in a uproar still from Tuesday night Nixon sees.

Has Corzine got his gig with the Administration yet, after all 0f Barry’s support got him unemployed?

Stop lying, Baud. I said that I was amazed that you all cared about it so much, as if it was super-unique. Because it wasn’t. It was a conservative NY district. It a district that you should win. That the Dems had only to gain from it and not lose anything. I explained that over and over again in a 200+ post thread.

Don’t tell me what I said.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-05 15:26:56

BULLSHIT!!!

Let’s look at the quote, shall we? “Likewise for Hoffman, Nixon. Gimme a break. No one has cared for such a district race in my memory. At least NJ is a governor’s race.”

See, right there, D-Vega YOUR WORDS. No where does it say SO MUCH, as you lying claim. You said EXACTLY that no one cared for such a district race.

And now you are trying to tell us what you MEANT, not what you actually said, because you have been caught in a blatent lie!

So are you going to now claim that what you said is not what you meant? Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

You sure have your bowels in a uproar still from Tuesday night Nixon sees.

No more than usual, Nixon.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-05 15:59:04

You know something, D-Vega. I do not give the least little shit if your clarified your position over the course of 2000 posts. It does not matter in the least.

You said “I didn’t say it was a race no one cared about. Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-05 14:40:12″ and I posted where you said EXACTLY that. So we have clearly shown that you are not only a liar, but are too arrogant, selfish, and petty to admit it.

Anything that you might think you had that resembled credibility is GONE. And you should be too.

I’m done playing your pathetic words games of “I said AAA, but what that means is ZZZ.” Bu-Bye!

Really? Here’s a lists of Democrats who have held that area’s seat between 1960 and now.

Posted by CavalierX 2009-11-05 16:06:38

CavalierX, really! When D-Vega said “Democrats have NOT held this seat in the few decades.” he OBVIOUSLY meant a few decades in the 1700′s.

You are not suggesting that D-Vega might be LYING?

are you?

Really? Here’s a lists of Democrats who have held that area’s seat between 1960 and now.

Nice try, Cav. But NY-23 now is NOT the “area’s seat” that it was. It used to contain portions of the Bronx even.

The “area’s seat” is one of the few places where a Demcrat has not been elected in more than 100 years.

I know that’s probably a new meme now, since it was not mentioned on previous threads, but the meme fails.

If Democrats win NY-23 in a special election to be held later this year, certain parts of this district will be represented by a Democrat for the first time in 159 years. The map below gives you an idea of how long it’s been since parts of the district have been Democratic-held. Almost two-thirds of the population of the current district (62%) live in territory that has not elected a Democrat since 1890 or earlier. It really is mind-boggling.

Since the 1856 election (when the Republican party entered the political arena), the territory in what is now NY-23 has almost exclusively been represented by the GOP. In fact, the last Democrat elected to represent St. Lawrence Co. in Congress was a man named Francis Spinner, elected in 1854. He ran successfully for re-election as a Republican in 1856 and was later appointed as Treasurer of the United States by Abraham Lincoln. The last Democrat to represent Jefferson Co. was even earlier – Willard Ives, elected in 1850. The most amazing fact I found was regarding Franklin Co. The last Democrat elected to represent that county was Joseph Russell, also in 1850. In 1852, the district that then included Franklin elected George Simmons, a member of the Whig party. Therefore, Franklin Co. has been more recently represented in Congress by a WHIG (1854) than by a Democrat (1852)!

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5072/amazing-political-history-of-ny23

I know the Four Horsemen are still in post-election spin mode. But “that area’s seat”, as you say, has been solidly Republican for more than 100 years.

If you are referring to the “23rd District of New York” in general, that would be different, but that changes every several years or so. It has included the Bronx, Manhattan, Westchester County & Albany in the past.

We are talking about THAT AREA OF NEW YORK. Which is a conservative area of New York.

Sorry, Baud. Back to Remedial History for you.

Ah, so Newsbusters is the one twisting the truth for the sake of spin purposes. There’s a shocker. I guess Fox News will put this into immediate rotation, even though its hogwash.

NY-23 is not a city or town like Trenton, Cav. Its a district that changes. I am referring to the area, just like you were.

And let’s look at what you said -

“Here’s a lists of Democrats who have held that area’s seat between 1960 and now.”

That is not correct. I should be impressed that a Dem held the 23rd dist seat when it included the Bronx? Or Albany? Gimme a break.

If it makes you feel better, then it should be “the area that is now called NY-23 has been solidly Republican since the Civil War.”

Again, it’s the same thing as pretending to be shocked when a Democrat is elected mayor of Trenton because a certain neighborhood has always voted Republican. The lie that NY-23 has been “solidly Republican since the Civil War” has been exposed and debunked. Now that you can’t make that claim anymore, you’re saying that the district has changed so often and so extensively that it once included the Bronx, but we should be upset because a small portion of that area is Republican but the area as a whole went for the Democrat? Tell you what: show us proof that the voters of that tiny hardcore Republican area within NY-23 voted for the Democrat, and not just because Scozzy told them to, and you can claim a victory.

Ah, so Newsbusters is the one twisting the truth for the sake of spin purposes. There’s a shocker. I guess Fox News will put this into immediate rotation, even though its hogwash.

Says the guy using the Kos talking point.

Says the guy using CNN talking points.

Incidentally, when you say “this seat” or “this district” you do not mean “the geographical area now occupied by this district.” The district 23 and the seat in congress obviously and inescapably was held by Democrats more recently than before the Civil War. You were factually in error and it never hurts to admit that instead of attacking people out of frustration.

And if you are going to attack or mock Fox News for repeating talking points, stop echoing Keith Olbermann’s talking points. It’s shabby and hypocritical.

It’s a technical error that I would gladly admit. And it doesn’t affect the overall point I’ve been making all week. But if you want the concession you have it.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-06 11:52:38

Now if you could get over yourself long enough to admit you lied when you claimed that you never said no one cared about this election, when you undoubtedly did.