Scroll down for a discussion on Doug Hoffman for Congress within the Non-Insurance Related Discussion.
Originally Posted by padthaiforlunch
I believe it is illegal for foreign nationals to make contributions to campaigns for Federal office.
Did you just admit to ...
Doug Hoffman got close, very close, and clearly Scozzafava was the deciding factor.
Yet another example of a liberal Republican, like Arlen Specter, who at a crucial moment finds it easy to abandon the Republican Party and support the Democrats.
Lesson to be learned: the Republican Party needs to toss these liberal nuts over the side.
Next lesson to be learned: Do not support the RNS, NRSC or NRCC. These Republican committees routinely support liberals over conservatives and demonstrate that the tail is wagging the dog in the Republican Party. It is high time for the majority of Republicans, those of us who are conservatives, to get behind conservative candidates and stop supporting the party until it once again realizes that conservatives are it's majority constituency. Then, and only then, can conservatives unite to stop the liberal nuts trying to dismantle our Republic.
The good news is that there IS next year! Hopefully Doug will have money leftover and will be ready to go.
The RINOs have exposed themselves. Would be fun to see Dede sued for a return of contributions, but I don't know what's possible. Maybe that sounds mean of me, but hey, I don't think so....
Lol. Not sure I agree with you on the lessons that should be learned. But if you are willing to give up Republican seats because the R is not conservative enough, then enjoy your time in the minority.
It's a good thing Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Club for Growth and the Tea Party organizers didn't campaign in New Jersey or Corzine might have held onto his seat.
I think your small-tent, conservative purity works in a parliamentary system. But since our country is a two-party system, conservative intolerance for moderate Republicans is a good thing for Democrats.
Originally Posted by Robert Barney
Doug Hoffman got close, very close, and clearly Scozzafava was the deciding factor.
Yet another example of a liberal Republican, like Arlen Specter, who at a crucial moment finds it easy to abandon the Republican Party and support the Democrats.
Lesson to be learned: the Republican Party needs to toss these liberal nuts over the side.
Next lesson to be learned: Do not support the RNS, NRSC or NRCC. These Republican committees routinely support liberals over conservatives and demonstrate that the tail is wagging the dog in the Republican Party. It is high time for the majority of Republicans, those of us who are conservatives, to get behind conservative candidates and stop supporting the party until it once again realizes that conservatives are it's majority constituency. Then, and only then, can conservatives unite to stop the liberal nuts trying to dismantle our Republic.
This particular lesson does have to be learned. The Rebubs, in the long run, are shooting themselves in the foot by constantly trying to move to the left and, in this case, way the hell to the left.
They need to understand that there are consequences to going ahead with whatever they want to do despite what the core believers want.
This is exactly the same as Congress trying to ram home a bill that most people don't want. It will backfire in the long run and the Dems will always be saying "Huh, I didn't see that coming."
lol. Not sure I agree with you on the lessons that should be learned. But if you are willing to give up Republican seats because the R is not conservative enough, then enjoy your time in the minority.
It's a good thing Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Club for Growth and the Tea Party organizers didn't campaign in New Jersey or Corzine might have held onto his seat.
I think your small-tent, conservative purity works in a parliamentary system. But since our country is a two-party system, conservative intolerance for moderate Republicans is a good thing for Democrats.
Ronald Reagan didn't beat Democrats by being like Democrats. After all, if the Republican is like the Democrat, why not vote for the real thing.
The question is whether Hoffman would have lost had Scozzafava pulled out earlier. Even after announcing she was out of the race, the votes she picked up would have put Hoffman over the top.
And then there were the negative ads that the NRCC ran AGAINST Hoffman, on behalf of Scozzafava prior to her dropping out.
And then there was Newt's endorsement of Scozzafava, which ended up being translated into Newt's endorsement of the Dem when she endorsed the Dem.
Add all that up, and I would suggest Hoffman would have won under normal circumstances.
Scozzafava is a conservative by New York standards, which are clearly more liberal than the South.
So you guys are willing to give up seats in Congress in those districts where they are not as conservative as you are?
Without a doubt. The conservative movement is gaining strength. Most Americans just want to be left alone, well all the ones that don't have their hands out anyway.
I'm in favor of putting people in office that realize this supposed to be a federalist system.
At what point do we just outlaw state legislatures? Clearly the far left wing would love that.
Winter, you must be frustrated having Snowe and Collins, considering how liberal they are.
No. Olympia is a first class statesman of the highest integrity following others from Maine, some who were Democrats. Edmund Muskie, George Mitchell, Margaret Chase Smith , William Cohen and so on. etc.
Collins is a very nice person but just a simple country girl and not really in the same league as Olympia. I would defend her at lenght though against any leftist loons who attacked her because she is very well grounded and connected to her constituents, most of whom are democrats these days.
Also, everything is relative. Believe me they are far, far, far to the right of Obama although Obama is so far to the left that they are still to the left. I have voted for both of them as well as everyone else mentioned above, except Magaret Chase Smith.
------------------------------------ Spending Our Way to Prosperity
No. Olympia is a first class statesman of the highest integrity following others from Maine, some who were Democrats. Edmund Muskie, George Mitchell, Margaret Chase Smith , William Cohen and so on. etc.
Collins is a very nice person but just a simple country girl and not really in the same league as Olympia. I would defend her at lenght though against any leftist loons who attacked her because she is very well grounded and connected to her constituents, most of whom are democrats these days.
Also, everything is relative. Believe me they are far, far, far to the right of Obama although Obama is so far to the left that they are still to the left. I have voted for both of them as well as everyone else mentioned above, except Magaret Chase Smith.
And in a pinch, and when it matters, both Snowe and Collins abandon Republicans for Democrats.
Case in point:
During Clinton impeachment Snowe and Collins both voted against permitting the House impeachment representatives from calling witnesses during the trial of Clinton.
Now explain to me how you can have a trial without witnesses?
Worse, explain to me how you can have a trial that prohibits witnesses?
I don't care how you felt about Clinton's impeachment, you cannot have a trial that prohibits witnesses. And that's how Snowe, Collins, Jeffords (jumping Jim), Specter (jumping Arlen) and Chafee (gone) all voted.
As Scozzafava has demonstrated, RINO's aren't moderate Republicans, they are liberal Democrats in Republican clothing.
As far as the 5 senators mentioned above, the score is 3 down, 2 to go.
Last edited by Robert Barney : 11-04-2009 at 04:57 PM.
I don't care how you felt about Clinton's impeachment, you cannot have a trial that prohibits witnesses. And that's how Snowe, Collins, Jeffords (jumping Jim), Specter (jumping Arlen) and Chafee (gone) all voted.
As Scozzafava has demonstrated, RINO's aren't moderate Republicans, they are liberal Democrats in Republican clothing.
As far as the 5 senators mentioned above, the score is 3 down, 2 to go.
I am all for the conservative movement running primary or thrid party candidates against Snowe and Collins.
Hello, two new Democratic Senators from Maine.
Last edited by padthaiforlunch : 11-04-2009 at 05:40 PM.
Reason: To my conservative friends: Keep it Pure!
During Clinton impeachment Snowe and Collins both voted against permitting the House impeachment representatives from calling witnesses during the trial of Clinton.
Now explain to me how you can have a trial without witnesses?
Worse, explain to me how you can have a trial that prohibits witnesses?
I don't care how you felt about Clinton's impeachment, you cannot have a trial that prohibits witnesses. And that's how Snowe, Collins, Jeffords (jumping Jim), Specter (jumping Arlen) and Chafee (gone) all voted.
I can see how someone not having a full understanding of the issue could reach that conclusion.
Collins and Snowe reached the conclusion that Clinton should be subjected to review, findings of fact and public censure for the alleged perjury but decided that the perjury alone did not present sufficient grounds for removal from office even if proven, and therefore did not wish to participate in or put the country through a partisan proceedings even if their republican colleagues did. Tbey therefore presented a motion to proceed with review and reprimand but without full impeachment and when that motion failed they refused to support the calling of witnesses because they refused to support the impeachment. Most of these clowns who bring impeachment proceedings against Clinton and Bush know that it is not headed anywhere in the long run and they just want bring a president down where they could not otherwise succeed politically. This is not to say that Clinton and Bush should not be held up for public censure where appropriate but impeachment should not be used as a political weapon.
This is contrary to your world view where any and all dirt should be played to the maximum even if it drags the whole country down and I accept that. Politics is politics and it is fair game to vote anyone out and to disagree with them and reject every position they hold. On a personal level though, Both Olympia and Susan Collins are examples of everything that is right about this country and that is true of the libs from Maine that I mentioned too: George Mitchell, Edmund Muskie etc. As I stated,. this is contrary to your world view and I accept that.
I was emailed a copy of an article Newt Gingrich published today, regarding last night's election results.
Here is what he had to say about Hoffman, and his support for Scozzafava:
Troubling News From New York 23
The news wasn't all good last night.
Both conservative activists and Republican leaders need to think long and hard about the only bad result of the night in New York's 23rd congressional district.
The Democrat beat the conservative candidate 49 percent to 44 percent, with the Republican getting only 5%.
Conservatives can take comfort in having driven a liberal Republican out of the race. But everyone on our side has to be troubled that a Republican seat went to a Democrat and Speaker Pelosi is one vote stronger because of our division.
The National Conservative Movement Has to Be Recognized and Respected
In retrospect it is clear Dede Scozzafava should never have been nominated because she was far too liberal to be acceptable.
Republican leaders in New York must recognize that Mike Long and the Conservative Party in that state have to be consulted before decisions are made. The national conservative movement is a force that has to be recognized and respected.
I certainly heard from enough friends to know that my decision to support the unanimous vote of the 11 New York county chairs was very unpopular with conservative activists.
In New York, after two failed special elections, it is clear the state party has to fight to change the election law so there are primaries in special elections. The insider nominating process is simply unacceptable to grassroots populists and guarantees a sense of illegitimacy.
What Newt should have said is "I apologize to conservatives everywhere. It was a horrible and short sighted mistake to have endorsed a liberal Republican. I promise to never do so again. Please forgive me."
Even if he had not endorsed anyone, he would have been OK. But he walked into a race, where a liberal Republican was running against a more conservative candidate, and he purposely endorsed the liberal Republican with the intent of defeating the conservative.
TRANSLATION: If Newt has to choose between conservative principals, and Republican political interests, Newt chooses AGAINST conservative principals.
That makes Newt a political hack and insider. Republicans like that like have to go - they have been around to darn long.
Newt had a chance to mitigate the damage that he did. He could have apologized but he didn't, which is why he is an idiot. He lost precious political capital last night, and if he had any aspiratioins to be the Republican candidate in 2012, they just flew out the window.
Did I mention that he's an idiot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by Winter
Collins and Snowe reached the conclusion that Clinton should be subjected to review, findings of fact and public censure for the alleged perjury but decided that the perjury alone did not present sufficient grounds for removal from office even if proven, and therefore did not wish to participate in or put the country through a partisan proceedings even if their republican colleagues did. Tbey therefore presented a motion to proceed with review and reprimand but without full impeachment and when that motion failed they refused to support the calling of witnesses because they refused to support the impeachment.
No, I understood that quite clearly.
But it is NOT the Constitutional job or roll of senators to decide as to whether or not an impeachment should be brought against those whom the Constitution sets defines as impeachable.
That is NOT the job of senators, it is the job of the House Representative, PERIOD.
Go ahead, you can look it up.
Now what part of that do you not understand? What part of that didn't they understand?
The Constitutional roll of the Senate is to be the JURY in an impeachment proceeding. Juries do not get to say, before the trial begins, we disagree with the prosecutor (in this case the House impeachment managers) bringing this case. That is NOT the job of a jury. And it sure as heck isn't the job of a JURY to tell the court that you can't have witnesses. That is unspeakably bizarre.
Once again, this is all set out quite clearly in that pesky little document called the Constitution, which matters to some of us, and continues to be a stumbling block to liberals.
But when confronted by the plain wording of the Constitution, and their appropriate roll with respect to the Constitution, Snowe and Collins said "Constitution, we don't need not stinking Constitution". Once again underscoring the fact that these two Senator have no governing principals by which they function. They are like sailors without a compass on a cloudy night, feeling their way around in the ocean.
I can assure you that any unprincipaled Senator, who rejects the explicit instruction set out in the Constitution, isn't worthy of ANY support by Americans who actually think that the Constitution is important.
So are you part of that group?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by padthaiforlunch
I am all for the conservative movement running primary or thrid party candidates against Snowe and Collins.
Hello, two new Democratic Senators from Maine.
Which is a heck of a lot better than two old Democratic Senators (pretending to be Republicans) from Maine who are receiving the support of the Republican party, but who stab conservatives in the back every chance that they get.
Two words for you: Specter and Jeffords
Fat lot of good they did for the Republican party.
Last edited by Robert Barney : 11-04-2009 at 07:22 PM.
Reason: Posts merged
But it is NOT the Constitutional job or roll of senators to decide as to whether or not an impeachment should be brought against those whom the Constitution sets defines as impeachable.
That is NOT the job of senators, it is the job of the House Representative, PERIOD.
Go ahead, you can look it up.
Now what part of that do you not understand? What part of that didn't they understand?
The Constitutional roll of the Senate is to be the JURY in an impeachment proceeding. Juries do not get to say, before the trial begins, we disagree with the prosecutor (in this case the House impeachment managers) bringing this case. That is NOT the job of a jury. And it sure as heck isn't the job of a JURY to tell the court that you can't have witnesses. That is unspeakably bizarre.
Once again, this is all set out quite clearly in that pesky little document called the Constitution, which matters to some of us, and continues to be a stumbling block to liberals.
But when confronted by the plain wording of the Constitution, and their appropriate roll with respect to the Constitution, Snowe and Collins said "Constitution, we don't need not stinking Constitution". Once again underscoring the fact that these two Senator have no governing principals by which they function. They are like sailors without a compass on a cloudy night, feeling their way around in the ocean.
I can assure you that any unprincipaled Senator, who rejects the explicit instruction set out in the Constitution, isn't worthy of ANY support by Americans who actually think that the Constitution is important.
So are you part of that group?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I shan't launch into a constutiional discussion here are at 5 in the morning but given that you aspire to speak knowledgeably I will add a couple sandwiches into your basket so that you will be working with a full picnic rather than a Happy Meal on the topic.
What is missing for you in your analysis is that House of Representatives alone has the power to impeach and the Senate sits as jury just as the Constitution and you have stated. An impeachment by the House however is akin to a grand jury indictmment. In an indictment the prosecutor is ordered to present a case to the court. however once it reaches the court the case is under the control the court now and not the grand jury. The grand jury has absolutely no control whatsoever over whether the judge dismisses the case, rules on admissibility one way or the other, or the conduct of the trial. Yes, it is true that grand jury indictment is an order to the prosecutor to prosecute but they cannot control it if the judge decides to summarily dismiss the case or to allow or not allow the admissibability of certain witnesses or materials.
Similarly, a bill of impeachment presents the case to the Senate for their disposition from that point onward, to the extent that it may go forward at the will and decision of the Senate. It is true that the house acts a prosecutor in the Senate to the extent that there is a trial but they do not control the extent of the trial. In Clintons case, some of the senators (wisely so in hindsight) wanted to vote for summary dismissal because they believed that that it was a political clown show and the charges, even if proven, would not constitute sufficient grounds for removal from office. That motion failed but it was clearly within the province of the senate to rule on that one way or the other because there is no Constitutional right for the House to force a trial anymore than there is a constitutional right for the grand jury to force a desired outcome in court. They can only force the issue into court.
In addition the analogy over the court system is limited in some ways. Yes, the Senate sits as jury but unlike a court system they also function partially as law maker, judge, and rulemaker along with being jury. This is not true in a court proceedings. Yes, the Supreme Court Justice presides over proceedings but he does not act as a judge, only a referee. All while the Senate is acting as jury they are also making up the rules as they go along and voting on procedural issues and introducing motions and so on. Unlike a jury in a court system where the jurors are just watching the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense hash out legal and procedural questions and, in fact, they may get booted out of the room during some of it.
Thus a Senator can reach a different conclusion than you and still be within the Constiution and perhaps even furthering Constitutional principles more than you, although as admitted I belong to the brand of conservatism where it is acknowledged that reasonable men may differ versus the fundamentalists. I am an American and interested in the preservation of the Republic versus some of the left wing loons in Vermont who want to join Canada or the conservative crybabies who want to say pithy things about running off to Texas to create their own fiefdom.
It is well established that I have issues with President Obama and do not wish him a long career in his current position. Neverless, if I were in the Senate and he came before the Senate under an impeachment indictment then I am going to give him a fair shake and there is not going to be any partisan foolishness about trying to remove someone through impeachment because you couldnt do it at the polls. Your duties as a sitting Senator are greater than that of an internet harpooner.
In the case of some people such as Barbara Boxer or Barney Frank I would need to recuse myself from the proceedings because if left to myself I would simply hang both of them right out on the National Mall - Constitution be damned.
.
Re: Doug Hoffman for Congress
Linear Mode
