I would disagree. I like Bill, but he spent most of the night asking why they did so poorly then disagreeing with every reason why they did so poorly. He simply didn't want to hear why the Democrats lost.

Bill can't ever get past painting religious people as unreasonable, and then wonders why people don't vote for his people.

I have to conclude that every liberal must truly believe that the election was stolen again because obviously it was not their ideas that made them lose. It was Jesus, or it was stupidity, or it was (misplaced) morals, etc.

Bill doesn't want to hear an answer than isn't what he already thinks.

That was a great show! Alan Simpson came off looking like a nut, but Andrew Sullivan made a lot of good points and I hope to see him on the show again. It's always better if there is an actual debate. Bill got too huffy with Andrew, but I think some of that was because he had just gone through the same conversation with Alan Simpson and felt like they were blaming him personally for dismissing Christians. Well, Senator Simpson was blaming Bill but Andrew was trying to explain a Christian's perception of being ridiculed and dismissed, which kvrdave deals with all the time around here

That was probably the best panel they've had all season. Everybody actually had something interesting to say. I'd love to see Andrew Sullivan and Michael Moore on the same panel next season after what he said about him I bet they'd actually have a really good debate, no joke.

I love to see Andrew get angry and stamp his little feet

Anyone who has ever seen the film of that goofus Simpson standing next to then-ally Saddam Hussein in early 1990, (after he gassed the Kurds, but before he invaded Kuwait, gazing lovingly into his eyes, telling him what a good friend he was to the U.S. and to not pay attention to all those nervous nellies in the American press), will have a hard time keeping their gorge down wheh he turns up on shows like this.

Liberals really need to get their collective acts together. Barely any of them can admit defeat. In their flawed thinking its nothing that they did that cost them the election. Its just stupid bible thumpers, or bigot anti gay voters, people that were scared into voting for Bush. When is someone from the left going to come out and say You know what, we lost because of A,B and C we did wrong, X,Y,Z we said wrong etc. They have to realize someone in Iowa is equal to someone in New York. Realize that people in the 'red' states just believe in things that were different than your set of ideals. Guess what liberals! We weren't duped into voting for Bush, we aren't ignorant moron hicks, and until liberals realize one person in Indiana counts the same as one person in Oregon you aren't ever going to blue up that sea of red. Face it, move on, adapt and get ready for 08.

The right would love to see us try to adapt - but the problem is that even though millions of voters do fit into that right wing social view of the world, the group that made the difference was those moderate democrats and uncommitted voters who swung Bush's way based on his fear-mongering and mischaracterizations of Kerry's words and history. The Democrats should be faulted for allowing Kerry to be defined, and letting Bush avoid accountability for his own record - as well as the press for another lazy performance of "horse-race" coverage. The problem is that values are not the sole property of the right; we have values too, and we don't do a good enough job of showing the inattentive general public just how much our values should be shared among all of us. There are always going to be the anti-gay, reactionary people who will vote for the most right-wing candidate however much it is against their economic interest - but there is a larger contingent of people who do not prickle at the mention of shared humanity and tolerance, or of preserving our natural environment (which many of us on the left consider God's gift to humanity, as well as our responsibility to uphold), and they do not feel quality of life in America should depend on which tax bracket you are in. The challenge for the future is to show the non-extreme majority of America not only how extreme the Republican party is becoming, and how it is against their interests to keep them in power; but also that there is a reason to hope instead of fear for the future of this country, and that the government can actually accomplish positive change, with the cooperation of the people who elect it.

This, of course, is not what he said. He never said that religious people are unreasonable because there are religious, but rather there are some religious people that seem to think Jesus trumps any rational argument. In other words, presented with rational and though-out reasons for something, some Christians will simply say "well, Jesus doesn't like it" as if that's supposed to prove something.

Did you even watch the show? You sound just like Alan Simpson, ignoring the entire conversation and just ranting about being picked on. You're just as bad about stereotyping the left as anybody is about stereotyping the right.

Telling show. Sarandon clearly doesn't get it, but that's to be expected. Voter fraud ... yeah, that's the ticket. Simpson needs to take that stick out of his ass and leave Crazyland. Who knows what his problem was. Schroeder was funny. Give up our power in elections by splitting our electoral votes, rendering us completely irrelevant! Woo hoo! Maher was himself, dancing around reasonable behavior and getting really close to it, but still falling short when his opinions were challenged.

Sullivan got a little out of control near the end, but before that, he was dead on the money with the facts and why the election went the way it did, but they just didn't want to hear it. Even if you don't agree with the perception, it is the perception, and ignoring it or refuting it won't change it. It's a shame, but it seems denial is going to be the theme of this year's election ... at least from the talking heads on TV.

das

This is just what I was talking about. The left can't admit defeat, its always an excuse. Just more of the same excuses...Bush fear mongering, Bush mischaracterizing Kerry, anti gay voters. The Republican party is not becoming extreme, in fact conservative politics is more mainstream. You have to get over this notion that Bush tricked everyone or deceived voters. Guess what, theres actually people who voted for him because he was the better candidate...they're called 51% of the voters! If Democrats would take a good look in the mirror and realize their faults it could actually be a race in 08. Nothing you said from Bush fear mongering to talking about the different tax brackets made any sense except for when you talked about values. You are right the conservatives don't own values, but the Democrats didn't frame their values in any good context this election for an everyday average joe. It certainly didn't help having Kerry surrounded by Whoopi Goldberg and other celebrities telling them that each of them portrays the heart and soul of America. Frame the values issue in your favor for the 06 midterms and 08 election and things could change quickly

IMRICKJAMES wrote:
So, at least, you are now conceding the point that in the year 2000, the Democrats were the more mainstream party, and Al Gore was the better candidate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If the political left is ever going to have a chance against the political right in the near futrure, one thing is certain:
They must embrace and master this Orwellian doublespeak stuff.

Four years ago, Bush's inability to secure a majority of the popular vote was dismissed as inconsequential. Now that he has done so, it is hailed as a great achievement.

The Democrats will never make gains against the Republicans until they master the ability to say "Black is White" with a straight face, repeat it over and over again, and shout down anyone who dares to disagree.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Last Night, Alan Simpson defending Wyoming as a great place for gay people to live by pointing out that Matthew Shepard was lynched there. But this completely went past Bill Maher because he was too busy trying to calm Simpson down. Once Simpson went on the attack, Bill should have just responded in kind. Being polite isn't going to get the left anywhere.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And just for clarification IMRICKJAMES
I'd like to know what those things are.

You are right. But Bill has consistantly acted as though it is okay to be religious, just so long as you don't actually believe it. Dare to use Jesus as part of your belief in morality, and he thinks you are unreasonable as a result. Bill is not "religious friendly" by any stretch of the imagination. He belittles them, groups them all together, etc. I still enjoy him, his show, and his standup, but it seems obvious that something happened in life to make him so jaded towards Christianity. You can't possibly watch his show and come away thinking that he "nuetral" wrt religion.

But there's no reason he should have to be "neutral" towards religion; the show exists to argue current events constructed around his point of view. If he happens to believe that religion is an evil (and other people share this point of view, including me), then he should say so. Where I believe the difference lies is in conceeding that religious people can be reasonable and intelligent (of course), and that the reverse can be true as well. You can find fault with the system without necessarily believing that every adherent to that system is corrupt and stupid.

That's fine and dandy, but don't turn around and act all innocent when someone points out that this aggressively antagonistic and insulting treatment of the religious is pissing them off and likely inspiring them to vote a way you don't like.

You are free to believe people are stupid or evil or whatever; however, when you tell them so repeatedly, don't expect them to be sympathetic to your cause. This certainly isn't an indictment of Democrats, but it does apply to Bill in many ways. He is not an official voice of the party, but people watch him, and they get pissed off. Combine him with many other vocal personalities on TV over many years, and it does make a difference. If his only goal is comedy, then who cares. However, if he (and others) actually want things to change in their favor, they could learn a lot from what Sullivan said early in the program.

das

I may have to record a rerun to get some shots of Bill squirming and wincing. I tend to agree with him about religion, but he just couldn't stand to hear Andrew Sullivan talk. I think he expected Sullivan to be a liberal.

As a liberal, I have no problem admitting defeat. I am just tired of Republicans acting like they won this huge landslide victory. Last time I checked, 51% is still only one percent better than half the country. As one of the nearly 56 million people who voted for Kerry, I don't see why our opinions and beliefs should be ignored. I am glad that Bill Maher pointed out, that if Kerry only got 136,000 more votes in one state (Ohio) then he would be president. Bush and the Republicans act like they have a mandate, when really the country is still divided in half ideologically. But basically, the other half of the country are being told to go away and get over it.

I totally agreed with Susan Sarandon about the voter fraud thing. She wasn't saying that Kerry should have/would have really won, she was saying for the good of our country we need to focus on fixing these things for the next election. You would think after the 2000 mess, that all of these things would have been addressed, but the fact is our electoral system is just not equipped to handle large turnout and close elections. Students waiting on line 10+ hours to vote is ridiculous. Having electronic voting machines with no paper trail that were designed by a company whose chairman was committed to delivering Ohio for Bush, is also ridiculous. If this had been reversed, the GOP would be screaming bloody murder. But unfortunately the Dems are too meek and scared of being called "sore losers" by bringing up these issues and investigating them. If I was a Democratic leader in Ohio, I would have wanted those voting machines inspected by an independent computer programmer for irregularities. They did find one machine that registered an extra 4000 votes for Bush, it makes me wonder if there were others that were not discovered? But people can't even raise legitimate questions about such things, without being scoffed at and told to shut up.

Actually, Andrew Sullivan was on earlier this season and he quite vigourously defended Bush and his policies. I think Maher figured that Sullivan would have changed his tune after the election due to the anti-gay sentiment. Interesting that he ended up voting for Kerry. He is one conflicted man.

People aren't saying it's a "landslide" but it is a sound defeat when you add in Congressional seats. Consider how terrible Bush's approval ratings are, how many people are upset over Iraq, how bad many feel the economy is, and how coordinated the effort to defeat him was. The Democrats aren't going to find someone any easier to defeat than Bush. That they couldn't get it done is the telling thing, not the percentages. The point isn't that the country isn't divided; the point is that the Democrats need to get their act together or it'll be 51% next time and 51% the next time ... There's no moral victory here. The Republicans are gaining control in a time when they're perceived as not doing a good job. That's bad news.

After Maher called her on it. Twice during that interview she shifted her statements after Maher called BS. It's impossible to assert what her opinion really was, but she was building a good tinfoil rant before he slowed her down.

das

I admit defeat, but my opinion is that the public didn't suddenly turn into a majority of evangelical right-wingers, but instead that the tactics employed by Bush and Cheney to scare people into thinking that Kerry and his ilk aren't interested in protecting them worked. The Bush campaign was almost entirely focused on scaring people about the prospect of Kerry making the national security decisions for the next four years, and the mischaracterizations are well documented - check out factcheck.org for example. Then why do so many traditional conservatives have so many problems with the Bush administration's fiscal and foreign policies? I think that real conservatism has something to offer to the public debate, but the ideologues behind the actions of this administration are extremists.
Listen, the media is too lazy and fearful of being called biased to make it clear just how much the public is being deceived, so one must take the initiative to find these things out - which I think is every citizen's responsibility. Anyone who examines the record of Bush, Cheney, et al. 's public statements and then compares them with the facts would have to descend into a torturous level of cognitive dissonance to call this an honest administration and campaign.
People vote for a candidate for many different reasons, and to assume that all 51 % saw things the same way you did seems pretty simple-minded to me.

He sounded more like someone who wants the Democrats to win something and is pissed that, in his opinion, they're not learning from their defeat.

das

Please ... both sides were incredibly guilty of this. This stuff about either campaign being about "hope" is BS.

das

Yeah, but a year ago, Bush was untouchable. Basking in the glow of post 9/11, the flight suit, the delivering turkey to the troops last Thanksgiving, the capture of Saddam Hussein- he appeared unbeatable. At the same time, the Democrats were fumbling around in the primaries, and everyone expected Bush to be re-elected in a landslide. The fact that a somewhat stiff "Massachusetts liberal" could get nearly half the popular vote is pretty amazing considering how everyone expected the Democrats to fare against Bush. Even as recent as August, the Kerry campaign was fizzling and looked to be DOA due to the Swift Boat Veterans attack ads. He managed to make an incredible comeback since the debates and was building momentum. I have even heard the argument that if the election had been a few weeks later, he would have pulled it out.

I just think the notion that the Democrats have really "lost touch" with America is just over-reacting by a lot of people on both sides. Kerry still got 56 million votes. He's hardly Walter Mondale or Mike Dukakis. The GOP just better mibilized their people to the polls. The college kids didn't turn out in droves as they were expected to. Most of the other races the Dems lost were close as well. Probably the only true ass-whupping was Alan Keyes'.

Fixed.

das

I agree with you on this and hope that the "you" wasn't referring to me. However, I'd ask that your check your basic premise here. Some religious people think those without religion are evil, and some irreligious people think religion is evil. One denigrates a group of people, the other denigrates a system.

Sorry about that ... "you" was a generic pronoun.

das

can you cite some examples of the parity of instances where the Kerry campaign tried to frighten people into voting for them?

I know the press tried to equalize it by pointing to Kerry's criticism of Bush's Social Security privatization plan, but they ignored the fact (as Kerry explained) that there was a 13 digit budget shortfall to pay for the transition.

All things being equal, sometimes not all things are equal, and to pretend they are is skewing things same way the devoted partisans on both sides do.