Doug Hoffman

Gingrich Obsoletes Beck

And so the torch passes from one schlock historian to the next. But the winner, at least in this case, might be the facts. In brief, Newt Gingrich went on that which remains of Beck’s show last night, to pitch his candidacy to Beck’s pre-primed, radicalized base. But Beck led off in typical fashion by accusing Gingrich of being a supporter of modern-day socialism, or at least of being in agreement with historical  “socialists” like (ahem) Teddy Roosevelt. To my chagrin, in reply, Gingrich responded by simply demolishing him. While reading, remember that Beck uses the words “socialism” and “progressivism” interchangeably, based on a sloppy historical equivalence.

GLENN: Let’s start with ‑‑ let’s start with a piece of audio here where you were talking about healthcare and you went down the progressive road with Theodore Roosevelt.

GINGRICH (RECORDING): And for government to not leave guarantees that you don’t have the ability to change, no private corporation has the purchasing power or the ability to reshape the health system, and in this sense I guess I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I were going to characterize my ‑‑ on health where I come from, I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can lean in the regulatory leaning is okay.

GLENN: Regulation and the government scares the crap out of me and I think most Tea Party kind of leaning conservatives, and Theodore Roosevelt was the guy who started the Progressive Party. How would you characterize your relationship with the progressive ideals of Theodore Roosevelt?

GINGRICH: Well, that depends on which phase of Roosevelt you’re talking about. The 1912, he’s become a big government, centralized power advocate running an a third party candidate which, for example, Roosevelt advocated the Food and Drug Act after he was eating ‑‑ and this supposedly the story, after he was eating sausage and eggs while reading up to Sinclair’s The Jungle, which has a scene in which a man falls into a vat at the sausage factory and becomes part of the sausage. And if you go back to that era where people had ‑‑ dealing with the Chinese where the people had doctored food, they had put all sorts of junk in food, they ‑‑ you know, I as a child who lived in Europe and I always marveled at the fact that American water is drinkable virtually anywhere.

So there are minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety that are I think really important.

GLENN: Okay. So you’re a minimum regulation guy on making sure the people don’t fall into the vats of sausage?

GINGRICH: Yeah. What I’m against is the government trying to implement things because bureaucracy’s such a bad implementer, and I’m against government trying to pick winners and losers.

It’s not clear what Gingrich views as the proper place of regulation — what exactly is “pick[ing] winners and losers,” and what, aside from abolishing the Republican-initiated practice of federal bailouts, does its avoidance entail? — but here we have the most conservative of the plausible Republican nominees explaining to Glenn Beck that regulation is not a per se evil, and that the “Progressives” weren’t so bad after all. That might contribute to losing Gingrich some of his far-right backers, but this is a guy that should be able to trade on his legacy to avoid any such fears.

If the Republican Party ever decides to walk back from its apocalyptic, hyper-deregulatory mania of the past two years, this is what its start would look like. How odd to hear it from Newt Gingrich, though.

Another thing we should take from the interview is just how bad an interviewer Glenn Beck truly is. He’s fine when pouring his soul, with all of its collected absurdities, into an empty vessel (YouTube), but not with someone willing to challenge his principles on his own turf. I love it.

Did the Tea Party Actually Win?

A look through the headliners suggests, “no.” Rubio took Florida and Paul took Kentucky, but these expected wins exhaust tea party gains in most-watched races. Joe Miller in Alaska fell to Lisa Murkowski as a write-in. Sharron Angle, of course, substantially underperformed. Carly Fiorina and Christine O’Donnell went down as hard as expected. John Raese lost by double-digits in West Virginia, after being caught referring to his would-be constituents as “hicky.”

These last three races could have been won by almost any other Republican — a mainline Republican — but voters in these key states resoundingly rejected radicals in favor of professional, competent politicians. To make matters worse, those three wins, plus two more, could have flipped the Senate. Absent tea party “populism,” Republicans could be sitting on a 49-vote bloc, and waiting on the remaining undecided races to see whether they would either receive a 50/50 split, or a narrow majority.

Oh, and in New York’s 23rd, Doug Hoffman’s late drop-out deprived Republicans of an easy gain against vulnerable Democratic congressman Bill Owens. Hah!

It’s hard to say for certain how much tea party “populism” helped Republicans energize their voters, and win close races with mainline candidates. But the bloc’s ability to actually send one of its own to Congress seems, at least this morning, pretty disappointing. This puts tea party partisans in the familiar role, always occupied by conservative culture war partisans, of delivering elections for mainline Republicans, and then being disappointed, when the establishment inevitably turns its back on them. Seeing so many of her favorites go down also seriously blunts Sarah Palin’s star power. All in all, things could be much worse.

Tea Party Spoiler Faces Upstate Defeat

Longtime readers will remember my distaste for Doug Hoffman, the empty vessel partially filled by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to run on the third party Conservative line against Dede Scozzafava, the moderate Republican to whom he had lost the primary, in New York’s 23rd Congressional district. Hoffman’s spoiler candidacy, of course, guaranteed the seat for moderate Democrat Bill Owens, and ended Mrs. Scozzafava’s long career of service to the area. When he lost last year, Hoffman fanned the flames of provably false voting machine conspiracy theories to keep his dying brand alive.

Hoffman pledged to run in this year’s primary, to face (and likely defeat) Owens in a two-man race. Last night, he failed — again — and lacked the class to even appear and thank his supporters. Hoffman has not conceded, though… and more importantly, vowed earlier this year to reprise his spoiler role if he lost the primary. One can only hope that the GOP will so self-immolate, and that Christine O’Donnell’s Pyrrhic Delaware victory is the first of many steps on that path.

NOTE: there’s supposed to be a post for 9/16/2010 up right now, but WordPress and my computer have allowed me to write, but not post it. It makes no sense.

Doug Hoffman Still Exists? You Wouldn’t Know, from his Campaign

It may comfort veteran Republican Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava to know that, though she’ll be retiring voluntarily, her one-time challenger, Doug Hoffman, faces the same fate, but not of his choosing. From an e-mail to supporters (really, who signed me up for this?):

Last week I wrote to you about a problem that has faced true conservative candidates like me for years. In addition to fighting the liberals and Democrats, too often, we must fight our own party establishment.

It happened in last year’s Special Election and in case you missed it its happening again.

Last week the Oneida County GOP froze me out of the process, they never even notified me they were having a meeting and then during it turned around and endorsed my primary opponent.

Keep in mind, last November, I won Oneida County, beating my liberal Democratic opponent Bill Owens by nearly 1,000 votes and defeating my liberal Republican opponent by OVER 2,700 votes.

I guess the GOP bosses will stop at nothing in their cynical attempt to block my candidacy. But, while the bosses may be against me, I know that rank and file Republicans voters will cast their vote for me once again.

While the bosses actions were not totally unexpected, they were disappointing. I would have thought they would have learned….in our democracy candidates are picked by average people, not by an elite few. Fighting the bosses is never easy and is always expensive. They’ll use every resource possible to stop me from spreading my conservative message of cutting spending, cutting taxes and reining in an ever growing deficit that is careening out of control. And, they use every dirty trick in the book to cut into my double digit lead.

I’m ready to fight once again for conservative principles and I hope you are ready to once again join the battle. Help me take back our party from the bosses and take back our Congress from Nancy Pelosi and her liberal friends.

For now, pass over the mixed metaphor and the typos to reflect on what we know about Hoffman. We know that, in the last election, he raised scurrilous complaints about New York state’s new voting machines, thus endangering the state’s ability to comply with federal law, by complaining bitterly about a lack of “openness” in the electoral process. This despite the fact that every board of election in his county held open audits of the machines, which any candidate could attend, and all did, except Hoffman. Is it possible Hoffman’s just repeating the same farce, blaming others for his own inability to participate in the system like a professional?

Yes, yes it is. And even FreeRepublic knows it:

“They said that they didn’t invite us because we never sent them a letter telling them we were interested,” Rob Ryan, Hoffman’s spokesperson, told FrumForum. “As if the whole world doesn’t know that Doug Hoffman is running for Congress.”

Doheny’s campaign shot back that the endorsement was earned through smart campaign management. “He wasn’t invited to the meeting [on Monday]. Our campaign proactively asked the Oneida county Republican Committee when they were meeting, and Matt went to make his case,” said Doheny’s spokeswoman, Alison Power.

There are two possibilities here. Either Hoffman’s an outsider in every sense of the word — so new, so inept, that he’s completely unaware of the way elections work, and cripplingly unable to zealously advocate for himself — or he’s the consummate insider, expecting information, votes, and opportunities to come to him, as if he’s entitled, just because he’s been tapped by certain elements of the fringe right (Palin/Beck). From that last quote, I can hazard a guess.

Anyone who’s worked for a politician knows their is not an easy life — at least when it’s done right. Unless you constantly push yourself and your ideas, other, more involved parties will sweep you away. If Hoffman can’t hustle on the campaign trail, why would anyone ever think he cares enough to do it once he’s elected?

The Scozzafava-ing of Kay Bailey Hutchinson

In Texas’ Republican gubernatorial primary, as expected, Debra Medina’s earthward crash inured directly to the benefit of Rick Perry, the still-unstable but slightly more serious sitting governor, and has, in fact, utterly tanked Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s chances of becoming the next Republican gubernatorial nominee, and almost certainly the next governor. Her words, on Perry’s successful resort to the “outsider” meme:

It definitely has made it more difficult for me. I didn’t think that people would buy that because I’ve been so effective for Texas. I didn’t think that anyone could turn my success in producing results for Texas into a negative, but I think that he has attempted to do that and that is what I’ve been having to fight against.

It’s not a concession, but an acknowledgment of reality: Kay Bailey Hutchinson will not win her primary. Rick Perry will, thereby almost guaranteeing victory for Houston Democrat Bill White in the general.

When Senator Hutchinson loses, it will be the second time in a year that an ideologically “pure” but otherwise unimpressive male Republican displaces a more experienced, objectively superior female candidate by questioning her Republican bona fides. And it’ll also likely be the second time the GOP squandered a “safe” seat by prizing disastrous radicals over functional moderates. Lesson learned? I won’t bet on it.

Hoffman Links to Birther Site in Supporter E-Mail

In an e-mail sent to supporters earlier today, Doug Hoffman pledged to strategize for his 2010 campaign over the holidays. But the prospect already looks bleak. At the end of the e-mail, Hoffman gives his supporters an “update” on important “news” articles — prominent among them, a link to prominent “Birther” site, “Citizen Wells.”

What’s significant is that Wells’ post substantially duplicates an article by that blog-masquerading-as-a-newspaper, “The Gouverneur Times.” That Hoffman would rather cite a notorious birther breeding ground than a slightly-more-reputable conservative blog is telling.

The Times’ allegations aren’t worth seriously addressing, except to note that the error stems from the legal requirement that voting machines print totals by group of voters, and the Times is comparing total votes in one group to total eligible voters in another group. That’s problematic, and speaks more to the Times’ ability to do math than Congressman Owens’ legitimacy.

Hoffman’s entire e-mail follows. Continue reading »

Exeunt: Not With a Bang, but a Whimper

Doug Hoffman’s last chance to file a suit demanding a recount passes today. Updates on relevant law and facts as they come.

Update: according to one source, Hoffman will not file.

See the comments for a defense of why this matters. Airport security lines preclude further response… For now!

Will Hoffman Challenge?

With conspiracy theories being debunked by the dozen (see previous article), it’s increasingly unlikely that a formal challenge to Bill Owens’ election would unseat him, in Conservative insurgent Doug Hoffman’s favor. And, time is of the essence: today is the last day to file a challenge, and Hoffman has talked himself into a corner. He’s alleged that ACORN “stole” the election, whether by tricking Dede Scozzafava into endorsing Owens or by hacking voting machines somehow, and he’s suborned others’ statements that voting machines carried “viruses.” The latter has since become a popular rumor, pushed by hardline internet conservatives.

Hoffman should be asking himself three important questions. First, how can he not file a challenge? Second, how can he not lose it, at the threshold? And, finally, which is a better setup for 2010: a foolhardly, quixotic quest against the entire electoral apparatus of New York, premised on irresponsibly fomenting distrust in a reliable-but-new voting technology, or a simple concession, carrying with it an implied admission that his earlier rhetoric was just wrong? He can emerge from this as an ultimately honest liar, or a dangerous demagogue. Neither is desirable, but either will tell us a lot about his character.

Update on Voting Machine Conspiracies in NY-23

The “Gouverneur Times,” a publication looking more and more like the official mouthpiece of Doug Hoffman’s failed congressional campaign, continued today to post falsehoods about the course of voting in the 23rd congressional district. Among the misrepresentations:

Voting machines did not undergo re-certification pursuant to N.Y. Elec. Law § 7-202: the Times cites § 7-202 as requiring re-examination of any modified machine. Put down your WestLaw passwords; the citation they’re looking for is § 7-201(2), which does require such re-examination. However, the re-examination did occur, contrary assertions notwithstanding.

Voting machines were capable of internet connectivity, in violation of N.Y. Elec. Law § 7-202(1)(t): the Goveurneur Time argues that the presence of a USB port on the Sequoia machines permits machine hijacking, or the attachment of a portable internet device. This could be true, except that the Times’ own quotes demonstrate that the one USB port on the machines is externally sealed and disconnected from the computer hardware. You could break the seal, and plug in a USB key, but if it’s not wired to anything, it can’t do anything. Oh, and the Times got the cite wrong again — don’t go looking for § 7-201(t), because it doesn’t exist.

An external slot on the machine’s ballot cabinet permits ballot-stuffing: false. I’ve seen the damn things; it’s not possible. And the State Board, again, debunked this rumor, explaining that the slot was physically closed in every machine last year.

Machines in many counties rejected valid ballots: true. But that’s a feature, not a bug. Federal law (Help America Vote Act of 2002, § 301) requires that compliant voting machines notify voters when their ballot is improperly marked. New York’s optical scanner machines comply with that feature by refusing to accept a ballot that’s “over-voted” — where the presence of stray marks by the voter would risk confusing the machine. This is an important way of making sure every vote is counted, and results in more, not less valid votes, because voters always have an opportunity to re-vote. Machine notification of a failed vote is preferable to the old lever machines, which could not give notice of a failed vote.

“In Broome County, hand counts revealed the ImageCast ballot scanners in five voting districts had miscounted votes”: this is an inflammatory way to characterize a mundane problem (see previous post). Optical scanners are wired to read only a filled-in box as a vote. Often, some voters, especially older voters, will “check” a box, or circle a candidate’s name, rather than fill in the box. The machine is deliberately programmed not to read these marks as votes, because 99% of the time, they aren’t. Hand-audits will catch mismarked ballots, and credit the voter’s intent accordingly, but when this occurs, it’s a problem of voter education and (maybe) ballot design, not machine malfunction. NY officials are considering redesigning the ballots to make the instructions clearer.

“In Fulton County, ImageCast ballot scanners were impounded after it was found they were not working properly”: no. Machines were impounded by court order generated before Election Day, and it had nothing to do with machine error.

More updates as they come. I’ve not been able to substantiate the allegations of machine malfunctions in all the counties the Times lists, but note that many of the counties they document as having experienced problems aren’t in NY-23 (Broome, Cayuga, Seneca, Steuben).

Thank You, New Yorkers for Verified Voting

The Waterdown Daily Times reports that Bo Lipari, the former executive director of New Yorkers for Verified Voting, has looked into Hoffman’s allegations about “viruses” on voting machines, and found them wanting. Mr. Lipari also delivers a stirring reminder of the value of electronic voting:

Because New York votes on paper, everybody’s vote was counted. When the scanner stopped working, the ballots were removed and counted, so no votes were lost. Paper ballots, a software independent record of the vote, proved their great value in their very first outing in the Empire State. Compare this to lever machines, where counters on the back would get stuck and wouldn’t turn when the vote is cast, something that occurred with far more frequency than most New Yorkers realize. When the counters on the back of a lever machines froze, a machine bug typically not discovered until the polls close, those votes were lost forever. More than a few lever machine elections had the incorrect candidate declared the victor as a result. When the scanner freezes, everyone knows about it, the machine is removed from service, and the paper ballots of those who have voted already and of those who will vote later in the day are sure to be counted. I’ll take paper any day.

The lever horror stories that Mr. Lipari refers to are quite real. In 2001 elections to the Common Council of the City of White Plains, a flaw in a single lever machine, where the machine simply stopped counting votes for one candidate, led to four years of litigation, and an eventual change in the seat’s occupant. Bad news.

Democracy only works when informed citizens push back against distortions and half-truths in the media. Thank you, Mr. Lipari, for doing your part.

I might also add that this blog came to the same conclusions as Mr. Lipari: tell your friends :).