Comments on: YES TO HOFFMAN, BUT NO LITMUS TEST PLEASE

By: Right Wing Nut House » TOO DELICIOUS TO BE TERMED ‘IRONY’

Right Wing Nut House » TOO DELICIOUS TO BE TERMED ‘IRONY’ — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:25:06 +0000

[...] THE GOVERNMENT THINK YOU’RE STUPID? OR A CHILD? THE RICK MORAN SHOW: STORM BREWING IN NY23 YES TO HOFFMAN, BUT NO LITMUS TEST PLEASE WHY THE SHORTAGE OF SWINE FLU VACCINE? WILL WE MAKE HEZBALLAH ANOTHER ‘PARTNER FOR [...]

By: Right Wing Nut House » ‘UNRULY’ CONSERVATIVES SHOCK THE GOP IN NY23

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:14:38 +0000

By: LindaD in Nevada

LindaD in Nevada — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:02:13 +0000

You’ve explained it better than most, Rick — thank you! But, I’m still very unhappy with Newt. First for his endorsement, but even more for his criticism of the R’s who have endorsed Hoffman. Knowing that Hoffman IS a Republican, who will caucus with the House R’s, should have been enough for him to hold back his ire. The party leadership would be wise to throw a few bones to the conservatives across the country who are becoming more passionate about their principles every day. We’ve had enough of D.C. nonsense already!

By: Pam

Pam — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:57:25 +0000

You must be the lone sane person over at AT. (Even my fav James Lewis has succumbed to Palin-Mania.)

For the life of me, I don’t get it.

Endorsing Hoffman didn’t cost Palin anything - it was not courageous. She relented to the pressure, and the prayer circles calling for her to endorse. What did she have to lose? It appears that she may have acted too hastily, and Pawlenty as well.

Hoffman is turning out to be a dud, not much better than Dede. There might be a reason they had to go with Dede. This should have remained a local issue, and Hoffman should have waited for the primary next year.

Now the left gets to talk about the GOP implosion. Romney was exactly right to stay out of it.

By: Mike Giles

Mike Giles — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:43:39 +0000

Damn. I forgot to add that the actions of the friend seemed to contravene the wishes of the voters in that county, who had originally selected a more conservative candidate.

By: Mike Giles

Mike Giles — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:06:53 +0000

I read an article recently - I think it was on the Riehlworldview.com - that stated that Scozzfava’s election was due to the actions of her friend from the state assembly, another liberal republican, who happened to be a county chairman. More cronyism, the ideology.

By: shau

shau — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:39:16 +0000

In the hopes that this comment is published and doesn’t disappear into the ozone as have some other recent pearls of wisdom from me, I make this brief observation:

One of the reasons that the Democrats succeeded so well in 2008 was their effort to build voter and candidate interest from the grassroots up. The Republicans, even more lost in the wilderness than they were on November 5, 2008, are trying to dictate from the top down.

Sacre bleu!

Your other comment is posted now -

And you’re right - they are trying. At the moment, I don’t know which would be worse; Gingrich being right or Sarah Palin. We’ll see.

ed.

By: theblackcommenter

theblackcommenter — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:59:22 +0000

I don’t know that there should be “litmus tests” for candidates broadly speaking within the Republican “Big Tent,” but it is certainly true that individuals have their own non-negotiable issues that make moderates even within the party uncomfortable with, especially abortion issues and gay rights. Much of the opposition to these issues are rooted in fundamental moral convictions that supersede other considerations, much in the same way that folks just would not support a party or candidate that advocated reinstating slavery — no matter how fiscally conservative they are.

The problem with the Republican Party in the eyes of many conservatives has been that every faction - social, fiscal, and foreign policy - of conservatives have held their noses and supported the party only to see policies of social liberalism, fiscal irresponsibility, and foreign policy adventure seeking enacted. No one has a problem with a big tent, but folks on the ground are no longer content with voting against the wicked evil free spending Democrat only to get a wicked evil free spending Republican on the ballot.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:54:28 +0000

I don’t think GOP litmus tests should be confined to the candidates, I think in fairness you guys should apply them to voters as well. Republicans should stand by their core values and actively discourage votes from anyone who is pro-choice or pro gay marriage.

By: obamathered

obamathered — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:46:02 +0000

The stimulus bill is the one true litmus test. No one can claim to be conservative, and it is tough to make the case even a moderate, if they supported it. Poor Olympia Snowe fell for it, and that may have made her wary of support for health care with a public option.

I think the real “purge,” for want of a word, will be of the phony moderate Democrats who voted for the stimulus bill in conservative areas over the next two or three election cycles. The Left also plans its own purge of these faux moderates if they don’t go along with a public option on nationalized health care. I see nothing but win/win from the Hoffman situation because there will be simply a message sent and no subtraction at all, the hint of which seems ironic coming from some corners.