Is Doug Hoffman a spoiler, or the true standard bearer?
Once again the North Country finds itself in the thick of a nationally-important election, as Republican Dede Scozzafava, Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman vie for the House seat vacated by John McHugh.
And once again national politics threaten to eclipse local concerns facing the region's communities.
A pantheon of Washington DC-based groups view Doug Hoffman as the proper standard bearer for conservative values.
They're convinced that Scozzafava -- pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-union -- is just too liberal.
But GOP leaders are equally convinced that Scozzafava is a solid fiscal conservative, and they think Hoffman is unelectable.
This feud on the right is attracting hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra campaign spending to the race -- and it could tip the election to Owens, a newcomer who only recently joined the Democratic Party.
What do you think? Is it interesting and exciting for our election to serve as a national crucible; or is this a case of outsiders using a North Country vote as a kind of proxy war?
Comments welcome below...
Labels: election09
posted by Brian Mann @ 10/05/2009 07:25:00 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
I think there needs to be a clear divide between whaat our national politics are, and what individual states need. Coheseiveness doesn't need to be cookie-cutter lockstep. What matters in N.M doesn't nessecarily have the same force in NY. I think the feeling that local control is slipping is one reason why national voices have so much power. If you feel like you're alone, clinging to the mast, you'll gladly seek safety with sailors you might not like in other circumstances.
The theme of this entry encapsulates everything I hate about modern electoral reporting: it has little to with real issues and more to do with the mindless, empty horse race aspect combined with a presumption that a country of 300,000,000 different people can be adequately represented by only two (or some might say one) party.
Who, besides the Scozzafava and Owens campaigns, cares if Doug Hoffman is a "spoiler"? Focus on the issues. And more importantly, what does the phrase "spoiler" mean? I were a voter in the district, I'd object to journalists and others telling or even implying that he's a "spoiler." I can't stand Hoffman's politics but there's no question he's adding something to the race by representing an agenda that neither Scozzafava nor Owens represents. I'd never vote for him but I'd never dare suggest that people are "spoiling" democracy by voting their conscience. I can't tell you how much I resent it when people (especially journalists, who generally claim to be objective) push that line.
Why shouldn't very conservative voters have someone they can get behind? Who are you or anyone else to suggest they shouldn't? To say suggest he's "spoiling" the race is to arrogantly presume that Democrats and Republicans have a God-given right to everyone's vote.
The political system needs a complete overhaul. You can't spoil something that's already rotten.
Brian -
Issues matter, sure -- they're paramount.
And those issues, same-sex marriage, abortion, taxes, etc., are driving a unique political contest.
Because of Scozzafava's positions, a powerful coalition of conservative groups are hoping to defeat her, funneling money and activism into the North Country.
About Doug Hoffman being a spoiler:
By running third party candidates against moderate Republicans, groups like Club for Growth have significantly reshaped the nation's political landscape.
Occasionally, by winning and placing ideological conservatives in Congress.
But often by "spoiling" the chances of Republican moderates -- and helping to elect Democrats.
Superficially, that may just sound like horse-racey box-score stuff.
But it actually affects our country and our democracy in significant ways.
Finally, I'll say stay tuned for plenty more coverage of the candidates specific stances on the issues...
I have a healthcare piece in the works now.
Brian
"it could tip the election to Owens, a newcomer who only recently joined the Democratic Party."
It is just as likely, if not more so, that Scozzafava and Owens will split the liberal to moderate vote, tipping the election to Hoffman. Scozzafava and Owens may well each spoil the election for the other. And isn't that as it should be? Haven't the Democrats and Republicans been spoiling, if not poisoning politics in the United States for decades now?
"it could tip the election to Owens, a newcomer who only recently joined the Democratic Party."
It is just as likely, if not more so, that Scozzafava and Owens will split the liberal to moderate vote, tipping the election to Hoffman. Scozzafava and Owens may well each spoil the election for the other. And isn't that as it should be? Haven't the Democrats and Republicans been spoiling, if not poisoning politics in the United States for decades now?
If Doug Hoffman truly represents the wishes of more of the district's voters than either of the other two, then yes it's affecting our democracy but it's enhancing it not spoiling it.
The sooner everyone, including the media, realizes that the major parties don't have a god-given right to everyone's vote, the less alienated a good chunk of the country will vote.
In typical elections, half or more the country doesn't vote. And contrary to popular self-delusion, it's not all out of apathy. Many don't vote because their point of view is not reflected in the major parties or the mainstream media.
Brian -
One final note on this topic. I think the thing that's interesting here -- and maybe a point I didn't make clearly enough in my thread -- is that Doug Hoffman isn't really a traditional third party candidate.
He's a self avowed, conservative Republican. He wanted to run as a Republican and, if elected, plans to caucus with the Republicans.
His purpose, self-stated, is to bring the Republican party back to its senses. (He and many of his supporters feel that the GOP erred in picking Dede Scozzafava.)
So -- my post really had nothing to do with the debate over third parties and their validity.
My post had to do with whether or not Hoffman is a spoiler in this race or the proper standard bearer for Republicans. (As he argues.)
-Brian, NCPR
This post has been removed by the author.
Brian M: There's no question that he's not a traditional "third party" candidate (even more so since the Conservatives and WFP aren't real parties, just factions of the GOP and Dems).
But ultimately it does relate to smaller parties by the objectionable use of the "spoiler" phrase. I will always maintain that if you're adding unrepresented points of view to the discussion in a so-called democracy, you are not and can not be a spoiler... regardless of your party affiliation or ballot line. If people vote for Hoffman, they'll do it because they agree with him and his agenda. How is that spoiling? Why, in a so-called democracy, should they be denied that opportunity or have their choice belittled?
We need more civic participations and more points of view represented in our political process and the journalism that covers it, not less and fewer.
I believe something like a third of registered voters are either independent or belong to a smaller party. Why shouldn't they be represented? And that number doesn't even include the legions of citizens who don't bother to register because they feel it a waste of time because the duopoly doesn't act in their interests and the media doesn't cover candidates who might resonate with them.
I think Scozzafava's probably the best candidate in the race, but I'd never offend citizens who support Hoffman by calling them spoilers. And make no mistake about it, when you call a candidate a spoiler, you're calling his or her supporters that too... implying they spoil democracy.
I'm not trying to be tiresome but I keep bring this up because this mentality only increases the anger and resentment you often write about and bemoan as contaminating our politics. I loathe it too and try like heck to avoid it... but I don't think it's totally unjustified and feel a lot of that frustration.
hoffman is lying about dede's record.
He said she only voted against this budget just so she could run for congress. Which would have been hard since Mchugh wasn't nominated until after the budget had been enacted.
He also says she voted for every other state budget which is lie. Dede voted against the 2003 budget which was the 2nd largest tax increase in state history.
when Hoffman went on the fred thompson show the host claimed Dede supported gun control. Dede has an A rating from the NRA and this year voted against 12 gun control bills. http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22881
Of course the dccc has also distorted her record. Their ad presents votes authorizing the continuation of county sales tax rates as tax increases. DCCC also says she managed the investment arm of a firm owing back taxes. Seaway capital partners and seaway capital Corporation are seperate companies.
I hope Doug Hoffman wins, we don't need more RINOs that will bankrupt the country the same as Democrats, but a little slower. Doug was recently endorsed by the Club For Growth. Below is more info on Scozzafava:
"If you think Arlen Specter has a bad record - well, you're in for a shock.
In truth, Dede Scozzafava gives new meaning to the term "RINO" - Republican in Name Only! As a New York Assemblywoman, Scozzafava voted to extend or raise taxes 190 times; voted for Democrat Governor David Paterson's 2008 -2009 budget which included $750 million in increased taxes and fees; voted for the "Millionaire's Tax"; and even voted to force all New York state government workers to pay union dues.
But it doesn't end there. Just like the Democrat Party's nominee, Bill Owens, Scozzafava has voiced her support for Big Labor's Card Check bill that takes away the secret ballot in a union election; supports Barack Obama's "stimulus" plan; and supports Cash for Clunkers."
Post a Comment
<< Home