Bill Maher: Obama’s ‘mistake’ was not telling Republicans to ’suck on it’

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Maher: Obama’s ‘mistake’ was not telling Republicans to ’suck on it’

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/maher-obama-shouldve-told-republicans-suck-it/

By David Edwards and Sahil Kapur
Thursday, March 11th, 2010 -- 9:17 am



Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher said Wednesday that President Obama's insistence on courting Republican votes on his legislative priorities has weakened his presidency and the outcome of health care reform.

"I think the biggest mistake that he has made in his first year was to put bipartisanship ahead of fixing the country," Maher declared Wednesday on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

He said Obama should have "com in with all the energy from the election and saying, you know what, we're in a crisis mode, I won this election by a sizable mandate -- here's what we're going to do; if you don't like it, Republicans, you can suck on it."

The host of HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher has for months skewered Democrats on his show as too timid and lacking the courage to fight for their beliefs. Last summer he famously said, "We don't have a left and a right party anymore" because "Democrats have moved the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital."

"They should have started with single payer," he told guest host Lawrence O'Donnell. "It's the one program that makes sense, but okay, we live in a country that doesn't make sense... If they had started from that, then the fall-back compromise position would have at least been the public option," Maher said, assailing Democrats for their ostensibly poor negotiation skills.

[Deep13]

1. I wish POTUS would be as aggressive with the Rs ...

... as he was to Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

[yurbud]

36. and treat them the way he treats progressives...

a token meeting now and then, but ignore their advice.

[RedCloud]

86. or the way W did!

[Xenotime]

2. So true.

[Fleshdancer]

3. I agree

While I respect Obama's desire to bring civility and meaningful conversation back to DC (assuming there ever was such a thing), you can't start the conversation with compromise when you are the one in power. Republicans have no reason to meet him half way right now. Democrats must use their majority to get things done and only then will the GOP be willing to compromise.

It's like parenting. You simply do not negotiate with the 3 yr old who is throwing a temper tantrum. It's not good for you or for the kid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. This goes straight back to the 80s when the 'New Democrats' decided

to abandon labor - it was from the example of labor that the politicians learned how to negotiate and when NOT to. Cutting loose from that traditional Democratic mooring lost us the training in how to deal with an intransigent political foe.

1)Always argue from a position of strength.

2)Present your very strongest position out front because there WILL be compromises.

3)Add to your platform some nice, preferably hot button, throwaways that you can negotiate away, letting the other side think they've gained something by defeating them.

4)ALWAYS be willing to walk away from the negotiations before compromising core values. There must be a line which you will not cross, and the other side must KNOW it.

Is that so fucking hard?

[polichick]

4. Yep - and watch him do it again with financial reform and energy/climate. nt

[Captain Hilts]

58. He's already done it on energy and the climate. nt

[Upton]

5. Bill Maher is exactly right..

I want a POTUS that will stand up and tell the Republicans what assholes they are..

[aquart]

69. Me, too. Sigh.

[Marr]

6. Obama's "bipartisanship" is just cover for pushing corporate policy.

That's what he does. He acts like he wants liberal legislation, then slowly maneuvers corporate legislation into place, saying it's the result of "compromise".

Maher is kind of naive, IMHO. This is like complaining that the "good" wrestler never should've trusted the "evil" wrestler. It's a show.

[EFerrari]

8. Well, you have a point there. n/t

[smoogatz]

10. You may be right.

Obama appears to be Clinton without the sex addiction. Still better than any extant Republican, but not what I thought I was voting for. It could also be that he's taking a "play it where it lies" approach, given the very conservative nature of the Dem congressional caucus, particularly in the Senate. You're just not going to get much real progressive legislation through when ten or eleven of your so-called "super majority" in the Senate are to the right of Richard Nixon on almost everything. As for telling the Republicans to fuck off: I think I get why he tried to do the bi-partisan song and dance in the early going. It was either very naive, or very, very calculated. If you play up your intention to do bi-partisanship, over and over on every issue, and the Republicans reflexively refuse to play ball at every opportunity, the electorate will blame Republicans if things don't get done. The polls show that in fact this is what's happening. Of course, actually getting things done would have been even better, both in terms of actually getting things done, and for the sake of political advantage. In either case, enough, already--time to get things done.

[Echo In Light]

17. So obvious the mind boggles over the endless parade of contrary justifications

[polichick]

28. That's the most logical conclusion - sadly. nt

[QC]

34. At last...the truth!

Sometimes it gets said, even here.

[harun]

41. Yah, then they blame the Corporate hand-outs on the Republicans.

When none of them are voting in favor of anything. The people removing the PO from HCR are Dem's not Republicans, the people shooting down medicare buy-in are Dem's not Republicans and the people keeping HR 676 from getting an up or down vote in the House are Dem's not Republicans.

The dem's think they can get the support of their base and the campaign funds from the big corporate donors at the same time.

They are wrong.

[DrDan]

81. it's worked for a year

[ljm2002]

45. Sadly, that's how I see it too. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

48. Couldn't agree more!

[Hello_Kitty]

49. Bingo. Bipartisanship has been a ruse for over 20 years. eom

[Lorien]

50. Spot on. nt

[sendero]

63. Eggs...

... fucking zactly. My opinion also.

If Obama WANTED any of the shit he claims he wants, he could get it, easily.

[anonymous171]

67. Of course. Business has always preferred the "third way." nt

[Jim Sagle]

76. As a result, we get bad Republican policy, which will be labelled as librul, soeshalist, Demoncrap.

Which is all to the good, from Obama's view. One term and out and up to the banking sector.

[rucky]

79. If a President went head to head with these corporations

would he be able to fight that battle and keep the economy from collapsing at the same time?

I'm still willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. After seeing a presidency be derailed over a blowjob, I can see how he'd want to preserve his influence in an environment where corporations have such massive power.

The dramatic change we want to see won't happen. Reform will be a process of chipping away at it - just like the plutocrats have done over the last 30+ years to get to where they're at today.

[DrDan]

83. so continuing the policy of letting corporations drive the car is going to

return us to prosperity . . . .

sounds like a GOP talking point to me . . . one that has driven us to this situation we have now.

[rucky]

103. The way you rephrased it, maybe that's a talking point.

But I'm not the one twisting people's words.

[Dinger]

80. Nail Hits Head

You are right.

[uponit7771]

96. PONY!!!!

[Andronex]

97. I agree but...

"Obama's "bipartisanship" is just cover for pushing corporate policy."

I agree but I don't believe Maher is naive, preserving this two party system is essential to preserving the corporate power structure in America, and blaming the republicans for everything is part of that game as republicans blame everything on liberal democrats, it's the illusion of choice that keeps this "democracy" alive, for the benefit of a few.

[kctim]

7. Did bill share

how telling Republicans to 'suck on it' would have convinced moderate Democrats to fall in lockstep and rubberstamp everything?

[EFerrari]

9. You can't win if you don't show up for the game.

Now, we have the worst of both worlds, the DLC's specialty. Conservative policy decisions and all the blame that falls on the majority.

[lame54]

11. reconciliation would leave them out in the cold...

and then calling them out - loud and often- would leave them vulnerable during election time

[kctim]

18. Only if

their constituents disagree with what they did.

[lame54]

22. some risks you have to take

[laughingliberal]

12. If the President had, figuratively, told the Republicans to suck on it and proclaimed his commitment

to get this house in order, his popularity would have been in the stratosphere and the 'moderate' Democrats would have soiled themselves at the thought of opposing him. Just as some of our alleged progressives could not vote with Bush fast enough when he was running 70 and 80% in the polls.

One other point is part of telling them to 'suck it' would have been passing his agenda through reconciliation and telling the recalcitrant Blue Dogs the issues were too important to let them derail them.

[kctim]

20. You're first point

may have shown to be true.

The second point would just replace Democrats with Republicans.

[laughingliberal]

23. To expand on my 2nd point, I believe if he had said this the Blue Dogs would have

become a lot less recalcitrant. First there would have been the opportunity to write a bill that people would have liked. We would not have wasted months sucking up to the Blue Dogs just to get tiny pieces of reform into the bill. They would not want to have been seen opposing legislation which would have been very popular after passed. See, if we had gotten a good HCR bill and it had passed it would be very popular after passage as people would already see some benefit from it. And the Blue Dogs would know they would be called out as not voting for it.

As it is, they were able to obstruct with impunity, knowing they could, first, prevent a good bill from being written, due to their demands, and have no fear of a public backlash.

Your point ignores the fact that if we had passed a good bill and the Blue Dogs had not helped us pass it, there would have been a damned good chance of replacing those who are up for reelection with some progressives in the primary.

But, it's moot. I don't think the White House or the Blue Dogs ever intended a bill any better than the one the Senate passed. That's my disagreement with Bill. I don't think it was a lack of spine. I think it was a desire to cater to the corporate interests that drove this insistence on 'bipartisanship.'

[kctim]

25. That is a valid point

but I think it ignores 2 facts:

1 - most of those who vote for 'Blue Dog Dems' do not agree with you on what a 'good HCR' plan is.
2 - most of those who vote for 'Blue Dog Dems' will vote for a Republican before they ever vote for a progressive.

[laughingliberal]

31. I might accept that except for the evidence we have from Florida right now

Alan Grayson defeated a 4 term Republican in a conservative district in Florida likely because he was swept in with the 'wave' election. Now, 'conventional wisdom' or the dogma of the beltway tells us these conservative districts will now revert back to Republicans as the wave is over and the Democrats have to move to the right to keep these districts. However the experience of Grayson belies that. He has, without a doubt, been the most outspoken supporter of progressive values. He knocked the Republican's dick in the dirt. In the last FEC reporting period he was shown to have raised more money than any other candidate and a recent poll showed him leading with every group in his district. One poll showed him ahead in the Republican primarey where, obviously, he is not even running. I think this proves that telling the Republicans to suck it works. People like their representatives to stand for something.

[kctim]

32. You could be absolutely correct

and the tide is turning. Guess we will have to wait until November to see just how.

[laughingliberal]

33. I think we will see a rout of Blue Dogs in November

I think you are correct that a lot of Blue Dogs sit in districts which will go Republican. But, as with the Grayson example, I think if they had stood up and stated their positions on some progressive legislation and told the Republicans where to stick their obstructionism, they would be in very good shape. This spineless hemming and hawing to appease Republicans and corporate interests has nauseated people.

I'm not happy that they will be taking my Senator, Harry Reid, down with them. Although Harry is not the most liberal member of the Senate, he is far more liberal than many and not a Blue Dog. Because of his position as Senate leader he has been forced to the middle to garner votes. So, I fully expect we will lose his seat to a really vile anti worker corporatist and it is due to the Blue Dog's demand for him to compromise to get their votes.

[kctim]

35. In very good shape?

Are you saying the Blue Dogs voters are going to vote for anti progressive Republicans, because the Blue Dogs did not support some progressive legislation? That seems a little backwards to me.
Why would they vote against progressives, when progressive legislation is what they want?

[ChiciB1]

85. You're Soooooooooo Lucky To Have Him... In My Soooooooo Red County

I haven't seen a Democrat elected to anything since I've lived here! And, I'm betting I NEVER will!

[tblue37]

56. Remember: Obama says the Senate bill is 95% of what he wanted. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

66. Would you share how kissing Republicans ass motivates moderate Dems to get some balls?

[skypilot]

13. As I get older I tend to listen...

...to that little voice in my head more and more. And during the election, that little voice was telling me to be wary of Obama's constant talk about bipartisanship. Other people may have had other problems with him but that was THE thing that bothered me most. I understand the need for it when dealing with republicans who aren't utter fucking douchebags, but how many of them are in Washington these days?

[1776Forever]

14. More like FDR! "They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred."

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

October 31, 1936

Madison Square Garden Speech

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.

[Toasterlad]

47. Please Tell Me You Didn't Just Compare Obama To FDR.

[1776Forever]

51. No I didn't compare him to FDR - I said he should be more like him & tell his critics to bug off!

:popcorn:

[Toasterlad]

53. Well, I Certainly Agree With That, But I Don't Think He Has It In Him.

[tridim]

15. What does Bill think the result would be if Obama had said "suck on it" on his first day?

Less "NO"? More repuke support? :rofl:

I get what he's saying, but his idea would only work in a political vacuum, it completely ignores the political reality as defined by the corporate media.

[bullwinkle428]

21. 14 months of Obama trying to get the Repukes to love him has

accomplished exactly the same amount, in terms of gaining their support for his agenda.

[tridim]

24. True, but maybe his efforts aren't aimed at politicians.

Ever considered that? I know Bill Maher hasn't.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

26. I didn't keep track of when Bush first said "suck on it" ...

...but he did, over and over and over.

The whole "Decider" thing was basically "suck on it."

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." --Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushquotes/a/topbushisms2006.htm

...as was the "people have to explain to me but I don't have to explain to anyone" thing, which was code for "suck on it."

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." --as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushquotes/a/dumbbushquotes.htm

[tridim]

27. Yep, and look where it got him..

~30% approval and considered one of the worst presidents in American history.

Bill's advice is awful, even in hindsight.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

30. And that's the Quality vs. Quantity debate...

...Bush got two terms, however he managed that, and even though he left office with a 30% approval rating, keeps sending out the message that one day his candidacy will be "vindicated."

Republicans ALWAYS want quantity over quality. They want to "win," no matter what.

You and I and the rest of DU may not see Bush as a "winner."

But in his own mind, he is still on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, declaring "Mission Accomplished."

So I go back to what I've said several times recently...I'd like to see President Obama spend less deliberate time "reaching across the aisle." I'd like to hear him talk less about his willingness and desire to "work with Republicans."

There are 1,000,000 ways for him to tell the Republicans to suck it, without his using those actual words.

Bush did it.

Obama can do it too, in his own style, without compromising his character or his integrity. But this constant "work with us" discussion is being seen as weakness, no matter how you slice it. You go to work, and those who participate do. Those who want to be spoiled, petulant children sit on the sidelines. That's it. No more begging them to join us in the sandbox.

[Marr]

38. That's an absurd conclusion.

Bush absolutely had the right approach to moving an agenda. You use every lever at your disposal, and you pull as hard as you can. You even yank the ones you aren't meant to touch, if you can get away with it. The fact that Bush's agenda was disastrous for most of the country is irrelevant. He moved his agenda.

Actually... on consideration, I can think of one way in which the nature of Bush's agenda is relevant. It's the same one the Republicans openly espouse today. Unabashedly pro-wealth, anti-poor and middle class. If Obama actually wanted to advance the agenda of the middle class, he would not expect or even want consensus with people who actively work against that middle class.

[tridim]

39. The middle class needs affordable HC

and Obama is days from delivering. Ignore that fact if you want.

I agreed with you until you went into pure BS mode in your last sentence.

[Marr]

40. You agreed with my first paragraph?

You agree that "bipartisanship" is not the way to get things done? Do you also believe Obama is a brilliant politician, with the interests of the middle class as his top priority? Those three ideas don't jibe with the reality of the past year.

And I have to disagree with you on the legitimacy of this "HCR" fraud. He's institutionalizing the very industry that *is* the problem, and ensuring their continued profits in perpetuity. Health insurance is not health care, and this shameful sell-out is going to seriously damage the Democratic Party.

By the way, what was it in the second paragraph that seemed so crazy to you? Do you think the Republicans are trying to do what's good for the middle class and the poor?

[tridim]

42. "If Obama actually wanted to advance the agenda of the middle class" is bullshit. nt

[Marr]

43. I must respectfully disagree. n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

55. Could there be MORE No?

I doubt it.

[Captain Hilts]

59. GWBush told Democrats to suck on it and like it in Feb '01. nt

[TexasObserver]

16. Recommend

[asdjrocky]

19. Right again Bill.

I knew it was over when he started talking about people liking the insurance they had that there would be no real change coming.

[optimator]

29. bush wasn't horrible because he used power

he was horrible because of what he used power to accomplish.
Democrats seem to think using power is "bad" unless they get permission from the party that the PEOPLE rejected.

[Robbie88]

37. K&R

Love your sig pic too, by the way. :hippie:

[upi402]

44. Don't need an Ivy League education to know that

Maher is sharp as hell, and funny too. Run for office Bill!

[Toasterlad]

46. I'm Getting a Little Tired Of This Fiction That Obama Is Trying to Fight the Republicans.

The man has done nothing but capitulate to the right since he took office. Did anyone stop to consider that possibility that HE HAD NO INTENTION OF PURSUING ANY SORT OF LIBERAL AGENDA?

It's right there in your face, people. You can refuse to look all you like. Obama is not working for the people. He's working for the People - the ones the Supreme Court recently gave a blank checkt to.

Wake up, America. Wake the fuck up.

[zappaman]

52. "Suck on it"?

What a sexist thing to say!
I am outraged!

[pleah]

54. That's what I've been saying from the beginning! n/t

[AlinPA]

57. Maher is 100% correct. President Obama would be polling in the high 60's if he would not have

capitulated to the republicans. "Bipartisanship" with republicans makes as much sense as trying to pet rattlesnakes on the head.

[L. Coyote]

60. w/6 R's, Senate passes $140 billion extension of jobless benefits

Maybe he has to work with the Pukes )-:

[BrklynLiberal]

61. No argument here..

[David Zephyr]

62. K&R.

Amerigo Vespucci, great OP and I love the photo of one of Rock's greatest bands and LP's.

[unblock]

64. it sounds good and it feels good, but we have to remember

obama's biggest achievement in this entire process was largely neutralizing the insurance companies by kicking off the process with them right behind him. yes he obviously had made promises and yes that meant starting off with a more conservative starting position.

but had he started off the way maher suggests, the insurance companies would have come at him with both barrels just like they blasted "hillarycare" the last go-round. imagine how the insurance/republican propaganda machine would have manufactured fear of change. they did it effectively and easily against the clintons. this time would have cost more but they still would have made obama's job much more difficult than it actually has been.


i've said it before and i'll say it again: the mere fact that we have something that can be called reform is a huge win, not just politically, but also from a policy standpoint. that's because having made a big "reform", it will be vastly easier to "fix" and "tweak" and "adjust" the reforms. so if it's not to your liking, just keep pressing congress to fix it.


one thing for sure, we can't wait until the insurance companies own one-third or one-half of the economy. they'll be unstoppable then.

[John Q. Citizen]

68. We should follow that recipe with Al Quida. If we try to fight them, they will hit back.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Obama never wanted single payer or the public option. He wants to bail out the insurance companies.

And that's exactly what he's doing.

[upi402]

70. DUers flamed me when I tried to warn of his corporatism

He told us he was a Clinton-Republican. Some STILL don't get it. Must be DLCbots. How can you hate BushCo and like a very similar stream of insanity now?

[ShortnFiery]

90. Welcome to the club. It was not just you who was flamed incessantly.

Yet, there's quite a few who are going CONTINUE to follow Obama off of the proverbial cliff with this HRC.

People will not realize that a Public Option will NOT get through the Senate and the working class people will be left with MANDATES and poor, if any, true health CARE. :(

[Toasterlad]

89. I Wouldn't Say "Bail Out". I'd Say "Help Them Keep Their Strangle-Hold"

Otherwise, I agree with you.

[freddie mertz]

94. I think that is pretty much proven now, by actions in the last year.

We wuz lied to.

[colsohlibgal]

71. No Doubt

Being a big fan of Stephanie Miller she really disappointed me this morning by going hard after what Maher said and endorsing Obama's futile bipartisan lost year.

I agreed with what Bill said 100%. I didn't see Dubya or Reagan bend over backwards to play nice - and that's how they got us in the mess we're in.

[Grand Taurean]

75. The Stephanie Miller? The daughter of Bill Miller, running mate to Barry Goldwater?

That Stephanie Miller? The one who is NOT remotely funny. I see.

[ShortnFiery]

92. Some of us find her both charming and entertaining. She and Ed Shultz have been led astray ...

As I said below, I have faith that they will soon "catch on." :-)

[Grand Taurean]

105. I do not see Miller as "charming"

She's more caustic. :thumbsdown:

[ShortnFiery]

91. Don't worry, "The Mooks," esp Jim Ward - will set Stephanie straight. She and "Big Ed" are

still enthralled with this Administration but I have faith they'll soon catch on. :shrug:

[bertman]

72. Maher hit his stride in those segments. He had me laughing AND cheering. Rec. nt

[SlingBlade]

73. Not so much "Was" as "Is"

[gtar100]

74. Mr. President... It's not too late.

[Lasher]

77. Good discussion.

One that needs to be had.

[spicegal]

78. Politically astute as always. I wish Obama had come out with both guns blazing from the get go.

How could anyone lose the healthcare debate? It seems like a no brainer to me. I never understood why they never tackled the moral issue or why they didn't emphasize the fact that each and everyone of us is at risk, even if you happen to like your insurance at the moment. The system is broken AND unsustainable. Single payer does make the most sense.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

82. With all due respect to Maher

If that is what he expected/hoped to get from Obama, then , well, he must not have been paying much attention to who Obama really is. While telling the Repubs to "suck on it" might win some people over, I kind of doubt that it will really make him look seem like a better person. I know that the Repubs SEEM to get away with being vile and nasty but they usually have to resort to negative and/or fraudulent tactics to win elections and they haven't quite made out well during the last two national elections.

[ChiciB1]

84. Yep, Too Much Time Lost & I'm Afraid Too Many People Are Feeling The

same way. While getting gas yesterday a man came up to me and started talking to me because I have a Democrats license plate on the front of my car!

Told me he USED to be a Democrat, that HAD always been a Democrat but was just FED UP with how things have been working out! Didn't know this man, but he's NOT the first time I've had this happen. I NEED to take the license plate off now. I had forgotten it was on there because it's been on there for so long, but now it seems like an advertisement, albeit a GREAT talking point! However, I'm not getting good reactions from people!

One thing I DID say was this... At LEAST NOW people have begun to WAKE UP and are less APATHETIC! Too bad it's at the expense of Democrats & Obama! How they could have blown this is just UNREAL, but it's a spreading feeling and regardless of Repuke numbers not looking good, I wonder how the 2010 elections are going to do down!

I won't be surprised if things aren't GOOD for Dems or the WH!

So much wasted, it's just such a let down!

[timtom]

87. Obama has made no mistakes.

[Toasterlad]

88. How Many Brains Did You Eat Today?

[timtom]

99. I KNEW I should have used the "sarcasm" tag.

But, truth to tell, I'm not certain of the intent of your comment.

[Toasterlad]

100. I Thought You Were Probably Kidding

I was playing along: If you're going to act like a zombie...etc.

[timtom]

101. I would've been surprised if YOU hadn't seen the jape.

[Toasterlad]

102. Some Get By Me.

I'm just as prone to go off half-cocked as anyone else around here. But I was pretty sure your post was facetious.

:fistbump:

[AllyCat]

93. From the start, I could not believe the Dems failed Negotiation 101

Starting with more than you want is a BASIC tactic in negotiation of ANY kind. When they started with a weak, toothless public option, I knew we were doomed to poor bills from both houses. What I did not expect was how AWFUL these bills would be.

[orbitalman]

95. I couldn't agree MORE. nt

[Vidar]

104. Maher's right for a change. We need a President like Grayson, not a Vacillater in Chief .