Hoffman's RWRating  

Sunday, November 01, 2009


So now that Hoffman is the man in NY-23, and is quite easily the candidate with the most momentum anywhere in the US, it's time to look not so much at his conservative credentials (after all, he doesn't have any credentials as a regular guy that simply decided to run for office), but at his positions on issues. His campaign page's issues section is probably brief enough to take a stab at the whole thing, so let's have at it.

Where do you stand on the stimulus bill?

While most economists agree that spending is required in a recession, government bureaucrats are the worst people to be spending our money. That’s why there are no jobs with this recovery. The economy may be slowly beginning to recover but it is doing so in spite of the stimulus, not because of it. I believed at the time the stimulus passed that it was a bad bill and would not work as promised and I believe that even more so now. What I would have supported is a bill that puts real money in the hands of Americans to spend, not federal bureaucrats… and a bill that spent money on capital projects that would have put people to work now, not in the next two to three years.
Has there been ANY candidate anywhere that has been more right on this issue? Of course the libs would never go for it. It would mean tax cuts. That's what is meant by putting "real money in the hands of Americans to spend".
Where do you stand on health care reform?

Although universal health care sounds great in theory, we can’t afford to do everything at once… especially when it means adding an additional trillion dollars to the deficit we are handing to our children and grandchildren. I believe our first step should be to bring the spiraling costs of healthcare under control so the cost of healthcare does not destroy the budgets of hardworking families and retirees. Then, as the economy picks up we can work to insure everyone.
Eh. I disagree that universal health care sounds great in theory, at least on the federal level. If a state wishes to be so foolish, then fine, but even though Hoffman's idea hints at conservatism, it really isn't, because once the economy picks up, he may advocate the very illegal universal health care he now doesn't advocate. That's cause for concern.
Would you vote for higher taxes to help pay for the deficit?

President Ronald Reagan said it best: “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” Before we even consider raising taxes we must first bring spending under control.
True enough on the surface, but it needs to be reiterated that tax cuts implemented during the administrations of Jack Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush increased revenues collected by the US government. Doug is right to suggest getting spending under control first, but raising taxes should NEVER be an option unless we are both at war and on the "undertaxed" side of the curve.
What spending would you cut?

I would cut the pork and wasteful earmarks. When the Democrats took control of congress, they did so with the promise to end earmarks. Unfortunately, they not only did not end earmarks, they took them to a whole new level. I didn't have to think twice. I signed the pledge to oppose pork barrel spending."
OK. There's no mention of cutting back the socialism that's rampant in Washington. Still, eliminating the earmarks the Democrats said they would eliminate would go a long way in reining in wasteful spending.
Where do you stand on issues such as the war/terror/military?

It is often said, yet too often forgotten: Freedom isn’t free. The men and women of our armed forces are the true heroes in today’s world. Here in the 23rd district, we are more aware of that than most. The 10th Mountain Division is doing a super job and we understand the burden this places on them and on their families. We owe all our soldiers – and their families – a tremendous debt of gratitude and we must do everything we can to support them. The new G.I. bill is a good first step in that direction. We must continue our work to do more for them and to do everything we can to support their families when they are deployed… … 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.
While Doug is right about most of what he says here, he does stop short of mentioning what really needs to be done in the War on Terror - eliminating the threat posed by Iran. You want to make Iraq a rousing success? Finish off Ahmadenijad. You want to make bin Laden irrelevant? Finish off Ahmadenijad. You want real cooperation from the Saudis? Finish off Ahmadenijad. Almost all of the money supporting the terrorists is coming from Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are pretending to be friends. Cut off Iran, and they would either go the way of the Libyans or be exposed as the frauds that they are. Of course, Khaddafi is a nutbag and only dismantled his program out of fear - just look at how he changed his tune when a Democrat walked into the White House, but taking out Ahmadenijad would put the terrorists on lockdown. Simple maintenance after that ...
Where do you stand on illegal immigration?

There is no question that our immigration policies are flawed. The answer, though, is not to put up a wall and stop all immigration. The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here – while at the same time getting tough on illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
Immigration policies flawed - check.

Putting up a wall to slow the flow if illegal ALIENS is essential to showing our neighbors that we expect our laws to be followed. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If you are here illegally, you are not an immigrant, but an illegal alien.

Of course we want immigrants to be able to come to our country and become part of our culture. What we don't want is to have to bend to insistence from illegal aliens and others that we change our culture to fit whatever model they choose. Look around. It doesn't take much to see the folly in what is going on now. Call you local unemployment office for confirmation. The first sentence you hear is "welcome to ... " and "to continue in English, press 1 ... ". Government services in the United States should be provided only in English, and where it is determined that foreign support is necessary, that information should be provided somewhere other than where actual citizens place their calls.
Where do you stand on the issue of Roe vs. Wade?

I am pro-life, period.
I don't feel that Doug answered this question at all. Is his position in line with the typical conservative who suggests that consenting to the sex act is consent to the pregnancy? Is it in line with the Constitution Party that suggests that a child shouldn't be punished for the sins of his father? Could he perhaps comment on the legality of the decision itself? Pro-life is fine, but there's much more to the issue of Roe than that.
Where do you stand on the issue of Same Sex Marriage?

I was brought up to believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how I feel. I don't want to persecute anyone but that's what I believe. Marriage ought to stay marriage. Period."
Again, what you were brought up to believe and what is legal under the Constitution may be different things. As there has been no government intrusion into marriage at the federal level, you may wish to perhaps comment on the legal grounds upon which you take this position. How you were raised just isn't going to cut it when you're on the House floor.
Where do you stand on the Second Amendment?

As an NRA member, Doug believes the Second Amendment is far more vital to our nation than just protecting the recreational activities of hunters and target shooters. The Founding Fathers thought these right’s so vital to a free country that they specifically created the Bill of Rights. They did not want to leave any doubt as to what tools must be available to the lone citizen.

• The first amendment's protection of the ability to question government and assuring the capacity of citizens to communicate to one another.
• The fifth amendment's designation of property rights as the clear demarcation line between the individual and the community.
• The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh's establishing the due process by which the judiciary and law enforcement officers must adhere to in applying the law to individuals.

But the second amendment was included to give bite to the other protections outlined in the Bill of Rights. Without it, all other amendments are nothing more than talk.

Doug Hoffman believes citizens in all states plus the District of Columbia should have a “Right to Carry” with a CCW permits, a right that is now enjoyed in over 38 states.

Doug Hoffman opposes any federal ban or registration on the types and cosmetics of rifles that law-abiding American citizens can own.
The only issue I have with Doug here is the part about permits and bans. The right to carry is implied in the right to keep and bear arms. That's what the Second Amendment means - citizens have the right to carry. Never mind a "federal" ban or registration. NO ONE should be required to register or submit to a ban with regard to their arms. Once you start getting involved in that stuff, all the other Amendments are, as you say, "nothing but talk".
Where do you stand on Cap and Trade?
It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations killing businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher energy costs.
Not bad from a "talk" perspective, but nothing about the ILLEGALITY of such a bill.
What type of tax reform do you support?

I believe that a flat tax would be fairer and simpler. It would be low cost and would be a great boost to our economy. I also signed the Americans for Tax Reform, Anti-Tax Pledge.
Yeah. Flat tax. If someone would suggest simply taxing the states, as I have advocated, would you go for that?
How do you feel about No Tax Pledges?

Tax increases are the last thing we need. I signed the 'No New Taxes' pledge."
Keep your word and eliminate the other taxes, and you are well on your way.
Where do you stand on the $180 Million Bank Bailout?

I opposed Albany's bank bailout for the same reason I opposed the Nancy Pelosi's 'Stimulus Bill.' The economy may be slowly beginning to recover but it is doing so in spite of bailouts and stimulus bills, not because of them. I believed at the time the stimulus passed that it was a bad bill and would not work as promised and I believe that even more so now.
Can't speak to the issue vis a vis New York, but it's very sad that someone who calls himself a conservative still avoids the issue of constitutionality when it comes to federal spending of this nature.
What do you think should be done regarding ACORN?

This is simple. I support defunding ACORN 100%. The whole thing is a political boondoggle to elect Democrats and a waste of taxpayers money.
If the Constitution would have simply been followed as intended by the Founders, ACORN wouldn't have gotten a shiny dime from the fed to begin with. Can we please get back onto the subject of the Constitution?

As to the conservative index that I like to post with regard to candidates and their positions, Hoffman takes a conservative position 100% of the time, but almost always stops short of matching his position with truly conservative reasoning. Therefore, he'll come in at about 95% conservative. He could bring this to 100% pretty easily if he would simply think things through more and back his ideas up with solid constitutional references. "I was brought up that way" just isn't going to cut it. After all, Robert Byrd was "brought up that way" with regard to racism. Doesn't mean he's right.