Amazon.com Widgets

« Edward Kennedy's Speech | Main | Clinton: Barack Obama Is My Candidate »

Bill Maher

Bill Maher's thoughts on the convention.




Quicktime Video 6.2 MB | Duration: 04'08
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

The fact that Matthews asked about the funniness of Pawlenty's name without any irony made me laugh out loud. Barry Dunham sounds funny to me right now. Barry Hussein Dunham is flat-out hilarious.

I think I'm also wishing for Romney. McCain-Romney is a target the Dems have to be relishing. But I think that with the 7 houses thing Romney's not the guy; besides McCain can't stand the guy.

Maher seems to think that Americans are basing their whole vote on GOP attack ads. It's not true. They're not voting for McCain because someone told them that Obama is an elitist. They voting for McCain because they're conservative, or racist, or pro-war, or have some other substantive dispute with Obama, and they say he's elitist as a way to defend their preferences. Conservatives in 2008 are a lot more likely to say they want "experience" than conservatives in 2000 were. It's not because "experience" is important in either case, it's because their party's candidate has changed.

Well actually. I've lost count on how many times I've read from ignorant rightwingers who think that Obama is a marxist who will take away their guns.

Poll: 14% of Republicans, 10% of Democrats Wrongly Think Obama is a Muslim That's a lot of people.

Romney would be rich. He probably has another 8-9 houses, depending on what his staff says.

Aloof, Mormon, and stinking rich. With a list of negative attacks on McCain a mile long.

Pawlenty let a bridge collapse in his own state. He has escaped the fall out in MN, but I smell a negative add that can change that.

McCain has no good options.

They voting for McCain because they're conservative, or racist, or pro-war, or have some other substantive dispute with Obama, and they say he's elitist as a way to defend their preferences.

db -

There is no question that this is part of the elitist trash. I think a bigger part is the distraction – conservatives want to talk about anything but a straight up comparison of government performance and the nation's performance as a whole under conservative rule. The last thing criterion by which Republicans want to be judged is the dreaded Reagan question, "Are you better off than you were four/eight years ago?" Republican policies have failed in every substantive way - so what else can they do but talk about Obama's "elitism"?

They voting for McCain because they're conservative, or racist, or pro-war, or have some other substantive dispute with Obama, and they say he's elitist as a way to defend their preferences.

db -

There is no question that this is part of the elitist trash. I think a bigger part is the distraction – conservatives want to talk about anything but a straight up comparison of government performance and the nation's performance as a whole under conservative rule. The last criterion by which Republicans want to be judged is the dreaded Reagan question, "Are you better off than you were four/eight years ago?" Republican policies have failed in every substantive way - so what else can they do but talk about Obama's "elitism"?

How sad is it when Bill Maher brings up the issue of Americans getting dumber and dumber (but of course he is not included, right?) and then lets Matthews take over the conversation about the possibility of someone winning the presidency based on a "funny name."

Good grief! This is bad political discussion.

Good grief! This is bad political discussion.

Yeah, he should have echoed back about how it was the media's fault people are getting dumber. THey ask such stupid questions, and try to avoid talking about the truth.

I actually think Americans are getting smarter on average. but the media sure isn't helping.

user-pic

"McCain has no good options."

You know what, my dad is a hard core conservative and he made a very good point last night. If the Republicans got Condoleezza Rice to fill their VP spot, they would win. They would get a great deal of both African American and Ex-Hillary supporters to vote for them, maybe not a lot, but enough to push them over the top...Not to give conservatives any ideas or anything.

conservatives want to talk about anything but a straight up comparison of government performance and the nation's performance as a whole under conservative rule.

No, they never want that. Discussing the failure of deregulation deeply disturbs most neo-cons. Personality issues are all that matters.

The reason why Personality issues always sway conservatives more than liberals is because it doesn't matter what kind of leader you are on the conservative side. The worse of a leader you are, the better, because the government only takes your money and breaks things.

Abortion and Gay rights are wedge issues because it's the state "infringing on your rights" to think that gays are evil and abortion is state sponsored murder. Anything tied to "state sponsored" is almost always bad. The 10 commandments in Courts isn't a problem, because taking them OUT is "state sponsored" communism, or something...

Bah, link all messed up. The Obama = muslim myth lives on.

They voting for McCain because they're conservative, or racist, or pro-war, or have some other substantive dispute with Obama

See, you almost had it there, but then your left-wing personality disorder kicked in and you had to throw in 'racist' and 'pro-war'. Maybe because the reality isn't as spicy as you like - that people are planning to vote for McCain simply because they're conservative, or have a substantive dispute with Obama's positions (or lack thereof)?

The racism thing is hilarious, it reminds me of the womens' groups screaming that the world is sexist because Hillary didn't win. The most racist comment to come out in this campaign came from none other than Jesse Jackson; the only racial protests against Obama have been by black men complaining he's "out of touch with black America".

Frankly, I think the whole 'out of touch' thing is a ridiculous charge; it's not like anybody who gets nominated for President is some blue-collar assembly line worker campaigning in his spare time. People want leaders who are more successful than them. The janitor where I work is remarkably in touch with blue-collar America. I'm still not voting for him.

conservatives want to talk about anything but a straight up comparison of government performance and the nation's performance as a whole under conservative rule

That's simply not the case. The problem is that everybody knows we're in a tough time, so it's a stale subject. Do you see any Democrats bringing this stuff up? They're dodging this issue because they know it's not a good idea to harp on negativity, and they know McCain's response will be "I'm not like Bush" which allows McCain to further distinguish himself as a candidate.

The reason why Personality issues always sway conservatives more than liberals

That's hilarious - are you really claiming Obama's personality isn't his key attracting factor? Ask anybody, they'll tell you one of two things: that Obama reassures them with his commanding presence and 'character', and/or that he would be a great signal to the world that we're a country looking to change. The entire Obama campaign is built on personality. He's a rock star, promoted by the Oprah marketing machine and fawned over by the star-obsessed liberal media.

How can you say something so ridiculous as "liberals care less about personality than conservatives"? Forget Obama, do you not remember Slick Willy?

That's hilarious - are you really claiming Obama's personality isn't his key attracting factor?

I would tend to agree with Cali to some extent on this issue. Democrats seem to be the ones swayed by republican personality arguments.

Republicans are driven to vote by fear, not personality.

No body pays attention to anything other then a few issues, and our news is so incredibly bad that you would need to watch for months at a time to find even a single instance of serious discussion of anything other then personality and fear.

That's simply not the case. The problem is that everybody knows we're in a tough time, so it's a stale subject. Do you see any Democrats bringing this stuff up? They're dodging this issue because they know it's not a good idea to harp on negativity, and they know McCain's response will be "I'm not like Bush" which allows McCain to further distinguish himself as a candidate.

Stale subject? Really! In a thread on Jimmy Carter not so long ago you were still whining about stagflation and malaise- that was 30-year old fresh, huh? When Reagan asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?", he wasn't be 'harping on negativity'? Harping on negativity or not, pointing out that almost all the political decision making of the last eight years has been by Republicans and that the reason "we're in a tough time" is because those decisions were bad for the country - and John McCain, despite his protestations to the contrary, has been on board for most of those decisions. That isn't "stale" - it called accountability and its exactly what the GOP does not want this election to be about.

My two pennies: There is always an opportunity for sentiment, in spite of the cynical media. How else could Barack use a convention to launch his national political career? Michelle's speech was a brilliant example of how sentiment can be intelligently applied to convey truth, heart and sincere love (for her husband and for her country). There will always be those who will mock it - and that's both okay and amusing. But Barack's message took root because people genuinely thirsted for an honest and heartfelt vision of American destiny.

When media calm down and show us the political speeches instead of depending on "analysis" to maintain their ratings... only then can we judge the effectiveness of conventions and politicians.

I'm really eager to get jazzed up about this convention, but a lot of the speakers have sucked. Michelle Obama was great, but I'm sitting through the beginning of Deval Patrick and the only great speech today was Kucinich in the middle of the afternoon. My fomer governor, Mark Warner, was a mechanical drone. And that was the keynote speaker.

Okay now Patrick just finished, and he was pretty good, and I'll bet that the anticipation alone will make Hillary's speech awesome.

Hillary's best sequence:

Were you in this for me, or were you in it for...?

That's the best she could do.

Hillery was excellent. She played all the right notes, and played well, in the right order. She was right to spend a lot of time dwelling on her campaign, which so many people worked on and fought for. She knows very well that her supporters' emotional investment isn't something she can lightly hand over to someone else.

But she also hit McCain hard and gave the best pro-Obama argument of the convention. Yes, even better than Michelle's message.

People should compare this speech with the "dream will never die" speech by Kennedy at the 1980 convention, or the fight by Reagan people in the '76 GOP convention. HRC could have taken that route but she did just the opposite.

That's simply not the case.
Nice statement, then you change the subject to mccain running on personality and not his policies on government. Thanks for proving my point.
and they know McCain's response will be "I'm not like Bush" which allows McCain to further distinguish himself as a candidate.

"I'm not like xxx" does not immediately set him apart from bush. He can say that all he wants, but it doesn't annul the facts that he supported bush's policies 95-98% of the time. Legislative votes and continuing policies that bush implemented prove it. No matter what sort of bloviating he does, he can't erase his history.

In a thread on Jimmy Carter not so long ago you were still whining about stagflation and malaise

If your reading comprehension were at least average you would see I was explaining why the Democrats aren't harping on the "are you better now ..." position.

And the fact is, many people in this country are better off now than they were 4 years ago. Or 8 years ago. I suspect most of the people posting to this board - and all the other outraged liberal boards on the Net - are among that crowd. Things aren't as dire as the media keeps making them out to be. People are still shopping, nobody's building vast Hoovervilles or playing mouth organ while hopping trains.

In any case, my response in the Carter thread was a reaction to the people who are now pining for a Jimmy Carter presidency who have absolutely no recollection of just how awful his presidency was.

I don't blame Carter for the economic issues of his time - he was a victim of shady maneuvering by OPEC more than anything - but in all facets he was a less than impressive president. The only reason he's popular now is because his grand idea in the face of shortages was 'use less', which strikes me as odd. Personal responsibility? Isn't that anathema to your crowd? McCain hints that some Americans are being responsible and working hard to get out of debt and it's grist for the liberal media mill - McCain's an elitist! But Carter telling people to use less energy, tighten their belts: that's just good Presidentin'.

He can say that all he wants, but it doesn't annul the facts that he supported bush's policies 95-98% of the time

You mean like 95% of the Democratic Congress?

zone: battlefieldmidground added: 1 tie in layer "Lighting8_27" (a barricade near the falling tower)

Lets see. The Republicans, British and CIA overthrow Iran's democratically elected leader, to get oil. Later, Iranian students take Americans hostage to get the torturing king we put in power back into Iran for trial. We refused.

The 1980 presidential election is comming up, our hostage rescue had failed, so one of Reagan's top men (formerly of the CIA) says he'll be in California 'relaxing', goes to London and Paris instead, where it is widely rumored he met with an Islamic Cleric representing Iran. A deal is possibly struck.

The day Reagan is sworn in, the hostages are released.

Yeah. That was just lucky.

See, the supposed deal was: "work with us instead of Carter and we will XYZ". Thus, they worked directly against the diplomatic efforts of a sitting president. = Treason. To keep Americans hostage. = Felony.

But wait, it gets weirder. (Boy, I sure love them Republicans).

See, Bush Sr WAS in Dallas the day JFK got shot, We know because he called the FBI on his way there and told them which hotel he would be staying at (The Dallas-Sheraton if you are curious). The next day, according to another FBI memo, George Bush "of the CIA" was briefed by an FBI agent.

See, Bush Sr had been involved with the CIA marginally for a while (several CIA sources report), then helped with the bay of pigs invasion using his Zapata Oil Company, hell he even named one of the invading ships after his wife, just like the three planes he flew in WWII, But I digress.

Bush is made head of the CIA by President Ford in 1972, apparently with no former CIA experience. You know, by Gerald Ford of the Warren Commision?

Oh yeah, then ~4 months into Reagan's first term, Reagan is shot by a lone gunman with no connection to anyone, right?

Just some random 'insane' guy?

Oh wait, yeah, Hinkley's brother was having supper with Bush's son Jeb the next day in Denver. Come to find out the Hinkleys and Bushes are old friends and Houston neighbors.

What a wonderful coincidence. If Reagan had died, Bush would have been... OMG! The most pwerful man in the western world.

Yeah calli, I like your guys. Good men, all.

Good thing Bush's sone's presidency hasnt had any ethical delimas or issues with truthtelling.

I dare you to disprove any of these statements.

please excuse the note: zone: battlefieldmidground added: 1 tie in layer "Lighting8_27" (a barricade near the falling tower)" ...work stuff...

And the fact is, many people in this country are better off now than they were 4 years ago. Or 8 years ago. I suspect most of the people posting to this board - and all the other outraged liberal boards on the Net - are among that crowd. Things aren't as dire as the media keeps making them out to be. People are still shopping, nobody's building vast Hoovervilles or playing mouth organ while hopping trains.

Wow, calligraph that’s brilliant, at least I think it is, but I can’t be sure – what with my substandard level of reading comprehension and all. Let me give it try just to see if I grasped the subtle message you’ve imparted by trying it in other contexts:

Reagan[‘s] years [were] the greatest golden age of humanity in history.

The fact is, for many people in this country the Reagan years were the worst 8 years of their lives.

It amazes me how horrible presidents like Carter get an esteem boost from nostalgia. Stagflation and malaise, anyone?

The fact is, for many people in this country the Carter years were the best 4 years of their lives. I suspect that people who felt otherwise populate lunatic right-wing boards on the Net - including you perhaps. The fact is, things during the Carter years weren’t as dire as the media made them out to be. People were still shopping, nobody built vast Hoovervilles or played mouth organ while hopping trains.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Hey, that works great – and it neatly avoids the use of numbers or any other new fangled math – you know, the math that has been changed so girls will perform better on math exams.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives