Bill Maher meets for drinks with Rand Paul, still not ready to vote for him

[jct74]

Elias Isquith interviews Bill Maher at salon.com:

To stay on what’s going on in American politics right now, I wanted to ask you about your feelings about Sen. Rand Paul. I know there’s been some exaggeration in terms of the degree to which you’re fond of him —

I never used those words. I said I was considering him and he was the first Republican I would even consider in a very long time.

And that’s because of his views on foreign policy?

Absolutely, yes. He’s great on ending the empire, not getting into any more foreign entanglements — I’m even to the left of him on the bombing [of ISIS]; he wants to keep bombing ISIS, I want us to stop bombing altogether.

Do you think he actually does, or do you think he’s positioning himself for 2016?

Well, he said that. He said he’s OK with air attacks. Because he’s not like his father, he’s much more…political, y’know. His father never gave an inch and [Rand Paul] really wants to be president.

I had drinks with him about two weeks ago. He’s a nice guy, he’s a smart guy. My big problem is I asked him about the environment, which is my big issue — because he had made a comment that was very similar to what Dick Cheney said about a month or two ago, which was basically, “Why are we talking the environment when ISIS is out there?”

I said, “Senator, y’know, you sounded just like Dick Cheney…”

How’d he take that?

Well, his answer on the environment was wholly unsatisfactory to me. Unless he comes around, big time, on that issue… I mean, I won’t even quote what he said to me, I’ll give him the chance to gather a better answer [laughs], but that would be a deal-breaker, right there, because Hillary Clinton said something awesome about [environmental issues] and I assume she’s going to be the other candidate. So, right on that issue, he would lose my vote.

more:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/06/excl...y_tea_baggers/

[William Tell]

Yeah, the environments a deal breaker with these libs, and homosexual marriage, and abortion......
Winning their votes is almost impossible, unless you actually convert them.

[Inkblots]

Yeah, the environments a deal breaker with these libs, and homosexual marriage, and abortion......
Winning their votes is almost impossible, unless you actually convert them.

Interesting how supporting perpetual war, bombing women and children, and imprisoning huge numbers of people, particularly the poor and minorities, for non-violent crimes doesn't seem to be a deal breaker for these guys, huh?

It's almost like what they say they want and what they actually want are two very different things...

[philipped]

Bill Maher is an expert @ trolling.

[scottditzen]

Yeah, the environments a deal breaker with these libs, and homosexual marriage, and abortion......
Winning their votes is almost impossible, unless you actually convert them.

I do think that Maher brings up an important issue. And that is that the Republican side has not had an acceptable, coherent message on the environment in ages.

[scottditzen]

And the problem is, when you bring up 1. Perpetual Bombing 2. Imprisoning Poor and Minorities how is the Republican Party any more innocent than the Democrats? In fact, if you asked 100 average people I bet 75 of them would think Republicans are more to blame.

Interesting how supporting perpetual war, bombing women and children, and imprisoning huge numbers of people, particularly the poor and minorities, for non-violent crimes doesn't seem to be a deal breaker for these guys, huh?

It's almost like what they say they want and what they actually want are two very different things...

[Xenliad]

His endorsement would hurt more than help.

[William Tell]

I do think that Maher brings up an important issue. And that is that the Republican side has not had an acceptable, coherent message on the environment in ages.

Government should have nothing to do with the environment, except for being responsible with waste from military bases etc.

[scottditzen]

Government should have nothing to do with the environment, except for being responsible with waste from military basest etc.

That's not a viable position politically or practically in the year 2016.

[trey4sports]

His endorsement would hurt more than help.

This

[William Tell]

That's not a viable position politically or practically in the year 2016.

What is a viable one? We have to be commies now?

[Krugminator2]

That's not a viable position politically or practically in the year 2016.

It isn't even the libertarian position. You can't easily sue someone for pollution. It would be very hard/impossible to prove the actual cost of a factory. Since you can't easily show that someone died from cancer because they lived near a factory, this is one of the legitimate places for government.

[scottditzen]

What is a viable one? We have to be commies now?

Are, are you serious?

[William Tell]

Are, are you serious?

Yes.

[scottditzen]

Check out the comment section, they are all over the place. I think Rand can win over a lot of skeptics by acknowledging that Clean Air and Water Acts have helped, but also pointing out how environmental regs can be improved to be more coherent, more simplified and more streamlined.

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...aul-video.html

[William Tell]

Check out the comment section, they are all over the place. I think Rand can win over a lot of skeptics by acknowledging that Clean Air and Water Acts have helped, but also pointing out how environmental regs can be improved to be more coherent, more simplified and more streamlined.

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...aul-video.html

All that crap needs to be repealed. Abolish the EPA, States will do what they feel is necessary.

[CaptUSA]

Well, Mr. Maher... since the war machine is the biggest polluter out there, I would think that alone would do more to help the environment than any government program Hillary will create for you.

[William Tell]

Well, Mr. Maher... since the war machine is the biggest polluter out there, I would think that alone would do more to help the environment than any government program Hillary will create for you.

You hate the earth, unless you let Al Gore tax you for breathing, and let Ted Turner sterilize you.

[scottditzen]

All that crap needs to be repealed. Abolish the EPA, States will do what they feel is necessary.

Right. Now that's a strategy that could potentially win converts if Rand can finesse that viewpoint.

But it's an uphill battle I'd say. Because most people's gut reaction to abolishing EPA would be a negative one.

This is a necessary intellectual discussion, but politically speaking, it's a big risk.

[surf]

Peace. should be the number one issue. would be nice if "liberals" and "conservatives" would understand this advanced (i.e. elementary school) position.

[economics102]

Winning their votes is almost impossible, unless you actually convert them.

Rand doesn't need to win their votes necessarily. Democrats rely on being able to paint the Republican as The Great Evil to drive turn-out. If Rand can inspire Democrats to not come out in droves to "stop" him, that would be a big deal.

[phill4paul]

Why the hell would anyone "meet for drinks" with Maher?

[CaptUSA]

Rand doesn't need to win their votes necessarily. Democrats rely on being able to paint the Republican as The Great Evil to drive turn-out. If Rand can inspire Democrats to not come out in droves to "stop" him, that would be a big deal.

This is exactly right. And the environment, while important to some key constituencies, is not really one of the issues that drive turnout.

Talking about abolishing the EPA is going to do about as much as talking about abolishing the FDA. People really do think the FDA stops them from eating dirt and chairs (h/t South Park).

If this is Maher's big issue, I say he keeps turning it to issues they can agree upon. Environment? Think of how much cleaner the world will be when we aren't blowing things up all the time and running jets and drones 24/7. The art of the pivot is Rand's friend.

[Christian Liberty]

Peace. should be the number one issue. would be nice if "liberals" and "conservatives" would understand this advanced (i.e. elementary school) position.

That would require liberals and conservatives to actually want peace.

[Inkblots]

Check out the comment section, they are all over the place. I think Rand can win over a lot of skeptics by acknowledging that Clean Air and Water Acts have helped, but also pointing out how environmental regs can be improved to be more coherent, more simplified and more streamlined.

That's probably part of a winning formulation, yes. But that needs to be paired with his proposal that all new regulations written by executive agencies like the EPA must be subject to Congressional review and approval.

I think acknowledging the lack of practical options for managing air and water pollution without nationwide restrictions on emissions and effluents, but pointing out the dangers of letting bureaucrats write regulations without Congressional oversight -- instances of regulatory abuse like the EPA applying the Clean Water Act to drainage ditches by somehow defining them as "navigable waterways" -- would really hit the sweet spot with voters while still moving the nation a huge step in the right direction.

[economics102]

His endorsement would hurt more than help.

Not in the general.

And maybe not in the primary either. It could be used against him, sure, but it could just as easily be used to demonstrate that Rand would be a formidable candidate who can beat Hillary because he has cross-over appeal.

Never forget, at the end of the day the primaries often come down to which candidate people think can win in the general, even if that candidate sucks (I'm looking at you, Romney).

[Bman]

Government should have nothing to do with the environment, except for being responsible with waste from military bases etc.

The problem is that they already do. They are involved in the environment in many ways and in many ways it is not beneficial. I don't think a free market message is going to work on this issue but getting rid of subsidies and limited liabilities may be a way to show that while the government can't fix the environment it doesn't need to support the destruction of it.

[anaconda]

I can't picture Rand having drinks with Bill Maher. I'm calling bull$#@! until I see evidence.

[The Free Hornet]

And that is that the Republican side has not had an acceptable, coherent message on the environment in ages.

What is that "acceptable, coherent message on the environment"?

Without an answer to that question, all your posts are just a big waste of time. Am I supposed to counter - or agree - with what I presume you are talking about? Or do you wish to concede that this is just about perception ("message") and not about the environment? If that is your point...

And WTF is "the Republican side"? The party platform? Which one? How much time is "in ages"?

On the assumption that someone, a party or organization has that acceptable message, why not just link to it?

[BenIsForRon]

What is that "acceptable, coherent message on the environment"?

As long as he promises to appoint an actual scientist to head the EPA instead of an executive from Exxon, he should be mostly in the clear.