Tea Party’s first victory

Scozzafava drops out. When Obama named my Pal Nancy’s old flame, John McHugh of Watertown, NY to be the Secretary of the Army, he freed up a Congressional seat that has gone Republican for the past 120 years and set off a race between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican, Dede Scozzafava. Tea Party types objected and got behind the independent candidacy of Doug Hoffman, who promptly started out-polling Ms. Scozzafava. Today, she quit. Rockefeller Republicans, if there are any left, must be choking on their gin and tonics.

Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her bid in next Tuesday’s NY 23 special election, a huge development that dramatically shakes up the race. She did not endorse either of her two opponents — Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman or Democrat Bill Owens.

The decision to suspend her campaign is a boost for Hoffman, who already had the support of 50 percent of GOP voters, according to a newly-released Siena poll, and is now well-positioned to win over the 25 percent of Republicans who had been sticking with Scozzafava.

Scozzafava has “probably made her last campaign appearance between now and Election Day,” spokesman Matt Burns told POLITICO. “She’s releasing her support to the two other candidates.”

“I had a discussion with her last night, and we made the decision after I spoke with her. We talked about it, what this came down to was spending. It came down to the ability to defend herself from the get-go. And that’s the reality. She was unable to define herself where the people didn’t know her.”

POLITICO has the full story on Scozzafava’s surprise decision here.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “Tea Party’s first victory

  1. Old School Grump

    Is a “Rockefeller Republican” the same thing as what used to be called a “New England Republican”? That would be someone who leans hawkish on foreign policy (due to a general pessimistic take on human nature) and is fiscally conservative (due to a general pessimistic take on human nature) and resistant to expansion of social welfare programs (have I mentioned a general pessimistic take on human nature?) but who is totally, utterly, and wonderfully uninterested in what people do in their own bedrooms! Who truly, deeply doesn’t care how many abortions married gay people get (or whatever ); who may personally find such things distasteful but knows it’s none of his or her business. Truly, we need more politicians like this, not fewer.

    • christopherfountain

      If that were the definition, Old School, I’d agree, but I remember Rockefeller as a spendthrift.

  2. I suspect that the evangelical dominance in the Republican Party will result in the party being relegated to a third party. I wonder if we may see a shift from the two parties we have known? At any rate, if traditional republicans are leaving, it is not because they have suddenly become democrats. Rather, they are being pushed out. I have posted that this will hurt the GOP. See: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-republican-party-writing-itself-into-a-corner/

    You might be interested in this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33583328/ns/politics-more_politics/

  3. Arouet

    Old School Grump: you are indeed correct. The GOP really destroyed its brand during Bush years with these voters because they underperformed on all legs of the three-legged stool: fiscal discipline, good military policy, and smaller social programs. Unfortunately, the tea baggers have identified the wrong takeaway. They’ve concluded their losses were caused by a lack of attention to the social issues, when it’s really the opposite.