Return to NY-23

Return to NY-23? Owen's Lead Shrinks, Absentee Ballots Watched By Roy Edroso Speaking of repeats, we may have to return our attention to NY-23 again, as Dave Weigel reports that some recanvassing of ballots may call the result of that hilarious race -- in which the Republican quit and endorsed the Democrat to thwart the Conservative -- into question. After a second look at balloting in the district, "Winner" Bill Owens' lead has been dropped from 5,335 votes to 3,026. And there are about 10,000 absentee ballots yet to be tallied. Read the rest at The Village Voice

Reading The Tea Leaves, The Indies Have Spoken

With New Jersey and Virginia switching sides and NY-23 district's very narrow win by Bill Owens, could there be a shift in power come 2010? First, let's look at the point spread between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds, which was 17 points. Deeds, who only won 41% of the vote was far behind Obama's 53% in 2008. This actually speaks volumes when you consider that Obama is not even a year into his first term and the amount of black and young voters that actually turned out to vote was about 5% lower than 2008. Not to mention Obama's presence during the campaigns wasn't enough to push Deed's and Corzine over the finish line. In New Jersey the point spread was a narrow 4%, with Jon Corzine garnering 45%, which was way behind Obama's 57%. By contrast, George Bush won Virginia by 54% in 2004 and Bob McDonnell won by 59% of the vote. In New Jersey, Bush took 46% and Christie squeaked passed that at 49%. Taking these numbers and the issues that concerned voters the most, it seems that democrats were not as optimistic as they were in 2008. When you look at the county break down of both states, you may just notice that more conservatives came out to vote than there were in 2008. Of course it was the indies that voted for Obama in 2008 that shifted sides in both states. The special election in New York's 23rd district is also of interest, despite the fact that Doug Hoffman lost by an extremely narrow margin. This election is a clear message that the GOP is in turmoil between so-called "moderate" Republicans and Conservatives and it has shown just how deep the divide is between the two. To many democrats, it would seem that this tumult is a boon for their party by showing Americans that Conservatives have no tolerance for bipartisanship. What they seem to forget is that the Tea Party movement and the 9/12 Project had a lot to do with what happened in NY-23. What I mean is that once Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race, she did so because Conservatives, Independents and many Republicans pulled their contributions when she showed her true colors. The message sent to the Republican turncoat by voters was one of "Enough is enough. We're not voting for a RINO." And the money dried up. When this happened, she bailed and sided with Bill Owens which, in turn, fractured the rift between Conservatives and Republicans even wider. Even though she dropped out, her name was still on the ballot and took in 5% of the vote. These 5% so-called Republicans decided to go down with the ship, which could have pushed Hoffman over the finish line. Considering the very narrow margin in NY-23, and the sweeping wins in Virginia and New Jersey, it would seem that the tea leaves have spoken and the Independents are speaking loudly of what's to come this time next year. It's also a crystal clear message to Republicans that they need to do some serious soul searching on Republican core values of less government, less spending and individual responsibility. To the democrats who think that the Virginia and New Jersey upsets are of no consequence had best rethink them. Because what you are witnessing is only the beginning of what's to come and you are ignoring it at your peril. Democrats may think that the divide between fake republicans and true conservatives is a win-win scenario in next years mid-term elections, are blind to who actually pushed Mcdonnell and Christie over the finish line. Those would be the Independents and they are mad as Hell. The next election to watch closely is Florida, between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio. As of this writing Rubio has closed the 30% gap by half. Sources Contests serve as warning to Democrats: It's not 2008 anymore A Deathblow for ObamaCare Behind the Democratic Wipeout Democrats, incumbents get wake-up call

An Emergence Of A Third Party? A Political Shot Across The Bow

With the current administration's attempt to "fundamentally transform" this nation and rewriting (destroying) our Constitution, as well as the Republican Party turning its back on their supporters and losing its way, could there be an emergence of a third party?

Watching the campaign in New York's 23rd District, we have seen what the definition of a RINO is, when Dierdre Scozzafava, a democrat in republican's clothing, dropped out an threw her lot in with Bill Owens. What has emerged out of this is a third party candidate, Doug Hoffman who has been running an anti-White House, anti-spending campaign. What some so-called republicans, such as Newt Gingrich, has voiced is one of fear that a third party will reinforce the democrat party by splitting the GOP.

I have two questions for Newt: So what? Have you forgotten what George Washington said? Our Founding Fathers were not stupid and were well aware of the possible issues of our future and constructed our Constitution to address them.

George Washington warned us of the dangers of a two party system in his farewell address:

19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination's. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Why do our nation's leaders constantly ignore our Founding Fathers? A better question to ask is the competence of our leaders in regards to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. I am an average American who has read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to understand why our Founding Fathers felt it was the best way to go for our country.

If Doug Hoffman wins New York's 23rd District race, it will send a shock wave through the White House and send a message to our politicians, republicans in particular that there is no such thing as a "moderate" republican, and his win will be a political shot across the bow that we have had enough of political party over the will of the people.

Someone once asked me what the difference is between a republican and a Conservative. I replied that the two are like a coyote and a Labrador Retriever; they are of the same species, but of a different breed.

Sources:

Third Party Candidates Shake Up Local Races, Send Warning Ahead of 2010

Fiasco: N.Y. Republicans deliver again

Third-Party Challenges in N.J., N.Y. a Warning Sign

Base sends GOP warning shot in NY-23