S17.E08: Andrew McCabe, Andrew Gillum, John Heilemann, Jon Tester, and Jessica Yellin

[Guest]

Quote

Andrew McCabe, Andrew Gillum, John Heilemann, Jon Tester, and Jessica Yellin

[Paws]

Once again, just one woman. 5 men.  There were more guys named Andrew than there were women. More guys named Jo(h)n than there were women.  For someone who’s allegedly progressive Bill sucks at representation.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Paws

[CaliCheeseSucks]

Ugh. An entire New Rule about how brave conservatives are for coming on Real Time - when that's not even comparable to the reason Democrats object to Fox News hosting a Presidential Debate. Did Bill even mention Jane Mayer's article? 

[HelenBaby]

1 hour ago, CaliCheeseSucks said:

Ugh. An entire New Rule about how brave conservatives are for coming on Real Time - when that's not even comparable to the reason Democrats object to Fox News hosting a Presidential Debate. Did Bill even mention Jane Mayer's article? 

Yes, I think I might finally be done with Maher. Fox does not have the average person’s best interest in their business model. Having a debate of  Democratic Party candidates will not sway any of their viewers. Plus, the resulting video of this debate would be twisted to fit their agenda anytime they choose to retrieve it. 

I did enjoy the interview with McCabe though.

[Victor the Crab]

The way Bill talks about a Fox News hosted Democratic presidential debate, you'd think he believes it would be moderated with a panel consisting of Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, and Tucker Carlson.

Bill is so out to lunch on his New Rules sermon. First, right wingers aren't "brave" for coming on his show because it gives them a chance to overpower the discussion and spout their talking points bullshit to Bill's panel and his audience, for which Bill hardly admonishes them for and usually comforts them, like he did with the late Andrew Breitbart, who was one of the faces on Bill's rogue's gallery of repulsive right wingers.

And second, Fox News' brainwashed audience isn't going to have a "Come to Jesus" moment if a Democrat is on making their case for whatever issues they bring up. They've already made their conclusions before hand, and no force of nature is going to sway their beliefs. And, depending on who's conducting the interview, it'll just turn into another shoutfest, with the Democrat/liberal looking like the loser.

There could be a better way to discuss why it would be a good idea for the Democratic party to allow Fox News to host a debate. But Bill, as usual, just loves the smell of his own farts. Which is no surprise, considering his head is stuck up his ass most of the time.

[UYI]

The role of John Heilemann will be played tonight by Paul Shaffer.

He had some good points and I'm glad he was there, but that distracted me SO MUCH. 

I also thought it was cute during Overtime when Jessica Yellin felt uncomfortable using the word "fucking" because of her media training, even though the show's on HBO. I feel the same sometimes in similar situations, even though I'm not on TV, lol. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by UYI

[sistermagpie]

32 minutes ago, Victor the Crab said:

Bill is so out to lunch on his New Rules sermon. First, right wingers aren't "brave" for coming on his show because it gives them a chance to overpower the discussion and spout their talking points bullshit to Bill's panel and his audience, for which Bill hardly admonishes them for and usually comforts them, like he did with the late Andrew Breitbart, who was one of the faces on Bill's rogue's gallery of repulsive right wingers.

He still doesn't get that conservatives come on TV to do something different than progressives do. People come on Rachel Maddow because that's where they'd have a conversation where they can explain a subject and give their thoughts on it. They'd be fine being questioned by a conservative person asking genuine questions and bringing up relevant issues.

Conservatives on Bill Maher's show don't care who they're talking to because they're just there to repeat their talking points. He'll ask them a reasonable question and they'll just pretend the answer to it is a talking point. Then they get clips of themselves shouting over people etc. The audience not liking them is part of the appeal. I remember one time Ann Coulter was on doing her usual racist schtick and the audience was just ignoring her and she kept turning to them to encourage them to react more or pretending they'd boo'd when they hadn't.

A person who actually has an issue to talk about knows there's no point talking about it there. Unless, of course, you do like the Dutch Historian did and make your own video to try to get around Tucker cutting your mike, cutting your sound and cutting you off.

People probably *are* swayed by clips of conservatives on his show. Fox does its best to make sure the same wouldn't happen on their big shows.

[ganesh]

The interview with McCabe was good though. Bill actually seemed to have practiced. 

What I really love about the snowflake maga app is that it was so poorly coded that some kid hacked it and got all the user data in like 5 minutes. 

I'm all for legal weed and I don't even smoke, but that's like 57th on my list of issues. 

I'm surprised Bill was so sensible on impeachment. Pelosi is right. Unless there's a smoking gun there's nothing to talk about. Focus on 2020.

Edited March 16, 2019 by ganesh

[iMonrey]

I couldn't disagree more with Bill regarding Fox News and the primary debates. (I think I heard somewhere they haven't hosted one since 2004 or something anyway - they're just promoting this thing for all it's worth because it services their agenda of demonizing the Democratic party.) But this much is certain, if Bill thinks it makes the Democratic party look "weak" they cannot backtrack it now and allow Fox to host. That looks weak. It's ironic that Bill doesn't see how piling on the criticism of the party's decision just helps the Republican talking points.

I also thought he was missing an obvious point when he was railing against the loss of corporal punishment. He talked about how it was normal for kids to get spanked and hit with a belt when he was a kid and wonders why parents don't do that anymore? Maybe it's because the kids who got spanked and hit grew up and had kids of their own and decided they would never do that to their own kids. I agree parents seem to do far too much coddling these days but I don't think the belt is the answer.

I also think Bill was odd man out discussing whether being a white man was a detriment to Beto or a worked in his favor - I was glad to see the panel and Andrew Gillum all disagreeing with him. But I think they all kind of missed an obvious point, or deliberately avoided the elephant in the room. Two white guys running for President can cause the sort of indifference in voters that results in too many of them staying home on election day. All the panel and Gillum agreed the candidate needs to excite new voters and younger voters and I'm glad they didn't buy into Bill's pessimism. 

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

I couldn't disagree more with Bill regarding Fox News and the primary debates. (I think I heard somewhere they haven't hosted one since 2004 or something anyway - they're just promoting this thing for all it's worth because it services their agenda of demonizing the Democratic party.) But this much is certain, if Bill thinks it makes the Democratic party look "weak" they cannot backtrack it now and allow Fox to host. That looks weak. It's ironic that Bill doesn't see how piling on the criticism of the party's decision just helps the Republican talking points.

I sort of disagree with you.  I agree with Bill that the DNC should not have made a big announcement that they would not show up on Faux Noise, after the Jane Mayer article.  Given that FNC hadn't hosted a Democratic debate in years, they could have just let well enough alone.  They were trying to make a big point and I think it fell flat.  The times I have seen Tom Perez interviewed on TV, I've not been impressed.  He doesn't do well when he's challenged, and perhaps he projected that onto his candidates.  

I agree with you, however, that to change their minds now would make them look weak.  Although they could spin it that it makes them look gracious.

4 hours ago, Victor the Crab said:

Bill is so out to lunch on his New Rules sermon. First, right wingers aren't "brave" for coming on his show because it gives them a chance to overpower the discussion and spout their talking points bullshit to Bill's panel

I want to see the list of right wingers who routinely show up on MSNBC.  I can't think of any.  Pretty much any Republicans there are never-Trumpers like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Michael Steele.  CNN has a house stock of right-wingers.  

[Moxie Cat]

5 hours ago, UYI said:

The role of John Heilemann will be played tonight by Paul Shaffer.

He had some good points and I'm glad he was there, but that distracted me SO MUCH. 

I know! What was up with those glasses? I love John Heilemann and am always glad to see him, but I have never seen him look like this, not even on The Circus (for which he dresses casually most of the time). Scarborough would never let him hear the end of it if he wore those glasses on Morning Joe. Did he lose a bet or was he trying (and failing) to look cool?

[wknt3]

9 hours ago, Victor the Crab said:

Bill is so out to lunch on his New Rules sermon. First, right wingers aren't "brave" for coming on his show because it gives them a chance to overpower the discussion and spout their talking points bullshit to Bill's panel and his audience, for which Bill hardly admonishes them for and usually comforts them, like he did with the late Andrew Breitbart, who was one of the faces on Bill's rogue's gallery of repulsive right wingers.

Yeah he really seems to have begun to believe his own BS that he is some sort of tough intellectually rigorous interviewer. Instead of the truth - he is pretty much the media equivalent of batting practice for right wing pundits. He doesn't do the reading, he doesn't ask the toughest questions and until Milogate he had pretty much given up on any sort of push back or follow up questions. It's ridiculously easy for anyone with an ounce of ability and media training to recite their talking points and then filibuster their way through and run out the clock. And it's not like it's hard to figure out how to play to Bill's vanity or his pet issues and get him to endorse your views even if he doesn't really agree with you. Especially since appealing to obnoxious rich white guys who long for the good old days and resent cultural change is pretty much the job description for conservative talking head. To be fair appearing on panel is a little risky since you do have to worry about the other guests and if's a week Bill doesn't feel like moderating you can get your ass handed to you by a Dan Savage or a Malcolm Nance, but it's not like their core audience is going to see it and affect their career too much anyways as long as they don't do anything too drastically stupid.

[crookedjackson44]

Milogate?  Remember, that was only about a year ago.  Good panel, bad Maher, as usual.  He is truly a bloviator.  McCabe may someday get a medal for his work.  As for Maher, let him go back to Cannibal Women …, when his acting was better.

[Iguana]

Oh, Bill. You’re such a legend in your own mind. This is hardly Frost/Nixon. The Republicans that are willing to come on your show are selling something, whether it’s a book, a talking point or themselves. They know you don’t do tough questions  (which is okay since you’re not a journalist) and they can talk over the panel most times without you stopping them.  They aren’t brave, they’re just shills. 

But I think he’s right about the DNC making a mistake in not having a primary debate on Fox. It makes them look like they either don’t give  a shit about those viewers or that they’re too scared to face a less than friendly audience. Not a good call

[ganesh]

34 minutes ago, Iguana said:

This is hardly Frost/Nixon. The Republicans that are willing to come on your show are selling something, whether it’s a book, a talking point or themselves.

I mean, really. "A bitch got books to sell (it's not like your ass is getting a job)." They aren't going on this show to "reach a different audience"; it's branding. Look at last week with Schlep or whatever he is. He went on and did his deal, Bill pointed out that nothing he said had a basis in objective reality, he kept on, that was it. We learned nothing, and it wasn't entertaining. At least when there's someone on like Steele he can say something about something. 

Bill, like many times, fails to grasp nuance. The question is how do public officials engage the public? Gillum had to go on Fox News; he's being smart about who the voters are. Gavin Newsome has literally no need. Maybe Stacy Abrams should have. I don't know if she did or not. Literally every knows the network was created to never be news. There was a report that came out about the conflict of interest with the network and the administration. 

For me, honestly, I wouldn't participate in a debate unless PBS moderated. Judy, Lisa, Hari or gtfo. That's it. 

Agreeing to the debates on Fox is kind of a lose-lose. The problem is when Fox News did a debate last year it was strictly for ratings, with gotcha questions and nothing really of substance. Maybe the smarter move would be to agree to the debate, but Perez (dnc chair) maybe says he wants to pick the moderator. So even if it falls through, they can say they made an effort. 

[UYI]

11 hours ago, Victor the Crab said:

And second, Fox News' brainwashed audience isn't going to have a "Come to Jesus" moment if a Democrat is on making their case for whatever issues they bring up. They've already made their conclusions before hand, and no force of nature is going to sway their beliefs. And, depending on who's conducting the interview, it'll just turn into another shoutfest, with the Democrat/liberal looking like the loser.

I couldn't believe he compared Democrats going on Fox News to Bill Clinton playing the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. Going after younger voters vs. going after hardcore Trump voters? Yeah, THAT'S comparable. It might make a bit more sense to compare it to Bill Clinton appearing on Don Imus after the latter had constantly made jokes about him during the same election, but even that's not a perfect comparison either. 

[Victor the Crab]

23 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I also thought he was missing an obvious point when he was railing against the loss of corporal punishment. He talked about how it was normal for kids to get spanked and hit with a belt when he was a kid and wonders why parents don't do that anymore? Maybe it's because the kids who got spanked and hit grew up and had kids of their own and decided they would never do that to their own kids. I agree parents seem to do far too much coddling these days but I don't think the belt is the answer.

Because who knows better about how to raise kids than a misanthropic bachelor who doesn't want to get married or have children of his own. Someone on the panel really needs to tell Bill to Shut The Fuck Up about child rearing until he's experienced real parenting himself. Of course, Bill would probably make Bing Crosby look like a saint by comparison.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Someone on the panel really needs to tell Bill to Shut The Fuck Up about child rearing until he's experienced real parenting himself. 

Well, I have to say I agree with Bill that just because he doesn't have kids doesn't mean he doesn't get to criticize child rearing. That's like saying if you don't own a car you don't get to criticize someone's erratic and careless driving. And I agree there's too much coddling and bulldozer parenting. I just don't agree that spankings are the answer. Studies have shown it just encourages aggression in the kids that are getting hit. It teaches them the answers to your problems are using your fists.

I think Jon Tester made a better point that you can teach kids to fear consequences like doing arduous and distasteful chores as punishment and get the same results. He was just too jokey about it and didn't get his point across.

On another topic I got a kick out of "stop trying to make America can about Brexit." I'm sure your average American probably does think the United Kingdom is a theme part in Florida.

[ganesh]

46 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Well, I have to say I agree with Bill that just because he doesn't have kids doesn't mean he doesn't get to criticize child rearing. 

I don't have kids either and my neighbors are shit parents. I actually have parents so I'm qualified to say so. 

[meowmommy]

4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Well, I have to say I agree with Bill that just because he doesn't have kids doesn't mean he doesn't get to criticize child rearing. That's like saying if you don't own a car you don't get to criticize someone's erratic and careless driving.

I find it more akin to backseat drivers without a license telling someone how to drive.  Everyone loves them.  From someone on the outside, end results often seem to come from obvious paths, not understanding the knowledge, experience, and navigational skills required to make the end results happen.  This can apply not only to childfree people knowing all about parenting, but failed businessmen who relentlessly criticize government outcomes and then have no fucking clue how to run a government when they get into power.  Who knew <insert topic> could be so complicated?

Coming from a generation where the shit was regularly beaten out of its kids, while nobody said boo, the same generation as Bill, and looking at a generation where parents apparently aren't allowed to say boo to their kids without being reported to DCS, I can, however, see how he can be confounded by modern parenting.  As a parent, looking for clues on how to be a mom, I basically evaluated almost every single experience from my childhood and said, fuck no, I'm not doing that to my kid.  But damn, it was a struggle every step of the way, because the tendency is to repeat what you know.

4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

On another topic I got a kick out of "stop trying to make America can about Brexit." I'm sure your average American probably does think the United Kingdom is a theme part in Florida.

I'd be just as guilty if I hadn't watched John Oliver's coverage of the topic.

[Victor the Crab]

Sorry, but I don't have children of my own either, but I would never tell my sister how to raise her two boys. Bill talking about child raising is a lot like him talking about women's issues. He knows fuck all about it and comes out looking like an asshole.

[ganesh]

I wouldn't tell parents how to raise their kids either. That doesn't mean we can't have an opinion. Honestly, I don't know what Bill is talking about because the kids I've been around in vastly different cities seem to be fine. Yeah, kids shouldn't be entitled. Ok. That doesn't strike me as out of bounds. 

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I just don't agree that spankings are the answer. Studies have shown it just encourages aggression in the kids that are getting hit. It teaches them the answers to your problems are using your fists.

It's just bizarre to set up this false dichotomy between coddling and spanking as he did. Even he was talking about it as a "last resort" so why is it so important? There's really no reason that getting hit by a parent needs to be the ultimate threat hanging over your head in order to behave. There are so many other negative reinforcement techniques, so many other things kids would want to avoid without them being in physical fear of you hurting or humiliating them.

[ikmccall]

On 3/16/2019 at 9:19 PM, crookedjackson44 said:

Milogate?  Remember, that was only about a year ago.  Good panel, bad Maher, as usual.  He is truly a bloviator.  McCabe may someday get a medal for his work.  As for Maher, let him go back to Cannibal Women …, when his acting was better.

This

[iMonrey]

Quote

I find it more akin to backseat drivers without a license telling someone how to drive.  Everyone loves them.  From someone on the outside, end results often seem to come from obvious paths, not understanding the knowledge, experience, and navigational skills required to make the end results happen.  This can apply not only to childfree people knowing all about parenting, but failed businessmen who relentlessly criticize government outcomes and then have no fucking clue how to run a government when they get into power.  Who knew <insert topic> could be so complicated?

Analogies aside, when children are unruly and misbehaved, it's the parents' fault. There's no getting around that. Any attempt to defend or deflect bad parenting is just defensiveness. I would never presume to tell someone how to raise their child but that doesn't mean I can't see they are clearly doing something wrong. It doesn't take being a parent to see that. When you see kids running around apeshit in a store and the parents are just blithely unaware and not doing anything about it? That's not excusable by any rationalization.

Quote

I wouldn't tell parents how to raise their kids either. That doesn't mean we can't have an opinion.

Bingo.

If Bill's solution is spankings, then I vehemently disagree. But I recognize his right to have an opinion and his ability to see there's a fundamental shift in how children are being raised today, and not necessarily a good one.

[GHScorpiosRule]

So again, I ask you, fellow viewers: Is it worth watching, or can I delete this like I did last week's?

[HelenBaby]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

So again, I ask you, fellow viewers: Is it worth watching, or can I delete this like I did last week's?

I highly recommend the opening interview with McCabe. The rest was meh.

[Mystery Author]

Quote

So again, I ask you, fellow viewers: Is it worth watching, or can I delete this like I did last week's?

After McCabe, I fell asleep.

[SpiritSong]

On 3/16/2019 at 6:31 PM, Iguana said:

But I think he’s right about the DNC making a mistake in not having a primary debate on Fox. It makes them look like they either don’t give  a shit about those viewers or that they’re too scared to face a less than friendly audience. Not a good call

He could have mentioned that Fox "News" isn't actually a news channel. As their own lawyers argued in court, Fox "News" is an entertainment channel. It makes as much sense for the Dems to have a debate on there as on The Cartoon Network. 

[ganesh]

2 minutes ago, SpiritSong said:

He could have mentioned that Fox "News" isn't actually a news channel. As their own lawyers argued in court, Fox "News" is an entertainment channel. It makes as much sense for the Dems to have a debate on there as on The Cartoon Network. 

Shows like Hannity actually legally fall under Fox Entertainment iirc. You'd get a better debate with Trevor Noah moderating. 

I'm not arguing the amount of people who get their news from Fox, but the question is, what is the return on going on there? Get more people to vote, and their % of the vote goes down considerably. 

[Iguana]

On 3/19/2019 at 8:30 PM, SpiritSong said:

He could have mentioned that Fox "News" isn't actually a news channel. As their own lawyers argued in court, Fox "News" is an entertainment channel. It makes as much sense for the Dems to have a debate on there as on The Cartoon Network. 

Do I personally think Fox is “fair and balanced”?  Nope. But it’s the main news source for millions of Americans voters. Ignoring that plays right into the Republican narrative that the Democrats don’t give a damn about those people. Sure the vast majority of those viewers would never even consider voting for a democrat anyway but it can’t hurt for them to hear what the  candidates have to say. 

[ganesh]

I think the point is that they don't want to hear it though. I think it's kind of a no win for whomever goes on. Say they want you to come on and debate the green new deal. They don't believe climate change is even real. 

If they can get more people to vote and try to win over the 'both are just as bad' voters and the share of the Fox voter to the electorate goes down. 

[Iguana]

52 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I think the point is that they don't want to hear it though. I think it's kind of a no win for whomever goes on. Say they want you to come on and debate the green new deal. They don't believe climate change is even real. 

If they can get more people to vote and try to win over the 'both are just as bad' voters and the share of the Fox voter to the electorate goes down. 

I think it’s a very big generalization to conclude no one who watches Fox News will be willing to at least hear what the Democratic candidates have to say. Maybe it’s a very (very) few, and probably won’t change hardly any opinions but having one of the debates on Fox is a small effort that could have a pretty positive upside. It could play well with moderates and the both are bad crowds who want to see an attempt by Democrats to reach out to “the other side “. And a debate on climate change or minimum wage etc may be one way of getting some opposing information to someone who only watches Fox. 

I agree that Dems must focus on voter turnout as a priority as they probably can’t get back many of the people who voted for Trump last time. But that doesn’t mean they should ignore them either.  Doing so  just reinforces the perception that dems are too chicken to deal with Fox and it’s audience and/or just don’t care about them.