Letters to the Editor
Wrong norm
November 7, 2009
Advertisement
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.
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 57 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 157 comments
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 115 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 47 comments
- Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy November 19, 2009 · 32 comments
- Lawrence man charged in hit-and-run accident that killed bicyclist November 19, 2009 · 109 comments
- Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban November 20, 2009 · 26 comments
- Not-so-gentle reign November 19, 2009 · 133 comments
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009 · 36 comments
- Fatal mindset November 20, 2009 · 48 comments
- Farmers' Turnpike reopens after four months of construction November 20, 2009
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009
- Phillips County businesses create own hamburger October 2, 2003
- Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy November 19, 2009
- New, legal, drug has law enforcement concerned — and it's already on a Lawrence store's shelves November 4, 2009
- Resident hopes to start rickshaw business in downtown Lawrence, pending city approval November 19, 2009
- CLARENCE E. RINKE OBITUARY October 19, 1999
- A sad story November 19, 2009
- What do I do with... Sweet potatoes November 18, 2009
- The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009
7 November 2009
at 6:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
7 November 2009
at 7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Gibbs tells the press it's (the VA and NJ races) “not about Obama”. Please spare me. Things are not stacking up well at all for Dems in next year's mid-terms. Not well at all. I've even heard some pundits–-left and right, project up to 50 seats swinging back to (R). The trio of Obama, Pelosi and Reid are thus far proving to be a disaster. Carter very well may lose his spot as the worst president with the highest Misery Index to date.
7 November 2009
at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
7 November 2009
at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
opposeobama (Anonymous) says…
“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.”
Larry Day is a good day, but that is not a true statement. Three different Democrats represented the NY-23 between 1979 and 1993. In fact, it appears that Democrats have represented the NY-23 more than Republicans during the past 100 years.
7 November 2009
at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
opposeobama (Anonymous) says…
cato:
“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.”
He actually reversed himself on the government option yesterday after he was sworn in. He now says he'll support it. Of course, if he had been honest with voters before the election, Doug Hoffman would have won.
7 November 2009
at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
7 November 2009
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
opposeobama (Anonymous) says…
http://www.redstate.com/brad_smith/20…
7 November 2009
at 7:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
7 November 2009
at 11:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
opposeobama (Anonymous) says…
labmonkey:
Knight was a terrible candidate. He received just 26% of the primary vote and even lost his home county.
Shallenburger is a mainstream conservative who would have made a great governor.
8 November 2009
at 7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
8 November 2009
at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.”
8 November 2009
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jimo (Anonymous) says…
To help out, here's a useful map:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/diar…
8 November 2009
at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“Sign of a wingnut: “We create our own reality.”
Sign of a far-left loon: “We create our own history”.
8 November 2009
at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
The hatred some have for Obama is a marvel to behold. Almost anything can be seen as a referendum on Obama's Administration by these people. A Republican winning anywhere is clear indication that the Obama Administration is doomed to endure an impeachment, according to people like TomShewmon et al.
What I find funny is how such opinions reflect upon those who make them. People like Tom don't seem to realize how much it makes them look like nutcases. There was one comment that Tom recently made that seemed to suggest that he could discern secret signs / handshakes among the secret conservatives walking along Mass.
Funny stuff.
8 November 2009
at 8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
opposeobama (Anonymous) says…
Jimo:
“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)?”
After a quick perusal of your most recent posts, I have concluded that you're a bit of a dunce.
The fact remains that it is a lie to say that no Democrat has represented the NY-23 in over 100 years when the record clearly shows that three difference Democrats represented the NY-23 between 1979 and 1993.
Peyser represented the NY-23 as a Democrat from 1979 to 1983.
Straton represented the NY-23 as a Democrat from 1983 to 1989.
McNulty represented the NY-23 as a Democrat from 1989 to 1993.
8 November 2009
at 10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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!!!!
9 November 2009
at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
opposeobama (Anonymous) says…
Jimo:
Ignorant one, I understand redistricting. Since the NY-23 and the districts that surround it have been redrawn, the district that existed 100 years ago no longer exists. The only constant is the name NY-23. That district was represented by Democrats between 1979 and 1993. So you are a liar when you say that the NY-23 was not represented by a Democrat for more than 100 years.
Instead of repeating lies from far left sources, try doing a little research of your own. That way you won't come off as such an ignorant boob.
9 November 2009
at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
9 November 2009
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“The hatred some have for Obama is a marvel to behold.” -porch person
The hatred some have for Bush is a marvel to behold.
9 November 2009
at 8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“The hatred some have for Obama is a marvel to behold.” -porch person
The hatred some have for Bush is a marvel to behold.
********************************************
Actually, it stopped being a marvel long ago. Now it's just threadbare, tiresome, and completely irrelevant.