The latest Siena Poll shows Doug Hoffman ahead 41-36, seemingly the beneficiary of Assemblywoman Scozzafava's sudden withdrawal from the race in NY23.
To no one' surprise, Democrat Bill Owens does best in the eastern end of the district where he lives. Mr. Hoffman does best in the central New York section, where no candidate is native and many conservatives live.
The two are about even in Greater Watertown, and that is why we are the final battleground.
The effect of Scozzafava's withdrawal is hard to guage and her behavior clearly is bitter and petulant.
While some consider her action courageous, others view it as unsavory and I do not believe her actions or endorsement accrue to the benefit of Mr. Owens.
I am not in a major party because I find it difficult to toe the line. But if you have been in a career as a partisan legislator and accrued the considerable personal and financial gain that adherence to party gives, it is just plain erratic and wrong to do what happened this weekend.
To seek and accept the nomination of a major party, collect and spend large amounts of money on your behalf....then quit in a pique and endorse the party at odds with the one you are the nominee of.....Way out there if you ask me.
Again, registration doesn't dictate who you vote for....But when you reap the benefits of party politics, don't do a Judas at such a moment.
I suspect both Sean Hennesey and Don Coon would agree.
As for the race, the pundits say advantage Hoffman...I think its still too close to say for sure.
15 comments:
If my arithmetic is correct, 41% + 36% = 77% that leaves 23% undecided.
Conservatives are never undecided. This race is over, say good night Doug.
6% Are supporting Scozzafava and Siena lists 18% undecided.
100% of Watertown mayors would have endorsed Joe the Plumber to represent the 23rd Congressional District. :-)
Only if the Mayor saw a poll indicating that Joe might lose. Then 100%of Watertown Mayors would change his mind.
how can the mayor actually write this in his no-comments-allowed endorsement of hoffman:
...the insane policies of stimulus and bailout that are the equivalent of generational theft we will live with for years to come.
i think that's really, really wrong. it's fine to critique this or that aspect of the stimulus or (especially) the bailouts, but to roundly denounce them as "generational theft" or "insane" -- well, i think that's much closer to true insanity.
of course it's impossible to know for sure, but there's a very good chance that the stimulus and bailouts prevented genuine economic catastrophe. we really were on the precipice of falling from a recession into a true depression! yet people like the tea partiers and, evidently, the mayor would have had us follow exactly the path set out by hoover. it kind of beggars belief.
I totally agree. Assemblywoman Scozzafava agreed that the stimulus was probably necessary to avoid economic collapse. However, she always said that she disagreed with its application. She even told the mayor in their interview that she would have liked the control of the stimulus to have been at the local level (for infrastructure and small business projects) and not at the federal level.
Nuance and pragmatism are lost when people like Graham and Hoffman use broad strokes to define something as "generational theft" or "insane". That's very Palin though, as are both Graham and Hoffman.
My thesis entry
"What is wrong with the GOP's base - the Conservatives that caued this nightmare on Main Street?" Written by Mike Long
GOP Woes? Start with Mike Long
If you are now making money with Hoffman ads on your site, shouldn't you make some sort of disclosure as it pertains to your endorsement of Hoffman? Otherwise people might think you are ethically questionable
ethically wow are acusing the mayor of doing something wrong......
Hermit Thrush, why do you think it is wrong that the Mayor considers stimulus policies and bailout generational theft? I think many things in politics are open to interpretation; however, this is not one of them.
Your comment that “there’s a very good chance that the stimulus and bailouts prevented genuine economic catastrophe” can easily be disputed.
Furthermore, in regards to a “no comments allowed endorsement” (your words) I think that the Mayor has given all of us ample opportunities to express our opinions. I think the Mayor has given thoughtful consideration to all of the candidates before expressing his opinion; he is one of the few people that have met all of them personally.
Why are democrats trying to make this into a bad thing. The Republicans did well when we stressed conservative values. Reagan and Newt revived the party when they stressed conservative values. Hoffman is doing well when he stresses conservative values. The democrats fear we will realize this and crush them in 2010. More importantly will the Republican's realize it and stay with what works.
JJ
Why is Bill Owens running against Rush Limbaugh? Is it because he knows he can't go toe to toe against Hoffman? Clever!
Hi Jeff - it's your cousin Susan in Ohio!! I just discovered your blog today. I've really gotten into politics in recent years so I've been very interested in the NY-23 race. I'm happy to see that you endorsed Hoffman! I sent him a small campaign donation a week or so ago. It will be fun to see how things turn out. I'll have to email you sometime - take care.
dear anon 8:57,
why do you think it is wrong that the Mayor considers stimulus policies and bailout generational theft?
because i think the economy would have likely been in much worse shape without the stimulus and the bailouts. and i say that as a young person. thankfully i have a job right now, but i'll be on the market in a year, and it's terrifying to think about! here's paul krugman's synopsis (sorry i'm too lazy to look up original sources, but i've seen this supported elsewhere):
Deficit hawks like to complain that today’s young people will end up having to pay higher taxes to service the debt we’re running up right now. But anyone who really cared about the prospects of young Americans would be pushing for much more job creation, since the burden of high unemployment falls disproportionately on young workers — and those who enter the work force in years of high unemployment suffer permanent career damage, never catching up with those who graduated in better times.
as for the bailouts, well, honestly, what else would you have had the government do? as i said above, if you want to critique this or that aspect of them, then go right ahead, and i'd happily join in. but to suggest we simply shouldn't have had them? i mean, the feds did let bear stearns fail, and it wasn't even that big of a bank, and the result was quite severe and the decision is now roundly viewed as a mistake. do you seriously suggest we should done the same on a much bigger scale? what kind of conservatism would roll the dice like that?
Furthermore, in regards to a “no comments allowed endorsement” (your words)
here's the post. click on it and try to comment. you'll see they aren't allowed.
"To seek and accept the nomination of a major party, collect and spend large amounts of money on your behalf....then quit in a pique..." I don't have too much sympathy for the RNC. They treated Dede like a red headed stepchild right out of the gate. Perhaps if they had supported her, especially in light of the money Hoffman got from the Club for Fascists, things may have turned out differently. But hey when Doug wins he will outlaw abortion and stop gay marriage. In fact he may ban homosexuality altogether. And then Ft. Drum will get parceled out to other installations around the country who actually want a base.
Post a Comment