Anyone can rat

I'm with Rafique on this one. Especially since Hoffman has no executive experience whatsoever. And severe fervor at that. I've compared it to the reaction people gave over Obama and they claimed apples to oranges. I disagree. These Hoffman-ites are very reminiscent of the O-bots last year.

And there *is* a purity war going on. Heck, BOORTZ talked about this purity war last week!! It actually started with Lincoln Chafee and now continues with Ms. S. You hear it in EVERY commentary on the net over this situation...not conservative enough. What the fudge does that mean? I'm a liberal that thinks W. was moderate; a registered Democrat that voted straight R in the 2006 elections (and might again for VA tomorrow). What does that make me?

The lust over Hoffman makes no sense, esp since there is no proof - that's the only dog in the hunt I have. If you want to give the brother a chance ok. But he's got to walk the talk, esp with a media that is still considered pro-O

I am not surprised that Scozzafava did what she did. I think it would have been better if she did not do an endorsement. I suspect she may have done it more out of spite.

I will be interested to see how this ends up tomorrow. I expect this to be a pretty close vote. Closer than some of the quick polls have said. I also have to wonder how the voters will take to a candidate who does not even reside in the district like Hoffman.

This has truly been a hijacking of a local race by national interests. I think we will have to see if this backfires.

You are using the NY-23 vote as an example of the "attempt by the conservative movement to cast off anyone who is not sufficiently pure." But have you actually looked at Scozzafava's record, and her statements in support of massive bailouts and other major federal interventions in the economy? Her work with ACORN and ACORN-related groups? This is not somebody who's a "social liberal, fiscal conservative." She's a liberal all the way around, pretty much. Note, for example, that the victorious Democrat had a much better NRA ranking than she does.

Unless you are saying that the GOP should accept and promote anybody, regardless of their politics, in the party, then if you want to accuse the GOP of doing what you claim, you need to demonstrate that they have actually drawn the lines inappropriately in this or other specific cases.

As for Crist, well, lots of voters were outraged by the stimulus, no? Not just the amount and the fact of it, but the "must vote NOW, no time to even read the bill" push it got. Isn't the appropriate political response to say: "that's a major issue, and if you were on the wrong side of it, screw you?"

And there's a huge difference between giving "heat" to Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on Cap and Trade and actively trying to purge him from the party. Any evidence that there's a major movement to do that? No. And giving "heat" is no different from the pressure that the President and the Speaker are trying to put on wavering Democrats. It's a fundamental part of politics.

Raf, to whatever extent this purge is real, I don't see it as indicative of some native advantage of the progressive outlook and a native deficit in the conservative outlook.

Instead, I thin that way each party is behaving has to do with the way the political pendulum is winging. Dems are lloking for converts so that they'll have the votes to get things done. That's the stage they are at i the political cycle.

The GOP is at a very different stage. They need to decide who's on their team and what they stand for. They need a new coach to come in and clear out the dead wood and the hangers on. It's not really wrong of them to downsize for now to help define their core competencies. It's the clarifying, leaning out and refocusing that will set the stage for growth later.

The GOP's run as the insiders and dealmakers diluted their brand. They became a party too willing to try to give everyone what they wanted instead of making serious choices. I think Bush's prescription drug plan may have been the real WTF moment that showed that the Bush era compassionate conservatism, as nice as it sounded, manifested as real idiocy. And that's really sad, because I don't find that conservatives lack compassion. IMO it's more the case that they're willing to make hard serious choices if they think they have to, in other words they refuse to let compassion become an excuse for idiocy. Bush DID let compassion become an excuse for idiocy withhis "give everybody something" drug plan.

She got the nomination because there was no primary: "She was chosen, behind closed doors, by the GOP county chairs of that district, standard operating procedure for special House races in New York." That a procedure is standard does not make it tenable. The much-maligned primary election system—more particularly, the closed primary—remains the worst way to select candidates apart from all the others. Its value was proved via negativa by the NY23 saga.

The choice reflects badly on the local party, certainly. And many on the right argue that it reflects badly on the national party insofar as they should not have rallied around such an obviously flawed candidate and behind so a obviously mistaken local party decision.

Again, you're portraying her as having been stabbed in the back, but I perceive her as having been caught with her hand in the cookie jar. No wonder we see things differently.