Sarah Palin has joined several other quite prominent Republicans and demonstrated that she ‘gets it’ by endorsing a third party Conservative over a Republican RINO running for the House in New York … whereas Newt Gingrich has demonstrated the exact opposite.
Gingrich stated of his backing the official Republican nomination Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava:
“We have to decide which business we are in. If we are in the business about feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed then I probably made the wrong decision.”
Which means he thinks the way to revitalise the Republican Party is to nominate Republicans who are functionally interchangeable with Democrats on a great many issues.
Contrast with Palin’s view, who clearly drew the correct lessons from her experience running as McCain’s veep, has picked the Conservative Party of New York candidate over the official Republican one, as did Dick Armey and Fred Thompson:
“The Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race.”
As I have been arguing for quite some time now, this is exactly the sort of notion that needs to work its way into the Republican Party. No wonder the media hate her.
The way it works in the US, there are two established parties, while third parties have the Devil of a time even getting on the ballot (their candidates usually have to run as write-ins). New York’s Conservative party is unusual in that it does get ballot access at the state level.
I can see Gingrich’s point, that if you don’t work within an established party you risk being ineffective, both because of the lack of ballot access and because the established parties have the money and people to make things happen. But the results have always been illustrative of the old Scots proverb “Who sups with the Devil must have a long spoon.” The reformer is corrupted, not the party saved.
There are signs that Palin is thinking third-party and her aligning herself with an existing third party, if it’s successful, may make her own third party more credible nationally. It will certainly make the Republican Establishment take her more seriously. The downside is that Hoffman may lose. But even if he does, Palin will have ‘done the right thing’ and that may help her with many conservative-leaning Republican voters.
The Wall Street Journal certainly shares your view on Ms. Scozzafava.
Actually, Palin isn’t thinking third party at all. It just so happens that Hoffman competes in a state with an established Third Party, the Conservatives.
Palin is conducting an insurgency within the Republican Party against the fools who run the National Party and have run it into the ground.
Yes I know section9, that is my point and what I have been arguing for… the Republican Party needs to be ripped apart and reformed, not more “business as usual”… Palin seems to understand that, Gingrich appears not to.
If the GOP is looking to Palin to be its saviour, it is doomed. Anyway, durely she doesn’t have time for this now she’s a full-time forex analyst.
Of course you think that. I would be astonished had you said otherwise. But the fact she seems to be making such moves and inspiring people to disdain the accepted wisdom of business as usual indicates there is some chance the GOP can be rescued from the delusional orthodoxy of ever expanding regulatory statism.
There’s almost no political downside for Palin and conservatives in butting heads with the GOP at the moment, and arguably, now is possibly the most propitious time to do so where conservatism and right-libertarian principles are being seen in mainstream reporting.
It’s not like Palin is risking her political future, is it?
Is this a third-party movement? I don’t know. I can’t see a three-party system in the US’ near future, but when you have a possible voting bloc representing maybe 20% of the electorate, it would take a party as stupid as the current GOP to ignore it.
Agree completely. There will never be a better time than now.
No I do not think so. I see this as a cultural/political struggle of potentially far more significance than a mere election cycle.
As an added point, I was, and still am a big fan of Palin, but I think her potential value to US politics may not be as a politician – even as a minor one.
There’s no indication that she’s a genius, but then, the US political class in general isn’t composed of anything other than mediocre intellects wielded by moral delinquants, but I would like to think she continues getting in DC’s face, and creates a nucleation point, around which a more libertarian ideology can precipitate. If that brings forth some people that CAN become electable politicians who don’t sell out when they get to DC, then Palin will deserve her place in the history books.
If given the choice of someone with average intelligence who understands the limitations that come with that versus a super-intellect who has no sense of his limitations, which would you prefer?
If the GOP is looking to Palin to be its saviour, it is doomed.
Really? Is that so? How does $116,000 into Hoffman’s coffers since Palin’s endorsement sound?
LINK(Link)
Bad emphasis on my part – I’d like the people who represent me to be smart, although ‘adequate’ would be fine.
A small part of me actually wishes that our representatives had just enough in the way of life skills to get dressed in the morning, but not sufficient for them to undertake a commute to downtown DC and act as legislators.
But you’re right – the worst case would be (is) a gang of supergenius sociopaths.
I admit to being torn with regards Palin. When she first hit the headlines I wanted to defend her, as most of the attacks on her were spiteful, rude and bigoted. But her press performances gave no indication of any knowledge or intellect on her part.
Now she’s talking the Austrian School talk and so I’m thinking it’s probably preferable to have an averagely intelligent conservative/libertarian in a position of authority, rather than a highly intelligent social democrat.
A small part of me actually wishes that our representatives had just enough in the way of life skills to get dressed in the morning, but not sufficient for them to undertake a commute to downtown DC and act as legislators.
I’d be most happy if they had actual, real, non-government jobs that provided them with the majority of their income such that they considered their “service” to be a bit of an annoyance and they could see and hear of the effects of their decisions.
What a naive fool I am.
As frustrated as I’ve been with the American Libertarian party, the Republican party has even been more so. The Libertarians do not seem able to grasp the issues squarely, while the Republican party has been completly gutted of its power by the moderates. They, the RINO’s, have forgotten, or do not care, that there is power in IDEAS.
With whom shall those like me find agreement with? Shall I find room for agreement with those who have no core, no center but compromise? How do I find those who think that the Republican party once stood for something distinct, and that compromising those core values was untenable?
Palin represents, though it is certainly argueable that she represents many things more, a real outsider anti-corruption approach. Politics isn’t about rocket science, it is about principles and ideas. What image Palin generates isn’t all about what she may do, rather they also have to do with the hopes others have in her positions.
Palin aside, I agree that there remains no other logical or reasonable alternatives than to fight for the destiny of the Republican party. Compromise will never lead to a desired end. What is so hard about limited government, self responsibility, capitalism and being free with the liberty to soar?
Oh, give ’em credit: they got the pummeling-each-other-with-inflated-goat-bladders-on-sticks thing right off.
Palin does appear to represent “a real outsider anti-corruption approach”, and I like her a lot, but she is no libertarian. She is much more a standard, religious-oriented authoritarian, a classic Republican conservative with a strong moral sense. A vast improvement over the rest of the pack, to be sure, but in my opinion the difference is more one of degree than of kind.
Michael, what do you mean by “Libertarians do not seem able to grasp the issues squarely”? The term “libertarian” covers a rather broad range of opinions, so I would agree that there are some individuals whose grasp of certain issues is tenuous or unrealistic, but the entire movement? Or by your use of the capital “L” were you referring only to the official Libertarian Party? In either case, could you provide more specificity than a mere blanket assertion?
“Palin does appear to represent “a real outsider anti-corruption approach”, and I like her a lot, but she is no libertarian. She is much more a standard, religious-oriented authoritarian, a classic Republican conservative with a strong moral sense. A vast improvement over the rest of the pack, to be sure, but in my opinion the difference is more one of degree than of kind”
I agree, Palin is not libertarian. I was very excited when she was first chosen to be McCain’s running mate. I assumed being from Alaska, she would be more libertarian and the idea of a woman candidate unlike Hilary was exciting. However, I was very disappointed to realize she was more of a religious conservative. Not only religious, but of the fundamentalist variety. This was a major disappointment to me, but still, compared to the majority of politicians in the US and in our Congress, she is a breath of fresh air. The real question is how much she would let her personal religious convictions influence her decisions.
Exactly. And the answer to this seems to be ‘very little, if at all’. She is clearly a religious person (very much unlike myself), but so far there was nothing to suggest that she has any tendency to impose her religious beliefs on others. She rather strikes me as a ‘live and let live’ type, which is exactly what we need more of in politics – and everywhere else, for that matter.
“”Michael, what do you mean by “Libertarians do not seem able to grasp the issues squarely”? The term “libertarian” covers a rather broad range of opinions, so I would agree that there are some individuals whose grasp of certain issues is tenuous or unrealistic, but the entire movement? Or by your use of the capital “L” were you referring only to the official Libertarian Party? In either case, could you provide more specificity than a mere blanket assertion””
Laird,
I used to be a card carrying member in good standing of the U.S. Libertarian party, with memnership in the states of Pennsylvania and Delaware when I lived in each respectively.
I almost entirely am in agreement with most of what the Libertarian party holds as values. However they seem impotent in getting their message accepted by many, and I believe that is more due to a lack of candidates in lessor offices. Libertarians focus so much attention on presidential candidates, yet they seem to put so little on building a base. People need to see Libertarianism in action before they agree with it in principle and vote for it in sufficient numbers.
This is why I think conservative libertarian minded individuals like me need to “get in the trenches” against the so called moderates of the Republican party and rein that party back into its main focus.
Limited government, personal responsibility, freedom and liberty are values which must be defended as primary values. Anything less and the distinctions vanish between the two parties.
Palin for 2012! Her instincts are right. And she is the only Western leader – given that the governor of a state (Alaska in this case) is a leader – who has lessened the dependency of N America on Arab oil by signing her landmark pipeline contract with the Government of Canada. Negotiated by her.
She thinks correctly.
Sometimes, the right individual comes along.
When I used-to watch TV (years ago) seeing N G made
me think of headcheese.
I think it would take more than a Palin; or, usual political
to get rid of the bunch running things. It would take at
least an Al Capone. (with a better lawyer, of course)
It is amazing to me that Scoz got the republican nomination at all, given her positions and affiliations on both the political axes. Because it was a mid-session replacement the selection was by the party brass rather than by a primary, which should have given them someone at least slightly within the “big-tent” of Republicanism.
I don’t think foreigners understand that if I felt like standing as the Republican candidate for my riding nothing could stop me from submitting papers and being a candidate in the “primary” election for that candidacy, even if my views are 180-degrees to the east of the party’s platform. And if I can convince enough of the voters in the primary (who are not required to be members of the party…) then I run as the Republican in the election, even if the officials of the party and actual membership think that I am the worst person on earth.
Therefore the people we elect don’t really have all that much loyalty to the party itself or to the platform, except to the extent that going-along puts you in a better position to have choice committee assignments or chairmanships thrown your way.
Newt was as “prime minister”ish as a House speaker as we have ever had, and his “Contract on America” the closest to an actual party platform that I’ve seen over here. So he is thinking more “we don’t care what her actual political persuasion is, as long as she is one more towards a majority for our party”. And if she had a chance in the election, that might be a valid position except that the current ranking Repub leadership in the house is not Newt, it is “big-tent” guys who are just as statist as the Democrats.
Palin could indeed be the savior of the GOP – but would likely have to forego ever being the party’s Presidential candidate in order to do so – or would do so in the manner of Goldwater (a devestating defeat that sows the seeds for later victory).
One simply cannot extrapolate anything about New York State politics applicable to the U.S. as a whole.
New York State is 65% Democratic. The median voter theory simply demands that, as a first-order heuristic, the only viable Republican is a RINO Republican. See, most notoriously, Rudy Giuliani, who ran for mayor on the Republican and LIBERAL party tickets (before he went funny in the head in for the 2008 GOP primary).
The NYS Conservative Party is a 1.5-issue party: the “1” being “extremely radical anti-choice” and the “.5” being “extremely radical anti-gay bigotry.” Hardly a recipe for a grand nationwide Republican renaissance.
Stated differently: Move along — nothing to see here.
No Kip, I think that is wrong. What you say about the NY Conservative Party may be true, but the significance of this is actually not about New York at all, it is about the nationwide party. The money quote was not “We need more gay-bashing abortion denying policies”, it was:
That is a clear position against being willing to fight on ground of the other side’s choosing. It is about the folly that allowed Bush expansion of the state that made everything Obama is doing possible by conceding issue after issue to the Democrats as just that of arguing about scale. It really isn’t about NY at all and the value of a high profile group of Republicans deciding to back someone from a different party is hard to overstate.
Accepting that for the sake of argument, I think a better way to put it is that there is NO viable ‘true’ Republican candidate, and running a Democrat-lite does more damage to the party’s character than it’s worth. Which I believe is one of the things Hoffman’s Republican endorsers are saying.
This ignores regional differences in a very large state. NYC and suburbs is heavily Democratic and densely populated. They dominate in Albany (the state capitol). But NY-23 is a reliably Republican upstate district, and without the Hoffman conservative-line candidacy, the Republican would have been a likely shoo-in. This is why there is a strong possibility that Hoffman will win over the extreme RINO that party insiders offered up. Especially now with Palin’s endorsement.
Indeed!!! This is why this has significance far beyond New York.
I have had hints of a Gingrich problem before.
Speaker Gingrich will be saying sensible things about economic policy and then say “Roosevelt got us out of the Depression” (demented – and contradicting everything Gingrich was suppose to believe about economic policy).
And last year Speaker Gingrich looked like he was going to oppose TARP and then just collapsed – although that may well have been because John McCain collapsed (thus destroying his campaign) and dragged people (including Sarah Palin) down with him.
A million Dollar helicopter “outrage”… a trillion Dollar bank bailout “unavoidable”… this only makes sense if someone is away with the fairy folk. One can not (sanely) oppose “high spending” and then support TARP (although I am going over old ground).
As for Dede – a far left person with ACORN and “Working families party” links (some of her friends may be in jail soon when the Troy New York vote rigging thing blows).
Pro “stimulus Bill” (another trillion Dollars – “a trillion here a trillion there, soon we are talking real money”) pro “Card Check” (i.e. death-to-the-secret-ballot).
And a voting record in the New York State Legislature to the left of many DEMOCRATS there.
If this women had run in a primary in New York 23 (there was no primary of course – New York party rules are corrupt) she would have been a joke.
What is the point of having a Congress critter who votes with the Democrats Mr Gingrich? And would join them at the worst possible time (for the Republicans).
Sorry but anyone who supports Dede is either braindead or hopelessly corrupt.
So which is it Mr Speaker?
Dede is exactly the sort of person who is “crushing the country” (and the West in general).
Whereas Mr Hoffman is a mainstream conservative.
Is what Speaker Gingrich saying “it is O.K. to PRETEND to oppose Barack Obama – as long as you do not REALLY oppose him”?
This sort of corrupt position is exactly what turns off people – it is telling real (mainstream) conservatives (let alone libertarians) to “go to Hell”.
Whether Mr Hoffman wins or not Sarah Palin has done herself a power of good by supporting a conservative against two socialists.
And Mr Gingrich has utterly discredited himself.
There is, I repeat, no way (no way at all) that Dede what have won a New York 23 primary – or a general election (people who turn out to vote for Mr Hoffman would never turn out to vote for Dede).
Dede is a joke candidate – and the Republican establishment (with all their money) have shown themselves to be jokes (sick jokes) by supporting her.
It’s sad to see a once-great man make a fool of himself. NY 23 isn’t even a liberal district! Its conservative by New York standards. It’s a special election to replace an outgoing Republican. The state party bosses anointed a candidate to the left of the Democrat candidate, and now they’re puzzled by the fact that conservatives won’t fall in line.
I understand part of Gingrich’s concern is for future New York races if Hoffman wins; Gingrich doesn’t want to encourage New York voters to think Conservative party candidates can win, he doesn’t want to risk any further spoiling factor. I can just about wrap my brain around that if I put myself in the shoes of a non-conservative Republican, but that also tells me Gingrich is done with conservatism. He’s a party man and a technocrat.
Dave R.
You know what is really funny? The Republican party candidate is not a lefty at all. She’s made nice to unions a time or two. That’s about it. She isn’t a RINO by any stretch of the imagination. Forty years ago, she’d be a Rockefeller Republican. Where have those gone anyway? The Democratic candidate is to her right. While that doesn’t say much, it doesn’t say anything good no matter how you look at it. Why do you think Republicans have basically become the party of the Old Confederacy? Most places don’t want fundamentalist wackjobs like Sarah Palin. I love how people think Palin presided over a Libertarian paradise in Alaska when in actuality, Alaska is about as Socialist as an American state could get. Don’t believe me? Then what’s this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
So to end, keep thinking the way back to relevance is nominating people farther and farther to the right. It will be The Whigs redux.
I would not expect Palin to preside over a libertarian anything, let alone a paradise… and I am not suggesting a Palin-esque Republican Party would be libertarian… what it would be is conservative… which would be a vast improvement on the party that the Bush family has presided over.
And all it takes is 30 mins with a search engine to find why “The Republican party candidate is not a lefty at all” is arrant nonsense.
As Paul Marks said earlier:
Reading the comments I have seen mention of Sarah Palin’s “authoritarianism” – no evidence given.
When are libertarians going to stop believeing the left?
The left (such as universities and the “free” television news networks) are not honest people who have a different view of the world from us – they are lying scum.
“Evidence Paul”
O.K. What was the first thing the BBC said about Sarah Palin on announcing that John McCain picked her?
I remember it well and it was “she is close to the oil industry” – a blatent lie as Palin actually made her name (in part) by INCREASING the amount of money the oil companies paid to operate in Alaska (that is something that liberatarians might be opposed to, by the way), Palin was very tough on the oil companies and had broken the Republican establishment in Alaska by using their alleged weakness (in getting money out of the oil companies for Alaska residents) against them.
Then there was the wave of “Palin the Authoritarian” stories – the censoring of books in home town library, the fireing of people for being athiests, the ………
What did these stories have in common?
They were LIES.
Not “different interpretations of the facts” but simple LIES spread by some of biggest media operations in the world and taught by the “unbiased” academics and teachers in the universities and schools of America.
Just as with the recent “racist quotes” by Rush L. (on slavery and so on) – the left have stopped taking words out of context (that is so old fashioned) they now JUST MAKE THE WORDS UP – THEY “QUOTE” WORDS THAT WERE NEVER SPOKEN.
Until people understand the nature of the modern left (i.e. that are not just “mistaken” – they are EVIL) then defeating them is not possible. And, yes, that means the nice seeming person on the evening news, and the nice seeming college lecturer, and the nice seeming school teacher.
These people are only “nice seeming”. Take the example of a school teacher – at teacher training college he or she may well have been given Bill Ayers work on “social justice education” as a standard text.
Do you think that someone who wrote “the author of this book is an unrepentant terrorist and the concept of Social Justice is evil anyway” would pass?
So how “nice” (in reality) can people who graduate from the teacher training course at (for example) Columbia actually be?
Do you think that someone who is prepared to use a text by Bill Ayers as an authority (in order to get a teacher training qualification) is going to hestiate to lie to your children about Sarah Palin?
Or hesitate to lie about anything else.
The left are not “nice” they are not fluffy – and this includes Dede in New York 23.
No doubt this person told the New York Republican bosses what they wanted to hear – but, please make no mistake, she would betray them (and the national Republican establishment such as Gingrich) to Obama, in a heartbeat.
And then have a good night’s sleep afterwards.
“Do not vote for Hoffman you will left the Democrat in” – a pathetic example of missing the point.
Even Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota) understands this – which is why he supports Hoffman.
It is not something that can only be understood by libertarians or even “exteme” conservatives (Pawlenty is neither – and neither, by the way, is Hoffman who is actually a mainstream to moderate conservative) it is not “rocket science”, it is basic stuff.
If the Republican establishment still do not understand this – then things are very bad indeed.