Why the Doug Hoffman campaign is a win-win-win for us

[jmdrake]

Win 1: If Doug Hoffman wins (longshot but possible) it's win for small government candidates. (I know some are worried about Hoffman's position on the GWOT, but it's no worse than any other "mainstream" candidate democrat or republican.)

Win 2: If Hoffman denies the GOP appointed candidate a victory it shows that the party bosses can no longer afford to take the grassroots for granted. (Apparently they haven't figured that out yet.)

Win 3: The precedence that's already been set of GOP heavyweights endorsing a third party candidate gives Ron Paul more political cover for future endorsements when there is a viable candidate challenging the two party oligopoly.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[klamath]

I agree. I am not really looking for a third party but I think regardless of hoffmans problems it will be another slapdown of the republican party leaders of the last eight years. They still dont get it. Losers like McCain think they have tha answers and their answers are the last thing we need for the party.

[angelatc]

THe was is the deal breaker for me. If this is just the pro-war big government faction fighting the pro-war small government faction, I could not possibly care less who wins.

[LittleLightShining]

THe was is the deal breaker for me. If this is just the pro-war big government faction fighting the pro-war small government faction, I could not possibly care less who wins.

Because there's clearly no difference whatsoever between Scozzafava and Hoffman? Foreign policy is HUGE issue for me, too, but given the two choices I would rather see Hoffman in the House.

Of course, if Scozzafava doesn't quit the seat will just go to a Democrat anyway...

[Rekonn]

THe was is the deal breaker for me. If this is just the pro-war big government faction fighting the pro-war small government faction, I could not possibly care less who wins.

Big government politicians are more likely to be protectionist and anti free trade. Trade can be a great bond between countries, and can deter countries from performing actions that would jeopardize that trade. Small government candidates are more anti-war than big government candidates, even if they don't mean to be.

[angelatc]

Big government politicians are more likely to be protectionist and anti free trade. Trade can be a great bond between countries, and can deter countries from performing actions that would jeopardize that trade. Small government candidates are more anti-war than big government candidates, even if they don't mean to be.

Time will tell. We don't have a dog in this race so there's no point in getting fired up about it.

But it seems that the forces that push the fiscally conservative to the dark side seem very strong. I have no doubt that Hoffman wants to be a pro-war and a small government conservative. But which way will he go when he discovers you can't have both?

[Flash]

I think it's time to stop obsessing so much over foreign policy and look who is Conservative domestically. This would be Hoffman, Jesse Kelly, & Chuck DeVore.

[sofia]

Win 1: If Doug Hoffman wins (longshot but possible) it's win for small government candidates. (I know some are worried about Hoffman's position on the GWOT, but it's no worse than any other "mainstream" candidate democrat or republican.)

Win 2: If Hoffman denies the GOP appointed candidate a victory it shows that the party bosses can no longer afford to take the grassroots for granted. (Apparently they haven't figured that out yet.)

Win 3: The precedence that's already been set of GOP heavyweights endorsing a third party candidate gives Ron Paul more political cover for future endorsements when there is a viable candidate challenging the two party oligopoly.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I agree with scenarios 1 and 2.....but if the Acorn GOP bitch wins, it will show that conservatives may be loud, but they are still a powerless minority that the GOP can ignore.

Best outcomes are either Hoffman or the Democrat.

[sofia]

I think it's time to stop obsessing so much over foreign policy and look who is Conservative domestically. This would be Hoffman, Jesse Kelly, & Chuck DeVore.

Foreign policy and domestic policy are intertwined. The cost of our foreign policy is a main cause of our deficits/debts/bankruptcy.

and i am for one am not willing to turn my back on millions of murdered Arabs, and thousands of dead GI's, just so we can focus on the almighty dollar.

I'd rather be broke without the blood on my hands, than prosperous while my government commits genocide.

there are more important things than money...fuck all warmongers!

[erowe1]

Win 1: If Doug Hoffman wins (longshot but possible) it's win for small government candidates. (I know some are worried about Hoffman's position on the GWOT, but it's no worse than any other "mainstream" candidate democrat or republican.)

Win 2: If Hoffman denies the GOP appointed candidate a victory it shows that the party bosses can no longer afford to take the grassroots for granted. (Apparently they haven't figured that out yet.)

Win 3: The precedence that's already been set of GOP heavyweights endorsing a third party candidate gives Ron Paul more political cover for future endorsements when there is a viable candidate challenging the two party oligopoly.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I might go along with you on 2 and 3, but not 1. He's not a small government candidate. He's an advocate of keynesianism. He believes government spending can stimulate the economy and his only complaint against the Obama stimulus is that it wasn't executed well. And he's for policing the world. Him winning is a loss for small government advocates, at least policywise it is. It may not be as much of a loss as if either of his opponents win, but it's still a loss.

But I would like to see the GOP lose to him.

[johnrocks]

THe was is the deal breaker for me. If this is just the pro-war big government faction fighting the pro-war small government faction, I could not possibly care less who wins.

Yep and the GOP either doesn't understand,care or ignores that message. I too won't vote for someone because of that issue.

[tajitj]

I agree with assesment, remember the electorate is not that informed about issues, the MSM will go nuts over a 3rd party winning, feeling it will damage GOP which they hate so much.

If a 3rd party wins, it gives a lot of credibility to others around the country.

Also helps the non incumbant Republican running against the establishment backed candidate.

[Flash]

I agree with assesment, remember the electorate is not that informed about issues, the MSM will go nuts over a 3rd party winning, feeling it will damage GOP which they hate so much.

If a 3rd party wins, it gives a lot of credibility to others around the country.

Also helps the non incumbant Republican running against the establishment backed candidate.

The Conservative Party acts more like a wing of the GOP in New York than an actual third party. Most likely Hoffman will switch parties once in office. On his website he refers to himself as a "Reagan Republican."

[angelatc]

I think it's time to stop obsessing so much over foreign policy and look who is Conservative domestically. This would be Hoffman, Jesse Kelly, & Chuck DeVore.

The anti-war stance is what built this movement. We can't afford these pre-emptive wars, either fiscally or morally.

[Flash]

The anti-war stance is what built this movement. We can't afford these pre-emptive wars, either fiscally or morally.

I understand your point. But in these races (Chuck DeVore, Kelly, Hoffman) there isn't an anti-war Ron Paul alternative. I would like a congressman that at least agrees with 90% of what Ron is saying.

[randolphfuller]

Voting for candidates like Hoffman is what got us into the mess we are in. The Conservative Party was started by Bill Buckley and a small claque of rabid New York anti-Communists to defeat Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller and replace them with Irving Kristol neo-conservatives. Why the hell should we help them?

[jmdrake]

I fail to see how Doug Hoffman is the "pro war" candidate. At best his position is murky. From his campaign site:

We are past the point of pointing fingers over how we got to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question for us now is where do we go from here? I believe we must continue to try and turn the security and governing of Iraq over to the Iraqis. I also believe we need to continue to go after the terrorist strongholds and training bases wherever they are located. The war against terror is not over and the terrorists’ goal remains the destruction of the United States and our way of life… We must never forget this fact.

Leaving Iraq includes turning "the security and governing of Iraq over to the Iraqis". And as for "need to continue to go after the terrorist strongholds and training bases wherever they are located", remember Ron Paul initially voted for action in Afghanistan and after that proposed "letters of marquee and reprisal" so that somebody could go after the terrorists. I agree with Ron Paul's current position that we need to pull out of Afghanistan totally at this point, but it's hard to win an election on that and even Rand isn't going that far. What's important to me is that Hoffman has not said anything about Iran. No "We must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb" statement that might signal support for an Israeli or U.S. strike against Iran or greater sanctions. He might be a pro war candidate. Then again he might be playing he cards close to the vest in order to not totally derail what is already a long shot campaign.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[angelatc]

YouTube - Ron Paul Says "Just Come Home" at ABC Debate with George (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-DIpkJRDY)


I'd like to see the GOP lose but I think what will happen is that the Dem will win because and the third party candidate will take the blame.

I don't hate Hoffman, and if I lived there that's probably who I'd vote for if there's not an anti-war candidate on the ballot but I'm not all a-tizzy over the prospect of him getting elected.

I'll compromise on any number of issues, but the war isn't one of them.

[jmdrake]

YouTube - Ron Paul Says "Just Come Home" at ABC Debate with George (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-DIpkJRDY)


I'd like to see the GOP lose but I think what will happen is that the Dem will win because and the third party candidate will take the blame.

I don't hate Hoffman, and if I lived there that's probably who I'd vote for if there's not an anti-war candidate on the ballot but I'm not all a-tizzy over the prospect of him getting elected.

I'll compromise on any number of issues, but the war isn't one of them.

Yes. Great. Wonderful. I'm glad Ron Paul is pure on this. But you won't even see Rand make a statement like that. There's a reason. Rand doesn't want to get stuck with the "pacifist" brush his father got stuck with even though Ron voted to invade Afghanistan. If you look at his website it says he would have called for a vote for war in Iraq and voted against it and that he would have called for a vote for a war in Afghanistan and voted for it.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/

Does that mean Rand supports staying in Afghanistan now? I don't know. His website doesn't say. But I support him because I can give him the benefit of the doubt on being against pre-emptive war. I'm cautiously giving Hoffman the benefit of the doubt also. He could easily gain some points among some repubicans about now by saying "Obama needs to be firm on sending more troops to Afghanistan" or "We must hold the line on Iran". He's not. Sometimes what's not said is as important as what is said.

Of course the real question is "How does he compare to the other two candidates on the issue"?

From Scozzafava: " Dede also believes we must continue to address the global threat of terrorism and supports a strong national defense."

Hmmmm....not much there. Not even the hint of an Iraq pullout that Hoffman had.

Bill Owens: ........nothing.

Like I said. Maybe Hoffman's pro-war or even "pro-preemptive war" but whether he is or not I can't tell from the record.

Anyway, I'm not sending Hoffman money. (Have to save my fed notes for the best possible candidates). I'm just analyzing how we can make the best of the situation no matter who wins. And I agree with the person that said a Scozzafava win would be a worst case scenario. But since none of the candidates have a CFL endorsement we don't lose much their either. Maybe the spin is "Come out strong against preemptive war and expansionist foreign policy and watch us push you over the top.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Brian4Liberty]

Foreign policy and domestic policy are intertwined. The cost of our foreign policy is a main cause of our deficits/debts/bankruptcy.


Exactly. A true fiscal conservative should eventually overcome the urge to spend money on counter-productive and expensive military adventures.


He's not a small government candidate. He's an advocate of keynesianism. He believes government spending can stimulate the economy and his only complaint against the Obama stimulus is that it wasn't executed well.

If that's true, what does he agree with Ron Paul on? This doesn't sound good.


Voting for candidates like Hoffman is what got us into the mess we are in. The Conservative Party was started by Bill Buckley and a small claque of rabid New York anti-Communists to defeat Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller and replace them with Irving Kristol neo-conservatives. Why the hell should we help them?

Bill Kristol has endorsed Hoffman. Final nail. Coffin closed.

[Rekonn]

Voting for candidates like Hoffman is what got us into the mess we are in. The Conservative Party was started by Bill Buckley and a small claque of rabid New York anti-Communists to defeat Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller and replace them with Irving Kristol neo-conservatives. Why the hell should we help them?

I understand not donating Hoffman's campaign, but if you happen to live in that district I still think you should vote for him. There is no primary in this race, and there are only 3 choices. I think not voting for candidates like Hoffman (when the other choices are so much worse!) would result in us being in an even worse mess.

Also, Hoffman's election is more important than just one race. As much as everyone hates the GOP, they are still a powerful party with a lot of money to throw at races. Before the 2010 elections, which lesson would you want them to walk away with:

1) nominating RINOs like Scozzafava is the way to win elections
2) nominating fiscal conservatives is the way to win elections

[New York For Paul]

I understand not donating Hoffman's campaign, but if you happen to live in that district I still think you should vote for him. There is no primary in this race, and there are only 3 choices. I think not voting for candidates like Hoffman (when the other choices are so much worse!) would result in us being in an even worse mess.

Also, Hoffman's election is more important than just one race. As much as everyone hates the GOP, they are still a powerful party with a lot of money to throw at races. Before the 2010 elections, which lesson would you want them to walk away with:

1) nominating RINOs like Scozzafava is the way to win elections
2) nominating fiscal conservatives is the way to win elections

Good point.