What’s bad for liberals has been very good for Bill Maher.
HBO’s pol-chat salon, Real Time With Bill Maher, is a successor of sorts to Maher’s late-night ABC roundtable, Politically Incorrect,which ended its eight-year run in 2002, pursuant to, as Maher calls them, “the tragic events of 9/17.” (The night Maher agreed with a conservative pundit that the September 11 hijackers had not been cowardly, which caused advertisers to desert the show.)
As it turns out, the move to HBO was all silver lining, no clouds. Premium cable ended up freeing Maher and his weekly guests (a motley assemblage of outspoken celebrities, politicos, and intellectuals—pointedly both liberal and conservative) to be even more politically incorrect. On the most recent season, which ended November 12, Maher arguably hit his cantankerous apex as he skewered President Obama’s neo-Camelot, to say nothing of Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell (who first proclaimed her witchcraft dabbling on Politically Incorrect), and the tea-baggers—gifts that will keep on giving during his new season, beginning January 14.
We asked Maher about events that occurred during his hiatus. Per usual, he was not at a loss for words.
You and Keith Olbermann took Jon Stewart to task for his Rally to Restore Sanity, which exhorted partisans of all stripes to try straight, civilized dialogue. You also accused Stewart of false equivalency—for essentially equating Keith Olbermann with Glenn Beck, and Code Pink with the tea party.
I like Jon, and it was not a personal jab, but I don’t think I did anything during the last season that got as many people e-mailing and saying, “I’m glad you said what you said.” And all I did was quote him! Beck and Olbermann are not equivalent: One of them sticks to facts, and one of them doesn’t!
I like Jon, and it was not a personal jab, but I don’t think I did anything during the last season that got as many people e-mailing and saying, “I’m glad you said what you said.” And all I did was quote him! Beck and Olbermann are not equivalent: One of them sticks to facts, and one of them doesn’t!
What was your response to Stewart’s recent hourlong sit-down on The Rachel Maddow Show, which was largely devoted to a defense of the rally?
It made me lose a lot of respect for Maddow’s show, and I’m a huge fan of Rachel—her show is part of my daily diet. It’s not Jon’s fault. If you’re offered a full hour, in that setting, as he was, sure, take it. But for that show to treat a comedian like you would a head of state … that is part of the problem.
It made me lose a lot of respect for Maddow’s show, and I’m a huge fan of Rachel—her show is part of my daily diet. It’s not Jon’s fault. If you’re offered a full hour, in that setting, as he was, sure, take it. But for that show to treat a comedian like you would a head of state … that is part of the problem.
Stewart argued that he is a mere satirist while Maddow is “in the game,” politically speaking. Around the same time, the media was citing Stewart and The Daily Show as instrumental in overcoming Republican obstructionism to get the 9/11-responders bill passed. That seems to be about as in the game as you can get.
But the media does this all the time. They claim something that they created, then stand back from it, as if it’s a fact. I saw a Barbara Walters special recently where she was saying about Sarah Palin, “No one has ever been on our Most Fascinating People list three years in a row.” And I felt like saying, “Yeah, because you put her there!”
But the media does this all the time. They claim something that they created, then stand back from it, as if it’s a fact. I saw a Barbara Walters special recently where she was saying about Sarah Palin, “No one has ever been on our Most Fascinating People list three years in a row.” And I felt like saying, “Yeah, because you put her there!”
You’re an avowed atheist and pothead. What do you make of Pat Robertson’s coming out in favor of legalizing weed?
Great, I guess. It should shame the Democrats in California. Prop 19 was the first realistic attempt to legalize pot in the state—and not one Democrat would get behind it … So often, on so many issues, we have two parties, but we do not have two positions on pot, on Afghanistan, on gay marriage, gun control, rendition, wiretaps—and, up until a few weeks ago, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Great, I guess. It should shame the Democrats in California. Prop 19 was the first realistic attempt to legalize pot in the state—and not one Democrat would get behind it … So often, on so many issues, we have two parties, but we do not have two positions on pot, on Afghanistan, on gay marriage, gun control, rendition, wiretaps—and, up until a few weeks ago, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Did you buy the argument that the lame-duck Congress was a sign of an emerging bi-partisanism?
Oh, please. It’s going to go right back to a horror show—it’ll be worse, because the Republicans have great numbers and they are feeling their oats.
Oh, please. It’s going to go right back to a horror show—it’ll be worse, because the Republicans have great numbers and they are feeling their oats.
Julian Assange: hero or villain?
I’m not completely sure, but he’s certainly not a villain. The only way he would become a villain is if he got somebody killed, but he’s been rather careful about that. The argument I hear from the right is that he might be endangering the troops. Well, you know who really endangered the troops? George Bush. He got 4,000 of them killed in Iraq. I get that there is some loss to diplomacy because some things are better done in secret. But so far, what we’ve learned has been very valuable, like finding out that the Arabs are really more concerned about the Iranians than the Israelis. Now the Arabs can’t hide behind that anymore, or use it at the negotiating table. That’s kind of a big thing. Look, if we had a government I thought we could trust, I might say differently, but they haven’t earned my trust in my lifetime.
I’m not completely sure, but he’s certainly not a villain. The only way he would become a villain is if he got somebody killed, but he’s been rather careful about that. The argument I hear from the right is that he might be endangering the troops. Well, you know who really endangered the troops? George Bush. He got 4,000 of them killed in Iraq. I get that there is some loss to diplomacy because some things are better done in secret. But so far, what we’ve learned has been very valuable, like finding out that the Arabs are really more concerned about the Iranians than the Israelis. Now the Arabs can’t hide behind that anymore, or use it at the negotiating table. That’s kind of a big thing. Look, if we had a government I thought we could trust, I might say differently, but they haven’t earned my trust in my lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment