Having met the gentleman at CPAC, it is a pleasure to point to Robert Stacy McCain’s article on Doug Hoffman over at The Washington Times.
Mr. Hoffman’s Conservative Party campaign last fall became a nationwide crusade after party leaders backed state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, whose liberal record angered conservatives bloggers, such as Erick Erickson and Michelle Malkin. Republican 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and the Club For Growth were among those who endorsed Mr. Hoffman.
As polls showed a Hoffman surge in the final weeks of the race, Mrs. Scozzafava quit the campaign and shocked Republicans by endorsing Mr. Owens, who won with a 48 percent plurality.
Mr. Hoffman’s supporters immediately began urging him to run again, with House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence praising his “brilliant” campaign.
Mr. Hoffman has reassembled most of his 2009 campaign team, including Mr. McLaughlin’s polling firm and TV advertising specialist Nelson Warfield, and begins with more than $200,000 in campaign cash remaining from last year.
Mr. Hoffman used his Facebook online network to announce his 2010 candidacy to supporters Monday night.
Ed Morrissey also offered analysis at Hot Air, along with a CPAC interview clip:
Circumstances should favor Hoffman this time. In the previous contest, a special election to fill John McHugh’s seat, the state didn’t allow for a primary contest, throwing the nominations to the county chairs of both parties. Democrats chose Bill Owen, while Republicans passed over Hoffman to select DeDe Scozzafava. Hoffman ran as a third-party candidate instead, winning over Tea Party enthusiasts while Scozzafava campaigned poorly and alienated voters in her district. Hoffman came within a couple of percentage points of winning the whole race.
This blog predicts that Hoffman’s straightforward honesty will go over in the 112th Congress like a musician at a rap concert. Clearly we need to send more musicians like Doug to DC.
In fairness, she’s quoting from the Federalist Papers, which spoke eloquently of “passing some laws so we can find out what great shit’s in them, and stuff.” Pretty sure that was John Jay.
It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
Federalist No. 1, October 27, 1787
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
Federalist No. 33, January 3, 1788
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.
Alexander Hamilton and Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 62, 1788
Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Federalist No. 62, 1788
If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last…. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.
Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, Aug 28, 1794
Pelosi is consistently atrocious, if you recall her Are you serious? Are you serious? interrogative from last October.
Yes, Madame Speaker, we’re as serious as a
Update II:Dan Riehl, as is his wont, puts a ‘positive’ spin on matters:
I think I need a shower after watching the political news. And I’d really appreciate it if Rahm Emanuel left me alone long enough to scrub off the grime of the Democrats we’re getting to see in all their glory right now.
Heckuva job, Barry! Through incompetence and trying to foist your agenda on a nation that mostly rejects it, you are destroying the Democrat brand. He really is, you know. This all begins and ends with Obama. And at this rate, there may not be much of a party left by the time he’s finished. And he will be finished in 2012. Mark my words.
In defense of BHO, while the POTUS is nominally the head cheese of the party, the fact that he’s been national-level goods only since he Gave Good Speech in 2004 means that older, saner heads should be offering Rehoboam more forceful advice.
“Coach” Luis Garcia, Republican candidate for the 13th to replace Stark.
Uncoverage notes that Stark is already a Maryland resident, as a California tax dodge.
Rep. Stark may be OK, as he really knows how to deal with opposition, for example, in this classic rant where he threatens to eject an interviewer with the temerity to ask economic questions of him without gravitas afforded by an Economics PhD:
How can Congress possibly balance the federal budget without raising taxes?
It’s easy. Make Congress make up for any shortfall in the budget. Take it out of their pay. Cut Congressional pay (House and Senate) for every dollar the budget is in deficit.
What about the president? Well, if he vetoed the deficit budget, he’s off the hook. If he signed it, he’s liable. Dock his pay, too.
Now, what happens if the deficit is more than the pay of Congress? As is the current situation? Congress is on the hook for the balance. Personally. If Congressman A has twice wealth as Congressman B, he’s responsible for twice as much of the deficit.
When that still doesn’t cover the deficit, spread the debt around to other members of the government, exempting military pay only.
If Congress tries to get around it by raising taxes, count every tax increase as deficit money, and cut Congressional pay accordingly.
I learned a long time ago, that if someone had the solution to a problem, but had no interest in solving the problem, it was because it didn’t personally affect them; it wasn’t their problem.
Make it their problem.
This is certainly too simple, but the fundamental truth of the idea is in the feedback loop. Congress still is feeling insufficient discomfort.
A hero, a man who is risking life and limb to rescue the Netherlands and Europe from radical Islamization and communism taking grip of his country and continent. Everyday he has to wear a safety vest and hide his family and give them 24-hour security because he is willing to say the unpopular thing to protect and defend his nation.
First on “Special Report” with Brett Baier:
Then on Glenn Beck:
Now, there is perhaps some “fair and balanced” ambiguity here, and perhaps a good deal of unnecessary sensationalism — “Ooooh! The controversial far-right leader!” — but the overall tone of the portrayals, and the fact that these two reports were filed practically back-to-back suggests to me that somebody at Fox News (and somebody pretty important) is guilty of accepting liberal media reports of Dutch politics at face value. I’ve got a hunch about this, but it might take a while to investigate, so look for updates.
UPDATE: I’m still trying to figure out where this anti-Wilders theme is coming from, and just got a call from a friend who suggests that Fox News is under pressure from Saudi interests — suggestions I’ve heard before, but prefer to discount. I think it far more likely that some senior producer or executive at NewsCorp has been listening to BBC or NPR or reading the New York Times and accepting those liberal characterizations as gospel.
It’s like what happened with the Sparkman “murder” in Kentucky. All it took was for one anonymous source at the Justice Department to tell an Associated Press reporter that they were looking at “anti-government sentiment” as a motive and next thing you know, it’s “Send the Body to Glenn Beck” time.
You can’t judge people you’ve never met, in places you’ve never been, based on what you get from the media. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Kentucky or Kampala, there is simply no substitute for direct knowledge. And based on personal experience, I’m profoundly suspicious any time I see this “dangerous right-winger” theme in the media. Here is Roger Simon of Pajamas Media:
Regarding Wilders, I had the pleasure of meeting the man at a party in Los Angeles last year and spent thirty minutes or so talking with him, often one-on-one. He is extremely well-spoken and personable.
Geert Wilders is a far right ideologue, and the European far right does often equal fascism. How the heck did Beck ever get this one right?
Frankly, now I’m tempted to start rattling the tip jar for a trip to Amsterdam, just to check out the situation on the ground. A quick check on Travelocity shows I could get a round-trip flight for about $800. If I could find somebody over there who speaks English, and has a sofa I could crash on . . .
It’s a completely crazy idea, but I’ve done crazier things.
If the protesters against Wilders are “anti-fascist,” then what does that make Wilders? He’s a “fascist” in the same sense that Mark Steyn is a fascist — which is to say, someone the Left hates.
A couple years ago I covered a David Horowitz speech at George Washington University where the left-wing protest pests chanted, “Racist! Sexist! Anti-Gay! David Horowitz go away!”
Horowitz is none of those things, but the protesters chant that stuff because they know that the accusations have propaganda value, stigmatizing Horowitz in the eyes of people who don’t know anything about him but who don’t want to be associated with racism, sexism or homophobia. A group calls itself “Unite Against Facism” and anyone they target for protests is immediately on the defensive: If you’re not a fascist, why are “anti-fascists” protesting against you? It’s like “peace” groups and “environmental” groups — who is against peace? Who wants to be labeled “anti-environment”?
The effectiveness of the Left’s propaganda against Wilders, I think, explains why he got such hostile treatment Monday from Fox News.
The influx of tip-jar contributions for a Holland trip hasn’t materialized yet. Maybe y’all don’t trust me over amongst all those foreigners. Anyway, I’ve got to run to D.C. today on business, so blogging will be light until this evening.
