S15.E34: Donna Brazile, Sarah Silverman, Chris Matthews, and Michael Moore

[GHScorpiosRule]

Quote

Political strategist Donna Brazile is the top-of-show interview guest.  Political Commentator  Chris Matthews, Documentary Filmmaker Michael Moore, Comedian Sarah Silverman (mid-show guest).

Edited November 16, 2017 by saoirse

[navelgazer]

That was fun.  They were all almost giddy with the thumping the Democrats gave the Republicans last Tuesday.  As Steve Schmidt said, "A coalition of the decent rose up."   I think they were entitled to their schadenfreude as they watched the Republicans make excuses for supporting the pedophile they have running for the US Senate. 

[Caseysgirl]

I'm not usually a Sarah Silverman fan but she made more sense than anyone on the opposite side of Trump has made in a while. I hope this energy continues and that we all realize that we cannot be complacent and take  democracy for granted.

[UYI]

Did anyone watch Overtime yet? Michael More's story at the end touched me so much. I won't talk about it yet; you need to see it for yourself. :)

[DrivingSideways]

Bill was really bugging me today.  The whole point of Sarah's documentary was that in order to change hearts, you have to have an open mind, make a connection with people, and then work together.  Similar ground that Michael Moore has tilled in the past.  Yet Bill keeps interrupting her and shouting "WHY ARE THEY SO STUPID??  FACTS FACTS FACTS!!"  There are 'facts' the left won't admit either.  I like to watch viewpoints that differ than my own and shows like Sarah's really appeal to me.  I wish Bill would be quiet and let his guests talk.

On a side note, not having been familiar with Donna Brazile beyond what I've read in papers, she was kind of fun.  She and Bill seemed to have a genuine affection for each other.  No comment on her book or motivations for writing it, but I enjoyed her segment.

Edited November 11, 2017 by DrivingSideways

[iMonrey]

Quote

The whole point of Sarah's documentary was that in order to change hearts, you have to have an open mind, make a connection with people, and then work together.  Similar ground that Michael Moore has tilled in the past.  Yet Bill keeps interrupting her and shouting "WHY ARE THEY SO STUPID??  FACTS FACTS FACTS!!"

There's a contradiction here though because on one hand they keep saying "we have to reach out to so-and-so in the rural areas" and then in the next minute they concede that there is no point in trying to flip Trump supporters. I tend to agree with the latter. You cannot reason with unreasonable people. Facts no longer matter to them. What Sarah almost seemed to be saying was you have to trick them by appealing to their feelings instead of their brains.

Also, Chris Matthews brought up this whole "deplorables" comment again, insinuating that Clinton insulted "white working class men." Again with this. White working class? Is that code for redneck? I mean, technically, anyone who works is "working class." Right wing pundits came up with this "white working class" buzz word as if to normalize their racist followers. Oh, no, they're not racist, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing rednecks hillbillies . . . they're "working class." Uh huh.

Admittedly, Clinton should never have said that, but once she did, she should have owned it, and stood by her position that she was referring specifically to racists, and that racists are deplorable. There's no need to glad handle racists and sugar coat them by calling them "white working class." GMAFB.

[ganesh]

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I tend to agree with the latter. You cannot reason with unreasonable people. Facts no longer matter to them. What Sarah almost seemed to be saying was you have to trick them by appealing to their feelings instead of their brains.

Good for Sarah for trying, but no. They feel butthurt that they aren't more successful than they are because they think they should be handed a great job for nothing. They're scared because the guy in the White House didn't look like them and the country did just fine. They look back to a past with rose colored glasses that didn't exist. Let them live there and wallow in their misery while everyone else tries to do better for everyone. Sarah did a piece on this on her new show and it convinced me even more that we shouldn't even bother with these people. 

We've been saying that the main goal should be to get the nonvoters out to vote. And this actually happened in this past election, *especially* with voters under 28. 

While I certainly think Donna Brazile has the right to publish a book about the election, and she is in a singular position to offer a very particular point of view, I found the interview to be a lot of hot air. Bill asked if she had the power to remove the nominee and she just blathered on about "magical powers". 

I agree that Clinton stumbling because she was actually sick was bad "optics" (I hate that word), but calling it a shocking collapse is ridiculously hyperbolic.

I think Bill got the description of Sarah's piece in Louisiana mostly wrong. One of them was ok with marriage equality. The others weren't iirc. He was correct about the health insurance: the woman said she got her healthcare from "the government" but didn't know it was ACA. She also didn't believe Obama was a US citizen. What can you do with that?

(To be fair, the rest of the family told her to shut up.)

He also didn't talk about how the 10 y/o got his gun taken away because he shot at some girl. 

"Making people feel stupid with true things" isn't going to work. She's right. However, after watching the piece, they aren't going to change, so I would question what she got out of it. I don't think it's making people feel stupid to ask, if you're getting health care from the ACA, then why did you vote for the person who wants to take it away?

She really only asked superficial questions. And I get you can't harp on them, but I'd rather see more energy going into visiting people who voted for the moron Jill Stein or not voted at all. 

I'd encourage the regulars here to watch this piece. It's on Hulu. Because it covers just about everything we've been discussing. 

Edited November 11, 2017 by ganesh

[attica]

I think Bill and Sarah and Chris and Michael are all overlooking the single factor in making that sector of population unreachable by facts: Fox news (and RW talk radio). With a steady stream of 'libruls are evil', what kumbaya effort could hope to succeed? There's no room in their narrative for facts. All of Sarah's love for her fellow man may work, but only to the extent that they'll exempt an individual from their ire for the group.  We gotta figure out Fox.

[Gemma Violet]

I went right over to Youtube and watched the Sarah Silverman episode they discussed and it gave me hope for the future.  Sitting down and talking to each other respectfully is so much more productive than shouting each other down.  I'm intrigued with Sarah's show and I want to see more.

[meowmommy]

5 hours ago, ganesh said:

While I certainly think Donna Brazile has the right to publish a book about the election, and she is in a singular position to offer a very particular point of view, I found the interview to be a lot of hot air. Bill asked if she had the power to remove the nominee and she just blathered on about "magical powers". 

Her singular purpose right now is to handwave her own responsibility for last year's election results and to sell her book.  I find her nauseating.

6 hours ago, UYI said:

Did anyone watch Overtime yet? Michael More's story at the end touched me so much.

Really surprised I'd never heard that story before.  Seems it ought to be the lead-in for any conversation Michael Moore has with voters.

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Also, Chris Matthews brought up this whole "deplorables" comment again, insinuating that Clinton insulted "white working class men." Again with this. White working class?  Is that code for redneck? I mean, technically, anyone who works is "working class."

Am thoroughly sick of identity politics.  I read a comment on a message board elsewhere that basically said, old and white, bad, female and educated, good.  To which I said I'm old, white, female and educated, so WTF does that make me?  We vote what's in our hearts, not what's in our demographic.  "Working class" is generally a substitution for blue collar; i.e., tradesmen, manufacturing, and unskilled labor.  And I'm pretty sure that HRC wasn't just saying men could be deplorable; women can do a fine job as racists as well.

Chris Matthews is so used to talking over his guests when he's hosting that he just doesn't know what to do as a guest himself who doesn't control the flow of talk.  His appearance on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert was beyond strange.

[amsel]

Chris Matthews imagines a world that cannot exist. Even though the 1960s were a turbulent time and there were many divisions within society, facts mattered a lot more than they do now and the power of the media was nowhere to where it is now. Tribalism dictates a lot of what we do, and we don't even realize it. Where we shop, what music we listen to, what books we read, who our friends are, etc. Tribalism was important back then, too, but everything is intensified these days. So yeah, it would be great if black and white working class people came together and voted only according to their economic interests, but things are a lot more complicated than that. Chris Matthews worships certain political personalities of the past - the Kennedys, Churchill, and some obscure ones like Ed Muskie - so in order to legitimize their greatness and glory, he brings up RFK, for instance, and says how he brought together certain groups of people and why can't we do the same today? For someone so informed on politics, he is also very naive. Or maybe he's just trying to sell his book. 

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, attica said:

There's no room in their narrative for facts.

And that was abundantly clear in Sarah's piece that they were talking about on the show. 

54 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Her singular purpose right now is to handwave her own responsibility for last year's election results and to sell her book. 

I think that's a fair conclusion from the interview. I found their conversation severely lacking in any substance. 

[candall]

Amazon should feature Brazile's book as "Frequently Purchased Together" with a tiny MAGA hat Christmas ornament.  I was hoping Maher would make her squirm a little, but no.   I love you so much.  I love you more.  Yay for saying motherfucker on TV!  Boo for political correctness.  

 

It's a shame the rare unapologetic Dem episode had to feature Chris Matthews instead of Hayes, Melber, Maddow, O'Donnell.  Sell sell sell that Bobby Kennedy book, Chris.  I've now heard five or six times about the funeral cortege with the half-naked white kids and the negro spirituals.  That nostalgia could hardly be less relevant on a show called Real Time.

 

Not a fan of Sarah Silverman's standup routine, but I'm always impressed when she speaks thoughtfully.  I'd never heard of her show, but she brought a perspective to the discussion that wasn't there otherwise.  My favorite guests are the ones trying to achieve the same goals as Maher, with more tactical sense than Godzilla stomping down Tokyo.  Silverman and Michael Moore made it a net thumbs-up show, for me.

[iMonrey]

I laughed in spite of myself at the joke about the mushrooms growing in the folds of Sam Clovis's neck. Good grief - I bring this up all the time but why are all these right winger appointees and talking heads always old white men with big fat double chins?

[Milburn Stone]

On 11/11/2017 at 10:58 AM, iMonrey said:

There's a contradiction here though because on one hand they keep saying "we have to reach out to so-and-so in the rural areas" and then in the next minute they concede that there is no point in trying to flip Trump supporters. I tend to agree with the latter. You cannot reason with unreasonable people. Facts no longer matter to them. What Sarah almost seemed to be saying was you have to trick them by appealing to their feelings instead of their brains.

I think you've identified the contradiction well. The Silverman/Moore position might be paraphrased like so: We have to love and respect them for who they are, in order to change them. Well, no. If you love and respect them for who they are, that means not wanting them to be different. That's what true love and respect are--the acceptance of another for who they are, not who you want them to be. If you want them to be different, you don't love and respect them, you love and respect some idea in your head of who you want them to change into, in order that you might accomplish the change for the country you seek. Personally, I want every Trump voter to be different, so I wish the "love and respect" crowd could just admit the same thing, and dispense with the "understanding them for who they are" ruse. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[charmed1]

The only question I wanted Bill to ask Donna Brazil was, "Why not Wednesday?" I'm not opposed to her releasing her book, but why right before the election? 

Chris Matthews has always annoyed me. I find him patronizing and I hate the way he's always referred to President Obama by his first name.

Edited November 15, 2017 by charmed1

[Sheenieb]

I had to take breaks while watching this because I'm forever annoyed by the "let's talk to each other" spiel. To quote Deon Sanders, "they told me to take the high road, but I don't know the address."

Why is the onus on progressives to talk to Trump supporters? I'm not aware of any of them going into liberal cities to get to know the other side. 

I didn't even bother watching Donna "a bitch gots books to sell" Brazile. 

What Michael Moore said about voters showing up when Democrats run "the right candidates" shows that he still doesn't get it. This quest for 'right' or 'perfect' will be our downfall if we keep it up. 

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, Sheenieb said:

Why is the onus on progressives to talk to Trump supporters? I'm not aware of any of them going into liberal cities to get to know the other side.

Bill and Sarah were trying to think of any conservative comedians that might have but they couldn't come up with any. I don't think there have been. 

The thing is, Sarah's piece on her show, which they talked about here, is reflective of just about all the pieces like this I've seen. These are uninformed people who are voting against their own interests. Granted, they didn't seem like hateful or mean people, and I guess that was her takeaway, but so what? 

I guess it's good to know that there are people like this for real, so we are all encouraged to get more people to vote, so they're vote won't count as much. 

[meowmommy]

9 hours ago, charmed1 said:

Chris Matthews has always annoyed me. I find him patronizing and I hate the way he's always referred to President Obama by his first name.

David Cay Johnston always refers to 45 as Donald, and it's done quite deliberately to show lack of respect.  As for CM, for me that's the least of his offenses.  He's just so busy butting in to get his next point across that he not only doesn't let his guests finish their answers, he doesn't bother to listen to what they've actually said.  How he gets people booked for his show I cannot imagine.  And it's obvious that he's only making the talk show circuit to plug his RFK book.  Damn, there are a lot of people trying to sell books these days.  Good thing I decided to become illiterate...

[attica]

21 hours ago, ganesh said:

These are uninformed people who are voting against their own interests.

Except they're not, really. 'Their interests' just aren't what we think they ought to be. Sure, they're assuring economic pitfalls to themselves (and environmental morass for everybody), but on the other hand, they're fighting godlessness, gays, gun-taking-away, abortions, and the immigrant scourge. Those are the 'interests' that they're supporting with their votes. They don't believe lefties -- or anyone -- will really help with the economy, not really, so why not fight what they hate? I keep going back to Timothy Snyder, when he was on the show several months back (S 15 Ep 9), and his assessment that these voters were voting against the things they hate rather than for the things they want.  And we gotta figure out how to lessen the 24-7 Hate Message Factories in order to break through.

Edited November 16, 2017 by attica

[Hanahope]

23 hours ago, ganesh said:

These are uninformed people who are voting against their own interests.

They are voting against their direct economic interests.  But they are voting for their interests in guns, religion, and a perceived indirect economic interest against immigrants.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, attica said:

They don't believe lefties -- or anyone -- will really help with the economy, not really, so why not fight what they hate?

That reminded me of the other Republican talking point CM brought up--the idea that Obama condescendingly dismissed them as clinging to their God and guns without pointing out that Obama was actually correctly describing exactly this. But he thinks if Obama just hadn't been caught saying that that way they'd totally be voting Democrat!

[ganesh]

3 hours ago, attica said:

 I keep going back to Timothy Snyder, when he was on the show several months back (S 15 Ep 9), and his assessment that these voters were voting against the things they hate rather than for the things they want. 

Ok, but they're still voting for people who want to take away their healthcare. The vote for people who will cut taxes for the super rich and stick them with the bill. The woman in the piece that Sarah was talking about was on ACA and the other two were on medicare because of the expansion. In both povs, they're just uninformed and because so many people don't vote, they're ruining it for all of us. 

So, ok, they're voting against their economic interests, but isn't it about jobs and the economy every election? 

The bottom line being, what exactly do we expect to get out of Sarah's piece and all the others about these people? 

Edited November 16, 2017 by ganesh