Talk:Doug Hoffman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Endorsements[edit]

Missing endorsements:

This discussion reminds me of the one about a president who received endorsements by various communist and marxist parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that if asked, any rational president or presidential candidate would denounce endorsements from those parties. But Doogie Hoffman LOVES the above-listed lunatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.217.73 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, you don't want me to compile a list of actual lunatics that endorsed our current President. I can guarantee none of them were denounced by the Obama campaign. Also, please sign your posts. 24.12.93.206 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure plenty of lunatics endorsed our present president, but none of them are prominent parts of his propaganda machine - and the dingbats on the above list are all mainstream GOP mouthpieces. Remember when Pat Robertson used to cure hemorrhoids on TV? I do. Have you seen Glenn Beck cry lately? I have. The GOP is now dominated by idiots and fruit loops to a shocking degree. It's truly sad. 76.19.217.73 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

This article reads too much like a political puff piece. The section on his candidacy is far too large in comparison to the other sections. Sentences like this: "He has picked up several major Republican endorsements, which include Sarah Palin, George Pataki, Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, and Dick Armey among others." make the article seem like it is a political news article then an encyclopedic article. This sentence: "Four days later, Hoffman signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform.[7] The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is a written pledge to oppose and vote against all income tax increases for individuals and businesses." is more about the pledge which doesn't even have an article and is not related to him as much to the movement as a whole. That also seems unbalanced and very political.

Also, Hoffman's own candidacy web site is used as a reference. This reference should be replaced with reliable third party reverences that neither endorses or opposes the candidate.

I'll work on cleaning up the article, but his website is a suitable reference for things that aren't unduly self serving (like his personal info).  -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote most of the article. A lot is cited to his website, but only things like his positions and his bio (using this as a reference did make me shudder a little). I also removed the endorsement list as it had become an abomination and is already at the election article itself. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is much better and a little bit easier to read. Brothejr (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inaccuracy removed[edit]

I've changed some inaccuracy to remove incorrect statement not supported by proof links. Hoffman is NOT opposes abortion, at least link [10] says it believes abortion is wrong. Note the difference "must be illegal" and "believes it is wrong". In Link [10] pretty clear that there is a difference between his opinion about abortion and f.e. cap-and-trade. "Hoffman *believes* abortion and gay marriage is wrong, opposes cap-and-trade, publicly-funded health care, and the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. He supports tort reform and the Second Amendment.[10]" zebra24 208.75.46.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Here he says "I am pro-life, period." (The pdf "scorecard" was ambiguous.) -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article refers to the "fiscal and social conservatives" who supported Hoffman in the 2009 special election. It is a matter of dispute that conservatives, who all backed President G.W. Bush and his "supplemental appropriations" that funded the wars and his Medicare prescription plan, could be called "fiscal conservatives". At78rpm (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology in political positions[edit]

Let's start with abortion. On his campaign website issues section:

Q: "Where do you stand on the issue of Roe vs. Wade?"

A: "I am pro-life, period."

This statement seems pretty clear. If it weren't in response to "where do you stand on the issue of Roe vs. Wade?", his stance on Roe v. Wade might be ambiguous. But in response to the particular question, it is clear that he opposes Roe v. Wade. It doesn't necessarily mean that he supports its repeal, I agree with you there.

But adding "but does not specify whether or not he favors repeal of Roe v. Wade" unnecessarily introduces doubt into the "pro-life" statement, which there is no basis for. We have no reason to believe (nor can find any evidence of) any nuances about his pro-life statement. Just because he doesn't explicitly say he doesn't want it repealed doesn't mean that we have to point out that he hasn't explicitly said so (or that we can't find a reference for it). If he had explicitly dodged the question in an interview or debate it would be different, but there is no evidence of that.

To summarize, adding your qualifier doesn't add anything, and introduces unnecessary and unfounded doubt.


Now onto same-sex marriage.

Proponents of one side of any debate will use a word that frames their view in the best possible light, while at the same time masking what the actual issue is. Proponents of abortion prefer "pro-choice", because the alternative is "anti-choice". Similarly, opponents of abortion prefer "pro-life", as now their opponents are "anti-life". These two term should be avoided when describing positions as they frame the conversation by silently setting a point of view. Instead we should strive to use words which refer to the actual issue, and not adjectives or concepts surrounding the issue.

Now, the term "marriage equality" is a word that frames a point of view. While it is not as slanted as pro-choice or pro-life, it is slanted nonetheless. It makes opponents seem "anti-equality" while tacitly stating that the current marriage situation isn't equal. Whatever your viewpoints one the matter, we shouldn't be setting the tone by using words with this effect. Now an opposite term for "marriage equality" is "traditional marriage". It is also a loaded term, and although Hoffman's site used it, I intentionally did not. By supporting "traditional marriage", we assume that opponents either support "non-traditional marriage" or "oppose traditional marriage", both of which carry negative connotations. What would your opinion be if an editor went to a gay rights activist's page and changed "supports same-sex marriage" to "opposes traditional marriage"? I doubt that you would be 𝅘𝅥𝅮 down down down down down. 𝅘𝅥𝅮 (A wiki-argument this long needs some comic relief).

Now the term "marriage equality" is used almost exclusively by same-sex marriage proponents (Google search). Of course this doesn't automatically exclude its usage, but it runs counter to your assertion that they are treated are synonyms. The Same-sex marriage, to which you referenced, even says that it is often used by same-sex marriage proponents (of course it's not cited, but this isn't really part of my argument).

There are is no need for a second term when we have the neutral term "same-sex marriage" (if you think that this term is loaded in any way, I'll be happy to discuss.) Adding "marriage equality" at best adds nothing to the article, and only serves to slant the viewpoint.


I apologize for the lengthy arguments, but I found it necessary explain the reasoning. I hope you read my entire comment.  -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austin: Of course you are correct that each side in an argument tries to frame the debate, HOWEVER, Marriage Equality is precisely what what proponents of same-sex marriage equality ARE in favor of, and what the other side is fighting against. The term "Marriage Equality" is much more precise than "Traditional Marriage". For example, must a woman take the man's last name in a traditional marriage? Is divorce precluded? Must a wife stay at home with the children instead of working? Can she have financial independence within the marriage? Must she submit to her husband's (biblical) authority? On the other hand, marriage equality for gay people means precisely what it says, while the word 'traditional' just puts a happy (and imprecise) face on discrimination. Actually, "Marriage Equality" is a more honest description of what gays and their sympathizers want than is the term "Same-sex marriage" because the latter implies that S-S marriage is to be something different from and out side of 'real' marriage. No, that's NOT what is being sought, the goal is EQUALITY, and that goal is what is so upsetting to the other side (many of whom have proclaimed that they're on board with same sex UNIONS, just NOT MARRIAGE). Contrary to what some people would have you believe, the imprecise 'traditional' marriage HAS changed and evolved over the years. It is not the same as it was, even as late as the late 1960's when anti-miscegenation laws were finally ruled illegal, or the 1970's when no-fault divorce became popular with married voters. So one doesn't need to go back to biblical times (or even 100 years) to argue about what 'traditional' really means. Equality means what it says.

Sometimes a cigar IS a cigar and should be termed as such. I suppose 150 years ago the phrase "anti-slavery" could have been called a loaded term. The alternative side might have preferred "in favor of traditional labor relations". And no, I'm not comparing discrimination against gays to slavery, I'm giving an example of using imprecise language to obfuscate injustice. Marriage equality does NOT negate -or even effect- anyone else's "Traditional Marriage" (however they want to define it). But being against marriage equality DOES prevent gay people from having (yes) the equal opportunity to have a civilly recognized marriage, like everyone else can have. -William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL 24.160.80.225 (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doug Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Doug Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Hoffman&oldid=1207602896"