A lot of conservatives are operating under the assumption that progressives give a crap what Bill Maher thinks or that we even consider him one of our own. Maher is a comedian and an entertainer who has some progressive opinions, but he also has many libertarian opinions. He’s always been a pig and a chauvinist. The main thing that unites him with progressives is his loathing of the religious right, which is increasingly synonymous with the Republican Party. When he called Sarah Palin a “slut” he wasn’t speaking for progressives and many progressives denounced him for his boorishness. In any case, no parent that I know has ever been impressed with the defense that other people are doing it, too. Just because the world has many prescription drug addicts and people who engage in sex tourism is no excuse for Rush Limbaugh’s behavior. And Bill Maher is not a defense for Limbaugh’s behavior either.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
“no parent that I know has ever been impressed with the defense that other people are doing it, too.”
Yup. And that’s my line as well. I also pervert it when i go on offense: “if you do it, I can do it too.” The “let’s tell adults what to do with their genitals” crowd really hates that.
Also too, what you said about Maher. he’s a comedian who does politics as part of his schtick, which stems from his early career in stand up. And he’s never been all that funny imo.
Rush, OTOH, has never been a comedian. or done stand up. He’s more of a pundit, who only pulls the entertainer card when he gets popped for something. Ain’t working this time.
OT, but I don’t know where else to ask. Am I crazy, or wast there a photography thread on the front page earlier today?
You’re not crazy. I saw it to. Not sure what happened to it.
The Foto Flog has mysteriosly returned to the original location from whence it came ~ in the Reccomended Diaries.
ID, the mystery solver. 😉
Speaking of Rushbo, I read where the advertisers pulling off Limbaugh are also pulling off the rest of AM radio … hanity, savage, …
Ain’t it grand?
If you really want to compare Maher with Limbaugh, there’s one crucial difference which BooMan didn’t mention: Maher isn’t the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. Democrats in Congress aren’t afraid to criticize Maher in public. How many Republicans have cowered over the years rather than distance themselves from Rusty? How few have actually stood up and called him on his bs without equivocation?
I get that they’re both essentially shock jocks, but that’s where the comparison ends. One is an outsider; the other is a kingmaker.
Not only is Maher not a party kingmaker, but it is highly questionable (outside of the usual far-right nationist/religious sectarian circles) as to how “liberal” or “progressive” or “leftist” he really is. I always had him pegged as essentially a moderate back in the 1990s. Certainly he didn’t exactly act or speak like the liberals I knew at the time – in fact many of them found Maher to be quite unseemly. Of course, those were different times, I suppose.
Democrats avoid Maher like the plague. I mostly like him just because he’s a brat that isn’t getting rich by conning the dumbest, least informed demographic, unlike Limbaugh and the rest of rightwing radio. I’d bet that no one could find a single elected Dem who ever quoted anything Maher said with approval.
Any comparison is a distraction and doesn’t dillute Rush’s actions. He’s a stand alone and Maher is his own story for another day.
In the context of airwaves and advertisers however, may I point out that it is indeed good news that the big corporate advertisers of today such as Ford CAN be woken up to the harm they have enabled in Rush and crew’s ability to reach out and teach their listeners.
Until this I wasn’t aware that RL was available to our enlisted and that indeed the DoD advertised to support his show. With all the news of women in combat serving their country on the front lines and likewise the news that the amount of rapes and attacks are high, the first thing that should have been looked at a very long time ago was the role of RL’s demeaning daily attacks.
So the advertisers have been using the inexcuse of ‘Johnny did it too’ without any shame right alongwide Rush & Sean & Michael. I’m rather liking this wake up call.
I suppose it would be politic to applaud the fleeing advertisers, but I can’t bring myself to it. The big question remains: Limbaugh’s latest volcano of exudate was in no way atypical, just another day at the marketing office. This one just happened to get more attention because it was more personal, and the atackee decided to fight back.
So what were these “respectable” advertisers doing subsidizing hate radio all these years. Of course they’re corporate persons, so no doubt ignorance is a special exoneration for them.
The companies were going to lose money if they kept their ads on Rush.
Clear Channel has financial problems. How does it keep Rush? He’s costing them money.
The radio stations need the bucks as well.
Rush could end up out of a job.
Bill Maher used to be a host instead of a talker. Rush is definitely only a talk-show spouting his own opinions and getting call-ins. Those are different formats. I don’t see where either of them escapes responsibility for what they say by claiming to be entertainers.
Neither are. Entertaining. On rare occasions, Maher can be thought-provoking. Rush doesn’t deal in thought.
I may be on my own here, but I’ve never had any real problems with Maher. I admit I haven’t seen even half of his public career, so there could be plenty of damning commentary on the record that I don’t know about. I can say I don’t like it when he does things like blame the deficit on Medicare and SocSec spending, or more recently, tweeting that Dems are being churlish for not accepting Limbaugh’s non-apology to Sandra Fluke.
I’ve heard complaints about various names he’s called Sarah Palin. The thing is, he doesn’t attack Sarah Palin because she’s a woman, he attacks Sarah Palin because she’s Sarah Palin: calling her the c-word has as much to do with gender as calling Newt Gingrich the c-word. I don’t know what the context is behind the use of the word “slut,” but I’d be surprised if it has to do with sexual behavior; it compares in no way with Rush going on a several days’ tear about Sandra Fluke having “so much sex it’s a wonder she can still walk,” and demanding money for it.
Maybe it’s a generational thing, but for an increasing number of Americans, what used to be gender-specific epithets are losing those exclusive connotations. The British have been using “c**t” and “t*at” to describe anybody and everybody for decades. I think we’re beginning to catch up with them in how we use our own favored terminology.
Not to be launching a major thesis about it, just saying that even with inflammatory language, there’s a context factor that is still crucial. In the Rush Limbaugh usage of these terms, it tends toward an old-world system of language used to demean and to subjugate; in the emerging contemporary usage, it’s a metaphorical expression which does admittedly derive at least some of its power from an older, baser interpretation, but which does nonetheless transcend gender stereotypes to some degree.
Anyway. Just some loose thoughts I’ve been wrestling with since hearing a few days ago about the right wing effort to “turn the tables” on the left via attacks on Bill Maher. It’s rough around the edges, and yes, there’s a minefield lurking beneath in how these words are used (Gingrich, for example, seems to draw a lot of derisive labels traditionally reserved for females, such as diva, prima donna, etc, and no doubt there’s a huge element there of ridicule operating via gender mismatch). I’m not a very high-amperage thinker; topics like this typically cause me a lot of short circuits. I mean well.
So in closing, if Maher’s “always been a pig and a chauvinist,” he’s never struck me as such. Yeah, he’s smarmy and condescending, but those qualities are what make his sarcastic shtick so effective–doesn’t make for great standup, but it does make for entertaining political commentary.
/2 bits.