Minnesota’s Michelle Bachmann endorsing Hoffman?

Yesterday on the Laura Ingraham show, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann made a good case for a Hoffman vote.  Though she stopped short of a full endorsement, Bachmann has observed that a Hoffman vote is simply common sense, if you want a Republican to win the seat:

Hoffman is on the ascendancy … and we have to win this seat, and people need to get behind the winning candidate, and it looks like that’s Hoffman.

She makes a valid point.  By now it should be clear that Scozzafava is not going to win.  Neither Hoffman nor his supporters will back down — indeed many Hoffman supporters have already said they’d prefer Democrat Owens to have the seat over Assemblywoman Scozzafava.  This means two things.  First, that it  is Dede, not Hoffman, who is the spoiler in this race.  And second, that if Republicans actually want a Republican to win, their only hope is to vote Hoffman.  Failure to do so lands an Owens victory squarely on the shoulders of Scozzafava and her supporters.

The GOP has made the mistake of believing that being “Democrat Lite” will win them power.  It will not.  Conservatives — regular Americans, in fact — aren’t concerned with the Parties’ ability to get or stay in power.  They are concerned with what those people will do with it.  Newt Gingrich doesn’t get it; Michelle Bachmann does.

A full endoresement for Hoffman, meanwhile, has come from former Majority Leader Dick Armey. And he, too, offers common-sense reasoning for his decision.

Finally, in a move surprising nobody, the National Organization for Marriage has endoresed Hoffman, while strongly condemning the Left-wing stance of Dede Scozzafava.

It would appear the writing is on the wall for the Scozzafava campaign. Nobody expects her to notice, but I have to wonder if the GOP does — and whether they plan to do anything about it, or go back to their 2008 strategy of blaming Conservatives for their failures.

NY23 update: More boots on the ground for Hoffman; updates from the liberals in the race

Last night, I received a call on behalf of the Susan B. Anthony List. The group — whose stated goal is getting “pro-life women” elected to Congress — is mobilizing to NY-23 in support of Doug Hoffman.

The caller informed me that the group is sending out volunteers and community organizers to hand out SBA literature and Hoffman signs, and to rally social Conservatives to the Hoffman cause. Hoffman’s campaign, he noted, is primarily concerned with TV ads (given the amount of time and limited finances), while grass-roots activism is being largely left up to individuals and groups like SBA.

Given the budget and time constraints of the Hoffman camp, this secondary support could well prove important to the campaign. In an email to supporters, Hoffman campaign staffer Daniel Odescalchi noted other grass roots groups coming out:

The regional Huck PAC folks have also offered to canvass the district on our behalf.
And a group of Patriots are coming up from Westchester, NY to help too.

GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, meanwhile, held a meet-and-greet dinner in Lowville, where she was approached by a reporter asking questions about her stated policies, versus her various actions (such as her declining to sign the No-tax pledge until just before receiving Newt Gingrich’s endoresement). After supplying vague answers to the reporter, Scozzafava finally refused to answer any more questions, and staffers blocked the reporter from approaching her. Police were later called in (after the reporter had retired to his vehicle to write his article on the night’s events) to explain things to him and ask him to leave her alone.

Across the proverbial aisle, Bill Owens has also recently run into a spot of trouble — with the California Milk Processor Board. In a new ad, Owens ends up with a variation of the group’s now-infamous “Got Milk?” slogan — which then morphs into “Got Milk Money?” A clever idea, but one which was not, apparently, run by the CMPB first. They’ve issued a cease-and-desist order, which is being largely ignored by the Owens campaign, except to say that their usage consititues “fair use.”

Voters may well wonder if THIS is the fight the Owens camp really needs to be waging right now — and what that might portend as far as which battles Owens would pick as an elected representative.

You can contribute to the Hoffman campaig through his website, http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com.

UPDATE: According to WaPo, intraparty polls are suggesting Hoffman is now in second place, behind Owens.

(Cross-posted at The Minority Report)

This registered Republican won’t be punching the (R) tab on Nov. 3

Over the past several months, citizens have risen up to protest the gross mishandling of our economy at the hands of liberal career politicians in Washington.  Ordinary citizens, many of whom had never dreamed they would take the time out of their busy lives to make such a statement.  Had never dreamed they’d find it necessary.

Folks across the country stood to raise their voices against the negligence of a government run amok – including citizens throughout New York’s 23rd Congressional District, in “tea party” protest from Canton, all the way to Albany.

And the eleven county GOP heads of NY23 heard those voices.  And when the time came to act, they responded – by selecting for the Republican nomination another liberal career politician.

Dede Scozzafava is not the “change” we need in Washington, no matter what her admirably positive TV ads say.  We are where we are because of big spenders.  Because of people who aren’t shy about raising our taxes, or spending money we don’t have on a bogus “stimulus” package that puts money in the hands of those who need it least.  Dede Scozzafava is more of the same: she voted over 190 times to raise taxes in New York – already among the most taxed states in the union (second only to New Jersey in total tax burden).  She voiced support of the failed – yes, failed – stimulus plan, while refusing to sign a no-tax pledge (see above link).  Granted, she recently did decide to sign that pledge, though after her honestly decent reasons for refusing, her change of heart is confusing at best, and makes me wonder what she won’t do to get elected.

Though she wisely chose not to pursue the (ACORN-affiliated) Working Families Party nod this time out, it’s important to remember that as a New York Assemblywoman, the (WFP) sits right next to the (R) and (I) behind her name.  I think it’s safe to say that, were the WFP not poison to her self-styling as Republican in this race, they’d be proudly supporting her now, too.  Especially given the comparatively Conservative leanings of the Named Democrat in the race, Bill Owens.

By contrast, Doug Hoffman is a no-nonsense, fiscally responsible Conservative.  He signed a no-pork pledge, is vehemently opposed to more taxes and would never have voted for a bailout measure like the bank bailouts we saw at the end of 2008.

A vote for Hoffman carries import beyond the simple question of who will represent NY-23, however.  The nation is watching this race, because it is, indeed, a referendum, not only on the Obama Administration’s handling of our country’s financial affairs, but of the Republicans’ aquiescence to bad policy like the Stimulus (in the Senate), the Cap&Trade, and others.  This is a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.  Will it once again be the Constitutionally Conservative, Common-sense voice of stalwarts from Washington to Reagan; or will it continue to be the weak-willed, if occasionally contrary, twin brother to the Democrats?

When somebody as liberal as DailyKos endorses the Republican, it’s time to take notice

October 1:

So it’s official, I’m rooting for the Republican to win. As a congresswoman, she could either move even more to the left to properly represent her progressive-trending district and be a pain in the side of the GOP caucus (they have nothing like our Blue Dogs), or Democrats can field a real Democrat to challenge her in 2010.

Markos fears Hoffman, and rightly so.  His brand of liberalism demands purity of socialist standards, and he has given his approval to Dede.  Read his whole piece.  It’s most enlightening.

(h/t doughoffmanforcongress)

(cross-posted at RedState)

Final Push for Conservatism in NY-23: Josh Lynch makes the case that a young Conservative can win in Upstate New York

The Confirmation of Representative John McHugh as Obama’s Secretary of the Army is still yet to occur, but NY-23 Republicans and Democrats are preparing for the inevitable race for his seat in Congress.  And amidst talks that the District 23 Republicans may push off making their nominations, The Jefferson County GOP has made their selection known, and a final tally now seems set for Thursday.  In their pick of Dede Scozzafava, Jefferson County admits to weighing “experience” over substance.  Jefferson County’s GOP Chair Sandra Corey told the Watertown Daily Times criticism that Scozzafava is too liberal “isn’t a problem for me, because I’m a Republican.  I’m not a Conservative or a Liberal.”

The prevailing wisdom, certainly inside the Franklin GOP, seems to be that any Republican victory is important — even if it’s a center-left moderate.

Conservative candidate Josh Lynch, who has found supporters among the Jefferson County voters and throughout NY-23, disagrees.  “I see a ripe opportunity,” says Lynch.  An opportunity for a “Common-sense Conservative” who can run a “positive, issues-based campaign

There’s an aspect of the modern day campaign and on the new media side [in which] I would excel.  I would continue to do it the way I did here.  I want to be the consensus candidate.  A candidate that appeals to new coalitions.

Still a Senatorial Aid, Lynch is essentially working two full-time jobs — his second being the campaign for Congress.  In a late-night phonecall, I spoke with Josh Lynch about something the local GOP seems to be ignoring in favor of (flawed) perceptions of electability: policy.

Lynch, who came from a single-parent home, grew up in “a family of educators” who encouraged him to think for himself. ”What it comes down to is the Curiosity to have an intellectual argument.”  And it was this, along with the inspiration of his mother and extended family, which developed his Conservative sensibilities. 

Turning to recent issues, Lynch talked about the recent Cap & Trade bill that passed the house.  A bill that current NY-23 rep McHugh voted for.  From both a national and local standpoint, says Lynch, that was the wrong thing to do.

In a small district, we disproportionally use energy.   You drive farther to work.  You heat with natural gas.  I feel like it’s a redistribution of taxes on rural communities.  You see democrats pushing urbanization, and pushing our way of life into the gutter.

Beyond that, it was just the process.  No one read the bill.  It was changed so many times last minute.  They shoved it through the committee.  And I don’t think that was the right thing.   If we’re talking about creating new jobs, I don’t see cap & trade creating jobs.  I see it killing jobs, especially in rural communities.

Lynch says it is his rural connection that would encourage him to fight on issues like Cap & Trade.

I really see rural prosperity as part of my message.  You have to be business-friendly.  You have to try to be lax on regluations.  You have to use common sense…   We don’t really have the luxury of sacrificing.  I’ve been thinking about his for a long, long time, and I’m passionate about it. The government has been asking us to sacrifice for it tomorrow, but nobody is standing up and asking the government to sacrifice for us today.  It’s supposed to be Government for the people, and n0t vice versa.  At what point to you say enough is enough?

Lynch sees this disconnect between the government’s desires and those of its constituents as being a part of the reason for Obama’s lagging poll numbers in recent days.  He cites government control over GM, the desire for harsher regulation on industry and farming, and suggests the people are starting to notice that things aren’t working. 

There’s a lot of inefficiency.  Anyone that thinks government can run anything better than private or small business is not living in the real world. 

And that, naturally, brought the conversation to the topic on everyone’s mind: healthcare reform.  Lynch says he does believe there is a problem with people being able to find care: “The healthcare we’re in now, costs are rising higher than inflation, so that’s not a good thing.”  But, Lynch says, there is a free market solution, where the Obama Administration keeps looking to Government.  Lynch sees a government system leading to rationing of care.

I think Republicans have reasonable alternatives to lower the cost [of health insurance] and create access.  Right now you can’t buy insurance across state lines.   You can buy other things; you should be able to buy healthcare   People are smart.  They buy things all the time…  Consumers are rational actors.  Why can’t that be the case with healthcare?

Lynch says he believes dropping regulations and opening access, encouraging health savings plans (”I have one,” says Lynch, “and I love it.”) and incentivising wellness are free-market solutions which will work better than the government model. 

I just think people are smart enough to make their own healthcare decisions.  I don’t think the government shoud be getting between you and your doctor, telling us what services we can and cannot have access to.

And, says Lynch, the key to winning this debate, as in most things, is in actually having the argument and allowing the American people access to it.

The longer we have this debate, the more Americans are seeing [Obama's plan] isn’t the answer.  The longer we draw this debate out, the more we can educate Americans about the options.  

Lynch believes the Republican options for healthcare are being largely ignored by the Democrats in charge.

To be perfectly blunt, I think President Obama wants a major legislative victory to hang his hat on, early on.  And I think healthcare is one of the major issues he’s looked at.  The reason the other options aren’t being looked at is politics.  [The Democrats are] sensing that this healthcare plan could fall apart and if they don’t ratchet up the rhetoric, this whole thing could fail, and the President would miss on a campaign promise.

But, Lynch says, there is an opportunity for coalitions within the Republican movement to come together on the issue.

I’m opposed to a national health board, with the Surgeon General as its chief officer, to determine the benefit structure.  What if that includes abortion?  What if that board decides a 75-year-old man can’t get chemotherapy treatment?  I think we can merge Social Conervatives and Fiscal Conservatives together and say, “we’re not gonna pay for this stuff.” 

And it is issues like health care, or the stimulus package, where Lynch says he can start battling the Democrat opponant for NY-23. 

I want to be the candidate who who forces the Democrat [candidate] to answer, “Do you support the President’s healthcare plan?”  And if he says yes, I have to believe I have a good shot at winning. 

Lynch believes people are quickly becoming weary with Obama’s blitzkrieg approach to policy-making.  “The time is right with someone with some common sense conservative ideas, even in NY-23,” he says.

Conservative ideas like tax breaks.  I had to ask Lynch about the stimulus packages.  “Do you believe we can still make the first stimulus work,” I asked, “and how?”

Yeah.  I think all the money that hasn’t been used should go back to the citizens.   What are we gonna spend it on?  Recovery.org?   We can’t spend our way into prosperity. There are models in history where we’ve tried it and failed.  It’s an economic model that isn’t there.  It’s so frustrating that people would even talk about a second stimulus when we haven’t even used the money from the first stimulus. 

Lynch says using some of that money on safety and transportation projects is a good thing, but that there is too much waste in the system right now.  As an example, he talked about Madrid, New York, where an important bridge has been out for a long time.  The bridge outage separates consumers from businesses, costs money to small business owners and every day taxpayers.  The government solution, paid for, says Lynch, with Stimulus money, is a bus that shuttles people around the long detour.

You can’t continue to have stimulus money being spent on a bus going around in circles.  Build the bridge.  It needs to get done now.  That’s a practical conservative position.  Got a problem?  Fix the problem. 

Lynch believes it is this common sense, Conservative approach, that can win in NY-23 and, importantly, make a difference in Washington.  And he views his youth, called a weakness by some, as a source of strength for the task at hand.

People are frustrated with Washington and Albany, and they want someone new, who will talk to them about issues on a day to day basis.  We need some energy, and who better than a young person who can talk about serious issues?

Depopulation is a huge issue in this district.  People move away, and I have a unique knowledge and perspective on why.  It’s because we don’t have good-paying jobs.  Who better to talk about those issues than somebody young?   People are looking for somebody new and fresh and wiling to talk about ideas.  It’s about being willing to articulate.

And it is exactly that youth and that zeal for a Conservative approach which Lynch says he’ll bring to a campaign.  As a campaign staffer for Brownback and, later, for the McCain/Palin Campaign, Lynch knows how to get out the vote.

I want to run a positive, issues-based campaing and build a campaign team that’s never been built before in Upstate New York.  One with youth, energy and passion, for change for the right reasons.  I can put together a team of people to knock on doors, do grassroots politicking. 

And, says Lynch, new media will be an important part of that campaign.

Josh Lynch is running because he loves Upstate New York.  As a member of congress, he says it’s important to remember where you came from.  “I want to be a member of Congress that stays connected with the people,” he says.

NY-23 Dems extend deadline

Democrats interested in John McHugh’s seat in the US Congress now have until this Thursday, July 23 to get their names in, according to Newswatch 50.  The deadline was moved up at a meeting last week. 

It’s a little hard to believe there were so many people on both sides just waiting for an opening.  So far, the Dems have been pretty tight-lipped about potential candidates (other than the oft-repeated rumors of Aubertine’s interest in the seat), but hopefully will be more forthcoming once they have a full field of potentials.

One thing is certain: this is going to be a long, bloody fight.  Hope you have your popcorn ready.

Letter to John McHugh re: Cap’n'Tax

Dear Congressman,

Thank you for selling out your constituents, and your countrymen, by supporting the Cap & Trade bill.  A bill which you, like your colleagues, could never have had the time to read before the vote.  A bill which even 44 Democrats crossed the aisle to prevent because even they understood that the mandates contained in the bill would be disastrous for business, for our economy, and for both workers and consumers.

Congressman, this is the second letter I’ve written you inre your failure to read a bad bill, and your willingness to vote for it anyway.

Mr. Congressman, if I get a response, I suspect that response will be, much like the one I got for the above-mentioned letter, a form letter extolling what you view as the virtues of this legislation — or at least, the fact that they included your own amendment.  Kindly allow me to rebut in advance:

So?

Mr. Congressman, if you’ll allow me to be so blunt, neither I, your constituents, nor indeed most thinking Americans, could give two shits whether your amendment prevents acid rain, saves the whales or turns corn starch into dandelion-excreting fuel alternatives.  And why don’t we care?  Because the REST of the bill, Mr. Congressman, presents us with far more pressing problems.  Problems like how we plan on feeding our families, or driving to work.

There’s this thing that should be taken into account, sir, before agreeing to pass legislation.  A thing upon which the lives and livelihoods of your countrymen depend far more than bad science and mandates.  It’s called Economics.  Perhaps, at some point during your career as a Legislator, you’ve heard of it?

As relates to the Cap & Trade bill you so cavalierly signed, it works like this:Producers’ costs go up, as demanded by following the C&T mandates.  That cost is passed on to Consumers.  (Consumers, just so we’re clear here, are your basic taxpayers.  Folks, like those in your state of New York who have less money every year thanks to tax and fee increases).  Consumers have to make choices about what they buy, because they can no longer afford to buy everything they otherwise would.  Thanks to the price increases.  So… producers must find ways to cut costs.  How?  By cutting production.  Which means cutting personnel.  Which means — have you figured it out yet? — unemployment goes up.  And with Cap&Trade, we’re not talking about a percentage point here.  We’re talking about an astronomic increase in good, taxpaying men and women who suddenly don’t have a means of supporting their families.

All thanks to you and seven other turncoat Republicans.

I hope the fact that those of your constituents you sold out don’t have the option of voting you out of office helps you sleep at night. 

Yours, sincerely

Breaking – Obama to tap NY Republican John McHugh as Secretary of the Army

New York District 20 rep John McHugh, currently the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, is apparently being chosen by Barack Obama as his new Secretary of the Army.  Fox News says Obama will officially name McHugh to replace current Secretary Pete Geren.

McHugh is another Republican pick for Obama’s defense staff.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates worried Obama supporters because they believed a Republican pick would bolster opinions of Democrats as weak on defense.

UPDATE: remarks from Obama…

“… My administration has increased funding for our military, including the army, and increasing the size of the military two years ahead of schedule.”

That’s gotta sting some Code Pinkers.

“Today I’m proud to announce the distinguished public servant who will help keep us safe, and who will help keep our sacred trust with our soldiers and their familes.  The next Secretary of the Army, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, John McHugh.”

<snip>

“… but it is his service over the past 16 years in Congress, as a champion of our men and women in Uniform that uniquely qualifies him to help lead America’s Army.”

<snip>

“John is committed to keeping America’s Army the best-trained, the best-equipped, the best-led land force the world has ever seen.”

And… where the politics come into play…

“Finally, John shares my belief that a sustainable national security strategy must include a bipartisan consensus at home.”

Translation: John is a token Republican who I probably won’t listen to, but at least the media can point to when people claim I’m not being bipartisan.

This, of course, followed by the standard “It’s an honor to be nominated” stuff by McHugh.

(cross-posted at RedState)

Obama — and some Republicans — missing the point on Sotomayor’s controversial comments

Yesterday, Obama called for a speedy confirmation of his SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.  Any opposition, he claimed, was built along purely partisan lines, and not on drawing “old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record.”

Obama seems to be missing the point, but fair enough; enough Republican pundits and pols have played the race card with Sotomayor’s comments that he can perhaps be forgiven for being confused on the issue.  So, in the spirit of fairness, let’s look at Sotomayor’s comments, and then the Administration’s interpretation of those comments, so that we can look at them in Obama’s “proper context.”

Sotomayor, of course, made the now-infamous remark that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

For those painting the comments as “racist,” the sticking point here would appear to be the “better conclusion” remark.  And they have a point.  But there is a context here which lends itself to the Administration’s interpretation.  The argument can be made, and should be made, I think, that what she’s really saying is simply that her life experiences give her a perspective into the lives of the people involved in the individual cases, and better inform her judgements.

Okay?  Fair enough?  So let’s diffuse this racist thing and boil down what she’s “really” saying.  She’s not saying “Latina women are smarter than white men.”  No, what she’s saying is that because of her experiences, she has the ability to render judgements on individual cases, not according to the law and constitution, but based on subjective standards based on her subjective life experiences.  As Obama said, hers will be decisions based on empathy and understanding.

One problem with that, of course: any subjective coloring of her decisions based on her life experiences is a clear violation of her oath of office.

    “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

(from about.com)

Without respect to persons.  Equal right to the poor and rich.  Faithfully and impartially.  This is the point Obama seems to be missing.  This is the point hidden by the “race” controversy.  A Justice should not be swayed by subjective experience.  At all.  The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to judge, not based on her idea of “fair,” not based on what she personally thinks would be best for one party or the other.  But on the law of the land and on the Constitution.

No wonder Obama wants a quick confirmation.  Perhaps he fears that, given enough time, the racial undertones of Sotomayor’s comments will give way to the reality of her views on the position of the courts as unelected activist legislators.

There is a reason for the courts being set up the way they are.  Put simply, the Highest Court exists as a safeguard against (often well-intentioned) idealism or ambition turning into tyranny against the citizens of the United States.  To be sure that the laws of the land apply equally to all, and not differently depending on your race, income or social status.

And even if you take Sotomayor’s comments in the context the Administration suggests, that’s really what it comes down to.  She — and Obama — believe that her experiences give her the insight into how to apply the law in the way that best fits their subjective version of “fairness,” as applied to each individual.  Which is precisely the opposite of what the Supreme Court oath demands.

Hopefully, Republican leaders can learn from the recent past and understand that when this administration calls for a quick decision, it’s often because there’s something to hide.

Gillibrand focuses on the important stuff: counting calories

You’d think Senator Gillibrand would have important things to do, as both a member of the US Senate and as a member of the Agriculture Committee.  Things like dealing with the economy, for example (not that I necessarily want her to and her Democrat allies to be passing legislation and such, but, still).  But evidently, what she and others find to be of surpassing importance is a bill to require calorie counts on chain restaurant menues. 

Well, I for one wish her all the luck in the world.  After all, clearly the only reason I’m fat is because I just don’t understand how many calories I’m putting into my body.  Well, that, and because soda is just a few cents too cheap.  Please, Federal Government, save me from myself.  If only I knew how fattening these foods are, I could stop putting them in my body.  Just like how everybody quit smoking after the Surgeon General made them put all the cancer warnings on packs of cigarettes.  And the children!  How are parents supposed to know that chicken wrapped in starch and fried is actually not the healthiest thing their kids could eat, without proper labeling on the menues to tell them?

But, you know, why stop there?  If the government is to be in charge of my safety and well-being (like all good governments should), why even give me the option?  Why not just outlaw fatty foods?  And cigarettes.  Driving faster than 35 mph?  Driving at all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITPTJzPv4J8

(warning: some strong language)

Next Page »