New York Republican Party Keeps IMPOSING the Wrong Candidate, as Democrats Figure Out How to Win NY Special Elections

You remember the previous New York special election in a "Republican district"? Sure you do. It was the distict where Michael Steele's downfall (as Republican Party chairman) reallly accelerated. The Republican Party nomominated a Republican for the special election for a House sea who was somewhere to the LEFT of 75% of all DEMOCRATS. She would eventually pull out of the race, and essentailly declare herself a dEMOCRAT (endorsing the Democratic candidate). The consrevative, rank and file Repubicans rejected the nominee imposed upon them, and supported a third party conservative candidate running on the conservative line. With the SABOTAGE of the Repubican Party establishment (which is what they do best), and the betrayal of the Repubican Party candidate, the conservate candidate lost in the "safe" Republican district.


What did that mean for 2010? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I said so at the time on Newsvien, the MSNBC site where I was putting most of my articles. Democrats were saying how much more signnificant that special election was than Repubican victories in New Jersey and Virginia, because it was more about Obama. Hogwash was what I said then-coreectly, in foresight. That is also what I say about claims that the New York special election in 2011--the one just lost by the Repubican---means anything for 2012. It does not, other than that the Repubican Party establishment--especially in New York--still does not have its act together (unless you regard the constant sabotage by the Repubican Party establishment of conservative candidates to be their real objective).


Yes, again there was a third-party candidate calling himself the "Tea Party candidate'. However, this time the condidate was not really a conservative--having previously run several times as a DEMOCRAT. In the Nixon era, or even hits year, this would have been called a DIRTY TRICK, if REPUBLICNS had sabotaged the Democrat with such a stalking horse candidate. What Democrats have learned is how to win "special elections". I have noticed that for decades, and it has no predictive value as far as whether Democrats can do better in the next general electioni. This is obviously true in New York, where Democrats have used the same kind of "divide and conquer" method in two straight special elections, although in slightly different scenariaos.


We know why the propagandists of the mainstream media would ply this as a rejection by "the people" of the Paul Ryan/House Republican budget (with its Medicare reform), even though it is not true. But WHY would the Repubican establishment join with the mainstream media with panic over this meaningless election? Come on. You know the answer to this one. It is the same reason the Repubican Party in Nw York chose a lackluster candidate unwilling to ATTACK the Democrat on Meicare, and unwilling to expose the manifet FAILURE of Obama and the Democrats on Medicare. As stated in a prior article this week, in fact, it is DEMOCRATS who are "trying to kill grandma" (NOW, and not ten years from now, which is the earliest the Pual Ryan plan would have any real effect on Medicare). Yes, I know that New York law seemingly requires the Repubican Party to designate a candidate, but that totally gegs the question. The Republican Party could try to reach out to conservatives and designate at least a candidate acceptable to conservatives and willing to present the positions that Repubicans supposedly now have (on a national level).


This blog has previously explainied to you how BOTH leftist Democrats and Repubican establishment people regard conservative/Tea Party Republicans as MORE of an enemy than al-Qaida. You may be getting the impression that my attitude toward the kind of Repubican Party establishment people I criticze in this blog--including, of course, John McCain--is pretty much the same. You would be approximately right, even thoiugh I am not nearly as self-destructive, and just plain bad, as these people (leftist Deomocrats and Repubican establishment people).


Yes, I am still willing to vote for SOME Republican "establishment" candidates. That is becoming less and less true, but it remains true. I do not call Repubicans who are pro-abortion MUDERERS, and refuse to ever vote for any of them, even though leftist Democrats and establishment Republicans are perfectly willing to take that attitude against me (and cnadidates I supprot). Yes, the Republican establishment regards me as a "hick", even though I graduatged from the University of Texas School of Law with high honors. They feel the same way about Michelle Bockman, with better creedentials than almost any of them. And I don't turn the other cheek. Therefore--as evidenced by my refusal to vote for John McCain--I will OPPOSE ay Repubican candidate who evidences this attitude toward ME, and the peoiple I support. And no,k it does not matter to me if I lect Obama in the process (as it does not matter to them if they do).


Thus, there are a number of Repubilcan candidates out there I will not support. These include John Huntsman of Utah. I would have included Mitch Daniels, but he thankfully chose not to run. Showing I am not as bad as the Repubican establishment, or much of it, I WOULD probably vote for Mitt Romney--who I supported in 2008 and would be willing to support again, despite "RomneyCare " and that Romney is really an establishment kind of guy. I MIGHT support Tim Pawlenty in the general election, although I might not (and would never support him for the nomination). I probably WOULD support Chirs Christie, maybe even for the nomination, although he is suspect on pro-life issues and illegal immigration, among other things--as Christie is so much better than most Repubicans on the things he is good at. You get the picture.


The pint is that the "lesson" Repubicans should learn from the New York special elecions (plural) is that Republicns MUST nominate people willing to ATTACK Obama and the Democrats--not act defensive and ahsamed to be even associagtted with conservatives. That does not mean every Republican has to support Paul Ryan's exact plan (which takes ten years to even really make progress on getting the deficit way down). But Repubicans have to be willing not to be ASHAMED or AFRAID of the House budget. Republicans have to be willing to SAY--aggressively--that Obama and the Democrats are trying to dESTROY Medicare and Social Security. Republicans have to be wiling to ATTACK ObamaCare for CUTTING MEDICARE, but using the supposed savings to support a massive government program at the expense of seniror citizens who are already senior citizens (in other words, PRESENT senior citizens). Repbuilcans have to be willing to say that Obama nd the Democrats are intneding to impose ObamaCare by HURTING Meidcare, and the treatment availlable under Medicare, including access to care and restricting care through a government establiished advisory board. republicans who are not willing to do these things--whatever "plan" they support--are worthless. And Republicans who call Ryan's ATTEMPT at saving Medicare "right wing social engineering" are byond saving. Newt Gingrich will never be President. I said that beofree that statement of his--another example of my foresight rather than hindsight.


Indeed, the New York special election may be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party, IF the party learns the right lessons. At the vey least, every Republican running for office, who is worth anything, has to have learned that you MUST avoid being put in a tpta; defensive position on Medicare, where you act like you don't like being part of a party which would propose somtething like the Ryan plan. In other words, Democrats have "peaked" way too soon. NO Repubican canddate can be surprised by this kind of attack (the "Republicans intend to kill Medicare" attack). Any Repubican who is not prepared to meet the attack, both in ads and in debates, deserves to lose. Rather than doing what the candidate in New York did (evasons and inability to defend the Repubican House budget) would be better off simply repudiating Ryan and the House Republicans (somewhat like Gingrich). It will not work, but evasion is a guaranteed LOSER. Every Repulican HAS to ATTACK the Deomocrats, and be supportive of at least the courage of republicans trying to save Medicare, whatever else the candidate dos about the details of what plan the candidate supports.


Message to Karl rove (by the way): Karl, I have not forgotten you. I STILL would never vote for you as dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (where I spendt most of my early childhood). IN fact, I am tempted to say that I will not support any candidate you support, but I oopose guilt by association. I regard you as an example of the WORST of establishment Republicaniam, and responsbile--as much as any other person--for the FAILURE of Bush's second term (plus the worst asppects of Bush's first term). Rove is brought to mind because I saw Rove give a typically weak "analysis" of the New York electon, keyed mainly to the Democratic cnadidate getting only 1% above Obama's vote in 2008 (evidently forgetting that if OBVAMA gets 1% more than his vote in 2008, nationally, he will be elected in a landslide). Yes, I know Rove was balming the defeat on the third--party candidate, as I PARTLY do above. But if you read what I say closely, you realize that I CORRECTLY am really balming the defeat on the Republican Party in New York and people who think like ROVE (no principles, who are constantly playing politics as usual).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). If only that were the problem among establishment Repubicans, rather than a fundamental lack of real principles.