NY-23, as it’s being called anymore, basically encompasses the northern tip of the state. It includes the towns of Plattsburgh, Ogdensburg, Potsdam, Watertown, Oswego, Fulton, and Oneida. It’s current the largest of New York’s districts in land area, thus it is the most sparsely populated (All of NY’s districts having a 2000 population of around 654,360). As with most small-town/rural communities, the population generally trends conservative, but according to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, it only rates an R+1 (meaning that it voted 1% more Republican than the national average in the last 2 Presidential Elections.) By comparison, the mainly conservative Virginia 1^st District – my home district – is an R+7 and ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal districts have a rating of R or D +20 or more.

So we come to this year’s special election, brought on because President Obama appointed the former Representative, John McHugh (R, NY) to be Secretary of the Army. Because of New York Election Law, the major parties both nominated their candidates by committee, rather than a primary. Dede Scozzafava (R) and Bill Owens (D) were nominated in July and began their campaign.  Doug Hoffman, who had lost the Republican nomination, received the nod from the New York Conservative Party about a month later. In initial polls, Scozzafava had a fair lead over the other two candidates taking between 30 and 35% in three September polls. By Mid-October the polls had swung in favor of Owens primarily because Scozzafava became “indistinguishable” from her Democrat opponent. Scozzafava’s positions on abortion, gay privileges, union card-check, the stimulus, taxes, healthcare, and a host of other issues more resembled President Obama’s positions rather than those of her own party. Senior Republicans, including former Alaska Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin supported Hoffman, the conservative, in favor of Scozzafava, the very liberal Republican. Scozzafava was supported by, among others, the founder of the Daily Kos, the well known leftist blog website.

After endorsements of Hoffman by major Republican figures, Hoffman’s poll numbers took off and Scozzafava’s plummeted. Hoffman and Owens traded leads in the polls throughout October and Scozzafava’s support continued to wane. Finally, on October 31, 4 days before the election, Republican Scozzafava left the race and supported Democrat Owens, in a final stab at the conservative candidate’s back. On the day of the election, Doug Hoffman, a man who had entered the race a month late, lacked the major-party resources of the other candidates, initially even lacked the major party backing, and was on a three-person ballot as the third party still garnered 45.3% of the vote, losing the election by a mere 3.9%. More to the point, Dede Scozzafava, whose name and party were still on the ballot, took 5.5% of the vote, which, most likely, would have gone to Hoffman, and which, if it had, would have put Hoffman over the top, as Owens won only a plurality of votes, not a majority (49.2%).

The Left has been playing this up as (A) a fracturing of the Republican Party, (B) a Republican defeat because they supported the conservative over the “moderate,” and (C) a sign that the conservatives in the Republican Party won’t accept moderates, and will continue to lose elections as a result. As with most Left-wing analyses, this one is both wrong and obviously a politically motivated spin tactic. How is it wrong, you might ask? Well, I’ll tell you.

First off, rather than showing a fracturing of the Republican party, it’s showing a unity of the people that make up the GOP behind the conservative candidate, not just one with an (R) after her name. The party leadership realized that late and threw their support behind the candidate the people favored. With luck, this will indicate to the party leadership that we, the voters, are tired of Republicans who are difficult to distinguish from Democrats. Here’s a hint, if the Daily Kos, the New York Times, or the Washington Post support a Republican candidate, don’t nominate them.

Secondly, the Republicans did not lose the race because they backed a conservative candidate, they lost the race because they initially nominated a liberal one. Had Hoffman been nominated over Scozzafava, this would never have happened, and either Hoffman would have won the two-man race or, if Scozzafava had run as a third-party, she would have sucked votes off of Owens, not Hoffman, because her views were the same as Owens’s.

Thirdly, the analysis relies on Scozzafava being a moderate. Scozzafava leans left both socially and fiscally. She supports abortion, same-sex “marriage”, union card-check, and the Obama stimulus packages, and has been ambiguous on cap-and-trade. About the only truly conservative position I’ve heard of her taking is being against gun-control, hardly surprising in a mainly rural district. Even Democrats know you don’t win elections being anti-gun in hunter territory.

Fourth is the idea that eschewing what the New York Times calls “moderate” Republicans costs the GOP races. That is simply false. George W. Bush won the Presidency twice because he was a social conservative and wanted to cut taxes. Ronald Reagan won the Presidency twice because he was a social conservative and wanted to cut taxes. George H.W. Bush lost the Presidency because he raised taxes and was too easily swayed by the Democrat congress. Bob Dole and John McCain lost their bids for the Presidency because they were too liberal, not because they were too conservative.

Finally, the analysis ignores the other races around the country. It ignores the fact that executive candidates considered “Taliban-esque” conservatives by some media types won 15-18% landslides in Virginia. It ignores the fact that the Republican candidate won in New Jersey, a usual Democrat stronghold. And it ignores the fact that the people of Maine, the home of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, voted against same-sex “Marriage” thus proving once again that given the choice, The People will vote against redefining marriage.

The Republican Party should take two things away from Tuesday’s results. 1. They are not invulnerable and nominating RINOs will not work as well as nominating true conservatives. 2. This is an opportunity not to be wasted. Stir up the Conservative base of the party and 2010 will see a major power shift.

President Obama and his allies in Congress are free to ignore the true message the election in New York – and elsewhere – sends: The Left’s platform is losing favor. But they do so at their own peril.

I live in Virginia, so I’m most familiar with the recent campaigns for Governor, Lt. Gov., and Attorney General in the Commonwealth. If you have lived in a vacuum for the last few hours, it’s possible you do not know that Bob McDonnell (R) defeated Creigh Deeds (D) in the bid for Richmond. What you may not know is that McDonnell won by nearly 250,000 votes or roughly 18% (59-41%). Furthermore, McDonnell’s running mates incumbent Lt. Governor Bill Bolling and Attorney General Elect Ken Cuccinelli (both R) also won by similar (if slightly closer) margins. This election gives us the unusual, though not unprecedented circumstance of having the entire Virginia Executive branch all one party.

I’m not going to be one of those who harp on this being an indictment of President Barack Obama’s policies in particular, though there is some truth to that thought. Instead, I’m going to go with the theme that this is an indictment of the Democratic Party in general, and the results in New Jersey, Maine, and, yes, even New York tend to bear that out.

Right now, in most jurisdictions the Democrats cannot win on the issues. Barack Obama did not win the Presidency because of the issues. He won because the incumbent President was unpopular, because his opponent was weak, because the media played up his charisma and celebrity as much as was physically possible, and because he is black. I’ve said it before – and I’m not the only one – a white man with the same credentials as Senator Obama would never have made it past the Iowa caucuses, and even in the unlikely, but not altogether impossible event that he made it to the general election, he would have lost like Walter Mondale.

Perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to Virginia Democrats was the election of Jim Webb over incumbent Senator George Allen, Jr. 3 years ago. Webb, at a time when the Republican Party was on a down cycle, campaigned primarily on allegations of racism and sexism against Allen. Webb won the election and, so, two of the three Democrats tried the same tactic in this year’s election.

Deeds pulled out McDonnell’s Master’s thesis that apparently said that McDonnell believed women in the workplace was a bad idea. The one issue Deeds used was abortion, showing that McDonnell is a strong anti-abortion believer. So Deeds was calling McDonnell a misogynist. 

Cuccinelli’s opponent, Steve Shannon, called Cuccinelli a “bigot” in his ads, and quoted some newspapers stating that Cuccinelli would discriminate against people who didn’t share Cuccinelli’s view of morality. So Shannon was probably calling Cuccinelli a homophobe. Of course, no evidence was ever proffered to support this slur, but it was out there.

And that brings me to my next point. We heard last week about the football player who was suspended by his team for using “gay slurs” in some “Twitter” posts (never mind that the stories that repeated the slurs had to explain what they meant because no one else ever uses them). Of course people are accused in the media of using racial slurs all the time, as well. So I have a proposal. I realize this isn’t going to get any traction because no one actually reads this stuff, but I’ll throw it out there in case Ann Coulter or Mike Adams are bored one day. So here it goes:

Goodness and Decency win again in the battle against the redefinition of marriage. The news, yesterday was that polls generally showed that the people of Maine favored letting a man “marry” a man. This morning, gays everywhere were surprised (again), dismayed (again), and whining (again) that their goal of wrecking the institution of marriage by redefining it out of existence failed yet again. Gay marriage has failed every time it has come up for a vote from the people. Most importantly it fails in votes by the people in places like the People’s Republic of California, and the home state of Olympia Snowe, neither of which are conservative strongholds. In California it didn’t just fail, it didn’t just fail twice, and it didn’t just fail in a constitutional amendment, it was affirmatively voted against. It wasn’t laws allowing same-sex “marriage” that failed referenda (as was the case in Maine), it was laws disallowing same-sex “marriage” that passed.

The people don’t want same-sex “marriage.” Every time they’ve spoken, they’ve repeated that statement. It is only in states where the people have not been allowed to speak where it exists, and in most of those it was imposed by unelected courts, not even legislators.

Supporters of same-sex “marriage” say it is “inevitable.” It is not. Not as long as people continue to understand the consequences of moral relativism and fight these plans to remake society in the image of depraved minds.