Did Dick Armey just throw Doug Hoffman under the bus?
This shocker in today's Politico, in which conservative activists reject any notion that they lost NY-23.
Wasn't it Armey himself who described local concerns as "parochial."Armey, the former House GOP majority leader, noted that Democrats had seized on Hoffman’s inability to address local concerns.
“The fact of the matter is, he didn’t pay enough attention to the local concerns, and they were able to tag him as being unaware of the local needs and concerns,” Armey said.
This from the Watertown Daily Times.
Coming to Mr. Hoffman's defense, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who accompanied the candidate on a campaign swing, dismissed regional concerns as "parochial" issues that would not determine the outcome of the election.National conservatives deliberately helped to shape Doug Hoffman into a national symbol, one whose stand on abortion, same-sex marriage and President Obama largely defined him.
For them to complain now that he didn't focus enough on local stuff strikes me as a stretch.
Labels: election09
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/05/2009 06:34:00 AM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
The loss rests on Doug Hoffman for any number of reasons starting with his decision to bolt the Republican Party and run as a Conservative after saying he would support the choice of the selection process. The whole idea of running in another district is unusual and opportunistic. If he runs again I hope it is in his own district, whichever one it is and leaves the good people of NY-23 alone. As for the the Armey comments, the intraparty fighting is just starting. The "true" conservative netroots will not rest until every moderate is defeated and the rank and file moderates are driven from the party.
If Doug had won, just imagine what Dick would have had to say. Doug loses "not my fault", Doug wins "couldn't have done it without me. As for the comment below, remember the last race for the 20th district. The Republican did not live in the 20th district.
2 observations-
#1- Hoffman should have stuck to being a Conservative Party member and declined help from the RNC. Guys like Armey are the problem, not the solution.
#2- Anyone who questions Hoffmans residential location that also voted for Hillary is a hypocrite.
Mr. Armey seems to be suffering from a split personality.
As for residency I'll repeat my prior suggestion. There should not be any campaign contributions from outside the district a candidate is running in and I'll add that the candidate should be a legitimate resident of the district he or she proposes to represent. Maybe then we could have legislators representing the actual voters instead of some national interest group. I believe they call that democracy don't they?
Being such a stickler on residency might make sense if the districts made any sense, but they don't. Is there any reason other than gerrymandering why Lake Placid and Saranac Lake should be in different districts, but Saranac Lake and Oswego, and Lake Placid and Columbia County, are in the same one?
I noted in a post 10 or so days ago that, if Hoffman lost, On Nov 4th Dick Armey, Sarah P. et al, would have lost Doug's phone #.
I have no problem with throwing Doug under the bus...but I'd like to throw Armey there with him.
This is same as what some republicans/conservatives are doing in Florida by "importing" someone who lives outside of the district to oppose Alan Grayson. I'm anxious to see whether the 2010election in Grayson's district yields similar results.
Nathan's right -- a quick glimpse at a map of either the 23rd CD or the 20th CD makes one wonder how those districts were drawn up. But then again, this is upstate New York, and I live in a village that overlaps two counties and three towns...
Blogger Jim said...
" Maybe then we could have legislators representing the actual voters instead of some national interest group. I believe they call that democracy don't they?
November 5, 2009 9:17 AM"
Actually Jim no, that's not a democracy, that would be a Representative Republic which is the form of gov't we're supposed to have. And putting limits on campaign contributions, no matter how distasteful or where they originate (as long as they're legal and not Clintonesque Chinese bribes) are a protected form of political speech. If we're going to place limits on political speech we might as well just trash the whole shebang and adopted Marxism.
Blogger Jim said...
" Maybe then we could have legislators representing the actual voters instead of some national interest group. I believe they call that democracy don't they?
November 5, 2009 9:17 AM"
Actually Jim no, that's not a democracy, that would be a Representative Republic which is the form of gov't we're supposed to have. And putting limits on campaign contributions, no matter how distasteful or where they originate (as long as they're legal and not Clintonesque Chinese bribes) are a protected form of political speech. If we're going to place limits on political speech we might as well just trash the whole shebang and adopted Marxism.
Sorry about the double post- granddaughter distracted me.
Had planned to say "how apropos!" in response to the post but anonymous 11:04am said it so much more humorously.
Post a Comment
<< Home