King of the Hill

By Bill Maher

All the time now, I’m starting to hear, "The president had complete control of Congress for two years, and did everything he wanted." This is such bullshit. First of all, no president has that much control over senators. You really think Ben Nelson, whose state deplores Obama, really feels that much pressure to be loyal to him?

But the bigger issue is, it’s just factually wrong. Democrats had a "filibuster proof" majority in the senate for a very short period. It took Al Franken seven months to get seated because of the recount dispute, and by the time he was, Ted Kennedy was dying. So Democrats really only had 60 senators from September 24, 2009, when Kennedy’s replacement was named, until February 4^th, 2010, when Republican Scott Brown won the special election there. The senate was in session for just 72 days over that period, so that’s how long Obama had a real Democratic Congress -- 72 days, not two years.

Or, if you like charts:

111th Senate • Source: Wikipedia

One of the things that sucks is that Obama has never figured out a way to blame Congress for blocking things, presumably out of fear that it will make him appear weak. But how is he not running more against a Congress with a serial killer approval rating? He’s literally three or four times more popular than they are.

In Defense of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

By Bill Maher

I'll say this on their behalf: all of those tax loopholes that they pretend they want to close in order to make their tax plan work -- but won't name before the election, and probably won't close anyway after the election, assuming they won -- probably should be closed. They're all things most economists agree are inefficiencies that distort the market and we’d be better off without them.

Here's the thing: you can rarely get rid of any benefit the government gives to its citizens. Whether it's farm subsidies or home mortgage deductions or Medicare prescription drug benefits that aren't paid for or defense contracts, once they're given, they're almost never rescinded. And they add up.

But at least they're talking about closing them (while not talking about closing them). It's slightly more than the Democrats do.

There. I said something nice about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

A Truce Proposal for the Republican Party

By Bill Maher


No matter who you talk to on the right about the frothing insanity and Congressional belligerence directed at President Obama, inevitably they’ll all raise the same point: You did it to Bush when he was in office. Which wasn’t equivalent, or even close, but this seems to be something we can never get beyond – this tit for tat. Now, I don’t remember Democrats deciding, as an electoral strategy, to oppose everything the president proposed or did, even when they agreed with it, and to use the filibuster in ways never seen before in order to deny him legislative victories so that the public would not see the change they were promised and vote against the president’s party in the midterms – all of which has happened to Obama. No, I don’t remember the Democrats doing that. Quite the opposite. I remember the Democrats saying, “Oh, you want a pre-emptive war? Aye-aye, Captain!” 

But let’s not get into that. I come in peace. 

And I’ll even go first, and make a gesture of goodwill: I apologize for blaming Bush for the conditions at Walter Reed. When that Dana Priest/Anne Hull story came out and we found that Walter Reed was in rough shape and had mold and exposed wires and rats and nothing was being done to fix it, we all added that to the growing list of Bush administration scandals, along with Iraq, and Abu Ghraib, torture, the response to Katrina, outing a CIA agent, etc. But it really didn’t deserve to be there. Because Bush wasn’t in charge of the wiring at Walter Reed, or even aware of it. So, yes, that was unfair and I take it back. Bush wasn’t directly to blame for the conditions at Walter Reed. There. That was overly-partisan. 

Your turn. …I’ll wait. It’ll be like the Dayton Peace Accords. We could even hold it in Dayton. I’m sure they’d appreciate the business. 

And here’s my proposal: if we agree not to go crazy on Mitt Romney should he be elected, and I don’t take to the airwaves days after his inauguration and say that I hope he fails and pledge to oppose everything he does like Rush Limbaugh did after Obama was elected, then Republicans have to agree to chill the fuck out should Obama be re-elected, and to let him run the country, and staff positions without needlessly filibustering, and let bills pass in the Senate with a simple majority, and to finally shut the hell up about the socialism and the Kenya and the America-hating.
…Deal?

What Will Happen if the Republicans Take Over: Nothing

By Bill Maher

I stole this chart from Slate, which got it from a Dartmouth survey:

It’s pretty comical, really. Republicans say they want to reduce the deficit, but they want to do it in some magical fashion that doesn’t involve raising taxes or cutting any spending. Fifty-three percent tick “none of the above” as a way to reduce the deficit. That’s like deciding to pay off your student loans by daydreaming.  

Also interesting is the Independent category -- these people seem to be more like Republicans than Democrats, except they don’t mind raising taxes and they want to cut the hell out of the military.

In fact I’d say the military spending category is the most telling category of all. It separates the Republicans from everyone else in a way that backs up my contention that what the Republicans really stand for isn’t conservatism, but authoritarianism.

To Pass Health Care, Democrats Should Be Against It

President Obama made a point the other day in speaking at the Republican retreat to say he wasn't an ideologue, and while there was skepticism in his audience about whether that was true, there was agreement in both parties that not being an ideologue is a good thing.

Is it? Maybe the problem is that neither party has any ideology anymore -- its just all about getting the money you need to run commercials at election time, and being against whatever the other party is for. For example, why is the decision to have the trial of Khalid "Shake Shake Shake" Mohammed in New York a Democratic position, and not having it in New York a Republican position? Republicans are usually the 24 loving macho warriors. Isn't it the more macho position to be saying, "Damn right we're going to try them at the scene of the crime! We're going to make that bastard look at Ground Zero right out the window of the courtroom every day -- we're going to stick his nose in it like a dog who's made a mess on the rug: 'Look what you did! Bad dog! Bad!!'"? I can much more easily imagine Bill O'Reilly making that case than Obama.

And yet, because its the Democrats who suggested it, the Republicans automatically piss all over it and find themselves backing the opposite approach, then make up a bunch of stupid reasons why: it'll fuck up traffic in Manhattan; it'll be a platform for Mohammed to "mock" us.

Really? The big tough guys are afraid of this loser mocking us?

Blue team says X, Red team says Y. You know how the Democrats can get health care passed? Say they're against it.

New Rule: Float Like Obama, Sting Like Ali

New Rule: Democrats must get in touch with their inner asshole. And no, I'm not being gratuitously crude when I say that. I refer to the case of Van Jones, and I'm sure you know who Van Jones is. At least I hope you do, because I haven't a clue, or at least I didn't until this week, when I found out he was the man the Obama administration hired to find jobs for Americans in the new green industries. Seems like a smart thing to do in a recession, but Van Jones got fired because he became the Scary Negro of the Week on Fox News, where, let's be honest, they still feel threatened by Harry Belafonte.

Now, I know that right now, I'm supposed to be all re-injected with yes-we-can fever after the big health care speech, and it was a great speech -- when Black Elvis gets jiggy with his teleprompter, there is none better. But here's the thing: Muhammad Ali also had a way with words, but it helped enormously that he could also punch guys in the face.

What got Van Jones fired was they caught him on tape saying that Republicans are assholes. And they call it "news." And Obama didn't say a word in defense of Jones and basically fired him when Glenn Beck told him to. Just like we dropped "end of life counseling" from health care reform because Sarah Palin said it meant "death panels" on her Facebook page.

Crazy evil morons make up things for Obama to do, and he does it.

Same thing with the speech to children this week. If you missed it, the president attempted to merely tell school children to work hard and wash their hands, and Cracker Nation reacted as if he was trying to hire the Black Panthers to hand out grenades in homeroom. Of course, the White House immediately capitulated. "No students will be forced to view the speech," a White House spokesperson assured a panicked nation. Isn't that like admitting that the president might be doing something unseemly? What a bunch of cowards. If the White House had any balls, they'd say, "He's giving a speech on the importance of staying in school, and if you spineless jackasses don't show it to every damn kid in you school we're cutting off your federal education funding tomorrow."

The Democrats just never learn: Americans don't really care which side of an issue you're on as long as you don't act like pussies. When Van Jones called the Republicans assholes, he was paying them a compliment. He was talking about how they can get things done even when they're in the minority, as opposed to the Democrats, who can't seem to get anything done even when they control both houses of Congress, the presidency, and Bruce Springsteen.

I love Obama's civility in the face of such contumely, his desire to work with his enemies, it's positively Christ-like. In college, he was probably the guy at the dorm parties who made sure the stoners shared their pot with the jocks. But we don't need that guy now. We need an asshole.

Mr. President, there are some people who are never going to like you. That's why they voted for the old guy and Carrie's mom. You're not going to win them over. Stand up for the 70% of Americans who aren't crazy.

And speaking of that 70% -- let's call them the sentient majority -- when are we going to actually show up in all this? Tomorrow Glenn Beck's army of zombie retirees are marching on Washington in protest of, well, everything. It's the Million Moron March, although they won't get a million of course, because many will be confused and drive to Washington state -- but they will make news. Because people who take to the streets always do. They're at the town hall screaming at the congressman, we're on the couch screaming at the TV. Especially in this age of electronics and Snuggies, it's a statement to just leave the house. But leave the house we must, because this is our last best shot for a long time to get the sort of serious health care reform that would make the United States the envy of several African nations.