From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Bill Maher on Fox News
February 18, 2005 10:19 AM
Bill Maher in the LA Times: "Now, I didn't mind being on the losing side of the last election. But as a loser, I guess I have some "unpopular" opinions and I'd like to keep them. I'd even like to continue to say them right out loud on TV, because if I just get up there every Friday night and spout the Bush administration's approved talking points, that's not freedom or entertainment. It's Fox News."
Bill Maher on Fox News
Next Entry: New project (02.24.2005)
Previous Entry: Naomi Klein on Iraq (02.11.2005)
Read the 51 comments.
Bill Maher is a gifted wordsmith.
Fri Feb 18 2005 10:47 AM
Who gets up every Friday night on Fox and spouts Bush's talking points exactly? I don't watch Fox and thus have no idea who he's talking about...
Fri Feb 18 2005 2:03 PM
I think he´s referring to his own show being on Friday. I wouldn´t know of course, as I´d rather pretend he doesn´t exist. Maybe we should send him Daily Show tapes so he´ll learn how to be funny.
Fri Feb 18 2005 10:42 PM
Tom from Madison:
Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity regularly spout Bush's talking points.
Sat Feb 19 2005 8:55 AM
You claim a couple of TV personalities and a reporter spout out conservative talking points. Hannity's is an opinion show, why should you care what he thinks? Same with O'Reilly. Hume, on the other hand, yeah, maybe leans to the right. But he always backs up any point he makes. I've never seen him be called a puppet by anyone on the left. He doesn't sway news to the right like Rather for instance, or even, say Chris Matthews does to the left.
If I were you, I'd be more concerned about Democratic Senators screaming about how everything's wrong without any counter plan or even ideas. It's likely their heads are the next on the chopping block.
The two party system in this country is necessary, I don't believe it's a good thing that the Republican party is taking over so many seats in congress, but until another viable democratic leader emerges, it will continue.
Sat Feb 19 2005 1:18 PM
Tom from Madison:
I care what Hannity thinks because his Fox TV show is ostensibly a "debate" with liberal Allen Colmes. In fact it's a staged shout-down-the-liberals show. It's a lot like watching pro-wrestling. The fix is always in--the whole point is to make the conservative audience witness a macho conservative hero trounce a liberal weenie. Strong, well-spoken liberals are seldom seen on this show.
Yes, O'Reilly's show is all about O'Reilly's opinion. I'm glad to hear a conservaative admit that! He claims to be no-spin, but inevitably ends up helping Bush. It's certainly not "fair and balanced" despite the claim. Again, the point is to stroke rightwing sensibilities by re-assuring their "traditionalist" rose-colored view of America--despite all kinds of evidence that we are a long way from "liberty and justice for all".
Then there's Brit Hume -- definitely a right-leaning anchor. He backs up his points alright--with LIES and DISTORTIONS. Example: take his false claim that FDR proposed replacing social security with a privately-funded social security system. Hume is too intelligent for this to have been an oversight. Many, including FDR's grandson have taken him to task for this.
The current threat to the 2-party system is driven by the far-right's "do anything to win" mantra. Whether it's Enron $, DeLay's redistricting, voting machine fraud, or lying about WMDs, Rove's Republicans are willing to cheat to win.
Another strategy is buying votes. Waging a war while simultaneously cutting taxes is fiscal insanity. Yet Republicans have abandoned fiscal sanity to enrich themselves and gain votes at the same time. Some may call call this politically astute. I call it immoral and un-American. Future generations will be born into debt due to the actions of today's Republicans.
Sun Feb 20 2005 6:36 AM
If that's your contention with Hannity and Colmes (and I can't really argue, because if it was a legit debate show Allan Colmes would be nowhere near it; what a fool he is), then what about all the shows on other networks where there is absolutely no conservative representation? Want to know why Fox is the highest rated? It doesn't seem like left wing driven drivel to the majority of the country.
Once again, when a person makes accusation of fraud, he carries the burden of proof. If anyone had proven anything, I'm sure Bush would not have been re-elected. But most reasonable people listened, weren't convinced, and voted for Bush.
Let's make believe the Democratic party does really represent the values of the USA right now. Electing Howard Scream to run the party does not turn average people on. Backing gay marriage weirds most people out, regardless of what the people who yell the loudest believe. Screaming that we present an exit strategy in a country whose insurgency is waiting for us to leave makes most raise an eyebrow, as if to say "wouldn't that make them pretend to be normal until our timeline expires?". Sorry, that represents a tiny amount of people who are totally out of touch with reality. You want the strongest proof of this? Look at Hilary Clinton during the SOTU. I bet you she shivers at the thought of looking like she backs Bush, but she realizes that the party has to come back to the center by 2008 or be completely blown out. Again. Go ahead, argue with me. It'll again confirm my suspicion that you're on the fringe and until Kucinich is running the country you'll be unhappy.
Sun Feb 20 2005 7:17 AM
Tom from Madison:
The silliest aspect of your position is your contention that high ratings or popularity have something to do with truth. Using your line of reasoning, pro wrestling must be a more legitimate sport than pro bowling because more people watch it. Hell, some even pony up for pay-per-view!
The majority of the country doesn't watch Fox, but they have the largest slice of the cable news pie. They push all the right buttons with their audience. Hard core fans can get Factor gear and access to "premium" web sites.
Still there are the polls. Fox viewers are the most hawkish and the most ill-informed. Coincidence?
Democrats don't have a problem with positions they take as much as they have a problem getting their message out. That is changing as we speak. Air America is energizing a new base. A TV presence would also help.
Lest you forget, the most damaging 9/11 info was made public only after the election. Ditto for the Armstrong Williams story. The American people are just now learning about Jeff Gannon [J.D. Guckert], gay prostitute journalist with highest access to the president. Besides his lack of credentials, he has a penchant for repeating Rush's talking points. What a lovely example of Republican "journalism" in full flower.
Republicans are the ones who need to do the soul searching. How can they claim to be morally superior or in-line with the mainstream moral values of the nation when they're relying on such lies and abject hypocracy to win? Are they hoping the truth will come out too late for anyone to notice?
Democrats don't need to back away from their message. They need to unite and remind the nation "We told you so!"
Sun Feb 20 2005 3:56 PM
Sorry, but the republicans are too busy running the country to soul search.
Sun Feb 20 2005 5:33 PM
Yeah...running the country into the fucking ground.
Sun Feb 20 2005 5:44 PM
Tom, you keep telling yourself that. The Democrats have been in decline for the past 12 years... and you STILL THINK YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN YOUR MESSAGE OUT!!!
Since 1994, the dems have been vowing to 'get their message out' better in the next election, and every time (with the exception of Clinton '96) you've lost seats in the house, seats in the Senate, the Presidency, and overall lost state houses and goverorships. When will you learn the American people have come wise to you dems? The American people are seeing you for who you are, and even moreso now with the New Media.
Clinton-Rodham understands this; she's got her head on straight politically. It may pay off for her to run to the middle, but she knows she stands not a chance running as a liberal...
Sun Feb 20 2005 6:40 PM
"The American people are just now learning about Jeff Gannon [J.D. Guckert], gay prostitute journalist with highest access to the president. Besides his lack of credentials, he has a penchant for repeating Rush's talking points. What a lovely example of Republican "journalism" in full flower."
And the true homophobes raise their heads!
Mon Feb 21 2005 5:47 AM
Man...still more of the old, "We're so smart and you poor yahoos are so brainwashed by Fox News" triteness.
Ok, OK, Tom (wink, wink) We get your drift. We promise we'll try to be enlightened like you and only watch / read REAL news sources like CBS or CNN or the NY Times.
Your noblesse oblige towards us hayseeds is truly poignant and heart-warming.
How can we ever thank you?
Mon Feb 21 2005 5:49 AM
Tom from Madison:
There is no noblesse oblige coming from my side. I am asserting that neo-con Republicans are willing to cheat to win. They did it a multitude of ways in 2004. I'm simply pointing them out.
I'm asking the question, "Would Republicans have won if the American people knew about all the dishonesty and malfeasance?"
If Republicans were so sure of themselves, then why bother to hire the likes of Jeff Gannon?
Why use taxpayer money to lobby for No Child Left Behind?
Why have a secret energy task force?
Why so much resistance to the 9/11 Commission?
Why do so many former Bush cabinet members dispute the Bush party line?
Invoking terror and fighting a war in Iraq gave the President a distraction to invoke whenever his plutocratic policies [e.g. Medicare] were exposed. As the American people digest the total war cost [lives, dollars, American standing in the world], this will ultimately come back to haunt the Republicans.
Bush has also continued to write IOUs to pay for his tax cuts and war. This is unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility. Also remember, huge amounts of US debt are now held by China and Saudi Arabia--thanks to Bush. This is nothing to brag about!
...If you want to know how to thank me, simply tell me why Republican strategists decided they needed to cheat to win. Then tell me when you're going to start practicing what you're preaching.
Mon Feb 21 2005 6:36 AM
Ahhh...The Dumbing Down of America continues. It's all in the name of our march toward Ending Tyranny! (while getting the rich as absolutely rich as possible).
I'm just baffled at how the GOP has been hijacked by this small cabal of Texan Repubs and their network of cronies and true believers. I guess that's what 4 decades worth of conservative cheat tanks does - refines the art of duplicity and makes people vote against their best interests. It's the marketing, stupid.
Whatever happened to the moderate Republican?! This has become the modus operandi of the Republican party: the hardcore zealots stick their hand up the ass of someone with name recognition, then proceed to assasinate the character of any and all in opposition (see Reagan, King George Bush, and yes...the Governator).
Now we're back full circle to Nixon 2, with many of the same players up to many of the same shenanigans. Tax cuts for the top 1% (the real cause of the twin tower deficits), billions in tax relief for tobacco, agribusiness, and energy, the middle-class evaporation, more uninsured, more in poverty, prescription drug "reform" that will actually cost DOUBLE than what Congress voted on,a budget that CUTS veterans benefits (they're ultimately the fall guy for this misadventure into governing via ideology)...honestly, this illustration of ineptness could go on for days.
And all in the name of King George, who just makes us feel...safest. Freedom! Terror! Democracy! Freedom! Terrorists! Freedom! The Fox COMMENTARY channel is complicit in this. It is in no way a news channel, and this is another illusion. Truth is often mistaken as being trite. Doesn't make it less true.
Just don't pay any attention to how China and Saudi both own more than significant portion of our skyrocketing debt. Don't pay any attention to the disappearing middle class, despite the stability of the economy resting principally in its health. Just stay scared.
The day equal time was deregulated in '87, during Reagan, was the real beginning of chasm-like division in this country. That's when the Dumbing Down of America began. King George is proof that it continues to plow onward, sowing the seeds of single-mindedness.
Mon Feb 21 2005 11:21 AM
The new democrat battle cry:
Little do they know (realize?) the public has grown tired of the namsy pansy party. Ahnold calls them "Girly Men" and instead of laughing it off they find themselves crying to their cohorts in MSM about how mean the Terminator is.
Bush cheated! Even with hundreds of millions of dollars passing to unregulated 527s democrat candidates are still getting their asses handed to them. When the democrats can't buy an election with cash, drugs and rock & roll you know the republic is on the march.
If Fox is a the commentary network, what does that make CNN? Departing exec Eason Jordans admits to "going soft on Saddam" to curry favor with a murderous dictator, admits finding objectivity passe' and naive, then his own network won't even cover HIS story about US soldiers targeting journalist. Fox isn't anything to brag about but CNN has become a national embarrassment.
Mon Feb 21 2005 1:44 PM
Well said Dave. Al Jazeera West baby -- FOX is not a news channel. Organ of the state.
Mon Feb 21 2005 2:27 PM
Mon Feb 21 2005 6:03 PM
Not to worry my little darlings...every ideology carries the seeds of its own destruction, and little George's rule is no different despite Rove's delusions of the coming age..
Mon Feb 21 2005 6:07 PM
It's just so gratifying to see the peasants rally behind their king! I hope our next ruler is as kind-hearted. Perhaps by then we'll have done away with all opposition! Yay, the Rapture is nigh!
Mon Feb 21 2005 6:48 PM
Where have all you nutjobs come from? And what have you done with the reasonable debate that was here?
Mon Feb 21 2005 8:39 PM
"In fact it's [Hannity and Colmes] a staged shout-down-the-liberals show. It's a lot like watching pro-wrestling. The fix is always in--the whole point is to make the conservative audience witness a macho conservative hero trounce a liberal weenie."
Very insightful. That's *exactly* what that show is.
Tue Feb 22 2005 11:10 AM
"The fix is always in--the whole point is to make the conservative audience witness a macho conservative hero trounce a liberal weenie."
It has to go that way; nobody would believe the liberal weenie beating up the macho conservative. Ive seen it in post after post on this very site, the poor defenseless weenie liberal crying about the beatings being handed out to them by conservatives.
Tue Feb 22 2005 11:21 AM
Tue Feb 22 2005 4:45 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA????? This is mature dialogue? Reasonable debate? It so resembles a Yahoo chatroom....
Wed Feb 23 2005 6:20 AM
Right Wing Robby:
The most important thing about this blog is what it isnt about. The liberals were quick to jump all over the appointment of Condi, but ignore the successful trip. The only thing Jim posted regarding the Iraqi elections was something making Americans look bad.
Other success's aside, like Bush trip in Europe, the left has nothing left to talk about. They are proven wrong time and time again. So instead of some meaninful debate about current issues, we have discussions about what comedian said what about Fox news.
Whats with the left and their fixation about political comedians. Frankin, Daily and Maher are central spokesman for the left. This is where the left gets their news. From a bunch of comedians.
Wed Feb 23 2005 3:34 PM
What is it with the right and their fixation about homosexuality. Guckert/Gannon, Dr.Dobson, and the entire GOP platform's anti-gay stance are central parts of the right.
And where does the right get their news?
From closet gay male prostitutes on the GOP payroll who shill demonizing smear stories with names boldly suggesting that Kerry would become the "first gay President." From people who've never attended j-school, just a 2-day, $50 seminar organized by radical right-wing org's teaching the art of twist and spin, damn the truth or consequences.
So...yes. I'd trust a comedian, whose job it is to point out absurdity where it exists (that's why they're so BUSY these days), over a bunch of repressed, moralist-complex jerks who plant fake, paid-for toadies in the press to stump their policies and head-off any critical questioning with softballs laden with partisan insinuation.
Honestly, it's not taking long for the Right Wingnuts to make caricatures of themselves.
I ask, how can there ever be a meaniful debate about the issues when all the right brings to the equation is smoke and mirrors, lies and duplicity?
Wed Feb 23 2005 5:28 PM
My post above.
Wed Feb 23 2005 5:30 PM
Show of hands please from the people here who really are passionite either way about gay marriage. Ultimately, even though I disagree with gay marriage, it's not my place to dictate how others live. I'd certainly never change a vote because of it. So please don't use that argument. There are plenty that we'd agree are legitimate.
By the way, notice how EVERYBODY has dropped the White House Reporter story? Nobody thinks there's anything to it. Until I come here at least. Good thing I get my news elsewhere.
Wed Feb 23 2005 9:01 PM
"By the way, notice how EVERYBODY has dropped the White House Reporter story? Nobody thinks there's anything to it."
Well. That was quite the lazy characterization.
Well, darn. If everybody else is doin it...what the hell am I getting myself all up in a tizzy about? Conformity IS the law of the land these days...
I don't care what you say "nobody" thinks, what do YOU think. Expound and explain why you think a burgeoning state run media is not important or why "EVERYBODY" thinks there's nothing to it.
I don't take my opinion cues from what everyone else is doing. Remember, Watergate took over one full year to develop after the story appeared dead numerous times.
Finally, I'm passionate about any attempt to institute discrimination and hate into our constitution. We all should be. You shouldn't have to look around to see what everyone else is saying to know that.
Wed Feb 23 2005 10:26 PM
Don't use Watergate's name in vain. That's a ridiculous comparison.
You shouldn't have to look around to see what people's opinion on gay marriage is. I'll give you that. But you do have to look past the vocal minority. This discussion, however, is a lightning rod on a level nearing religion, and maybe it's best left alone. My last word, I have no issue with civil unions, which would erase the discrimination issue you present.
Thu Feb 24 2005 5:42 AM
The democrats homophobic tendencies are shining through. Johnnie Kerry interrupts a presidential debate to point out that (horror of horrors) Cheneys daughter is a lesbian, now theres a Conservative reporter that might (or might not) be gay. Whats the story? Conformity IS the law of the land these days... Go against it and the liberal MSM will jump up and down screaming FAG, FAG, FAG!!! They probably dropped the story when they caught themselves in the mirror. Maybe they do have some shame, but maybe not. MSM may have dropped the story to take up enormous time and space to defend themselves from all those pesky blogs that successfully hounded one CNN exec out of his job, one down thousands to go.
Thu Feb 24 2005 8:09 AM
You're right. Watergate is a ridiculous comparison. Bush is far more secretive and authoritarian than Nixon ever was, and Nixon was far more liberal than Bush will ever be.
See, Karl Rove is the second generation of the Atwater/Nixon ratfuckers - tutored by Atwater himself, and far more refined in his dispicable tactics. If you haven't yet, read All The President's Men, and you will discover how eerily parallel Bush and Nixon political tactics are: Bush is Nixon V.2, only worse because the 4th branch of government is either AWOL or just members of the GOP. You will discover all the retreaded names that have close ties to this Bush administration.
And the anti-gay conservative platform wouldn't be so big of an issue, if that "vocal minority" weren't the same fundamentalist bozos that Bush calls "his Base." In other words, I'd look past them if they weren't the ones advancing discriminatory policy! No blind eye here.
That leads to the final point you declare, ostensibly presenting yourself as a socially liberal-minded, moderate conservative (in fact, I recall you saying so, if I'm not mistaken). That's swell. There needs to be more of you. More of you standing up to this radical agenda currently marching around the halls of this nations governmental power with jack boots. See, I'm not attacking your position. I'm attacking your PARTY'S position. They're the ones that represent YOU.
Discussing this isn't about me and you, and what does or doesn't make us feel "icky." This is about the future of our country and what your conservative movement is doing to it.
Thu Feb 24 2005 8:09 AM
Tom from Madison:
The Bush / Rove executive cabal has created some major opportunities that Dems should be able to expolit.
Republicans have become the party of secret government. What happened to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? We now have off-shore imprisonment and torture of SUSPECTS, including American citizens, as part of the "war on terror". America is not suposed to be the land of secret police and Gulags!
Were it not for the NY Times, the New Yorker the Washington Post and other "liberal" media, we never would have learned what was going on in the name of figting terror. If you want to get the whole truth, you need to read these sources--even if you disagree with the ideology of their reporters. Why? Because conservatives don't trust you with the facts. The conservative media [Fox, Washington Times, NY Post, etc.] prefer to ignore these issues.
Remember, these are important issues in a healthy democracy. The denial of due process to US citizens should be discussed by "real journalists" of every ideological persuasion. Unfortunately the right-wing media are not breaking stories like Abu Graib. Once the stories are in play, they tend to dismiss them as trivial or isolated rather than engaging in further investigation. If they were honest, pundits like Bill O'Reilly would characterize their fellow right-wing media elite "blinded by their ideologies."
He won't do that. Loyalty is more important than anything to the Bushies--even if innocent American citizens are being denied their civil rights.
Thu Feb 24 2005 10:06 AM
I really don't care, left, right, up, down..
Ask yourself this. Do we have transparency?
If you cannot say yes, we have transparency, we understand how this is all playing out then there is a problem.
We are a mass of people and there are those who would use the masses to find an ends to a means. I do not agree with this type of behavior. Keep it clean, above board, and transparent, and we'll play by the rules the system allows.
As usual, the humanist,
Thu Feb 24 2005 11:45 AM
I believe you misunderstood me on one point. When I said the "vocal minority," I was speaking of people backing gay marriage, not Bush's base. Bush's base, sorry for you, is not the minority in this country. You'll find plenty of people who are OK with civil union, and believe that calling it marriage is different because of religious beliefs. By not recognizing and accepting that as the ONLY reason that most Americans don't want the term marriage used, you're not understanding most Americans. This goes for you as well as most of the Democratic party.
As far as moderate conservatives go, there are probably many more than you think. And yes, George Bush is our president. The choice of the conservative, moderate, fringe, or whatever. The reason we're suddenly discussing social issues here is that we are slowly being proven right on Iraq and its effect on revitalizing the Middle East. The elections were successful, they're on their way to becoming a participating democracy, and it's proving to other middle eastern countries (Syria anyone?) that we mean business. Even the Europeans are working with us again. Suddenly, instead of admitting that they were wrong, the left jumps to something else and forgets about the first thing. Which is fine with me, it's the surest sign of success.
Thu Feb 24 2005 2:40 PM
"This is an impressive crowd. The haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." - King George W. Bush
Brother, unless you make over a million dollars, you are not in the King's Base. After the King's first year of 2001, there were 2,100,000 'high net worth' individuals in the US, up from the previous year despite a downward spiraling economy. No coincidence there. Since 2001, the tax burden has shifted more toward the middle class and away from the King's Base. His tax cuts favored those making above $100,000 over those below by a ratio of 10 to 1.
I think you misunderstood me when I spoke of the King's Base.
Now. Iraq is and always will be an exercise in petroleum conquest launched from a bold-faced lie. Like I've said before, we have circumvented the most basic principle of a free people. Self-determination: "1 : free choice of one's own acts or states WITHOUT EXTERNAL COMPULSION." Before being so quick to declare that externally compelled vote a "success," please remember we have over 100,000 US military there largely contained within highly-fortified safe-zones.
Imagine: Transpose that lifestyle over the couple blocks of heaven you inhabit here on US soil, dodging gunfire and IED's every day, rapes escalating to numbers far higher than any in the past, and then get back to me on how successfull Bush's mad experiment in neo-imperialism is.
Incredible that such a large section of this population just gives King George a pass on Iraq. No transparency, no accountability. Rumsfeld even offered to resign. Get the hint? Hint hint hint?
Via King George's tendency to alienate...well, every other state in this world, the US is simply being left out of the nascent regionalism beginning to form in the Far East economic agreements and now NATO will soon become obsolete:
"At the midway point of Bush's alliance-mending European tour, the words were gracious but the policy gulf wide on key questions of importance to both sides, whether it be arms trade, Iran, Iraq, global warming, the need to confront global poverty or even the future of NATO itself."
Yeah, as you say, the Europeans are working with us again. Now, just where do you get your news? Virtually every piece reporting on his trip is identical, echoing this same summary. And they're working with us again.
Tell you what. I suggest a name change from evilconservative666 to evilconservativePolyanna666. Works better.
Thu Feb 24 2005 5:43 PM
Yawn. If I hear these arguments one more time I'll probably unplug my computer and pawn it off on some unsuspecting wannabe internet hell-raiser. It'd make your day, no?
You made a hell of a nice effort there to offend me Dave. Even though I'm pretty sure I never tried anything of the like with you.
I appreciate the recommendations, but I think I'll keep working for an honest living, in a relatively stress free environment, for slightly less than middle class wages. Saving MY money for MY retirement. Sleeping well with a clear conscience. You know what? That's elite in a hell of a lot of countries. So I guess I am an elitist. Shouldn't it be in the eye of the beholder? Jim, be the judge of that.
Remember, if you're reduced to slinging insults, you've probably lost the argument.
Thu Feb 24 2005 6:40 PM
As I can best recall, you've been pretty stand up here without getting inappropriately nasty like most of the other con posters.
What you thought was insulting, I just thought was funny and appropriate. I can be caustic from time to time. Pardon me if you were insulted.
Thu Feb 24 2005 6:59 PM
I wasn't actually offended, my preference is to let it roll off my back, and try to be funny. Much like you, I thought my response was pretty humorous, though mostly true. My life is a joke. Haha.
Seriously, discussing current events, as long as we're discussing them, is fine with me. I don't want everyone to think the same way I do. For fuck's sake 98% of my friends are liberal and I'm as vocal about how I think with them as I am here.
Doesn't change that I think I'm right. ;)
Thu Feb 24 2005 8:46 PM
Thought it'd be a good idea to link to an incredible post from the new Koufax award winning writer, Digby over at hullabaloo.com...his latest post titled "The Resentment Party" is virtually spot on in its discription of the current political landscape.
"There is an incoherence of principle that we see in every section of the republican party, the willingness to call to States Rights (their old rallying cry) when it suits them and a complete abdication of the principle once they hold federal power --- while still insisting that they believe in limited government! They blatantly misconstrue the plain meaning of long standing constitutional principles and federal policies (such as Brit Humes abject intellectual whorishness in the matter of FDRs beliefs about social security privatization) and show irrational, rabid anger at any disagreement. They see Democrats as traitors fighting for the other side, just as the Southerners of the 1850s accused the Black Republicans of fomenting slave revolts. They brook no compromise and instead repay those who would reach out to them with furious perfidy unless they show absolute fealty to every facet of the program. It is loyalty to the cause, however it is defined and however it changes in principle from day to day, that matters."
Quite the analysis. The South Will Rise Again.
Fri Feb 25 2005 5:38 PM
Disregard "hullabaloo.com" which is just the title, not the address.
Fri Feb 25 2005 5:40 PM
Bill Maher, isn't he looking for job or something?
The great left wing "news" hack Jon Stewart has even found himself admitting that the Bush policy in Iraq "may have been right", and his head didn't implode while he said it.
Wed Mar 2 2005 8:47 AM
Bill Maher had a show before Bush became president. Bush just happens to provide him with a lot of material. And how couldn't it be comical? A backwoods-mannered troglodite winds up the leader of the known world. You're right. Maybe Maher doesn't need a show. Bush should just join Celebreality on VH1.
The outed Republicans on this chain of posts have certainly done a great job in illustrating they have no understanding of the concept of irony. Jeff Gannon represents something of an enigma that his connections were so well-established with the White House, which is notoriously anti-gay in its position (no pun intended) on gay rights. When his past was exposed as a gay prostitute, he was quickly dismissed along with his story, which hit the media very selectively and held firm grasp like a fart in the wind. As far as Kerry mentioning Cheney's lesbian daughter, Edwards did the same thing in the previous debate with Cheney. Said in much the same way and without so much as a snicker, it did not result in the same backlash suggesting a very selective memory among conservatives. Either that or it's just that some officials don't count... vice presidents, supreme court justices, heads of FEMA.
Don't accuse the liberals of being homophobes. If Cheney wasn't one, his daughter would have been present and supportive. Log Cabin Republicans wouldn't have dropped support for Bush. People aren't comfortable with gay marriage not because it's called marriage but because it's "gay" marriage. You can call it civil unions, but why not call it marriage? Marriage grants over a thousand of rights to couples but some people want to make sure that only heterosexuals get those rights, and it's already protected by the Constitution. You can call Tofurkey "a delicious meat substitute" instead, but I can guarantee you it will still taste like shit. No one is forcing churches to accept these marriages. "Sacred" is a religious value. If your church "don't like queers", then legally allowing them to marry won't change that. And how "sacred" the institution of marriage is won't change because the church doesn't need to recognize it. This issue mobilized a group of religious people who were homophobic and Bush USED them to gain support because his popularity was starting to hurt from the false 9/11-Iraq connection. How sacred is marriage at a drive-thru window, or shitfaced in a chapel filled with Elvis impersonators? Why wasn't this connected to the effort to "preserve" marriage?
Fri Nov 11 2005 6:09 PM
Bill Maher is a clueless dope smoking idiot.
Wed Nov 16 2005 1:45 AM
I really enjoy watching FOX NEWS, it is becoming a parody of itself. They will have a "discussion" of any subject and have only "Right wing types" to discuss whatever they want, They are hilarious. Fox is "The Marx Brothers go to the News Room". They are joined at the hip with the Bush administration which is NOT helpful to any national discussion of the issues.
Thu Dec 1 2005 11:07 PM
the liberals/democratics don't like competition. They have had control of the unions, colleges, media, congress and the senate (until recently) for the past 60 years.
It is only the last 10 years that a voice such as fox news and talk radio has challenged the all the above mentioned entities.
In iraq we watch the news only cover the loss of life and they should. yet we hear of no school openings, women rights be exerised,utilities being re-connected, forces making progress. this is the coverage of the elite media and why fox news will out perform them the next 50 years.
Every elite media product NY Times, cbs, abc, nbc, cnn,msnbc etc. is declining in reach because the only give the liberals their food.
Liberals how does it feel to get kicked in the teeth for a change!!!
Thu Dec 15 2005 6:41 PM
Michael L Moten:
It truely uppsets me to hear/see the rightwing use soldiers for props.As combat veteran and a proud democrat it makes me sick. I mean do the math and bet you find the ratio of democrats to rightwing nuts overwhelming.
Mon Dec 26 2005 12:37 AM
Well let's see here...
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate"
Let's face it, folks, America is going the way of the Roman Empire and fast. Heresy, I know, but that's the point. We claim to be the United States of America, and there are 200 million little flag magnets on cars that say "United We Stand" and yet I can stage a fight in ten seconds on any street corner just by saying "Liberals over here, Conservatives over there" and let them swing at each other. We dont' have the first clue what it means to be united for any purpose other than our own self-promotion.
The very fact that my mentioning this will get so many people's hackles up is the problem. When Abu Ghraib happened how many people - politicians and citizens alike - said "This does not represent Americaâ. Well excuse me, but none of those who were engaged in that mess were from Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea or any other country we blame for the ills of the world. They were born, raised, and taught right here in the states.
Better yet, Timothy McVeigh was from where?
Why do we have our terrorists in Gitmo? Because if we brought them here we would have to obey American law - and we all know those dirty bastards don't deserve that. But isn't the first principle of American justice that we first determine that you have been detained for legitimate reasons? No hearing has ever been held to even figure out if we have people worth keeping. Can any of you tell me where, when, why those 'terrorists' were picked up? Yet you are convinced on faith that America would only go get the people who deserved it.
You only have that confidence because so far it isn't you that they are going after. Sadly, when something does go wrong that affects you, it will be a little late to get the attention you want, and those around you then will be acting like most Americans are now in the blind faith that America would never do the wrong thing.
The point is that whether Fox News is Joseph Goebells wet dream or NPR is just the Communist Manifesto on air is not as important that we are a country of 270 million amongst a planet of six Billion. We had better figure out how to be united about something beyond the knowledge that 'evildoers' are out to do us harm or we are in deep trouble.
What's my point? Sure our forefathers thought debate was good, but when I hear news show after news show, read paper after paper and blog after blog filled with two Americans attacking each other for their beliefs, I think the terrorists have to be laughing their heads off.
They've already won. We've turned on each other.
Wed Dec 28 2005 3:38 PM
I find it interesting that the party of "strong defense" (Repubs), have far fewer military veterans in Congress than the "weak Dems" Also interesting, and seldom publicized, of 11 war Vets running for congress, I believe 9 are running as Dems.
Wed Feb 8 2006 5:42 AM
It isn't 'the' media, it's 'their' media.
That's an important distinction, and one that is freeing.
Fox news is a bible.
Sat Apr 8 2006 7:20 AM