Wednesday, January 6, 2010

The Republican Hangover?

We aren't taking sides in the GOP knife fight that is about to ensue all across New York State and NY-23. But 2010 will be a tremendously important year for political parties all across the state and it will have a dramatic impact on the next round of political redistricting and the policies that come out of Albany and Washington for decades to come. With that in mind it is safe to say that Republicans are still suffering from "a major Scozzafava Hangover" that we aren't sure they will soon recover from anytime soon. Lets review!


US Senate:

First, there is no serious Republican candidate for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's US Senate seat. And it is starting to get late in the game for former Governor George Pataki to get into the mix. Senator Gillibrand is locking down endorsements and support from all corners of the district, while Republicans wonder into the wilderness. And if Former Tennessee Congressman Hank Ford were to win a long-shot Democratic primary attempt it would likely be even more difficult for the Republicans to pick up the US Senate seat left by Hillary Clinton.

NYS Governor:

Regarding the Governors race we have to be fair in saying Democrats have their own in-fighting between Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Governor David Paterson supporters, but it happens behind-closed-doors. Paterson is the first black Governor of the state and Cuomo is eyeing to take him out -- in my analysis, for right or wrong, that is a dicey move in statewide politics in New York. The Republican Party has an "okay" candidate in failed US Senate candidate Rick Lazio, and an unknown quantity in Chris Collins, an Erie County Executive, as Plan B. Rudy Giuliani and John Faso have already run away from the offer. For Lazio, it doesn't help with a major New York headline reads,"Even in G.O.P., Lazio's Bid for Governor is a Hard Sell." For Collins, it doesn't help that he is way behind in organization and fundraising. Some NY-23 chairs had fallen over themselves so much so that they set up a secret meeting with Collins that ordinary constituents weren't allowed to participate in. It sounds like NY-23 all over again. But on a positive note, even though Collins has yet to announce his candidacy, it appears as though the executive has garnered the signatures of at least 15 county chairs on a letter of endorsement including two GOP County Chairs from NY-23, Donald Coon of Jefferson County and James Ellis of Franklin County. But is that a wise move for the county chairmen after what just happened in NY-23? Voters in Upstate New York don't even know who Chris Collins is, anything about his record or what his uniting message will be. "Anyone but the Democrats?" Someone please remind the GOP that Democrats outnumber Republicans by something of a 2 to 1 margin statewide. The county chairs that make up in NY-23 may want to be careful when they are playing with fire.

More on the Collins Letter & NY-23:


Sounds like a good enough reason on the surface, but if Martin's logic is to first consult with her committee before making this type of decision so as not to alienate the local party faithful then why is she actively trashing Doug Hoffman, a potential Republican candidate for the NY-23 race, without first also consulting her caucus to see if they have her back? We got two angry e-mails this week from county leaders who were none to pleased with the contents of the Ogdensburg paper that Sunday.

Here is the skinny. It appears that in December Martin pushed a top-of-the-fold, front page, full-frontal attack on Doug Hoffman, just out of spite. Martin's name was littered in the text of the article with quotes like, "During the past congressional election Mr. Hoffman broke with the party," and "I don't think the Republican party has forgiven Mr. Hoffman. A lot of DeDe's supporters are still angry." She continued, "We need to have a broad-based party," then dug in a little more by pointing out that Mr. Hoffman lost in the general election to Mr. Owens, who won with only 48 percent of the vote.

And as if she hadn't made her point clear enough, Mrs. Martin dropped her opposition language and revealed her true vindictive character by stating that while the 11 county Republicans party chairs in the 23rd District drew sharp criticism from outside the district for not supporting Mr. Hoffman's candidacy, the reality is that Mr. Hoffman was among the bottom of the nine candidates who were questioned by party leaders during four public interviews held across Northern New York. "Republicans aren't going to embrace him. Republicans are looking for a more electable candidate." We were thinking that maybe Martin was referring to an incumbent Assemblywoman from Gouvernor, but we were actually referred to another story in the same paper on that same day, in which Martin was quoted as saying favorable things about another potential NY-23 candidate, Matthew Doheny. Doheny, another top-tier candidate with an ability to raise money, was able to draw nearly 100 supporters to a small-dollar fundraiser for his election campaign in Watertown last month.

Conclusion:

The problems at the state level with recruitment are one problem. Local disenfranchisement is another. Infighting and throwing fellow Republicans under the bus in the local press is yet another. And dissatisfaction with the direction of the Republican Party is a whole different animal, too. But this hangover is not likely to go away in NY-23 when activists are complaining that they are fed up with the local Republican party chairs' complete intolerance, systematic dysfunction and strong-arm tactics. Maybe post-Scozzafava, Republican leaders don't have enough confidence in themselves to find a good candidate to challenge Addie Russell and Darrel Aubertine. Or maybe it is the potential candidates who don't have enough confidence in their county leaders to put their name and reputation on the ballot.

As we see the dynamics unfold in Clinton and St. Lawrence Counties we can be sure controversy will begin to brew in the others. And there are real undertones of a Republican grassroots rebellion like we have never seen before. For NY-23, some in the GOP camp fear that the Scozzafava hangover might be here to stay past election day 2010. There is a pill Republican leaders can take to cure their hangover, but it is an awful tough one to swallow.

12 comments:

  1. Gillibrand needs a DEM primary – she never competed for the seat in the first place, so let's be honest about that.

    If I could get the petitions, I darn sure would compete against her, or Harold Ford, or anyone else. It's the people's seat; not Gillibrand's.

    However, it's the money and she and Ford have piles of it and both know where other piles are ... that's the endgame – it always is.

    Last Q: Why do the DEMS fear a primary for her?

    Some other views, FYI

    ReplyDelete
  2. F/U - read this article and tell me "it's not the money?"

    I don't care which side plays this silly ass little game (DEM or GOPer). It is flat out wrong, and until the public takes a firm stand and stands up against it, it will never change - but it ought to.

    Backroom Deals for Campaign Money from Wall Street Favs

    ReplyDelete
  3. First off... I hope nobody cares what Dan thinks or says. Lets just hope he stops with the outrageous commenting. This is a decent post (or should I say indictment) of the Republican party establishment here.

    What is the pill you suggesting the GOP leaders take Buggs? You leave it kind of open ended, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  4. My comments are not outrageous, Anon 6:09, but you keep on trying and maybe you will prevail and make me out to be something that I am not to suit your warped purpose - whatever that is?

    You don't know me; so, stop pretending you do. I'm sure a lot of people care what I say or write about - perhaps not you, but that's expected, so we just move on anyway and leave you in a cloud of dust.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wouldn't it be fun if one of these blogs offered a poll on whether they care or not what Dan has to say. Well, Anon 6:09 and I would be on the "NO" side of that vote, but maybe there actually are a person or two who enjoy reading the blather. I, personally, just find it enteraining (and a little sad), but I am all about freedom of speech, so bring on the blather Dan. We may not agree with it, or even read it, but you are entitled to your thoughts. (It would be really nice though if you were a little negative all the time, you come across as being so misinformed is ultimately discredits and statement you are trying to make).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon: 12:42 - you posted this in part:

    "(It would be really nice though if you were a little negative all the time, you come across as being so misinformed is ultimately discredits and statement you are trying to make)."

    And, you expect pollsters here to vote "No" on me and my view, and to what, vote "Yes" on you and your views after that post? LOL _ stop it, you're killing me with the standup comedy...

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan, I don't get it. What is the point you are trying to make in your last post except to, once again, prove that you are negative? Have the time you don't even make any sense. Add my vote to the "no" column.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually I don't think you read my post right Dan. A vote against you is not a vote for me. I haven't said anything afterall. It has nothing at all to do with me. And I don't "expect" anything. As I said, I am all about freedom of speech. It is just a poll to give you a chance to prove to the naysayers that "a lot of people care what (you) say or write about". Again you just stupidly fired back with negativity and immediately jumped down my throat, somehow turning my suggestion to back up your claim into something it wasn't. It is with posts like that that you really solidify your chances of never getting the petitions you so desire to run against Gillibrand. You are so defensive. I suggest you listen, or read, a little more accurately if you ever want to be taken seriously.

    Looks like we are up to three votes in the no column...anyone, other than Dan, in the yes side??? echo...echo...echo...

    ReplyDelete
  9. 4:11 - You are the typical forum “innocent, I-didn't- do-or-say-anything weasel” who shouts and irritates others, then says, innocently as you duck back down behind the Anonymous bush: “Why are you angry or mad and upset at me - I didn't do anything?”

    The problem with Anonymous posters is those of us who will defend ourselves and our posts never know whether it's the same Anonymous ässhøle or not ... and that poses a whole new set of problems for rational behavior for those drinking at this trough of enlightenment.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re: 609. The best way to cure the hangover is for the Republican party to get behind one candidate quickly. My preference is Doheny.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with 7:15. If we have more infighting in the party we are just helping Owens and his people. I also agree that Doheny would be a nice choice for the party. He has more energy than any candidate I have ever encountered, he has a consistent message that I can stand behind (particurly with regard to thge economy), and he is a "clean candidate". Dede, Hoffman and Barclay all have political ghosts and I, for one, would rather not see the party take another risk on a candidate with a controversial political past. Doheny is a solid choice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In fact, although it is a bit counter intuitive after the highly criticized Dede nomination, I think it would be great if the Republicans could actually avoid a primary for the 2010 election. With a primary, essentially the republicans would be fighting each other (and providing the other side with plenty of fuel for the general election) for the next 9 months, and then, post primary, the nominee would battle Owens for only one more month. Do we really want to fight ourselves for 9/10ths of the campaign calendar? The republicans need to enter the battle against Owens on all cylinders, not after being beaten up by our own party.

    Remember the 3am phone call ads??? That was Hilary fighting Obama. Not a republican in sight. I really hope we don't have to get into that game. Inner-party mudslinging only helps the Dems.

    ReplyDelete