The Ostroy Report is an aggressive voice for Democrats, the progressive agenda and serves as a watchdog of the Republican Party and President Trump.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Bill Maher Says Al Gore Should Be the Next President
Comedian, television host and political pundit Bill Maher has come out in support of Al Gore, saying the former veep not only should run for president in 2008, but that he also smells victory for the The Comeback Kid.
Speaking to The Associated Press, Maher also said Democrats, not third-party candidate and supposed spoiler Ralph Nader, were responsible for Gore's 2000 loss. He also could think of nothing good to say about President Bush other than that he's spent more than Clinton to combat AIDS in Africa.
When the conversation turned to the subject of the 2008 election, Maher was supportive although less-than-emphatic about another Gore run:
AP: Who is going to be the next president?
Maher: That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? My guess would be Al Gore.
AP: And who should be the next president?
Maher: Al Gore. And I'm not the biggest fan. If he would just do what he didn't do in 2000, that is, talk about what he really cares about, then I think he would be the right man for the job. I think the country is so off the track and that's now recognized by the vast majority of Americans. They probably, in the next election, will just take stock and say to themselves, "Last time we voted for the guy we wanted to have a beer with. That didn't work out so well."
Let's hope this time around voters realize they should get a beer with their friends and, for president, elect the most qualifed individual.
Posted by The Ostroy Report at 9:08 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I'm with y'all. He's the best right now/
Andy, was this supposed to help Gore? I think a "boost" from Bill Maher is about as helpful as Kennedy and Dodd claiming they like Gore so much they want to make a "Gore Sandwich"
Turn on CNN!!
Larry King has the ugliest set of clams on TV that I've ever seen! It's entitled, "The Democratic Women of the Senate".
Not sure I've ever seen a dozen mugs that ugly
Wow anonymous, you're right!
Last time I saw a dozen clams that ugly I was pulling mollusks out of the Exxon spill!!
yeah, Hillary looks like Bill is beating her. He's gotta keep a paper bag by the side of their bed, just in case he didn't find any interns that day.
Hey Ostroy, you nincompoop,
On Friday "The Ostroy Report" claimed Bush was the Comeback Kid, Today you're telling us that Gore is the Comeback Kid??
Which is it? Good thing you're not making decisions that affect the security of our nation - you flop flippin' - flip floppin' bag of duck semen.
This website is a mess.
It's just the little, scared kool-aid drinkers pushing their little tiny anatomical parts around. Only the GOP will have them at this point.
Keep up the good work, Andy.
Hey Johnny "10 things",
Stop posting anonymously. We all know its you because you always say, "Keep up the good work, Andy"
This thread is a mess. 11 posts and the only one on topic is conservative.
You liberals are lost.
I am beginning to fear anything I say will get lumped in with the other conservative. I think I will bow out until this blows over. I doubt I will be missed, though.
Wrong on the Johnny 10 things. That's what you get for jumping to conclusions.
Actually, what's to respond to on this one? Mahar stated his opinion. You can agree or disagree on this one.
The little morons expect liberals to flounder when they come in with their jackboots on. Too bad they are about their boot size in intelligence.
Blogging for enlightenment does tend to get a little messy at times. Deal with it.
To Website Sucks,
The Department of Defense has issued a statement refuting Santorum and Hoekstra's claim of WMD. Seems they got it wrong. Those weapons were already known to the WH and DOD and designated as ones not used for the reason to go to war.
Check out Think Progress.org or Buzzflash.com in between sips of kool-aid.
Hey anonymous, sign your name so we can know who you are even if it’s just X’s. Al Gore is going to be the next President “again” so get used to it.
Andy -- I think what's truly sad here (on your blog) is that the idiots who spout their unintelligible rhetoric always sign as "anonymous." Get some balls you good-for-nothing Bush huggers! If you're not going to say who you are, shut the holes in your faces and stay the hell out of here! No one wants to hear what you have to say. As for me, Andy, I LOVE your site and I read it daily -- for a dose of what is possible -- what I dream of -- when Bush is finally OUT of office in 2008. I think Al Gore has a good shot -- IF HE DECIDES to run. I saw him on Larry King and he didn't sound like he was interested in the job. Keep doing what you're doing Andy -- the idiots who comment anonymously are a dime a dozen and haven't the capacity to think for themselves -- so they let the Bushevics do it for them. Sad -- very, very sad. Love your blog -- keep bringing the truth to us the way you always have!! It is most appreciated.
Good to have two well spoken people from Michigan, Rob and Cathy. One thing for sure Andy has really gotten a lot of people “tuning in” to his blog and one thing about blogs is they get the real pulse of the people. Unlike 2000 or even 2004 the blog is going to play a very important roll in the up-coming elections. Howard Dean showed how he could raise a ton of cash from the “average” person (like me) and Al Gore knows full well that all he has to do is declare he’s running and the cash will flow in faster then he’ll be able to count it. Make no mistake, Al Gore will be running in 2008 because two things will be on everyones mind, Iraq and the environment. I have to put gas prices with environment as they pretty much go hand and hand. Remember Nixon running after losing and RFK entered the race in the early spring of 1968. Al can take his time and he’ll do just fine, remember also, he’s had over 6 years to plan this all out. He’s mad, but he’ll also get even.
THIS WEBSITE SUCKS!!
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ.
DEMOCRATS ARE ALWAYS WRONG!!!
ha ha ha ha
Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed
uh...you were saying????
To rob R. Michigan.
Well, now let me see. I really know who you are now. You're rob R. in Michigan. I can only GUESS that your last name is "Refined" from your refined comments above. However, if you stop and think even for a moment you should realize that you might as well sign "Anonymous" for all the information we now have about you. And who even knows for sure rob is your name. Why don't you put your entire name, address and telephone number and e-mail if you're for disclosure.
you forgot the next line of that interview,
Q: How much do you think Ralph Nader is to blame for the current political situation?
A: I don't blame Ralph Nader at all. Please. The people who are to blame are the Democrats for not having the Ralph Nader platform. Ralph Nader is right... His big issue is that America, our democracy, is being slowly strangled by the influence of corporations and lobbyists and money in politics. And that is the root of all our problems. Nothing in this country ever gets done without somebody getting paid off.
thats the part you should be paying closer attention to.
right on Amy!
I'm a conservative who just posted a really long comment in the latest thread. I agree with you and hope we can get more people around here to start thinking out of the box.
We can do it, but not through the Republican or Democratic parties. We need new parties and new platforms. Imagine, power getting put back into the hands of the people.
It seems to me that the Nader solution leaves out a key component. The Republicans are hand in hand with the corporations and corruption and therefore, perhaps, a more detrimental force in the skewing of American politics. Abramnoff and DeLay, Enron and Ohio voting scandal, Diebold and Florida and Ohio, Cunningham and Ney, lesser players that are Republican and serving time for breaking the law, Frist under investigation, Hastert and land deals, I could go on...
Nader likes his point of view and it is his opinion. You can like it, too. This is America. But, it is your intellectual duty to look at all sides. J
I have been quite excited by an apparently radicalized Al Gore running around finally speaking frankly to the American people; but it only have been a chimera after all.
Some weeks back on George Stephanopopoloposuses' show Gore equivocated horribly in regard to what needs to be done in regard to the occupation of Iraq. He carefully said that "timetables for withdrawal" would not be productive or wise. Has he been talking to Liebermann again?!
After all his harsh and accurate criticism of the Bush administration in the past couple of years as war criminals, it looks like Gore might be hedging his bets again as he eyes the White House. Crap.
I've written a few letters; who knows where they've gone - but I hope someone with Gore's ear tells him to "drop the stick and take three steps back - do not insert that thing in your ass again!" Gore has opened people's eyes with the Global Warming issue - I wish he'd recognize that they're primed for more solid truth, like: "We need to get the fuck out now to save the greater number of lives, and we need to pay massive reparations and send our leadership to the Hague."
For good reason, the United States doesn't recognize the Hague.
Right, Larry. For the same "good reasons" that the real-world referents of Tony Soprano like to avoid federal prosecutors.
OK, I accept that point. My problem with recognition of the ICC is it places an international organization over our constitution. For this, I will not ever believe we should recognize the ICC.
Also, if by chance some future president forces us to recognize the ICC, I believe we should stop sending our troops overseas for reasons including the stopping of Genocide, UNLESS all security council member states send the same amount of troops as us. When we send more troops, we have more risk of prosecution. Let the other countries do it instead of placing our soldiers are more risk of prosecution than the citizens of other countries. At most, we should limit our involvement to exactly 1:1:1 resource distribution. For every soldier that every other country supplies, we'll supply one. For every tank supplied by the other countries, we'll supply one. On the same theme, we need to stop paying 22% of the United Nations operation expenses. All permanent security council members need to pay the same exact amount of money. All rotating security council members could pay less since they don't have a veto, but they should all pay an equal amount as well. Non-security council member states could pay the least since they have the least influence, but they should pay an equal amount as their peers.
Wow. I can agree with that completely. If we were to take such sensible steps and view our international military action as it should be viewed: as a component of a cooperative venture of peacekeeping by consensus of humanity. I also believe that once we - the world's most active, intrusive, and belligerent superpower - stop swinging our explosive balls around to rape other countries of their resources and labor, and to affect our own domestic election process, and begin to embrace the internationalist approach we have long given sloppy lip-service, then we will find that fewer and fewer soldiers, tanks, and dollars will be called upon to be sent overseas.
Could it be that a conservative independent and a liberal (independent ? democrat ?) can agree?
There is hope for the this country after all. :-)
I'm a radical democratic socialist, Larry - and I therefore have no political representation in this corporatist Orwellian freakshow.
And you are right. If the two major parties splintered - as would be the natural condition if the fictional dichotomy were not perpetuated by heaps of money and a media that Stalin would envy - into numerous smaller groups that actually reflected the range of perspective in this country, then cooperation, accommodation, and episodic issue-specific coalitions would become the standard operating procedure of our government. Then people like you and me and every other fringe whacko out there would feel invested in this nation and begin to assume more responsibility for running it well.
But as I said on another strand to you on this issue, the first order of business is to eject the corporations from the halls and seats of government, which the currently control. The best option for doing this peacefull is to shatter the Republican syndicate with sensible, honest, and intelligent Democrats like Feingold, Kucinich, and maybe Gore (if he refrains from shoving the coward-stick back up his ass).
I may not entirely agree with you, but I respect your opinions. Thanks for the discussion.
You don't agree about what? Its apparent from what you have already written that you too chafe at our staged two party sytem. So are you saying that you think that corporations should remain in control of our government? If that's the case, I can't imagine that the two-pary system would bug you at all.
I agree with you that we need to cleanse the corporate & lobbyist influences from our political system. I'm just not a socialist, you say you are a radical democratic socialist. I'm more on the libertarian side of the spectrum. (I'm not a pure libertarian either.) I bet we agree on a lot of things, like ending the war on drugs, legalization, etc...
It's too bad Bill Maher didn't back Al Gore WHEN IT COUNTED, in 2000. Back then, Bill Maher, on his national TV show, said "I just can't see voting for the lesser of the evils [i.e. Gore]." No Bill, you'd rather ensure the election of the greater of the evils. Maher advocated "making a statement" by voting for Nader, and a lot of impressionable young voters, enough to swing the election for Bush, threw their votes away on Nader, who everyone knew had zero chance of being elected anything. Yeah, you made a statement Maher, that you were too stupid to vote for someone who had a chance of winning. Now Maher blames GORE for losing in 2000. Gore did everything possible to win, yes including talk about the issues. You just weren't listening Bill. Too bad Bill's just now realizing what all of us knew back in 2000.
Post a Comment