S14.E02: Michael McCaul, Alan Grayson, Liz Mair, Jon Meacham, Seth MacFarlane

[GHScorpiosRule]

Tex. Rep. Michael McCaul, Fla. Rep. Alan Grayson, political consultant Liz Mair, author Jon Meacham, and filmaker Seth MacFarlane.

Edited January 22, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Queena]

Liz Mair aggravates me! Very much.

[amsel]

After last week's great show, this one was forgettable. 

 

The panel said nothing interesting. The most memorable moment was Bill yelling at Liz Mair. 

 

Seth Macfarlane is a great guy and I usually like him on these types of shows, but Bill spent way too much time with Seth. Maybe Bill realized the panel was crap and wanted to spend more time with his friend. Who knows. And of course, he had to force the discussion on political correctness once again. 

 

And thanks Jon Meacham for telling us that people were angry and didn't trust the government even during the revolution. Profound insight there. 

Edited January 23, 2016 by amsel

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I agree!  Liz whoever she is drove me crazy with her constant interjecting and Bill shutting her down was THE BEST!!! And what was in those mugs anyway, she and Seth were drinking constantly so it was either a security blanket for them or had something really good in it!  I thought Seth was boring as hell, he contributed nothing and his answers to Bill were lame.  I liked Alan Grayson's points and he even got Liz to agree.  

 

On a very shallow note I thought Liz looked like an ornament with the bling, lipstick, red outfit and Justin Bieber's hairdresser is alive and well it seems with that hair style!  LOL

[iMonrey]

I did get a kick out of Bill yelling "Let him finish!" when Liz Mair would not shut up. But just to play devil's advocate, since he rarely if ever does that I couldn't help but wonder if he'd have done the same thing with a male guest.

 

I simply do  not understand the defense of deregulation. The argument seems to be "Well the government does everything badly so let's not have any regulation at all." Like - how do point A and point B even connect? The Paris  climate accord won't do anything so . . . let's do nothing at all?? How is that better?

 

This belief that capitalism will force businesses to regulate themselves is laughable in the face of the litany of disasters Bill ran through. Like, if some company poisons and kills a bunch of people with their product people will stop buying their product so they'll have to stop putting poison in their product. Yeah, after they've killed a bunch of people! I mean - that's really a position? People actually think this? I can understand corporations and their shills pushing for deregulation but how does the average working voter get on board with this idea?

 

As far as Seth Farland goes, I think Bill was banking on him having an answer or criticism about the Academy of Motion Pictures but he was dead wrong. Seth Farland isn't going to bite the hand that feeds him, he wants that hosting gig again, it pays upwards of a million dollars. That discussion went nowhere.

[ktwo]

If Seth MacFarlane wants to host the Oscars again, it's not because he needs another million dollars. He's worth about $150M.

[ganesh]

Bill has told male guests to STFU before, so I didn't mind him shutting down the women. I mean she commented on literally every other sentence. Slow your roll, lady.

 

Plus, she wasn't saying anything. Pointing out the *one* thing contrary to what they were saying doesn't invalidate the initial point.

The argument seems to be "Well the government does everything badly so let's not have any regulation at all."

 

It's the same exact argument for addressing gun violence. We get mass shootings to zero, so forget it. So, the USA regulatory system, in terms of clean water, clean air, and worker safety is the best in the world, and yes, sometimes there's overreach, that's why you have oversight, to review. But let's get rid of it all. No regulations for nuclear power plants? No regulations for fracking, no way, just let livestock die from drinking poisoned water or have your own tap catch on fire! I don't think she really believes that because the argument is just flat out stupid. 

 

The gas leak has been allowed to persist because the company said they didn't feel like paying so much for the part because it was hard to find. We don't need rules for that, no. 

 

What was better was when "Clinton is terrible on civil liberties." "How so?" "Check her record." "How about you give an example, since you brought it up?" How about not interrupting everyone with generalities and tedious points?

 

I hate when people come on the show and are like, "I'm not a republican *I'm* a libertarian." What does that mean? Because you sure aren't saying much nice about Obama. From what I've seen, it means you hate everyone and just oppose what everyone says. Ok, that's constructive.

 

I did like the interview. That guy seemed ok to me. I disagree with the position on refugees. It's a two year process and rather in-depth. If you're screwing up that process, then you're incompetent and shouldn't be in that job. If Bill didn't want to make his gotcha point about the TSA, and instead did a shred of homework, the real question is the visas. It's ridiculously easy to get into the USA on the visas and far more of a risk of a terrorist getting in. Boxer introduced a bill to address this and it went nowhere. How about talking about that? I did like his response about Trump on OT: umm, ugh. 

 

I don't think there's going to be an issue about Cruz's eligibility. It's more of a 'you did it to Obama, we do it to you.' What's interesting, and again, because the woman was so bent on getting in the last word, and not having a discussion, is that SCOTUS has never had to rule on the constitutionality of the 'natural born' clause in the constitution. I did like how she was like, "I can vote in the UK." "Why would you vote somewhere you don't even live?" "Because I can." "That's a dumb reason."

The Kris Jenner joke was funny. It had nothing to do with being trans, it was about women being bad drivers. "I guess we know she's really a woman because she sucks at driving and ran over someone." We can respect her decision to live her life as who she really is. But she's just not a good person. 

[attica]

I hate when people come on the show and are like, "I'm not a republican *I'm* a libertarian."

 

"...And I support Ted Cruz." What the ever loving? Unless words no longer have meaning, Ted Cruz is not the candidate for libertarianism. He's just another wingnut who doesn't love anything so much as the death penalty.

 

That said, I generally like to see Liz Mair on a panel. She's smarter and funnier than most wingnuts, so if you're forcing me to sit through all that Stupid and Goal-post moving, I'll take her,

 

I won a bet with myself that Meacham couldn't get through the panel without a paean to the Holy Center. Bless his heart. He'll just keep fucking that chicken, won't he?

[ganesh]

I think the Cruz support was when Bill asked them if there was 100% sure that a republican would win, but it would either be Trump or Cruz, and they had to choose. I don't think she meant that she actually supports Cruz. 

 

But she's not a "libertarian." The only thing she said on the show is that Sanders is better on civil rights than Clinton. It's not like, "I'm a libertarian, so I'm going to vote for Sanders if he's the nominee, but if not, I'll probably vote third party." She's clearly not going to be voting for Sanders. So she's voting third party then? Doubtful. 

 

My post was way too long before, but I have to call massive BS on the "adapting and dealing with climate change and innovation" canard. For anyone working in STEM academics or otherwise, it's widely accepted as unethical to 'wait' to solve any problem, much less climate change. It puts an undue burden on future generations, and something like that is found in every codes of ethics. You (we) need to do what we can with existing technologies to solve the problem, and yes, while doing that, there's going to be advancements and innovations. 

 

Not to mention that she said something like "we arguing what to do about it. I think we need to focus on adapting." Are you familiar with the United States congress? You couldn't pass a resolution that says climate change is real. Come on. She's running such a classic con. Say so much and keep misdirecting so no one knows that you really don't know much of what you're talking about, and what you do know is a horrible position anyway, but you won't get called on it. And you get to be on tv. 

Edited January 23, 2016 by ganesh

[amsel]

Liz Mair worked for Scott Walker's campaign as his digital outreach director (or something like that) last year. She was fired after she criticized the primary process and Iowa's role in it. Then she had some sort of online meltdown. 

 

I agree with the above that she actually has some valuable things to say from time to time (she's a frequent guest on Hardball). But she needs to learn how to participate in a conversation without becoming a nuisance. She crossed that line very early on last night's show. 

[ganesh]

Funny, I think Iowa's role and NH really is way way more exaggerated than it should be. Too bad they didn't talk about that. 

[Victor the Crab]

Two shows into the new year, and Bill is already into disdainful ignorant unwiped asshole mode by claiming himself correct about Muslim refugees (the majority of whom are women and children fleeing ISIS) causing trouble entering another country (one isolated incident in Cologne), and by claiming Donald Trump's campaign is the result of political correctness running amok. This is why Bill will never, ever come close to being considered a peer along the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and John Oliver, who has become the true face of political and social comedy on HBO.

[scrb]

Liz Mair's car gets 55 mpg because of CAFE regulations.

The anti smog equipment on that car is due to anti pollution regulations at the state and federal levels.

[iMonrey]

 

If Seth MacFarlane wants to host the Oscars again, it's not because he needs another million dollars. He's worth about $150M.

 

Julia Louis Dreyfus is worth more than that and she still does Old Navy commercials. Just saying' - even the richest of the rich still wants a paycheck. Net worth has to be weighted against the cost of maintaining that lifestyle.

 

And it's probably not just about hosting the Oscars - you can imagine the Hollywood power behind the Academy and Seth McFarland isn't going to bite the hand that feeds him no matter how much Bill Maher tries to bait him.

Edited January 24, 2016 by iMonrey

[tenativelyyours]

If Seth MacFarlane wants to host the Oscars again, it's not because he needs another million dollars. He's worth about $150M.

 

So its attention he needs instead.  Though as mentioned right above, you hear of lots of rich people bent on getting richer.  The ones that are happy with what they have I'm betting are the same.

 

I consider myself a bit of a historical libertarian; I want government where it is needed and nowhere else.  But is an idealistic ideology because government has to serve the greater good while protecting the rights of everyone.  So I really hate when people like Mair call themselves such when in truth what they want is the freedom to do what they want but the authority and power to make the rest us do what they want.  Now days when I hear someone like Mair or Joe Scarborough or Rand Paul claim Libertarianism, I simply file them under raging hypocrite in my drawer of people I do not want attaining more power than they already have and hopes they lose whatever they currently have gained.

[ganesh]

Well, I think hosting the Oscars allows you to get your pet jazz record produced. It opens doors. Why would you turn it down?

 

So I really hate when people like Mair call themselves such when in truth what they want is the freedom to do what they want but the authority and power to make the rest us do what they want.

 

No, I think Mair calls herself 'libertarian' as her brand, or a way to make sure she has steady gigs on the talk show circuit. "Oh she's not a *conservative* so if we have her on the show it's like a totally different pov." Not really though. And no one pressed her as to what that really means. 

 

She's a libertarian who has a car that gets 55 mpg because of regulations. Does she only drive on state roads? Because the interstate highway system is federally maintained. Does she not fly at all? Because those federal workers maintain the airways for us. She's quick to point out how the EPA overreached that one time though. Politicians and pundits call themselves libertarians as a way to justify why we shouldn't have regulatory oversight and taxes. Does she expect the city government to plow the road when it snows?

 

I'm sure regular people who are libertarians who vote either party and even the lesser parties, but that has nothing to with the people on the show.

[tenativelyyours]

Different strokes.  For me everything I have heard from her in various forms pretty much makes her the poster child if Joe Scarborough didn't already have his squinty eyed mug next to the definition.

[candall]

I didn't know Liz Mair and I'm usually happy to hear from an unfamiliar politically astute woman, but yeesh, not a fan.  In response to her interruptions, Grayson tried to talk over her but shut down before the end of his point and Meacham paused to refute her assertions.  I had been interested in what they were saying, so I was pleased when Maher barked at her.

 

My least favorite segments are Bill joshing around with his co-bad boys.

 

Disappointing show.

 

************

ETA, forgot to say:  I agree with Ganesh that the deregulation argument is equivalent to the gun argument.  If it's flawed enough to be ineffective straight across the board, scrap it all together?  (I'm so sick of hearing that criminals will always find a way to get guns so we're all safer if there aren't any restrictions on everyone else getting guns, too.) 

Edited January 25, 2016 by candall

[Hanahope]

I think schools need to start having their students read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair again.

[ganesh]

Ugh. I hated that book. But good point. 

 

What's worse about the deregulation argument, which Bill pointed out, was that corporations aren't these benevolent entities. Bill listed a litany of recent stuff, but you can talk about the Pinto case to the Ford case that covers two generations. Same exact thing. It's like the "cut taxes and the businesses will use the money to create jobs." No, it's been clearly shown that they use the money to line their own pockets. 

 

I think it's a much better trade off to live with a some government overreach in exchange for clean air and water. Not to mention that the "innovations" in getting a 55 mpg car is because of federal guidelines in the first place. 

[iMonrey]

 

(I'm so sick of hearing that criminals will always find a way to get guns so we're all safer if there aren't any restrictions on everyone else getting guns, too.)

 

It's like saying criminals don't obey the laws so let's not have any laws at all.

 

I also don't understand Liz Mair's position that we will "adapt and thrive" in climate change. Huh? I've heard this argument before (perhaps from her, I know she's been on the show before) but nobody has ever explained how exactly they think that will work. Do they think evolution will somehow make us immune to draught and extreme heat? Do they think new technologies will counter climate change by cooling the global climate? I don't get what they're after but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of the latter, since it always comes from the "capitalism is best" argument. 

[scrb]

Yeah those conservatives also at the same time dismiss the technological innovations being developed to make renewable energy sources work.

 

So they're not really about innovation unless it's things like fracking.

[ganesh]

And, surprise!, there's no current regulations that require the companies to disclose the ingredients in the fracking solvents. So they don't have to file an environmental impact statement when they go in and frack iirc.

 

I also don't understand Liz Mair's position that we will "adapt and thrive" in climate change.

 

It sounded to me like she was saying we really shouldn't do anything because the pace of innovations will eventually catch up and find a solution. So in the meantime, we have to just hang on. Which is just so unethical and ignorant that she shouldn't be allowed on television ever. 

[Bossa Nova]

Liz Mair. Oh that hair ! (hey I rhymed).

 

She looked dreadful sitting in that middle spot on panel. Almost comical.

 

She looked like a large thick red pencil with a kingsized eraser on her head. 

 

What with that haircut? Did she do it herself at home with a pinking shears?

[GHScorpiosRule]

I think it's a much better trade off to live with a some government overreach in exchange for clean air and water. Not to mention that the "innovations" in getting a 55 mpg car is because of federal guidelines in the first place. 

 

Definition of tone deaf. Bold emphasis mine.

[Qoass]

Heaven help me for defending that fool but I think Mair's point about her car was that she chose to buy a car that gets 55 mph thus proving that the market is capable of figuring out what people want to buy.  As a libertarian I suspect that she'd support a variety of car offerings including ones without seat belts or airbags.

 

But if she's truly a libertarian then wouldn't she have to support rolling back the regulations surrounding reproductive rights?  Will nobody think of the unborn scientists ready to tackle that pesky climate change thing right after private school?

[Hanahope]

What's worse about the deregulation argument, which Bill pointed out, was that corporations aren't these benevolent entities. Bill listed a litany of recent stuff, but you can talk about the Pinto case to the Ford case that covers two generations. Same exact thing. It's like the "cut taxes and the businesses will use the money to create jobs." No, it's been clearly shown that they use the money to line their own pockets.

 

Or using the money to figure out how to get around the regulations.  Hello VW.

[ganesh]

Seriously. VW is flat out criminal. 

[bluepiano]

My post was way too long before, but I have to call massive BS on the "adapting and dealing with climate change and innovation" canard. For anyone working in STEM academics or otherwise, it's widely accepted as unethical to 'wait' to solve any problem, much less climate change.

 

I have actually heard people make the "argument" that we don't need to worry about climate change, or other forms of environmental devastation, because for sure some genius will come along in the future with an invention or scientific breakthrough that will fix everything. To me, that's on a par with evangelicals saying that since God created the earth, only He can destroy or save it. Both are excuses for sitting back and doing nothing.

 

I used to think of Liz Mair as kind of "Ann Coulter Lite." Now she's on TV debating Coulter about Trump and calling herself a "libertarian." I guess it's all part of her rebranding campaign. I was glad Bill finally told her to shut up. She talked over everyone.

 

Like Coulter, she always gives the impression that she considers herself the smartest one in the room, without ever saying anything truly original or insightful. Combined with smug condescension towards anyone who doesn't agree with her. (And she's always had that WTF haircut, at least since I first started seeing her on TV.)

 

In Bill's montage of disasters wrought on us by private business despite the "over-regulation" that Republicans babble about, I wish he'd included the people killed by faulty ignition switches, because GM decided it would be more cost-effective to settle lawsuits than to recall and fix all those cars. To me that's the most under-reported story of the past couple of decades. We know that corporations put profit over safety, but this was a cold blooded decision to let people die. We need protection from big business as badly as we need it from Isis.

Edited January 28, 2016 by bluepiano

[ganesh]

I don't think she's AC because AC is taking whatever fits the narrative of fear to promote her brand. Not that all the others don't, but she just does it the best. Plus, she likes to say outrageous things to rile people up. Because "a bitch got books to sell!"

 

I think LM actually believes much of what she's saying. She's just not a smart person. She's also that guy/woman who always has to have an answer for *everything*. I knew a guy like that who always had something droll to add all the time. It's tiring. She's also that person who will bring up the one unlikely thing(s) that happened as a refutation to someone's point of overwhelming evidence. Even though that doesn't have much to do with the whole issue to begin with. She just doesn't want to put the work in to do the critical thinking.

 

Like how Bill coined the intelligent stupid person. 

 

I don't know her position on the ACA, but it's like when someone says they lost their healthcare coverage so the ACA is a total failure. Well, no. Unfortunately a small number would, but, chances are, with some work, you probably would have found something similar for about the same cost. Not exactly the same! Failure! *eyeroll*

 

In Bill's montage of disasters wrought on us by private business despite the "over-regulation" that Republicans babble about, I wish he'd included the people killed by faulty ignition switches, because GM decided it would be more cost-effective to settle lawsuits than to recall and fix all those cars. To me that's the most under-reported story of the past couple of decades. We know that corporations put profit over safety, but this was a cold blooded decision to let people die. We need protection from big business as badly as we need it from Isis.

 

Bill's piece on regulation was some of his best work. I made the same point about how GM is the same as the Pinto case 40 years ago. Technically, GM needed more ethically minded engineers to stop the problem, but it's still a case where government oversight is needed. 

 

So then LM points out there's been government overreach so we need deregulation. Tell that to Flint. Again, can you live with some overreach sometime in exchange for clean water, or less regulation where the likelihood of that clearly increases. People like that are ridiculous. 

[bluepiano]

When that fertilizer plant in Texas blew up, it was discovered that their last few scheduled government inspections hadn't even been conducted. A tactic that the Republicans have used successfully is to cut funding to regulatory agencies, so they don't have the resources for enforcement. It's an effective tactic, as it doesn't generate the outcry that might take place were they to flat out eliminate regulations. They've done this with the ATF, so  that the few meager federal gun control provisions are rendered ineffective.

 

I agree that Liz Mair is less outrageous than Ann Coulter, but for that reason I also find her less entertaining. Maybe it's the hair, or the voice, but to me she comes across as a snotty sorority girl. And like you said, she needs to comment on EVERYTHING, even when she has nothing to say. Allan Grayson can be full of himself, but he was actually a pretty distinguished and successful lawyer, and even when the conversation turned to legal matters she talked over him.

 

Bill needs to find himself some new conservative panelists. Though I guess it's hard to a) find conservatives who will come on the show; and b) will do something besides endlessly spout Republican talking points.

Edited January 28, 2016 by bluepiano

[AuntieDiane6]

 

And, surprise!, there's no current regulations that require the companies to disclose the ingredients in the fracking solvents. So they don't have to file an environmental impact statement when they go in and frack iirc.

 

That's thanks to Cheney ... who I consider to be the biggest crook in government this century.

 

And dare I say it, the conservatives who want to cut regulations have no problem increasing regulations--many of them pointless--for abortion.  

[ganesh]

My question about that was asked on-air to the EPA chair on PBSNews! They even said my name!