Jim Geraghty broke this while it was yet a rumor, but now it is official, Sarah Palin is endorsing independent Doug Hoffman in the hotly contested Congressional Race in New York’s 23rd Congressional District over the liberal Republican, Dede Scozzafava.  And she’s bucking Newt and the Republican establishment in doing so.  On Facebook tonight she writes:

The people of the 23rd Congressional District of New York are ready to shake things up, and Doug Hoffman is coming on strong as Election Day approaches! He needs our help now.

The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it’s important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York’s 23rd Congressional district. It’s my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.

Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a "time for choosing."

The federal government borrows, spends, and prints too much money, while our national debt hits a record high. Government is growing while the private sector is shrinking, and unemployment is on the rise. Doug Hoffman is committed to ending the reckless spending in Washington, D.C. and the massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government. He is also fully committed to supporting our men and women in uniform as they seek to honorably complete their missions overseas.

And best of all, Doug Hoffman has not been anointed by any political machine.

Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty.

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party’s ticket.

Republicans and conservatives around the country are sending an important message to the Republican establishment in their outstanding grassroots support for Doug Hoffman: no more politics as usual.

You can help Doug by visiting his official website below and joining me in supporting his campaign:

– Sarah Palin

Good to see her back the true conservative in this race.  Common sense conservatism in action, it will be interesting to see how her endorsement will impact the race.  Definitely a sign that she’s going rogue!

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. I’m sure glad to see her standing on principle instead of being tied to the party line.
    Apparently, she knows that the oath of office she took while governor of AK was to the Constitution, not the party.

  2. She is anything but a genuine conservative. She is a fair-weather sideshow coming in at the final hour on this race only to seal the unfortunate fate of Doug Hoffman. If he was gaining any momentum it will surely be lost as the news of her endorsement spreads through the District. For every vote she may bring to the polls through her “popularity” she will bring three Democrats into the fold. Her endorsement called upon images of Reagan and true conservatism – sadly this is a vision she can only play lip service to as it is certainly not a reflective of her own ideological composition.

    1. @T Christopher, You obviously don’t know what “conservative” means. You saying she’s not conservative is absolutely ridiculous, revisionist and simply not based on fact.

      Regarding 2008 – McCain and the economy sunk his presidential bid. If it weren’t for Sarah Palin he would have lost by more. He’s admitted as much and that is what the polling has shown.

      She wasn’t a drag on the ticket.

      1. I have no doubt that she temporarily gave breath to a dwindling campaign when she came into the fold in the ’08 Election, but that in no way means that she was a benefit to the ticket or a benefit to the Party. For every poll that you can reference that shows her as a benefit, I can find five more that will show that she was either a drag or that another running mate would have produced more favorable outcomes…

        In the grand scheme of things, I had far less a problem with her selection than I did with McCain’s candidacy to begin with. He only became the favored choice because he appealed to the moderate base of the Party who was fleeing in masses from the Southern Evangelical stronghold that was established under the Bush administration.

        While the same motivations are certainly not in play with District 23, the problem is largely the same. Choosing a moderate candidate to appeal to a greater audience is simply faulty logic. Those voters who are disenfranchised with the Republican Party are not in that position because of the party’s core values, they are alienated because the party stopped representing those values.

        As to my view of conservatism versus that of Sarah Palin’s, if I must be lumped in with her, then I will agree with you I am not conservative and have no understanding of the ideology. Where I differ from Sarah Palin is that I am conservative based on a thought process – a systematic and constitutionally supported approach to political questions. She is nothing more than a Republican Party pamphlet personified. She gives cookie-cutter Republican bumper sticker sound bites for the media to grab hold of and suddenly she is the face of conservatism? She hunts, she’s prolife, she’s a maverick tough on big government and business as usual. I get those points, but in two years of following this woman I have yet to hear her give a legitimate justification for any of those arguments.

        I simply find it laughable when conservatives buy into the same sort of nonsense that we purport to despise when it is thrust upon us by the Left. How can you simply assume that she is the very definition of conservatism and I am not simply because I disagree with her and you have heard her rant about token conservative issues. I would encourage you Mr. Hart to dig a little deeper and to ask as much from your “conservative” leadership as you would from your opponents on the Left. If a Liberal told you he was pro-choice, I would dare to say that you would expect an explanation. The same standard should be applied to her. If candidate Obama had thrust himself into the limelight of a similar race to this, would you not have questioned his motivations and assumed it was only to improve upon his Liberal credentials? I have to think you would. I know I would.

        I simply think that we should expect more from those we support than we do from those we oppose. Our vote will not put our opponents in office, but our vote for our candidate surely will. I for one like to know more from a candidate than what they read off the shiny new GOP website. I’d prefer that there was some substance.

        But thank you once again for assuming that your and Sarah Palin’s version of bumper sticker conservatism is what the rest of us hold so dear.
        .-= T Christopher´s last blog ..Popular Rule Crumbling? Mainstream Media Stands Up to Obama and Shuns Pay Czar =-.

      2. @T Christopher,
        “I get those points, but in two years of following this woman I have yet to hear her give a legitimate justification for any of those arguments.”

        You haven’t been paying as much attention then.

        Have you read anything she’s written on energy independence? Have you listened to her speeches, and I don’t mean campaign speeches, but ones she gave as Governor? Did you listen to her speech to Evansville Right to Life banquet as she explained her pro-life views? Her comments about having a strong military… especially when she has a personal investment there with her son Track? Remarks about the stimulus/big Government as Governor? Have you looked into things she said and did prior to being tapped as the VP candidate?

        You obviously haven’t watched her very closely because you’ve obviously missed all of that.

        Anyway, I have no doubt that you will learn more about Sarah Palin’s views in the months to come with Going Rogue and whatever else she does from here on out.

        But you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But actually do your homework. Because I’ve done mine… I didn’t base my opinion off of a website, but from reading her articles, listening to her interviews, watching her speeches pre-2008 and after.

  3. One thing’s for sure. The Hoffman candidacy, no matter what the outcome, has opened up a gigantic Pandora’s Box. Consider that for decades the Libertarian Party has been clammoring for Republican support for their 3rd party ballot line candidates in such special circumstance elections, (i.e. the Shelly Sekula-Gibbs for the TX Tom DeLay seat in 2006 fiasco).

    Republicans have said all along, “oh no, no, no, we can never back a 3rd party effort,” even when a Libertarian is the only one on the ballot against a Democrat.

    Now, they’ll never, ever be able to make that claim again. Hoffman has cleared the way for future Libertarian Party support from the Republican Party. And remember, the Libertarian Party runs an average of 800 to 1,000 candidates nationwide each election cycle.

    1. @Eric Dondero, I think you bring up a good point. I have much in common with libertarians as a small government conservative. Where I would disagree (with some, as I know not all libertarians agree) would be with some social issues.

      I would much prefer to see a libertarian in Congress than a liberal Democrat.

      1. @Shane Vander Hart,
        Hey Shane,
        I’m glad to hear you’re open to actual conservative third parties vs. the GOP’s line towing. Although I’ll ask you this? If you believe in small government, individual rights and responsibilities – why do you draw the line on certain ‘social issues’.
        Seriously, I’m not gay or do other things with regards to ‘social issues’ that some GOPers have issues with, but since we Libertarians believe in freedom – AND personal responsibilities- we DON’T bailout ANYONE… what somebody else does that doesn’t personally affect me… well, go nuts. No skin off my nose.

        So, just really, really wash it around in your brain. Visit some actual conservative sites, like the Cato Institute ( and Reason ( and maybe you’ll come around 100% to the Libertarian way of thinking!! 🙂

      2. @John Spivey, I agree with most of what I read with Cato or Reason. Two things where I disagree with some Libertarians.

        1. Abortion – unborn should have rights as well, I know many libertarians are pro-life.

        2. Gay marriage – It impacts society at large, not to mention if you look at other nations Canada, the UK, you see a rigorous gay rights agenda which has eroded free speech. Also kids are being indoctrinated.

        Now I’ve not had much to say about gay marriage that has been implemented in a democratic fashion, like it Vermont or New Hampshire. The people have a recourse if they don’t like it – they can vote legislators out of office. Here in Iowa it was crammed down our throat by judicial fiat. We should have the right to vote on the issue.

        Also legalized drugs, etc. Again… societal benefit. A case can be made for medical marijuana, etc. But some people pushing for that really want it for recreational use and then that opens up legalized drugs with harder stuff. It’s been tried in the Netherlands – no good.

      3. @John Spivey,
        Hey Shane,
        Actually, you can be a Libertarian and be pro-life. I am. That is, I made the rational judgement that the DNA and central nervous system is what makes that fetus a human, and means that snuffing it out is the same as snuffing out the life of any other human. Just like one that can’t talk or process things like you or me. The LP usually doesn’t have a platform plank on abortion other to say “no government funded abortions ever”.

        Now, to gay marriage, I believe that people own themselves. I don’t own others or a fraction of others, nor do you… therefore, we don’t get to dictate how others live their lives. Nor do we get to deny them the rights afforded to other humans. However, if anyone can tell me how gay people getting married interferes with my right or your right to marry and enjoy marriage with our women, then I’d be first in line to keep it illegal. As far as indoctrinating your kids… it’s up to YOU as a parent to guide, direct, hell, indoctrinate your kids. If Mike and Steve are married and it sways your son to become gay, then a few things are in play: A) Your kid was always gay and blamed the conversion on exterior forces or B) you didn’t train up your child in the ways of your brand of righteousness very well.

        That’s putting the burden of raising your child on ‘society’. If you’re not talking about your kids, but others, who will probably be swayed by the ingeneous PR campaigns of the ‘Pink Mafia’, then you have every opportunity to create your own PR campaigns. Get to work.

        Provided you don’t allow any infringements ever on any political speech, I’m not sure how inpeding ‘the gay agenda’ or the ‘humane dog treatment agenda’ or the ‘anti-gambling’ agenda will preserve free speech.

        I agree on your view of legislating from the bench, though. HOWEVER, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, so something like gay marriage should come to a republican style vote (that is, through representational majority). Then the courts can throw out unconstitutional laws (per that state) – and back to the drawing board. But no issuing decrees and marching orders from the bench!!

        Now, with regards to legalized drugs, you mentioned the ‘failure’ of the Netherlands. Actually, the Netherlands actually has a lower overall drug usage rate – and ESPECIALLY among the young – than we do in the US. Switzerland, is actually a much better example, in that they’ve completely decriminalized marijuana and have medicinalized harder drugs. Again, strange how it works, (but it does) they have lower overall incidences of drug usage – especially among those under age. ALSO, lower violence and theft? (same with Netherlands) Why? Lower costs of drugs reduces the need for theft and no more black market = no more drug gangs/no more turf wars. Well, that and pretty much every house in Switzerland has a gun… but that’s for another time.

        Again, I don’t use drugs, and I think, generally it’s a stupid thing… but I don’t agree that doing tequila shots until you vomit and pass out is a smart thing either. But it’s not going to be illegal any time soon and even most GOPers can agree with that. I do like beer, though. And I’m going to have one now. Good night.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Michael Steele is the new RNC Chair

Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele and Chair of GoPAC was elected…

Gun Control Advocates: Don’t Just Stand There Do Something!

Gun control advocates may sleep better having done something that can’t ever be proven to limit gun crimes, but we can’t quantify the cost to our liberty.

Canadian thoughts on Col. Gaddafi

Rev. D. Douglas Gebbie, a pastor with the Presbyterian Reformed Church in…

ABC Blocking Opposition Ads During White House Programming

So how is their “Prescription for America” program originating from the White…