Gross hypocrisy by Erick Erickson at RedState.com on NY’s 23rd
Dede Scozzafava, “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant”
by Eric Dondero
There’s a Blaring! Red Alarm at RedState.com this morning about the race to succeed moderate Republican Congressman Jack McHugh, Obama’s appointee to head the Secretary of the Army. Our friends at RedState are going bonkers over the fact that the NRCC has just decided to formally endorse Republican – imagine that – Dede Scozzafava for the seat.
From RedState:
In a disappointing sign that the House Republican Leadership has not earned and does not deserve to retake the majority in the House of Representatives, a bunch of people are confirming for me today that the House GOP has decided to… endorse Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.
The special election set by Governor David Paterson is set for Nov. 2. There are three candidates. State Assmb. Scozzafava is the Republican nominee. There’s a Democrat Doug Owens, and a little out of the norm, a credible Conservative Party candidate named Doug Hoffman (photo). The very latest polls show that the race is razor thin tight, with the three currently tied, each with about 31, 32% of the vote.
But many Conservative Republicans have decided against backing the Republican.
Writes Erick Erickson:
If Dede Scozzafava is the best the New York Republicans can come up with, let’s just hand the district over to the Democrats.
Let’s ignore that she is a liberal. Let’s ignore that she’s in favor of abortion rights. Let’s ignore that she is a big proponent of the gay rights agenda. Let’s ignore that she’s not really a fiscal conservative.
Let’s ignore her political record…
That last statement is key; a sardonic note suggesting that other Republicans should examine her record. Glad you asked Erick.
Dede’s Real Record
Our friends at Hip Hop Republican did just as Erickson suggested; they gave an extensive examination to Ms. Scozzafava’s record. Surprise, surprise! It’s not nearly as moderate or squishy on key economic issues as Erick and the boys at RedState have led us to believe.
From Hip Hop:
In NY-23, Is Dede Scozzafava the Best We Can Do?
Let’s look at taxes:
Maintain Status a) Alcohol taxes
Maintain Status b) Capital gains taxes
Maintain Status c) Cigarette taxes
Maintain Status d) Corporate taxes
Slightly Decrease e) Gasoline taxes
Slightly Decrease f) Income taxes (incomes below $75,000)
Slightly Decrease g) Income taxes (incomes above $75,000)
Slightly Decrease h) Sales taxes
Maintain Status i) Vehicle taxes
Undecided k) Should the state sales taxes be extended to Internet sales?
No l) Should accounts such as a “rainy day” fund be used to balance the state budget?
No m) Should fee increases be used to balance the state budget?
Yes n) Should the New York Legislature list discretionary spending item by item in the budget?
Sounds more like Ms. Scozzafava may be more of a “Fiscally Conservative/Socially Moderate” GOPer, which is quite close to the position of libertarians in the GOP.
Let’s be honest here. Erickson’s real problem with her, one could easily surmise, is the fact that she’s Pro-Choice on abortion, and in favor of some elements of the Gay Right’s agenda.
But what’s really at issue here, for us libertarian Republicans, is not Erickson’s not wanting RedState to back a Social Moderate, rather it’s the blatant hypocrisy which he is showing in this matter.
RedState held quite a different view of 3rd party efforts back in 2006
Let’s rewind to the 2006 Elections shall we?
Tom DeLay was under fire from various liberal interests in Austin, and Inside the Beltway. Like Alaska liberal Democrats on Sarah Palin, they were filing one ethics charge after another. Not a one of which ever panned out, incidentally.
DeLay, being the good loyal Republican, resigned his seat, so as not to cause the Party difficulties in the November elections. Problem was, the State Election law prohibited the GOP from replacing DeLay on the ballot at the late date.
The Republican Party was totally screwed.
Bob Smither was the Libertarian Party candidate already on the ballot. Bob was a local hero of sorts in the Houston area. His 13-year old daughter was tragically murdered, which led to a city-wide effort to fight for the rights of crime victims led by Smither. He is Pro-Life, and leaned most heavily to the conservative side of the libertarian spectrum, particularly on social matters.
But this didn’t matter to RedState and local Houston establishment Republicans. They resisted any and all overtures from local Libertarians and Libertarian Republicans, to have the Harris County GOP formally endorse Smither, in order to save the seat for the GOP.
Smither even went so far as to publicly pledge that if elected he would vote for a Republican House Speaker and “Caucus” with the GOP.
But he had an ‘L’ by his name on the ballot. So, the establishmentarians were having none of it. So much so in fact, that they recruited a truly awful candidate by the name of Shelley Sekula-Gibbs to be a write-in candidate.
After that, the Smithers effort was effectively doomed. He still ended up with 6.5%, not bad for a Libertarian. Sekula-Gibbs got about 26% as a write-in.
Fortunately, two years later, the heavily Republican District swung back to the GOP with the election of libertarian-leaning Air Force Vet Pete Olson.
At a critical moment, early August of 2006, Libertarian Republicans such as myself, Stephen Gordon, two former Houston Young Republican Chairmen Rex Lamb and Bobby Eberle, and former Ron Paul for Congress County Chair Michael Franks made passionate appeals to RedState and Harris and Ft. Bend County GOPers to back Smither.
Smither even went to a key County GOP meeting to make an appeal.
We were turned down flat. Each time the argument put forth against Smither was that he was “Libertarian Party, and not a Republican.”
Now, here we are 3 years later, and RedState is now urging Conservatives in upper New York State to vote for a 3rd Party candidate.
Down the line, issue by issue, Conservative Hoffman may indeed be better overall than Scazzofava.
But Erickson and RedState might have a bit more credibility in selling their “Let’s Go 3rd Party” line if they had backed that same strategy all along.
ADDENDUM: Interestingly, very late in election year 2006, Erickson realized what a critical mistake he had made and actually published a couple articles suggesting Smither might be the better choice. But it was way too late.
UPDATE!
Erick Erickson responds to LR
RedState Editor Erick Erickson sent us an email, saying that he has already responded on the 3rd party question, a month ago, in an article titled – “Hoffman over Scozzafava: The Exception That Proves the Rule”
Here’s the opening:
I am on record repeatedly saying that disaffected conservatives should not agitate for a third party. It truly makes no sense. Ballot access laws in the fifty states make it extremely impractical to mount a third party challenge except in very rare cases. Historically, those cases are premised on individuals who, once off the national stage, see their third party collapse, see e.g. Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot.
There are, however, some situations where exceptions must be made in order to pressure the Republican Party of a particular state into doing what is right.
Read the full article here.
Eric Dondero Responds:
If Hoffman is the “exception to the rule,” how about Bob Smither, a conservative-leaning Libertarian, running on the ticket of the Nation’s third largest politicial party, and a bonafide local hero, in a race where there wasn’t even a Republican on the ballot?
Good enough for Conservative 3rd Party candidates, should be good enough for Libertarian 3rd Party candidates, as well.
Last 5 posts by Eric Dondero
- Michael Moore got Government Subsidy for Anti-Capitalist Movie - January 30th, 2010
- Massachusetts Race Could be Decided by Other Issues - Like the Red Sox vs. Yankees - January 16th, 2010
- NEW HAMPSHIRE: Grass Roots Activists Rally in Concord, Defeat Home School Regulations Bill - January 14th, 2010
- Obama moves to implement Civilian Force: Protecting US Borders, or some other purpose? - January 12th, 2010
- Republican Leading Statewide Initiative in California to Legalize Marijuana - January 10th, 2010
I didn’t expect any better from Erickson or RedState. They’re basically theocons with very limited imagination. And you’ve got some excellent points here. I just wish you had found a better photo of the candidate.
As a party we cannot afford to cling to the restrictive agenda of the religious right any longer. We need to focus on the principles of the party and not make appealing to single issue voters a tactic. It’s a losing tactic and we can do better.
Dave
I understand your take on this, but I must say you are coming off as bitter because of the Smither election rather than excited to defend Scozzafava.
I can totally understand you not wanted to get excited about Dede, after all Kos endorsed her over the Democrat in the race. As did ACORN, and their political party WFP.
I also notice that you didn’t address the fact that in NY23rd it was the, how do you say it, establishmentarians who selected Scozzofava as the nominee. No primaries there you know.
This leads to a question about your own hypocrisy. You were willing to support the more conservative candidate in 2006 against the GOP selected nominee. Hoffman being one of those “theocons” just can’t get your support.
“Single issue extremists doom the GOP”, so says a commenter on RedState who then links to this article as a defense of Scozzofava.
So my advice to you is…physician heal thyself.
I’m the one who commented on RedState, and I referenced Eric D’s article because of the factual background on Scozzafava, which is solid and provides a more complete picture of her as a candidate than was on RedState.
New York politics is also different from what most of us are familiar with. The expectations of the party establishments are different, hell the parties themselves are different in some basic ways.
Dave
So do you always allow your religious bigotry to dictate whom you choose to support? That seems rather narrow, some might even say that it makes you a single issue extremist. After all Christianity is still the #1 religion in America, and while you may not be one yourself, there is still a Constitutional right for others to exercise their faith both in and out of the public square.
Aaron, my argument has been that we not use religion as a criteria in picking candidates for political office, at least as a political party — what individuals do in the voting booth is a different issue.
I’m perfectly happy voting for a muslim or lutheran or catholic with whom I can agree on basic POLITICAL principles, even if I don’t share their religion. Why do we need to politicize religion or theorcratize politics? The founding fathers had a very good idea when they urged us to keep the two separate for the protection of both.
And where do you get the idea that either I or the author of this article is not a Christian? For a Christian separation of church and state is essential to protect religious liberty. Do you want Obama deciding what your minister can say in the pulpit as has happened in England and Canada?
Dave
I didn’t say you were not a Christian, I said while you *may* not be a Christian. *May* is a qualifying word.
For the record I have no problem with the separation of Church and State, as explained by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. That said I do have a problem with the exclusion of God in political thinking. God permeated the thoughts and actions of our Founders. To reject that is to accept a secular revisionist history, that has led to the moral decay of our nation.
This moral decay has been encouraged and seized upon by the progressives, both left and right, since the early 1900’s. It has allowed them to increase the reach of government into our everyday lives, through the criminal code.
Most candidates who you would probably classify as Theocons, want a far smaller central government than we have now. They would be considered allies of many libertarians, if only they would shed their own religious bigotry.
Starting with not calling them Theocons.
Get my point.
By the way I think this has been a great conversation.
There are religious conservatives and there are “theocons” just as there are pro-defense conservatives and also “neocons”. The difference is between those who hold a particular set of beliefs and understand that there is a line between personal beliefs and public policy and those who are fanatical and insist that their personal beliefs must be the basis of policy and must be imposed on others.
The problem is that everyone has their own set of beliefs, and if we try to impose the beliefs of any one person or group on everyone else then someone is going to be offended, oppressed or made to suffer as a result. Therefore we have a constitution and a system of laws which are supposed to assure that no group, even if it is the majority, can impose their beliefs on others.
Dave
What is the point of politics then? Not everything is covered in detail in the Constitution, which leads us to make laws that further define the intent of the Constitution. If we do that in a moral vacuum, as your last post implies, it would inevitable lead to chaos or anarchy.
Also by being adamantly secular you are imposing your beliefs. How do you not see that.
This is quite a digression though from the main point of the post you replied to. You called the people at RedState theocons, you provided no proof of that accusation. Your accusation has no merit.
Also, none of this explains your support of Scozzafava. On just the fiscal side of the argument, she is the less conservative of the two being discussed. You can jump through hoops all day long but that won’t change what it.
[...] popular right-wing website RedState, which has a long history of condemning political figures for not meeting their peculiar standards, provides excellent examples of how those who claim to be [...]