Doug Hoffman’s last chance
I’ve been thinking a lot about Doug Hoffman’s decision to intervene once more in the North Country’s political life. By any measure, it’s a remarkable act.
At this point, Hoffman has no credible political record. He mustered roughly 15,000 votes in this month’s Republican primary, a paltry number.
In the process, he lost (albeit by a thin margin) to Matt Doheny, a man who was a complete unknown half a year ago.
Along the way, Hoffman once again alienated the GOP’s county committees — the “political bosses,” he calls them — and also dismayed many tea party leaders and activists.
UNYTEA head Mark Barie, in Plattsburgh, issued a press release a short time ago, arguing that Hoffman “doesn’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell of winning this election.”
Indeed, despite repeated, unequivocal promises that he would prevail, Hoffman has never won an election. He wasn’t chosen to be a political leader by anyone except Conservative party chairman Mike Long.
Yet when I asked the Conservative Party to clarify what resources they would bring to the race, they declined to answer.
Very few people are donating money to Hoffman’s campaign, or volunteering for his campaign so far as we can tell. His campaign offices are either shuttered or dark.
It’s not even entirely clear that Hoffman is living inside the district, though he purchased a house in Saranac Lake earlier this year to avoid the accusation that he’s a carpetbagger.
Watertown Daily Times city editor Perry White says the time has come “for Doug Hoffman to take a hard look around him and realize his extended 15 minutes of fame are over.”
All of this leaves Hoffman with only one political asset, one claim to credibility: The mantle he has claimed for himself as a truth-teller and a straight-shooter.
From the first time I saw Doug Hoffman on the campaign trail, he insisted that he would be the one to tell voters what had to be done to save the country from ruinous debt and the threat of creeping Big Government.
He would do so, he claimed, without regard to electability or his political fortunes.
The trouble is, Hoffman has never followed through.
I have interviewed him repeatedly, and questioned him during public debates, giving him every opportunity to answer basic questions about his policy ideas.
In response, Hoffman has offered nothing more than thin talking points and political platitudes. He has suggested that other politicians would make these decisions or lead him through these thorny issues.
In his blog, Watertown Mayor Jeff Graham called Hoffman “an empty vessel into which people poured their frustrations, outrage and desire for a simpler Ozzie and Harriet style world.”
If he were just another candidate, I would shrug and say, “Same as it ever was.”
But this is Doug Hoffman’s one remaining lifeline, the last arrow in his quiver.
If he doesn’t have anything original or bold or challenging to say, then his candidacy is reduced at long last to a sad, disappointing zero.
So here’s my challenge to the Hoffman campaign and to Doug Hoffman personally: Give us your best shot, right now.
What parts of government would you cut? What big sacrifices should North Country people expect to make? What would your staunch “pro life” stance actually mean to women living in our communities?
You say you’re leading a conservative revolution? What will it look like? What will our lives be like if you win?
Bluntly, Doug Hoffman has nothing left, other than his personal credibility and his chutzpah. To justify his place in this campaign, it’s time to stand and deliver.
Tags: election10
“What parts of government would you cut? What big sacrifices should North Country people expect to make? What would your staunch “pro life” stance actually mean to women living in our communities?”
Same questions to Owens and Doheny.
Hoffman has been given the Conservative line, and Owens and Doheny have their respective lines.
Let each defend their place on the ballot.
Most Democrats are not in favor of severe Federal budget cuts, so I’m not so sure Owens has to answer that question yet. The economy can’t take the budget cuts the conservatives want to make (as put forth in the so-called “Pledge to America”). Democrats want to let tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire. Republicans want to make them permanent and increase the deficit by 4 trillion dollars over the next ten years (claiming, with no evidence, that they would pay for themselves).
I wonder if Doheny is willing to admit support of the “Pledge to America”. Does Doheny believe you can make almost 4 trillion dollars in tax cuts and still move towards a balanced budget by making cuts in everything but defense, SS, and medicare. What specific cuts would be made? The “Pledge” doesn’t tell us. Are voters seriously going to buy this “Pledge” drivel?
Speaking of the new Republican “Pledge,” Paul Krugman wrote an interesting editorial about it in today’s NY Times. It would appear to be about as specific a document as Doug Hoffman’s entire platform. In other words, big on the usual bland, generic talking points and slim on specifics.
Taking spending to what it was in 2008 is pretty specific; also its only 1.5 years ago it should be something that we can do.
But anyway Doheny may still pull this one out as Hoffman looks worse and worse and loses any conservative backing. The problem is even if he gets 5% of the vote it would probably spoil things for the Republicans. Maybe it is just a grudge candidacy to hurt the “political Bosses”.
The Democrats are very silent on talking points as well.
No wonder. They wouldn’t get elected if they said:
– we voted for Obamacare. You will pay more for less services and lose your current health insurance.
– we voted for TARP. The financial system would have collapsed without it. We didn’t exactly use the money. And the financial system didn’t exactly collapse. Hmmm. Well, we’ll find some use for the money.
– we are for Cap and Tax. You think you’re paying too much to heat your house, now. Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
His main appeal is the little anti-elitist martyr complex thing (The Tea Party standard). Except it’s betrayed by the reality that Doheny and Owens have actually won elections via voting citizens while Hoffman’s spot on the ballot is due only the a single party boss (and the boss of a fake party, no less).
Doheny, who I’m not a big fan of, earned his ballot line. Hoffman, who decries party bosses, was given his ballot line by… a party boss.
“Taking spending to what it was in 2008 is pretty specific.”
Hardly….Telling me what specific cuts and to what specific federal programs this will occur to achieve this goal would be specific. Making a claim that they’ll “take spending back to what is was in 2008” is about as broad a statement as can be made. It’s all in the details. Which this “pledge” sorely lacks. I would agree, however, that both sides engage in the charade and never offering specifics.
It would seem to me, and I’m perhaps guilty of this myself, that the problem is that the electorate never demands specifics from its candidates. We accept these grandiose generalities as if there’s actual substance or real information contained in them. Until we demand more, we’ll always have these paper thin candidates to pick from.
It is easy you go to the budget in 2008 and plug it in, it is a very specific and easy thing to do.
Why would we not be able to live within the exact same budget we had in 2008? Even the 2008 budget was a deficit, but at least it is a starting point. Roll back the new spending this president has embarked on would be phase one.
I don’t know if that is what they are proposing though! But I do agree if you don’t give specifics on spending cuts it is worthless more worthless talk. What gets me is the changing Washington and eliminating waste and fraud argument, that won’t cut it either.
One last thing it is our fault I agree. We don’t want the actual cuts is the bottom line we don’t want shared sacrifice we want targeted sacrifice on other people.
“It’s all in the details. Which this “pledge” sorely lacks”
We now have at least two references to the Pledge to America lacking specificity.
This is also the talking point du jour on the liberal media. So, the question is, “did you read the document, or are you a mind-numbed robot that parrots liberal talking points”?
I read the document. It says, “to provide stability, we will require congressional approval… on items that have an impact of $100M or more”.
That is specificity, and that is a deal-changing proposal.
And the 21-page document is full of details.
First off, I think the Pledge is a desperate attempt by the Republicans to sort of get a Contract with America Part 2 going. I don’t know that they have any more real intentions of doing anything different than they ever have, but at least it’s a start.
2nd, I also noticed the “lack of specifics” references. Must be you all get your talking points from the same source,eh?
3rd, there are specifics in the parts of it I’ve seen. Actually demanding that each proposal have a reference to just where the Constitution allows it is a wonderful idea!
4th, I take exception to “the little anti-elitist martyr complex thing (The Tea Party standard).” Have you ever heard any of FDR’s “Forgotten Man’ speeches or any of the other union/Democrat speeches? While I don’t agree with the idea the TP fits that description, it is certainly exactly what the Democrats have been claiming for decades. Look in the mirror.
Bret…
a) I did not claim that the Tea Partiers are the only political organization in US history to appeal to the anti-elitist martyr complex thing. In fact, it’s quite a common thing throughout US history. In fact, the Tea Party reminds me quite a bit of the US Whigs of the 1840s and 1850s.
b) Both major parties read from a script. Democrats always use phrases like Party of No and “(Republican candidate) is a Sarah Palin wannabe.” Republicans always uses phrases like Obamacare and “(Democratic candidate) is a Nancy Pelosi clone.” It’s theater and theater works from a script.
c) When I look in the mirror, I see someone who is not a Democrat and I see someone who hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since 1996 or for governor since 1994. So I’m not quite sure what your point is.
“Actually demanding that each proposal have a reference to just where the Constitution allows it is a wonderful idea!”
Great idea. Perhaps then we could get Republicans to constitutionally justify things like the various provisions of Bush’s war against civil liberties or the continuing occupation of Afghanistan (both sickeningly maintained by Pres. “Change”) as a contingency for further funding.
I will try to stay on topic here. Leaving other politicians and parties aside, what about Doug Hoffman at this particular moment and in this particular situation? If this campaign is not a quixotic turning of windmills or an ego trip, he really does need to lay out his vision of a conservative revolution, if he expects to convince large numbers of voters to support him.
Those who are less sympathetic to Doug Hoffman may feel he owes regional voters a clearer view of who he is and what he is about.–after that has happened. Our region was subjected to a heavy dose of unwanted attention a year ago. A good and decent person and an able public servant was pretty well trashed. A historically Republican district has elected a Democrat.
Even if Doug Hoffman was to take up Brian Mann’s challenge it all might be for naught. NY-23 is an odd place to be launching a conservative revolution. This isn’t Dixie or Texas. The Republican Party in NYS is a moderate party, and that is true for the North Country, even though the window dressing is some times conservative.
The recent polls showing 25 and 33% of Republicans in NY 20 and NY 24 supporting the Democratic candidate raises serious doubts about just how Republican or conservative the North Country remains.
In addition, it has never been clear how Mr. Hoffman, or Mr Doheny, for that matter, plan to win over the 100,000 union voters that live in NY-23. Mr. McHugh was always competitive in getting the union vote, but the rhetoric and views of the two current candidates
would seem to preclude that possibility in this campaign cycle.
Mr. Hoffman’s legacy may turn out to be that he shattered the the center-right-llabor coalition that has dominated North Country politics for decades.
Okay, off topic, but to the point of reading from a script, an analysis of politicians statements shows that Republicans tend pass verbatim talking points off as their own ideas. Some of the worst plagiarizers are members of the Tea Party caucus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/gopers-parrot-lines-from-_n_710541.html
His actions defy his stated principles. There is no way he really cares about conservative beliefs. He will certainly give this election to Owens by winning a couple of thousand votes in November there is no way he does not know that.
It used to be that men of honor when they lost a primary stood up and told their supporters to support the winner of the primary and were gracious in their lose but looked to the future. This man has no honor.