GOP Blows It in NY 26 by Nominating Jane Corwin

May 25, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (12)

As predicted, the GOP lost the special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District Tuesday, sending a Democrat to Washington in place of Republican Chris Lee, who resigned in order to short-circuit an emerging scandal having to do with his private life.

To hear the Democrats, who are crowing about the victory today, the seat changed hands because the Republicans are out to destroy Medicare. “Special elections often don't mean much but this one does,” said former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost, “because of the message it sends on a big issue. GOP is now in full retreat. The House is in play.” [Read Democrats play offense with medicare in NY 26.]

The Republicans are taking some solace in the idea that the race did not turn on any one issue. Instead it was the presence of a self-described “Tea Party” candidate named Jack Davis in the race--who had run for Congress three times before as a Democrat--that split the center-right vote and allowed the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, to eke out victory with 47 percent of the vote. 

Issues are important, but in the sense that they provided a rational for people to justify voting the way they did. Some Democrats wanted to send a message on Medicare. Some Republicans and conservatives wanted to send a message to the New York State Republican Party, which still picks its nominees for special elections behind closed doors. [Read special election brings deja vu for upstate New York.]

Both issues were certainly contributing factors in determining the outcome of the race, the role they played is being hyped for political purposes. The reason the GOP lost comes down to a more basic reason: the party fielded a candidate who ran a bad campaign.

Republican Jane Corwin ran a conservative campaign, meaning she allowed herself to be defined by her opponent and was ineffective in mounting a defense. In the current political environment it is a mistake to assume that party registration numbers--New York’s 26th Congressional District is overwhelmingly Republican--are enough to carry the day.

Moreover it is safe to assume that the Democrats wanted to take the seat away from the Republicans more than the GOP wanted to keep it.  They needed the win and, now that they have it, they have the bragging rights that go with victory, hence their argument that the race is a “bellwether” hinting at the outcome of next November’s election. Remember, they won several GOP seats in specials leading up to the 2010 election and still lost control of the House by a lot.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Congress,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I'm not sure if the thought of double checking quoted data by going to the source, the CBO, has occurred to you, but the American Thinker article is biased and strays from actual CBO data. The CBO forecast for 2006 prior to the Bush tax cuts was $2.689-T while actual revenue from 2006 according to the CBO was $2.407-T.

I'm unsure where authors Foy and Stransky pulled their data (they provide no embedded links), but the correct data showing the nearly $300-B shortfall is readily available at the CBO (forecast: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2727&type=0&sequence=2) (Actual: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2727&type=0&sequence=2). No problem defending the Bush tax cuts, but including lies and false data severely undercuts your defense.

Kevin Nettleship of OR 2:10PM June 01, 2011

Jack Davis was not a "self-described" Tea Party candidate. He was the official, legal, Tea Party candidate, nominated by 12,014 voters, who, under New York law, have to approve the name "Tea Party" for Jack's line on the ballot.

Corwin was nominated by seven political bosses. I have seen the certificate.

And, contrary to the big lie spread by the GOP, Jack was the real tea party candidate, supported by people involved in the WNY tea party movement from day one.

See this post for all the gory details.

http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=12067

Jim Ostrowski

(Davis Campaign Atty.)

Jim Ostrowski of NY 8:53AM May 29, 2011

1. “'Radical Social Engineering', Medicare Killing, 'Tax Cuts of the Rich' budget.”

I may not have enough space just for this.

Medicare killing is obamacare. Takes away I think $$$ 15 trillion from hospitals & Doctors. Now doctors will only take so many medicare patients. There are hospitals refusing medicare patients. Such a cut will KILL medicare as we know it. That is a quick summary. Unlike you, I provide evidence to back my words:

http://www.912superseniors.org/2011/05/why-paul-ryans-medicare-is-so-much-better-than-obamas/

_____

As far as “Tax Cuts of the Rich' budget”, it increases government revenue. As John F. Kennedy said:

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

_____

This hold true with lower levels of taxes. Holds true of Bush’s tax cut for higher tax level. This is real gains not estimates:

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”

“This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.”

“The second major misconception spread by the left about the Bush tax cuts is that the lower tax rates caused the federal deficit woes we face today. Keeping with the party line of blaming the previous administration for all of today's problems, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) quipped in a news conference on January 8 of this year: "Let me just say that the tax cuts at the high end ... have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit." Of course, the Speaker would have us believe that overspending has nothing to do with our deficit.”

“So what was the effect of the Bush tax cuts? The data reveals that tax revenues in 2006 were actually $47 billion above the levels projected by the Congressional budget office before the 2003 tax cuts. Clearly, tax rates were beyond the point of equilibrium.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Bill Hedges of MO 9:16PM May 26, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement