In Defense of Doug Hoffman

Posted on | September 25, 2010 | 119 Comments

“Doug Hoffman isn’t even in Congress yet and he’s already lining his pockets with tens of thousands of dollars. . . . Doug Hoffman — lining his pockets like a typical Washington politician.”
— Doheny for Congress, September, 2010

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
— Exodus 20:16 (KJV)

My previous post about the unfortunate situation in New York’s 23rd District seems to have been misunderstood. Some have suggested that I am striking a “True Conservative” (purist) stance; others are calling Doug Hoffman a “sore loser” a la Crist/Murkowski/Castle. Both interpretations are mistaken.

In explaining that Republican candidate Matt Doheny can’t win Nov. 2, I was trying to give readers an advance warning, because I know what we’ll hear on Nov. 3 after Doheny loses. Hoffman will be blamed, and this will be filtered through the MSM’s warped prism to support their usual explanation for any GOP defeat: Conservatives are the cause of the Republican Party’s problems. That this argument is false, I think all my regular readers will agree — even those readers who were scalding me in the comments of the previous post. Only by explaining the background of the situation in NY-23 now, and giving you advance warning of the outcome, could I prevent you from being deceived by the MSM’s post-election spin.
Hoffman is not a sore loser. As has been previously explained, the Conservative Party of New York decided after the 2009 special election that Hoffman would again be their candidate for 2010. I heard Mike Long say that on Election Night at the Hotel Saranac, as soon as it became evident that Hoffman had lost to Owens. Hoffman had “stepped up,” as Long said, when nobody else was interested in challenging Dede Scozzafava, and the Conservative Party was going to stick with him through thick or thin. Given that kind of steadfast support, and having accepted the Conservative nomination, should Hoffman tell Mike Long, “Thanks, but I’m going to quit now”? No, of course not. To do so would be dishonorable.

It was because of his desire to unify the Republican/Conservative coalition — the only hope for defeating Bill Owens in NY-23 — that Hoffman sought the GOP nomination. When Mike Long issued his May warning that Doheny was not acceptable to the Conservative Party, which was sticking with Hoffman all the way, that was the time for the voices that are now crying “unity” to have spoken up and rallied Republicans behind Hoffman.

That did not happen, and now I’m going to tell you why it didn’t happen. Go back to March of this year, when Hoffman was the first candidate to officially announce for the GOP primary in NY-23. At that point, as Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey said, “This time . . . Hoffman has to be an early favorite to run the table. He has a high profile, thanks to his amazing run last year.” Given Hoffman’s overwhelming advantage, why did Matt Doheny decide to challenge Hoffman for the GOP nomination? And why did Doheny win?

As I told you before, Doheny invested $1 million of his own money in the campaign and yet, as the Sept. 14 primary approached, it appeared that Hoffman would win anyway. That’s when the Doheny campaign sent out these two mailers:

The first mailer accused Hoffman of wrongly enriching himself, and the second mailer involved Hoffman’s payment of an FEC fine for campaign-finance violations. Doheny’s campaign also spent thousands of dollars to turn those accusations into radio and TV ads.

The accusation that Hoffman was “lining his pockets” is so vile and baseless that I regret even having to rebut it. Let’s go back to the 2009 campaign:

A month before Election Day, the Hoffman campaign had been nearly broke. Despite endorsements from organizations like Club for Growth and the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, the Conservative Party candidate’s challenge to liberal Republican state assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava was on the verge of fizzling out in early October.
“Truth be known, for a long time, we were running on empty,” said Hoffman, sitting in his campaign headquarters the morning after the election. “If we didn’t get the support when we got it — well, it was touch-and-go for a while.”

During that lean period, Hoffman spent his own money to keep the campaign going. The campaign subsequently reimbursed him for those expenses, which is entirely legal and proper. For the Doheny campaign to try to portray such a routine and honest transaction as Hoffman “lining his own pockets” with “special interest money” is absolutely dishonest.

The explanation of the FEC fine is equally innocent. The McCain-Feingold law requires campaigns to provide notification within 48 hours of all contributions over $1,000 received in the last 20 days before the election. There were 37 such contributions (totalling $55,000) which the Hoffman campaign received between Oct. 15-31. (Election Day was Nov. 3, so the 48-hour notification requirement obviously did not apply from Nov. 1 onward.)

None of these contributions were illegal or secret. The only violation was the failure to make notification within 48 hours. And, remembering that the Hoffman campaign was understaffed and in danger of going broke in early October — before Dick Armey and Sarah Palin made their endorsements — it’s easy to understand why the required notifications were not made in a sufficiently timely manner.

Yet there were additional mitigating circumstances, as the Hoffman campaign explained to the Watertown newspaper:

Robert H. Ryan, the candidate’s spokesman, blamed SecurePay.com, the campaign’s Internet credit card processor for the missing reports.
“We received an avalanche of money in the final weeks of the (last) campaign,” he said Tuesday. “When it hit zenith, the credit card processor could not handle the volume.”
Daniel A. Ehring, an Albany lawyer representing Mr. Hoffman, said the campaign started noticing discrepancies in its actual and reported contributions on Oct. 20 – one day after FreedomWorks chairman and former House majority leader Richard Armey endorsed Mr. Hoffman.
By Oct. 24 – two days after former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin backed Mr. Hoffman – the candidate’s staffers were receiving numerous phone calls from “irate campaign contributors” who were double and triple billed. Others, the attorney said, were charged $1,000 when they gave $100.
This continued until Nov. 2, the day before the election, Mr. Ehring said in a letter soon after the last election to Northern Merchants Services, SecurePay’s parent company.
Despite numerous phone calls from the campaign, Mr. Ehring said the number of billing issues only increased before the vendor ceased all communication with Mr. Hoffman’s team.

Ask any campaign official who has experience with online contributions. These kinds of problems are common enough to cause major headaches for even the best-financed campaigns with the most professional staff. That these problems overwhelmed the resources of a grassroots operation like Doug Hoffman’s 2009 campaign, putting them in violation of the 48-hour notification requirement, is hardly surprising.

The FEC assessed a total fine of $6,930 in the case and, while the Hoffman campaign might have appealed the ruling and gone to court, the attorney’s fees for such litigation would have exceeded the amount of the fine, so they paid the fine in August.

However, it wasn’t until Sept. 13 — the day before this year’s primary — that the FEC publicly released its report in the case, by which time the Doheny campaign had long since sent its mailers and run its TV ads falsely accusing Hoffman of “lining his pockets” and implying that this FEC fine was somehow evidence of corruption.

So now you know what Matt Doheny did with his $1 million campaign and how he won the GOP primary by 700 votes.

And I know Doug Hoffman. I’ve met him, met his wife, met his friends and his neighbors and his grassroots supporters. Everyone who knows him will tell you that Doug is a thoroughly decent, honest, Christian man. On Nov. 2, will those people vote for Doheny, who last year made the maximum donation to Dede Scozzafava and this year spent his money to defame Doug Hoffman?

It’s a free country, and people have to decide for themselves what to do in such a situation. I can only speak for myself.

Hoffman was a hero when we badly needed a hero. I cannot abandon him now, no matter what anyone else may say.

And I tell you this: Matt Doheny will not be elected to Congress.

Not this year. Not ever.

DOUG HOFFMAN for U.S. CONGRESS

Category: Congress, Doug Hoffman, Election, New York

Comments

119 Responses to “In Defense of Doug Hoffman”

Scozzafava Republican Matt Doheny Seeks to Re-Elect Democrat Bill Owens in NY-23 : The Other McCain
September 25th, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

[…] for U.S. CONGRESSUPDATE: In recognition of, and in response to, the complaints of loyal readers: IN DEFENSE OF DOUG HOFFMAN. var addthis_append_data='false';var addthis_language='en';var addthis_options='twitter, digg, […]
DOUG HOFFMAN for U.S. CONGRESS « Si Vis Pacem
September 25th, 2010 @ 9:39 pm

[…] Get over to Stacy’s place, too. […]
Joe
September 25th, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

It is a terribly unfortunate situation, and no, Hoffman is not like Murkowski, or Crist, or (God forbid) Scozzafava.

But like all tragedies, the ending will be bitter. Even if Doheny is a spoiler and liar, he is the party candidate and he will pull a substantial number of votes. He would not have won if that were not the case.

So Owens, the Democrat, will win (again). And it is because Doheny and Hoffman are spliting the vote. And no matter what happens Hoffman will get the blame (from a sizable group) and will be damaged by this.
Joe
September 25th, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

If Doheny is so bad, then perhaps it is for the best. Still, it is a bitter outcome.
Joe
September 25th, 2010 @ 10:01 pm

Still, miracles do happen, even in upstate New York.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 25th, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

@Joe

Still, miracles do happen, even in upstate New York.

Now, that’s the spirit, Joe. Once the decent people in NY-23 realize that Doheny won the GOP primary by slandering a good man, the Republican’s support will melt down, and there will be a surge toward Hoffman.

Remember, the Democrats think all they’ve got to do is beat the Republican, so the Democrats will actually help us make sure everyone in NY-23 knows that Matt Doheny is a liar. And then, when they have the big televised debate between Owens, Doheny and Hoffman . . . well, you can imagine how ugly it’s going to look when Doheny actually has to defend those lies.

So, yeah, miracles can happen in upstate New York. Don’t lose faith in Doug Hoffman yet!
Sil in CNY
September 25th, 2010 @ 10:16 pm

I was one of Doug Hoffman’s supporters last year. This year I wasn’t sure who to support…I wanted the best person to represent NY23. I met Matt Doheny on several occasions. Spoke with him as an individual, as a member of my County’s Conservative Committee and as a member of my local 9/12 group. He seemed to be saying all the right things, but I still wasn’t sure. I wasn’t satisfied with his answer for why he didn’t accept Mike Long’s invitation to run last year (he said it was because he gave his word to the party…which tells me he cared more about party than principle). Doug’s campaign has been somewhat lackluster up through the primary (compared to last year) but a new campaign staff may be to blame for that. I have been more uncertain since Doug lost the GOP primary…until today. I had a chance to speak with Doheny again today. I shook his hand and congratulated him on his primary win. I then said I had one thing to ask of him…whether it was his doing or his campaign’s, the campaign got “dirty” toward the end and could he please stick to the issues and facts. He replied..and I quote “I am not going to apologize for anything, after he lied about me for the last nine months. You can congratulate me or not, but I’m not going to listen to that.” There was no humility in him. There was only ego. I don’t think he was even running 9 months ago! Matt Doheny didn’t care about me…a possible constituent…he won the GOP primary, so what did my opinion matter. Don’t be surprised if the campaign continues it’s dirty tone….I believe Mr. Doheny likes it that way. I, however, am now quite certain that I will be voting for DOUG HOFFMAN FOR CONGRESS…and I won’t be alone. Talk to Matt Doheny yourself…then decided what type of person he really is and if he is worthy of representing “We The People.”
JC
September 25th, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

I’ll start by saying that I respect your transparency on why you feel the way you do. I do feel like I should point out some facts which you left out above.

First, you omitted the gravamen of the charge which led to the mailers which you say were dishonest. Doheny charged that Hoffman was lining his pockets not only because Hoffman reimbursed himself for odd expenses but rather because Hoffman was also charging his campaign interest on those loans. Although I think such a practice is technically lawful, it seems as though very few politicians actually do it because they are afraid to leave themselves open to the charge that they actually profited from their campaign. It’s a pretty important fact and it deserves to be mentioned. Doheny also charged that Hoffman was allowing the campaign to use property Hoffman owned while charging the campaign rent. This, again, is pretty weird conduct. Again, maybe technically above board but certainly open to criticism. If you’re a politician and you own office space, leasing it to your campaign is not a smart move for precisely this reason. If your argument is someone else could be renting the property? Um, let someone else rent it then. It’s common sense.

Here’s a local news story from one of the papers within the 23rd detailing the interest practice:

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100721/NEWS02/307219986

And on the separate issue of the FEC fines, when Hoffman was asked about it, he did refuse to comment at first, leading journalists to speculate as to why. Frankly, it was a screwup by Hoffman not to comment on it and he was burned by not only Doheny but by the local media.

On one level, I really sympathize with the idea that Hoffman’s story has ended this way. It is certainly true that without him, Dede S. would have been the nominee from the 23rd and no one knows how that election would have gone.

Still, at bottom, if primaries are good in Delaware and Alaska then they should be good here as well. If you count the money which Doug spent in 2009 to get his name out there, Hoffman easily doubled Doheny’s spending over the past year. The reality is that Hoffman thought that his advantages would be enough and by all accounts, even his supporters, ran a terrible campaign.

You might be able to tell, I followed this race closely both this and last year. I listened carefully to both debates this time around and I do feel, as I said in my prior comment, that both sides ran tough ads at the close. Hoffman did some push-polling which was awful close to the line and also misrepresented some facts related to Doheny’s brushes with the Coast Guard. You think Doheny’s finance fliers were dishonest, I don’t.

I appreciate your forthrightness and transparency about why you support Hoffman and will continue to do so. But politics ain’t beanbag. I don’t think Doheny was dishonest. And I do think he’s going to win in any event. And to argue that everyone should have just gotten out of Mike Long’s line because he deemed Doheny unacceptable? Surely, upon reflection, you will realize how strange that sounds in a democracy.
Lonely Conservative
September 25th, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

I like Hoffman. But his campaign this time around was really weak. If I were in the district I would have voted for the guy. But he doesn’t have the same support he had last time around. The situation stinks. I know that. But during the special election I saw Hoffman signs all over in the town where I work. This time – nothing!

Didn’t you recently write that it’s all about the campaigns? Well, his campaign this time was weak. And the poor guy is really lacking in social skills. I’ve been talking to a lot of local politicians lately, and you know what, they all can talk to people. Hoffman lacks that skill. Not to mention that I reached out to his campaign during the special election and they didn’t even bother to respond. I may not be the biggest blogger nationally, but I don’t know of many local blogs with my readership. Why insult a local political blogger? I sent an email to Ann Marie Buerkle and she personally responded and agreed to an interview. I can’t tell you how many local folks search for “Ann Marie Buerkle” and land on my site. Why did the Hoffman campaign ignore a local blogger? I tend to think voters are more trusting of people who live in their area than outsiders. And his campaign snubbed me, so I decided to extend my efforts elsewhere. He didn’t lose by much. Could I have swayed a couple of thousand primary voters? I don’t know. Maybe. But we’ll never know.
waylay
September 25th, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

I’m still waiting for RSM’s post defending Rick Lazio who like Hoffmann is nominated by the Conservative Party but lost in the GOP primary and still chose to stay in the (governor’s) race to the detriment of the GOP nominee (Paladino) and thereby making it (more) hard to beat the democrat.

But by RSM’s logic, Paladino must be the spoil sport here, because he was endorsed/nominated by the oh, so principled NY-Conservative party!
Ran / Si Vis Pacem
September 25th, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

Stacy,
Thanks for the great reporting. Shall support TOMcC’s efforts at my end, too.

Cheers!
Robert Stacy McCain
September 25th, 2010 @ 11:14 pm

@JC

I seriously considered deleting your comment, and decided to let it stay, in part because I wanted to explain why I was tempted to delete it.

First, to quote the Watertown Daily Times back at me in the comments on this post, when I’d already seen that story even before I did the first post this morning, is unnecessary. The Daily Times is arguably the biggest problem with the Republican Party in that part of New York. The newspaper’s publisher is a friend of Scozzafava and backed her all the way in 2009.

On the particular story you cite, as usual throughout both of Hoffman’s campaigns, the Daily Times was engaged in promoting his opponent’s talking points, framing the story in such a way as to cast Hoffman in the worst possible light, as if the interest payments were corrupt — that this relatively minor sum ($3,500 in interest on three loans totalling nearly $350,000) means that Hoffman was campaigning for Congress in order to enrich himself.

To compare Hoffman’s 2009 campaign to Owens (the Democratic incumbent) is absurd. The Democratic Party’s donors can easily afford to make good Owens’ loans. The Conservative Party of New York . . . eh, not so much. Likewise, what’s the point of the comparing a successful upstate accountant like Hoffman to Doheny, who got so rich on Wall Street that he owns a private island and had no problem self-financing to the tune of $1,000,000?

In 2009, Doheny was paid $6.9 million by Fintech, a company whose principal investments are in Mexico and Argentina. And, in case you weren’t aware of it, the DCCC made clear as early as July that Doheny’s Wall Street career will be a huge target in the general election campaign:

Shripal Shah, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman, said Fintech “has been getting rich creating jobs overseas … while jobs are needed in New York.”
He added: “Upstate New York needs a Congressman who will fight for them, not someone like Matt Doheny who puts his own financial interests ahead of jobs in New York.”

Now, I hate that kind of class-warfare propaganda like God hates sin, but after the kind of smear campaign Doheny waged against Hoffman — spending that money to tell people that Hoffman was “lining his own pockets” with “special interest money” — it is not with any sense of mourning that I tell you that Doheny is unelectable.

Doheny is dead meat Nov. 2. That’s just a fact, beyond my control or your control. Excuse me for feeling that such a defeat is exactly what Doheny deserves.
Mike
September 25th, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

Interesting reading, especially the comments section. I don’t have as much interest in what happens in the NY23 election as I do in the elections in South Carolina, but it’s enlightening to read about election troubles in other parts of the country. For instance, we have the Alvin Greene vs Jim DeMint race here, plus we’re trying to find a good Conservative to run against Lindsey “Amnesty” Graham in 2012.

Mike
Robert Stacy McCain
September 25th, 2010 @ 11:32 pm

@TLC:

Why did the Hoffman campaign ignore a local blogger?

I don’t know the answer to that question, except to say that throughout the 2009 special-election campaign they were desperately understaffed. It wasn’t until after they got the back-to-back endorsements of Dick Armey and Sarah Palin (Oct. 21-22) that they had enough money to stuff up. At that point, there were less than two weeks remaining until election day (Nov. 3) and things were happening so fast that who knows what all got lost in the shuffle?

In general, I will say that professional Republican campaign operatives have a notable tendency toward arrogance. They are in many cases prone to treat people based on superficial impressions — i.e., does someone seem important? — so that the meek and humble often get the feeling that they are being brushed off. Hence, my extremely aggressive approach to campaign reporting: I just shove my way into the middle of wherever I want to go, and don’t take any shit from these two-bit 24-year-old staff pukes who think they’re better than me.

It’s one thing to second-guess the operations of Hoffman’s campaign staff, but quite another thing to let Doheny get away with his cheap smears on a decent guy like Hoffman.
Lonely Conservative
September 26th, 2010 @ 12:36 am

Well, then, how about we all get on board the Ann Marie Buerkle campaign! She can win! NY23 may be lost, but NY25 is very much in play.

I’ll shut up about what the locals have to say about Hoffman.
JC
September 26th, 2010 @ 12:43 am

@RSM

Fair points. I left out that the Times endorsed Doheny, I should have mentioned that. But, the facts are as they are stated in the piece. I only cited it lest someone accuse me of making them up. And let’s assume that Hoffman didn’t need the interest. Hoffman didn’t need the rent from his own properties. Hoffman didn’t need the income from his accounting business. All were still enormously dumb things to do politically. As other commenters have said, Doug ran an enormously inept campaign and this is just one example. He gave Doheny this opening and he ran through it.

And I think it’s also fair to say that Doheny’s career choice will be an issue.

But, all that said, Doug Hoffman’s had two bites at the apple. And he’s failed. I think he will finish 3rd this time around. If you think that the point he will make by finishing 3rd is worth making, and potentially worth preventing another fiscal conservative from being in Congress, I can respect that. I disagree.
richard mcenroe
September 26th, 2010 @ 12:51 am

There’s no reason to vote GOP in NY-23. It’s simply a matter of decency.
Roxeanne de Luca
September 26th, 2010 @ 1:23 am

First, I would not be surprised to see Doheny go all soft on Owens. In Florida, Rick Scott self-financed to the tune of $50 million (IIRC) to defeat the current Attorney General, and is now walking around with kid gloves for the Democrat. Not that I think we should be soft on each other and nothing against holding our own party’s feet to the fire, but… wow.

Doheny charged that Hoffman was lining his pockets not only because Hoffman reimbursed himself for odd expenses but rather because Hoffman was also charging his campaign interest on those loans.

[Raises an eyebrow] Really? That’s problematic, why? Now, JC, if you’re talking about a Rick Scott or a Rick Snyder who has millions of their own money to throw at campaign expenses, yes, it may seem strange to ask for reimbursement. But Hoffman isn’t rich. Hoffman is also an accountant, so if he went anal-retentive on billing, well, that’s his accountant DNA, not a character flaw. Also, if Hoffman pulled money out of CDs or money markets or his 401(k) to finance this, or even put it on a credit card that does not have a grace period for charging interest, then it would be totally appropriate to ask for reimbursement. Obviously.

Now, a rant against your little “this is weird and unorthodox and messed up” screed: if I let a campaign use my office, I have to report that as an in-kind contribution. Technically, if I make calls from my cell phone, I have to report that. Up here in Massachusetts, Jim McKenna got into trouble because he put a campaign expense on his personal credit card, rather than directly making a loan to his campaign fund and paying from there. Do you really NOT understand how complicated, asinine, and particular these rules are? Do you not get that these rules are almost designed for non-professional politicians to run afoul of them?

Final thought: why the heck isn’t this GOP dude going through Owen’s expenses and reimbursements line-by-line? Surely, he’s had more than enough time since November 2009 to do so, right?
Robert Stacy McCain
September 26th, 2010 @ 2:02 am

Well, then, how about we all get on board the Ann Marie Buerkle campaign! She can win! NY23 may be lost, but NY25 is very much in play.

I second that emotion.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 26th, 2010 @ 2:22 am

But Hoffman isn’t rich.

Uh, Roxeanne: He ain’t poor, either. Among other things, he has significant commercial real-estate investments around his hometown — owns a shopping center, etc. But your point about the anal-rententive accountant personality is on-target, I think. Remember that, as a child, Hoffman was very poor, and went to work at age 14 to help support his family after his father died. He didn’t become successful by wasting money. So it’s not hard to imagine him calculating the value of the assets that Doug Hoffman, businessman, provided to a separate entity called “Hoffman for Congress, Inc.” — and billing that entity for every penny.

As a matter of public relations, would it have been advisable for Hoffman to waive interest on his loans to the campaign and to ignore the kind of nickel-and-dime stuff like office space, etc.? Of course. But then you have to remember that Hoffman had never run for public office before and thus had no experience in dealing with such matters. He did what was legal and probably didn’t even think about how it might be perceived if an opponent started going through the campaign’s financial statements line by line.

Whatever Hoffman did, though, he sure as hell didn’t deserve to be accused of “lining his pockets” with “special interest money,” or to have it suggested that a minor FEC fine for failing to meet the 48-hour disclosure requirement amounted to some kind of Watergate-style corruption. That Doheny did that, and still won by just 700 votes out of 30,000 cast in the primary, should tell you all you need to know about the likelihood of Doheny beating Owens Nov. 2.

Not. Gonna. Happen.
Estragon
September 26th, 2010 @ 2:36 am

Spin.

The question is not who the paper endorsed. The question is whether the report is true or not. It’s one of the diversionary logical fallacies which enable one to avoid addressing the real issue.

Did Doheny say Hoffman’s actions were illegal? I didn’t see that in what is reproduced above, and I cannot imagine why such an allegation, which would buttress the argument against him, would be overlooked if there were any basis to it.

I see him saying Hoffman “lined his pockets” from campaign funds, which appears to be the case. He took money beyond actual expenses directly related to the campaign. In the amounts and manner he took the money, it doesn’t seem to be illegal, and Doheny didn’t say it was.

I see him saying Hoffman was “fined thousands of dollars by the FEC” – true, or not true?

Unless there is more than appears here, I wouldn’t apologize for the mailings either. Why would I if they are entirely truthful?

~~~~~~~~

New York is a special case with their Conservative Party, I understand. But it rarely wins on its own in races where the Dems and Repubs both field candidates, too. Jim
Buckley did it in 1970 . . . few if any have done so since in any race as large as a Congressional District.

CP exists mainly to keep the GOP honest, and not to let them get away with liberal nominees. And it does as good a job of it as one could expect from conservatives in New York, a state which has been dependably blue for decades except for Reagan.

But winning the CP nomination doesn’t entitle one to the GOP nod. And where it amounts to draining enough votes to ensure the Republican cannot win, it is counter-productive. You cannot win by losing, and more Democrats mean more Pelosi-like leadership. Haven’t we seen how that works? Punish John McCain by voting for Barr or some other also-ran, and we get Barack Obama. Thanks, great strategy, all the millions out of work are grateful for your purity!

The Lazios and Hoffmans are NOT out there making converts to our cause. When the Perfect becomes the enemy of the Good, it by necessity also becomes the ally of the Evil.

Finally, I put it to you, since we are already knee deep in hypotheticals: suppose Crist, or Bennett, or Murky, or Castle had secured the endorsement of some minor party with ballot access (which is the key) like Hoffman did, before the GOP primary, and then used that ballot access to keep going, would you be defending their actions, too?

Of course it is a hypothetical, so I can’t say. Only you know the answer, in your heart.

An argument which begins with the conclusion and works backwards to attempt justify it is not recognized as logically valid.

One might expect Libertarians to understand that life isn’t fair, and usually when we don’t get what we want it isn’t due to some dark conspiracy, and it doesn’t make the guy who beat us this time evil or even a bad guy. We can never win them all, and often we will lose some tough ones, and even more often we will lose some that are just tough to lose.

Too often I see a desire not just to win, but to punish the opponent who disagrees with us win or lose, even if it means we lose to the greater evil of a Democratic win of a seat.

This is unwise. I have nothing against vengeance any more than any other sin, and in fact I have nothing against any sin at all – I do despise and regret the weakness of character and lack of faith which can lead me to succumb to them, but “hating the sin” always seemed to me an insincere expression.
waylay
September 26th, 2010 @ 2:38 am

NY23 may be lost, but NY25 is very much in play. –Lonely Conservative

I second that emotion. –RSM

I second that delusion too.

fwiw it is far more likely NY-24/NY-19 will still remain as dem holds than NY-25 going to the republicans.

NY-23 and NY-3 (and NY-29 very likely) will be the only NY districts that still remain red after the midterms.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 26th, 2010 @ 2:52 am

If you think that the point he will make by finishing 3rd is worth making, and potentially worth preventing another fiscal conservative from being in Congress, I can respect that. I disagree.

JC, like all too many political analysts who ought to know better, you seem to be trapped in thinking of the electorate in fixed-pie terms. It is not true, as you seem to think, that all the people who will vote for Hoffman on Nov. 2 would otherwise automatically vote for the Republican, no matter who the Republican is or what the issues of the campaign are.

For a few months in spring 2008, that kind of perspective caused a lot of National Review-type conservatives to have a screaming conniption over Bob Barr’s Libertarian Party candidacy. There were a few weeks in May-June 2008 when it seemed that Ron Paul might throw his weight behind the Barr campaign, which possibility scared the shit out of some people. I remember George Will, among others, writing very soberly about the prospect of Barr being a “spoiler.”

However, as most people who’ve looked at the third-party phenomen in depth will tell you, a large share of people who vote for third-party candidates wouldn’t vote at all, if the only choice they had was D-vs.-R. And in those cases where you can look at the third-party candidate as genuinely playing the “spoiler” (i.e., with a greater vote total than the winner’s margin of victory), the losing candidate is always badly damaged by something other than the alleged “spoiler.” This was true of Humphrey in ’68, of Bush Sr. in ’92, and of Gore in ’00.

The same will be true with Doheny this fall. In 2008, Doheny worked for Deutsche Bank, which collected $11.8 billion from AIG in the TARP bailout, and then went to FinTech, which seems to invest primarily in Mexico and Argentina. If you think the DCCC can’t destroy Doheny with just those two facts, you sadly underestimate the appeal of the Democrats’ class-warfare messsage in that kind of district.

Hell’s bells, I remember the vicious DCCC ads against Hoffman last fall, trying to make this mild-mannered accountant look like upstate New York’s answer to Gordon Gekko. What the Dems will do to Doheny . . . oh, it’s not going to be pretty, not pretty at all. I’m warning you in advance because I guaran-damn-tee you that on Nov. 3, the MSM are going to explain Doheny’s loss by reference to Hoffman — third-party spoiler! conservatives divided! — and if you weren’t forewarned, you might be tempted to believe that kind of biased crap.
Dandapani
September 26th, 2010 @ 6:47 am

Even if Doheny is a spoiler and liar, he is the party candidate…

And that my friends, is why I’m no longer a Republican, but a Conservative. I no longer vote the party line and vote what I’m given to choose. I vote for the Conservative. What? No Conservative on the ballot. Guess no one gets my vote. No longer will I vote for a RINO. RINOs need to become extinct. RINOs confuse the electorate and move politics just a little more left of center. F’em.
conservativeBC
September 26th, 2010 @ 7:13 am

What is wrong with being a conservative purist?

I have had it up to here with people pandering t the liberals. I sent the to Erick Erickson at REDSTATE http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2010/09/hey-erick-erickson-real-conservatives.html
waylay
September 26th, 2010 @ 7:45 am

@Dandapani

And that my friends, is why I’m no longer a Republican, but a Conservative.

We would like to know why you are no longer an Indian, but (supposedly) an American.

How long since you got your voting rights in America btw? Go back to your country, Osama.

Maybe emigrate to Saudi or Dubai, you will fit right in with your conservative ideology.
CountVikula
September 26th, 2010 @ 7:50 am

To make a loan to a campaign, I would think the lender would be obligated to charge a rate of interest, and with Doug being an accountant, he’d know that.

“Enriching himself” with $3,500 of interest? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK. Dishonest BS from his opponent.

I am really bummed about the race, as Doug is awesome and I wanted him in Congress. I guess he could still get there. It sucks he has Mike Long as a party leader, as I have cut my ties with the CP after the whole Paladino/Lazio fiasco.
waylay
September 26th, 2010 @ 7:56 am

Lets not vote for RINOs! Instead, lets vote for FCINOs (Fiscal Conservative In Name Only) like Sarah Palin!

LMAO!
waylay
September 26th, 2010 @ 8:11 am

Many Indian Americans in the US are socially conservative (very against gay marriages) and they generally are wary (racial prejudice) against blacks. They also happen to be fiscal conservatives (tax cuts for the rich and stuff) given Indian Americans are the richest earning groups among all ethnic groups (including Jewish Americans) in the country.

But interestingly this doesn’t translate into an overwhelming support for the GOP. They tend to be a dependable Democratic voting group right from the Clinton years. Bush to his credit tried to reach out to this growing, political influential group for raising funds and votes but with little success. Dems under Obama have only increased the support by 2008. And there is no sign of letting down. Ever wonder why? Indians are generally repulsed by overt religion messages in politics, the likes of Sarah Plain are an instant turn off. (Even in India, the major right wing political party–BJP–that uses Hindu religion to get the anti-muslim votes and such rarely succeeds in getting tangible power, although most Indians are highly religious.)
waylay
September 26th, 2010 @ 8:25 am

My brother worked for HP form many years (no, he wasn’t among those fired during Carly’s tenure), and he thinks she did a shitty job. he is not alone, just ask anyone in the Silicon Valley what their impression is about her. He is a conservative, would have voted for a California Republican if not for Carly.
john from bay ridge
September 26th, 2010 @ 8:55 am

If you want another example of Republicans eating their own look at the Grimm/McMahon house race in NY. There, a “Sicilian blood feud” between the Molinari and Fossella factions of the SI Republican party is preventing their endorsement of Mike Grimm, an electable candidate
and the winner of the Republican primary against SI’s hand picked candidate. The district is split between Brooklyn and Staten Island and Grimm has Conservative party backing in both counties.
Jonathan Kistler
September 26th, 2010 @ 9:17 am

I live in the 23th district and I will vote for Doug Hoffman in the general election. Another issue with Matt Doheny is how did he vote in last year’s special election. Doheny claimed he voted, but he did not say who he voted for. Did Doheny vote for Bill Owens the Democrat?
ak4mc
September 26th, 2010 @ 9:18 am

If someone like Waylame were spoouting his racist gibberish on my blog he would be banned. As it is, having already seen his racist gibberish here it wouldn’t matter what he said on my blog, he would be banned summarily the moment he showed up.
waylay
September 26th, 2010 @ 9:42 am

@ak4mc

I know lots of black and Muslim/Arab folks! You’re attributing the racist smear to me based on something you don’t know anything about!

I hope you don’t ban RSM from your blog. (And of course Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and their ilk.):

David Weigel at Washington Independent:

Robert Stacy McCain, a former Washington Times reporter who was characterized by a former co-worker as an “ill-tempered racist,” and was quoted as once saying that “reasonable people” react to images of interracial couples with “altogether natural revulsion.”

…I called up McCain, whom I know pretty well from years of covering the conservative movement,…

On the interracial couples story: “I know lots of interracial couples. They’re attributing that to me based on something they don’t know anything about.”
the Dragon
September 26th, 2010 @ 10:28 am

Estragon
September 26th, 2010 @ 2:36 am Said:
“Unless there is more than appears here, I wouldn’t apologize for the mailings either. Why would I if they are entirely truthful?”

Cool.

You approve of “TECHNICALLY” truthful, and contextually FRAUDULENT!

“Dictionary: fraud (frôd)
n.
1.A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2.A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
a.One that defrauds; a cheat.
b.One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.”

There are many statements which, when confined so microscopically as to be accurate or truthful, which can be presented to imply a larger truth which in fact is false.

You find “lined his pockets” to be accurate. Cool, please provide visual evidence of said pockets actually lined with $$$. Otherwise it is a subjective judgement which is not or cannot be accepted as factual.

You were proposing accuracy? OR just don’t really care about accuracy.

Regards,

David W. McGraw
Ben (The Tiger)
September 26th, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

I can see arguments for calling Doheny a bad person who will lose… I just don’t see how — given a fairly contested primary, unlike in the special election last year — this justifies a third party run.

Sorry. Don’t like vote splitting sore loser runs from the centre, and I don’t like vote splitting on the right. To divide is not to conquer, and the way forward is fir conservatives to purge the GOP.

Slight exception: I support a Mike Castle write-in bid that can get Christine O’Donnell a victory with 40% of the vote, like Jim Buckley in 1970.
Kojocaro
September 26th, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

she is a conservative who believes in free market captialism but yet she needs to be deported to saudi arabia

BTW i like how waylame who supports raising taxes on the rich is calling someone else a FCINO
Kojocaro
September 26th, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

i’am amused by how he smears pamela geller and robert spencer and robert stacy mccain as racist because of their unwavering support of israel honestly i have heard blacks talk about how interracial marriage is evil but yet waylame doesn’t call them racists
Kojocaro
September 26th, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

lefty blacks mind you
Roxeanne de Luca
September 26th, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

Stupid question: after waylay’s disgusting comments on 9/11, why is anyone even bothering with him? Shouldn’t he just be ignored as if he isn’t writing at all?
Morgan
September 26th, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

With this stuff about false ads (similar thing happened in my own district, IN-3, just before primary day), the choice is obvious: Support Doug Hoffman.

Bill Owens is a bad choice, but a liar is no better.
waylay
September 26th, 2010 @ 11:15 pm

Stupid question: after Roxeanne de Luca’s sad comments about spending a wasted new year’s eve in Amsterdam, why isn’t everyone paying her all the attention she deserves? Shouldn’t she just be applauded with every passing Roxeanne comment as if she is writing Shakespeare?
Scozzafava Redux: Doheny Wrecks GOP Chances in NY-23 « Si Vis Pacem
September 27th, 2010 @ 8:58 am

[…] This symbolical important of this race? Why, elect Democrat Bill Owens, of course. Just vote for the RINO! […]
Sore Losermen « The American Catholic
September 30th, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

[…] McCain has come to Hoffman’s defense, but it just doesn’t wash with me. Hoffman is not a sore loser. As has been previously […]