The Hypocrisy of Bill Maher

During the "New Rules" segment on his HBO show last Friday night, Bill Maher blasted the Democratic Party for kowtowing to its corporate paymasters, and bemoaned the lack of real liberals on ballots and television. "And if occasionally you do get to hear Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky or Dennis Kucinich," Maher complained, "they're treated like buffoons."

But when then-presidential candidate Nader came prepared in 2004 to seriously discuss the shortcomings of Democrats, Maher condescendingly badgered his liberal guest throughout the interview, and got down on his knees with Michael Moore to beg Nader to drop out of the race. As if that weren't enough, he then presented the candidate with a photograph of O.J. Simpson as a reminder "that someone can have a lifetime of being considered a hero, and then ruin it because of one thing."

New Rule: TV hosts who object to treating liberals like buffoons, shouldn't treat liberals like buffoons.

Jeff Norman blogs at CitizenJeff.com.

Follow Jeff Norman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizenjeff

Comments

[daddysboy]

I too noticed the inclusion of nader in that list and thought it dirtied the rest, actually. I just figured it was end of season brain-fatigue.

[mummbleswers]

Boy Jeff had to dig deep for that one huh? IMO Maher was spot on with his editorial last week. Sorry liberals, I'm an (I).

[altohone]

Maher's treatment of Nader IN NO WAY changes the reality that the Democratic Party is still being run by DLC corporatists into policies that violate our principles­...

... like the rule of law in the failure to prosecute Bushies or Wall Street donors...
... like the Constitution in continued privacy violations, indefinite detentions, bloated defense spending..­.
... like sucking up to regimes, kings and dictators who violate every freedom in the name of trade...
...etc. etc. etc.

Obama challenged Hillary on many of these issues only to now adopt the corporatist position.
His failure is the continued catering to the money class and sellout of the activists who tried one last time to reform the party from within.

Mahers criticism is fair despite his hypocrisy.

[sympathyforthedevil]

I respectfully disagree. While I can see how the show BM put on in 2004 appeared rude, I also think that:
1: Saying something in 2004 and something else in 2009 is not necessarily hypocrisy. Maybe BM changed his mind. Only idiots never do.
2: Circumstances matter. I'm all for RN having a voice but the movement he represents is useless if there is a W in the White House. 2004 was not a good time to bring Dems towards the left. Similarly, I'm still upset at people back in 2000 who were complaining that Gore wasn't good enough. Because, while some of us might believe that was the case, voting for Nader made things way worse than what would have happened with Gore in the WH. On the other hand, I would argue that now that "we" have the WH, the House and the Senate, now *is* a good time to hold Dems accountable and make them see how much they need the "libs".

Finally, what I would say to R.N. is: build grassroots support, get Representatives, Governors in some enclaves (SF almost had a Green Mayor), maybe some Senators some day, and make yourselves an indispensible ally of the Democratic Party. Build from the ground up that way and then and only then, once the power accumulated is comparable to that of the Democratic Party. Running for President now is counter-productive and even if it worked, nothing would get passed in Congress.

Just my two cents.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Finally, what I would say to R.N. is: build grassroots support, get Representatives, Governors in some enclaves (SF almost had a Green Mayor), maybe some Senators some day, and make yourselves an indispensible ally of the Democratic Party."

This is a very curious argument. How does building a rival party make one indispensable to the Dems?

[lokipuck]

One cent.

[LizM]

Yeah! I'll second your bottom line!

[HeevenSteven]

2004 was 5 years ago. What he said was correct; I'll take it!!

[SapphoMarx]

Exactly what I was thinking when I saw Maher...

Nader has the right to run, as we have the right to more than two "viable" choices...­.

Kucinich, on the other hand, can suck it for tossing his voters to Obama...

[ZeMongoose]

When runoff ballots are law of the land, your argument will be valid.

[Shelby596]

Bill is no hypocrite. He was begging Nader to not ruin this election for us, and he was right. Just because he knew Nader running would be bad news for us, it doesn't mean he doesn't agree with him on a host of issues. Please, if you're looking for hypocrisy - go sit by the Republicans.

[JohnFromCensornati]

He has made it clear on more than one occasion that the problem isn't Nader. It's the Dems.
He believes that the Dems should be the party of the left and then Nader wouldn't be running for president. He'd be backing the Dem.

[Palemoon]

I don't see where the hypocrisy is, Kerry was far more progressive and liberal than Nader. Course, what Nader should have done is run for the Democratic nomination. Especially since our Constitution has been altered in such a way as to endorse a 2-party only system. Then combine that with the illegal interpretation that "winner take all" is legal, and you have the basis for exactly why incompetent people like Bush got elected.

Rather, it is the MEDIA who are the hypocrites for refusing to report on such things. For refusing to cover the progressive and liberal candidates. And for refusing to call things the way they really are. The media has become so politically correct in not wanting to offend anyone, nor take any heat itself, that it just bows down and lets the Dems and Repubs get away with all of the illegalities that they do.

[Jeff Norman - Huffpost Blogger]

The hypocrisy is obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by hatred of Nader. Maher treated a liberal like a buffoon, and then complained that TV hosts treat liberals like buffoons. What's so difficult to grasp, Nader haters? I'm not saying he should have endorsed him; just that Maher could have challenged the legitimacy of Nader's candidacy without being so condescending and rude.

[Palemoon]

I agree with your last sentence. And as far as Nadar goes, he was actually a very real possibility of me voting for in 2008. I was heavily debating on Obama, Barr or Nader. Obviously I went with Obama because he was the one espousing change. So I stand guilty as charged for falling for the hype and catchphrases he used.

In my opinion, I think the only reason Maher is even being talked about, is the fact he had the audacity to criticize President Obama. I found that out real quick when I criticized him on a few things in the past couple of month. What was funny, Arianna later made a post in which she criticized President Obama on a few things too. However, unlike me and Maher, she wasn't attacked in the same fashion. Again, hypocrisy at work I suppose. That's why I'm a huge fan of Arianna. She's not afraid to speak her mind, even when it goes against the grain and upsets people.

[ZeMongoose]

Actually, I'm blinded by a hatred of Bush. A question for you, Jeff. What was the rationale for Nader's 2004 campaign? That there's no difference between Bush and John Kerry? Look, the ineffectuality of the Democrats infuriates me more than most, but to claim, as Nader does, that there's no difference between the two parties, is...buffo­onish.

I watched the entire episode of Real Time back in 2004. The tone Maher and Moore used was considerably more playful than the one most progressives would have used towards Nader.

Nader's 2004 run was aided, to a degree, by right wing groups with a vested interest in a second GWB term. That's not an opinion, but pure documented fact.

Look, I don't know what Nader's ultimate rationale is. If it truly was to push the Democrats in a more progressive direction (his stated objective), he's gone about it in a funny way. I suspect it's more likely to maintain a degree of cultural relevancy. This relevancy provides Nader with ego gratification as well as lucrative speaking engagements. (If you want to shut Nader up--ask him about his personal finances sometime)

[ZeMongoose]

New rule: People who voted for Nader in 2000 have to accept personal responsibility for causing the Bush administration to happen.

Ralph Nader's ego is what prevents Ralph Nader's (mostly laudible) ideas from being taken seriously. Given the consequences of the 2000 election, Nader's smug self-satisfaction in the aftermath created a permanent division between himself and true Progressives that will never, ever be bridged. It's a real shame, but Ralph Nader's legacy is George W. Bush, period.

Bill Maher's criticism of the Democratic party was accurate, and completely in line with what most Progressives find vexing about the Democrats in congress. Like most Progressives, Maher wants a Democratic Party that is practical (unlike the Naderites) but gets real Progressive legislation passed (unlike the Evan Bayh/Tom Carper DLC hacks).

To do this, requires some considerable skill and a willingness to find two or three big issues where you are willing to fight all out to get something substantial passed. It's apparent that the fight the President has chosen is healthcare, with a public option as its centerpiece. If President Obama gets this through, he'll be in a great position to finally turn this country away from Nixon-Reagan-Bush and towards a viable future. If the Naderites want to do something useful, call your Senators and Congressperson to support the President's healthcare plan.

[JohnFromCensornati]

New Rule: People need to come to grips with the reaality that many more Democratic voters voted for Bush than Nader.
This was not because Nader was in the race. It was because Al Gore was.

[ZeMongoose]

Gore ran an abysmal campaign, undoubtedly. That doesn't make the refusal of Naderites to accept ANY culpability in the election of Bush any more excusable.

[Palemoon]

You forgot to add the unspeakable truth that apparently I've only ever spoken, many voted against Gore because of Lieberman. That's a cold hard reality we have to deal with here in America at some point.

[ZeMongoose]

Look, I drove from Delaware to Connecticutt to help out the Lamont campaign. You don't have to tell me about Lieberman. I thought the Lieberman pick was horrific, but given the choice between Gore and Bush, I chose Gore.

Why do Nader supporters have such difficulty understanding that we don't have proportional runoff voting in this country. THAT is what will give 3rd party candidates real influence.

[MarionWatts]

New rule: People who voted for Nader in 2000 have to accept personal responsibility for causing the Bush administration to happen.
__________­__________­________

Then that would also apply to Bill Maher, who went on record as supporting Ralph Nader during the 2000 election.

[ballsmuch]

where's the hypocrisy?

@mmerose: a legitimate, plausible argument can be made that Nader did cost Gore the election. ultimately blame should fall at the feet of Gore and Democrats, but you'd have to be naive to think Nader didn't take votes away from Gore. Perot did the same thing to Bush Sr in 1992.

[mmerose]

Silly. That was then, this is now. I was disappointed that Maher apparently bought into the bs that Nader blew the 2000 election for Gore, but trying to keep things simple in 2004 wasn't totally nuts.

Meanwhile, observing that Nader deserves to be heard in 2009 is right on.

[getoffmedz]

Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh are both paid entertainers, folks.