Bill Maher on Scarborough now on MSNBC

How is it that Anna Nichole can't manage to get good extentions? Those are the worst I've ever seen on a white girl. sheesh.

"2 camps of Republicans.

A lot realizing how much of mistake it was to recruit an empty suit in 2000. "

"..Fishing in the Republian pond."

"People don't not vote for Democrats because they're too liberal. They don;t vote for them because they don't stand for anything."

"Why do they keep going after the faith-based NASACAR Crowd?"

"We need someone to be an alternative."

"A lot of things Ralph Nader said is where the Democratic candidte should be."

.. but he is DEAD CORRECT with his "They don't vote for them because they don't stand for anything" line.

The sooner folks come to grips with that simple fact, the sooner we'll start winning again. And when he says "don't stand for anything", what he means is "they go for the middle ground even when they don't really believe it, and everyone can tell they don't really believe it". Ok, that's MY interpretation, and I think a lot of Americans believe that.

Americans have figured out that Republicans are full of shit, but at least they are consistent and unapologetic about their fucked up beliefs.

:kick: for your articulate gift!

Equally hard on both parties

what about us?:kick:

:shrug:

can it be any more clear? Are you one who believes no matter how much the democrats do nothing, say nothing or simply fuck up, you ignore it and pretend it didn't really happen?

Head in the sand, will get democrats nowhere!!!!

"...nd let the people come round to them. And they will."

"Have to call the environment National Security, because that's what's killing us."

heard media say time and again, and maher, and stewart, kerry has no plan. if people arent listening does it really matter what or how often the dems do speak out.

oh and people on this very boeard say the same thing. go figure

I must admit that I don't remember Kerry offering anything more then "stay the course, only smarter". I remember Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton all had strong anti war positions, and I remember them being called "unelectable".

Even today, the closest thing that I've seen to an Iraq war position has been Murtha's call for redeployment.

Have I been missing something?

...was a lot of vague ideas about getting assistance from allies. Hell, it didn't even convince me, and I wanted to believe.

Is this the case, DU?

I remember him saying "I was right to vote to go to war, Bush was wrong to go to war. Now that we are there, we must stay. We need allies, we need the UN. We are better off without Saddam Hussein in power"

bla

just right here. simple. that isnt what he said. it is what you say he said. but he didnt say that. so, you want to get a link, a quote. i read your posts, you are clever enough to find the exact quote. and it wasnt this,..... at all. if you are going to argue with something kerry said.... at least, the minimum in discussion, is..... what he actually "said".

and I won't ask you for a link. However, if you wish to articulate the Kerry vision in a sentence or two, I will read them. I would state his case as I did above. How would you state it differently?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=543186&mesg_id=545894

is his plan as short and concise as i could make it. not more than 30 secs. but certainly more than three words. what kerry has actually said about iraq is good. and there is a lot out there. it has also continually shifted, because Iraq continues to shift over time. so a person has to change views a little to deal with problems at hand. again, sorry that is so grey, but in life,.... this IS how problems are solved

the problem is that "grey" won't win elections. Concise "sound bites" will. A sound bite does not mean dumbed down or unintelligent. JOHN 3:16 is a sound bite for Christianity.

Bill Clinton on Bush's Iraq War; "STRONG AND WRONG." It is nice to be strong, but it is a bad idea "wrong". All the other "details" are...just...details...

ya think there might be some dislike of the man and truly not hearing him, or listening to him, just dismissing him. he gives a plan in his speeches. then when he is on msm, he has it all the way to bush has screwed it up every step of the way. i just simply think you are not being fair or honest about kerry. and i know htere is plenty of documentation to support y position. and you chose to not read, for personal reason, which are fine. but how serious an argument can you make when kerry too has taken iraq war to talking point and you ignore. he gives a plan, you say where is the plan. only sound bite. then you demand sound bite from kerry. just weird the way a brain will work to justify an agenda

I still have no clue what Kerry stands for regarding Iraq. Your clarification is muddled, at best.

Look at how I explained Kerry's war stance. Now look at your explanation of Kerry's stance. Which one is easier to understand?

Lets try this - please post your description of both Bush and Kerry's position on the war.

Bush - Saddam was dangerous, we did what we needed to do. We owe Iraq our support. The world is safer now without Saddam in power.

Kerry - Saddam was dangerous, we could have done this smarter, better. We owe Iraq our support. The world is safer without Saddam in power.


Does Kerry say that Bush willfully lied to get us to go to war? Does Kerry say that it was wrong to invade Iraq? Does Kerry say that outing Plame was treasonous? Does Kerry say that we should be out of Iraq, NOW?
I voted for Nader in 1996 and in 2000. I voted for Kerry in 2004. I liked his position on Iraq more then Bush's position on Iraq. He got my vote. Why didn't he get 75% of all votes cast? Why didn't 45% of registered voters come out at all?

I know where Dennis Kucinich stands on the war. I always have known. I could always explain the Kucinich position to a non-voter. I don't know where Kerry is - I don't know how to explain his position to a non-voter (except saying he is the same as bush, just much smarter, and less evil).

so how the hell do you know if it would play there or not. kinda like it didnt play for you, as you admit you didnt listen to kerry, you dont know kerry's position and you have no desire to research kerry's position though it is well documented. now you are inssiting i put in 20 minutes of 4 years of events, prior to the war showing you the difference of kerry and bush. and you want me to take this serious

i have a question. at what point do you have to be informed

i could easily document kerry's action ad words, bush action, words and intent...... adn the shifts over three years of bush mess, but why. why would i waste my time.

you spend a lot of time dissing, i am seeing no time spent learning. maybe the 15 sec talking point should stop right here with you, and you actually know what you are arguing.

then you even admit right below that media may not have presented kerry's message, but then who fault is that, well kerry of course

prior to war and iwr, kerry probably would have never gone into iraq. there is a first difference
bush chose to

once in kerry wouldnt have stolen land, oil, or occupy the land and would have brought in other countries and iraqi people
bush chose not to. his policies was theft and corruption, leaving the middle east and iraq out of solution. stealing land and oil and no desire to leave country

today, kerry would pull out. about mid december he put out a pull out plan. you should go on net and read his words and what he purposes. this was before murtha by two weeks.

you never needed to "sell" me on Kerry, I was always against Bush.

You need to sell Kerry to non voters. You need to do it through the M$M.

I really appreciate the discussion that we have had on this thread. I will request one more thing from you-

how is Kerry's Iraq stance different from Joe Lieberman's stance? I would have voted for Lieberman over Bush, no questions asked. I state Joementums war stance the same way I present Kerry's, Edwards, Gerhardt's, and Grahams. The same as Bush, but smarter.

ps- didn't know about Kerry's 'murtha like' plan, and I read (ok...I look at pictures on DU,:)) DU daily and receive Kerry emails. I didn't know this. As an anti-war activist, this is troubling.

Peace and low stress, and thank you for the discussion.:kick:

they finally put him on they immediately attacked saying you have no plan, and when kerry would start laying out they would attack and talk about teresa, or why dems always attacking bush, (that was a real funny) or why dem have nothing to say, as they interrupted. this was all a new phenomenon for 2004 like we had never seen. we saw a little with gore. IF kerry defended himself then they attacked him for being mean and throwing mud. now kerry and dean go on they immediately get attacked and they attack back, but still it isn't like a serious intellectual discussion on anything. you have heard dean. then he is attacked for standing up for himself, and from people on this board. kerry declares filibuster because dem leaders aren't. he is razzed cause he is in switzerland. lots of repugs in switzerland and nothing said. can we really give this all to kerry for being responsible for.

people on this board, crying for filibuster, .... dems had better or we walk from dems forever, this is the last straw by god.....

attacked kerry along with repug talking point and media for calling from meeting in switzerland.

are you really going to pin this on kerry, or maybe those of us that dont like the man, or are angry at the man enough to promote the rw bullshit.

none of kerry's words were too big for me. there was never a single time that man spoke i didn't understand exactly what he was saying. perfectly clear to me. then i hear people on this board say how he is sooooo confusing and hard to understand. i am not a genius. i got it. not hard. so then i have to ask, what friggin game are we playing. the same one as repug, the same as media

everyone clearly knew what he was talking about when he said i voted for before voting against. two bills. his, that took away the rich tax cut. bush that borrowed the money. kerry voted for his bill, and then didn't vote for bush. pretty easy to understand. tons of people spent 8 months having kerry repeat himself over and over in every interview about that stupid ass comment as they all pretended they didn't get it. then he would explain once again and STILL they pretended they didn't understand. cant get more clear. two bills. i voted for mine. didn't vote bush....... huh??????????? i dont get it

am i really gonna take that fake stupid for real, and put more effort in trying to make more clear when it is perfectly obvious the person is being obtuse for agenda and reason.

not to mention he had real things to talk about on these shows and the media wouldn't talk about them. kerry tried. again, do we pin it on kerry. and the whole purpose for 87b show he didnt support troops another rw talking point promoted by media when all facts and evidence supported otherwise

lieberman. lieberman supports bush. kerry does not support bush. that is the simple. to say it as clear as i can to see the definition. again, can leave it there or i can spend another 15 minutes explaining what the difference is between lieberman supporting bush, kerry not supporting bush

As a progressive liberal, I supported Dean (he was dlc 'anti-war') in the primary, but voted for Kucinich. I was satisfied with the choice of Kerry, as Kerry was the best liberal in the group.

I had a problem with Kerry's "I'm a war hero - send me" campaign. To me, Kerry was an anti-war hero. imho, Kerry never generated any hype, short of the ABB bush hate. Dean at least caused a movement. Kerry...seemed...to get washed away by the m$m... Edwards, a man that did have charisma never had anything to say, either.

You know what it is, seabeyond? The Kerry / Edwards campaign was fine, it just wasn't for me. They didn't give me anything except an alternative to Bush. But, since they lost, I kind of wish that the Dems had stood for something (like withdrawing from Iraq) or election reform (contest Ohio, for fucks sake!), or calling out the PATRIOT act bullshit.

I wanted John Kerry to say the things that David Cobb and Ralph Nader were saying.

In regards to DU and DU'ers (like me) statements about Kerry, perhaps where we are coming from (me being a near green radical, for instance) helps.

Again, Peace.

to you. but how he would approach and handle iraq, and the deaths of civilians and soldiers both were so important to me, i really wanted kerry, a military man, a reasoned man, that could do a hell of a lot more to get troops out and help to heal iraq. that was important to me. education, my childrens education, 2nd and 5th grade, that is really really important to me. i listened to kerry, and he understood the importance and the problems. for me to be able to provide health care to our employess is vitally important to me. and kerry understood the issues and could see the problems.....

so....

not being radical green left, but a mom that wants a future for children, and a business that will allow families to care for themselves and put food on table, are my simple wants

they would listen thoughtfully to my Dean rant, then ask, "What about Kerry?" Peace, and God bless.

dean was the dem, dean or edwards that the male texas liked. i would have supported rooted appreciated valued dean, i still do. i like clark. would have been there for clark. and edwards.

my point i think we have some damn good dems. not just one, but many. i would take any of there smart and reasonable, problem solving dems over bush fun to have a beer with bullshit any day

now... lol peace to you too. and thank you for the chat

I would have rather had clark, kerry, dean, anyone that had Kucinich positions,,, but that is just me..

Hope we can meetup some time....peace!

and charisma had nothing to do with it.

can be done about it.

I'm not sure what the hoopla is about... It seems obvious that Kerry didn't sell his war plan to the USA.
I am sure that the M$M played a part. That part will never go away. How do the Dems counter the M$M?
The Dems counter the main stream media by putting up candidates that make the M$M pay attention. In 2008, I think that Al Gore this guy had the presidency stolen from him by thugs and Hillary Clinton the m$m LIVES off of her are our best bet to counter m$m. I also think having Howard Dean chair the DNC is helpful the media LOVES his 'loose lips',lol.

So while M$M was a huge part of our 2004 loss, I think that charisma also played a part.

intelligent way. how HORRIBLE of the man. are we daft??????

is all. I really wished that it did.

that would have taken him a long way in competence ergo success,..... as opposed to current administration of incomptence, ergo failure.

some solutions to problem are just pretty damn simple

So Kerry was all "I will fix the problems in Iraq in an adult and reasoned manner" whereas Bush was all "incompetence".

Perhaps I didn't understand his position because I rarely take "adult and reasoned" positions (obviously).

Now compare my view of Kerry's war position


with your view of Kerry's war position


just sayin...

challenges to understand why you think that is a good thing. a catholic friend yesterday on abortion, iraq war an kerry went into confusion when i suggest we acted like a bunch of adults and resolve problem, like we do in our personal life?????

seems to be epidemic in our nation at this time. personally i like being an adult. i think it is nifty

Kerry was a very smart, articulate candidate. He had very reasonable positions.

I would rather have a victorious candidate that thought along the same lines as Kerry, and was able to simplify his intelligent positions.

After all of this discussion with you here on this thread, I am still unable to present the Kerry vision to a non voter any better then I originally stated it. Please post Kerry's position as if you were selling it to a non-voter.

Here is my selling point:
Kerry agreed that Saddam was a threat, but that this war was handled all wrong by the administration. it is still flip-floppy...but perhaps you can do better.
I bet Kerry would have won if his Iraq plan reached more people.

that millions of us were desperately lobbying Kerry to be clear on. He absolutely refused despite the desperate pleas from supporters across the country - as we watched the campaign message faltering off the edge of the cliff all the way to the convention and beyond.

like dubya has had a "tin ear" with regard to his own party base on issues like the port and harriet myers, Kerry too had a tin ear with regard to the most important issue facing our country. The illegal War in Iraq and everything that connected to it.

He drives me nuts!!!

Including his criticism of dems "fishing in the republican pond".

the difference between what us "Regular Dems" want and believe and our so-called leaders. They need to tell the truth about how disallusioned(sp)we all are with the Dems in the Senate and House. Instead of just generalizing that "Democrats dont stand for anything".....arrgg

His criticisms tonight was that the leadership is not offering people a choice but are too close to Republicans.

He said the party should be more liberal, which would attract voters.

the environment being a national security issue.

Kerry sarted talkingabout that after 9-11 and throughoutthe his campaign in the primary and the general in almost EVERY SPEECH.

Maher acted like he just thought of it, and too bad no Democrat is as smart as he is.

Kerry did an entire major speech on that specific point. Too bad Maher chose to miss it and Kerry's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN where he stressed it repeatedly.

Sorry. He's my Senator and he's a great guy.

But he allowed himself to mute any real message of change in 04. He succumbed to the "centrist strategist disease."

crystal clear about the environment as more than clean air and water - it was a matter of national security - and that America couldn't drill her way out of it we would INVENT our way out of it by fully funding the research for alternative energy.

To say that point is incoherent is just pure revisionism by pundits who think it sounds clever, yet actually were just never really paying attention to anyone's voice but their own.

campaign. I really didn't. I knew Kerry would protect the environment better then Bush, but it did not know about this key campaign point.

focused on going to the moon. If we could get to the moon in 10 yrs, then surely we can be energy independent in that same time. An Apollo Project for Energy Independence.

He said it during his energy speech in 2002 and in almost every speech afterwards. The problem is that corporate media didn't WANT the general public to hear key aspects of Kerry's campaign. They wouldn't report it on their newscasts. You had to watch Cspan to get any accurate portrayal of the campaign.

first speech shown whole, and live on msm. 20 fuckin minutes he talked and laid out plan for iraq, health care, education and small business. twenty very short minutes for an adult to listen to. but people dont have that kind of attention span. oh it is boring and dry. well it is a fuckin plan. like sittin a class. ya..... k surely as adults we can focus and listen to twenty friggin minutes. as soon as kerry was done commentators ripped him apart. not on his speech or plan, further they made the outrageous comment no plan, after i just listened to it all laid out.

it makes me ask amstead, is it kerry, or is is we the people, that need a 3 word, 5 sec talking point to be sold

To be concise...is wit.

If you don't mind, what was the difference between the Kerry plan and the Bush war plan? I remember "more UN" and "more international peacekeepers"... is this the Iraq plan that you are describing?

:kick:

We have to play with the cards we're dealt. And at the moment our hand is all Corporate Media Jokers/ So we need to have a messge that can be boiled down to cut through the noise.

That DOESN'T mean we should not back it up with substance. There are also a lot of people who want substance, and will bother to do some homework beyond the sportscasting style political coverge of the MSM.

The problem with Kerry -- and the current Democratic approach -- is that they have not really given out the raw meat that is required to define what we actually do believe in.

They also avoid the core issue of concentration of wealth and power. They also avoid the role of liberalism as a counterbalance to that, to protect and advance the interests of the majority of americans.

One example -- On a talking head show, Kerry was asked point-blank: "Are you a liberal?"

Kerry gave a very waffling non-nswer that was evasive, rather than being truly nuanced. Something like "Well, that depends on how you define liberal. Perhaps some of my beliefs might be similar to what you might call liberalism, but as a district attorney I was very aggressive about pursuing criminals, and I believe in common sense approaches....blah,blah,blah"

He lost me right there. But running away from such a basic question, instead of responding with full-frontal asault, Kerry only fueled the Rovian spin that Democrats can't be trusted because they're liberals, and because they have no principles. He also reinforced the idea that liberlism is incompatable with fighting crime or applying common sense.

IMO the answer should have been succinct. "Yes, I'm a liberal Democrat and proud of it. Most Americans are also liberal on the issues that matter, despite the false stereotypes spread by the Republican Party and the media."

you being one, mcd??? then you tell them, WANT plan, 3 words, 10 sec..... please

well, fuck that shit. first it isnt even do able. duh......

secondly, are you for real suggesting we shorten communication and interaction to a mere 5 sec 3 words?????? reality. cause this is really screwin with our childrens brains, and adults too.... look at all the zombied culted people running around, in 5 sec, 3 words

I did what was needed to make the world safe from terra.

Here is the Bush soundbite for the future.

I will do whatever it takes to keep the world safe from terra.

Simple...effective...we need a simple, effective counterargument.
"We need to leave Iraq." is simple enough.

I wish to hell the current media/political/cultural climate was not like that. And hopefully we can change it. (Meaningful media reform would be one start, wBUT THAT is another position the Democrats keep avoiding.)

But it is what it is. Our side can try to push the envelope, and be aggressive to PRESS for more meaningful debate AND POLITICAL COVERAGE.

But it is what it is and we have to break through the noise on the present real-world terms too.

Soundbite: Money and power has become too concentrated and average people are being pushed down by the Republicans and the wealthy elite and phony conservativism. Democrats are YOUR party, liberalism is our movement and we will all fight to protect and retore YOUR interests and our national community.

Details to Come. But that is the aggressive and clear SOUNDBITE message we have to send out, imo.

really? I didn't know this. Are you saying that Kerry ran on 9-11 (Kerry sarted talkingabout that after 9-11 and throughoutthe his campaign in the primary and the general in almost EVERY SPEECH.)? Why would that be a good strategy against the 9-11 president?

decades before 9-11. Our oil dependence furthered our obsession with manipulating that region since WW2.

thanks:kick:

They have been lied to for too many years.....Right-wing radio fucked their minds up. It's a slow process...and they need clear distinctions...not cloudy inuendo(sp)

Liberalism is neither a disease, a chracter defect or unworthy ideology.

The only way to restore its' place in the politicl system is to champion it and sell what it stands for.

One thing Maher said, which made perfect sense, is that the Democrats have to stop playing on GOP terms. Insteaqd they have to stand firmly on liberal positions they believe in, and voters will come to them because they are correct.

progressive , liberal democratic party. A democratic party with Bernie Saunders positions. But...but..we will lose our power...What would we really lose?

"had gotten up in the presidential debates and said 'let's turn our ports over to an Arab country with terrorist ties'?"

w/this admin. and I'm glad Maher points that out.

about national security.

WHERE THE FUCK WAS HE WHEN KERRY DID EXACTLY THAT AT ALMOST EVERY SPEECH AND RALLY SINCE 9-11??????

Kerry is the one who married the two issues completely and stressed it repeatedly.

Maher was so busy listening to his fab pundits that he never even bothered to read any of Kerry's speeches? FOUR FUCKING YEARS WORTH OF SPEECHES?

That's the problem - media pundits and yakkers who don't pay attention and repeat lies and assumptions instead of using the FACTS needed.

Sorry to see him slide down this hill, but I knew where he was headed during the last season of his HBO show. He went from having fun with his crowd to constant complaining because they were "too liberal". That and his endless coddling of conservative freaks...

Maher is right on.

Dems are above any criticism now?

He's saying they need to move to the left to gain voters, and he is correct.

.

comedian w/political leanings, as is Jon Stewart. He complained about the libs because his rightwing guests were complaining that the deck was stacked.
He invites conservatives to give both sides imo.
He's not perfect, but no one is. I'd rather listen to MAher than anyone on Faux or CNN.
KO nudges MSNBC out for me.

and Liberals should let HBO know they want a REAL progressive hosting a program that REAL TIME pretends to be..

people should contact producers at Real Time and let them know that Mahr is uninformed and playing a deadly game of distortions and misinformation.

Of course Mahr is spot on sometimes, but that's like the broken clock syndrome - accurate twice a day doesn't even make him funny.

I think a lot of people here accuse people of being Libertarians or freepers simply because they disagree with someone else's idea of Democratic party beliefs. Mahr may very well be Libertarian, I don't know or really care. I agree with him a lot, and think he's an asshole when he says something I disagree with, but I think he's mostly right. I'd hate to think people are disregarding everything he says simply because they think he's Libertarian.

Progressives and Libertarians have a lot of common ground on matters concerning civil liberties, but very spotty commonality on civil rights.

Liberals are sort of middle of the road, sympathetic but not as passionate as Libertarians or Progressives on these matters. (hence the lack of en masse response opposing the Patriot Act, as evidenced on DU)

Progressives often, (but not always) tend to fall in line of what is referred to as "Socialist Libertarian"... civil liberties and civil rights are paramount, but for progressives we are just as interested in social justice and place equal value to those concerns, Libertarians do not tend to believe that social justice and equality, i.e. minority rights has a place in our democracy or culture, and Mahr is very much of that ilk.

Liberals seem often to be in between somewhere, depending on the specific issue. They care a lot about most things progressives care about, but don't seem to be too concerned about the root causes underpinning the issue at concern, in terms of eficacy of policies which creates inequality and injustice in the first place.

That's my perspective anyway.

Personally, I can't stand Bill Mahr. When I heard that Gary Hart was going to be on his show last week, i tuned in on this rare opportunity to hear from him. To say I was disappointed would be understating the situation.

I was disgusted with Mahr acting like the typical megalomaniac that must have the entire spotlight at all times. I planned on writing a letter to producers and HBO, suggesting they bring on a real progressive comedian to put on a program instead of this phony "politically correct" style bullshit (which i never watched) but i know it's a waste of time, so i didn't bother.

i don't know if Mahr is literally "registered" as Libertarian or Independent. (or other) I just recognize his political proclivities as heavily Libertarian...

:kick:

His position papers made the link between investing in alternative/renewable energy and the positive impact it would have on our environment, jobs, and national security. I was disappointed that he didn't pound this every chance he could get. Of course, the Rpublican corporate media was more interested in swiftboat stories and nonsense then drawing out the contrast between Bush/Big Oil Republicans and a 21st energy policy that would invest in jobs here while decreasing our dependency on ME Oil.

doesn't.

heard. They were editted down to almost nothing or received the barest reporting.

Every time I see him and his smug delivery, I feel like conservatives feel when they watch Dennis Miller. It's sort of like "I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'd still like to cave your condescending fucking face in." Plus, like Miller, Maher isn't funny.

:applause:

is old fashioned common sense.

absolutely rip our Democrats apart. They even do it to the ones who don't deserve it. The other night Stewart said he did not even know who Mark Warner was...at first I thought he was kidding, but I don't think so.

There is humor that is funny, and humor that has become painful. I am finding it harder and harder to watch the good guys get humiliated along with the bad guys.

Yeh, I know the buzz words here..."It's comedy!"...but it is only comedy to me if it is funny.

get on the news to be heard, he dismisses anything they say and tell a lame talking point dem joke.

both maher and stewart have pegged dems, and doesnt matter what a dems says or does, they will be ignored and the two will fill in the blank from their perspective. not from fact

I found it hard to tolerate now when so many good Democrats are talking out.

The Dems are doing something...or else the tide would be turning a lot more slowly

and banter about lawmakers, but the playing into stereotype that does nothing but further the imbalance of power in this country is JUST. NOT. FUNNY.

Clinton's corrupt. Gore lies. Kerry's aloof. Dean's crazy. Edwards is phony. When did parroting the GOPcontrolled corporate media spin become comedy?

The barbs they use about Bush are NEVER advanced in the corporate media who has been deliberately PROTECTING Bush's image over the last 6yrs.

What has Mark Warner ever done on a national level. What issues does Mark Warner champion? I actually saw Mark Warner for the first time in my life on cspan in NH less than a month ago.

I never see "the good guys" make the news, or the comedy news. Just the rat worms get m$m coverage.

Why does Maher lower himself by going on those reich-wing shows? I hear about him going on Scarbrough and O'Riley all the time. He either gets shouted down or he makes them look bad. He need to go an shows that actually have viewers.

the "looney lefties in academics are evil" talking point being spewed by David Horowitz and Bill's girlfriend Anne Coulter.

On edit, unless he mentions Diebold, I'm not interested