Glenn interviews candidate Doug Hoffman

GLENN: From high above Times Square, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. We have Doug Hoffman. Doug Hoffman is a conservative candidate running for special election for New York's 23rd congressional district seat special election. Here's the recent poll: Democrat, 33, Republican 29. Conservative 23. And he's hacking off the GOP. Here's the interesting part of this. SEIU has endorsed the Democrat. ACORN and Newt Gingrich have endorsed the Republican who is pro card check and pro stimulus package. Huh.

PAT: Newt Gingrich?

GLENN: Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich.

PAT: That's disappointing.

GLENN: I have to tell you you are going to start running into this game. And God bless Newt Gingrich. I mean, I like Newt Gingrich. I think he is a brilliant strategist, et cetera, et cetera, but you are going to go into the old thinking here and that is if you don't if you start splitting up the eggs, you are going to have somebody else, you know, that has you know, that gets the bacon. So knock it off. Don't even think it through.

PAT: We're splitting up the eggs

GLENN: Get the bacon. I don't know what it means. So Doug Hoffman is on the phone with me now, and I don't know anything about Doug. I don't want to imply that this is an endorsement because I don't know him yet. But I thought we would get to know him because this is a this really is the moment that if the Republicans can get an ACORN endorsed Republican to run against the SEIU endorsed Democrat, and you actually fight about that like, oh, well, there's a good choice, then nothing's been learned. Nothing's been learned.



Learn more at DougHoffmanforcongress.com

Let's go to Doug Hoffman. Doug.

HOFFMAN: Good morning, Glenn. It's a pleasure to be on your show this morning.

GLENN: Got to ask you some simple questions and I apologize to do this but we have very little time together and, you know, people are going to have to make a decision.

HOFFMAN: Sure.

GLENN: Have you ever slept with any interns?

HOFFMAN: No.

GLENN: No?

HOFFMAN: No, I haven't.

GLENN: Have you ever been arrested?

HOFFMAN: No.

GLENN: You smoke dope?

HOFFMAN: No.

GLENN: What else? Have you ever embezzled?

HOFFMAN: No.

GLENN: Are you just an attorney?

HOFFMAN: No.

PAT: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

HOFFMAN: Absolutely not.

GLENN: Do you believe in the free market system?

HOFFMAN: Absolutely do.

PAT: Are you a fan of Chairman Mao?

HOFFMAN: No.

PAT: All right. Is he your favorite he is not your favorite political philosopher?

HOFFMAN: Absolutely no.

GLENN: What do you think you would do if Van Jones, you found him in your administration?

HOFFMAN: I would fire him immediately.

GLENN: In the middle of a night, on a Sunday, holiday weekend?

HOFFMAN: Publicly.

GLENN: Publicly? Okay, good. All right. So Doug, have you ever run before, for anything?

HOFFMAN: Absolutely not. I have never wanted to be a politician, and I never had the desire until recently. But I do believe that our founding fathers envisioned that normal people would go to Washington to represent us, and I think it's time for people like you and me to stand up and do something about it.

GLENN: Okay, not me. Now, you can stand up.

HOFFMAN: You don't want to do it?

GLENN: Ron, I think people will lose their soul. I really do. You've got to get out. You have to make a promise to yourself. You have to have respect for what you're entangled with. You know what I mean? You are going to go if you go to Washington, you are going to be I think with damn near if not the actual powers of darkness, and you have to know that you are human and that you are not invincible, and the day you start to say, hey, you know what, I think I'm important, is the day you begin your soul begins to die.

HOFFMAN: Right. That's what happens to them. But I think I can go and represent the people and be one of the people, and I believe this is a defining moment for the party. As a lifelong Republican it's time for me and everybody else to reclaim the soul of the Republican Party.

GLENN: So you didn't leave the Republican Party; they left you?

HOFFMAN: Absolutely. Especially in the candidate that they picked.

GLENN: Tell me about the other candidate and then tell me about you.

HOFFMAN: Okay. The candidate that they picked is an assemblywoman in the Albany legislature. She's been in it for 10 years, 11 years. She's a career politician obviously, and the conservative party in New York State which, by the way, is a very strong party, and candidates can win on that line, ranks all the New York State legislators and out of a possible score of 100, this lady received 15. And 46 Democrats had a better conservative rating than she did. She's endorsed by the Working Families Party, which is related to ACORN.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. It's an absolute socialist nightmare.

HOFFMAN: And one of her biggest supporters during this campaign is the Daily Kos.

GLENN: Oh, you've got to be kidding.

HOFFMAN: Absolutely. So

GLENN: Wait a minute. I may vote for the Democrat. If those are my two choices, tell me about the Democrat.

HOFFMAN: Well, the Democrat is probably more conservative than she is, but unfortunately the Democrat is heavily supported by the National Democratic Party to the tunes of millions of dollars in advertising, and he's going to be a Pelosi puppet by the time he gets to Washington.

GLENN: Okay. So Doug, Democrat is pulling at 33%, Republican 29, and you're at 23. The GOP is very upset with you, right?

HOFFMAN: Well, they were originally. The GOP leaders are upset with me, but the Republicans around the district are thanking me for stepping up to the plate and giving them a choice in this election of a real common sense conservative Reagan Republican.

GLENN: Give me some of the common sense. What are the problems and then your solutions?

HOFFMAN: All right. Well, basically my platform is for less government regulations and red tape, less spending, less taxes and basically getting our freedoms back that are being taken away one by one by the legislation that we've been we see passing lately.

GLENN: What would you do with healthcare?

HOFFMAN: Healthcare, I would not vote for any of the bills that have been coming through or any of the changes to it because of the amount of money that it's going to cost us. What I would do with it first before I passed legislation is to go after tort reform, number one. Number two is competition between states of the insurance companies. There's over 1300 insurance companies providing insurance.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Hold on. Pat.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Are you thinking about leaving Jackie F. For him? Because I'm thinking about leaving Tania right now for him. I mean, he is talking about competition between insurance companies with different states.

PAT: He hasn't fed me steak yet.

GLENN: He hasn't fed me steak, but I'm still thinking about

PAT: I'm not quite there but I'm getting closer.

GLENN: Let him keep talking. Go ahead. Give me another drink.

HOFFMAN: Okay. And basically if there's $120 billion of waste and fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid system, let's find it before we spend it. We're not going to spend it before we find it. Show me.

STU: That's a great point because that is something that is consistently thrown around. If you save $120 billion, do that first. Prove it and then maybe we'll think about giving it to you back.

HOFFMAN: Exactly.

PAT: What about cap and trade? How do you feel about that?

HOFFMAN: Cap and trade I'm totally opposed to it. More government regulations, more red tape, more hidden fees and penalties which are really taxes.

GLENN: Do you need another drink? Do you need another drink? I mean, does he need to take you

PAT: Maybe one more.

GLENN: Give one more, give him another gin and tonic here and Ingle be yours for the night.

PAT: Comprehensive immigration reform. How do you feel about comprehensive immigration reform? Because family values don't stop at the Rio Grande.

HOFFMAN: Exactly, exactly.

PAT: Where do you stand on amnesty?

HOFFMAN: I do not believe on giving amnesty. I do believe, again, in giving better easier regulations and red tape to make workers that want to come into this country, giving them green cards easier so that we know they're in here legally and we know that they go out when they're

PAT: You know what? That's the discussion we should be having.

GLENN: Okay. Now hang on just a second. So you want to make it easier for immigrants to come here through the front door, which I'm totally behind.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: Well, Doug, how are you ever going to get everybody who's already here out?

HOFFMAN: Well, that, I don't have an instant solution for but we certainly have to find a way that we don't have people sneaking across our borders.

GLENN: Okay, I got one for you.

HOFFMAN: Coming in.

GLENN: Got one for you. Doug, let me help you out. I'm going to give you a drink. I'm buying a cocktail for you.

HOFFMAN: There it is.

GLENN: Well, they seem to find their way here. I'm guessing they will be able to find themselves going the other direction. It's just reverse the map. However, we need an incentive for doing that and that is why we're going after all of the companies that are hiring these people. They came here for jobs. If the jobs dry up, they will go home. And those jobs are currently being needed by Americans who are here and we know that pay taxes. So let's go after the giant corporations who are living on the 21st century version of the slave trade, huh? Huh?

HOFFMAN: Okay.

GLENN: Now how much do you want to

HOFFMAN: That's a good drink.

PAT: How about these three words: Enforce the law.

HOFFMAN: Absolutely. That will work.

GLENN: That's good. That's good. There you go.

PAT: They self support. And it's worked in every, virtually every city that's tried that.

HOFFMAN: Right. But one thing I was trying to get across, Glenn, is that we need to make it easy for skilled professionals and doctors and scientists and engineers that can come in here and help us out and then go home after they've done the job, we need to make it easier for them to come in.

GLENN: Absolutely. Look, before all of this was in the news, what's his name, gates, Bill Gates was saying Microsoft is going to fall behind because we can't get the green cards, we can't get the Visas for it to come in and work. We're losing all of these big brains that have always gone to colleges here and then wanted to stay here because of the opportunity. And we can't keep them here anymore and our government has been saying, well, we need to send them home, we need 0 send. What? Let's keep the best and the brightest here.

HOFFMAN: That's what I'm saying, that's absolutely what I'm saying is America's the melting pot and we need to get highly skilled people that can help us out to stay here.

STU: Isn't the biggest thing you have to cross here, the biggest line, though, is to convince people in your district that it's not a wasted vote to vote for you?

HOFFMAN: That's true. But I think we crossed that line about a week ago. The polls that you were quoting shows that my numbers are going up and her numbers are dropping like a rock.

GLENN: All you have to do is just say she is endorsed by ACORN and the Working Family Party. I think that's all you have to do.

HOFFMAN: Right.

GLENN: Hey, what are you going to do about nuclear proliferation? "My opponent was endorsed by ACORN and she's a Republican."

HOFFMAN: Right. Well, that certainly helped a lot.

GLENN: Yeah.

HOFFMAN: The recent ACORN problems.

GLENN: Yeah.

HOFFMAN: But you have to understand that this is not a typical two way race. We can win this, and historical precedent shows that a conservative candidate running against two liberals can win. And probably the best example of that was Senator Buckley. And also you have to understand that this is a rural conservative district and that that it has an army base in here. I'm an army veteran. The 10th Mountain Division is stationed here. That's one of the highest deployed units to Afghanistan and Iraq, and I am the only candidate that really matches the ideals and values of the voters of the 23rd district.

GLENN: Why do you do for a living now?

HOFFMAN: I'm a CPA and I'm a small business owner and

GLENN: Have you thought about just living off the government dole? At any time have you just thought, I'm just going to live, sponge off the government and take money from other people?

HOFFMAN: Well, I tell you I started out as the poorest kid in my community, and I always, I was taught that hard work and the American dream is possible, and I've lived the American dream. And no, I never thought of living off the government.

GLENN: All right. Now, let me ask you this, because this is what Katie Couric will ask you. You've said in the past on hate shows like Glenn Beck that you were the poorest in your community. Well, we looked into your community. It was Greenwich, Connecticut.

HOFFMAN: Well, Sernack lake, New York is not Greenwich, Connecticut. And the economy up here is probably one of the most difficult economies to survive in in the nation. And, you know, furthermore, we this community was basically high unemployment and low opportunities in the 1980s when the Olympics came back to Lake Placid and I came back here as a young accountant and became the corporate controller, and I started working for the Olympic committee when they only had 12 people and we put on one of the most successful Olympics, and I was the CFO of the Olympics. At 27 I handled a budget of $150 million, and we put on one of the best Olympics we ever saw. We created the foundation for the Miracle in Lake Placid when the U.S. hockey team beat Russia. And that's the type of people we are around here.

GLENN: All right. So

HOFFMAN: We don't sit back. We work hard.

GLENN: Are you a man of faith?

HOFFMAN: Yes, I am.

GLENN: Can you look at your wife you have a wife and children?

HOFFMAN: I have a wife of 36 years. I have three grown children and four grandchildren. And by the way, I'm a member of the 9/12 group.

GLENN: God bless you. Is there anything and you don't have to answer this. Just ask yourself this. Is there anything that you're afraid of?

HOFFMAN: I'm afraid of the liberals ruining our country, afraid of them spending money we don't have, and I'm afraid of the resulting taxes that are going to come about.

GLENN: Is there anything that you are personally afraid of?

HOFFMAN: Personally afraid of?

GLENN: Yeah.

HOFFMAN: Uh...

GLENN: You don't have to answer that. The reason why I ask you that question is because you are going to face it. If you actually get in there and you actually are trying to make a difference and you are going to face it now. If you actually start to rise above these people in the polls, they will bring whatever it is you are most afraid of to play in your life. You just have to know at this point if you can conquer that.

HOFFMAN: I know I can conquer it. As I said, at age 27 I conquered the Olympics, and I had a tiger by the tail then, and I can take the tiger now.

GLENN: Okay. Doug Hoffman is his name. Doug Hoffman for congress. Are you how is your fundraising going?

HOFFMAN: Well, that's we're certainly not getting the money that the Republicans and the Democrats are pumping in this area, but we're getting money from all around the country.

GLENN: Isn't the, one of the things that was happening here in Washington in New York City yesterday with the president where he did that $30,000 or $15,000 a plate dinner, wasn't that to raise against you?

HOFFMAN: Isn't that amazing? Little old me. The president has to come in and try to beat me.

PAT: So what's how do people contribute if they

HOFFMAN: Well, they can go to DougHoffmanforcongress.com and with your help we can win this.

GLENN: All right. I tell you what, Doug, I'm going to have you on tomorrow. I'll have you on the television show tomorrow and introduce you to people. But not because I necessarily support Doug. He seems like a nice guy. But that's for you to decide. But you'll see tomorrow night on the TV show.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?