PDA

View Full Version : A big lesson in upstate New York.




Elwar
11-04-2009, 08:01 AM
Ok, after hearing that the establishment Republican candidate dropped out over the weekend, I was ready to come in here today boasting about how Hoffman's win was proof to the Republican Party of what needed to happen in 2010. The Republican establishment needed to get out of the way while the grassroots conservatives go in there and sweep the races.

But this morning I heard that Hoffman lost to the Democrat in a Republican stronghold.

And I was ready and willing to offer a Mea Culpa and a nod to the fact that perhaps we are jumping the gun to think that we can turn the Republican Party around and replace all the candidates with conservatives, asking everyone to perhaps re-think things.

And no, I don't think it's about Palin...that's more the sensationalist side of the story if you want to believe that she was a factor.


The biggest factor here is the 4% of voters who decided to still vote for the Republican candidate that had dropped out. With that 4%, Hoffman would have won.

So, what's the lesson here? That perhaps we should re-think our protest votes in the general election. Our votes for the Libertarian as a message to the Republicans that they need to have some libertarian principles if they want our votes. Now the shoe is on the other foot. A conservative could have won if it weren't for the establishment Republicans holding out.

Perhaps something needs to happen sooner in the election cycle so that we can all vote together as one during the general election. I believe that Nader did this for the Democrats by being the deciding factor in 2000, keeping Gore from winning.

It's something to look at moving forward. If liberty candidates win in the primaries...the shoe will be on the other foot as far as that 2-3% of big government Republicans not being satisfied and possibly swinging the vote toward the Democrat candidate.

silverhandorder
11-04-2009, 08:06 AM
In NY voters grew accustomed to the fact that you can vote either for a R or a C and get the votes added on. Maybe they thought it would work this time the same way. Plus you always have a small percentage that are not aware of politics and just vote R.

teamrican1
11-04-2009, 08:12 AM
The Hoffman situation was a huge win for conservatives no matter the outcome. NY is frankly a lost cause. It's a failed socialist state which might even collapse under its own weight sooner than California. But even there an upstart conservative was able to beat down an establishment liberal. If we can do it in NY, we can do it anywhere, and outside NY, the odds that our candidate will then win the general election are actually quite good.

Bucjason
11-04-2009, 08:22 AM
45% went to a 3rd party candidate....do you realize what a HUGE deal that is ???

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-04-2009, 08:42 AM
For one people could vote early. Two, Hoffmann jumped in the race LATE in the game. Getting 45% under those circumstances is quite a feat. Still I don't see CPoNY as a third party, but whatever. When a LP or CP member makes a strong run then maybe we can say third parties are having an impact.

Bucjason
11-04-2009, 08:49 AM
For one people could vote early. Two, Hoffmann jumped in the race LATE in the game. Getting 45% under those circumstances is quite a feat. Still I don't see CPoNY as a third party, but whatever. When a LP or CP member makes a strong run then maybe we can say third parties are having an impact.

They need some good candidates 1st , and not creepy guys like Bob Barr.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-04-2009, 08:54 AM
They need some good candidates 1st , and not creepy guys like Bob Barr.

Well Mary Ruwart was going to win, but they played dirty and tried to say she advocated child rape which is definitely not the case. Other than that it was clear she was going to win. She's going to win in 2012 though, but yeah I agree Barr is atrocious.

Other than that, on the local level most LP candidates are pretty good.

Chester Copperpot
11-04-2009, 09:02 AM
45% went to a 3rd party candidate....do you realize what a HUGE deal that is ???

he's catching on.. im telling ya!

familydog
11-04-2009, 09:05 AM
Ok, after hearing that the establishment Republican candidate dropped out over the weekend, I was ready to come in here today boasting about how Hoffman's win was proof to the Republican Party of what needed to happen in 2010. The Republican establishment needed to get out of the way while the grassroots conservatives go in there and sweep the races.

But this morning I heard that Hoffman lost to the Democrat in a Republican stronghold.

And I was ready and willing to offer a Mea Culpa and a nod to the fact that perhaps we are jumping the gun to think that we can turn the Republican Party around and replace all the candidates with conservatives, asking everyone to perhaps re-think things.

And no, I don't think it's about Palin...that's more the sensationalist side of the story if you want to believe that she was a factor.


The biggest factor here is the 4% of voters who decided to still vote for the Republican candidate that had dropped out. With that 4%, Hoffman would have won.

So, what's the lesson here? That perhaps we should re-think our protest votes in the general election. Our votes for the Libertarian as a message to the Republicans that they need to have some libertarian principles if they want our votes. Now the shoe is on the other foot. A conservative could have won if it weren't for the establishment Republicans holding out.

Perhaps something needs to happen sooner in the election cycle so that we can all vote together as one during the general election. I believe that Nader did this for the Democrats by being the deciding factor in 2000, keeping Gore from winning.

It's something to look at moving forward. If liberty candidates win in the primaries...the shoe will be on the other foot as far as that 2-3% of big government Republicans not being satisfied and possibly swinging the vote toward the Democrat candidate.

Democracy is a great, isn't it?

Peace&Freedom
11-04-2009, 09:12 AM
Barr had day one credibility, being a former congressman. He was a good candidate, just not the best fit for being a Libertarian candidate. As for upstate NY, if the GOP had any sense, they should take in the lesson that they shouldn't shove a lousy liberal Republican down the throats of a conservative district---at least not in a state where a strong Conservative Party exists to stop them. It was the GOP that created the division that lost them the district. Republicans should nominate Hoffman next year in a regular primary and stay on the same page as the CP so as not to mess up again.

Downstate, there was a counterexample of how things should work, namely Dan Halloran's victory in gaining a NYC Councilman seat. Halloran, the President of the NY RLC, had the GOP, CP, LP and Independence party endorsement, and there was good coordination between the major and minor parties. The new ball game is one of liberty candidates exercising muscle to be in a competitve position to win, not just being muscled to the sidelines. The majors can either play along, or pay dearly for not playing.

furface
11-04-2009, 09:18 AM
Why Hoffman lost:

1. "2nd Amendment" gun nut talk. This is the lair of senile old white men like Charlton Heston. Nobody else cares except that it's a litmus test for being crazy.

2. "Freedom isn't free." - said the racketeer to his victims.

3. On immigration - "The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here" Right Doug, for you and your illegal immigrant hiring supporters.

http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html

kahless
11-04-2009, 09:29 AM
Why Hoffman lost:

1. "2nd Amendment" gun nut talk. This is the lair of senile old white men like Charlton Heston. Nobody else cares except that it's a litmus test for being crazy.


This is rural upstate NY we are talking about and not the liberal NYC region. People really do care about that once you get outside the liberal strongholds. This is why you hear talk about upstate NY succession.

HOLLYWOOD
11-04-2009, 09:34 AM
7,137 morons... unless they're absentees that were filled out prior Scuzofavo dropping out. Plus a so-called Republican endorsing another sleazy liberal Lawyer... proves anyone can infiltrate any party, if you play it out correctly.

I'd say Scuzzo cost Hoffman at least 10,000+ votes and he cost himself a few thousand votes for not living in New York's 23rd district.

N.Y. District 23
N.Y. District 23 Candidate Party Votes Pct.

Winner: Bill OwensBill

Owens Dem.{ 63,496 49.3%
Doug Hoffman Con.: 58,161 45.2
Dede Scozzafava Rep.: 7,137 5.5

Pericles
11-04-2009, 09:43 AM
It is all about the GOP learning the right lesson and not the wrong lesson.

The right lesson is that there is a big demand for candidates who can articulate a liberty / small government message. The wrong lesson is that a credible non GOP candidate in the race causes the Dems to win (and the GOP has been on this track since 1992).

It is like World War I at Verdun. The French learned the lesson that a strong enough position can not be taken and built the Maginot Line. The Germans learned the lesson not to get pinned down in static warfare and created armored divisions.

erowe1
11-04-2009, 09:47 AM
The biggest factor here is the 4% of voters who decided to still vote for the Republican candidate that had dropped out. With that 4%, Hoffman would have won.


What makes you think those voters would have voted for Hoffman and not Owens, like most of the rest of Scozzafava's supporters ended up doing? The reason Owens went from being tied with Hoffman when it was a three way race to beating him, was that when it was a three-way race the liberal vote was getting divided between the Democrat and the Republican, but when it was a two way race the liberal vote united behind a single candidate, who then won. Scozzafava's departure from the race was meant to kill the third party candidate's chances, and the plan worked.

erowe1
11-04-2009, 09:49 AM
The right lesson is that there is a big demand for candidates who can articulate a liberty / small government message.

It's hard for me to see how this can be a lesson, since none of the three candidates here had a liberty/small government message. Hoffman differed from Scozzafava by being more socially conservative. But on the issues related to the size and cost of government, both of them were right there with the establishment GOP.

erowe1
11-04-2009, 09:54 AM
Why Hoffman lost:

1. "2nd Amendment" gun nut talk. This is the lair of senile old white men like Charlton Heston. Nobody else cares except that it's a litmus test for being crazy.

A lot of ridiculous claims have been made in this forum over the years, but I think this one takes the cake. Hoffman's pro-2nd amendment position may just be the only really good thing he brought to the table. And it's a winning position that TONS of people care deeply about.

klamath
11-04-2009, 09:58 AM
This is why the primary process is so important. That is the time you determine what coalition you want to join even though it isn't necessarily your best choice. However sometimes strange political winds gives you a coalition candidate like McCain and the coalition breaks apart. This is a good thing in that it reset attitudes on which way the party should be moving. Should it be sliding toward a bypartisan limited approach toward socialism or strongly fighting it and reversing it where you have the votes to do it? I hope it is towards the strongly fighting side.

furface
11-04-2009, 10:06 AM
I knew the 2A comment would get a lot of people riled. First of all, I believe the 2nd Amendment is important, but it's been severely misinterpreted lately. Its important and original purpose is for local militias to be a check on federal power. The individual right to bear arms interpretation is a complete red herring. Individual arms bearers are absolutely inert when it comes to protecting liberty on a societal basis.

Having said that, there needs to be a serious discussion of what set of politics will actually get conservatives elected in the 2010 Congressional elections. What are the important issues, the ones that matter to people on a daily basis? What aren't? I think if you ask those questions, you'll find a surprising overlap between Republicans and Democrats. IMO these are:

1. Smaller, less intrusive government.

2. Smaller, less aggressive military.

3. Lower taxes and a less oppressive tax framework.

4. Policies that encourage economic growth for Americans.

5. Curbs on illegal immigration.

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 10:12 AM
Ok, after hearing that the establishment Republican candidate dropped out over the weekend, I was ready to come in here today boasting about how Hoffman's win was proof to the Republican Party of what needed to happen in 2010. The Republican establishment needed to get out of the way while the grassroots conservatives go in there and sweep the races.

But this morning I heard that Hoffman lost to the Democrat in a Republican stronghold.

And I was ready and willing to offer a Mea Culpa and a nod to the fact that perhaps we are jumping the gun to think that we can turn the Republican Party around and replace all the candidates with conservatives, asking everyone to perhaps re-think things.

And no, I don't think it's about Palin...that's more the sensationalist side of the story if you want to believe that she was a factor.


The biggest factor here is the 4% of voters who decided to still vote for the Republican candidate that had dropped out. With that 4%, Hoffman would have won.

So, what's the lesson here? That perhaps we should re-think our protest votes in the general election. Our votes for the Libertarian as a message to the Republicans that they need to have some libertarian principles if they want our votes. Now the shoe is on the other foot. A conservative could have won if it weren't for the establishment Republicans holding out.

Perhaps something needs to happen sooner in the election cycle so that we can all vote together as one during the general election. I believe that Nader did this for the Democrats by being the deciding factor in 2000, keeping Gore from winning.

It's something to look at moving forward. If liberty candidates win in the primaries...the shoe will be on the other foot as far as that 2-3% of big government Republicans not being satisfied and possibly swinging the vote toward the Democrat candidate.

It all depends on the goal. If the goal is to have as many "R's" in office no matter what then this was a bad day. But just having "R's" in office got us the 8 year disaster that was Bush. If the goal is to have the best possible candidate in office period than yesterday was a win. The GOP will be less quick to twist the rules to get their preferred RINO on the ballot if they face the possibility of a 3rd party revolt. And the best part of all of this is big party names like Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin got behind this! Why is that important? Because they can't honestly blame Ron Paul types for blowing the race! So the next time we need to help some third party challenger we can say "You guys set the precedent".

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 10:14 AM
It's hard for me to see how this can be a lesson, since none of the three candidates here had a liberty/small government message. Hoffman differed from Scozzafava by being more socially conservative. But on the issues related to the size and cost of government, both of them were right there with the establishment GOP.

Says you! :rolleyes: Scozza supports the big medicare takeover. Hoffman does not. Hoffman was also against the stimulus package. Your mistake is that you assume he would support one just as large as the one that was passed just because he wouldn't totally rule out any stimulus at all.

Pericles
11-04-2009, 10:15 AM
It's hard for me to see how this can be a lesson, since none of the three candidates here had a liberty/small government message. Hoffman differed from Scozzafava by being more socially conservative. But on the issues related to the size and cost of government, both of them were right there with the establishment GOP.

In many ways, Hoffman was not an attractive candidate, and still got 45% of the vote not as a R or D. Ronald Reagan is the model I would choose. You can correctly state that in reality he failed to get government under control, but he was elected based on the message, and how that message was presented.

You win by playing offense, and the GOP has been playing defense for the last 5 years.

I'd agree with those that say the thing for liberty minded candidates to do is to try to win the primary in one of the 2 major parties - if you can win there, it is really hard for them not to back you.

klamath
11-04-2009, 10:18 AM
It all depends on the goal. If the goal is to have as many "R's" in office no matter what then this was a bad day. But just having "R's" in office got us the 8 year disaster that was Bush. If the goal is to have the best possible candidate in office period than yesterday was a win. The GOP will be less quick to twist the rules to get their preferred RINO on the ballot if they face the possibility of a 3rd party revolt. And the best part of all of this is big party names like Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin got behind this! Why is that important? Because they can't honestly blame Ron Paul types for blowing the race! So the next time we need to help some third party challenger we can say "You guys set the precedent".

Regards,

John M. Drake

Good point to use when republicans try and Slam RP for not endorcing McCain.

Carole
11-04-2009, 10:44 AM
Ok, after hearing that the establishment Republican candidate dropped out over the weekend, I was ready to come in here today boasting about how Hoffman's win was proof to the Republican Party of what needed to happen in 2010. The Republican establishment needed to get out of the way while the grassroots conservatives go in there and sweep the races.

But this morning I heard that Hoffman lost to the Democrat in a Republican stronghold.

And I was ready and willing to offer a Mea Culpa and a nod to the fact that perhaps we are jumping the gun to think that we can turn the Republican Party around and replace all the candidates with conservatives, asking everyone to perhaps re-think things.

And no, I don't think it's about Palin...that's more the sensationalist side of the story if you want to believe that she was a factor.


The biggest factor here is the 4% of voters who decided to still vote for the Republican candidate that had dropped out. With that 4%, Hoffman would have won.

So, what's the lesson here? That perhaps we should re-think our protest votes in the general election. Our votes for the Libertarian as a message to the Republicans that they need to have some libertarian principles if they want our votes. Now the shoe is on the other foot. A conservative could have won if it weren't for the establishment Republicans holding out.

Perhaps something needs to happen sooner in the election cycle so that we can all vote together as one during the general election. I believe that Nader did this for the Democrats by being the deciding factor in 2000, keeping Gore from winning.

It's something to look at moving forward. If liberty candidates win in the primaries...the shoe will be on the other foot as far as that 2-3% of big government Republicans not being satisfied and possibly swinging the vote toward the Democrat candidate.

The establishment republican candidate was extremist left, even of the democratic candidate. After she dropped out, she vented her anger by actively supporting the Dem Candidate. She probably had 4% due to the absentee ballots.

I heard some absentee ballots were discounted (mailins from the soldiers as usual). Maybe someone can verify this or debunk it.

Hoffman did really well with 46% of the vote, having been in the race for only one month and against basically TWO establishment machines since the Repub machine did not support him until last weekend.

One thing we know. Obama got exactly what he planned for in NY-23. He hired the Rep representative away as assit. sec. of Army. so he could steal away his district. He won!

The repub candidate Scazzafavva was a ringer Repub supported originally by the Family Workers Party of George Soros and ACORN. Now why would the little people running the show there select an obviously extremist left "Repub" to run against the Dem candidate? Could it be they knew she had no chance? They spent $1 million on ads against Hoffman.

Hoffman was not from the district and as amateur did not handle the local issues well the pundits are saying. Yet he got 46% of the vote. Given it is a Repub stronghold, but obviously a quite moderate one.

What does all this tell us? The Dems likely feel they have succeeded in breaking that stronghold. I look for redistricting/gerrymandering galore after the census next year.

Very interesting contest-the MOST interesting of the big three to me.

erowe1
11-04-2009, 10:48 AM
Says you! :rolleyes: Scozza supports the big medicare takeover. Hoffman does not. Hoffman was also against the stimulus package. Your mistake is that you assume he would support one just as large as the one that was passed just because he wouldn't totally rule out any stimulus at all.

So Hoffman's position on the stimulus, that he opposed the particulars but he likes the idea in general, and the one he would have supported would have been a little bit smaller, which is exactly the same as Scozzfava's position on that same issue, somehow makes him different from her on it?

Also, medicare is already under government control, so I'm not sure what taking it over entails, but sounds to me like kind of a wash.

Hoffman's big differences from Scozzafava were the social issues. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I agree more with him, particularly on abortion. But there's no use pretending he's something other than a keynesian on economic issues, when his own words prove that's exactly what he is and he makes no attempt to indicate otherwise.

Carole
11-04-2009, 10:52 AM
Don't forget this was a special election. They have to do it all over again with PRIMARIES in the spring-summer!!!!

Next November could be a different story if Mr. Hoffman decides to try again.

Carole
11-04-2009, 10:55 AM
Why Hoffman lost:

1. "2nd Amendment" gun nut talk. This is the lair of senile old white men like Charlton Heston. Nobody else cares except that it's a litmus test for being crazy.

2. "Freedom isn't free." - said the racketeer to his victims.

3. On immigration - "The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here" Right Doug, for you and your illegal immigrant hiring supporters.

http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html

Wow! Did he really campaign on thes issues?

Imagine if he had been better advised and really talked about the local issues. :D

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 11:00 AM
So Hoffman's position on the stimulus, that he opposed the particulars but he likes the idea in general, and the one he would have supported would have been a little bit smaller, which is exactly the same as Scozzfava's position on that same issue, somehow makes him different from her on it?


You are consistently long on claims and short on facts. Please point to any significant criticism of the stimulus packages by Scozza.



Also, medicare is already under government control, so I'm not sure what taking it over entails, but sounds to me like kind of a wash.


So since medicare is already under big government control we should roll over and let the government take over the rest of the health-care system? Are you serious? :rolleyes: Hoffman came out against the current health-care takeover. Scozza supports it. Maybe you'd rather Hoffman come out and say "I'll abolish medicare". But that's nothing but a political suicide note that Ron Paul himself never wrote. (Ron endorsed gradual phaseout of entitlements that protects the benefits of those already in the system).



Hoffman's big differences from Scozzafava were the social issues.

Again says you.



And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I agree more with him, particularly on abortion. But there's no use pretending he's something other than a keynesian on economic issues, when his own words prove that's exactly what he is and he makes no attempt to indicate otherwise.

Nonsense. You've taken your own interpretation on economics and turned it into "Hoffman and Scozza both want a government takeover of healthcare" or whatever it is you're trying to say.

Carole
11-04-2009, 11:06 AM
It all depends on the goal. If the goal is to have as many "R's" in office no matter what then this was a bad day. But just having "R's" in office got us the 8 year disaster that was Bush. If the goal is to have the best possible candidate in office period than yesterday was a win. The GOP will be less quick to twist the rules to get their preferred RINO on the ballot if they face the possibility of a 3rd party revolt. And the best part of all of this is big party names like Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin got behind this! Why is that important? Because they can't honestly blame Ron Paul types for blowing the race! So the next time we need to help some third party challenger we can say "You guys set the precedent".

Regards,

John M. Drake

Well said. I can easily agree with you. If the R's try this elsewhere, and even if they don't, it will be necessary to field that third party candidate to break them. It may cost a few house seats for a while, but at least it sends a message, especially if the 3rd party candidate does well against all the obstacles throw at him.

erowe1
11-04-2009, 11:11 AM
You've taken your own interpretation on economics and turned it into "Hoffman and Scozza both want a government takeover of healthcare" or whatever it is you're trying to say.

No I haven't. You're the one who said Scozza wanted government take over of Medicare (which government already controls), not me. I merely quoted you on it.

Unfortunately, her website is down now. But her positions on those issues were practically identical to Hoffman's. She did criticize the stimulus using practically the same arguments as Hoffman (for the idea in general, against the specific implementation of this last particular stimulus). It was the social issues where they differed.

It's strange that after running so zealously against Bush in 2008, some in our movement are so quickly adopting the Bush clone Hoffman as one of our own.

Edit: Here's something on their common opposition to Obamacare. They sure look similar on this issue to me.
http://www.myabc50.com/news/local/story/Scozzafava-Hoffman-blast-health-care-reform-bill/aEiQY9HT7Em2FfQFci5IWg.cspx

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 11:34 AM
No I haven't. You're the one who said Scozza wanted government take over of Medicare (which government already controls), not me. I merely quoted you on it.

My mistake. (yes I make those). Scozza supports the big government takeover of HEALTH care. Scozza supports Obamacare and Hoffman doesn't. Now do you see the difference?



Unfortunately, her website is down now. But her positions on those issues were practically identical to Hoffman's. She did criticize the stimulus using practically the same arguments as Hoffman. It was the social issues where they differed.


Go to http://www.archive.org to find information from websites that have been taken down.



It's strange that after running so zealously against Bush in 2008, some in our movement are so quickly adopting the Bush clone Hoffman as one of our own.

It's strange that after seeing people make up things about Ron Paul in 2008 some in our movement would make up stuff like you are against Hoffman without providing actual evidence. You're stimulus argument is shady and evidence for your Medicare D argument is simply non existent! Like I said in another thread, Rand doesn't mention repeal of Medicare D or the Patriot Act on his website either. (He criticizes the Patriot Act but Hoffman criticized the stimulus. And Rand doesn't mention Medicare D at all.) Rand is clear that he supports going after terrorists, but when Hoffman says that you conflate it to mean he supports everything Bush ever did foreign policy wise without offering any evidence to back up your claim! I'm not saying support Hoffman. I'm saying do unto others as you would have them do unto you! Using your far fetched criteria to judge candidates nobody passes muster unless they make themselves unelectable by laying out every single card on the table. In fact they can't even have a campaign website because it's impossible to think of everything that someone like you might accuse them without evidence of supporting.

Regards,

John M. Drake

erowe1
11-04-2009, 11:43 AM
My mistake. (yes I make those). Scozza supports the big government takeover of HEALTH care. Scozza supports Obamacare and Hoffman doesn't. Now do you see the difference?


No she doesn't. Their positions on that are the same. See the link I provided in my previous post.



You're stimulus argument is shady


Hoffman adheres to keynesian economics. That's all my argument is, and it's not shady. It's perfectly obvious in his own description of economic stimulus he supports.



evidence for your Medicare D argument is simply non existent!

You're the one who brought up Medicare Part D and said Hoffman opposes it. You provided no evidence for that. And now you want to say that he really does oppose it even though you have no evidence for that and I'm the one who has to provide evidence that he would vote repeal it, even though he never said he would? Where did you ever get the idea that he would in the first place? It's a ridiculous suggestion that goes against everything we know about the guy. Rand has nothing to do with this. But even if we were to compare the two, Rand explicitly only advocates government doing what the Constitution enumerates, whereas Hoffman takes no such position (or anything close to it). Frankly, I don't know how Medicare D got into the discussion anyway. It's not like any vote to repeal it will ever come up in the foreseeable future. Your whole idea that Hoffman would somehow be able to get it to happen, even though he never gave any indication that that's even his position at all, is ridiculous. You really are just a blind follower of his.

You also provide absolutely no evidence that this Bush clone Hoffman differs with Bush on foreign policy. You just insist that he does despite all indications to the contrary. What are you basing that on, Hannity's man-crush on him?

You seem to have this innocent-until-proven-guilty approach to politicians, where you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they hold these outstanding pro-liberty views that hardly any politicians at all hold, until it can be proven otherwise. That's terribly naive. They're guilty until proven innocent. Hoffman has given us absolutely no reason at all to think he has the small government positions you pretend he has (in stark contrast to someone like Rand Paul). And yet you think it's prudent to think he's for smaller government until proof to the contrary can be given. I suppose you also give panhandlers money whenever they ask and ignore the smell of alcohol on their breath, supposing they really do need gas money to get home.

Bucjason
11-04-2009, 11:46 AM
A lot of ridiculous claims have been made in this forum over the years, but I think this one takes the cake. Hoffman's pro-2nd amendment position may just be the only really good thing he brought to the table. And it's a winning position that TONS of people care deeply about.

I, too, am offended by the suggestion that caring about the 2nd amendment makes you a "nut"...

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 11:52 AM
You're the one who brought up Medicare Part D and said Hoffman opposes it.

YOU ARE SUCH A STINKING LIAR!

Go back and read the earlier thread. You said Hoffman was equal to Bush. I said to be equal to Bush Hoffman would have to, among other things, support the prescription drug benefit. You then said Hoffman supported the prescription drug benefit! If you can't even be honest about the claims that YOU make then this conversation isn't even worth having.

Once again if you are going to make the claim that Hoffman is a big government republican just like Bush THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO BACK UP THAT CLAIM BY SHOWING THAT HOFFMAN SUPPORTS THE SAME BIG GOVERNMENT AGENDA BUSH SUPPORTED!

erowe1
11-04-2009, 11:57 AM
You then said Hoffman supported the prescription drug benefit![

No I didn't.

You brought it up and said he opposed it.

It's in your post #27 in the other thread where you say:

To be like Bush Hoffman would have had to support the bailout, the prescription drug benefit, staying in Iraq indefinitely (he made it clear he doesn't support that), the Patriot Act ect.
when Hoffman nowhere opposes any of those things. You can't give him credit for differing from Bush on those issues when you have no evidence that he does.

It's like you're trying to say that we need to assume he holds these great positions that are the opposite of what every other politician he resembles holds until he proves otherwise.

Boy, you must really LOVE George W. Bush to be supporting his clone with such zeal like this.

jmdrake
11-04-2009, 12:19 PM
No I didn't.
[QUOTE]

Yes you did.

[QUOTE]
You brought it up and said he opposed it.


Liar. You claimed he was exactly like Bush. I said to be exactly like Bush he would have to be for the prescription drug benefit, the patriot act and staying in Iraq indefinitely. To be like Bush he would have to be on record supporting these things! You simply use the absence of mention that he was for repealing them as proof he supported them. That's not the same thing!

And again Rand says nothing about repealing the Patriot Act or the prescription drug benefit on his website. In fact he says nothing about prescription drug benefit at all.



I've never seen any evidence that he supported trying to repeal it, and you still haven't provided any.


You made the affirmative statement that Hoffman is a Bush clone. The burden is on you to provide actual evidence that he supports Bush's big government positions. Simply saying "Well you've haven't provided proof that he would repeal them" is not enough.



Boy, you must really LOVE George W. Bush to be supporting his clone with such zeal like this.

I have a zeal for the truth. Something you seem to know nothing about. You haven't established your case that Hoffman is a Bush clone. No way no how. Find evidence that Hoffman actually supports a prescription drug benefit or just admit your mistake and be done with it. I don't like hack jobs against anybody. I didn't like them when they were against Ron Paul. I'm going to be on guard against the ones that will be run against Rand. I'm not going to endorse your hack job against Hoffman just because Hoffman might be like Bush. The keyword is might. Sure it's possible, but you have failed miserably to establish this from the facts.

Regards,

John M. Drake

erowe1
11-04-2009, 12:42 PM
You claimed he was exactly like Bush.

I only said that after you said he wasn't. In post #23 of the other thread you first mention Bush, saying:

I never said Huffman was a "Ron Paul conservative". But I doubt he's the neocon "Bush lite" you're trying to paint him to be either.
Prior to that I never mentioned Bush or thought about comparing Hoffman to him. And then after you said that I realized, "Hey! That's it! That's who Hoffman is exactly like!"

And your failure to provide any support for your claim that Hoffman opposed Medicare D, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War (which were things you brought up, not me), only sealed the deal for me. I said to myself, "I wonder why this Drake guy thinks Hoffman has those great positions." And the more you talked, the more I realized that you just pulled those things out of your rectum. That's when I knew this guy was a pure Bush clone. Thanks for helping me with that.

Your entire basis for your blind support for Hoffman is that he just MIGHT by some slight chance not be exactly like Bush, but even that is only if you pretend he has positions he never claims to have without any evidence. I, in contrast, prefer to give politicians credit for holding good positions only after they give me reasons for doing so. Until they do, they're in the big government category. Rand has given me those reasons with clear, unequivocal, explicit, statements of his small government positions on his website. Hoffman...quite the opposite.

Matt Collins
11-04-2009, 12:54 PM
I think the lesson is that when the Republicans become "Democrat-Lite" they lose elections. Hopefully this message rings far and wide.


Also the Libertarian Party vote in NC was larger than the difference between McCain and Obama in '08; Obama won NC. Very few people acknowledge this fact but it is significant.

erowe1
11-04-2009, 01:04 PM
Also the Libertarian Party vote in NC was larger than the difference between McCain and Obama in '08; Obama won NC. Very few people acknowledge this fact but it is significant.

Same thing happened in Indiana.

Matt Collins
11-04-2009, 01:28 PM
Same thing happened in Indiana.
WOW!

I didn't realize that.


See:
http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/election/general/general2008


And Specfically:
http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/election/general/general2008?page=office&countyID=-1&officeID=36&districtID=-1&candidate=



- Obama won Indiana by 28,391 votes.
- Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party received 29,257 votes.

That's a difference of 866 votes!!!




.