TPMDC
NY-23 GOP Campaign And Weekly Standard Feud: Read The E-mails
NY-23 Candidate Dede Scozzafava (R)
Share
Send to a friend!
The feud is heating up between the Weekly Standard and the Dede Scozzafava campaign -- the moderate Republican running in the three-way NY-23 special election -- with Scozzafava spokesman Matt Burns now forwarding to TPM e-mails between himself and the Standard, in a challenge to the magazine's journalistic objectivity.
The latest battle between the two camps involved the Scozzafava campaign calling the police against Standard reporter John McCormack, for following around their candidate and repeatedly asking her questions in a manner that they said showed "a complete lack of decency." Bill Kristol then characterized Scozzafava spokesman Matt Burns as the malevolent character, for having called their offices on Friday and yelled at them over a story. Now, Burns has sent us e-mails connected with that dust-up from last week.
"Last week, John wrote a story that falsely asserted Dede was something other than a life-long Republican," Burns wrote me. "He took that leap based upon the exchange below. How any objective reporter would take such a leap, I'll let you report and readers decide."
McCormack confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails to me. "I have no problem posting that e-mail exchange," McCormack said. "But it's a sign of a truly desperate campaign when they're forwarding e-mails to left-wing blogs, instead of talking about their own agenda, and unwilling to answer questions about where she stands on the issues."
Here's the e-mail exchange:
McCormack, Thursday, October 15, 10:39 p.m.:Hi Matt,
Two questions:
Will Assemblywoman Scozzafava pledge to run in 2010 in the Republican primary if there is a primary?
Does she pledge to vote for the Republican Leader, Rep. Boehner, as speaker of the House in 2011 if she wins?
Burns, Thursday, October 15, 10:54 p.m.:1) Dede is focused on the election that is Nov. 3.
2) Dede has been clear: she supports making Rep. Boehner Speaker of the House.
McCormack, Thursday, October 15, 10:59 p.m.:Thanks. Regarding the second question, just to be 100% clear, could you say whether she would vote to make the Republican Leader Speaker in 2011 and 2013 if she's elected?
Burns, Thursday, October 15, 11:04 p.m.:I don't understand you're question...we haven't even gotten through this election and you're asking about four years from now? She supports making Leader Boehner the Speaker. Period.
McCormack, Thursday, October 15, 11:09 p.m.:Okay, I'll try to explain: you wrote that she "supports" making him Speaker. That means she currently supports making him speaker. Does she pledge to vote for him to be Speaker of the House in 2011? I'm not trying to be cute. Just want to make sure you're not saying, in effect, well now she supports making him speaker but she could change in 12 months.
Burns, Thursday, October 15, 11:27 p.m.:She is a vote for Rep. Boehner.
Btw, will you be working at the Weekly Standard in 2011? 2013? How about 2015?
McCormack, Thursday, October 15, 11:30 p.m.:Why can't you use the future tense? Can you say the following?
"She will vote for Rep. Boehner in 2011."
Again, I'm not trying to be cute. I just want to get this right.
To answer your question about my working at TWS: I might; I might not. Is that what you're trying to say about her commitment to vote for Boehner in 2011? Maybe she will? Maybe she won't?
Burns, Thursday, October 15, 11:35 p.m.:John - With all due respect, stop being ridiculous. She is a vote for Rep. Boehner. Period. I can say it six different ways, but that apparently won't appease you. I'm done trying.
McCormack also stood by the accuracy of his post from last week, which implied that Scozzafava might switch parties in the future, on the grounds that Burns failed to clearly answer his question.
"I gave him three opportunities to say in 2011 she would vote for Rep. Boehner, because [Conservative Party nominee] Doug Hoffman has said he will run in the 2010 Republican primary, and he would likely beat Dede Scozzafava in the very unlikely event she wins this election," said McCormack. "So what does she do then? Does she go caucus with the Democrats? So he repeatedly said she 'is' a vote for Boehner, she 'supports' Boehner. I gave Matt Burns, I don't know how many times it was, you can count it, two or three or four times to state simply whether or not she would vote for Boehner in 2011."
McCormack also pointed out that he did update his post after Burns called the Standard and gave a full assurance that Scozzafava would support Boehner in the future, a statement from Burns that McCormack says "he made on Friday, but would not make the day before."
Comments (57) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
goethean
October 20, 2009 3:20 PM
Must be lotsa fun being a moderate Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Monster
October 20, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to goethean
There is no such thing. The only reason to retain the brand is to campaign on the 'immoderate' thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
October 20, 2009 4:44 PM in reply to goethean
Holy cow!! No wonder Republicans have so much trouble owning up. They can't even fathom one person with their own mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DickTater
October 20, 2009 3:20 PM
"Will you or will you not be a mindless zombie for your dear leader in all struggles today and forever? If you do not drop to your knees and bow down before me at this very moment, may you be cast into the fiery pit that awaits all infidels and transgressors, damn your eyes out and to all of your spawn 7 generations hence."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
October 20, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to DickTater
"DeDe is a vote for Boehner. I can't possibly answer your question any more clearly than that!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joejustice
October 20, 2009 3:20 PM
Any grown man who writes "I'm not trying to be cute" in an e-mail(especially more than once) is ALWAYS trying to be cute. Yuck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 20, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to joejustice
If you think about it, it's sort of like beginning your sentence with, "I'm not racist, but..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vioviv
October 20, 2009 6:12 PM in reply to Xantar
I also hate it when people start a sentence with, "I'm a really nice guy." 99% of people who say "I'm a really nice guy" are not, in fact, nice at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 20, 2009 3:22 PM
It's nice watching the republicans self-destruct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MonicaDickey
October 20, 2009 6:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
I know! I was wondering how long this fanatical hating campaign could last, but if they start turning on anyone moderate I think they will really begin to alienate a lot people, especially depending on how the media handles it. At least this is getting some coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
October 20, 2009 3:23 PM
What if Boner loses in 2010? What then? Hmmm? God, these people are like children. To hell with all of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TexasFilly
October 20, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to commie atheist
And when the National Enquirer finally catches Boehner on video with Larry Craig in a men's room, will she still support Boehner? What a ridiculous idiot McCormick is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sxp151
October 20, 2009 5:30 PM in reply to commie atheist
And on top of that, what if the Republicans have a leadership challenge? Republicans held the House from 1994 to 2006, but there were at least four different Speakers of the House during that time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve Garrett
October 20, 2009 3:24 PM
And I thought the WS was only this unreasonable to Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
October 20, 2009 4:33 PM in reply to Steve Garrett
How dare you question those true believers who enjoy direct access to God and the corporate boardrooms!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 20, 2009 3:30 PM
Jeepers. I wouldn't call him an "objective reporter" by any means. An "objective reporter" would have "reported" what was written: She's a vote for Boehner, and everything else the spokesperson said. This isn't rocket science.
And the fact that the "objective reporter" is so fixated on Boehner being Speaker in 2011 is, well, a bit detached from reality as we know it. Just saying that something will take place (Republicans gain back control of the House HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH) doesn't make it more likely to happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jheartney
October 20, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to CT Voter
The Republicans are fixated on the idea that 2010 will be a replay of 1994, with GOP majorities swept into power in the House and Senate. They think that if they can just do to Obama what Gingrich et al did to Clinton (i.e. stop the health care reform train), they'll all be back on top in January 2011. So it's really important, in their minds, to tie up loose ends like Scozzafava right now.
I will certainly enjoy watching the cognitive dissonance when this doesn't happen and Boehner gets to spend 2011-12 in the minority, just like now. Maybe it'll teach them not to count unhatched chickens, etc. (Assuming it's actually possible to teach a GOPer anything.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
October 20, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to CT Voter
I don't agree. I think Burns was trying to thread the needle and the reporter wasn't having it. Isn't this what we ask of reporters -- to get to the truth and not just be stenographers? The question was clear -- will she vote for Boehner in 2011? The question itself was a bit of a gotcha, of course; the only answer the reporter wanted is the one that would be thrown in DeDe's face in four years if she changes her mind. (Republicans love sniffing out flip-floppers as much as they love finding communists.)
I think simply reporting that DeDe is "a vote for Boehner" does a disservice to readers (yes, they're WS readers, but still..) in that it doesn't reflect the clear deception of the answer. It's like if your parent asks "Did you clean your room last night like you promised?" and you say "My room is all clean!" because you just finished a few minutes ago. That answer deserves a followup question. The reporter owes it to readers to convey what the spokesperson is communicating, not just the words they're using.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve Garrett
October 20, 2009 4:37 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack
I disagree. I think the reporter was trying to be too clever. If the real question you want answered is are you committed to the republican party no matter what happens then he should have asked that question and not gotten into trying to read tea leaves based on what tense Burns used to respond to the question he did ask. No decent politician will commit to a vote two years out. Boehner may pull a Larry Craig between now and then. Would that mean Dede is still committed to voting for him since she did commit to it two years ago? Stupid question in my book.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
October 20, 2009 4:53 PM in reply to Steve Garrett
you're right, no decent politician will commit to a vote two years out. that would have been a reasonable answer to this "gotcha" question. instead, they tried a "gotcha back" response, which is a tricky thing to do and doesn't seem to have worked out for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backseatdriving
October 20, 2009 7:35 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack
The response could have been "she promises to caucus and support the Republican leaders in the House as long as she's in Congress" or something less definitive if they don't want to be definitive, but instead they were evasive and the reporter was right to try and pin the spokesman down.
I think people are here are wearing their bias on their sleeves when they demand that a reporter simply accept whatever evasive answer is given, just because the reporter works for a right wing rag.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
October 20, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to CT Voter
It's like when Bush would tell the country "The U.S. doesn't torture" while not saying that his definition of "torture" was different than nearly everyone listening to him. It was a white lie, and I wish reporters had pressed him on it at every speaking appearance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 20, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack
What part of ""She will vote for Rep. Boehner in 2011."" is ambiguous?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 20, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to CT Voter
Whoops--my mistake--taking the reporter's statement in error. My quibbling isn't with the repeated questioning, it's with the repeated questioning in an effort to get the spokesperson to say exactly what the "reporter" wanted him to say.
Instead, say, of simply reporting the questions, and answers, and letting readers to the thinking. He's not reporting. He's commentating in this instance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
October 20, 2009 4:32 PM in reply to CT Voter
I think the reporter just wanted a clear answer (to an admittedly loaded question). "No comment" sounds guilty, so there are accepted variations, like "Let's not get ahead of ourselves; we're focused on the election at hand". What Burns was going for, however, was a statement that sounded like an affirmative but actually wasn't one. Reporting an answer like that is just stenography.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 20, 2009 4:44 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack
I think the "reporter" was trying to trick the spokesperson into making a gaffe. I think the "reporter" had a clear agenda, and one that wasn't related to "reporting" but was related to "gotcha" tactics.
Which I loathe, regardless of which political party we're talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
October 20, 2009 6:42 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack
IMO, you are totally mischaracterizing the concept of stenography journalism. Stenography is when a journalist accepts talking points designed by a political entity and packages them as if they were a news story. Examples of stenography were the NYT (and all others) publishing unsourced pro-war propaganda in the run up to Iraq, the military "message force multipliers" who would meet with pentagon officials and then go out and deliver the talking points they received as "experts" on the cable channels, or when Fox takes a GOP press release and repackages it as a report (often including typos and everything). In all cases, there is an implicit (access) or explicit (military contracts) reward to the journalist who performs the service.
This was simply a nonsense question. How can you demand a "clear" answer to a nonsense question? An affirmative answer is predicated on the GOP regaining the house, Bohner being reelected (twice), no scandals between now and then, and Bohner standing for the leadership post in the event all other variables were affirmative. If the question was genuinely about support for Bohner in leadership, it was clearly and honestly answered. If the reporter wanted her prediction over the GOP regaining the majority in 2010, he should have asked but didn't. If he wanted to know if the candidate would switch parties rather than face a primary, he also didn't push on that question either - this was a *stupid* and nondefinitive way to approach the issue if that was his intent.
Ultimately, when the reporter didn't get the response he wanted he ended up publishing a story that essentially lied about the candidate's position. The guy is a second-rate shill playing gotcha. Not playing along is politics, yes, but accurately relaying the response of a campaign to specific questions is *reporting* not stenography. This guy should never confuse himself with a journalist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backseatdriving
October 20, 2009 10:46 PM in reply to kgb999
I disagree - the question was intended to figure out if the candidate might switch caucuses, and simply reporting the answer would have been stenography, with or without repackaging. The reporter was trying to get a meaningful answer, and reporting it the way he did actually got the answer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthspeaker
October 21, 2009 6:26 AM in reply to kgb999
I'm in full agreement with your analysis kgb999. The question he asked required too many variables to be true before it would become a meaningful and necessary question, that question should only be asked if all your supporting conditions exists. Until then it only goes to show how group-think is nurtured. Put that in contrast to PO saying that democrats are independent thinkers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LogicalConsideration
October 20, 2009 3:57 PM
This is clearly a red herring ("Watch the shiny ball over there!) from the campaign. It is clear from the emails that he was being a jerk. It would have been just as obnoxious if a reporter were asking a Democratic candidate if they would support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker in 2013. That said, it doesn't excuse or minimize her campaign's having called the cops in a situation that clearly didn't warrant it simply because they wanted to intimidate him into piping down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backseatdriving
October 20, 2009 4:04 PM
I'm siding with the WS reporter on this one - he was trying to get a question answered that could rule out a caucus switch in the future, and the fact that the answer seemed evasive struck him as appropriately fishy.
My guess is that the spokesguy went to his candidate afterwards and got guidance that then allowed the followup clarification.
Imagine if TPM were grilling Lieberman in spring 2006 about a similar contingency, then you'd bet we would any evasion pinned down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 20, 2009 4:17 PM in reply to Backseatdriving
You report the question, and the answer. And the multiple questions and multiple answers. You're not an advocate for the Republican caucus, in other words.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backseatdriving
October 20, 2009 7:28 PM in reply to CT Voter
You're arguing for the "reporting is stenography" position which benefits the side that's most willing to distort. Drawing inferences is reasonable journalism, especially when the interviewee is being cagey.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 20, 2009 8:07 PM in reply to Backseatdriving
Um, drawing inferences like reporters did in the lead-up to the Iraq war? Tha Leaping from "some people say" to all sorts of conclusions? What's wrong with reporting the various ways the question was asked and the various ways it was answered? Rather than trying to badger the responder into making a response that would generate fake controversy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backseatdriving
October 21, 2009 2:01 AM in reply to CT Voter
The problem in the runup to Iraq was that reporters didn't push hard against their interviewees. I wish they pushed hard on every statement coming out of the Bush Admin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthspeaker
October 21, 2009 6:31 AM in reply to Backseatdriving
They did't b/c they were intimidated. How soon we forget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backseatdriving
October 21, 2009 10:06 AM in reply to truthspeaker
Agreed. They shouldn't have been intimidated, and they should have pushed back and tested every statement for evasiveness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DancingBear
October 20, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to Backseatdriving
Why not just ask if she was committed to remaining in the Republican caucus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
October 20, 2009 4:26 PM
Time now, once again, for another adventure of They Eat Their Young. This week, Episode XLVIX: The RINO Bitch from Liberal Hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
October 20, 2009 4:34 PM
i think its funny they're obsessing over boehner as speaking. putting the horse before the cart is even built i'd say. first, they'd have to somehow take back the house. and if they keep shrinking the party, that ain't gonna happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
October 20, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate Republicans have finally hit the wall.
Winning an argument against an idiot just makes you a bigger idiot than your opponent. At least this Congresswoman (and her staff) pass this basic IQ test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ProgressiveTeen
October 20, 2009 4:55 PM
Scozzafava is NOT a moderate/liberal Republican. Other than gay marriage and reproductive rights she is conservative on almost every issue. She shouldn't be described as a moderate Republican by TPMers, although I guess she is moderate compared to most modern-day Republicans. Once she joins the House GOP caucus she will fall right in line with the rest of them. This article is a good analysis of her voting record: http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5672/ny23-scozzafavas-record-at-a-glance, please read and share.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
October 21, 2009 1:31 AM in reply to ProgressiveTeen
Link didn't work. The point, of course, is that gay marriage and reproductive rights (and I believe they were questioning her stance on card check as well, so throw that in there too) are really all that matters in crazy baseworld. Whatever is seen as the issue de jour of the exremists is how they determine whether or not a canddate is worthy of their vote, regardless of how conservative the candidate is overall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
October 20, 2009 5:06 PM
*cough*, *choke*, *cursing under my breath*... Idiot Rep. Boehner, who is apparently less intelligent than my 8 year neice... speaker of the house???
When pigs fly!(just to keep it PG)
Only a person with an agenda pretending to be a reporter could have initiated such a public tirade of stupidity.
The 'people' on Fox do it all of the time!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Grackle
October 20, 2009 5:31 PM
He was trying to get the perfect quote, but the guy wouldn't play the game. So much for the perfect quote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
October 20, 2009 5:38 PM
I'm amazed at how sure they are that the GOP will win back 40+ seats in the House in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bullsmith
October 20, 2009 5:54 PM
McCormick comes off as a total ass. He's playing "gotcha" with all the subtlety of a six year old telling you close your eyes and open your mouth. What if Boehner's in a coma in 2011, does she still have to vote for him. Does she have sing him a song of allegiance. What about 2012? 2086?
Jeeebus these guys are little wannabe fascists. I wish there was a less-inflammatory term, but I can't find one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
serge
October 20, 2009 6:00 PM
To the down-the-road, sandbox-style questioning of Burns, perhaps he could have responded simply that Boner has to be re-elected first. Then Scozzafava will respond, ergo EOF...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bmags
October 20, 2009 6:34 PM
With all due respect skippy, what you are saying is fine, but to write the article about how she "wouldn't vote for Boehner in 2011" based off of that exchange doesn't give this guy the benefit of the doubt. It makes him bad at his job (which makes him perfect for WS)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texas Aggie
October 20, 2009 10:56 PM
Bullsmith pretty much made the same point I was going to make. I.e., who the heck knows if Boehner will even be around that far in the future. What happens if a better candidate comes along? Should she stick with a horse's rear end or should she go with someone who would be better for America?
This guy, What'shisface, McCormick? demonstrates a really infantile manner of being. I am reasonably sure I would never want anyone he associates with in any decision making capacity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
prettyboywally
October 20, 2009 11:49 PM
I don't get why McCormack is being vilified here. He's a reporter, he asked a question, and Burns repeatedly avoided answering it. The way he answered it was intended to suggest that she would vote for Boehner in 2011, but didn't actually say that she would do so -- which is the exact kind of weaseling that allows politicians to change their positions while claiming they never did so.
What's so awful about a reporter trying a get a straightforward answer to a simple question? Are we so willing to accept the dodges and verbal gymnastics that politicians regularly employ that we actually get annoyed with a reporter for NOT falling for them? If his column contained suppositions that weren't supported by actual facts, that's journalistic malfeasance. But insisting that a politician answer a question in a straightforward way is what a reporter should do. And so is noting when that politician (or her spokesman) chooses not to answer a question, especially given multiple chances to do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
paulw
October 21, 2009 9:37 AM
It's not just the questions that are loaded, it's the implied context. Asking a republican candidate if they will run in the republican primary implies that there's a question about it; same thing with asking about votes for a leadership position. Any answer that directly addresses the questions can be spun to legitimize the "debate".
And of course fairly ironic coming from a supporter of a candidate who is running as a non-republican because he couldn't get on the republican ticket...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backseatdriving
October 21, 2009 10:18 AM
I think it would be very interesting to see Josh Marshall or the staff at TPM weigh in on this. What would they have done in McCormack's shoes?
It looks to me like he was just doing good journalism in exposing the evasive answers and potential implications, and it worked - once exposed, the spokesman called in with a straightforward answer that settled the issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Burke
October 21, 2009 10:57 AM
A little background might help you understand why McCormack was so persistent. Scozzafazza is not a mere moderate--she's practically an Obama Democrat. She's pro-card check. She says she would have voted for the stimulus bill--something every single Republican in the current Congress voted against. She's supported by the Working Family's Party, which is attached to ACORN. Her ACU rating in the NY State Legislature is almost as low as that of the Speaker of the Assembly, who is a liberal Democrat from NYC. As almost an afterthought, she's also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. While these positions might seem reasonable to some of you at TPM, it is very hard to see how she can call herself a Republican, especially since she's running in what is usually a conservative district.
McCormick's questions are really directed towards 2010. If she wins, Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, has said he will challenge her in the primary. Conservatives are worried that if she is challenged, she'll put a Jim Jeffords and become a Democrat. In these circumstances, McCormick's close questioning is entirely reasonable--and her evasive answers are suspicious. (Asking re: Boehner in 2010 doesn't assume a Republican victory, by the way---a very liberal Republican could decide to vote for Pelosi in the hope of getting a better committee appointment.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
adiveron
October 21, 2009 11:48 AM
Its about time someone with values is in a race.
I will vote and tell all in my family to do the same.
God i hope doug wins.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick_data
October 21, 2009 2:20 PM
For comparison, let's look at what Candidate Obama said:
1. he would repeal DADT
2. he would repeal DOMA
3. he would have NO lobbyists in his administration
4. he would not use the state secrets privilege
5. he would make the WH transparent.
Tell me how carefully the reporters could have asked him about those promises to make him keep them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreedomNow
October 22, 2009 3:41 PM
It is a long tradition of politicians not to answer questions directly, leaving room to deceive voters. Scozzafava's office is just continuing this terrible tradition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?