To the editor:
In his column (Journal World, Nov. 6) Charles Krauthammer said that the November 2008 U.S. national election was “a one-shot, one-time, never to be replicated,” event. He was chortling over the results of the elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia won by Republicans.
I can just see him tingling at the keyboard as he typed that sentence and these words:
“One book proclaimed the ‘Death of Conservatism,’ while the more modest merely predicted the terminal decline of the Republican Party into a regional party of the Deep South or a rump party of marginalized angry white men.
“This was all ridiculous from the beginning. The 2008 election was a historical anomaly.”
Maybe Mr. Krauthammer should talk to a failed congressional candidate from upstate New York. The candidate’s name is Doug “up from obscurity, back to obscurity” Hoffman.
The “return to the norm,” Mr. Krauthammer wrote about didn’t happen in New Jersey and Virginia. The “return to the norm,” happened in a much less publicized but much more significant “it’s been Republican for a hundred years” U.S. congressional district. In that election the Republican Right Wing got its own way, all the way, and (to use a gambling term) crapped out.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Another laughable spin job. When PBS reporters state forcefully that Obama and the Democrats took it in the shorts as a result of the elections in New Jersey and Virginia, they did. And the New York 23 result may not be that good a deal for Obama and his cronies, as the Democrat who won is a moderate conservative who has opposed the public option in the health care debate, while the Republican who dropped out was highly lauded by the Daily Kos.
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Yes, the conservative lost in NY23. Lost by a small margin--2 or 3 percentage points as I recall. But, lets be fair! The conservative candidate did not have the backing of the Republican Party! Even after the RINO dropped out, Mr. Hoffman only received lukewarm help from the GOP. No, endorsements by Palin and others do not constitue formal party help as the party already had a candidate in the field. It is within the realm of possibilities that had Mr. Hoffman enjoyed the full fledged support of the formal GOP leadership from the very beginning that he would have won. So, do not cite NY23 as a "defeat" for conservatism.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Well, the LTE writer couldn't fit in better with the Larryville Loons if he'd chosen his name for himself. Typical of the Barackolytes, he listens to the soundbites rather than investigating the substance of the issue.
Let's start, Larry, with the fact that there was no Republican candidate in the NY race? The two gubernatorial races were both hard fought by the Dems, both drew a lot of national attention, both Democrat candidates had the backing of the current White House, and both states had gone to Obama in the last election. And the Republicans still won. In the NY race, the Republican candidate (who was about as much of a Republican as Nancy Pelosi) dropped out, and a third-party candidate who joined the race very late and ran without major party support still made an impressive showing, nearly beating the Democrat.
Get a grip, Larry. Or better yet, don't. All you loons doing your ostrich impressions just make it that much easier for the Republicans in the next election(s). And the stunned look on your faces in the aftermath of those elections will be priceless.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
Republicans have been handed the shotgun full of ammo...only they are pointing it at their faces. We need to do all we can to get at least one of the chambers back, yet conservatives are trying to hijack the party. When conservatives start fighting moderates in the Republican primaries, Democrats win.
We from Kansas should know better than anyone after the hatchet job Kansans for Life pulled on Knight (a pro-life moderate), giving Schallenberger (a whack-job conservative) the win in the primary which ulitmately led to Kathy getting elected. Democrats across the country are salivating about this happening widespread.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
I knew many people who said they would never vote for Schallenburger, then ended up doing so when Kansans for Life did their hatchet job on Knight. I seen many people on election day carrying the little pamphlet Kansans for Life sent out that told people how to vote. Knight would have beat Kathy in the general election because many moderates voted for her.
Jimo (anonymous) says…
"In fact, it appears that Democrats have represented the NY-23 more than Republicans during the past 100 years."
Curious:
Do you actually believe this or do you think we're stupid enough to not understand that NY-23 was the number for a variety different congressional districts in the past located elsewhere than where it is today (including NYC)?
Sign of a wingnut: "We create our own reality."
Jimo (anonymous) says…
To help out, here's a useful map:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/diar...
Jimo (anonymous) says…
oppose, delay, lie: What part of redrawing and renumbering congressional districts is beyond your ability to grasp?
It remains a fact that saying that no Democrat has represented the NY-23 in over 100 years is something that exists in your limited mind. Most people now represented in the NY-23 haven't voted for a Democrat since the 19th century. Period. No one cares if they're called the 1st, 3rd, 22nd, or 4,121st. Got it? Please be stupid on someone else's time.
Jeez! "I can't see any sun" said the wide-eyed man as he burned his retina away!!!!
Jimo (anonymous) says…
"The only constant is the name NY-23. "
To quote Joe Wilson, "That's a lie."
NO, the constant are the cities and counties that form the political subdivisions of New York State, doofuss. Guess what? THEY do NOT change. Get a fricking clue. So ... it's perfectly clear - You really do understand that you're propagating a lie but think so little of everyone else's intelligence that you think no one will call you on your lie. You've been exposed - I'll keep the link to remind people of your record for the future.
"So you are a liar when you say that the NY-23 was not represented by a Democrat for more than 100 years."
I didn't say. I said the district hadn't elected a Democrat, which you've yet to provide any contrary evidence for, only that other people in other districts with the number 23 did so in the past. Heck, I even provided you a map showing each county and when the voters there, in whatever districts they've been assigned to over the decades - neigh, centuries - last voted for a Democrat. You've been having an argument with yourself, fooling on the fools (ergo, yourself).
Please be stupid on your own time.