A bump to an old topic.
As I've said before, I agree with Bill Maher on less than 10% of the shit he says, but I still download his show and watch it illegally every once in a while.
His closing "New Rule" a couple of weeks ago was related to this topic that this thread is about.
I agree with the everything he's saying here, except the part about how he's mad about it. (And, yes, some of the punchlines are a little radical as well).
...
I recall posting before that I do watch Bill Maher's show semi-regularly. I consider any conservative/Republican willing to go on his show to have titanium balls because you will be heavily out-numbered and you will be alone. And I have to give Maher credit for amusing me (unlike Colbert, Jon Stewart...and Mike Huckabee who's show I can't stand...of course I can't stand him either but I digress).
Anyway, I do like that Maher doesn't hold any punches with the Democrats in some of his comments but given the choice between the Democrat and Republican ideology (and the lack of a viable alternative) I will chose Republican. The Tea Party Movement
might be the beginning of a real alternative but I doubt it mainly because of the focus on polarizing social issues. We don't have the luxury to deal with that right now especially with what I think is the very dark cloud of another major economic crisis looming across the Atlantic and heading our way. We will not be able to ignore it for much longer.
...
But Obama has been a divisive president. He has not yet cut spending and while Bush did spend a lot, Obama is trying to move that exorbitant amount of money to other places. Our sense of nationalism has decayed and our reputation abroad has deteriorated. Many of his polices (healthcare bill) are short-sighted, a precarious side effect of Keynesian economics, which leads me to think that the future of the country is not safe in his hands.
...
Insightful.
First, the President is the one branch of the government that is supposed to rise above partisan politics and act in the best interest of the republic as a legislative facilitator; the Pharaoh Obama is horrible at this one fundamental aspect of his job (unless his party has an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate). He is supposed to be the man who can bring together the House and Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans along with the American People in a way that makes good, constitutional legislation which does not necessarily always mean 'compromise' (the latter has become a bad word amongst conservatives anyway). I recall Reagan being very good at this. Clinton was also good at it to an opposite extent.
Secondly, as a part of his job, the President has a more symbolic duty not particularly described in the constitution in that he is supposed to embody the pride and patriotism of the nation despite what party he is a member of; again, he is the one branch of government that essentially must rise above partisanship and be the face of the United States to the rest of the world representing our strength and resolve among other things, these two being the most important in these troubling economic times. The Pharaoh is a disaster at this; he's weak and the world knows it; as Maher said, "he couldn't be less threatening if he was carrying an iced tea and skittles."
210 Replies
37870 Views