Doug Hoffman's Race to Lose?

Well she is probably not rabid.

"So what is Dede Scozzafava?
.
Is she a socialist?
.
Is she a libertarian?
.
Is she a liberal?
.
Is she a centrist?
.
Is she a conservative?"

.
Sometimes I do wonder about you stuart. Most of the time you do make sense, then there are those times when you come off with these absurd comments.
.
People can be "liberal", moderate or conservative, but still "progressive" in their beliefs in general.
.
People can also be conservative with fiscal issues, but be very liberal with social issues. (Progressives with fiscally conservative ideals, aka as Reagan Democrats (Blue Dogs), and Republicans like John McCain).
.
People can also be very liberal, but conservative in their social values, ideals and beliefs. (Many Democrats who are Catholic).
.
People can be just plain conservative in both fiscal as well as social issues. (Me)
.
And, people can be liberal in both social and fiscal issues (You and Dede Scoz).
.
Of course like the rainbow, you can have many different variations of them all. But, I will give you one thing, you do not lack the ability of not trying, that is for sure.
.
Now to answer your questions on Scozzafava you presented above in blockquote:
1. Yes, and her spouse is the AFL-CIO Union Boss for their district.
.
2. No, as she is for Big Government involvement in issues like card-check, cap n' trade, etc.
.
3. Most definately in my opinion a liberal, and nothing even near moderate as she and other have claimed. She should never have been "nominated" as a candidate for the Republican Party.
.
4. Centrist? Perhaps. If you also label her a Progressive.
.
5. Conservative, absolutely not in no way, shape or form.

“People can be just plain conservative in both fiscal as well as social issues. (Me)”
.
...rusty, I'm curious. Given current definitions, how can one be conservative on both fiscal and social issues? With fiscal conservatism relating back to original Goldwater conservatism: keep govt. small (bathtub size), let biz do their thing, and *stay out of our lives*, how does that reconcile with the social c's trend to intrude into our lives as much as possible? Pick any personal issue. Abortion is a typical screed. Goldwater called it a private matter and wanted the govt. kept out of it. Not today's R's. Forcing Christian prayer onto schools? What of other religious groups here? We're not England where Anglicanism is the state church. Isn't that a private matter too? So should govt. run our lives for us per social c's, or leave us alone per fiscal c's? To stay consistent, you can't have it both ways. If you claim you can, please explain in detail. So which are you?

They want the government to stay out of their own private lives but insist that the government inflict their views on those that don't share their agenda. They're absolutely, positively sure that they know what's best for everyone else.
.
It's not enough that that they don't personally go for gay marriage, abortion, legalized marijuana etc., they have to make sure that the government doesn't allow anyone that has a different opinion go against THEIR personal beliefs. Real America First. No matter how small.

Given current definitions, how can one be conservative on both fiscal and social issues?

I'm starting to think that the missing element needed to accurately describe the strains of conservatism are the diametrically opposite terms "elite" and "populist", as in elite conservative vs populist conservative.
.
Social conservatism is a popular movement phenomenon that exists naturally as an inherent characteristic of strong localized culture. A rural village, almost perfectly unchanging in the character of its people and their rituals does so through a natural social conservatism. Urban centers, markets and other loci of immigration and upward social mobility tend not perpetuate themselves by staying the same as they always were.
.
People who aren't geographically or economically mobile naturally act to control their environments through their participation in shared culture, and so social conservatism helps people find the common force to mitigate change, especially arriving in the form of a perceived regional or ethnic "other".
.
Social conservatism is especially popular with those communities that acutely perceive themselves to the the victims of dominant culture --or military, nothing like a good war to shake things up-- hegemony.
.
Social conservatism is all about the preservation of identity.
.
Fiscal conservatism is arguably an elite phenomenon, although (also arguably) related like its popular step-cousin to the mitigation of social mobility trends. It isn't that elite conservatism minds so much the power of the state to tax and therefore to support imperial armies --they're not libertarians, even though they're anti-tax-- it's that they act to conserve capital through politics designed to keep it in elite (and in their ideology "productive") hands.
.
To the extent that the affluent middle class identifies with un-socially mobile financial elites (the peak of society) they will resist the inherently redistributive effect of the state claiming power over financial elites (and industry). Fiscal conservatism resists perceived downward social mobility, because, in as socially liquid a culture as the US, folks genuinely feel that they've got nowhere to go but down.
.
If we think about these ideologies as naturally opposing conservation of wealth vs conservation of culture, we can see why one seeks to mitigate the power of the state (which exists in competition with elites and industry), and the other doesn't much care, unless the state is perceived to act on behalf of hegemonic cultural forces that seek to overturn the will and traditions of the village.
.
Conservatives of these two types aren't really the same at all, except in the rare form that may exist as residue of feudal times: the plantation owner.
.
Elite conservatives viciously resist the power of the state to promote social mobility at their expense. Witness the enormous gains of the US working class in the 20th century as Federally administered liberalism enabled it to move out of huddled cities into automobile-centered suburban consumer paradises. Witness the huge increases in the availability of social-mobility promoting enterprises like college education during that period. Witness the creation of the largest, most mobile and educated middle class society on earth after the New Deal. Liberalism fought elite conservatism and won.
.
Populist conservatives viciously resist the power of the state that allows intrusions upon their cultural identities, and equally viciously support the power of the state that enforces their way of life. The state can be either enemy or ally in this existential battle. Witness the enormous gains to individuals and progressive enterprises in the 20th century as Federally administered liberalism enabled a reduction of socially sanctioned conformity, an emphasis on individual conscience, the promotion of individual merit over group identity, and the empowerment of change agents throughout our culture. Witness the movement toward justice in that period that came at the expense of traditional hierarchy. Witness the explosive spread of enlightenment-era values, such as reason being "the primary source of legitimacy for authority" over cultural tenure and archetype --during this period, there emerged a "popular bumper sticker slogan" emblazoned with Benjamin Franklin's famous words "Question Authority".
.
(I am of the opinion that political alliances and dalliances with proto-socialists and socialism spelled the destruction of liberal dominance, not rightist brilliance, but that's another essay)
.
What we're seeing, I believe, is the coalescing of the power of popular conservatism and populist conservatives in the Republican party, to the exclusion of elites --except as war profiteers and tax-cut (and other subsidy) beneficiaries.
.
No, elite conservatism and populist conservatism cannot be reconciled, either ideologically or politically, which is why one is beginning to dominate the other...to the terror of elite-worshiping, anti-populist centrists in the capitol.

…thanks, stuart; this adds more needed clarity. (I had just checked back on this post now) I too have tried to add serious stuff often, esp. lately, even if most of it feeds crickets. You get more results / responses.

That is despite the fact that they also voted for Barack Obama by a margin over McCain of over 6 percent.
.
Also voting for the Democrat Senators in their most recent elections.
.
No grapey, there is a tendancy for this district to vote "liberal" or for the Dem depending on the issues at the time. This time, they are saying "No more Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid policies, we've had enough!!!"

What arrant nonsense, rusty. This district hasn't had a Democrat representing it since the Civil War, and since 1982, a Democrat has never once exceeded 38% of the popular vote in the general election. The fact that Owens even has half a chance in this election shows how much less conservative the district is trending than it ever has.

Hoffman would be nothing without the hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funding that have poured in from corporate interests outside the district to pump up his name recognition. He has received only 5% of his campaign funding from inside the district!

There is no love for him there; and given his recent treatment of Scozzafova, what little liking there was for him is in decline. The question is, will the decline be sufficient before the end of the day today, or will the 23rd's opinion of Hoffman change like Connecticut's opinion of Lieberman has changed since 2006.

Yes Rusty Obama did poll 6% over McCain in that District, but he polled 27% over McCain in that state. Fact remains that the Dems have never, that is never polled better than 38% in that district for that seat.

there is a tendancy for this district to vote "liberal" or for the Dem depending on the issues at the time.
.
Wrong. Redistricting back in 1993 made this into a solidly Republican district, at least as far as the 23rd's Congressional seat is concerned.
.
Also voting for the Democrat Senators in their most recent elections.
.
Not really; 2000 was kind of split in the counties that make up that district, Candidates in 2006 and 2004 were more like sacrificial lambs that received little national support and suffered from Repub-vs.GOP infighting. Plus, you're not going to see a lot of GOP campaign money plowed into a state where the incumbents are named Clinton and Shumer and the majority of the state's population votes Dem.
.
That is despite the fact that they also voted for Barack Obama..
.
That might say more about McCain than Obama, Rusty.

Don't worry Charlie Karma is a bee-yatch. For all the comparisons of Obama to Hitler, they sure didn't understand the whole appeasement thing real well.

Dee, please stop mincing your words and say what you really feel. You're among friends. Cut loose.

Hi Sacred. Bye sacred -- got to do some work now.

Me too. Gotta vote and mulch up a couple of million leaves with the tractor before I go to work this afternoon.

The real message is simple. It's no longer about left and right, its about sane and not!

"I'm curious what "message" the movement conservatives think they have sent."

That they'll go to great lengths to get their candidates installed in office regardless of whether or not the local populace would be inclined to vote for them based strictly on the candidate's positions. That movement conservatives aren't going anywhere anytime soon and will be trying to force themselves into every available office to the best of their ability.

Katie is right. There is a message here. The fringe fire that McCain/Palin stoked at the end of their campaign isn't going to go out anytime soon and we need to be aware of that. I used to curse McCain for unleashing the Frankenstein monster that is Palin on the US. I've come to realize that it's worse than just having to put up with seeing her on TV or reading her wing nut quotes now and then. They fertilized a cultural movement that rightly belongs on the fringe of our society. It existed there previously for a reason. McCain/Palin helped drag it into the full light of day where others like Limbaugh are helping keep it there.

All the "moderate" Republicans are moving out of the State of New York. Soon you might get a decent apartment in NYC, square1.
.
With the taxes the Dems have been imposing on New Yorkers, in 10 years I predict that New York will just dry up and blow away!!
.
But, we can only hope that the majority come to their senses, throw out all the liberals and make New York a Red State someday.

All the "moderate" Republicans are moving out of the State of New York.

rusty, did you pull that one out of your butt, too?

Dee

And you punched your ticket on the crazy train long time ago.

square1:

I'm curious what "message" the movement conservatives think they have sent.

That by running a far-right-wing-wacko candidate against a Democrat, they can win this district that has been solidly Republican since the Civil War by the smallest vote margin in a quarter century.

It's a message that I doubt anyone in the Corporatist Media will even notice.

Correction:

The message of NY-23: By running a far-right-wing-wacko candidate against a moderate Democrat, Teabaggers can turn a district that has been solidly Republican since the Civil War into a Democratic district.

And Dede Scozzafova remains in the State legislature, where she can help to reapportion NY-23 into three more Democratic districts, now that Democrats also control the state Senate!

Smooth move, ex-lax.

If a Sarah Paling rally was advertising the Boss don't go! It's a hoax!

As I remember, the Boss told the McCain/Palin ticket to stop using his songs during the campaign.

well okay then --- just make sure you get the shots that prevent them from entering your body when you rock out. Clearly the Sarabots are always looking for any opportunity to multiply.