RoR: Forum

Glenn Beck -- The New York Special Election the GOP's ACORN Candidate -- FOX News

Glenn Beck -- The New York Special Election and more architecture metaphors -- FOX News

Post 1

Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 7:53pm

I's say that Sarah Palin had a lot to do with it. Possibly more than Glenn Beck.

Post 2

Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 8:06pm

Okay.

Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 9:26pm

Let's wait for the election returns before we celebrate.

Hoffman was only pulling 31% against 46% for the (combined) liberal candidates prior to the RINO Scozzafava's withdrawal. I don't see where the republican liberal would be all that convincing for her republican followers to throw their support to Hoffman, who jumped ship from the GOP. Could end up a landslide for the democrat.

Post 4

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 7:50am

Hi, Stephen.

The point, so far as I am concerned, is that the liberal Republican will not win. That is what I will celebrate most. The Olympia Snowes of the Republican party do much more damage to the free-market small-government strict-constitutionalist cause than does the Republican Party's being in the minority.

Post 5

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 9:04am

Hi Stephen.

Welcome to RoR. I agree with Ted (any liberalism = collectivism = disaster), but you being new, I should tell you a little about Ted's sordid past.

He used to promote "NeoCons" -- i.e., liberal, big-government, republicans; often of Jewish descent, who play the "God-card" when it works, and the "war" card when it doesn't (and who desperately long for a war over God); who love Woodrow Wilson and FDR; and Plato, Kant, Hegel, Burke, Strauss, and the Noble Lie, and who absolutely hate Sarah Palin (because she is a living example of purity and virtue -- what they merely pretend to be -- and this contrast is obvious and therefore, to them, condemning).

Ed

Post 6

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 9:14am

Ed, are you actually trying to scare away yet another newbie? I am not just talking about Mindy, there are others.

Stephen, Ed may appear insane. And he is. But he's mostly harmless.

Post 7

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 9:48am

Ted,

Who else got scared and why (i.e., should they have been scared)?

Without these details, what you just said is a murky, manipulative cheap-shot. And, according to Phil Osborn, it's the pot calling a kettle black -- because it's likely you've done this yourself.

What, are we all just here to try to get along -- or are we here to dig into real issues (with the instrumental value of trying to get along at the same time)?

Stephen,

Take Ted with a grain of salt.

My eccentricity rubs him the wrong way because he's full-blown crazy (i.e., I remind him of his own insanity). Don't get me wrong, he's smart and funny and all that -- he has great value (and I like him) -- but he rides the line between genius and insanity and though that's preferable to silence, it gets under folks' skin.

As a kinder and gentler version (and slightly more wise) -- I consider myself sort of like "Ted-lite." Expect from me what you come to expect from Ted, but with 20% more light-heartedness.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/01, 9:50am)

Post 8

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 10:02am

Ed, your "let me piss all over the new guy to mark my territory" behavior is inappropriate. Mindy Newton and Jack Garcia are two examples, and I remember others. The point is, you should let people get used to the water before you start splashing them. You are like an all too eager labrador retriever.

Post 9

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 10:28am

Yes, unaffiliated, unorganized protesters bringing down an establishment candidate makes a nice story and I hope to see more like it, but does anyone out there know if Hoffman is worth supporting? All I know from the news stories is that Scozzafava favored abortion and gay marriage, and I'm with her on both counts.

Post 10

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 11:38am

Hoffman is significantly better that the far-left Republican he has toppled, and the fact that he toppled her gives significant impetus to the grassroots movement towards better candidates. But, no, he is not a real prize from a Libertarian or Objectivist position.

Here are his positions:

Opposes stimulus bills passed, but would support a stimulus bill that would "put money in the hands of Americans, that would spend money on captial projects now, not in two to three years."
Only opposes the health care reform because this is not a good time to do it - not in a recession, but not opposed to the idea of insuring everyone.
Would not vote to increase taxes, but said this: "before we even consider raising taxes we must first bring spending under control."
Signed a no pork barrel spending pledge. But when he answers the question of what he would cut he only comes up with pork and wasteful earmarks. As if there were nothing else that we could live without!
He seems somewhat mushy on immigration - doesn't take a strong stand other than saying people should only be here legally, but nothing else.
Not much to say on the two wars - that is, no distinct principled position, beyond saying we are stuck with them now, so we need to continue and we are at war with terrorists.
strongly anti-abortion
Guns: NRA member and a strong advocate of gun rights .
Cap and Trade: strongly opposed - calls it bad legislation.
Tax reform supported: flat tax.
He has signed a number of pledges Americans for tax reform, anti-tax pledge, and 912 candidate pledge. These are good news since they are a little stronger than his web site.
Bank bailouts - opposed, and is on record as opposing the Albany bank bailout.
ACORN - should be defunded.
Gay marriage: opposed

This is all from his web site.

I think his greatest value is in energizing the voters across the country by show-casing how the people in this district ignored the wishes of both parties and went for a better candidate. Obama and the left have inadvertently defined this conflict as Statism versus Capitalism and they have raised the level of concern among the voters to where people are taking action. With the increase of middle-America's concerns, the increasing disillusionment with Obama's direction, this kind of action will empower the voters to be bolder in the 2010 elections.

As a footnote, I'm glad that Newt Gingrich was on the wrong side in this... he needs to grasp that party loyalty is shortly going to be a thing of the past - and a sign of a lack of principle.

Post 11

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 12:27pm

Ted,

Ed, your "let me piss all over the new guy to mark my territory" behavior is inappropriate.

I disagree with your assessment, both in its accuracy and in its spirit.

Mindy Newton and Jack Garcia are two examples, and I remember others.

First of all, thank you for providing examples instead of empty rancor. However, I'm pretty sure that folks lurk before they join. The forum is public. They can see what they are jumping into when they join and participate. It's not like they are taken off-guard.

On that note, it's at least partially wrong to blame me for scaring folks. In the spirit of the recent holiday, it would be like blaming a guy in a Halloween mask for scaring folks -- when they've already seen his face under the mask (or when it's only partially on his face). You could have the exact same criticism of Rand.

I've said all I care to about Mindy. Heck, I even created a thread to confine and to contain it (so that it can be more fully analyzed).

As far as Jack Garcia, he participated in 2 threads -- in both cases I was friendly, communicated a love for ideas, and even used smiley faces to communicate light-heartedness. Now, I was harsh on Descartes' ideas in one thread. And in the other thread, I said things that might be interpreted as being elitist, but here is the kicker: I was light-hearted about it. Now Ted, I have got to ask you:

What in the hell is so scary about smiley faces? What is so wrong with being so harsh on Descartes' ideas? Why is elitist-sounding talk about "levels of Objectivism" -- when mentioned light-heartedly -- off-putting?

The point is, you should let people get used to the water before you start splashing them. You are like an all too eager labrador retriever.

Okay, I think I get it. It can be summed up as: too many smiley faces. What a friggin' storm in a teacup, Ted. Give me a friggin' break.

Ed

Post 12

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 12:47pm

Former GOP Candidate Throws Support to N.Y. Dem

URGENT: Republican Scozzafava puts New York congressional race in turmoil by endorsing Democrat Owens, one day after dropping out of race

Post 13

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 4:34pm

From Ted's link:

Scozzafava:
***************
In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.
***************

This shows how liberalism is a cancer, infecting everything it touches. If I weren't more careful with my words, then I would say that there is a vast, left-wing conspiracy out there pulling all the big strings and "wagging the dog."

The very nature of putting special interests above general wellness (which all liberalism eventually does) is what is both wrong but accepted whole-heartedly by the collectivists.

If, for instance, it was recognized as immoral to put special interests before general wellness -- then it would be clear that public welfare, etc. is immoral. This is true because it harms some folks in order to help others and, in doing so, it decrease the justice in society (and, therefore, the general wellness of society).

Ed

Post 14

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 10:56pm

I think it speaks volumes that Scozzafaza endorsed the Democratic candidate.

Yeah, Hoffman's no prize from a libertarian or Oist perspective, but compared to the big-government Republicans who have wrecked the party's brand name (in particular Bush Jr.), the voters could do worse.

And it would be great to see a genuine third-party candidate (as opposed to, say, the Connecticut For Leiberman party) actually win an election at the national level. Anything to weaken the rule by the duopoly of the Government Statist Party and the Government Statist Party Lite.

Post 15

Monday, November 2, 2009 - 6:19am

Latest FOX poll shows Hoffman with a 15 point lead.

Post 16

Monday, November 2, 2009 - 11:29am

Elections can serve at least three positive purposes:
1) Putting a better person in office,
2) Education of the voters during the campaign, and
3) Sending a message to the political parties and politicians.

So, in an ideal world, we would:
1) Elect only people who truly understood capitalism,
2) Do so in such a way as to make those principles known to the voters, and
3) Only a tiny number of the newly elected would be from an existing party (Libertarians would be end up noticing that none of the wacky or anarchist candidates were elected).

I'm optimistic that we are moving in that direction - certainly not as fast or far as I'd like, but clearly we are going that direction.

Post 17

Monday, November 2, 2009 - 11:35am

More fundamentally, the purpose of terms of office ending in periodic elections is to provide a better means than murder to replace government officials. (God of the Machine, p 23.) But those are nice fringe benefits you mention, Steve.

Post 18

Monday, November 2, 2009 - 12:22pm

The greatest contribution to modern day politics is from far left politicians, along with the grossly ignorant and the morally corrupt politicians of all stripes. They awaken our primal desire to kill them, and that energy is now taking us to the blogs, the streets and the voting booth. They are the crisis we will not let go to waste and they should be thankful that the founding fathers gave them this graceful exit from office - rather than one that involved riding a pole while covered in tar and feathers.

Post 19

Monday, November 2, 2009 - 12:24pm