Skip to main content

This guy is dangerously out of touch:

Super nervous, very creepy, super crazy.  This was only two weeks ago.  Here is the first 42 seconds:

Cap and trade started out just like almost everything does, to have a good purpose.  To save our environment.  Unfortunately, by the time it was passed it ended up to be more of a hidden tax for all of us and only help the environment a minute amount.  And this isn't Doug Hoffman talking, this is the GAO, the Government Accounting Office that has analyzed this and said that every household in America this bill will cost them something like seventeen-hundred and sixty dollars per year... in increased energy costs and compliance costs.

Three mistakes/lies in 92 words.  One mistake/lie every 31 words, topping the one flaw per 42 word ration in this USA Todaypiece piece by the Superfreakonomics authors.

  1.  The GAO is the Government Accountability Office, not the Government Accounting Office.  Not a huge deal but something you should probably know before running for Congress.
  1.  The takedown of the completely fabricated $1,761 clean energy bill lie is extremely well documented.  It was made up by a libertarian CBS blogger on September 15.  At least 20 Republican politicians have repeated it anyway.
  1.  And my personal favorite:  the lie Hoffman is trying to tell here is supposedly based on this Treasury Department document, not a GAO document.

Could Doug Hoffman be any more confused about all of this?

Here are the real cost estimates on the clean energy legislation currently moving through Congress:

None of these analyses take into account the costs of inaction, which would be far greater.

Originally posted to Josh Nelson on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:14 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If this PeeWee Herman clone actually wins, (5+ / 0-)

    NY-23 will be so sorry about a month from now. What a disaster!

  •  Given another week (6+ / 0-)

    Hoffman would have been toast. Now we'll just have to wait until next year.

    The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

    by beltane on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:21:21 AM PST

  •  It's all a moot point... (9+ / 0-)

    ...what Hoffman knows about government is a moot point.

    All that matters is that Hoffman is Glenn Beck's hand-picked candidate for NY-23.

    Once Hoffman is in place, Beck will tell Hoffman what to think & what to say.  Thank you very much.

    If Republicans had to start dealing in facts, the Republican party would disintegrate within a year.

    by wyvern on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:22:08 AM PST

  •  Definitely wrong, but not necessarily lying (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nova Land, Amber6541, earljellicoe

    Could be ignorant, deluded, deranged, uneducated, ill-informed, gullible in believing the lies of others, repeating falsehoods uncritically.  Lying requires willfulness.

    Getting GAO wrong, or making a mistake about where a federal government document issued from, is quite easily not lying.  I'm mentioning this because it misses the mark a little to call him a liar.  And I think these escalations of rhetoric, this heated-up hyperbole aren't especially helpful.

    Hoffman's unfit for office any how, because at best he's clueless.  Like when he complained he didn't get questions in advance, when they had been printed in the local newspaper editorial ahead of time.  Not lying, but definitely monumentally unfit.

    Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden, 8/30/09)

    by Land of Enchantment on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:32:50 AM PST

    •  I disagree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nova Land, Amber6541, rja

      Saying the legislation costs $1760 per family is a lie -- no two ways about it.

      •  But Hoffman might believe it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nova Land, Amber6541

        Because someone else said it.  The lying is, arguably, from another source.  That happens a lot:  Someone propagates a lie, and others pass it along.  Lying means knowing that what you say isn't true.  Deliberately misleading.

        Hoffman is propagating someone else's lie.  A false talking point.  That doesn't mean he's lying.

        And you listed three lies.  Two of which were about getting GAO wrong.  If you just said "Hoffman is wrong", then I'd be with you.  But I think you've pushed it too far.  I don't think you're a liar, but I do think you're wrong to be calling Hoffman a liar.

        On the $1700 thing, he's spreading a lie.  But it still doesn't mean he's lying.  Anymore than the average C-SPAN caller is lying when they say the same thing.  They believe it.

        I like precision of language.  And I think this kind of thing, like throwing "treason" around about all kinds of things, dilutes the word and eventually makes it useless.

        Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden, 8/30/09)

        by Land of Enchantment on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:42:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the distinction between (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nova Land, rja

          Repeating a thoroughly-debunked lie as if it were a fact and telling a lie is very small.

          If you say something that is not true and is easily disproved, I consider that a lie.

          •  It's a small distinction, but one worth making. (0+ / 0-)

            I agree that saying things you know to be wrong, and confidently asserting things which are false but which you didn't bother to check out before passing along, are both forms of dishonesty.  

            But they are different types of dishonest behavior, and it is often good to remember that difference and to use language which reflects it.

            The number of people who pass on false information without checking it out first is unfortunately large nowadays.  And most of these people don't consider themselves liars -- even when what they passed on is shown to be false.  

            Since in their view they are not liars, when someone calls them a liar they consider that to be a lie.  And since they have now classified the person calling them a liar as a liar, it makes it easy for them to dismiss whatever else that person says -- including the factual information which would show they had misspoken themselves.

            So in many cases it is better to present the factual information which shows that someone like Hoffman has spoken incorrectly -- and let those who read your correction judge for themselves if Hoffman did it because he enjoys lying, because he doesn't care what the truth is, because he was too lazy to check the facts out, because he is a poor judge of the reliability of people he listens to, or for some other reason.  

            Calling people liars may be emotionally satisfying, and may make what you are saying more appealing to  those who already agree with you, but is less likely to reach those who don't already agree with you.  

            •  Wrong. He's wrong. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nova Land

              In the end, being incompetent, being out-of-touch, or being dishonest are all grounds to not vote for some one.  And "wrong" doesn't alienate in the same way.

              I think it's far better to say he's wrong.  Doesn't know what he's talking about.  And so, unqualified for the office he's seeking to be elected for.  I think that's a better way to go.  Exactly for the reasons you've described, Nova Land.

              Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden, 8/30/09)

              by Land of Enchantment on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:13:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I guess we'll have to disagree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nova Land

            I think it's almost always counter-productive to call someone a liar.  Should be used extremely sparingly.

            Calling someone a "liar", as you did, over what GAO stands for (accountability vs. accounting fer chrissakes), or whether something was reported out of Treasury or GAO, is foolish.  IMO.  And you did that - you called him a liar for that.

            That's foolish, plain and simple.  You did that.  Don't try and act like you didn't.  The third "lie"?  A lot of people believe it.  They're wrong, even deluded, but they believe it.  So when they say it, they aren't lying.  It's still better to call him "wrong" and explain why, IMO.  

            You dilute the word liar until it has little or not meaning, IMO, if you use it like you did.

            Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden, 8/30/09)

            by Land of Enchantment on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:41:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Where are the college students (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Josh Nelson

    My friend is an attorney who is from the Platzburg Area. There are several liberal/progressive colleges in that area. If the students voted (like that did for Obama) this guy would be toast. This is an off-year election and here in NYC there seems more interest in the world series than the election. A lot of people I talk to don't even't know about Virginia or could care less about NJ.
    Yet all of these pundits are going to make all these predicitons after the fact. What a f/U system we have

    a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

    by Jamesleo on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:40:05 AM PST

  •  Doug Hoffman is Doug Neidermeyer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Josh Nelson

    Remember ANIMAL HOUSE?  That snotty frat boy played by Mark Metcalf?  I see photos of Doug Hoffman and I see the Doug Neidermeyer character (with sincere apologies to Mark Metcalf), in that frat initiation scene, wearing the robe, swinging the big paddle, while a pledgee yells, "thank you, sir, may I have another?"  And Neidermeyer grinning in sexual? satisfaction.

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:48:17 AM PST

  •  Doesn't seem nervous or creepy. A dull, dull CPA (0+ / 0-)

    He looks like he wants to be back in his office pouring over Excel spreadsheets and tax returns. BORING. But this really appeals to the simpletons in the GOP. Homespun bullshit really sells to the teabaggers.

  •  this is typical for Hoffman... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...when it comes to doing his homework...he neither lives in the district, nor does he, apparently, have much concern about local issues. During a televised debate regarding a question regarding the St. Lawrence Seaway, a very important component in this area's economy, Hoffman's reply was that he wasn't familiar with the issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site