Actually, he doesn't kiss Obama's ass as much as people like to believe. He's critical of him just as much as he is when he praises him. He ripped him on the show several times this season, specifically for extending the Bush tax cuts, and for giving too much ground during the debt ceiling talks.

It has changed. He was critical of Obama for awhile, but right now, I strongly think he feels he needs to support Obama as he doesn't want to contribute to people not voting for Obama, and perhaps putting someone in office he considers much worse. If the alternative wasn't something he considers much worse, you'd see him being a lot more critical of Obama.

Pretty good way to end the season. Wish they hadn't cut off Common. He did have a chance to talk but he also sounded like he had a lot more to say.

Perhaps, but he's a lot closer to a liberal than a conservative. I don't know many conservatives that supported Kerry '04, Obama '08, Obamacare, gay marriage, recreational drug legalization, carbon tax, and so on.

I think Bill Maher is not actually a Democrat, just an anti-Republican. Specifically, he's against the current Neo-Con dominated Republican Party, which has gone so radically right-wing, that old school Republicans from the '50s,'60s, & '70s seem like liberals in comparison. Even their hero, Ronald Reagan, in reality (not right-wing spin) would be too liberal for the current Republicans.

In many ways, I think Bill Maher would be an Eisenhower Republican if those still existed. I think he likes the idea of a government that can do big national projects (like the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System) while, at the same time, balance the budget (Eisenhower was the last Republican president to do that).

What are these "radical right wing" positions that the current GOP hold compared to Reagan, etc?

That makes sense, but it comes down to making him a Democrat. Whatever causes you to end up where you end up, you still end up where you end up.

I've said it here before, but the shift has been gradual. I can remember a point where Bill liked the right, except on things like drug control. Then he went Libertarian and expressed his frustration with the direction of the Republican party by saying, "I'd be a Republican if they were." He went on to explain that his idea of what conservatism should mean does not match up with the party. During this time, he supported Ralph Nader. He said afterwards he felt that sticking to his ideals was immature and people like him who supported a candidate who had no chance of winning were responsible for putting Bush into office when they would have rather had Gore. Since then, he's been pretty much Democrat, though he still maintains the right to call an idiot an idiot no matter which party he's in.

I can relate. I'm personally quite conservative, but I can't relate to the current Republican party. But I don't even have to go back to Eisenhower. For awhile there, I truly felt like I could get behind Colin Powell. Unfortunately, there was no room for him in the current Republican party. IMO, the current polling leader (Cain) is like some kind of sick joke compared to someone like Colin Powell.

In other words, what you're saying is that Bill Maher is a good American, who actually thinks about things instead of just clicking the "D" or the "R" every time.

I like people that make choices and change from time to time instead of sticking with one party no matter what.

did anyone notice that Matthews was on the verge of tears when Sullivan was talking about how JFK did almost nuke the country

Matthews is one of those north east Irish Catholics of a certain generation that worship JFK. I had a teacher just like him who would literally tear up when talking about JFK, and not the assassination either but just how great a president he was.

Do you think the current Neo-Con Republicans would support someone running for President of the United States...

...who was a unionist and so actively pro-union that he was the president of a union for seven years (six one-year terms from 1947-1952 and a seventh in 1959). Who also, throughout his public life, frequently gave speeches in support of unions?

...who favored naturalizing illegal Mexican immigrants instead of deporting them?

...who wanted to negotiate with America's adversaries in order to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world?

...who, when dealing with budgetary issues in funding Social Security and Medicare, raised taxes to pay for them?

...who, while governor of California, passed a bill that allowed weekend furloughs for convicted felons?

...who actively worked with the other party and would frequently compromise to reach a consensus in drafting new legislation?

...who, while in office, seldom ever attended church?


Because all of those are true about Ronald Reagan


If someone with a resume like this was running for president today, the Neo-Con Republicans would denounce him as a socialist who is soft on crime, appeases America's enemies, and raises taxes to pay for government handouts. A person like that would stand no chance in the current Republican party, but would have a chance if he switched parties and ran as a Democrat.

Since "neo-con" is primarily a foreign policy position (and one which doesn't necessarily oppose nuclear arms reduction) I would say, yes they could support someone with that background.

If we are talking about the entire republican party, then I would say just look at the only consistent front runner in the current primary. Romney's background is as left/center, if not more so, than Reagan's.

Romney's background may very well be, but he failed last time, and he seems to feel that he has to disavow a lot of things in his background in order to make it with the current party. I'm not sure the Romney example disproves dhmac's point as much as it underlines it.

Do you think Reagan ran as a pro-union candidate during the 1980 GOP primary? Do you think he boasted about his prison furlough program?

Sullivan is a Tory (closer to libertarian than republican) and gay.

i figure this can go here (Maher on the View vs Elizabeth Hasslebeck and it does get a little heated
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/10HEp5ddR6c?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/10HEp5ddR6c?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Looks like Bill is firing up interest (good or bad) in his show before the January 13th return date.

Bill Maher's Tebow tweet prompts calls for HBO boycott

Some people laugh at these types of boycotts, but if a significant portion of HBO's subscriber base cancelled their subscriptions, HBO would have to do something. They're a proponent of risky content, but only to the extent that it's profitable. Some folks are mistakenly the call is for a boycott of the show. Not so. It's a boycott of the whole channel by cancelling subscriptions.

Hopefully there aren't enough HBO subscribers who care enough about this to make a dent.

I heard about the outrage over his tweet and when I finally read it I was disappointed in the sense that it was actually very tame. People need to lighten up.

I think it's clear that the people who are acting so outraged don't watch his show or follow him much because he says stuff like that all the time.

No shit. He's said much worse things about religion on the show. I don't see any difference between that tweet and SNL's recent Tebow skit.

They were upset about SNL's stuff too, though of course Bill holds a special place in the religious right's collective hearts. I mean, SNL can make fun, but can they make "Religulous"?

I'm not even sure it's about Tebow anymore. I think it's about making fun of the people who... well, "follow" doesn't seem right, but... let's see... how about, "invest" in Tebow. That said, I watch the NFL, and I've had plenty of fun for a few weeks yelling at my TV, "They're about to get Tebowed!" Followed by "Tebowned!" after each win. My family was quite (fakely) irritated with it all, but there was no stopping me. All in fun of course. And yes, I did have to explain "Tebowned" because it sounded just like "T-Boned", which they couldn't quite make sense of.

I haven't followed Tebow's career, so I really don't know much about what he's actually said. I know he's devot, but I don't remember reading any quotes from HIM saying things like, "I"ll win because God wants me to." Instead, it seems to come from people who admire or surround him. People like his Colorado pastor:
Tim Tebow’s pastor says God is the reason Broncos are winning.

We'll see if the HBO boycott has any traction (exactly which HBO programming does the devout religious right currently subscribe to HBO for?). Hopefully not.

I've followed Tebow since he was a freshman at Florida. The religion thing has been unfairly been played up by both sides. He prays (which in 2011 is now called "Tebowing") during games and says things like "...first I'd like to thank Jesus Christ..." -- both of which many players have been doing for a very long time.

He's been made a symbol by Christian faithfuls and a target by everyone else. I'm not Christian and I like him a lot. He exemplifies a lot of virtues that are missing in sports (ie, practicing, playing hard, not running his mouth). It's disgusting that the same pundits that were kissing Vick's ass last season are the same ones trying to tear down Tebow. It's foul.

Just to bring this around... Bill Maher should really just shut the fuck up about Tebow. There are much more important issues in the world and he shouldn't waste his time on the country's Tebow love/hate fest.

What makes Maher look like a bitter little coward is that he said similar things after Tebow lost his second game after replacing Orton but remained predictably silent during the Broncos' six-game win streak with Tebow as QB.

It doesn't take much intellect or anything else to kick somebody when he's down. To use Tebow to mock religion because he threw 4 interceptions and lost a game is pretty stupid when you don't have anything to say when the guy was 7-1. Similarly, Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone piled on after the second loss but didn't have anything to say during the streak. Presumably, he'll also crawl out from under his rock and resume gloating and using the Broncos current 2-game losing streak to bash religion. I didn't hear people mocking Tom Brady when he threw 4 interceptions in a game & blame it on his dumping his pregnant gf, or mocking Peyton Manning after he threw 4 picks in a game & blaming it on his overexposure in commercials. Everybody seems to have some personal baggage that could be dragged out anytime they struggle, but it seems that Tebow attracts the extremes on both sides.

Speaking of extremes, for people who love to call others hypocrites, it doesn't make one look good to do the same thing. Critics love to decry the fans who play up the religious angle as if Tebow is being rewarded with wins due to his devout public image...and those critics have some justification. However, they cede any high ground when they mock Tebow's religion when he loses, as if to say that a poor performance on the field is proof that God doesn't exist. Tebow actually played pretty well in the Patriots game; it was the defense that stunk up the field then...ironically, it was the defense that kept Denver in the games during the streak. The Bills game isn't even proof that he's horrible...the offensive coordinator tried to vary from the strategy that had been successful (and had prevented turnovers), defensive lapses put Denver in a hole which forced Tebow to throw, which is his current weakness. Tebow is not anywhere near an elite QB and possibly never will be a consistent performer; however, it's hard to write him off when his current starting record is 7-3. Orton had a terrible losing record as a starter (not only this year, but in previous years). Who cares about QB ratings if you don't win games?

It's perfectly acceptable to be sick of all the Tebow hype while the media ignores Yates and other rookies, especially with breakout performances from Cam Newton, etc. It's even acceptable to complain about "fans" who just jump on the bandwagon due to the religious aspect without even caring about football. But to do the same thing in reverse and use the situation to pile on religion isn't classy and shows the same kind of attitude that the mockers seem to despise.

I have read comments from atheists who like Tebow and defend despite the religious hype. They admire his character, his willingness to help others, his work ethic, his ability to laugh off insults, etc., and they express the thought that the kid ought to be given a chance as long as the team is successful. Too bad Maher can't take that classy approach rather than grinding his own axes (or at least manning up & admitting his biases when the team is winning).

And to those who say that Maher just provokes controversy to increase ratings or because "that's what he does as a comedian", that's a pretty poor excuse. Just because a porn star or prostitute makes good money at their chosen field of work doesn't mean that they get a free moral pass from family & friends.

And what does it say about a grown man who spends his time "tweeting"?

Of course, HBO loves the publicity, so as long as Maher makes $ or appeals to their subscriber base and exemplifies their image, he's more likely to be lauded by the HBO brass (as one poster mentioned above).


For Maher critics, it could be worse. At least he's not Bryant Gumbel, who is supposed to actually know something about sports and doesn't have any excuse for his lameness and pomposity.

I used to love Maher during his days at Comedy Central and ABC. But after he was wrongly fired from ABC with his 9/11 comments, he has just been angry and annoying at HBO. I stopped watching his HBO show a few years back, but I would never cancel HBO because he is on because there is other great shows that I love on Sunday night.

His ABC show used to have 4 panelists, usually 2 republicans/2 democrats but not always, and he was much more moderate towards his political views (he was moderate to conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues) which I am very much like. He was edgy then, but he ripped on BOTH political parties even though he did lean to the left.

His HBO show is just another infommercial for Obama and the democrats. (To me its no better then FOX News or MSNBC as they play to their political bases too.) His whole monologue is against the republicans, and his political views have gone way to the left in the past 10 years. And every show he says the same recycled jokes about Sarah Palin being an idiot and religion sucks. I actually agree with him that Sarah Palin is an idiot, and the religious nuts in this country are hypocrites sometimes, but he says the same lame jokes every show! We get it, you hate Sarah Palin and Religion!

I think that Maher was never same after being fired from ABC about the 9/11 comments. (For the record, I don't think he should have been fired as I always worry when someone deems 'free speech' right or wrong on TV or radio.) Maher is probably bitter cause he believes the republicans were behind his firing from ABC and now his HBO show is just one big hit-job on the republicans because of that.

It says nothing about him, other than he probably has a smart phone. Lots of adults use Twitter; it's a remarkably useful method of communication.