Although New York state’s Right to Life Party lost its status as a qualified party in 2002, it has continued to appear on the ballot in part of the state, and will do so again this year. It has petitioned to place candidates on the ballot for Justice of the Supreme Court in the 9th district, which includes Westchester County and some other counties in the Hudson Valley.
The Right to Life Party ran candidates for this office as well in 2009, 2007, 2005, and 2004.
The party lost its status as a qualified party when it only polled 44,195 votes for Governor in 2002. New York state law requires that a party poll 50,000 votes for Governor in order to obtain or keep qualified status.
Some observers feel there is a chance that the Conservative Party might lose its status as a qualified party this year. The Conservative Party has a primary for Governor on September 14, between Rick Lazio and the Conservative Party’s own vice-chair, Ralph Lorigo. The Republican gubernatorial primary this year is between Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino. Paladino is a foe of the Conservative Party and if he becomes the Republican nominee, he will also be the nominee of a new party, the Taxpayers Party.
I remember when the Conservative Party of New York State first obtained ballot position back in 1962 and ran candidates in the General Election. I was so excited, and when writing to their headquarters for information so I could start a Conservative Party in my state, I was shocked when the response encouraged me to work within the GOP rather than start a 3rd party in my state.
Since this time, I have better understood what a “conservative” really is politially. While I do hold “conservative” positions myself on some issues, I am not a doctrinaire “conservative.” Admittedly, I was pleased in 1970 when Jim Buckley won a US Senate seat outright in New York State on the Conservative Party line. But I knew then – as now – the Conservative Party of New York State is nothing but an appendage of the GOP.
It would be sad if they did lose ballot position. But they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.
Let’s hope they don’t lose their ballot posting. The New York State Conservative Party is now the only statewide pro-life party. You do have a point however. For many in New York, the Conservative Party is only the second option (in November), not the first.
Michael:
You are so right. The Conservative Party of New York State is the only “real” pro-life party in the state with state-wide ballot position. And this would be a great loss if they lost automatic ballot acccess.
But, as I have hopelessly argued with Cody Quirk, that great defender of the “Republican-lite” (or maybe I should say “Republican-like”)IAP of Nevada, these 3rd party “conservatives” can’t stop acting like GOPers long enough to have a chance to win.
They think it is heresy to advocate for a living wage. They think it is heresy to advocate for putting a cap on medical charges by both doctors and hospitals. They think it is heresy to fund free college education for all students in America.
But boy is it okay to give tax breaks to the rich, to big oil companies, and tax credits for companies moving jobs overseas. Oh, thats all okay. You know, its all part of that voodoo “trickle-down” theory of Ronald Reagan, where eventually the workers will get a few crumbs which fall from the rich man’s table.
And then they have the gall to cry “shame” when people won’t vote for a party which does stand for pro-life.
Give me a break!
As a resident of New York State, I’ve long abandoned the Conservative Party and certainly do hope they lose their ballot status. Why? Because it would give a real third party, such as the Constitution Party, a chance to move into the State and take over the Conservative label. The Conservative Party is really a sham and a third party in name only. It’s leader is only interested in having the Republican candidates come running to him to see what they’ll give him for the endorsement. (Much like the New York Independence Party.) He’s not really interested in making it a true third party. However, since it’s been on the ballot so long, people refuse to see it for what it is and won’t give the Constitution Party a chance. By forcing it off the ballot, New York State might still be able to get a real conservative third party in the state for those voters who are really and truly conservative in nature.
Wow this is a great resource.. Im enjoying it.. good article
The GOP from 2002-present has, through their actions, pretty much changed the definition of the word conservative. I now cringe when friends I have not seen in a little while refer to me as “a conservative” when introducing me to others. If the timing is right, I say that I prefer to be called a “Constitutionist” (since the word conservative now infers large deficits and other negative connotations….
I prefer to be referred to politically and economically as “Christian” and not as Liberal or as Conservative.
I declare politically I’m a “Constitutionalist”. When I’m asked what that means I say, “A Constitutionalist is a Conservative who really means it.”
Let’s keep praying..
Hey this is spam! In case your wondering.
But, as I have hopelessly argued with Cody Quirk, that great defender of the “Republican-lite” (or maybe I should say “Republican-like”)IAP of Nevada, these 3rd party “conservatives” can’t stop acting like GOPers long enough to have a chance to win.
= Yeah, and you sucked at it. Yet how is acting like the old Reform Party going to help us?
The IAP is already moving forward without having to champion government involvement in health care or education.
In fact, Nevadans don’t really like the government involved in either.
Cody. Nevadans may not “like the government involvement in government health care or education,” but the majority of the American people do. So why don’t you good folks in Nevada secede from the Union, and enjoy living back in the “guilded age” when it was the rich against the poor. I’m quite sure some of you would be happy!
#12: The majority of the American people favor repealing ObamaCare.
Please tell us what part of the US Constitution mentions healthcare or education.
To judge from the class warfare rhetoric, it’s still rich versus poor in the US.
Except for Lincoln’s temporary income tax, the US had no income tax until the presidency of the illustrious Woodrow Wilson in the early 1900s. How in the world did the nation survive for all those years?
Steve: The Preamble of the U S Constitution, along with Section III of Article I, gives Congress the power to “promote the general welfare.” This “general welfare” can include healthcare and education – if the people so demand it. But more importantly, the Scriptures in Romans 13, God gives government the authority to “minister to thee for good.” If the government decrees (especially when the people demand it) that healthcare and education shall be provided, then government has the right to provide it. Also important, the Holy Scriptures – not the U S. Constitution – is the Law Of The Land.
Hey love your blog, found it while randomly surving, will keep checking up. Cya…
Cody. Nevadans may not “like the government involvement in government health care or education,” but the majority of the American people do.
= Are you sure? Because Nevada is not alone in its attitude.
So why don’t you good folks in Nevada secede from the Union, and enjoy living back in the “guilded age” when it was the rich against the poor. I’m quite sure some of you would be happy!
= Since we’re at it, the south and the heart of the rocky mountain states should join us; they think like we do!
Steve: The Preamble of the U S Constitution, along with Section III of Article I, gives Congress the power to “promote the general welfare.” This “general welfare” can include healthcare and education – if the people so demand it.
= The people don’t, they simply want healthcare reformed and reorganized without government getting more involved. But healthcare is on the back burner right now. There are more important issues to deal with.
But more importantly, the Scriptures in Romans 13, God gives government the authority to “minister to thee for good.” If the government decrees (especially when the people demand it) that healthcare and education shall be provided, then government has the right to provide it. Also important, the Holy Scriptures – not the U S. Constitution – is the Law Of The Land.
= So our government should adhere to the Bible more so then the US Constitution? Are you advocating Theocracy?
Cody, I agree with you the people “…want healthcare reformed and reorganized…” but it will take “government involvment” to get it reformed. The greedy owners and stockholders of the insurance companies will NOT do it alone. You ought to know that.
Yes, the government should adhere to those perfect principles for government presented in the Scriptures, keeping in consideration we today live under “Grace,” i.e., stoning, etc. are no longer permitted. Still, Romans 13 gives government the authority and right to establish healthcare and education opportunities whether you accept or not.
Such does not advocate or establish a Theoracy. Jesus will establish the world-wide Theoracy when He returns to rule the world for 1000 years!
that’s a good thing right?
Alina. If your question of “that’s a good thing right?” was addressed to my comment of the fact Jesus is going to establish a 1000 year world-wide Theoracy when He returns to rule the earth, then the answer is a resounding YES!
First of all ,you have picked a very unique theme . You gave me an idea for a future project that i plan to create . On top of that ,i trully enjoy most of your posts and your unique point of view. Thanks