Scozzafava's ouster spotlights GOP dysfunction

It's better to have a Democrat win the seat than it is to allow an "ideologically impure" Republican in the camp.

Nothing in the GOP except the true believers. Who cares about candidates who appeal to independents in the middle?

That's the best way for the Republicans to operate. Of course I usually vote for Democrats...

The GOP's dysfunction is they have been trying to act like Progressive Democrats.

PooPoo Platter wrote:

It's better to have a Democrat win the seat than it is to allow an "ideologically impure" Republican in the camp.
Nothing in the GOP except the true believers. Who cares about candidates who appeal to independents in the middle?
That's the best way for the Republicans to operate. Of course I usually vote for Democrats...

your usual idiocy...
of course, the fact she's more liberal than that sack-o-shit spector NEVER entered your tiny mind, apparently, niether did her sour grapes endorsement of the democrat. it REEKED of immaturity ...(something YOU are WELL aquainted with!)
she belongs in your ranks...

how about ANOTHER rant on how much nicer chicago is....?
VERY mature!

Space Cowboy wrote:

The GOP's dysfunction is they have been trying to act like Progressive Democrats.

isn't THAT the truth...

PooPoo Platter wrote:

It's better to have a Democrat win the seat than it is to allow an "ideologically impure" Republican in the camp.
Nothing in the GOP except the true believers. Who cares about candidates who appeal to independents in the middle?
That's the best way for the Republicans to operate. Of course I usually vote for Democrats...

The GOP's dysfunction is listening to idiots like poopypants telling we Conservatives/Republicans what our "pure ideology" should be.

Progressivism is the disease of the Dems and a lot of Republicans.

Conservatism is the cure.

2010 is coming.

Space Cowboy wrote:

The GOP's dysfunction is they have been trying to act like Progressive Democrats.

Of course, this argument would hold a lot more water had the Conservative candidate-- who was endorsed by Palin, and feted for three days on FoxNews by Hannity, Beck, et al.-- not LOST the election.

Giving a Dem the first win since Re-Construction.

So if the GOP would be stronger, bigger, and more unified by a return to "true conservatism".... why did this moron get beaten??

Space Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
The GOP's dysfunction is listening to idiots like poopypants telling we Conservatives/Republicans what our "pure ideology" should be.
Progressivism is the disease of the Dems and a lot of Republicans.
Conservatism is the cure.
2010 is coming.

conservatism now is thinking that leave it to beaver is a documentary on american life.

carey529 wrote:

<quoted text>
your usual idiocy...
of course, the fact she's more liberal than that sack-o-shit spector NEVER entered your tiny mind, apparently, niether did her sour grapes endorsement of the democrat. it REEKED of immaturity ...(something YOU are WELL aquainted with!)
she belongs in your ranks...
how about ANOTHER rant on how much nicer chicago is....?
VERY mature!

Chicago is a much better place since you and your family moved away. It's impossible to overstate that.

You leaving Chicago is a great example of addition by subtraction.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course, this argument would hold a lot more water had the Conservative candidate-- who was endorsed by Palin, and feted for three days on FoxNews by Hannity, Beck, et al.-- not LOST the election.
Giving a Dem the first win since Re-Construction.
So if the GOP would be stronger, bigger, and more unified by a return to "true conservatism".... why did this moron get beaten??

Hoffman almost won with just a few days publicity.

Just imagine if he would have had a few weeks. He may have won.

Just wait until 2010, when they run again.

and while i am at it i think they should stop trying to act like reagan. i am still waiting for it to trickle down.

Over a 20 point swing in independents generally last teusday, in favor of the GOP.

PooPoo Platter wrote:

It's better to have a Democrat win the seat than it is to allow an "ideologically impure" Republican in the camp.
Nothing in the GOP except the true believers. Who cares about candidates who appeal to independents in the middle?
That's the best way for the Republicans to operate. Of course I usually vote for Democrats...

PooPoo Platter wrote:

It's better to have a Democrat win the seat than it is to allow an "ideologically impure" Republican in the camp.
Nothing in the GOP except the true believers. Who cares about candidates who appeal to independents in the middle?
That's the best way for the Republicans to operate. Of course I usually vote for Democrats...

Do you ever have any intelligent to say?

The republican was a demoscat, even enodorsed one after polls showed her to be a loser to the 3rd party candidate, so what's the difference between parties dummy. NONE - ROFL!

Scuzzyfaba represented what's wrong with GOB hieracy that nominated her with 12 people in a closed room instead of a special primary.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course, this argument would hold a lot more water had the Conservative candidate-- who was endorsed by Palin, and feted for three days on FoxNews by Hannity, Beck, et al.-- not LOST the election.
Giving a Dem the first win since Re-Construction.
So if the GOP would be stronger, bigger, and more unified by a return to "true conservatism".... why did this moron get beaten??

ROFL! You really are the dumbest poster around.

If the 6000 dumb republicans that voted for scuzzyfaba would have realized she wasn't even in the running anymore, just name on the ballot, those votes would have turned for hoffman and he would have won ... Despite him being a 3rd party candidate with 3 weeks or so of candidacy.

Keep in mind that your demoscat won with LESS THAN HALF of the voters support. That's NOT GOOD Dummy. That seat will be taken by another in 2010 after this short interim period. ROFL!

PooPoo Platter wrote:

It's better to have a Democrat win the seat than it is to allow an "ideologically impure" Republican in the camp.
Nothing in the GOP except the true believers. Who cares about candidates who appeal to independents in the middle?
That's the best way for the Republicans to operate. Of course I usually vote for Democrats...

Many people who vote Republican have wised up. What they got was slightly more conservative progressives who lied through their teeth as the media always extolled their virtues when bipartisian agreements of any kind was passed, Judges were nominated, etc. The nation always seems to move further left even though Republicans were voted in. People wised up. And I am wary of those past political leaders being involved in the new movement also along with making sure any media types on that side are not selling something else to us to keep the movement to world government on track.

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you ever have any intelligent to say?
The republican was a demoscat, even enodorsed one after polls showed her to be a loser to the 3rd party candidate, so what's the difference between parties dummy. NONE - ROFL!
Scuzzyfaba represented what's wrong with GOB hieracy that nominated her with 12 people in a closed room instead of a special primary.

She is a Republican. She would have voted with the Republican leaders. It's a seat that has been Republican many years longer than the Cubs were last World Series Champs. There's no good reason that district's rep should vote yes on health care reform, cap and trade, or whatever else comes up in 2010.

To me, it's manna from heaven.

If I was a Republican, I'd want to win elections and build a governing majority. But that's not my problem, is it?

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>ROFL! You really are the dumbest poster around.
If the 6000 dumb republicans that voted for scuzzyfaba would have realized she wasn't even in the running anymore, just name on the ballot, those votes would have turned for hoffman and he would have won ... Despite him being a 3rd party candidate with 3 weeks or so of candidacy.
Keep in mind that your demoscat won with LESS THAN HALF of the voters support. That's NOT GOOD Dummy. That seat will be taken by another in 2010 after this short interim period. ROFL!

Oh, I see.

I'm dumb because I don't realize that only dumb Repulicans kept this from being a Republican win. Makes sense.

Never mind that EVERY pundit out there was picking the conservative to win... even after Scozzafava dropped out.

Don't believe me? Listen to FoxNews Sunday From November 1st. They spent five minutes talking about it... and even Juan Williams and Mara Liason conceded the Democrat couldn't win.

This was a rejection of interlopers like Palin and Hannity trying to push carpetbaggers in on a platform of intolerance.

But of course I harbor no illusions that you will ever look at anything objectively, or answer honestly.

Space Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Hoffman almost won with just a few days publicity.
Just imagine if he would have had a few weeks. He may have won.
Just wait until 2010, when they run again.

I have no doubt a GOP candidate will win that seat again in 2010.

The only reason one didn't this time was because of the divisive presence of Sarah Palin, and the intrusion of FauxNews.

But I LOVE that you guys think the way to get more votes is to be less open. Great strategy.

It's like saying the way to lose weight is to eat more cookies. Anyone with a brain knows it's a stupid and asinine assertion... but it still makes you feel good while you're cramming your face.

The opposite of Liberal is Conservative.

The Democrats are Liberals.

The Republicans are the opposition, so they should be Conservative.

The dysfunction in the GOP is the presence of Liberals, and the most obvious example of that is this candidate of the Republican party helping the Liberal opposition defeat a Conservative.

Plain and simple.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no doubt a GOP candidate will win that seat again in 2010.
The only reason one didn't this time was because of the divisive presence of Sarah Palin, and the intrusion of FauxNews.
But I LOVE that you guys think the way to get more votes is to be less open. Great strategy.
It's like saying the way to lose weight is to eat more cookies. Anyone with a brain knows it's a stupid and asinine assertion... but it still makes you feel good while you're cramming your face.

Underestimate Sarah Palin at your own risks

Get real wrote:

The opposite of Liberal is Conservative.
The Democrats are Liberals.
The Republicans are the opposition, so they should be Conservative.
The dysfunction in the GOP is the presence of Liberals, and the most obvious example of that is this candidate of the Republican party helping the Liberal opposition defeat a Conservative.
Plain and simple.

Strange that the good, conservative folks of NY-23-- who've been staunchly Republican for generations-- would fall for such a blatant tactic.

You'd think they'd be a lot smarter.

You sure there isn't something else at play, here?