Seperation Anxiety
Monday, November 2, 2009 at 09:36AM
People in NY 23 are fed up with all the special interest groups. I can’t say I blame them, but I guess they should have held a primary instead of letting the local GOP anoint their candidate. Last time I checked people in New Hampshire (in both parties) were not fond of the GOP at any level anointing Republican candidates. No word on whether the democrats like it when the NHDP or the DNC anoints candidates for them.
In New Hampshire of course we have confidence that the democrats will find a “republican” to force a primary if we don’t come up with one ourselves—but they are usually a Scozzafava sort of candidate. Someone who is as likely to vote with the democrats as not.
But back to the point. The special interest groups in question, are conservative stalwarts looking to deny Pelosi another rubber stamp. In principle one more vote probably won’t matter but you take them back one at a time, so now it does.
And the underlying issue in NY-23, aside from the lack of a primary when there were two Republicans interested in the seat, is that the one they chose was getting national party support to the tune of $900,000 dollars. When the party you donate to endorses a candidate who has only a tenuous connection to the platform you are financing, you get the privilege of objecting. Your only recourse is to get behind the guy they should have been supporting and make your presence known.
That is what happened in NY-23. No one cared much beyond the normal amount of interest until they saw the national GOP’s cash commitments as contrary to the foundations of the party they supported. So they revolted. They got behind the conservative candidate to express their support for the platform and their objection to the Party check writers who were spending their money on someone who they did not view as even a moderate republican.
The special interest here is the desire to invest in value, as in values. If they are not there, the people who fund the party—just like taxpayers who rebel at the abuse of federal spending—feel obligated to defend the values and the value of their dollars. And we will continue to see that.
And for the moderate Republicans who feel they should defend their dollars as well, by all means please do.
Doug Hoffman may not win, but the GOP learned a lesson it had best remember. There are a significant number of republicans looking for some separation between their candidates and ours. It's a problem that should be worked out in the primary, and between donors to the national party who may--in the future--do what I do. Support individual candidates instead of giving money to some top down central clearinghouse for the "campaigns" they view most deserving.
We don't want it from our government. Why would we support it in our party?
NY-23, Special Interests in Election 2009, Republicans, Thugocracy 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (4)
"No word on whether the democrats like it when the NHDP or the DNC anoints candidates for them"
unquote
Steve--you forgot recent history. The DCCC and NH State Party backed Jim Craig ( a wonderful man who I consider a friend) in the 2006 congressional race against Jeb Bradley.
Upstart Carol Shea-Porter had nothing but grass root backing and a few thousand dollars but won the primary. Then she won the general election.
I would guess you overlook this story because it doesn't fit with the RNC inspired narrative that CSP represents Washington not the people of NH. The truth is that CSP is the ultimate expression of grass roots, real people who put it all on the line politics.
How to re-write history.
Just look at the value of the dollar since team Obama has taken office. CSP please help us in NH instead of the special interests.
Platy
Maybe it's just one idiot with two accounts.
Steve, are you going to continue to let these guys speak for you?
I don't exactly ask complex questions here. In this case, I'm just pointing out history.