S16.E01: Michael Wolff, Saru Jayaraman, Andrew Sullivan, and Larry Wilmore.

[formerlyfreedom]

Quote

Author Michael Wolff is the top-of-show interview guest. Activist Saru Jayaraman is the mid-show interview guest. The roundtable guests are journalist Andrew Sullivan and comedian Larry Wilmore.

[Broderbits]

I have to disagree most heartily with Andrew Sullivan's assertion that Dems would be shunning MLK because of his faith. Reasonable, thinking people have problems with so-called "Christians" who just want to impose their paternalistic narrow-minded beliefs on everyone else to make themselves feel "blessed" and superior, not with those who are called to help others. He's more or less equating MLK's Christianity with that of the Westboro Baptist church, and that's a very ignorant position to take.

I did agree with the final New Rule. Things are getting a little crazy out there in Movie Star Me Too land, and Gillibrand will never get my vote for anything.

[CatMomma]

Gillibrand was the voice for women who were sexually assaulted in the military.

Why Bill decided that needed to be his focus, while our President is running this country into the ground, I can only guess. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by CatMomma

[navelgazer]

I missed Bill and am so glad he's back.  I wish he'd been on when Gillabrand was on her Lady Godiva high horse.  Maybe Bill would've been able to help save Al Franken and his Senate seat. 

I don't think Andrew Sullivan realized who he was talking to.  Saru Jayaraman is an academic, so her only job is data -- collecting it, analyzing it, theorizing from it.  If you're even marginally intelligent, you should know you can't get into a data debate with an academic in her specialty and have a remote hope of winning. 

[lexytheblasian]

Bill, how I’ve missed you! 

Right out the gate, the monologue had me dyin’.

”Why can’t we do immigration the way I got Melania - by using a catalogue?”

“2018 on the Chinese calendar is the year of the shithole.”

“Trump says even if there is a government shutdown, porn stars still get their hush money.”

To Michel Wolff: Well you have done the impossible, you have made America read again. LOL! Is it just me or is Wolff not a great interviewee? He does well with keeping his story together though, I just attribute it to him not wanting to reveal things in the book. 

I loved when Larry Wilmore said that Trump is “the luckiest guy in the world and he’s got this chip on his shoulder; when will the wealthy white man catch a break in America?” Also laughed when he said, “when Trump is finished being President, America is gonna say #MeToo.” Larry was on it tonight! 

7 hours ago, Broderbits said:

 

I have to disagree most heartily with Andrew Sullivan's assertion that Dems would be shunning MLK because of his faith.

 

Yeah, he was way off. And while Dr. King did mention his religion here and there, I don’t think it was overbearing or drowned out his main message.

Edited January 20, 2018 by lexytheblasian

[attica]

So here's my guess about Wolff's blind item about who Donnie Dollhands is shtupping: ivanka. That would be way more 'incendiary' than any adult film star.

Sully's nose wrinkling over fighting back with the Rs is so precious. This is the fate of the country,  ffs. Fight! And there isn't tipping in the UK. Did he leave there just so he could feel more powerful about 'incentivizing better performance '? Sheesh.

Lord, I miss Larry Wilmore.

I used to be really conflicted about Al Franken's banishment. I liked him and his politics, and I still feel it's  entirely possible some of his accusers  James O'Keeffed him. But then I think of all the really qualified women who are driven out of public life by their unwillingness to put up with 'just' being groped. It's not rape, after all! How dare some white guy lose his job!  Fooey. Now I'm glad a woman has Franken's job. And I'm totally on Gillibrand's side.  Bill's  umbrage about no Rs being held to the same standard would be a surprise, I think, to the dozen (and growing) pols resigning, being thrown out, or losing elections (Roy Moore, Trent Franks, and maybe still Eric Greitens, to name just three). Reckoning is coming for them all. And last, Bill's joke photo with Saget wasn't funny.

[sistermagpie]

11 hours ago, Broderbits said:

I have to disagree most heartily with Andrew Sullivan's assertion that Dems would be shunning MLK because of his faith. Reasonable, thinking people have problems with so-called "Christians" who just want to impose their paternalistic narrow-minded beliefs on everyone else to make themselves feel "blessed" and superior, not with those who are called to help others. He's more or less equating MLK's Christianity with that of the Westboro Baptist church, and that's a very ignorant position to take.

That was a truly pathetic attempt to make the Dems "as bad as" the Republicans. Dr. King was fighting for black people to have the same civil rights and respect as white people, so you can easily see how BLM is the exact same fight. The fact that he happened to be a reverend and that the Civil Rights movement in the 50s/60s was more based in churches than BLM does not mean Dems would mistake him for a right wing evangelical trying to oppress gay people and women. Rev. William Barber seems like an obvious example of the same kind of reverend. He might as well have tried to claim that Dems would reject King today because he used the word "negro" and that's politically incorrect now. I was glad Bill called him out on that.

7 minutes ago, attica said:

I used to be really conflicted about Al Franken's banishment. I liked him and his politics, and I still feel it's  entirely possible some of his accusers  James O'Keeffed him. But then I think of all the really qualified women who are driven out of public life by their unwillingness to put up with 'just' being groped. It's not rape, after all! How dare some white guy lose his job!  Fooey. Now I'm glad a woman has Franken's job. And I'm totally on Gillibrand's side.  Bill's  umbrage about no Rs being held to the same standard would be a surprise, I think, to the dozen (and growing) pols resigning, being thrown out, or losing elections (Roy Moore, Trent Franks, and maybe still Eric Greitens, to name just three). Reckoning is coming for them all. And last, Bill's joke photo with Saget wasn't funny.

Yeah, I think there's a legitimate argument about whether it was better for Franken to resign or not but nobody is saying that patting a butt is the same as rape. They're saying stop using rape as a defense for milder nonsense on the same spectrum. Frankly, I was scared to watch the show with Andrew Sullivan on because didn't he just write like two awful articles about how the MeToo movement has become a witch hunt? I was worried we were in for a whole discussion about how men are biologically wired to get what they want and do what they want and women are attracted to men doing and getting what they want and shouldn't go to their apartment if they're not ready for that.

[iMonrey]

I really didn't understand what point Bill was trying to make in New Rules. It almost seemed like he was trying to defend groping, like he knows there will be women coming forward accusing him of man handling them, which wouldn't surprise me in the least. It really made me cringe.

That said, I think Andrew Sullivan actually made a good point, believe it or not. I want to know how many of these #MeToo women voted for Trump. Because Trump carried the white female demographic by a healthy margin, and Saru's defense of that was "Well, they saw Trump as representing the little guy, and they're disappointed now." Well, then - they're idiots. Anyone who actually thought Trump was the champion of the working class wasn't paying attention and/or was delusional. So any of these women who complain about sexual harassment and then went and voted for Trump can shut right the fuck up.

And I almost see Andrew's side about just giving in and giving Trump his wall, because a.) it will never happen and b.) Democrats can make that a campaign issue: how is he going to pay for it? 

On the other hand, his absurd accusation that Democrats would have criticized MLK because of his religion was laughably pathetic. And in New Rules he made an even dumber comment about how Americans have more freedoms than any other country. I've never understood that myopic viewpoint but apparently what he means is that we don't have government run healthcare and therefor we are more "free." Oh, I get it now. 

I thought the interview with Michael Wolff was pointless and didn't even do a good job of promoting the book. I admit I had to chuckle in Overtime when someone accused him of looking like Dr. Evil, because he kind of does.

[DrivingSideways]

Last night's episode was a real yawn for a 'comeback' show.  Michael Wolff was so boring, and his tease at the end of his segment was weak.  He seems more interested in selling books than focusing on sourcing.  If he has something incendiary to say, publish it clearly in your book.  Anything else is gossip.

It was a strange episode for me, because I don't typically care for Andrew Sullivan and he was the only guest that didn't have me rolling my eyes.  Plenty of Republicans know Trump is an idiot - they just don't care, as long as he is carrying out the agenda.  Sullivan made solid points about immigration that the guests laughed off - the same dismissive way a lot of assumptions were made when Hillary was running and we saw that many Americans are not on board with the Democratic agenda.

I really didn't follow Saru's points, I couldn't nail down her narrative, so correct me if I'm wrong.  People go into waiting tables at whatever point in their career despite the $2.13/hr pay because the tips can drive it up into a $20/hr job or better.  Her connection to this issue seems to be able to have a talking point and tie identity politics into the tipping culture, rather than based on sound economics.  Your mileage may vary but I wasn't buying what she was selling.  For an academic, I found her too emotional and undetailed in her counterpoints to Sullivan.  

Additionally, I usually fast forward New Rules, but Bill was testifying tonight and I was here for it.  I'm further to the right (but not right) than most people on this board so I come at this show from a different perspective, but this was a weak episode for me.

[amsel]

Sullivan kept underestimating the tribalism factor in elections. People usually don't look at economic data objectively, and even some of the data is incomplete. So yeah, there was probably some wage growth in the last year (much of that canceled out by higher healthcare costs in the upcoming months), but that will not be how most people will vote in 2018. People will vote either because they like Trump or they hate Trump. They will vote either because they're part of his tribe or belong some other tribe. And it's amazing that no one pointed out to Sullivan that, even though Trump supposedly recognized the anger surrounding trade and immigration, he lost by 3 million votes. If it wasn't for some strategic blunders by the Clinton campaign along the way, such as campaigning and spending money in states like Arizona and not spending enough time in some mid-western states, he would have lost. And even with those mistakes, had that election been run 100 times, Trump would have lost 95 of them. So he won with the slimmest margin possible winning the right combination of states. The fear mongering by the panel - even by Wilmore - that the economy will somehow give him the victory in 2020 ignores how people decide to vote. It's no longer about economic data - it might have been 20, 25 years ago - now it's about turning out your votes among your tribe. And the Dems have one advantage, which is that they have more potential voters. And since voters care about personalities and the reality show aspect of elections (they lie in polls that the economy matters the most, since saying that makes them feel better), the Dems have to nominate someone with an engaging personality and he/she will defeat Trump easily. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by amsel

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, DrivingSideways said:

It was a strange episode for me, because I don't typically care for Andrew Sullivan and he was the only guest that didn't have me rolling my eyes.  Plenty of Republicans know Trump is an idiot - they just don't care, as long as he is carrying out the agenda.  Sullivan made solid points about immigration that the guests laughed off - the same dismissive way a lot of assumptions were made when Hillary was running and we saw that many Americans are not on board with the Democratic agenda.

Dems are always being advised to make themselves more Republican-lite to woo people who would rather vote for Trump while the Republicans themselves never consider doing anything other than playing to their base and what their base wants--even when they lose the popular vote. I think part of the dismissiveness there is that Trump isn’t really pushing a merit-based immigration policy. He pushes the idea that people from shithole countries in Africa or Haiti come to the US via a lottery system that hand-picks murderers and low-lifes to enter the US to commit crime, steal jobs from white workers (but also not work and just live off welfare), enjoy free heathcare and vote illegally when we ought to be sticking to people from countries like Norway. If you see immigrants as the enemy the Democrats giving in a little bit on that issue isn’t much going to make an impression.

Sullivan was, imo, also disingenuous when he tied stealing a supreme court nomination to the Dems holding firm on protecting both Dreamers and CHIP kids that Republicans had blatantly decided to use as hostages. That is a core value of the party, not a strategic move. Sullivan claims it’s not going to look good if the Dems are seen as valuing Dreamers as much as CHIP kids and framing it as revenge for the supreme court as if this isn’t another ruthless Republican strategy. He’s concern trolling. Anybody who's angry at Dems for not caving on DACA for CHIP and therefore votes for Republicans who intentionally let CHIP expire to use it as leverage isn't just picking the party who didn't screw them over.

1 hour ago, DrivingSideways said:

I really didn't follow Saru's points, I couldn't nail down her narrative, so correct me if I'm wrong.  People go into waiting tables at whatever point in their career despite the $2.13/hr pay because the tips can drive it up into a $20/hr job or better.  Her connection to this issue seems to be able to have a talking point and tie identity politics into the tipping culture, rather than based on sound economics.  Your mileage may vary but I wasn't buying what she was selling.  For an academic, I found her too emotional and undetailed in her counterpoints to Sullivan.  

People take jobs as waitstaff because it’s a job that’s available. I don’t think it’s overly emotional to point out that the payment situation for this one job, which was set up specifically to deprive the workers of rights and good salary, is a bad one that encourages the abuse of employees even to the point where there’s a whole subset of chains that are identified by the sex work aspect of it. I think protecting workers is a very sound economic policy, one that the Republican party is currently very vocally against. As she pointed out, Trump’s now moving to make it even easier for employers to take the tips for themselves too.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I wanted to just stuff a smelly sock into Sullivan’s mouth last night.

And I keep learning that I am not as informed as I thought I was, or maybe 45’s bankrupt intelligence has somehow rubbed off on me because I still don’t know or understand “identity politics.”?

While talking about immigration/DACA, I really thought Bill would bring up Garcia-who had been brought to the US when he was 10, wasn’t a racist, criminal, and who worked and paid taxes, was deported this week, separated from his family, even though he’d been working to get legal status. And based on what his wife, a US citizen said, looks like the lawyer they got to try and help them with this, had scammed them. So he was an example to counter the argument that only the uneducated, poor, unskilled people come to the US, to “mooch” off the US and don’t contribute, as others from Haiti and El Salvador. Joy Reid should have been on to shut Sullivan’s trap.

And I was disappointed in Larry as well. He was so much better the last time he was on, when Malcolm Nance was also on. It was like when talking about Bannon, it was a perfect opportunity to also mention that Alabama chose and voted not for the pedophile, but for the prosecutor who put away the KKK for the murders of Black girls, in spite/despite(?(I never know which one to use)) of 45’s incorrect rhetoric that Jones was “weak on crime,” among others. Most important, that Black WOMEN voters came out to vote.

Sullivan kept talking about how 45’s base got him in-and Bill, again didn’t bring up that it was also Russia’s interference and people who voted for him wasn’t actually a vote for him, but against Hillary (which, what?), etc.

I think I knew what Bill was trying to say in New Rules about the #MeToo movement-that not all sexual harassment, abuse, rapes are all the same, but there is a spectrum, with degrees, but again, he made it about him, and mucked it up, even if he had a few good points. I thought for sure he’d bring up Aziz Ansari, but I’m glad he didn’t.

As for the strong economy? I’d read that this is a result of Obama’s policies, and 45 is taking credit for it. That we’ll see how the economy is in the next year? At this point, I’m so confused.

ETA: Oh YUCK! Rick Nelson is back on next week!

Edited January 20, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[Queena]

Sullivan left a bad residue.. I don't need to see him anytime soon. MLK would be shunned by democrats? Surely, he would put up with the racist overtures that's emanating from the GOP. This isn't to say that there aren't any racist democrats, but if it's a headline about a politician and racism they are more likely to be a republican. MLK, just like other Christians wouldn't have a problem with the DNC. 

Can we get the guy who played Wolf on SNL to do his future interviews? 

I missed Larry Wilmore. 

I forget the ladies name, but I appreciate her for changing my opinion on tips. It is akin to performing. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Queena said:

I forget the ladies name, but I appreciate her for changing my opinion on tips. It is akin to performing.

Saru Jayaraman.

And yeahhh, like Martin Luther King, Jr. would be reviled if he were still alive today.???

[wknt3]

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

 On the other hand, his absurd accusation that Democrats would have criticized MLK because of his religion was laughably pathetic.

Yeah I was a little disappointed that Larry didn't really take him to the woodshed on this one since I'm sure he's aware that importance of the African American church in Democratic politics and how that it's been both good and bad for the larger progressive agenda. And how that it's the Republican party that has been the one demonizing that religious tradition with accusations of those churches busing in fraudulent voters or criticizing their clergy for expressing opinions on issues like police brutality. I expect a shallow response from Bill when this is brought up, but I'm sure Larry is better informed and able to address it in depth.

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I keep learning that I am not as informed as I thought I was, or maybe 45’s bankrupt intelligence has somehow rubbed off on me because I still don’t know or understand “identity politics.”?

It's pretty simple, but you have to be fluent in BS. "Identity politics" as used by Bill means simply "treating issues that don't affect me personally as important matters of principle and talking about them." Most of his guests that use the term mean "politics influenced by an identity other than 'aggrieved white person'." Hope that helps.

[ganesh]

11 hours ago, navelgazer said:

I don't think Andrew Sullivan realized who he was talking to.  Saru Jayaraman is an academic, so her only job is data -- collecting it, analyzing it, theorizing from it.  If you're even marginally intelligent, you should know you can't get into a data debate with an academic in her specialty and have a remote hope of winning. 

I think he was saying in general wages were going up, which may or may not be true. She was specifically saying which segments were not, which is more precise and technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. Part of the problem with much of political discourse like Sullivan is you go around making broad generalizations and that doesn't help anyone. 

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Because Trump carried the white female demographic by a healthy margin, and Saru's defense of that was "Well, they saw Trump as representing the little guy, and they're disappointed now." Well, then - they're idiots. Anyone who actually thought Trump was the champion of the working class wasn't paying attention and/or was delusional.

They're idiots and marks. Bill's most cutting line of the night was "too bad the voters in Wisconsin didn't have the same common sense as a porn star."

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

And I almost see Andrew's side about just giving in and giving Trump his wall, because a.) it will never happen and b.) Democrats can make that a campaign issue: how is he going to pay for it? 

His theory has merit, but I don't see it being a practical political strategy. We've said this a lot here, and I said this yesterday, somehow the gop will have democrats taking the blame for the shutdown because they always control the narrative better. I don't think giving the wall is a practical strategy because that money will go into the budget and ram up the deficit. Voters have short term memories, and giving the wall to get political points later just won't work. I think the main problem in this mess is leadership in congress. The president is an idiot and flips his position by the hour. There's been times in our history when congress was basically leading the government because the presidents were ineffectual. 

I thought Larry made a great point about if you let in immigrants who are poor and become working class, that they're more likely to vote democrat. 

I tend to tip well but I'd rather pay more for the food so they can get a better wage. 

I think Bill could have done a better job on New Rules because he didn't really get to a point.

[ganesh]

Has anyone actually read the book?

[ichbin]

7 hours ago, DrivingSideways said:

I really didn't follow Saru's points, I couldn't nail down her narrative, so correct me if I'm wrong.  People go into waiting tables at whatever point in their career despite the $2.13/hr pay because the tips can drive it up into a $20/hr job or better.  Her connection to this issue seems to be able to have a talking point and tie identity politics into the tipping culture, rather than based on sound economics.  Your mileage may vary but I wasn't buying what she was selling.  For an academic, I found her too emotional and undetailed in her counterpoints to Sullivan.  

I agree.  She made it sound like those jobs are the last vestige of hope for the unemployed.  I know a lot of people who actively sought those types of jobs rather than work elsewhere because the money was better. 

Since the topic of tipping also came up slightly during the show I have a question.  Are restaurant patrons in states like Washington, California, and Oregon where servers make a minimum wage over $10/hr still expected to tip at least 15-20% or more when dining out?   

[ganesh]

I think she was saying that the major chain restaurants were where the problem is because there's so many of them and they aren't places where you're really getting up to $20/hr. She was saying people who work at Denny's are being told to go home and dress in revealing outfits so they can make more tips. You're not making $20/hr in Denny's. Maybe you're working at the Slanted Door in SF? Yes, you probably are doing quite well on any night of the week. 

I have to strenuously object to the use of "too emotional" as an insult to an academic. I'm one and me and many of my friends/colleagues are very passionate and emotional about our work because we sincerely and honestly want to do good for society. 

[Kenz]

1 hour ago, ichbin said:

 

Since the topic of tipping also came up slightly during the show I have a question.  Are restaurant patrons in states like Washington, California, and Oregon where servers make a minimum wage over $10/hr still expected to tip at least 15-20% or more when dining out?   

I live in Oregon, and yes, we are expected to tip 15-20% or more. Oregon has a minimum wage of $10.25 an hour ($11.25 in metro Portland, $10.00 in rural areas), so a server can make a decent wage here.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Kenz

[Victor the Crab]

First show of the year/season, and Bill is in dire need of having his ugly butter face savagely slapped into concussion and his mouth fist blasted of all his teeth. Bill, your "joke" of so-called you groping Bob Saget was lame and not funny, and deserved to be called out on, the way Samantha Bee did on her show. And your whining about so-called political correctness ruining progressives hopes of overcoming Drumph is continuously lame and pathetic. You don't help, you've never helped. You only aid those on the right who continue their support of Drumph wreaking havoc on the nation. If you so hope to see liberals reclaim the mantle of government in November, then YOU GODDAMN SMARTEN THE FUCK UP AND CONCENTRATE ON BEING CONSTRUCTIVELY FUNNY, YOU WHINNY LITTLE BITCH!!! YOU GODDAMN FUCKING UNDERSTAND?!!!!

Edited January 21, 2018 by Victor the Crab

[DrivingSideways]

5 hours ago, ganesh said:

I think she was saying that the major chain restaurants were where the problem is because there's so many of them and they aren't places where you're really getting up to $20/hr. She was saying people who work at Denny's are being told to go home and dress in revealing outfits so they can make more tips. You're not making $20/hr in Denny's. Maybe you're working at the Slanted Door in SF? Yes, you probably are doing quite well on any night of the week. 

I have to strenuously object to the use of "too emotional" as an insult to an academic. I'm one and me and many of my friends/colleagues are very passionate and emotional about our work because we sincerely and honestly want to do good for society. 

I can only speak from my own experience... I waited tables at Chili's 20 yrs ago in college and $20/hr was a slow shift.  My friends all worked in Applebees, Denny's, TGI Fridays, etc. and made similar money.  It wasn't money you would raise a family on, but we had plenty of coworkers that seemed to be able to do that.  Nobody was told to dress more revealingly - but a huge part of waiting tables, especially for women, is flirting.  You don't have to do it, but most girls I knew were able to turn up the charm to get tips.  The guys do this as well.  To think that every interaction in a restaurant, where booze is served and friends gather, is going to be as serious as a bank tellers transaction, is silly.  It would be interesting if Saru conducted some Barbara Ehrenreich style covert ops and actually worked for a while in some of these restaurants firsthand to see the reality.

I guess by too emotional, I mean that, I'm used to academics on this show pushing back with additional facts, statistics and studied counterarguments.  I felt her protestations were more along the lines of "Andrew, COME ON!  Everybody knows that waiting tables is indentured servitude!"  Totally agree to disagree, but she was a weak guest in a weak show, in my opinion.

[BetyBee]

I found Saru to be a wonderful guest and I hope she is on again.  She was very informative and caring.  It's possible that the service industry has changed in 20 years.  Interesting that the $20 an hour plus Driving Sideways speaks of, hasn't.  

Michael Wolffe was boring.  Today I'm reading that the current affair he referred to is Nikki Haley.  I have a hard time believing that.  I would not think of her as his type (Ivanka types are more his style), but maybe his options are limited these days.  

[Tosia]

I found Saru's  data to be totally welcome v. Andrew's vague insistence that he was right.

If there was much emotion, it was because Saru couldn't believe he was naysaying the stats on his "experience" as a diner.  Facts don't seem to matter anymore. :(

Men tend to put down/ ignore women in conversations generally. There is research. Same as men talking more/getting much more lines in a show. And $.  We women knew it, but it's powerful to have data, and Saru has got it in droves.  

I agree that Bill is a butt hurt white guy who just cannot stand that the world is changing,  and not in his favor. 

[27bored]

And I almost see Andrew's side about just giving in and giving Trump his wall, because a.) it will never happen and b.) Democrats can make that a campaign issue: how is he going to pay for it?

I think The Wall is another example of Democrats driving themselves off an ideological cliff. To be clear, I agree with both points -- I doubt it gets built, and it will be very expensive -- to say nothing of disagreement with a wall on ideological grounds. However, Democrats probably know they can't finesse a message of fiscal restraint when they're the party of Obamacare, runaway entitlement spending, and they've ignored the economic burden of illegal immigration for so long. To argue that Trump's idea to actually do something about illegal immigration is a bridge too far fiscally speaking would have even some Democrats rolling their eyes.

I think the better reason to let Trump have his damn wall is because of the political lesson that I've seen play out time and time again: if you want to prove the person in office is a screw-up, sit back and let them screw something up. When Democrats won back Congress in 2006, it was because we had war fatigue. Democrats didn't go to the carpet to stop funding for the war; they simply let Bush have it and let the results play out. Voters got the message and voted for the party who seemed to be against the whole ordeal.

(Of course, the truth is a bit more complicated, since many Democrats actually voted for the initial invasion of Iraq. But optics is what counts in politics. It was never the Democrats' war; it was Bush's.)

Conversely, Republicans made gains in Congress, taking back both chambers, during Obama, in part because of Obamacare. Republicans tried their best to stop it, but at the end of the day, people weren't supportive of Obamacare and they only had Democrats to thank.

So I say Democrats let Trump actually trip over his own dick on the Wall, and just be ready to mutely point to the other side of the aisle when the complaints start.

Re Bill's final New Rule: I have to say, he mentioned Al Franken and how Democrats are the only ones who have to drive down the zero-tolerance highway. Well, that's because Democrats decided a long time ago to be the party of image politics. They're the first ones to pander to women voters, so they get to handle all the baggage that goes along with it. I hated that Al Franken resigned, but I also know that it was the Democrats' sacrifice for going all in on the Roy-Moore-is-a-child-molester and Donald-Trump-grabs-pussy narratives. I'm not drawing a false equivalency, but turnabout is fair play. You can't be all-in on "stories" from "accusers" who have "credible witnesses" when it's a political opponent, but then expect everyone to shrug when there's a photo of your guy groping someone.

[lexytheblasian]

On 1/20/2018 at 11:04 AM, attica said:

Bill's  umbrage about no Rs being held to the same standard would be a surprise, I think, to the dozen (and growing) pols resigning, being thrown out, or losing elections (Roy Moore, Trent Franks, and maybe still Eric Greitens, to name just three). Reckoning is coming for them all. And last, Bill's joke photo with Saget wasn't funny.

I agree with everything you said here! And yeah, I remember when the picture of Bill’s photo with Saget started making the rounds online during his break. I didn’t find it all that funny. Coupled with what he said during New Rules, I interpreted it as him saying that he maybe slapped some behinds in the past and we shouldn’t be surprised if ladies one day come out about it, because, ya know, it’s not rape. I could be wrong. 

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, 27bored said:

I think The Wall is another example of Democrats driving themselves off an ideological cliff. To be clear, I agree with both points -- I doubt it gets built, and it will be very expensive -- to say nothing of disagreement with a wall on ideological grounds. However, Democrats probably know they can't finesse a message of fiscal restraint when they're the party of Obamacare, runaway entitlement spending, and they've ignored the economic burden of illegal immigration for so long. To argue that Trump's idea to actually do something about illegal immigration is a bridge too far fiscally speaking would have even some Democrats rolling their eyes.

But this, again, is Sullivan etc. pretending that this has anything to do with facts when for many people it's about supporting the narrative you want to hear, not the actual practical results of the policies. That's the only way we can be in a situation where the Republicans have the financial record they do and have just passed the tax bill they did and yet the Democrats will still have to "finesse a message of fiscal restraint." His whole argument was based on the premise that these voters would ignore anything Republicans had done to create the problem and blame Democrats. Once again it's about how Democrats must screw over the people who support them a little more in order to chase after these voters who oppose what they stand for (like Civil Rights for everyone).

[iMonrey]

Quote

I think he was saying in general wages were going up, which may or may not be true. She was specifically saying which segments were not, which is more precise and technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. Part of the problem with much of political discourse like Sullivan is you go around making broad generalizations and that doesn't help anyone.

I found Sullivan very disingenuous in playing devil's advocate by saying higher wages and a strong economy will help get Trump reelected. Just because the Dow Jones average is up doesn't mean regular working folk are making more money. I'm surprised Bill didn't bring up the recent tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy and corporations. If Sullivan thinks that's going to help Republicans in the next election he's fooling himself.

Quote

 I agree that Bill is a butt hurt white guy who just cannot stand that the world is changing,  and not in his favor. 

Seriously? I know few celebrities that are as liberal as Bill. While I suspect he's engaged in some unfortunately behavior towards women in the past, I don't think that qualifies him as some "butt hurt white dude." He's vocally in favor of a lot of progressive ideals, and that's the opposing of someone who doesn't want the world to change.

[ganesh]

3 hours ago, BetyBee said:

  Today I'm reading that the current affair he referred to is Nikki Haley.  I have a hard time believing that. 

No way. Plus she's in New York all the time anyway. 

I don't think Bill qualifies as a 'butthurt white dude' in the context that we use here. 

[wknt3]

On 1/20/2018 at 11:55 AM, iMonrey said:

I thought the interview with Michael Wolff was pointless and didn't even do a good job of promoting the book.

Agree strongly about the interview being a waste of time, but I can't disagree more about it not doing a good job of promoting the book. Insinuating that Trump was currently involved in an extramarital affair and saying he couldn't quite prove it but if you read the book closely you can figure it out for yourself was a brilliant marketing ploy. It plays on the prurient curiosity of Bill's audience, got his rather dull, boring interview where he was otherwise just reciting the same talking points exposure and managed to get yet another new round of coverage in all the right places.
 

18 hours ago, ganesh said:

Has anyone actually read the book?

I am reading it right now. Keeping on topic I'd say the interview was a fairly accurate summary of the contents of the book, but lacks the flair and presentation that has made the book such a huge hit. And that the book is a lot like Bill's show currently. Some great presentation, occasional flashes of real insight, a willingness to say outright things that many others dance around,and appeals to many of my biases and inclinations, but it's not as shocking or brave as it would have you believe and there are large portions that, while I believe are correct as far as the broad strokes are concerned, leave much to be desired in terms of intellectual rigor and accuracy in details and presentation.

[ganesh]

I heard that there were factual errors so I was wondering about that. On the other hand, as he said in OT, he's not claiming to be a real journalist either. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I wanted to just stuff a smelly sock into Sullivan’s mouth last night.

The worst was him saying/equating Martin Luther King, Jr. to someone who would be some religious zealot.

And his constant arguing with Jayaraman, insisting the economy was stronger and people are working or whatever, and she was trying to tell him that those in the middle and lower class weren’t and that the pay for some wasn’t going up and was stagnant, I think she said.

I think I knew what Bill was trying to say in New Rules about the #MeToo movement-that not all sexual harassment, abuse, rapes are all the same, but there is a spectrum, with degrees, but again, he made it about him, and mucked it up, even if he had a few good points. 

[lexytheblasian]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I think I knew what Bill was trying to say in New Rules about the #MeToo movement-that not all sexual harassment, abuse, rapes are all the same, but there is a spectrum, with degrees, but again, he made it about him, and mucked it up, even if he had a few good points. 

I think this is what my biggest problem with his New Rules segment was; he kind of made it about him.

[AuntieDiane6]

Quote

First show of the year/season, and Bill is in dire need of having his ugly butter face savagely slapped into concussion and his mouth fist blasted of all his teeth. Bill, your "joke" of so-called you groping Bob Saget was lame and not funny, and deserved to be called out on, the way Samantha Bee did on her show. And your whining about so-called political correctness ruining progressives hopes of overcoming Drumph is continuously lame and pathetic. You don't help, you've never helped. You only aid those on the right who continue their support of Drumph wreaking havoc on the nation. If you so hope to see liberals reclaim the mantle of government in November, then YOU GODDAMN SMARTEN THE FUCK UP AND CONCENTRATE ON BEING CONSTRUCTIVELY FUNNY, YOU WHINNY LITTLE BITCH!!! YOU GODDAMN FUCKING UNDERSTAND?!!!!

I trust this is satire.

[Victor the Crab]

6 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Seriously? I know few celebrities that are as liberal as Bill. While I suspect he's engaged in some unfortunately behavior towards women in the past, I don't think that qualifies him as some "butt hurt white dude." He's vocally in favor of a lot of progressive ideals, and that's the opposing of someone who doesn't want the world to change.

But far too often, we hear Bill whining about how Islam is horrible and so are the people who practice it and how political correctness is ruining society and causing liberals to lose elections. Not to mention other stuff like telling people how to dress in public. He can be every bit the insufferable stick in the mud asshole as the right wingers he attacks. Bill is no help to liberals.

[msrachelj]

On 1/20/2018 at 7:46 PM, ichbin said:

I agree.  She made it sound like those jobs are the last vestige of hope for the unemployed.  I know a lot of people who actively sought those types of jobs rather than work elsewhere because the money was better. 

Since the topic of tipping also came up slightly during the show I have a question.  Are restaurant patrons in states like Washington, California, and Oregon where servers make a minimum wage over $10/hr still expected to tip at least 15-20% or more when dining out?   

i wish they would start getting a minimum wage or better. i hate having to tip. lots of people "serve" other people in their daily shitty jobs , making minimum wage or hardly more and don't get tips. so lets just be done with it. i don't come out making $20 and hour or more and my job sucks and is extremely stressful. same goes for hair salons. 

[MulletorHater]

On 1/19/2018 at 11:13 PM, Broderbits said:

I have to disagree most heartily with Andrew Sullivan's assertion that Dems would be shunning MLK because of his faith. Reasonable, thinking people have problems with so-called "Christians" who just want to impose their paternalistic narrow-minded beliefs on everyone else to make themselves feel "blessed" and superior, not with those who are called to help others. He's more or less equating MLK's Christianity with that of the Westboro Baptist church, and that's a very ignorant position to take.

I did agree with the final New Rule. Things are getting a little crazy out there in Movie Star Me Too land, and Gillibrand will never get my vote for anything.

It's not just ignorant--it's a deliberately obtuse position to take, as Dr. King's sermons during the Civil Rights Era would attest.  Many of those sermons and appeals to those who were determined to deny African Americans the rights they were entitled to as American citizens often came from scriptural references.  Those mass rallies were, in fact, held in black churches because it was the only place where African Americans felt they could gather without molestation.  Plus, the black church was the often seen as the center of African American life.  Claiming that today's Democrats would shun Dr. King because of his faith is one of those bombs [no pun intended] that certain people like to lob out there in an attempt to place Democrats on the wrong side of history.  It also ignores the fact that although Dr. King may have identified as a Republican, the Republican Party of the 1960's is a far cry from what it is today.  Also ignored is that Dr. King's tactics were based on Mahatma Ghandi's--not some religious zealotry.

I'm just glad that Bill straightened Andrew Sullivan out on the ridiculous notion that Democrats are somehow all atheists just because they don't believe in having a magnifying glass up someone's skirt, under their mattress and in their closet.

[ichbin]

On 1/20/2018 at 8:40 PM, Kenz said:

I live in Oregon, and yes, we are expected to tip 15-20% or more. Oregon has a minimum wage of $10.25 an hour ($11.25 in metro Portland, $10.00 in rural areas), so a server can make a decent wage here.

Thanks for responding.  Doesn't sound so decent for the patrons or independent restaurant owners though and most restaurants do not depend on the upper 1% to remain open.  Restaurants more than likely raised prices due to the wage increase.  The 15-20% expected tip also rises accordingly.  So servers there are making at least 25% more per hour in wages before tips (compared to most of the rest of the country where tips would also be included in the minimum) plus an additional 15-20% in tips.   Dining out at a full service restaurant sounds like it can be pricy even at a less than swanky establishment. I don't mind tipping 20%+ where I live knowing that the wait staff depends on tips to make at least minimum wage.  I don't understand why the same tip percentage is still expected in areas where the minimum has been raised to well over the federal minimum wage without factoring in tipping.  Lots of lower paying jobs are a hell of a lot more hard/stressful/dirty/dangerous to do than waiting tables, and those people don't expect tips. I can understand tipping for extra or exceptional service, but not why it is still expected in places like Oregon.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, ichbin said:

 I don't understand why the same tip percentage is still expected in areas where the minimum has been raised to well over the federal minimum wage without factoring in tipping. 

I think the tipping thing is just cultural at this point. As Sullivan was saying on the show, for many people the point of tipping is rewarding the waiter for good service. They don't think of themselves as keeping the server out of poverty. So they keep tipping--but expected isn't required. If somebody feels like the rise in wage means they don't have to tip, the waiter will probably take that much better than they would if the base wage wasn't there. As a customer it really doesn't make any difference to me since I'm already only going to restaurants I can afford and I'm tipping anyway.

At this point I'm a bit skeptical of owners always claiming they need to raise prices in order to pay their staff a living wage, since as far as I'm concerned if they're not doing that they're exploiting them. Seems like owners sometimes use "have to raise prices" as a threat when they could just take less money for themselves.

[b2H]

On 1/20/2018 at 4:16 PM, ganesh said:

Bill's most cutting line of the night was "too bad the voters in Wisconsin didn't have the same common sense as a porn star."

But we did have that common sense.  Last week, my district in Wisconsin that went some 30 points for Trump last year voted a Democratic representative to Madison by a margin of 14 points in a backfill seat that just continued the blue wave.

We had that sense, a little late, but better late than never.

[msrachelj]

11 hours ago, ichbin said:

Thanks for responding.  Doesn't sound so decent for the patrons or independent restaurant owners though and most restaurants do not depend on the upper 1% to remain open.  Restaurants more than likely raised prices due to the wage increase.  The 15-20% expected tip also rises accordingly.  So servers there are making at least 25% more per hour in wages before tips (compared to most of the rest of the country where tips would also be included in the minimum) plus an additional 15-20% in tips.   Dining out at a full service restaurant sounds like it can be pricy even at a less than swanky establishment. I don't mind tipping 20%+ where I live knowing that the wait staff depends on tips to make at least minimum wage.  I don't understand why the same tip percentage is still expected in areas where the minimum has been raised to well over the federal minimum wage without factoring in tipping.  Lots of lower paying jobs are a hell of a lot more hard/stressful/dirty/dangerous to do than waiting tables, and those people don't expect tips. I can understand tipping for extra or exceptional service, but not why it is still expected in places like Oregon.

yes , yes, yes. i have had jobs where i did not make as much as the waiters are now. why should i tip them? no one tipped me! and it's not like i'm talking about going to a very expensive dinner, although, if someone making low wages wants to splurge once in a while and can save to do, they damn well should. this is ludicrous.  i would be really pissed off if i had to tip someone making more or slightly less than i was. 

[Hanahope]

On 1/22/2018 at 7:13 AM, msrachelj said:

i wish they would start getting a minimum wage or better. i hate having to tip. lots of people "serve" other people in their daily shitty jobs , making minimum wage or hardly more and don't get tips. so lets just be done with it. i don't come out making $20 and hour or more and my job sucks and is extremely stressful. same goes for hair salons. 

So many places these days are putting out tip jars.  I see them all over the place, even at places where its very likely the employees are making at least minimum wage.  But they still want you to tip them.

[Queena]

On 1/21/2018 at 0:49 AM, DrivingSideways said:

I can only speak from my own experience... I waited tables at Chili's 20 yrs ago in college and $20/hr was a slow shift.  My friends all worked in Applebees, Denny's, TGI Fridays, etc. and made similar money.  It wasn't money you would raise a family on, but we had plenty of coworkers that seemed to be able to do that.  Nobody was told to dress more revealingly - but a huge part of waiting tables, especially for women, is flirting.  You don't have to do it, but most girls I knew were able to turn up the charm to get tips.  The guys do this as well.  To think that every interaction in a restaurant, where booze is served and friends gather, is going to be as serious as a bank tellers transaction, is silly.  It would be interesting if Saru conducted some Barbara Ehrenreich style covert ops and actually worked for a while in some of these restaurants firsthand to see the reality.

I guess by too emotional, I mean that, I'm used to academics on this show pushing back with additional facts, statistics and studied counterarguments.  I felt her protestations were more along the lines of "Andrew, COME ON!  Everybody knows that waiting tables is indentured servitude!"  Totally agree to disagree, but she was a weak guest in a weak show, in my opinion.

How does race effect tips? There's a myth that Black people don't tip. Black servers are often not given tips, or even given less than their counterparts. A friend of mine used to sometimes get less of a tip than the busboy. There's also budboys, tips often have to be split with them. $20 and an becomes $10. 

On 1/21/2018 at 7:35 AM, BetyBee said:

I found Saru to be a wonderful guest and I hope she is on again.  She was very informative and caring.  It's possible that the service industry has changed in 20 years.  Interesting that the $20 an hour plus Driving Sideways speaks of, hasn't.  

Michael Wolffe was boring.  Today I'm reading that the current affair he referred to is Nikki Haley.  I have a hard time believing that.  I would not think of her as his type (Ivanka types are more his style), but maybe his options are limited these days.  

I think that it's Hope Hicks. 

[ganesh]

12 hours ago, Hanahope said:

So many places these days are putting out tip jars.  I see them all over the place, even at places where its very likely the employees are making at least minimum wage.  But they still want you to tip them.

That, I'm not doing. If we're sitting down, and someone is coming to our table to deliver food and/or drinks, I will tip well. I tip well at bars that I frequent too. 

 

3 hours ago, Queena said:

I think that it's Hope Hicks.

I couldn't remember the name. I totally would buy this. She was the replacement for Mooch, and that's why she's not in the public eye. Good call. 

[Queena]

On 1/22/2018 at 9:23 AM, MulletorHater said:

It's not just ignorant--it's a deliberately obtuse position to take, as Dr. King's sermons during the Civil Rights Era would attest.  Many of those sermons and appeals to those who were determined to deny African Americans the rights they were entitled to as American citizens often came from scriptural references.  Those mass rallies were, in fact, held in black churches because it was the only place where African Americans felt they could gather without molestation.  Plus, the black church was the often seen as the center of African American life.  Claiming that today's Democrats would shun Dr. King because of his faith is one of those bombs [no pun intended] that certain people like to lob out there in an attempt to place Democrats on the wrong side of history.  It also ignores the fact that although Dr. King may have identified as a Republican, the Republican Party of the 1960's is a far cry from what it is today.  Also ignored is that Dr. King's tactics were based on Mahatma Ghandi's--not some religious zealotry.

I'm just glad that Bill straightened Andrew Sullivan out on the ridiculous notion that Democrats are somehow all atheists just because they don't believe in having a magnifying glass up someone's skirt, under their mattress and in their closet.

Remember, before Dr. King died, he started what was basically a poor people's movement. He was pointing out to poor Black's and White's how the rich and politicians use race to keep us apart. They say that it scared a lot of people in power and politics. 

 

Frankly, the world would probably be a better place if we remembered that. I do believe that the rich keep the poor divided with race and race issues. 

 

Andrew Sullivan must have been sick, he almost made no sense at all. MLK wouldn't feel at home in the democratic party. Maybe he just felt like being contrary. 

[msrachelj]

19 hours ago, Hanahope said:

So many places these days are putting out tip jars.  I see them all over the place, even at places where its very likely the employees are making at least minimum wage.  But they still want you to tip them.

also annoying, isn't it? i just ignore them.