Almost five years ago, I started my blog, “The Shamgar Report.” One of my main goals was to help promote third party candidates. Since then I have recognized many underdogs, even if I didn’t support their candidacy. After being a Republican loyalist for many years, I came to the conclusion that it was time to look at candidates outside the establishment.
Presently there is a third party candidate who is getting a lot of recognition. Doug Hoffman is running as the Conservative Party candidate for Representative from New York’s 23rd House district. Even with a Republican in the race, Hoffman is getting endorsement form many influential people within the Republican Party. So it now seems that many people who are inside the establishment are looking outside the system for other alternatives.
I will admit that Hoffman’s chances of victory are slim, but his candidacy has brought has opened the eyes of many Republican loyalist. Standing for principle is more important than partisan victories. It is refreshing to see that a few Republican leaders now feel the same way.
The Shamgar Report
October 2009
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
As usual the GOP shoots itself in the foot for what should have been an easy win.
The GOP gave the people some choice ... a choice between Dem and Dem lite (who promises to "be better" in the future).
Whether he wins, the Dem wins, or Dem lite wins .. a message will have been sent.
~~~
Rick,
Mmm... personally that has always sounded to me as if it's a Lib/Dem talking point sent out to try to convince/lead the Repubs to come more and more to the left so that eventually we won't have one party rule intermittently due to vagaries of the electoral process but will actually only be one party, all members of which believe and vote the same on all issues even though they may "call" themselves by different names.
Dems and Repubs (aka Dem-lites). +sigh+
I think the GOP is at a crossroads.
They can either distinguish themselves AS a separate party, deserving of the title of Grand Ol Party, with actual differences of opinion, worldview, and different voting records on issues of the day ... or they can continue on their ill advised path to being Rino-heavy Dem-lite. And Scozzafava is heavily (if not totally) a Dem-lite RINO.
Rick S. Oct 27, 2009, 10:12pm EDT
I heard an interview with him last night. I'm not really clear on how he is "independent". It sounds more like he's basically sticking with the republican party line, and his republican opponent was the independent one who was willing to cross the aisle and part with the establishment on some issues.
Rick,
I also heard him speak and he sounded to me like he was sticking with the Conservative pov, which is not necessarily the Republican pov (as highlighted by their RINO choice of candidate).
She "looks" more like a Democrat than anything else. Is she Republican, is there really a need for a "Republican" party if they are going field candidates who have so little divergence of opinion and worldview from the liberal party platform? +shrug+ I don't know. But these are questions the GOP may need to examine a bit more closely, soon.
and his republican opponent was the independent one who was willing to cross the aisle and part with the establishment on some issues.
Some issues, some of the time. But from what I've read she seems to be with libs on many issues much of time.
However, she may indeed represent what some like to call the "broadening" of the base, widening of the tent, being more inclusive ... bringing in a more diverse membership etc ad infinitum. That she may be. She may be the 'new' kind of Republican so many people are so excited about - a troop of Olympia Snowe's and Susan Collins's. So be it.
But those kinds of "Republicans" will probably no longer get a pass from Conservatives (win or lose in NY) ----- why have two parties who are at heart and foundation so similar? Think about it like this: If classic car buff is given the choice between a classic Mustang and a kit car mustang look alike; which one will he/she go for? The original or the wannabe?
I think I'm convinced.
Do Repubs want to be an original, or a wannabe? Do they want to come along with conservatives or go along with libs.
If Repubs want to reassert their conservative roots ... good for them they are welcome inside OUR tent. If not, that's okay too. They can continue to refine their "lite" platform without us and see how that works for em. Didn't work very well in '08 but .. if that's the direction they want to go, it's their choice. It might work for them.
Rick S. Oct 27, 2009, 10:12pm EDT
I heard an interview with him last night. I'm not really clear on how he is "independent". It sounds more like he's basically sticking with the republican party line, and his republican opponent was the independent one who was willing to cross the aisle and part with the establishment on some issues.
Personally, I believe in giving whole-hearted support to a single largest party that could command a better say in national affairs and politics. This would facilitate decisions and applications. If a party holding majority in numbers dithers for some reason or the other, then I prefer to support it as a responsible citizen and equally shoulder the blame for any deficiency due to party policies, but I would never desert the party for any reason whatsoever. And you may well be aware, politics now-a-days is as much of a myth that can never prove to be a reality. Moreover, I do not see any single individual attaining a position of commanding respect simultaneously from a majority of citizens. In an event where a person may rise to occupy the seta of a Prez, then either the progress would be slow or he may court displeasure of some one party or the other, which could spell doom for his policies. We need to remember that the coalition that forms as an alternative would be people with diverse views and policies. Yes policies matter especially when the administration is in the hands of one single largest party. It is another matter that if at all an individual rose to achieve consensus on various issues, still he would surely lack the capacity to put national policies on a fast-track. This means dividing the minds of general public that would review their decision on entrusting the reins to individuals or third parties. This is a sure way to get back to the original party position. Well, even otherwise, a third party would certainly be a disaster for the nation as has been our experience in India. For one thing, the alternative that emerges to make up the third party would invariably be a caucus consisting of disgruntled elements who would find it difficult to toe one line in the long-run.
Anyway, a very good topic – an experiment towards a diversity – and a very good post. Thanks for it.