Doug Hoffman Forgives Newt Gingrich?

When Professor William Jacobson called this to my attention, I could scarcely believe it, yet Dave Weigel has the story:

So what does Hoffman think? Is Newt to be trusted?
“I support all the candidates running right at the moment,” said Hoffman. “Any one of them would be better than the current president, and that definitely includes Newt Gingrich. Newt apologized to me for not endorsing me, and that’s water over the dam, I think.”
Right before the election, Gingrich apologized publicly for endorsing Scozzafava. Sometime after the election, he called Hoffman to tell him personally.
“He was very sincere in his apology,” said Hoffman. “He was given misinformation as to what this race was all about, and what the other candidate was all about. The people in this district, the sort of local leaders who had endorsed Scozzafava, fed him the wrong information. I don’t think it was an error in his judgement. I would advise other conservative Republicans: Don’t hold this against him.”

Wow. Just . . . wow.

Dave e-mailed me his story and I told him I’d already seen it, but replied to the effect that perhaps, after 14 years in Washington, I’ve finally “gone native.” Anybody in Washington who got screwed over as badly as Hoffman got screwed over by Gingrich would insist on exacting their bloody retribution as a matter of principle, as a warning to anyone else who might be tempted to do the same.

If you let yourself be treated like a doormat, you can’t complain about the footprints on your back. Capische?

Imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot. How would Newt have reacted if Hoffman had done to him what he did to Hoffman?

Even if it was a sincere mistake — Gingrich being “given misinformation,” as Hoffman says — wasn’t Gingrich obligated to double-check his facts before going on Fox News the third or fourth times to praise Scozzafave and trash Hoffman? At the time, everybody who knew anything about the NY-23 race knew Newt was wrong, and yet he refused to walk-back his endorsement of Dede until after she quit and endorsed the Democrat.

“Water over the dam”? Doug, you’d be Congressman Hoffman today if Newt hadn’t spent two weeks in October 2009 going on TV — again and again and again — to badmouth you as a dangerous extremist.

This forgive-and-forget turn-the-other-cheek stuff is fine as a moral ideal, but moral idealism and three bucks will get you a cup of coffee in Washington, and in the time it takes to drink that cup of coffee, you’ll get backstabbed by a half-dozen of your “friends” who figure you for a weakling. It’s like being the slowest wildebeest in the herd when a hungry lion leaps out of the bushes down by the watering hole. Next thing you know, vultures are picking your bones.

So Doug Hoffman has forgiven Newt Gingrich, but that doesn’t mean I’m obligated to emulate Hoffman’s Christian example.

“You Still Have to Answer for Santino, Carlo.”


‘You Have to Answer for Santino, Carlo’

“Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”
— Newt Gingrich, Oct. 16, 2009

“Former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells NRO that he is sure that endorsing Republican Dede Scozzafava in the upcoming special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district was the right thing to do.”
— Robert Costa, National Review, Oct. 20, 2009

“She’s dramatically better than the Democrat.”
— Newt Gingrich, Oct. 21, 2009

“The choice in New York is a practical one . . .”
— Newt Gingrich, Oct. 22, 2009

“Newt for 2012? No, thanks.”
— Michelle Malkin, Oct. 26, 2009

“If this third-party candidate takes away just enough votes to elect the Democrat, then we will have strengthened Nancy Pelosi by the divisiveness. . . . The money raised in the district is overwhelmingly going to Dede Scozzafava.”
— Newt Gingrich, Oct. 27, 2009

“In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York.”
— Dede Scozzafava, Nov. 1, 2009 (endorsing Democrat)

“I’m very, very let down because she told everybody she was a Republican, and she said she was a loyal Republican.”
— Newt Gingrich, Nov. 2, 2009

“Guess who will not be representing the 23rd District? Dede Scozzafava!”
— supporter of Doug Hoffman, Nov. 3 (Election Night)

“This one was worth the fight. . .  And this is only one fight in the battle. . . . Stand up and fight back.”
— Doug Hoffman, Nov. 3, concession speech

“We cannot forget how this whole thing happened in the first place. . . . The right message here would indict the way party bosses, Republican Party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt screwed the whole thing up, from the get-go.”
— Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 5, 2009

When Allahpundit first asked, “Second look at Gingrich?” on Oct. 18, my visceral reaction was, “Are you freaking kidding me?” Nothing astonishes me more than poll numbers — from PPP and CNN — suggesting that people are taking Newt seriously as a presidential candidate. And of all the prognotications I’ve ever made, of none have I been more confident than in predicting this: It won’t last.

The Newt Bubble is one of two things:

  1. A transition point for the erstwhile Rick Perry voters before they go to one of the other Not Romneys; or
  2. The final doomed hope before these fickle voters — the ones who started out for Tim Pawlenty or some other non-viable candidate, then hopscotched around amongst the Flavor of the Month candidates — shrug their shoulders, say “Why not?” and settle for Mitt Romney.

The croakers are once more pronouncing doom on Herman Cain (all day today the Fox News talking heads have treated Cain dismissively), which doesn’t bother me much since the croakers never believed in Cain to begin with, and they’ve been so wrong so often that I automatically discount their repetitive doomsaying. Cain will either recover or he won’t, but the ultimate non-viability of Newt remains a solid fact.

To get way ahead of the argument, Newt is unelectable, period. If Republicans actually were to nominate him, sending the twice-divorced Pillsbury doughboy up against Obama would be a fool-proof formula for catastrophic electoral wipeout on Nov. 6, 2012. Supporting Gingrich is therefore tantamount to advocating the re-election of Obama. I’m convinced that Republican primary voters will sooner or later wise up to that reality, and the Gingrich Bubble will collapse as suddenly as it has inflated the past two weeks.

What is ironic, of course, is that many of those prominent voices now cheering the Newt Bubble are the same people who often say that they oppose Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum on the grounds that those particular Not Romneys are not “electable.”

These self-authorized arbiters of “electability” are never going to have a chance to be proven wrong about Gingrich in the general election next November because, within the next 10 weeks, it will be demonstrated that Newt can’t beat Romney.

Prediction: Newt won’t even finish ahead of Ron Paul in Iowa.

Why do I say that? Because Ron Paul inspires fanatical devotion from his followers, and can muster armies of fired-up volunteers. By contrast, Newt’s staunchest supporters are respectable Establishment types who aren’t going to be trudging through the snow in Iowa on Jan. 3.

If a blogger really wants to have some fun, do this: Start collecting comments of pundits who are currently pumping up the Newt Bubble. Save the links in a special folder in your browser bookmarks, and wait until the morning of Feb. 1 — the day after the Florida primary — at which point those quotes are going to look silly as hell.

By Feb. 1, Newt will be 0-for-4, his campaign will be deeply in debt, and he’ll be ready to quit and endorse Romney. Take it to the bank.

Of course, if I’m wrong and the Newt Bubble proves an enduring phenomenon so that, on Feb. 1, we’re left with a choice between Newt and Mitt, I’ll endorse Mitt, because I can never forgive Newt for what he did to Doug Hoffman in 2009.

While thousands of grassroots conservatives all across the country were doing all they could to elect Hoffman in the NY-23 special election, Gingrich spent three weeks telling everybody that Dede Scozzafava was “our best hope.” He kept going on TV to repeat the counterfactual assertion that Dede was the unaminous choice of Republicans in the district, while suggsting that Hoffman — a mild-mannered accountant — was some kind of wild-eyed extremist, and that those of us who supported Hoffman were ignorant of the realities in the district. Of course, Newt himself never even bothered to visit that district, and was just repeating what he had been told by the clueless hacks in the New York GOP leadership and at the NRCC.

When push came to shove, as we all remember, Dede quit on Halloween — the Saturday before Election Day — and endorsed the Democrat on Sunday, which was just about the only thing she could have done to prevent Hoffman from winning. In the end, Bill Owens won by less than 4,000 vote out of more than 150,000 votes cast in the special election, with Dede leaving her name on the ballot to collect some 8,500 votes, which was greater than Owens’s margin of victory.

It was Dede Scozzafava, not Doug Hoffman, who was the marginal “spoiler” candidate in that election, a role she played with Newt’s wholehearted support.

Like many of other Republicans of his vintage, Newt never understood or sympathized with the Tea Party movement. Gingrich, like so many GOP Establishment types, seemed to fear the grassroots uprising as a potential third-party threat, and viewed Hoffman’s campaign in that context. But what happened in NY-23 was a unique circumstance that has never been repeated in the past two years, and Gingrich evidently couldn’t be bothered to do the research necessary to discover that his Republican buddies were lying to him: About Dede, about Hoffman and about the 23rd District.

As someone who traveled all over NY-23, I can attest that the district was mostly rural, with a few relatively smallish towns — Watertown and Plattsburgh being the biggest — and a bit of suburban Syracuse thrown in. It was a basically conservative district and there was nothing in Hoffman’s platform that made him unelectable. Frankly, Hoffman’s worst problem in the district was the open hostility shown by the publisher of the Watertown newspaper, who seems to have been a personal friend of Scozzafava and hated Hoffman with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

Newt couldn’t be bothered to learn any of that, and made a complete fool of himself: “She said she was a loyal Republican.” Chump.

Here we are two years later, and Gingrich wants to pretend none of that ever happened. Newt is currently prospering because he talks a good game. He’s always been brilliant at articulating issues, and has benefitted by comparison to the hapless Rick Perry, at a time when Herman Cain has been under siege for two weeks. But the Newt Bubble won’t last, because people will eventually remember Newt’s past and his lack of grassroots volunteer enthusiasm will doom his candidacy.

Nobody is going to volunteer to campaign for a career politician who blows half a million at Tiffany for his third wife and then goes off on a luxury Mediterranean cruise. Newt isn’t going to get those $25, $50, $100 campaign contributions from retirees and housewives. Whatever campaign Newt puts together, he’ll have to rely on paid staff, and he’ll get no help from Tea Party activists who remember what he did to Doug Hoffman, the original hero of the Tea Party movement. And if nobody else remembers, we’ll be sure to remind them.

“You have to answer for Santino, Carlo. You fingered Sonny for the Barzini people. . . . Barzini is dead. So is Phillip Tattaglia. Moe Greene. Stracci. Cuneo. Today I settled all family business so don’t tell me that you’re innocent. Admit what you did.”

Greta Scooped Me, But That’s OK

Greta Van Sustern’s exclusive interview with Gloria Cain is, on the one hand, great news for the Cain campaign, but on the other hand, an indication that Cain’s campaign team views TheOtherMcCain.com as less influential than Greta.

Months of Cain coverage did not earn me that scoop? I’m hurt.

But I understand: If I’m not good enough for BlogCon . . .

Never mind that now, though. The damage is done, and I have a duty to my readers, so I must overcome the humiliation of being scooped, suck it up and report the second-hand news:

Mrs. Cain strongly defends her husband against the allegations of sexual harassment.
“You hear the graphic allegations and we know that would have been something that’s totally disrespectful of her as a woman. And I know the type of person he is. He totally respects women.”
“I’m thinking he would have to have a split personality to do the things that were said,” according to Mrs. Cain.

I’d like to provide you with an advanced transcript of tonight’s interview, or photos or something, but Team Cain is probably busy supplying that kind of exclusive stuff to really important blogs.  But here’s something — a poll at Greta Wire asks, “Who in the list below is most likely to get endorsed by Governor Sarah Palin?” The results as of 10 a.m. today:

You should go vote right now.

Remember: Sarah Palin endorsed Doug Hoffman; Newt endorsed Dede. So the idea that Palin would endorse Newt — who went on Fox News again and again in October 2009 trying to counteract Palin’s influence — seems wildly improbable to me. Newt was an Active Agent of Evil in NY-23. It was not until after Dede quit and endorsed the Democrat that Newt expressed even the mildest regret for his constant shilling for that vicious backstabbing RINO crapweasel.

Karl Rove Says Herman Cain Campaign ‘Not Gonna Have a Nice Ending’

Via POH Diaries and Gateway Pundit:

Let me be blunt in saying that I am thoroughly familiar with every argument against Herman Cain’s candidacy, and far more aware than most political journalists of the organizational challenges (to put it mildly) of the Cain campaign. Last night I was on the phone with my buddy Ali Akbar as we bemoaned bewailed bitched about discussed the hopeless clusterfuck organizational challenges of Cain’s staff situation. While all campaigns go through their rough spots, and I’ve seen campaigns win elections despite serious errors, Herman Cain’s campaign now faces two huge problems:

  1. They’re less than 90 days away from the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses. Even if the Nevada situation can be worked out to keep New Hampshire from jumping to December, 90 days from Iowa is still a damned short time to put together an effective ground game in all 99 counties in Iowa.
  2. They’re up against Team Romney. Say what you will about Mitt, his campaign staff is a ruthlessly disciplined machine, and they’ve got about a 5-to-1 fund-raising advantage over Cain.

As I explained to Ali, if the Cain campaign were to raise $100,000 every day, that would be $3 million a month or about $8 million between now and Jan. 3. The problem is that the Perry campaign’s sitting on something like $15 million and Romney raised $10 million in the last quarter. Even if the Perry campaign didn’t raise another dime, they could spend $5 million a month between now Jan. 3, and that’s a heckuva lot of TV ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. Whatever Romney’s cash-on-hand figures, he’s got the big bundlers like Georgette Mosbacher behind him, and will have no shortage of cash for TV ads.

How can the Cain campaign possibly hope to compete with that? If you just look at it as a problem of simple math, by the ordinary logic of campaign operations, Cain would be doomed beyond hope even if his staff were as efficient as Team Romney. So I cannot necessarily say that Rove’s basic calculation is wrong. Insofar as normal politics is concerned, Rove’s prediction of an unhappy ending for the Cain campaign seems smart.

But normal politics has taken a savage beating the past few years, and it’s hard to calculate the odds of success for the kind of “outside-the-box” campaign that Cain and his staff have been talking about since December. Nobody expected, 10 months ago, that Herman Cain would be where he is now, neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney at the front of the field. Hell, nobody expected this even one month ago, when Cain’s poll numbers were stuck in single digits. It’s been only 20 days since Cain shocked the world with his victory in the Sept. 24 Florida straw poll, so everybody’s still trying to get their heads wrapped around the concept of “Herman Cain, Republican contender.”

If you’ve got a Road to the White House map, we’re currently off at the edge in uncharted seas where the legend reads, “Here Be Dragons.”

And when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

It just occurred to me that today, Oct. 14, is the two-year anniversary of the day in 2009 when Lisa De Pasquale invited me to join a conference call with a guy named Doug Hoffman. Maybe you’ve heard of him.

Miracles can happen, and what happened in NY-23 two years ago was a rare kind of inspirational moment in politics. And when it was over, a new kind of campaign paradigm had been created:

Yates Walker ate breakfast in the Blue Moon Café on Main Street in Saranac Lake, New York, on the morning of November 4, [2009] and delivered an after-action report on the battle that had just been fought in the upstate 23rd District.
“We took a CPA from 9 percent to 46 percent in two and a half weeks,” said Walker, a young veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division who had been hired 18 days earlier to work on Doug Hoffman’s congressional campaign staff. “I couldn’t be prouder.”
He fell 5,000 votes short of defeating Democrat Bill Owens, but Hoffman’s surprising surge in the closing weeks of the three-way special election in upstate New York had, in Walker’s words, turned the bespectacled accountant into “an electric symbol of conservatism.” . . .

Read the whole thing in case you’ve forgotten that magical two and a half weeks. Karl Rove never saw that coming, either, and if Herman Cain is going to beat Mitt Romney, his campaign is going to have make that kind of lightning strike twice. Such were the thoughts that came to my mind in the wee hours this morning, after I had filed my latest American Spectator column:

Hickory trees were blazing brilliant gold in the forest surrounding my home on the western slope of South Mountain as I stepped outside Thursday afternoon to take a call on my cellphone from a well-informed source. My enjoyment of the autumn scenery was diminished only slightly by the cool drizzly overcast weather, but much more by the shadows of gloom gathering over the 2012 Republican presidential campaign, which was the reason for the phone call.
After listening with great interest, I walked inside to the dining room table, picked up a pen and asked my source to repeat the information which I scrawled into a notebook: “Rubio [chief] of staff — CESAR — used to be w/ Romney’s campaign … used his contacts to push primary to 31st because they want Romney in.” A couple more phone calls to D.C. and Florida, a few minutes of online research, and I had an exclusive: “Top Rubio Staffer Reportedly Pushed for Early Florida Primary to Help Romney.” Perhaps not the kind of story Matt Drudge would consider worthy of a banner headline, but a key piece of the puzzle surrounding events that have hopelessly scrambled the 2012 schedule. . . .

Please read the whole thing. We’re on the road to political Armageddon, folks, and the next stop on this road is Las Vegas. Hit the freaking tip jar!

I Bet Doug Hoffman Is Laughing Today

“The law can change from state to state, from nation to nation, from city to city. I guess I have to go by a higher law. . . . Yeah, I consider myself a road man for the lords of karma.”
— Hunter S. Thompson, 2003

You remember Doug Hoffman, the Tea Party-backed candidate who came this close to defeating the Establishment RINO in the 2009 special election in NY-23. For some reason, Hoffman came to mind when I saw this story at Politico:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will report raising approximately $2 million in the second fundraising quarter of the year and ending the month of June with $225,000 in the bank . . .
But in a steep obstacle to Gingrich’s comeback hopes, his campaign remains about a million dollars in debt. It will be a struggle for Gingrich to put his balance sheet in the black and fund the kind of operation traditionally required to compete in Iowa, where he has indicated he’ll attempt to turn his campaign around.
Gingrich supporters acknowledge that his debt represents a serious financial challenge, though they note that the Republican has paid down about 10 percent of $1.2 million in invoices since June 9, when most of his senior political staff resigned. . . .

Newt’s campaign has been Scozzafava-ed, you might say. Anybody who gives him a dime now is just wasting money. He’s finished.

As a road man for the Lords of Karma, I remember tears on Election Night in Saranac Lake, but Doug Hoffman must be laughing now.

‘The Demagogic Bloggers on the Right’

Frequent commenter “Joe” calls our attention to Patterico’s dig at Jeff Goldstein (and unnamed others) in which the prosecutor endeavors to play the Instapundit card:

Now that Glenn has said the same thing the “pragmatic” conservatives are saying, will the blogospheric demagogues who seek out Mark Levin’s favor put Glenn Reynolds on the list of “pragmatic” conservatives whom they bash on a regular basis?
I boldly predict they will not. They need his traffic. So, even if he’s saying the exact same thing as I am, they won’t bash Instapundit.
The demagogic bloggers on the right are happy to be pure when it comes to the fate of the country. But when it comes to their own self-interest, I suspect they will be a little more . . . pragmatic.

This is absurd. Professor Reynolds did not say “the same thing the ‘pragmatic’ conservatives are saying.” Professor Reynolds has been an out-front supporter of the Tea Party movement from Day One — which is certainly not what any soi-dissant “pragmatic” conservatives have ever said, or are saying now, or are ever likely to say in the future.

In reacting to Professor Reynolds’ supposed endorsement of “pragmatism” (the word, as Patterico uses it, demands scare-quotes), I said: “Busting the balls of the Establishment is a process not an event.”

This was not merely a joke. Continue reading ‘The Demagogic Bloggers on the Right’ →

Doug Hoffman’s Legacy in 2010 Victories

DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, Fla. — During the Allen West victory party Tuesday night, I stepped outside for a few moments and made a phone call to upstate New York to interview the man whose 2009 special-election campaign did so much to inspire grassroots conservatives nationwide. (See “Battle Cry in the North Country.”)

It was just after 8 p.m. when I called, and polls didn’t close in New York until 9 p.m. I had been angry in September when Matt Doheny won the NY-23 Republican primary (by just 700 votes) after airing dishonest attack ads accusing Hoffman of “lining his pockets.” And I was surprised when Hoffman subsequently endorsed Doheny.

On Election Night, I felt an urge to talk to Hoffman. I recorded the brief interview, but didn’t have time to transcribe it until last night:

RSM: After the primary a few weeks ago – totally broke my heart. How are you feeling about it now?

DOUG HOFFMAN: Well, I’m still disappointed, but life goes on, Stacy.

RSM: Your campaign last year was really the first total Tea Party campaign. It sent a message. We’ve just seen Marco Rubio declared the victor here in Florida. As Erick Erickson said, New York 23 last year, it was a trial run for Florida, we’re going to shake up the establishment. Do you think your campaign last year helped send a message?

HOFFMAN: Absolutely. I think my campaign, and the people who were supporting me, woke up America and said, “We’re fed up. We have to do something about it. We’re not going to take more spending, more taxes, and more government regulations.”

RSM: What are your plans going forward? I thought that was very big of you to endorse [GOP nominee Matt] Doheny after the kind of terrible crap he did to you.

HOFFMAN: Well, I had to look past Mr. Doheny and look at what was good for America, and that’s the conclusion that I came to. It’s better to get Pelosi and Reid and the Obama agenda off the table, and get more Republicans into the House. It was a very difficult decision, but that’s why I made the decision, [because] I think it’s good for America.

RSM: And that was what it was all about for you, from the get-go.

HOFFMAN: Absolutely. We have to get people down in Washington that are going to fight the Pelosi agenda, and that’s what it’s all about.

RSM: Somebody said that you lit the fuse up there in New York 23. It looks like it’s going to be a huge explosion tonight.

HOFFMAN: That’s the exciting part. I’m disappointed that I’m not going to be part of the excitement and going to Washington, but if the legacy of my race last year is the people who are going to Washington this year, then I’m very proud to watch what’s happening tonight, and anticipate the Republicans taking over the House.

He’s a class act. And establishment Republican Matt Doheny lost Tuesday by 3,800 votes. Even though Hoffman endorsed Doheny — who spent $1.7 million of his own money on the campaign — more than 9,500 people still voted for Hoffman on the Conservative Party line. Maybe next time.

DOUG HOFFMAN for U.S. CONGRESS

BREAKING: Doug Hoffman Ends NY-23 Campaign, Endorses GOP’s Doheny

Adirondack Daily Enterprise via Maggie Haberman of Politico:

SARANAC LAKE — Doug Hoffman has dropped out of the race to represent New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Hoffman’s name will still appear on the ballot on the Conservative line; however, Hoffman said Tuesday morning that he wants his supporters to vote for Republican Matt Doheny.
“Our nation is at a crossroads, and it is imperative that on Election Day we wrest control of Congress from Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority,” Hoffman said in a prepared statement. . . .

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Now a Memeorandum thread, and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air writes:

The split on the Right last November allowed Bill Owens to win the race  . . .

The was no “split on the Right,” because Dede Scozzafava was never “Right.” Dede was, as Michelle Malkin famously said, “An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing.” Ed is closer to the mark here:

Hoffman . . . has proven himself much more of a team player and class act. . . .

Indeed, considering the dishonest smear campaign by which Doheny eked out a 700-vote win in this year’s GOP primary, Hoffman’s endorsement is one of the most generous and noble acts of recent political memory.