Newt Gingrich Alienates Himself from the Base
Former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest politicians around. He understands conservatism on an intellectual level and he is a fine strategist.
Which is why I cannot quite understand why he continues to support Dede Scozzafava, in New York. Conservatives everywhere are lining up behind the candidate for the Conservative Party, Doug Hoffman. Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and even Fred Thompson have endorsed Hoffman… but Newt and the leadership of the Republican Party continue to support ‘moderate Republican’ Scozzafava, who is now trailing in the polls.
Gingrich’s support for Dede goes so far that he even lashed out at Republicans who have come out in support for Hoffman. Not willing to put up with Gingrich’s criticism, Thompsonresponded angrily yesterday:
Thompson responded:
During his radio show Tuesday, Thompson said he was “sad” to hear “when a good Republican friend of mine says that I, and the other good, conservative Republicans who have endorsed Hoffman, are ‘misguided.’ And that’d be my friend, Newt Gingrich.”
“I respect Newt. He’s a friend. Done a lot of good, I think. But he endorsed Scozzafava early on. So, we have an honest disagreement in the family,” Thompson said.
But, he added, “Newt said that our support for Hoffman was a ‘purge,’ was ‘misguided,’ was—we were applying a litmus test that said if you’re not 100 percent with us than you’re not with us at all. And that Scozzafava was more in step with her district and therefore we shouldn’t substitute our judgment for the party elders of the district.”
Thompson, a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, then asked of Gingrich: “Who’s applying the litmus test here?”
“Are we saying that as Americans you’ve got to have an ‘R’ by your name before you vote for them? Where do you draw the line?” he continued. “If somebody with a record like this gets our seal of approval, regardless, only because she’s got an ‘R’ by the name… You know, just because we’re Republicans doesn’t mean that we’re deaf, dumb, and blind.”
I really have no idea what Gingrich thinks he’s doing. Scozzafava has no chance of winning anymore. Hoffman does. In fact, he is leading in the polls. The reason is simple; voters prefer the real deal (a real conservative) over a lite-version (Scozzafava). They want small government, not just representatives who say they want to reduce the size of government when running for office, only to expand it once in Washington, D.C.
As noted in another post comment, Scozzafava’s real sin is that she’s socially liberal (pro-choice and pro-gay-rights) not that she’s fiscally liberal. Her fiscal record is unremarkably moderate-Republican. Newt’s preaching Big Tent party loyalty — the 23rd appears to be transforming into a swing district*. Thompson’s preaching loyalty to the so-con platform. The rest is internecene bickering. (And yes, I use that term advisedly. Cannibal Feast menu shaping up for 2010 and beyond if Hoffman wins. He is definitely to the right of the district mainstream. This special election is just the appetizer plate.)
Thompson’s diversionary argument obscures that Both he and Newt are applying litmus tests here, just different ones. If this were a true swing district the “better fit” argument might have more traction. But it doesn’t seem to be.
[*-- Bush won the 23rd narrowly both times, Obama won it by 5% in 2008.]
Muddy comment from unfinished sentence. “Doesn’t seem to be a swing district YET, but this could accelerate it.”
I’m with Tully on this one (hi Tully! How’s Kansas?) As a camp follower of conservative websites both Palin and Hoffman are the new Obama and Hillary. Hoffmann has done *nothing* political to prove his conservative beliefs. And if Tully’s right and Hoffman wins mostly of his so-con opinions, there will be a Cannibal Feast and the first time since it was mentioned will I sense the Republicans are controlled by the religious right. Which means Democrats will get the centrist republicans.
Windy, Rachel. Windy.
Assuming Hoffman wins and is as conservative as he claims, the Dems will run a centrist Dem against him in 2010, and quite likely take the district for the first time in decades. That’s assuming he wins, and the GOP/So-con vote-splitting doesn’t hand it to the Dems this round.
The answer is simple. A Hoffman win would be a threat to the Democrat/Republican hegemony. And you can’t have that, right?
Think about it. If he wins, Hoffman would be the first third party politician in Congress since the 1970s. I’m not saying this is going to happen, but maybe Newt fears an onslaught if other people like Palin support more conservative third party candidates in 2010 (in districts where the Republicans don’t provide a good option).
If he wins, Hoffman would be the first third party politician in Congress since the 1970s.
You’ve forgotten the Connecticut For Leiberman Party. A Party of One, to be sure.
Interestingly, the last third-party member of Congress before Joe that I can recall was a NY Conservative Party member. Jim Buckley (William F.’s brother) in the Senate.
And as much as I support so-cons having a party to represent their values (I’m so-lib) they are about to Whig-out the Republican party, esp over the abortion issue. I agree with Boortz – that such issues removed from the Reps could remove one of the Dems major power base.
I remember 2006. I was more eager for Lieberman than for the Webb/Allen election
As you say, it was a party of one. Created to work around Connecticut laws that make it more difficult for an undeclared candidate to get on the ballot. He didn’t stay there and doesn’t even control the party anymore. One of his political opponents does.
That said, it does make me wonder how a Hoffman win would translate in Congress? His party has no national equivalent, so I’m guessing he would become an Independent? I guess that makes sense, since Lieberman is officially counted as an Independent whilst still really being a Democrat.
Though Hoffman would have to caucus with the Republicans in any case. I wonder how much of a welcome he will really get. Too bad for him that his addition wouldn’t be of use to the party in the way that Lieberman’s addition was a use to the Democrats.
He would initially be listed as Conservative Party, and (one assumes) would caucus with the GOP. Presumably as an incumbent he would be listed under both the GOP and CP lines on the ballot next year, and probably be subsequently listed as a Republican if re-elected. Or not. His choice, I believe, if elected on both party ballot lines.
Yeah, the CTfL battle has been fun to watch … from a distance. Amusingly (to me, anyway) the DNC’s failed attempt to throw Leiberman under the bus made him stronger, and right now they need him MUCH more than he needs them. I have no doubt that if he stands for re-election he will do so as a Democrat. Unless they try to defenstrate him again.