Conservatives vs. Republicans

Politico.com reports that conservatives are gearing up to launch primary challenges against a dozen moderate or liberal incumbent Republicans in next year’s House and Senate elections:

In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.

Conservatives and tea party activists had already set their sights on some of the GOP’s top Senate recruits — a list that includes Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois, among others.

But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.

Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

“What you’re going to see,” said Armey, “is moderates and conservatives across the country in primaries.”

These high-stakes primaries, pitting the activist wing of the party against the establishment wing, stand to have a profound impact on the 2010 election landscape since they will create significant problems for moderate candidates recruited by the national party precisely because they appear well-suited to win in places that are not easily — or even plausibly — won by conservative candidates.

Some liberal pundits are saying, “Good! This will ensure that Republicans are the party of the right, which will alienate voters and cement liberal dominance.” Some conservative pundits are saying, “Good! This will ensure that Republicans are the party of the right, which will give voters a choice against failed liberal policies.”

But this didn’t seem to work very well in New York’s 23 district, did it?

What do you think?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    I think we need to find a way to keep politicians and media pundits out of politics.

  • Tom Hering

    I think we need to find a way to keep politicians and media pundits out of politics.

  • Kirk

    I think it’s going to be devastating for the Republican party. Obviously, when you pit establishment and activists against each other in general elections, the vote gets split. When activists win in primaries (which, I believe, they will in most cases) you drive moderates over to the other side, especially if the democratic candidate is moderate. And I know that there are people who will stand on principle and say “we don’t need moderates,” but, frankly, you do. They decide elections.

  • Kirk

    I think it’s going to be devastating for the Republican party. Obviously, when you pit establishment and activists against each other in general elections, the vote gets split. When activists win in primaries (which, I believe, they will in most cases) you drive moderates over to the other side, especially if the democratic candidate is moderate. And I know that there are people who will stand on principle and say “we don’t need moderates,” but, frankly, you do. They decide elections.

  • Jerry

    It didn’t help Sarah Palin. However, realize the RNC ran thousands of dollars worth of ads against the Conservative candidate early in the campaign.

  • Jerry

    It didn’t help Sarah Palin. However, realize the RNC ran thousands of dollars worth of ads against the Conservative candidate early in the campaign.

  • Matt C.

    This is the perennial accusation against third-party conservatives. It is true that if conservatives assert themselves over and against Republicans, the Democrats may win. What is often forgotten is the equally tragic possibility that if conservatives don’t assert themselves so, the Republicans might win.

    Both parties are devoted to a runaway spending philosophy that will ultimately bankrupt the country. In practice, neither party on the whole is capable of providing even adequate government. There are strong rhetorical differences, and the Republicans certainly have some genuine conservatives in their midst. Nevertheless, they have, in practice, ceased to be a viable alternative to the Democrats. It wasn’t that many years ago that Republicans had a majority in all three branches of government. I’m not sure if Republican voters noticed, but there was no “reformation” of the country. How a party who are virtually defined by their distrust of government have such blind faith in the rhetoric of Republican politicians is beyond me.

    New York 23 obviously didn’t have the best outcome, but what’s been lost? A leftist politician won. If the spoiler hadn’t entered the race, a leftist politician still would have won, regardless of who got the most votes. The choice was between a Democrat and a Republican who ultimately endorsed that same Democrat. At least the spoiler brought a little bit of honesty to the campaign. Seeing as how nothing was lost, that alone is worth something.

  • Matt C.

    This is the perennial accusation against third-party conservatives. It is true that if conservatives assert themselves over and against Republicans, the Democrats may win. What is often forgotten is the equally tragic possibility that if conservatives don’t assert themselves so, the Republicans might win.

    Both parties are devoted to a runaway spending philosophy that will ultimately bankrupt the country. In practice, neither party on the whole is capable of providing even adequate government. There are strong rhetorical differences, and the Republicans certainly have some genuine conservatives in their midst. Nevertheless, they have, in practice, ceased to be a viable alternative to the Democrats. It wasn’t that many years ago that Republicans had a majority in all three branches of government. I’m not sure if Republican voters noticed, but there was no “reformation” of the country. How a party who are virtually defined by their distrust of government have such blind faith in the rhetoric of Republican politicians is beyond me.

    New York 23 obviously didn’t have the best outcome, but what’s been lost? A leftist politician won. If the spoiler hadn’t entered the race, a leftist politician still would have won, regardless of who got the most votes. The choice was between a Democrat and a Republican who ultimately endorsed that same Democrat. At least the spoiler brought a little bit of honesty to the campaign. Seeing as how nothing was lost, that alone is worth something.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Maybe at some point the Republican Party, having purged the heretics from its ranks, can turn into a persecution-happy sect for which rejection at the polls is a blessing that only further proves how pure they are?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Maybe at some point the Republican Party, having purged the heretics from its ranks, can turn into a persecution-happy sect for which rejection at the polls is a blessing that only further proves how pure they are?

  • rlewer

    Hoffman was not a good candidate not matter what his ideolgy. He did not know the area well and did not communicate that well.

    Conservatives also have to be good politicians to win.

  • rlewer

    Hoffman was not a good candidate not matter what his ideolgy. He did not know the area well and did not communicate that well.

    Conservatives also have to be good politicians to win.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Republicans across the country ought to study Bob McConnell’s Virginia campaign. He held to a strong conservative view on abortion and gay “marriage” while placing main emphasis on fiscally conservative measures at both the state and national levels. He hammered his opponent on the fiscal-”stimulus” bill, Cap and Trade, Obama-Care,and Card Check. He, also, projected a genuine and certain humility along with rejecting splashy, self-serving assistance from Palin and Limbaugh.

    The Democrats, so far, seem not to understand that many independent voters have rejected the Obama/Reid/Pelosi far-left planks on which loyal Democrats are expected to walk overboard.
    David Brooks, a former Obama supporter, writes about the political reality that the liberals face:

    I’m sticking to my guns. This election reminded us of a couple truths. One, that there are twice as many conservatives in this country as liberals, and only one-fifth of the people in the country considers themselves liberal. This means that 80 percent of the people are inclined to be skeptical of government and worried by federal haste and exploding debt.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Republicans across the country ought to study Bob McConnell’s Virginia campaign. He held to a strong conservative view on abortion and gay “marriage” while placing main emphasis on fiscally conservative measures at both the state and national levels. He hammered his opponent on the fiscal-”stimulus” bill, Cap and Trade, Obama-Care,and Card Check. He, also, projected a genuine and certain humility along with rejecting splashy, self-serving assistance from Palin and Limbaugh.

    The Democrats, so far, seem not to understand that many independent voters have rejected the Obama/Reid/Pelosi far-left planks on which loyal Democrats are expected to walk overboard.
    David Brooks, a former Obama supporter, writes about the political reality that the liberals face:

    I’m sticking to my guns. This election reminded us of a couple truths. One, that there are twice as many conservatives in this country as liberals, and only one-fifth of the people in the country considers themselves liberal. This means that 80 percent of the people are inclined to be skeptical of government and worried by federal haste and exploding debt.

  • DonS

    Um, isn’t this what the primary process is for? So that each party can determine who its general election candidates will be? As I said yesterday, it’s touching that all of these liberals are so concerned about the future of the Republican party, buy why don’t you let those of us who are Republicans worry about that? And, again, what happened to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut? Oh, yeah, liberal party activists ran a guy named Ned Lamont against him BECAUSE THEY DEEMED JOE LIEBERMAN TO BE TOO MODERATE! How, exactly, is that different, and why are you liberals not wringing your hands over those activists? Kirk? tODD?

    NY-23 was a unique event, because as a special election, inside party bosses usurped the will of the Republican voters and nominated a liberal unionist. The voters rebelled. Good for them.

    Now, here’s the key. When the primary is over, no matter who wins, it is important for the party to coalesce around the general election candidate. If the loser of the primary is a sore loser, and goes and runs a third party or write-in campaign, these are the things that damage a party and assist in electing candidates of the other party.

  • DonS

    Um, isn’t this what the primary process is for? So that each party can determine who its general election candidates will be? As I said yesterday, it’s touching that all of these liberals are so concerned about the future of the Republican party, buy why don’t you let those of us who are Republicans worry about that? And, again, what happened to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut? Oh, yeah, liberal party activists ran a guy named Ned Lamont against him BECAUSE THEY DEEMED JOE LIEBERMAN TO BE TOO MODERATE! How, exactly, is that different, and why are you liberals not wringing your hands over those activists? Kirk? tODD?

    NY-23 was a unique event, because as a special election, inside party bosses usurped the will of the Republican voters and nominated a liberal unionist. The voters rebelled. Good for them.

    Now, here’s the key. When the primary is over, no matter who wins, it is important for the party to coalesce around the general election candidate. If the loser of the primary is a sore loser, and goes and runs a third party or write-in campaign, these are the things that damage a party and assist in electing candidates of the other party.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    You can argue it two ways; that “outing” the NARAL candidate lost a GOP seat, or that the conservative candidate came out of nowhere to nearly win.

    I don’t know that the NARAL candidate was polling well, to be honest, and quite frankly, exactly what is the difference between one candidate endorsed by NARAL and another?

    Quite frankly, if the real attitudes of NARAL candidates are made known well–including those of our President–I don’t think the NARAL candidates will be winning many elections. There is a not too subtle difference between the idea that prenatal infanticide should be legal for difficult situations, and the idea of abortion on demand.

    This is especially the case if and when people really start making public what NARAL and Planned Parenthood believe about sexuality. The “Teenwire” web site is one that should be shown to EVERY politician who wants to fund Planned Parenthood. Some of the stuff in there would make a hooker blush.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    You can argue it two ways; that “outing” the NARAL candidate lost a GOP seat, or that the conservative candidate came out of nowhere to nearly win.

    I don’t know that the NARAL candidate was polling well, to be honest, and quite frankly, exactly what is the difference between one candidate endorsed by NARAL and another?

    Quite frankly, if the real attitudes of NARAL candidates are made known well–including those of our President–I don’t think the NARAL candidates will be winning many elections. There is a not too subtle difference between the idea that prenatal infanticide should be legal for difficult situations, and the idea of abortion on demand.

    This is especially the case if and when people really start making public what NARAL and Planned Parenthood believe about sexuality. The “Teenwire” web site is one that should be shown to EVERY politician who wants to fund Planned Parenthood. Some of the stuff in there would make a hooker blush.

  • Joe

    It is not only good, it is what is supposed to happen. That is what primaries are for. I think that the take away from all of the electiosn is that people are not sold on Obama’s economic plan and that running fiscally conservative candidates is going to pay dividends. Social copnservatism is great but this mid-term election is going to be about the economy and what level of gov’t control/intervention people are willing to put up with.

  • Joe

    It is not only good, it is what is supposed to happen. That is what primaries are for. I think that the take away from all of the electiosn is that people are not sold on Obama’s economic plan and that running fiscally conservative candidates is going to pay dividends. Social copnservatism is great but this mid-term election is going to be about the economy and what level of gov’t control/intervention people are willing to put up with.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Speaking of a persecution-happy sect, an Obama senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is muttering about speaking truth to Fox power from the White House no less.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Speaking of a persecution-happy sect, an Obama senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is muttering about speaking truth to Fox power from the White House no less.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@8), have some chamomile tea. Please.

    “Why don’t you let those of us who are Republicans worry about [the future of the Republican party]?” It’s not exactly something that keeps me up at night, but why does it bother you so that non-Republicans comment on it? It’s not exactly as if you’ve never had any comments about the direction of the Democratic Party, is it?

    “Liberal party activists ran a guy named Ned Lamont against him BECAUSE THEY DEEMED JOE LIEBERMAN TO BE TOO MODERATE! How, exactly, is that different?” Well, let’s count the ways. (1) Ned Lamont ran against Lieberman in an actual Democratic primary (there was no primary in NY-23). (2) Lieberman, the moderate, lost that primary (in NY-23, the moderate got fewer votes in the election). (3) Lieberman, the moderate, then ran as an independent (the moderate was the party candidate in NY-23). (4) Lieberman, the moderate, won that election (in NY-23, the non-major-party-backed candidate lost), though he has caucused with the Democrats. (5) Connecticut has voted fairly Democratic since at least the 90s, and did not elect the Republican candidate in that election (NY-23 has voted Republican since at least the 90s, but did elect a Democrat in that election). (6) All this took place in an election in which Democrats swept back into power in Congress (the NY-23 election took place in an off-year, and did not result in any sweeping changes).

    In short, Don, while the extremist faction that got Lamont nominated won in the primary, they were repudiated in the general election. And they did not lose their party a seat as far as the caucus is concerned. But the extremist faction that got Scozzafava to leave caused their party to lose a seat, and yet seems to consider it a victory because of that.

    “Inside party bosses usurped the will of the Republican voters and nominated a liberal unionist”. Oh, good grief. It was a special election. New York law doesn’t provide for a primary election in special House elections. As such, the party picks the candidate it wants. “Usurped the will of the voters”. Please.

    “If the loser of the primary is a sore loser, and goes and runs a third party or write-in campaign, these are the things that damage a party.” Right, just like Lieberman doing exactly that damaged the Democratic Party in 2006. O, just look how they’ve fallen from power since then!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@8), have some chamomile tea. Please.

    “Why don’t you let those of us who are Republicans worry about [the future of the Republican party]?” It’s not exactly something that keeps me up at night, but why does it bother you so that non-Republicans comment on it? It’s not exactly as if you’ve never had any comments about the direction of the Democratic Party, is it?

    “Liberal party activists ran a guy named Ned Lamont against him BECAUSE THEY DEEMED JOE LIEBERMAN TO BE TOO MODERATE! How, exactly, is that different?” Well, let’s count the ways. (1) Ned Lamont ran against Lieberman in an actual Democratic primary (there was no primary in NY-23). (2) Lieberman, the moderate, lost that primary (in NY-23, the moderate got fewer votes in the election). (3) Lieberman, the moderate, then ran as an independent (the moderate was the party candidate in NY-23). (4) Lieberman, the moderate, won that election (in NY-23, the non-major-party-backed candidate lost), though he has caucused with the Democrats. (5) Connecticut has voted fairly Democratic since at least the 90s, and did not elect the Republican candidate in that election (NY-23 has voted Republican since at least the 90s, but did elect a Democrat in that election). (6) All this took place in an election in which Democrats swept back into power in Congress (the NY-23 election took place in an off-year, and did not result in any sweeping changes).

    In short, Don, while the extremist faction that got Lamont nominated won in the primary, they were repudiated in the general election. And they did not lose their party a seat as far as the caucus is concerned. But the extremist faction that got Scozzafava to leave caused their party to lose a seat, and yet seems to consider it a victory because of that.

    “Inside party bosses usurped the will of the Republican voters and nominated a liberal unionist”. Oh, good grief. It was a special election. New York law doesn’t provide for a primary election in special House elections. As such, the party picks the candidate it wants. “Usurped the will of the voters”. Please.

    “If the loser of the primary is a sore loser, and goes and runs a third party or write-in campaign, these are the things that damage a party.” Right, just like Lieberman doing exactly that damaged the Democratic Party in 2006. O, just look how they’ve fallen from power since then!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Whoops, point 2 up there (@12) doesn’t make sense. How about this:

    (2) Lieberman, the moderate, lost that major-party primary (the moderate was the party candidate in NY-23). (3) Lieberman, the moderate, then ran as an independent (in NY-23, the extremist left his party and ran as an independent).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Whoops, point 2 up there (@12) doesn’t make sense. How about this:

    (2) Lieberman, the moderate, lost that major-party primary (the moderate was the party candidate in NY-23). (3) Lieberman, the moderate, then ran as an independent (in NY-23, the extremist left his party and ran as an independent).

  • DonS

    tODD @ 12/13: Well, that was a nice speech. Glad you got that off your chest.

    However, you missed the whole point of the post. NY-23 was yesterday’s news, and, as I noted above, a one-time anomaly. Dr. Veith posted about PRIMARIES next year, and that was what you and Kirk originally responded to. The Lieberman situation is right on point — liberal Democrats didn’t think Lieberman was liberal enough, so challenged him in a PRIMARY. Now, conservative Republicans are planning to challenge some Republican office holders they deem not conservative enough in PRIMARIES next year. Democrats are wringing their hands about Republicans purging moderates from their party, but seem to have no concern when Democrats do the same.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 12/13: Well, that was a nice speech. Glad you got that off your chest.

    However, you missed the whole point of the post. NY-23 was yesterday’s news, and, as I noted above, a one-time anomaly. Dr. Veith posted about PRIMARIES next year, and that was what you and Kirk originally responded to. The Lieberman situation is right on point — liberal Democrats didn’t think Lieberman was liberal enough, so challenged him in a PRIMARY. Now, conservative Republicans are planning to challenge some Republican office holders they deem not conservative enough in PRIMARIES next year. Democrats are wringing their hands about Republicans purging moderates from their party, but seem to have no concern when Democrats do the same.

  • DonS

    Now, tODD, let’s get back to NY-23, to address a couple of your points as you continue yesterday’s thread on that unique election:

    1) Yes, NY-23 was a special election, not requiring a primary. But, it is incumbent on local party leaders to nominate a candidate acceptable to their local party voters. This obviously did not happen. Before she quit, she was in third place in the polls, in a three-way race, in a Republican majority district. Before Hoffman inserted himself into the race, she was losing to Owens in a two-way race. The breakdown was in local party leadership, not with conservative activists.

    2) The Republicans lost NY-23, likely temporarily. They considred this to be a worthwhile gambit, because they were likely to lose it anyway (Scozzafava was trailing in the two-way polls against Owens), and because she was so unreliable that they didn’t want to install her in the seat. They are gambling that 2010 is going to be a strong Republican year, and that they will be able to take the seat back in a normal election year race, with a proper primary and appropriate candidate vetting.

    3) Your last paragraph is probably very premature, for at least two reasons. One, yes Leiberman is still in the Senate and he caucuses with the Democrats. But, he now feels no loyalty to them. Look at his support for McCain in 2008, and his threat to filibuster any health care bill that includes a “public option”. He’s off the reservation, and the Democratic leadership can’t control him, because he won his 2006 race as an independent. Two, let’s re-visit your cynical statement “O, just look how they’ve fallen from power since then!” after the 2010 elections. The jury is definitely out on the Democrats’ long term hold on power, given its current lack of moderation.

  • DonS

    Now, tODD, let’s get back to NY-23, to address a couple of your points as you continue yesterday’s thread on that unique election:

    1) Yes, NY-23 was a special election, not requiring a primary. But, it is incumbent on local party leaders to nominate a candidate acceptable to their local party voters. This obviously did not happen. Before she quit, she was in third place in the polls, in a three-way race, in a Republican majority district. Before Hoffman inserted himself into the race, she was losing to Owens in a two-way race. The breakdown was in local party leadership, not with conservative activists.

    2) The Republicans lost NY-23, likely temporarily. They considred this to be a worthwhile gambit, because they were likely to lose it anyway (Scozzafava was trailing in the two-way polls against Owens), and because she was so unreliable that they didn’t want to install her in the seat. They are gambling that 2010 is going to be a strong Republican year, and that they will be able to take the seat back in a normal election year race, with a proper primary and appropriate candidate vetting.

    3) Your last paragraph is probably very premature, for at least two reasons. One, yes Leiberman is still in the Senate and he caucuses with the Democrats. But, he now feels no loyalty to them. Look at his support for McCain in 2008, and his threat to filibuster any health care bill that includes a “public option”. He’s off the reservation, and the Democratic leadership can’t control him, because he won his 2006 race as an independent. Two, let’s re-visit your cynical statement “O, just look how they’ve fallen from power since then!” after the 2010 elections. The jury is definitely out on the Democrats’ long term hold on power, given its current lack of moderation.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Don, Todd, like most Democrats, bruised and frightened by the recent election, is clinging to the notion that there is a war going on between the bad Neanderthal conservatives and the Republican moderates.

    Mary Matalin sums this up nicely in an NRO piece, Republican Civil War?, including:

    The most insistent claimants of a GOP civil war are those who have the most to gain by (mis)defining the party as extremist-excluders. Though Democrats outnumber Republicans, independents outnumber Democrats. Neither party can win without independents. The problem for Democrats is that indies consistently self-identify as conservative, intensely oppose Obama’s general big-government worldview, and also oppose his individual priority policies (stimulus, health care). Because Democrats repel indies on policy, they must attract them on politics, that is, the politics of destruction of the opposition.

    The Dems, including Todd, unable to defend Obama’s policies, are now involved in a blatant though futile effort to vilify the Republican right.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Don, Todd, like most Democrats, bruised and frightened by the recent election, is clinging to the notion that there is a war going on between the bad Neanderthal conservatives and the Republican moderates.

    Mary Matalin sums this up nicely in an NRO piece, Republican Civil War?, including:

    The most insistent claimants of a GOP civil war are those who have the most to gain by (mis)defining the party as extremist-excluders. Though Democrats outnumber Republicans, independents outnumber Democrats. Neither party can win without independents. The problem for Democrats is that indies consistently self-identify as conservative, intensely oppose Obama’s general big-government worldview, and also oppose his individual priority policies (stimulus, health care). Because Democrats repel indies on policy, they must attract them on politics, that is, the politics of destruction of the opposition.

    The Dems, including Todd, unable to defend Obama’s policies, are now involved in a blatant though futile effort to vilify the Republican right.

  • Kirk

    Don, here’s what you’re failing to comprehend: Leiberman won because he was moderate, not because he broke from his party. He simply appealed to a greater group of interests. Perhaps he was no one’s perfect candidate, but he simultaneously appealed to his base AND to more conservative voters. Accordingly, he was deemed to be the most representative of the viewpoints of his state and was elected to office. His liberal counterpart, Ned Lamont, on the other hand, failed to appeal to the broader base, and lost.

    In New York, Hoffman lost for much the reason as Lamont. He came out against Owens, a very moderate democrat (he opposed gay marriage and the public option), rallied the conservative base, scared the moderate Republicans off and ultimately was beaten. Now, I realize that Hoffman was a little behind on campaigning, and I acknowledge that that may have had some effect on his defeat, but I’d wager that the results in that district would have been much the same if he had began the race where Scozzafava had.

    I’m guessing that the same will happen in other states in the years to come, only that it will be worse because the Democrats will see it coming this time. All that they need to do to steal seats is to push moderate candidates that will pull traditionally Republican voters disaffected by the activist branch. Not all Republicans are culture warriors. So, you can stand on principle all you want, but if you hope to see someone that even remotely reflects your ideology representing you, you need to pick your battles and quit throwing tea-bags at everyone. “Going rogue” won’t help the Republican party at all.

  • Kirk

    Don, here’s what you’re failing to comprehend: Leiberman won because he was moderate, not because he broke from his party. He simply appealed to a greater group of interests. Perhaps he was no one’s perfect candidate, but he simultaneously appealed to his base AND to more conservative voters. Accordingly, he was deemed to be the most representative of the viewpoints of his state and was elected to office. His liberal counterpart, Ned Lamont, on the other hand, failed to appeal to the broader base, and lost.

    In New York, Hoffman lost for much the reason as Lamont. He came out against Owens, a very moderate democrat (he opposed gay marriage and the public option), rallied the conservative base, scared the moderate Republicans off and ultimately was beaten. Now, I realize that Hoffman was a little behind on campaigning, and I acknowledge that that may have had some effect on his defeat, but I’d wager that the results in that district would have been much the same if he had began the race where Scozzafava had.

    I’m guessing that the same will happen in other states in the years to come, only that it will be worse because the Democrats will see it coming this time. All that they need to do to steal seats is to push moderate candidates that will pull traditionally Republican voters disaffected by the activist branch. Not all Republicans are culture warriors. So, you can stand on principle all you want, but if you hope to see someone that even remotely reflects your ideology representing you, you need to pick your battles and quit throwing tea-bags at everyone. “Going rogue” won’t help the Republican party at all.

  • DonS

    Kirk @ 17: I’m not “failing to comprehend” that point. Not at all. What you and tODD are “failing to comprehend” is that this thread is discussing the primaries next year, and the intentions of some conservative activists to challenge sitting moderate Republican office holders. In your opinion, you believe that this action will be “devastating” to the Republican party, even though the very purpose of primaries is to permit the members of a particular political party to have a choice between party candidates who best represent their views. All I was doing was pointing out that the same thing goes on in the Democratic party, as evidenced by the 2006 Senate election in Connecticut. And, by your very admission, it did not “devastate” the Democratic party.

    So, thank you for making my point.

  • DonS

    Kirk @ 17: I’m not “failing to comprehend” that point. Not at all. What you and tODD are “failing to comprehend” is that this thread is discussing the primaries next year, and the intentions of some conservative activists to challenge sitting moderate Republican office holders. In your opinion, you believe that this action will be “devastating” to the Republican party, even though the very purpose of primaries is to permit the members of a particular political party to have a choice between party candidates who best represent their views. All I was doing was pointing out that the same thing goes on in the Democratic party, as evidenced by the 2006 Senate election in Connecticut. And, by your very admission, it did not “devastate” the Democratic party.

    So, thank you for making my point.

  • http://therighthandoffellowship.blogspot.com John H. Guthrie

    If the desertion of the Republican base by Conservatives to vote for Conservative Democrats in 2006 doesn’t teach the Republican establishment, nothing will. It may take a Conservative President to purge as many of these unreliable party officials from positions of power as much as primary challenges to change the situation. I assume these establishment types within the party are doing nothing to correct the party rules allowing Democrats to cross over and choose our Presidential nominee as they did last time.

  • http://therighthandoffellowship.blogspot.com John H. Guthrie

    If the desertion of the Republican base by Conservatives to vote for Conservative Democrats in 2006 doesn’t teach the Republican establishment, nothing will. It may take a Conservative President to purge as many of these unreliable party officials from positions of power as much as primary challenges to change the situation. I assume these establishment types within the party are doing nothing to correct the party rules allowing Democrats to cross over and choose our Presidential nominee as they did last time.

  • DonS

    Now, Kirk @ 17, as to your latter comments, concerning “tea bags”, please note that the disparaging reference to those in the “Tea Party” movement as “tea baggers” (a vulgar sexual reference), was apparently instituted by one of our “right down the middle” mainstream journalists, Anderson Cooper.

    As to the Tea Party movement, it has nothing to do with the “culture warrior” issues you address, nor is it Republican. It is solely directed to fiscal conservatism, which Republican moderates typically claim to embrace, so true Republican moderates should have nothing to fear from the Tea Party movement. Scozzafava was no moderate. She was a hard core liberal, supportive of card check and many of the other fiscally liberal policies being promoted by the Democrats currently controlling Congress.

  • DonS

    Now, Kirk @ 17, as to your latter comments, concerning “tea bags”, please note that the disparaging reference to those in the “Tea Party” movement as “tea baggers” (a vulgar sexual reference), was apparently instituted by one of our “right down the middle” mainstream journalists, Anderson Cooper.

    As to the Tea Party movement, it has nothing to do with the “culture warrior” issues you address, nor is it Republican. It is solely directed to fiscal conservatism, which Republican moderates typically claim to embrace, so true Republican moderates should have nothing to fear from the Tea Party movement. Scozzafava was no moderate. She was a hard core liberal, supportive of card check and many of the other fiscally liberal policies being promoted by the Democrats currently controlling Congress.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@14), clearly it is incumbent on you to write your comments so I cannot misconstrue them, and so waste my time rebutting an argument you weren’t making. :p

    And while Veith did mention “PRIMARIES next year” in this post, he also mentioned NY-23. That’s what I was thinking about in my post (@5), which I hope was obvious wasn’t all that serious, nor meant to be predictive (please note the verb tenses).

    Anyhow, I’m not sure why you want to favorably compare your “conservative Republican” tea partiers to the “liberal Democrats” that backed Lamont since, again, Lamont lost.

    But again, I’m not “wringing my hands” over this. Let the armey of tea partiers purge the impure from among their ranks. If it works, we may actually get a conservative Republican party. That’d be nice. If it fails, I still get to eat my popcorn and enjoy the show.

    As for 2010, I’m not expecting the Democrats to do well then, because the political pendulum has been swinging left for too long. But I don’t think that election will have anything to do with how the party dealt with Lieberman in 2006, as you apparently do.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@14), clearly it is incumbent on you to write your comments so I cannot misconstrue them, and so waste my time rebutting an argument you weren’t making. :p

    And while Veith did mention “PRIMARIES next year” in this post, he also mentioned NY-23. That’s what I was thinking about in my post (@5), which I hope was obvious wasn’t all that serious, nor meant to be predictive (please note the verb tenses).

    Anyhow, I’m not sure why you want to favorably compare your “conservative Republican” tea partiers to the “liberal Democrats” that backed Lamont since, again, Lamont lost.

    But again, I’m not “wringing my hands” over this. Let the armey of tea partiers purge the impure from among their ranks. If it works, we may actually get a conservative Republican party. That’d be nice. If it fails, I still get to eat my popcorn and enjoy the show.

    As for 2010, I’m not expecting the Democrats to do well then, because the political pendulum has been swinging left for too long. But I don’t think that election will have anything to do with how the party dealt with Lieberman in 2006, as you apparently do.

  • Kirk

    Don, before accusing me of vulgarity, remember that the very first tea-party protest consisted of individuals attempting to mail tea bags to the White House (which was referred to as “tea bag[ing]” the White House, as reported by Griff Jenkins of FOX news: http://www.buzzfeed.com/akdobbins/tea-bag-the-white-house) and an April 14 protest here in DC consisted of activists tossing tea bags over the fence of the White House. I didn’t mean to be crude. I was speaking quite literally.

    As for the primaries, yes, that is exactly what they’re for. But, in choosing representatives, an important factor to consider is your candidate’s electability, in addition to his view points. If you select a tea-party type in your primaries, fine. He’ll lose in the general election because the more liberal wing of the Republican party will defect. You may share your candidate’s viewpoints, but, it stands to reason that if he can’t actually get into office, he’s not going to represent you very well.

    I do genuinely feel that the activist branch of the Republicans will win out in the primaries. They’ve got an absurd amount of energy and they’ll turn out in force for their candidate. I just don’t see very many activists actually making it into office because I think the Democrats are smart enough and organized enough to offer moderate alternatives. Here’s all that I’m saying: as (I’m assuming) someone who leans more towards the activist/tea party side, you have two options. Make a statement by choosing a conservative candidate in the primaries; or elect a more moderate republican actually have him get into office.

    As for the culture warrior aspect of the tea parties, it’s something that I’ve been observing taking hold at the protests. I work in downtown DC, so I see a fair number of these protesters. I know that the demonstrations are organized in response to taxation and healthcare, but I see a ton of “we need a Christian in office”/”Homosexuality is wrong”/”Obama is the anti-Christ”/”Jesus is Lord”/anti-Immigration/judgment is coming type of signs. It’s becoming a rally point for social conservative, probably because it gives them a public outlet.

  • Kirk

    Don, before accusing me of vulgarity, remember that the very first tea-party protest consisted of individuals attempting to mail tea bags to the White House (which was referred to as “tea bag[ing]” the White House, as reported by Griff Jenkins of FOX news: http://www.buzzfeed.com/akdobbins/tea-bag-the-white-house) and an April 14 protest here in DC consisted of activists tossing tea bags over the fence of the White House. I didn’t mean to be crude. I was speaking quite literally.

    As for the primaries, yes, that is exactly what they’re for. But, in choosing representatives, an important factor to consider is your candidate’s electability, in addition to his view points. If you select a tea-party type in your primaries, fine. He’ll lose in the general election because the more liberal wing of the Republican party will defect. You may share your candidate’s viewpoints, but, it stands to reason that if he can’t actually get into office, he’s not going to represent you very well.

    I do genuinely feel that the activist branch of the Republicans will win out in the primaries. They’ve got an absurd amount of energy and they’ll turn out in force for their candidate. I just don’t see very many activists actually making it into office because I think the Democrats are smart enough and organized enough to offer moderate alternatives. Here’s all that I’m saying: as (I’m assuming) someone who leans more towards the activist/tea party side, you have two options. Make a statement by choosing a conservative candidate in the primaries; or elect a more moderate republican actually have him get into office.

    As for the culture warrior aspect of the tea parties, it’s something that I’ve been observing taking hold at the protests. I work in downtown DC, so I see a fair number of these protesters. I know that the demonstrations are organized in response to taxation and healthcare, but I see a ton of “we need a Christian in office”/”Homosexuality is wrong”/”Obama is the anti-Christ”/”Jesus is Lord”/anti-Immigration/judgment is coming type of signs. It’s becoming a rally point for social conservative, probably because it gives them a public outlet.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “Todd, like most Democrats, [is] bruised and frightened by the recent election.”

    By Jove, Peter (@16), it’s like you’ve a type of telescopic device implanted in my private chamber, such is the acumen of the observations you make on my very mental state! It’s rather like that article you’ve recently read says — in fact, it is always exactly like that article you’ve recently read says! And here I thought my dithering was known only to the chambermaid!

    O brave Peter, who knows all of my inmost fears and voting habits, vouchsafe to use your insight only for that which is good and Right! Please do not despise the cojones of this lowly Tar Baby.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “Todd, like most Democrats, [is] bruised and frightened by the recent election.”

    By Jove, Peter (@16), it’s like you’ve a type of telescopic device implanted in my private chamber, such is the acumen of the observations you make on my very mental state! It’s rather like that article you’ve recently read says — in fact, it is always exactly like that article you’ve recently read says! And here I thought my dithering was known only to the chambermaid!

    O brave Peter, who knows all of my inmost fears and voting habits, vouchsafe to use your insight only for that which is good and Right! Please do not despise the cojones of this lowly Tar Baby.

  • Cincinnatus

    My $.02:

    Republicans now find themselves in roughly the same position as did the Democratic party when Reagan swept into office in 1980. The liberal activists (the “new left”) at the time began to appear increasingly ridiculous and irrelevant while at the same time ruining elections for the reasonable wing of the Democratic party. Obviously, the Democrats recovered in a couple of decades. It will be interesting to see whether the same thing happens here: will Republicans drift centerward and begin winning elections again or will they fracture into two sects? The decay of the Reagan coalition is presenting Republicans with some interesting problems, as we are now witnessing.

  • Cincinnatus

    My $.02:

    Republicans now find themselves in roughly the same position as did the Democratic party when Reagan swept into office in 1980. The liberal activists (the “new left”) at the time began to appear increasingly ridiculous and irrelevant while at the same time ruining elections for the reasonable wing of the Democratic party. Obviously, the Democrats recovered in a couple of decades. It will be interesting to see whether the same thing happens here: will Republicans drift centerward and begin winning elections again or will they fracture into two sects? The decay of the Reagan coalition is presenting Republicans with some interesting problems, as we are now witnessing.

  • Trey

    It did work though. The reason the Conservative didn’t win is because the RINO dropped out 3 days prior to the election, which left all those absentee and mail in ballots stuck with a vote for her.

  • Trey

    It did work though. The reason the Conservative didn’t win is because the RINO dropped out 3 days prior to the election, which left all those absentee and mail in ballots stuck with a vote for her.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Cincinnatus, how absurd. The Republicans are in fact quite in the process of repeating Reagan’s defeat of the ideological hard left. Reagan saw Carter for the vacuous president that he was, just as the moderate Republican conservatives including Bob and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan see Obama for the fraud that he is. The “New Left” that you refer to is really the old hard left that most Americans sensibly have rejected from Carter to Obama. Obama actually ran a campaign from the center right, though he has proved to be yet another hard left utopian big spending Democrat, weak on foreign policy to boot.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Cincinnatus, how absurd. The Republicans are in fact quite in the process of repeating Reagan’s defeat of the ideological hard left. Reagan saw Carter for the vacuous president that he was, just as the moderate Republican conservatives including Bob and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan see Obama for the fraud that he is. The “New Left” that you refer to is really the old hard left that most Americans sensibly have rejected from Carter to Obama. Obama actually ran a campaign from the center right, though he has proved to be yet another hard left utopian big spending Democrat, weak on foreign policy to boot.

  • Cincinnatus

    Peter, I think you misunderstood both my comment and political processes generally.

  • Cincinnatus

    Peter, I think you misunderstood both my comment and political processes generally.

  • Cincinnatus

    I should probably explain:

    You say that Reagan defeated the “ideological hard left.” That, in part, was precisely my point. Reagan constructed a (perhaps unsteady) coalition to defeat soundly the fractured Democratic party of the time, which was composed of old Democrats of the FDR coalition and the frenetic and ideologically uncompromising “New Leftists” who variously espoused radical feminism, rabid anti-war sentiments, and other views which always have and generally always will remain in the minority. In other words, Reagan won due to his ability to capitalize on the fracturing FDR coalition. Hence, classic Democrats were justly frustrated with the ideologues in the party, who were effectively marginalizing not only themselves, but also the party as a whole. Roughly the same thing is happening now: a unified Democratic Party is roundly defeating the fractured Republic party, divided as it is between ideologically uncompromising social conservatives, libertarians (economic and otherwise), and the few Republicans left who fit the classic Rockefeller Republican mold. The coalition may manage to paste itself back together, but events such as the election in NY’s 23rd don’t bode well.

    The only controversial thing I will say is that ideologues rarely profit in the long term, and, just as the New Left did in 1980, conservative ideologues may indeed lead the Republicans into a wilderness of irrelevance. Not that I am opposed to conservative views, but the American system, for better or worse, isn’t constructed in such a way that ideology can triumph (indeed, a quick perusal of Madison’s Federalist 10 will demonstrate that quite the opposite is true).

  • Cincinnatus

    I should probably explain:

    You say that Reagan defeated the “ideological hard left.” That, in part, was precisely my point. Reagan constructed a (perhaps unsteady) coalition to defeat soundly the fractured Democratic party of the time, which was composed of old Democrats of the FDR coalition and the frenetic and ideologically uncompromising “New Leftists” who variously espoused radical feminism, rabid anti-war sentiments, and other views which always have and generally always will remain in the minority. In other words, Reagan won due to his ability to capitalize on the fracturing FDR coalition. Hence, classic Democrats were justly frustrated with the ideologues in the party, who were effectively marginalizing not only themselves, but also the party as a whole. Roughly the same thing is happening now: a unified Democratic Party is roundly defeating the fractured Republic party, divided as it is between ideologically uncompromising social conservatives, libertarians (economic and otherwise), and the few Republicans left who fit the classic Rockefeller Republican mold. The coalition may manage to paste itself back together, but events such as the election in NY’s 23rd don’t bode well.

    The only controversial thing I will say is that ideologues rarely profit in the long term, and, just as the New Left did in 1980, conservative ideologues may indeed lead the Republicans into a wilderness of irrelevance. Not that I am opposed to conservative views, but the American system, for better or worse, isn’t constructed in such a way that ideology can triumph (indeed, a quick perusal of Madison’s Federalist 10 will demonstrate that quite the opposite is true).

  • Cincinnatus

    *And a quick read of Edmund Burke should suffice to point out that authentic conservatism isn’t an ideology.

  • Cincinnatus

    *And a quick read of Edmund Burke should suffice to point out that authentic conservatism isn’t an ideology.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@26), just out of curiosity, since you mentioned Carter, Obama, and foreign policy, I was wondering: how would you rank those two, in terms of statesmanship?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@26), just out of curiosity, since you mentioned Carter, Obama, and foreign policy, I was wondering: how would you rank those two, in terms of statesmanship?

  • DonS

    Kirk @ 22: OK, fair enough. I think we are on the same page now, at least insofar as acknowledging that the primary system is an appropriate and meritorious way for each party to select its general election candidates, and vigorous primary campaigns will not “devastate” either of the parties.

    Now, I do believe that the Democrats have very much misinterpreted the results of NY-23, and this misinterpretation will hurt them next year. Their interpretation is that the voters rejected “right wing ideologues (isn’t it odd that folks who want government to limit its functions to constititutionally permissible ones, and to spend no more than what it receives are “ideologues”?). But, actually, the voters rejected the liberal Republican, who was badly trailing in the polls. The problem was in how things were handled, and the fact that the Republican dropped out of the race three days prior to the election and endorsed the Democrat. Yet, the Conservative party candidate still only lost by 4 percent.

    So, now, based on this misinterpretation, the Democrats are continuing to ramrod very left-wing legislation through Congress at light speed. Witness, the Pelosi-Care bill, a monstrosity of over 2,000 pages which is now set for vote on Saturday. This continuing activity will cause a severe voter revolt at the polls next year.

  • DonS

    Kirk @ 22: OK, fair enough. I think we are on the same page now, at least insofar as acknowledging that the primary system is an appropriate and meritorious way for each party to select its general election candidates, and vigorous primary campaigns will not “devastate” either of the parties.

    Now, I do believe that the Democrats have very much misinterpreted the results of NY-23, and this misinterpretation will hurt them next year. Their interpretation is that the voters rejected “right wing ideologues (isn’t it odd that folks who want government to limit its functions to constititutionally permissible ones, and to spend no more than what it receives are “ideologues”?). But, actually, the voters rejected the liberal Republican, who was badly trailing in the polls. The problem was in how things were handled, and the fact that the Republican dropped out of the race three days prior to the election and endorsed the Democrat. Yet, the Conservative party candidate still only lost by 4 percent.

    So, now, based on this misinterpretation, the Democrats are continuing to ramrod very left-wing legislation through Congress at light speed. Witness, the Pelosi-Care bill, a monstrosity of over 2,000 pages which is now set for vote on Saturday. This continuing activity will cause a severe voter revolt at the polls next year.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Cincinnatus, underneath it all the Republican party at present hews to an authentic Burkean conservatism in that it trusts the small platoons in the economy and society to deal with social and economic problems as opposed to the opposite tendency of the Democrats to look for basically utopian goverment solutions: For example Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America, including mainly private solutions as opposed to Obama’s view that features government solutions. I simply don’t share your view that the Republican Party is badly fractured.

    It is true that the Republican party became too entrenched and comfortable inside the Beltway in the Bush years, though this is well understood now.

    Todd, at base Carter and Obama share a distrust for American hegemony and power that for better or worse America has been involved with since WWII. This caused Carter to be weak in the face of serious adversaries, especially Iran, and it presently causes Obama to denigrate America on the world stage and to deal with our adversaries with soft as opposed to hard power.

    The best exposition of Obama’s and really, though not stated, Carter;s position, would be Charles Krauthammer’s recent brilliant Manhattan Institute, lecture, Decline is a Choice.

    Krauthammer regards America as the most benign hegemon in world history. He is appalled at Obama’s tendency to apologize for America’s alleged past and present sins as a world power. He, also, shares Kissinger’s view that stability can come in the long run only from hegemonic power or some balance of power.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Cincinnatus, underneath it all the Republican party at present hews to an authentic Burkean conservatism in that it trusts the small platoons in the economy and society to deal with social and economic problems as opposed to the opposite tendency of the Democrats to look for basically utopian goverment solutions: For example Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America, including mainly private solutions as opposed to Obama’s view that features government solutions. I simply don’t share your view that the Republican Party is badly fractured.

    It is true that the Republican party became too entrenched and comfortable inside the Beltway in the Bush years, though this is well understood now.

    Todd, at base Carter and Obama share a distrust for American hegemony and power that for better or worse America has been involved with since WWII. This caused Carter to be weak in the face of serious adversaries, especially Iran, and it presently causes Obama to denigrate America on the world stage and to deal with our adversaries with soft as opposed to hard power.

    The best exposition of Obama’s and really, though not stated, Carter;s position, would be Charles Krauthammer’s recent brilliant Manhattan Institute, lecture, Decline is a Choice.

    Krauthammer regards America as the most benign hegemon in world history. He is appalled at Obama’s tendency to apologize for America’s alleged past and present sins as a world power. He, also, shares Kissinger’s view that stability can come in the long run only from hegemonic power or some balance of power.

  • reg

    As a moderate Democrat who is less and less pleased with Washington DC and Dems, I have often felt that I could/would vote for a moderate Republican. I find ever increasing gov’t troubling, appreciate the benefit of leaving as many issue as possible at the state level (why exactly are the Feds deciding education policy or a whole range of issues which should be left at the more politically responsive state level, am troubled by judges mandating social changes which would never fly politically, am sick of paying taxes to support a bloated and lazy, crooked bureaucracy, etc.

    However every time I get sick of Democrats and the left, the Republicans manage to go so far off the reservation as to ensure I remain an unhappy democratic voter rather than a Republican one. When I think I could vote for McCain, he picks a know-nothing Sarah Palin. For every George Will, Peggy Noonan or other well reasoned moderate conservative Republican,, there seem to be 10 wacko tea party nut jobs like Beck, Hannity, Dick Armey, Vitter, Bachmanm etc. So we have the very scary right wing populists ascendant.

    So my take is: Republicans keep purifying your party, go populist right and drive out the moderates and you will leave people like me no opening to ever join you. Like most Americans I long for the moderate, fiscally conservative center. Apparently this is a pipe dream.

  • reg

    As a moderate Democrat who is less and less pleased with Washington DC and Dems, I have often felt that I could/would vote for a moderate Republican. I find ever increasing gov’t troubling, appreciate the benefit of leaving as many issue as possible at the state level (why exactly are the Feds deciding education policy or a whole range of issues which should be left at the more politically responsive state level, am troubled by judges mandating social changes which would never fly politically, am sick of paying taxes to support a bloated and lazy, crooked bureaucracy, etc.

    However every time I get sick of Democrats and the left, the Republicans manage to go so far off the reservation as to ensure I remain an unhappy democratic voter rather than a Republican one. When I think I could vote for McCain, he picks a know-nothing Sarah Palin. For every George Will, Peggy Noonan or other well reasoned moderate conservative Republican,, there seem to be 10 wacko tea party nut jobs like Beck, Hannity, Dick Armey, Vitter, Bachmanm etc. So we have the very scary right wing populists ascendant.

    So my take is: Republicans keep purifying your party, go populist right and drive out the moderates and you will leave people like me no opening to ever join you. Like most Americans I long for the moderate, fiscally conservative center. Apparently this is a pipe dream.

  • DonS

    reg @ 33: Actually, with your expressed concerns about increased government, broken notions of federalism, runaway activist judges, and excessive taxation, you are, in the thoughts of many on this blog, a right wing ideologue :-)

    Seriously, do Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, David Vitter really bother you more than Nancy Pelosi? Or Barbara Boxer? Or Henry Waxman? Or Maxine Waters? Or Charlie Rangel? And, as pundits go, is Glenn Beck more bothersome than Keith Olbermann and his “worst person in the world” feature? Both sides have their “nutjobs”, as you define them. Why, given your concerns about left wing politics, are you so much more amenable to left wing nutjobs?

  • DonS

    reg @ 33: Actually, with your expressed concerns about increased government, broken notions of federalism, runaway activist judges, and excessive taxation, you are, in the thoughts of many on this blog, a right wing ideologue :-)

    Seriously, do Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, David Vitter really bother you more than Nancy Pelosi? Or Barbara Boxer? Or Henry Waxman? Or Maxine Waters? Or Charlie Rangel? And, as pundits go, is Glenn Beck more bothersome than Keith Olbermann and his “worst person in the world” feature? Both sides have their “nutjobs”, as you define them. Why, given your concerns about left wing politics, are you so much more amenable to left wing nutjobs?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003407203391 Bajil

    Once again, you’re wrong. WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT*Insurance companies will be brared from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.*Insurers will be brared from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents’ health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the doughnut hole’ coverage gap will get a $ 250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $ 2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $ 6,154 is spent.*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees’ W-2 tax forms.*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $ 5 million or less.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form accountable care organizations’ to improve quality and efficiency of care.*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013*A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $ 200,000 and married couples with incomes over $ 250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don’t. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.*Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $ 2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren’t counted for the fine.*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $ 27,500 of a family plan and $ 10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.(Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by David Alexander and Eric Beech)((For a Take a Look on healthcare, click on)) ((Donna.M.Smith@ThomsonReuters.com: 1 202-898-8300; Reuters Messaging: ))Keywords: USA HEALTHCARE/TIMELINEWASHINGTON, March 21 (Reuters) The U.S. House of Representatives on Sunday approved a sweeping overhaul of the $ 2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system and forwarded some finishing touches to the Senate for consideration this week.Here is what to expect if the Senate passes the House’s changes and President Barack Obama signs the entire package into law.WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT* Insurance companies will be brared from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.* Insurers will be brared from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.* Young adults will be able to stay on their parents’ health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.* Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.* A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.* Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the doughnut hole’ coverage gap will get a $ 250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $ 2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $ 6,154 is spent.* A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.* A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011* Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.* Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.* A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.* Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.* Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees’ W-2 IRS forms.* An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies based on market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $ 5 million or less.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012* Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form accountable care organizations’ to improve quality and efficiency of care.* An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.* The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013* A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.* The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.* The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $ 200,000 and married couples with incomes over $ 250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income at a rate of 3.8 percent for that income group.* A 2.9 percent excise tax is imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014* State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.* Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don’t. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.* Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.* Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $ 2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren’t counted for the fine.* Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015* Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018* An excise tax on high

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003407203391 Bajil

    Once again, you’re wrong. WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT*Insurance companies will be brared from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.*Insurers will be brared from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents’ health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the doughnut hole’ coverage gap will get a $ 250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $ 2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $ 6,154 is spent.*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees’ W-2 tax forms.*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $ 5 million or less.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form accountable care organizations’ to improve quality and efficiency of care.*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013*A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $ 200,000 and married couples with incomes over $ 250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don’t. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.*Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $ 2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren’t counted for the fine.*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $ 27,500 of a family plan and $ 10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.(Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by David Alexander and Eric Beech)((For a Take a Look on healthcare, click on)) ((Donna.M.Smith@ThomsonReuters.com: 1 202-898-8300; Reuters Messaging: ))Keywords: USA HEALTHCARE/TIMELINEWASHINGTON, March 21 (Reuters) The U.S. House of Representatives on Sunday approved a sweeping overhaul of the $ 2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system and forwarded some finishing touches to the Senate for consideration this week.Here is what to expect if the Senate passes the House’s changes and President Barack Obama signs the entire package into law.WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT* Insurance companies will be brared from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.* Insurers will be brared from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.* Young adults will be able to stay on their parents’ health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.* Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.* A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.* Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the doughnut hole’ coverage gap will get a $ 250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $ 2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $ 6,154 is spent.* A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.* A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011* Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.* Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.* A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.* Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.* Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees’ W-2 IRS forms.* An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies based on market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $ 5 million or less.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012* Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form accountable care organizations’ to improve quality and efficiency of care.* An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.* The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013* A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.* The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.* The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $ 200,000 and married couples with incomes over $ 250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income at a rate of 3.8 percent for that income group.* A 2.9 percent excise tax is imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014* State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.* Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don’t. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.* Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.* Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $ 2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren’t counted for the fine.* Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015* Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018* An excise tax on high


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X