Main image
1st November
2009
written by Sean Noble

There has been a lot of buzz about the NY-23 Congressional special election to fill the vacancy left by John McHugh becoming Secretary of the Army.

Initially, GOP party leaders hand-picked a moderate/liberal State legislator who was pro gay marriage, pro choice, anti-gun, etc. This caused some fervor among rank-and-file Republicans and support for the Conservative (there is a Conservative Party in New York with a ballot line) candidate. A number of national Republicans bucked the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee by endorsing the Conservative over the Republican. Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey and others rejected the Republican. Even Republican members of Congress bucked their leadership. Arizona’s own John Shadegg was an early endorser and contributor to the Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.

The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzaffa, pulled a shocker and suspended her campaign, leaving Hoffman to go head-to-head with the Democrat.

The Hill wrote a story about Hoffman’s candidacy potentially being a concern to less-than-conservative incumbents who may face primaries from the right in the upcoming election. I was quoted at the end of the story:

“Now is the time for Republicans to realize that returning to our principles of smaller government, lower taxes, traditional values and more freedom is not only the right thing to do, it will pay huge dividends at the ballot box,” added Sean Noble, a GOP consultant in Arizona. “If party leaders had half a brain they’d jump out in front of this mob and call it a parade.”

In a bizarre twist, the Republican candidate who dropped out, turned around and endorsed the Democrat over the Conservative candidate. This creates a big problem for the GOP leadership, who had put tons of money into the race defending her and hitting the Democrat. For those who endorsed Hoffman, it’s sweet vindication that they did the right thing.

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Comments

  1. Heather
    02/11/2009

    So right; the Dede’s endorsement of the Democrat wasn’t just sweet, it was a lesson. It shows the limitations of view of many establishment Republicans whose only criteria is how someone will vote for Speaker — beyond that it’s someone else’s problem. Eventually, if politicians don’t share our core principles, even if they are listed as R’s, they won’t back or support us, even on purely party matters.

  2. Chelsea
    02/11/2009

    Well put, Sean. Won’t even attempt to add anything as I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  3. Woody
    02/11/2009

    Time to stop calling the RNC and RNCC party leaders and start calling them what they are: entrenched so called elite who want more power–Czars maybe? Is there any doubt many of them would turncoat and endorse a liberal candidate too if they thought it would help them get power?

  4. shannon hunsaker
    02/11/2009

    Sean…do you honestly think that you are in a party that supports less government?
    Less government/more freedom = Patriot Act?
    Family Values = John Ensign, Sarah Palin?
    Iraq war = $684 billion of our tax dollars?

    uh…no wonder people are abandoning the GOP

  5. Randy pullen
    04/11/2009

    There are two sides to this story. Being Chairman of the AZGOP and Treasurer for the RNC, I have seen both sides. On one side, the NY GOP bosses picked Scozzafava. The RNC likes to try and support its state parties. To try and dictate who they should pick flies in the face of what our party stands for. When they tried to do it in Arizona CD8 in 2006, our base was outraged. While the RNC did put some money in NY23, it was not a lot in comparison to other races. A no win situation for the Party.

  6. Matthew
    04/11/2009

    HOORAY!!! Another moderate Republican switching sides! How many more moderates are being pushed out of the Republican party? Over the past 4 years it has been a mass exodus. The Republican base can’t win elections without them, and 2010 will be no different.

  7. Chelsea
    05/11/2009

    Shannon~
    Call me a dumb, misinformed Republican (as I’m sure you have several times already), but I seem to recall that one of the [few…and deliberately so] enumerated powers given to Congress in the Constitution (wait- do people still know what that old document is?) was to manage the defense of our nation. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that spending money on a war against terrorists determined to cripple democracy would, in that case, fall under their jurisdiction and not, in fact, be indicative of a “larger government.”
    Also…I’m totally with you that John Ensign and “family values” aren’t one in the same, but I’d really like to hear how either of those is related to the size of government…

  8. Chelsea
    09/11/2009

    Hahaha. I figured that my questions directed towards Shannon would go unanswered…

Leave a Reply