Hoffman 2010?

[Flash]

SARANAC LAKE, NY – Will Doug Hoffman mount another bid for Congress in 2010? Jim Tedisco, the other New York GOPer who lost a special election in neighboring NY-20, is already set for a 2010 rematch with Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.). And before the polls closed, it was very clear inside Hoffman’s camp that he planned to run in 2010 no matter what happened. But last night’s result was devastating for a man who rose from obscurity to conservative superstardom to spending 72 hours thinking he was about to go to Congress to a solid defeat. Hoffman didn’t make himself available to press after the speech. According to Sandy Caligoire, who drove him home from the hotel, Hoffman barely talked on the ride home.

“He was crushed by this,” said Caligoire. “He needs a few days off.”


Still, it’s pretty clear that conservative activists would get behind another Hoffman bid. Conservative Party leaders feel that the local GOP has learned a lesson from the Scozzafava disaster, and that could smooth a path for Hoffman to win the Republican line in 2010. And just now, Hoffman put out this note on Twitter:

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-13.png

http://washingtonindependent.com/66592/ny-23-hoffman-2010

[sofia]

just by having that "R" next to his name in 2010 will push him over the top.

running as a "c" probably cost him 10 points alone.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why is this a thumbs up? Why should we care if another neocon runs in 2010?

[Flash]

Theres a difference between Conservative and Neo-Conservative. I haven't seen any proof Hoffman is a Liberal-Republican/Neo-Con.

And yes running as a Republican will be very beneficial for him. Funny how some of the liberal talking heads looked at this race as proof only 'moderates' can win elections now. I guess they just flat-out ignored the fact the Republican & Democrat candidates were united against the third part..

[erowe1]

Theres a difference between Conservative and Neo-Conservative. I haven't seen any proof Hoffman is a Liberal-Republican/Neo-Con.


First of all, prudence demands that we apply the burden of proof to the politicians to prove they are for less government before we give them credit for it. We can't just give them the benefit of the doubt. They're guilty until proven innocent. And Hoffman certainly hasn't given us any reason to think he's not the same as almost every other Republican.

Second of all, Hoffman explicitly advocates keynesian economics. His number one issue on his campaign website was the issue of economic stimulus where he said that he agreed with most economists that the government should spend more money and do things to get "regular Americans" (whoever those are) to spend more too. So he clearly is no fan of free markets.

Why should we support him when there are so many people out there who are so much better and have stuck their necks out to articulate serious, concrete free market, pro-liberty, government reduction platforms? In fact, we should start looking now for a good candidate to put up against him.

The only good thing about Hoffman was that he was running in a third party and provided a way to poke the GOP leadership in the eye (which I'll admit was an attractive enough prospect). Once you take that away, he just becomes like every other Republican. He's not one of us.

[TCE]

Why can we not have some of our candidates run as the "Conservative Party?" Especially those that have no chance. It's a great way to get a message out and turn some heads.

[Flash]

Why can we not have some of our candidates run as the "Conservative Party?" Especially those that have no chance. It's a great way to get a message out and turn some heads.

I believe theres only a Conservative Party of California and a Conservative Party of New York. And the one in New York basically acts as a wing of the Republican Party. But it is a good idea.

[TCE]

I believe theres only a Conservative Party of California and a Conservative Party of New York. And the one in New York basically acts as a wing of the Republican Party. But it is a good idea.

If I am not mistaken, most states have somewhat vague rules on which party one can be. They will say that you can be whatever you want party-wise, but you must get a certain amount of signatures. It could be a great way into making a third party viable at some point in the future.

[Imperial]

To be clear, there are many small entities that are "Conservative Party." The only one with significant electoral traction besides in isolated local areas is the Conservative Party of NY, because of fusion and some level of mainstream support (the Buckleys).

In California, the Conservative Party would not be worth your while. I have never heard of one there, but there is the AIP/Constitution Party that is having an internal war. But until then, good candidates can still file to run who fight for the right ideals. Depending on where you are, the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party would be the third party alternative.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Theres a difference between Conservative and Neo-Conservative. I haven't seen any proof Hoffman is a Liberal-Republican/Neo-Con.

And yes running as a Republican will be very beneficial for him. Funny how some of the liberal talking heads looked at this race as proof only 'moderates' can win elections now. I guess they just flat-out ignored the fact the Republican & Democrat candidates were united against the third part..

Didn't he advocate an interventionist foreign policy?