Last week, Republicans in the Mid-Hudson Valley rallied behind Nan Hayworth in their convention for the 19th Congressional District.
Though some leaders in Putnam County supported Tom DeChiaro and a portion of Orange County backed David McFadden, the numbers were overwhelmingly in favor of the Mount Kisco Republican.
John Hall has a challenger.
This is now Nan Hayworth's race to lose.
It appears that Neil Di Carlo of Brewster will remain in the race to primary Hayworth, at least giving pro-life and social conservative voters a candidate in September.
First, Di Carlo has to get on the ballot -- as in gathering an army of volunteers to collect at least the required 1,250 signatures on petitions. Second, he has to raise some money ... any money. Finally, the political establishment has to take him seriously.
Mid-Hudson News covered a convention that seemed anti-climatic.
The sense in the room was that Hayworth's candidacy would not draw tea party support.
It's still hard to imagine Hayworth losing in November.
Tea Party?
With the likelihood of an independent Tea Party line being generated for gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, it's not far-fetched that supporters could collect signatures on petitions for such an independent line in the 19th and other House races around New York.
Such a Tea Party line would allow Di Carlo or another candidate to challenge Hayworth. However, such a candidate would be viewed as a political spoiler and would cost Republicans a relatively easy win in the 19th.
Neither social conservatives nor tea party activists need the label of "spoilers" being put on their political resume.
Barack Obama only won the 19th by 3 percent. Given the current political upheaval against Obama and Democrats, Hayworth should not lose to John Hall in November. Of course, House veteran Sue Kelly lost to Hall in 2006 under near-identical ballot circumstances. The difference this year is that Hayworth should secure the Independence Party line. Also, there is a strong anti-incumbency brewing for November.
The problem for Hayworth and many other Republicans could be the race for governor.
Republican votes could be split three to four ways in November; Rick Lazio, Steve Levy, Carl Palladino and now Ralph Lorigo could be sparring over the Republican, Conservative and Tea Party lines.
Andrew Cuomo has secured the Independence Party line -- dragging more votes away.
Abortion Baggage?
The other problem for Hayworth is that Republicans aren't on the same page strategically to help women candidates -- nor have they been united on the continued battle over abortion.
In New York's Mid-Hudson Valley, the issue is clearly tipped to the right while Hayworth drifts to the left.
National Journal outlined the pattern nationally against women in House and Senate races, though it was curious that not once is the word "abortion" used in their analysis. The more competitive candidates for U.S. Senate are pro-life, despite one setback.
Already, one highly touted GOP recruit has faltered: Former U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan was crushed in the primary in Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District, losing to Keith Rothfus 67 percent to 33 percent. One NRCC official remarked, "She certainly underperformed our expectations."
Still, NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions of Texas insisted recently, "We've really got good women candidates, and strong ones, who I not only talk with but encourage." He added, "I'm real proud of them."
Buchanan ran as a pro-life candidate, pro second amendment and opposing amnesty for illegal aliens.
She lost 2-1.
Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Jane Norton of Colorado, along with Sue Lowden and Sharron Angle of Nevada are all competitive Republican U.S. Senate candididates taking firm stands against abortion
The National Journal entitled its analysis, Politics As Boys' Club - but is gender the problem, or an amiguity on the party's platform?
Jeffrey Lord had an open letter to The American Spectator addressed how some Republican handle (or don't handle) the issue.
"A central reason so many conservatives have such strong feelings on this issue is that, plainly put, Roe v. Wade epitomizes precisely the kind of judicial activism that Abraham Lincoln and the founders of the Republican Party so strenuously opposed."
When Nan Hayworth tells voters that Roe v. Wade is "settled law" -- as she has told Republican leaders -- will that help or hurt her in November?
Lord was responding to a letter in The Philadelphia Inquirer where Michael Smerconish declared that the Republican Party for him is over.
"The national GOP is a party of exclusion and litmus tests, dominated on social issues by the religious right, with zero discernible outreach by the national party to anyone who doesn't fit neatly within its parameters. Instead, the GOP has extended itself to its fringe while throwing under the bus long-standing members like New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, a McCain-Palin supporter in 2008 who told me she voted with her Republican leadership 90 percent of the time before running for Congress last fall."
The 23rd Congressional race is still with us.
The response to Lord's letter by his liberal critics was as telling:
"No fuss, no muss. No government in the bedroom. No judges in the womb. True to the Constitution. Choice for all Americans, not just judges. Women free at last, as embedded specifically in the Constitution itself, to "consult with their doctors, their families and their own consciences -- not a political party looking to round up votes in the next election." And most attractive, surely, it would be the end of those irritating pro-lifers for good."
How about those irritating pro-choicers?
Not that winning or losing should define a reason for a stand on an issue BUT does abortion win in the 19th Congressional District?
I think not.
Jeffrey Lord points out that pro-abortion Republicans seem less concerned with "choice" and more concerned with agenda.
"... The ultimate irony in your views is the use of the term "pro-choice." To be "pro-choice" is in fact to be "anti-choice." In the spirit of Roger Taney and those slavery sympathizers of old, you are both apparently strong supporters of a judicial philosophy that is expressly designed to circumvent the real choices the American people wish to make -- whatever those choices on abortion (or same-sex marriage) may turn out to be."
In the 19th, a sleepy pro-life and social conservative voting block would make it harder for Hayworth to win -- particularly if they stay home on Election Day.
The margin for Hayworth is probably wider and more difficult, since she is a pro-abortion advocate.
More disturbing is an issue of pride among social liberals in New York, who still want to make abortion THE issue, at the cost of supporting Republicans who speak to a broader consensus of people.
In the 19th, as it was (and, apparently, still is) in the 23rd, a small but powerful cross-section of Republican leaders stubbornly don't want to support a platform Republican who is a social conservative. They're afraid of losing, perhaps? Are the population control junkies and medical determinists too stubborn to change with a growing majority of the country?
Whether the slippage nationally for some female House and Senate candidates is due to slippery social liberal stands or male chauvenism within the party, the good news is that Republicans have at least one seat in New York that can't be lost ...
Well ... Can Hayworth lose?
Doubtful.
19th: Red House District
As for the poll numbers, Gallup measured that a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life.
However, the latest Senate poll in California gives the edge to a social liberal, Tom Campbell, over Carly Fiorina, to beat incumbent Barbara Boxer.
Fiorina's marked reversal of fortune is being blamed on her over-reaching for social conservatives.
"... Fiorina, in trying to bolster her conservative credentials with GOP primary voters, has made herself unelectable in a general election, when Republican candidates need support from independents and moderates to win in a blue state."
Meanwhile, the 19th Congressional is as red as any House district in New York -- so California is hardly a reliable comparison.
Fiorina's problem may have been that she never was a social conservative to begin with. And Hayworth may have the same problem as Fiorina in convincing mainstream Republicans that she is a social conservative?
This might be the only way Hayworth can lose; lack of believability on the social issues.
Nan Hayworth's problem is what DioGuardi found for the rest of the Republican Party in 1996. DioGuardi's success in nearly beating Sue Kelly in a primary and his numbers as a third party candidate proved the 19th was a solid pro-life conservative Republican voting block.
So ominous were the numbers, Sue Kelly finally changed her stance in support of partial birth abortion to avoid being challenged again by DioGuardi.
Not that any candidate could defeat Hayworth in a three-way race (it would be political folly) but the 19th is acknowledged to be more pro-life and social conservative than it was in 1996. Then again, this is a year when most people are more worried about the economy. Maybe the social issues won't be important by November?
The question remains how many less people will come out to vote at all for Nan Hayworth in November because she disregards the social conservative end of her party?
The Los Angeles Times commissioned the poll in California and obviously had its own agenda: Nuance Matters In Abortion Debate.
Yes, nuance does matter. Poll Americans on whether they are "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" -- rather than the safe rhetoric of saying one is "pro-choice" -- and the numbers cave-in against abortion advocates.
Mona Charen noted something else about the Gallup Poll that liberals and Republicans-In-Name-Only are ignoring:
Only 38 percent of respondents said abortion was "morally acceptable." The poll also found that young people, ages 18 to 29, were much more likely to say that they oppose abortion in all circumstances today than a decade ago (one in four, versus one in seven). National Abortion Rights Action League president Nancy Keenan has noticed this collapse of support among the young, even referring to herself and her contemporaries as the "postmenopausal militia."
More important, the same nationwide polls over the past year (as late as last October) have shown the pro-life support to be 51-42 percent. It could be argued that this nine-point breath of support is an anomaly but the demographics of the 19th Congressional District are no illusion.
Nan Hayworth might be challenging Congressman John Hall in the most pro-life and social conservative House district in New York State.
If Nan Hayworth does lose the 19th, Pete Sessions will have a lot of explaining to do ...
Recent Comments