NY23 Republican Scozzafava drops out, endorses Democrat not Tea Party Candidate

[Jug Pilot]

New York Republican Dede Scozzafava Backs Democrat Bill Owens, After Suspending Her Bid for U.S. House Seat - The Note

In a surprise twist in the contentious special election race for a U.S. House seat in New York, moderate Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava endorsed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, on Sunday afternoon after announcing the day before that she was releasing her supporters.

Scozzafava’s antipathy towards Hoffman was apparent when the three candidates held their only debate last week and she suggested that third-party rival lacked the conservative value of honesty.

“You know, when people talk about values, and conservative values, there is one value that has been sorely lacking in the campaign and that’s called honesty and truth and men that, perhaps, keep their word. I think those are very important values that any sort of representative that is going to Washington should live by,” said Scozzafava.

This is amazing!

[Waluigi]

Another district bought and paid for by external dollars and outside interests.

I think it's time to disband the DCCC and RCCC, and this campaign illustrates why. Scozzafava was a Northeast Republican; much more moderate than the fringe element of the party, but still a good fit for the district she would have been representing.

Instead, the judgment of the local party and her local would-be constituents was overruled by the Sarah Palin Party, who decided they know what's best for a mostly rural district in upstate New York.

[MonCapitan2002]

What is needed is a viable third party. The only problem with that is that corporations would consider them completely irrelevant and so any such third party would be at a disadvantage against the Democrats and Republicans and their corporate masters.

[LadyShea]

What is needed is publicly funded elections, or specific (low) election spending limits, or even barring corporations from contributing to campaigns outright, to make a level playing field.

[Zehava]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is needed is publicly funded elections, or specific (low) election spending limits, or even barring corporations from contributing to campaigns outright, to make a level playing field.

^ This ^

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is needed is publicly funded elections, or specific (low) election spending limits, or even barring corporations from contributing to campaigns outright, to make a level playing field.

All of those would be good options. I happen to think that corporations should have no role in politics at all. Their rights should be extremely limited and they should have absolutely no say in government policy.

I do think publicly funded elections would be the way to go. I also think that private spending should be capped at whatever the public funds for other candidates is available. In other words, if there are 20 million dollars available in public funds for an election campaign for a candidate, then the privately funded candidate should have his or her spending capped at the same amount.

[Dingfod]

You would infringe on their right to spend money free speech? The Supreme Court of these United States already ruled that corporations are people, and people have the right to throw their money at whatever political candidate that will do their bidding holds positions they like.

[The Lone Ranger]

The notion that a corporation is legally a person has to be one of the most damaging opinions of all time.

[godfry n. glad]

And I think that is where the campaign fianancing reform should start...with the 'depersonalizing' of corporations and their removal from all campaign financing.

'Equal time' media and very low spending limits on all candidates.

I'm dubious about 'public financing'...to me, it screams 'manipulation' to me, particularly by incumbents. We have 'publicly financed' city commissioner ('non-partisan') campaigns and the first race out of the blocks with 'public financing' was a debacle, with blatant signature buying, misappropriation of public funds, and multiple fraud court cases....a 'candidate' fled the state to become a radio commentator in the middle of fuckin' nowhere.

Sorry, but...large pools of money seem to attract unsavory types....no matter where. My cynicism leads me to believe that a 'public financing of political campaigns' will be another source of graft and corruption. I would just prefer that total expenditures be limited and the media opened (as if that could be done equitably).

[Jug Pilot]

I don't get how someone from outside a district could run for that office. How can you represent (as per being part of a republic) the people, if you never lived there or participated there? And worse, why would people be dumb enough to vote for them?

And I agree with LadyShea.

[godfry n. glad]

You're not from that part of the country, are you?

Can you say, "Senator Clinton"?

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

You would infringe on their right to spend money free speech? The Supreme Court of these United States already ruled that corporations are people, and people have the right to throw their money at whatever political candidate that will do their bidding holds positions they like.

They aren't people and should not be treated as such. That the Supreme Court ruled that they are is a moral, legal and ethical outrage.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by MonCapitan2002

What is needed is a viable third party. The only problem with that is that corporations would consider them completely irrelevant and so any such third party would be at a disadvantage against the Democrats and Republicans and their corporate masters.

There's already a third party, the Teabaggers. Of course, it's splintering the Republican Party right now because there are few Democratic Teabaggers.

Originally Posted by Jug Pilot

I don't get how someone from outside a district could run for that office. How can you represent (as per being part of a republic) the people, if you never lived there or participated there? And worse, why would people be dumb enough to vote for them?

New Yorker seeks Idaho Senate seat. Idaho law only requires the candidate to be a resident of Idaho by election day. NYC bankruptcy attorney William Bryk says he will move to Idaho by then if he gets the nomination nod by the Idaho Democratic party. So far Bryk has raised zero dollars in campaign donations compared to Mike Crapo's $2.5 million campaign war chest. Crapo ran unopposed in 2004 except for a write-in candidate.

[freemonkey]

Teabagger loses.