In Defense of Doug Hoffman

“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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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

Scozzafava Republican Matt Doheny Seeks to Re-Elect Democrat Bill Owens in NY-23

“For the first trimester, I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”
— Matt Doheny, March 29, 2010

“I am pro-life. Period.”
— Doug Hoffman, March 29, 2010

It’s Dede Scozzafava all over again in NY-23. Pro-abortion GOP candidate Matt Doheny spent $1 million of his own money to buy the nomination, squeaking out by 700 votes over Doug Hoffman in the Sept. 14 primary.

Conservative Party chairman Mike Long said all along that Hoffman would once again be their party’s candidate in NY-23. Long warned that Doheny was unacceptable for the Conservative endorsement. The chairman explained that, after the Republican establishment picked RINO Dede Scozzafava in 2009, the Conservatives had asked Doheny to run on their ticket, but he turned them down: “Matt Doheny failed at that defining moment.”

Chairman Long also noted that on Oct. 10, 2009 — after conservatives nationwide began rallying behind Hoffman — Doheny made the maximum $2,400 contribution to Scozzafava:

Doheny did more than max out to “Dede for Congress Inc.” On Oct. 29, after Hoffman had gotten the endorsements of Sarah Palin, Dick Armey and other national conservative leaders, Doheny donated $10,000 to the only major group still actively supporting Scozzafava, the New York Republican Federal Campaign Committee.

Two days later, Scozzafava pulled the plug on her campaign and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens.

Thus, Doheny gave $12,400 to beat Doug Hoffman in 2009 — which is $10,900 more than the total of all Doheny’s other contributions to Republicans ($1,500), as listed on the FEC Web site.

Many Republicans will argue that conservatives should ignore Doheny’s RINO record and support him anyway. They’ll make the same argument they made when they argued that conservatives should support Mike Castle: “But he can win!” 

Let ’em argue until they’re blue in the face. They’re wrong.

No pro-life group in the country would dare endorse Doheny. According to 2008 exit polls, 12% of New York voters are Catholics who attend Mass weekly. If even half of those faithful Catholic voters share Hoffman’s view — “I’m pro-life. Period.” — he’ll get more than enough votes to prevent the election of a pro-abortion Republican like Doheney.

Doug Hoffman had the guts to take on a tough fight. Doheny didn’t.

No guts, no glory. Doheny can’t win. Period.

DOUG HOFFMAN for U.S. CONGRESS

UPDATE: In recognition of, and in response to, the complaints of loyal readers: IN DEFENSE OF DOUG HOFFMAN.

Forgotten Victims of Sharptonism: Remembering Yankel Rosenbaum

“Al Sharpton is a professional bigot. During his long career the Reverend has incited two anti-Semitic pogroms; the Crown Heights riot and the firebombing of the Jewish-owned Freddy’a Fashion Mart in Harlem. Each of the Sharpton-incited pogroms resulted in deaths, but now for some unknown reason Reverend Al believes he is the caretaker of religious tolerance in the country . . .”

Politics Is Attrition Warfare

by Smitty

[Updated: fix date flub]
Finley Peter Dunne famously noted that “politics ain’t beanbag”. Frequently, it boils down to stamina and reinforcements. Whoever remains standing when the resources are exhausted is the winner. The principles involved in the question may or may not matter. How many times have you seen a politician on a network completely ignore an important, but inconvenient question?

The NY-23 election earlyier this last year remains a case study in how a rotten establishment can outlast and possibly circumvent the will of the people. I say possibly, because the Tea Party hasn’t fully steeped. Sam Foster calls the GOP unrepentant for how they are failing to support Doug Hoffman:

. . .Mr. Sickler came up with two important reasons for backing Matt Doheny. He felt that Doheny was the more rounded candidate. More importantly, he and his contemporaries still harbored a grudge against Doug Hoffman for having bucked Scozzafava’s coronation. The local kingmakers desired a more…loyal candidate.

If Republicans are looking for a loyalist, then Doheny is their Manchurian Candidate in disguise. He proved himself to be quite the party lapdog by going along with the candidacy of Dede Scozzafava and financially supporting her election bid with the highest donation allowed by law. Stepping even further, he turned down the chance to run on the Conservative Party ticket ahead of Doug Hoffman, sacrificing his so-called conservative ideals in exchange for not “alienating the Republican Party.”

Here is the point, and I think this generalizes beyond NY-23 to the rest of the country: the GOP won’t take the Tea Party seriously until the Tea Party is the GOP.

Anyone can get a blog, vent the spleen, gather a cohort, make some signs, heap verbal abuse upon officials, go home, and fume because they have been ignored. The Left’s strategy has first and foremost been to ignore and minimize Tea Parties, moving on to slander and marginalization as a secondary tactic. Hoffman’s cold shoulder experience in NY-23 is similar to DeVore in California, and Miller in Alaska.

So, while I met Doug Hoffman at CPAC this year, admire his courage, and support his candidacy, the sad play-by-play laid out in Foster’s article is unsurprising in every particular. Not only is politics attrition warfare, citizenship is not a spectator sport. The current crisis has been bred by lack of participation by a vast chunk of the electorate. Including me.

Get off the beanbag and support your local version of Doug Hoffman, or your sins of omission will result in a pocket-picking, and you’ll be at fault.

Pamela Geller and the Scandalous
Bikini of Right-Wing Extremism

Evidently taking their cue from the Washington Post, now the British Guardian has decided that the most newsworthy thing about conservative blogger Pamela Geller is that she has been seen in public in a swimsuit:

Pamela Geller is on a mission to save the free world and she’s doing it, on this occasion, in a bikini as she writhes around in the sea.
“Here I am in my chador, my burka,” Geller jokes to the camera in one of a string of video blogs campaigning against Islamic “world domination” shortly before kicking back in the waves.

The video is from August 2006 and out of all that Geller has done in the ensuing four years — including authoring The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America with her frequent collaborator, Robert Spencer — evidently nothing lends itself so easily to a feature lede as her bikini moment.

Geller laughed about this treatment when I spoke to her on the phone last week, and at her blog says, “It is comedy. It is to laugh. It is to cry.” Geller told me she was amazed at how she has been singled out as the instigator of controversy over The Lower Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center That the Associated Press Won’t Call the “Ground Zero Mosque” Anymore.

Geller insists she was just one of many involved in the opposition, and says the hundreds who turned out for a June 6 protest deserve credit for making the mosque one of the biggest political stories of the summer. Still, her TV appearances — including CNN, MSNBC and multiple appearances on Fox News — have made her the best-known face of the anti-mosque forces, which is why she’s now the subject of hostile coverage.

Latest example: Max Blumenthal is blaming Geller for an “incident” at a Sunday rally she had nothing to do with. Her rally will be Sept. 11.

‘And the War, Tragically, Continues’

Frank Rich’s latest idiotic idea is that Fox News coverage of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy has thwarted U.S. anti-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan.

No, seriously. He actually devoted 1,572 words to making that absurd argument.

This inspired Rob Long to script a scenario:

I can see it now: the flickering firelight in a dark cave somewhere on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan; the hum of a gas-powered generator; a static-filled, snowy image on the tiny television. On the rickety table, a letter of surrender addressed to General Petraeus. A Taliban terrorist leader is about to sign the letter. His pen is poised over the paper.
And another Taliban terrorist stops him and points to the TV. “Did you see what they called us on Hannity?”

Yeah, that’s a comment on my latest Ricochet contribution, so please read the whole thing. 

Throngs of lovestruck blog groupies will thank you for it.

Scratch Gingrich in 2012: Newt Backs Out of 9/11 Rally Against Ground Zero Mosque

Stick a fork in him, he’s done:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) will not be addressing a protest of the proposed mosque in lower Manhattan on the anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
The organizers of the rally, Stop Islamization of America and Freedom Defense Initiative, announced Gingrich as one of the event’s confirmed speakers on the Web last weekend. . . .
[A] spokesman for Gingrich, a possible 2012 presidential candidate, told The Hill that the former leader of the House had never confirmed his appearance. Instead, one of Gingrich’s staff had agreed to send a video message from him to be shown at the Sept. 11 rally.
That has since been canceled. . . .
[The spokesman] did not comment on why Gingrich was no longer planning to send a video message to the rally . . .

Two words: Testicular atrophy.

In the space of five days, Gingrich has gone from comparing the mosque to a Nazi sign at the Holocaust Museum to quitting a protest against it.

Make an enemy of Pamela Geller? Be my guest, Newt. Nice presidential campaign you had there.

Associated (Orwellian) Press

A memo from the Ministry of Truth:

AP Standards Center issues staff advisory
on covering New York City mosque

Associated Press Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production Tom Kent sent the following note to the staff about covering the New York City mosque story:
Aug. 19, 2010
Colleagues,
Here is some guidance on covering the NYC mosque story, with assists from Chad Roedemeier in the NYC bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington:
1. We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away.
WE WILL CHANGE OUR SLUG ON THIS STORY LATER TODAY from “BC-Ground Zero Mosque” to “BC-NYC Mosque.”
In short headlines, some ways to refer to the project include:
_ mosque 2 blocks from WTC site
_ Muslim (or Islamic) center near WTC site
_ mosque near ground zero
_ mosque near WTC site
We can refer to the project as a mosque, or as a proposed Islamic center that includes a mosque.
It may be useful in some stories to note that Muslim prayer services have been held since 2009 in the building that the new project will replace. The proposal is to create a new, larger Islamic community center that would include a mosque, a swimming pool, gym, auditorium and other facilities.
2. Here is a succinct summary of President Obama’s position:
Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center in New York as a matter of religious freedom, though he’s also said he won’t take a position on whether they should actually build it.
For additional background, you’ll find below a Fact Check on the project that moved yesterday.
Tom

Good-bye, “Ground Zero Mosque,” hello, “Muslim center near WTC site”!

We look forward to future AP guidelines on Pearl Harbor (“a former U.S. naval base in Hawaii”) and Treblinka (“site of a former German government detention center”).

UPDATE: Linked by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Bob Belvedere at Camp of the Saints. Now a thread at Memeorandum.

UPDATE II: Linked by Western Rifle Shooters and (obviously) not linked by Allahpundit, although the first commenter on that post catches the Orwellian aspect: “We have always been at war with Eurasia.”