bill maher identifies new political species: the “non-apoplectic obama hack”

Estimated reading time is 5 minutes.

THERE WAS A STUDY DONE that found out online conversations that were intercepted and stored by the NSA—nine out of ten were not from foreigners. They are from ordinary citizens, and I want to read this: ‘Many files . . . described as useless by the analysts had a startlingly intimate, even voyeuristic quality. Stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental health crises, and disappointed hopes.’ 

This is exactly what they said they weren’t going to do. Just, you know, be nosy and look into the lives of private people for their own shits and giggles. And I just want to say, if this was happening under Bush, liberals would be apoplectic. I’m sorry, but liberals are just sometimes useless Obama hacks without a shred of intellectual honesty.”

From “Bill Maher Blasts ‘Useless Obama Hacks’ Who Refuse To Criticize NSA Surveilance” on the Huffington Post site (July 13, 2014). The study that he is citing was done by The Washington Post about the data from the ‘Snowden files’ (“In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are”).

The quotes that follow below are from the Comments section of the HuffPost page above. They echo my own response to Maher’s statement and virtually every other person I know who voted for Obama. (Note that I have edited/corrected the grammar/punctuation where necessary, not to alter the writer’s meaning but because many of them are written on spur-of-the-moment and errors were left uncorrected when the writer presses the SEND COMMENT button.)

“I say this as a staunch liberal: I do not approve of the NSA and what they are doing as far as spying on everyone. I do feel they have a legitimate job to do. There are people in the world that want to hurt this country and it’s citizens.” – Jeffrey Howard

“I’m a liberal and I don’t have a single liberal friend who isn’t outraged by Obama’s support for and expansion of the NSA. The idea that liberals support everything Obama says and does is nonsense from Fox News.” – Xtfr Em

“This is one of the issues over which the Left dislikes Obama. They call him a Moderate Republican for a reason.” – Kevin Bain

“It’s awful when the otherwise sharp Bill Maher makes an absurd comment in one of those mandatory, even-steven jabs to the left. I don’t know of a single liberal who embraces Obama no matter what, and certainly not a single liberal who supports NSA spying on Americans.” – Mike Tucker

Attacking a straw man time

Please reread Bill Maher’s statement above: he is NOT discussing statements that were made by anyone! He is, in fact, discussing the lack of statements from “liberals” who he believes should be berating Obama for the continuing NSA surveillance of American citizens. Also in fact, he offers no evidence to support his argument because his argument is based on a presumed lack of evidence! It is a variation of the time-dishonored straw man argument.

“A straw man argument (also known as an Aunt Sally in the UK) is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Attacking a straw man implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition and then to refute or defeat that false argument instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining ‘battle’ and the defeat of an ‘enemy’ may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.” (Wikipedia)

That is, because Maher is discussing what allegedly is NOT being said, there is no source to which he can point to buttress his argument. All that those who think he was overbroad in his pronouncement have to do is to find a few sources where criticism of Obama by liberals do exist.

And they abound!

They are everywhere, especially in the conversations that we hear every day from those around us. Normal Joes who vote and read and have conversations about politics.

Therefore, he is equating silence (no statements of derision) with actual statements of non-derision (and presumably therefore of support) that no one made. He then attributes these non-statements, this silence, to no recognizable entity—the term “Obama hacks” describes no one in particular, whether or not such people exist. (Which we can assume they do, but I prefer to assume as little as possible . . .)

Rhetorical question time

How did Bill arrive at this conclusion? Did he monitor every website and blog, newspaper and magazine column, and radio and television show to determine that “liberals” were not, in fact, quite “apoplectic” about the NSA surveillance?

A good monitor of liberal and progressive attitude and opinion did exist for a few years: it was called progressive talk radio. Brought to national attention by the launching of Air America in 2004, it allowed such hosts as Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz (both of whom went onto television) along with Thom Hartman, Randi Rhodes, NorMan GoldMan, Ron Reagan, Al Franken, Mike Malloy, Mike Pappantonio, Stephanie Miller, etc., to reflect the views of approximately 50% of the electorate on a national podium.

Except the DLM (damn liberal media) removed most of these outlets from AM stations around the country. And that includes liberal markets (Seattle and Portland come to mind) and markets where the shows were rated at the top of their time slot.

Finally, to end this piece, I will quote another message from the Huffington Post Comments section:

“The problem with the right’s over-the-top, hyperbolic reaction to every single teeny tiny [thing] Obama does [is] that it unbalances all objectivity—so when he does do something legitimately worth criticizing, it’s hard to [separate] the wheat from the chaff.” – Wendelyn Wood Anderson

PS: Yeah yeah yeah I titled this “bill maher identifies new political species: the non-apoplectic obama hack” but I am a fan and almost always enjoy his shows and recommend his sorta documentary movie Religulous . . .


16 thoughts on “bill maher identifies new political species: the “non-apoplectic obama hack””

  1. Obama is almost never mentioned by name by “liberal” commentators critically, like he is somehow beyond and fundamentally detached from NSA’s activities, so Maher’s point is a fair one. Al Sharpton is known for saying “I don’t mind Obama with this power…but if it gets into the wrong hands…” in response to a variety of issues. Ed Shultz is no different. Obama’s name is conspicuously absent unless the subject is praiseworthy.

    “Liberals” may have fundamental differences with “conservatives” politically, but not when it comes to tactics. Both are guilty of picking and choosing facts -- when they employ facts at all. And both are guilty of utter nonsense: for the GOP, it’s a love affair for “free market” economics -- until they are the recipients of governmental subsidy. For the Democrats, it’s the fairy tale that Ralph Nader cost them the 2000 election, rather than the lackluster campaign of the odds-on favorite, who couldn’t manage a plurality of votes in his native state.

    • Leave Bizarro World for a few days and hear what the “liberals” that I know have to say. Obama is roundly criticized for carrying on so many of Bush II’s programs--especially the bloody, endless, pointless wars and domestic surveillance. I rarely hear anything positive about the man, and that includes my own comments.

      I do not know now nor have I ever known anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 who blames Ralph Nader. We blame the rightwingnuts on the US Supreme Court for intervening in a “states rights” issue and usurping the prerogative of the Florida State Supreme Court.

      Get your facts on us from us, not from the wackadoodles on Fox and AM talk radio. I’d suggest finding Thom Hartman and Randi Rhodes and Norman Goldman and Stephanie Miller for some real liberals discussing the Prez, but that damn liberal media dumped them from hundreds of stations, even when they were #1 in their time slot. Ho hum . . .

      • You were wise not to address any of the direct points I made, but rather circumvent them with the “…but the people I know…” and “stop watching Fox” approach.

        I’m not exactly sure what Bizarro World is, but I gave you real examples from hosts of two MSNBC programs. I never said “liberals” don’t criticize the president; I said that he’s rarely mentioned by name by the aforementioned hosts, unless it’s to heap praise. 

        Isn’t it curious that anyone who disagrees with a “liberal” these days is treated more or less like those who disagree with conservatives. Your presumption that I watch Fox or listen to AM talk radio don’t isn’t just misguided, it’s arrogant. It’s arrogant in the same ways that people accuse me of being a “liberal” when I criticize Geo. W. Bush, and a “conservative” when I criticize Obama. I guess not being affiliated with no party is worse than being affiliated with the wrong party.

        The point is that there’s little difference in approach between the parties -- you’ve demonstrated it here. When Obama’s got troubles, it’s always “…but Bush started that…” or “…it’s the GOP House…” and very little (except, apparently from the people you personally know, who form a group who somehow never get their comments into widely circulated media circles) direct criticism. Not to be outdone, of course, the likes of Karl Rove and Reince Prebius(sp?) are quick to point out -- when they are the recipients of GOP criticism -- the tired line: “…but Obama…”

        Yes, the right has its fantasy of a “liberal media” (my God, would a Fox News watcher say that???), but the left has it’s fantasy to: that this president is so much different that his predecessor. (Refuted, correctly by your examples of the expansion of the so-called “war on terror”, NSA spying on US citizens, etc.) Yeah, I know…more “gems” from a Fox News watcher.

        Maher is right. The left in their head-in-the-sand embrace of Obama is wrong.

        Interesting that you don’t know anyone who thinks 2000 was Nader’s fault. I comment regularly on NPR, and they think the guy’s Satan.

        And incidentally, as much as I disliked the outcome (yeah, more Fox News- speak), the “rightwingnut” vote on the court was 7-2 when the Equal Protection Clause question was adjudicated.

  2. PHINEAS Thanks for commenting (really), but you said “Obama is almost never mentioned by name by ‘liberal’ commentators critically.” Period. No names, just “liberal commentators.” As written, that’s all of them. In that you are VERY incorrect.

    You wrote, “For the Democrats, it’s the fairy tale that Ralph Nader cost them the 2000 election.” You didn’t say, “for some Democrats,” which would have been correct. What you said was “the Democrats.” As written, that’s all of them. In that you are VERY incorrect.

    As for “real examples from hosts of two MSNBC programs”– sorry, but you gave NO examples, just your opinion or observation that some hosts don’t criticize Obama. I would have to watch every single show of each of the accused to know whether you are correct . . .

    You wrote, “The point is that there’s little difference in approach between the parties.” That’s another righty talking point. I have NEVER heard anyone even slightly left of center make so absurd a statement.

    Even in your rebuttal, you make more blanket statements: “The left in their head-in-the-sand embrace of Obama is wrong.” As written (“the left”), that’s apparently everyone who isn’t a Republican. In that you are VERY incorrect.

    Sorry again, but since the “facts” you state are the same nonsense that comes outta Fox and the talk-shows, you get saddled with the accusation that that is where you got them. Namaste, NEAL

    PS(1): The 2000 mess in Florida will remain a mess . . .

    PS(2): Bizarro World is a Superman comics allusion. Check it out.

    PS(3): You sure don’t opine like no indeependunt I ever knowed. . .

    • 1. Frankly, I don’t get it. You first assert that I used “no names, just ‘liberal commentators…’ ” and then later YOU cite the names I actually DID mention -- Shultz and Sharpton. So which is it going to be? Did I use names or not? (yes, we both know the answer)

      2. My statement vis-a-vis Sharpton and Shultz rarely (sorry, I’ll use the exact phraseology since that seems to be important -- “almost never”) mentioning the president’s name unless it’s to heap praise is not opinion. To use the same nonsensically twisted wisdom on which you originally challenged Maher: have you seen EVERY episode of Ed Schultz’s program that I’ve seen?

      I hope having just written that makes you realize how dumb that sort of response is: about as dumb as someone stating that I get my facts from Fox News.

      3. No doubt some of the statements I made were generalities, using absolute terms like “none” or “no” or “every.” You can be critical of my statements semantically, fair enough. Just don’t do so and expect me to take references to mythical places seriously.

      4. You’re right, I’m not like any independent you’ve known. Because I’m not an independent. That I don’t squarely fit into a box continues to be a source of frustration for people. How’s this: don’t try. 

      5. You could have avoided the entire issue of somebody taking exception with what you said by just acknowledging that Bill Maher doesn’t know how YOU or the “liberals” you know feel.

      6. With regard to my “righty” talking point, thank you for not trying to refute it. Or should I just say, “It’s absurd? Wow! Great point!” ? It’s not really surprising that someone who would take issue with figurative terms would have a similar difficulty understanding the difference between policy and approach(which, incidentally, makes your little subsequent example of the difference in the last two presidents irrelevant, though highly amusing). I’m somewhat surprised you would think the major political parties somehow operate under different rules. Jesus Christ, even the president said early in his administration that he doesn’t pay attention to the talking heads because everyone (there’s that term again!) seems to have some niche they’re trying to fill. (no worries, you can write him a letter)

      7. Meanwhile, Hannity’s on later…I’m so excited. Maybe they’ll be a little nugget on Benghazi. You can’t tell me Lois Lerner wasn’t there!

      Hey, just doing my best to fit into the box…

      8. The rub of all this for me is this: from what I’ve read, I’d probably agree with you on 95% of policy issues (you know, we “righties” have stick together), and yet because of the approach, I wouldn’t ever want to be called a “liberal.” So I wonder: which of us is better off?


    “Over the first four years of the Obama presidency, the deficit shrunk by a total of $300 billion dollars. That is not the national debt- it is the amount of money we spend each year relative to the amount we take in. And while this improving deficit picture is not what those who believe in a balanced budget would be looking for, it is a shrinking deficit just the same.” – Forbes magazine 

    “Compared to the size of the economy, the deficit in 2013 is much lower than in 2009, when Obama took office. The deficit will be 5.3% of gross domestic product this year, nearly half the 10.1% of GDP in 2009.” - Congressional Budget Office

  4. About the most you can criticize Maher for is maybe Hasty Generalization, for not qualifying his remarks as ‘some’ liberals, etc… Given that he’s ranting on TV not defending his doctoral thesis I’m not interested in holding him to MLA guidelines. If you want to, that’s your business.

    I personally know several ‘liberals’ (Democrats would be a better label) who STILL blame Nader for the last 14 years. So you know none, I know many. When it comes to silence from what should be ‘apoplectic liberals’ I hear and read even more - or better yet how Obama didn’t have a ‘choice’, the right ‘made’ him do it, etc., in short, that he (and presumably the left) are the ‘victims’. Furthermore, Greenwald and others have documented, going back years, widespread liberal/democratic support for Obama policies from drones, Guatanamo, whistleblower persecution, and so on. You can look it up when you’re done being powerless. Of course you can continue to stand around, arms folded, being ‘outraged’ but I bet when 2016 rolls around you’re all voting FOR a continuation of same with HRC. Then you can be victims again for another 4 or 8 years!

    • ADOLPH “So you know none, I know many.” So, using you and me as a national average, that means that there are as many as “some” liberals out there who blame Nader instead of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris and Karl Rove and the Republican-appointed members of the US Supreme Court. Wow!

      As for HRC and 2016: it’s a two-party system and your guys will be picking from a short-list that includes names like Bush Christie Perry Rubio Scott and, perish forbid, maybe even Romney. (Despicable all, each of whom you will defend when the time comes.) Hillary is a damn near impossible vote for a progressive if we can have a Sanders but an easy-as-falling-down decision if w have to pick from the GOP ilk.

      Keep up the good work! NEAL

    • PS: The issues you mention (“drones, Guatanamo (sic), whistleblower persecution”) are NOT “Obama policies” -- they are US government polices carried on from former administrations. I don’t support them and none of my friends support them but, hell’s belles man, we are in a neverending war on terror and great jumping jehoshaphat we gotta pertect ourselves or them there orange and yeller and red and burnt umber “alerts” will be back and I have been practicing hiding under my desk in case the Rooskies start dropping nooclear bombs on us just like they were supposed to in the ’50s and the ’60s and the ’70s and the ’80s and O well and ho hum and I guess my coffee has kicked in and life goes on within you and without you (ommmmmmmmm . . .) . . .

  5. Rather than quote you repeatedly, I have numbered your paragraphs/statements on your comment above (August 1, 11:13 AM) and will respond to them in order:

    1. This getting convoluted, as things in Bizarro World do. Your comment of July 18 opened with “Obama is almost never mentioned by name by liberal commentators critically, like he is somehow beyond and fundamentally detached from NSA’s activities, so Maher’s point is a fair one.” (full sentence)

    That’s a blanket statement and it is incorrect. If you listened to the commentators that used to be readily available to us on “progressive talk radio,” you’d hear it all the time.

    But, as mentioned, finding them in one place on one channel is now almost impossible, so I don’t blame you if you don’t want to take the time to track down their schedules on various stations or the internet.

    Um, I didn’t “later cite” Sharpton or Schultz in any of my responses to you.

    2. No, Phineas. You made the statement: you would have to watch/listen to all those Schultz and Sharpton shows to verify that they do (or don’t do) what you claim!

    3. I’m not critical,” I am only responding to what you said. You had the choice of words and made it. Live with it just as I live with the ones I write on this site.

    4. I ain’t trying to box you; I enjoy a good back-and-forth. But you don’t come across as an independent, for which I don’t blame you. I don’t know how any politically mind person could remain one. But you do sound more than rather conservative.

    5. Nope. Maher prepares his “speak” for ach show. He chose those words and he made a sweeping generality that was WRONG!

    6. Thanks for explaining my inability to differentiate between policy and approach. Gotta quote you here: “I’m somewhat surprised you would think the major political parties somehow operate under different rules.” That’s another righty point of view.

    7. Good one! Congrats!

    8. Pick a couple of “policy issues” that you and I agree upon. Lord knows you can find my stance on many all over

    9. Keep on keepin’ on!

    PS: Thanks for not responding to my post of August 2 quoting Forbes and the CBO.

    • Even after scrutiny by your rigid standards, I stand by my original opening statement. I gave two examples supporting that statement in the same paragraph. If you’ve forgotten that a paragraph includes a topic and supporting sentences, not my problem.

      You’re right -- you didn’t cite names, you used “TV shows”. And which TV shows were those? Schultz and Sharpton. I promise to try harder to make the connections that you keep missing easier.

      But all of this is really just about quibbling, right? You can’t criticize anything substantively so you go after the terms themselves.

      For someone who mentioned Randi Rhodes, I’m stunned that you didn’t know she famously hung up on Ralph Nader after the 2000 presidential election, after blaming him for the loss. Real classy broad. I’m surprised she didn’t accused him of getting his facts from Fox News. Well, maybe if she hadn’t hung up...

      I made reference to your Bush Vs. Obama post in “#6” It’s laughably typical. The debt under Bush nearly doubled. And under Obama it has nearly doubled again. But that’s okay. I mean, liberals have to have their “China owns America...” to keep up with Republicans. Now that’s what I like to call “fair & balanced”!

      The American political system demands massive amounts of money. Both parties are constantly whoring themselves out for more. Or pimping surrogates. Hell, the president will have Michelle out on the trail on all fours if it means holding the senate. The both negatively campaign. It’s not about principle. It’s about winning. Don’t believe me? Go watch Chris Matthews’ reaction to the drubbing Obama took in his first debate with Romney two years ago. So yeah, no real difference in approach. The GOP has their “war on Christmas.” The Democrats have their “war on women.” The GOP has the Tea Party, and the Democrats have Randi Rhodes. Equally worthless propositions.

      We agree on the wars in the middle/far east. And domestic spying.

      But I’m sure you’ll find something to quibble about with that, too.

      I’m glad that in your response to Mr. Fischer you acknowledge being a victim.

      That sums all this up nicely.

      • PHINEAS Um, not interested in the conversation any more. (Your misunderstanding my “victim” statement took the cake, as someone supposedly once said.) But, couldn’t let this one slide:

        Nader hung up on Rhodes while discussing his running yet again in 2004. She was dealing with the fact that he had no party backing him.

        Rhodes: “If you did get to be president, tell me who you would caucus with. Tell me who you could get to vote for your ... views and visions, and your, your bills! Who is an independent other than Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords? Who are you gonna count on?”

        Rhodes: “You screwed up the last election, and now you want to screw up this one, and I’m pissed!”

        RHODES: “sometimes I look at something, sometimes I look at a really fabulous, fabulous pair of shoes, but I can’t afford em. I can’t afford you! I’m not saying you’re not fabulous. I can’t afford you! Why you don’t get this I don’t know.”

        After Nader hung up, Rhodes ended the back-and-forth with this: “I’ve been mad at Ralph Nader since 2000, and I’ve got news for you: If Ralph Nader became the President of the United States, where does he go to get his bills passed? Does he go to the Republicans? Does he go to the Democrats that he just beat? You know, this is why there’s no ... prospects for Ralph, other than what Ralph is really doing. And what Ralph, I think is really doing -- if he’s smart enough, and Ralph’s pretty smart -- is, he’s gonna run, and then he’s gonna endorse Kerry and turn over those those voters which might be, what, three million maybe, who could make the difference, in exchange for trade commissioner, EPA, something that he wants to do.”

        Seems sensible to me. Just thought you’d like to know . . .

  6. Response to your comment of August 2 above: If Mr. Maher’s “hasty generalization” wasn’t scripted before the show, he has more balls than I do.

    Yeah, you’re right. I Googled the topic and found supposed Democrats (you never can tell who is what) and found sites where that argument keeps popping up. Please lead me to Greenwald’s documentation of “liberal” support for those horrible practices you mentioned.

    And please separate Democrats from liberals (or explain your definition of “liberal,” and that is not meant condescendingly).

    As stated, with a two-party, winner-take-all system, I will have a choice of being a victim of Democratic policies or a victim of Republican policies, which will overlap on many cases involving the Military Industrial Complex. If the former, I won’t be worrying about 750,000 jobs lost a month, to name one of many such BIG things that differentiate the two parties . . .

    PS: Notice how I didn’t call any attention to how all of your independent arguments mirror conservative arguments? I’m being a good boy!

    • A) Hasty Generalization refers to the informal fallacy most appropriate to Maher’s statement, scripted or otherwise, as opposed to the Straw Man fallacy you ascribed to it.

      It’s up to you if you want to vote for the lesser of two evils. Don’t expect me to.

      B) To be clear, I don’t believe there is a true liberal left in the democrat party. I don’t count pro-choice, pro gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and other such diversions of identity politics. Primarily I’m concerned with issues of economic justice (from whence most others flow), worker’s struggle, anti-war, checks on corporate power. The so-called (fashionable) liberalism of the 60’s was largely self-indulgent narcissism compared to the 30’s and earlier. Hedges’ ‘Death of the Liberal Class’ illustrates the contrast most effectively.

      C) At the outset, you could have just said, “Maher does not speak for me or the people I know”. This whole debate might have been different. Meanwhile, where is anyone in the press or congress criticizing Obama’s drone policy, warrantless wiretaps, ‘surge’ in Afghanistan, etc. There is a lot of silence from what otherwise were very noisy quarters during the Bush years... It’s not hard to imagine Snowden being hailed as a hero had he come out on Bush’s watch.

      D) Your not-entirely incorrect attack on Maher’s failure to qualify his pronouncement smacks of defensiveness and apologetics for the democrats, and nit-picking rather than dealing with the substantive issue he raises. Yes I know that’s my opinion...

  7. Thanks for your input, Herr Fischer. I have separated your basic statements for ease in responding and avoiding repetitive redundancies:

    A) “Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.” From Wikipedia, and, yes, that’s a more suitable description of Mr. Maher’s remarks than the straw man thingie I went with.

    B) Your concerns reflect mine, although I don’t think that the “liberalism of the Sixties” can be so easily dismissed (if I am understanding you). The concerns you labeled as “identity issues” can also be considered intentional “wedge issues” . . .

    c) This is the BIG one: Maher made his statement, which I assume was scripted by him, to stir things up. As such, it probably worked. It’s still a mis-statement. As for “anyone in the press or congress” speaking out and criticizing Obama, well, Congress has neither shut up (Obama is being sued and nonsensical threats of impeachment are ubiquitously everywhere) nor stopped impeding Obama’s attempts at realizing most of his goals. And the corporate media is just that, so if you believe that they are NOT criticizing Obama, then you have to ask why an inherently conservative media ain’t after tis bloody socialist Muslim Kenyan!!!

    D) Certainly one way of looking at it or viewing it or seeing it another way.

    PS: Snowden might also be dead were someone else in the White House.

    PPS: Thanks to the Firesign Department of Redundancy Department for their input to this post . . .

    • B) I’ll defer to Hedges on this point. It’s worth a read if you can be open to it. For many boomers ’the sixties’ is a scared cow about which they’re not capable of hearing criticism. What a downer it must be to look back over 40 years thinking one’s life peaked in one’s 20s...

      C) I recall hearing Al Sharpton say he didn’t mind Obama having ‘these’ powers - presumably extra judicial assassination and NSA spying. Hard to imagine him saying that during a Bush or Romney administration. This is my point (and I suspect Maher’s): During the Bush years it was no trouble finding criticism of his administration and policies on the web, in print, and on tv - from what are generally considered ‘left wing’ sources. Dailykos, Salon, msnbc... Take your pick. Now I have to go digging to find the (almost always qualified) criticism. The right wing criticism you cite is insane nonsense, and totally expected from sociopaths. 

      Maher scripted? I don’t know. Assuming all television isn’t mostly fake... I watched the entire segment and it wasn’t during a monologue. I wouldn’t doubt it’s in his notes along with the talking point about that news item. I don’t doubt he had that kind of sweeping generalized thought. But he said it in the course of a rant. I found it more accurate as a claim than troublesome as a generalization. But then I have no allegiance to a party and think there are no true liberals anyway. What I do find troublesome is the clear cut difference in principle when it’s ‘their guy’ from whatever it is that gets the ‘liberal’ imprimatur these days. Their principles are circumstantial. But then many boomers found their ‘sixties’ values were up for sale at a price too, when the time came. Kudos if neither were true of you...


Leave a Comment