Video: Maher goes for the jugular crotch on Palin

posted at 5:37 pm on March 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

And of course, Bill Maher’s audience responds with delight over his bon mot (also at RCP):

One might think paying for HBO as a premium cable channel would entitle subscribers to high-quality entertainment selections. But for an hour Friday night, viewers were treated to a little misogynistic locker room humor with the channel’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

On Friday night’s airing of the show, host Bill Maher took a shot at one of the left’s favorite targets, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, by contemplating her reaction to the tragic events that have unfolded in Japan over the past nine days. …

“Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’” Maher said. “I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you –”

Really? That’s all Maher has? The last time I recall hearing that particular vulgarity about a woman’s genitalia, I was in junior high school. It’s one thing to be crude and vulgar in making a trenchant or interesting point. Tossing out a crude reference to a vagina as a way of demeaning one particular woman betrays an utter lack of a point.  It’s even worse than otherwise in this instance, since Maher didn’t even have anything to criticize about Palin’s response to the crises in Japan; he had to invent something to make her sound stupid, and then call her names for a cheap laugh.  It practically defines the term juvenile, which applies equally to Maher and his audience on this occasion.

Maher has been nothing better than a giggly fratboy for several years now.  It looks like he’s aiming lower these days, in more ways than one.

Tags: ,

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 … 6 7 8

For the benefit of readers just joining this thread, I thought the following pertinent poll results should be available on the latest comment page. How do you all explain the fact that Palin has such little support even among Alaska Republicans?

Palin’s viability as a candidate in Alaska:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/clinton-potentially-competitive-in-alaska.html
It ain’t pretty.

It’s not a match up likely to occur but Clinton would destroy Sarah Palin in a hypothetical match up in the state, 53/37, including a 62/25 lead with independents. There’s no appetite among Alaskans for Palin 2016- only 16% think she should run to 78% who think she should not, and even among Republicans just 18% would like to see her make a bid.
To put into perspective just how poorly thought of Palin is in Alaska now, consider this: Congress has an 8% favorability rating in the state. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of Congress or Palin, Alaskans pick Congress by a 50/34 margin.
“Alaskans are pretty clearly done with Sarah Palin,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “They wouldn’t support her for the Senate, they wouldn’t support her for President, and they have an ever lower opinion of her than they do of Congress.”

I think you guys should be aware of this.
bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 9:50 PM

bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM

For the benefit of the readers just joining this thread:

I am willing to sacrifice my reputation on here if it means raising the awareness of the dangers of Palin worship even a little bit.
bluegill on February 17, 2013 at 9:04 AM

I want to counteract some of the Palin worship on here.
bluegill on February 17, 2013 at 8:31 AM

No, she is again leading on her worshipers
bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 12:13 AM

I wish you Palin worshipers…
bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 12:03 AM

Sorry, not all of us are willing to bow down and worship an incompetent politician like Palin.
bluegill on March 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM

I and many other conservatives on this site are tired of the Palin worshipers

What embarrassing slobber from a Palin worshiper.
bluegill on March 29, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Quit trying to brand anyone who refuses to bow down and worship Sarah Palin a troll.
bluegill on March 28, 2013 at 7:58 PM

When you listen to her worshipers on this website…

It is as if she and her worshipers believe everything is about her.
bluegill on March 29, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Disappointing to see all the focus from Palin worshipers…

Palin worshipers are an embarrassment.
bluegill on March 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM

The Sarah Palin worship does more harm than good.
bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 1:49 AM

I hope to ween you people off the Sarah Palin worship.

If I can touch just one Palin worshiper and get them to let go of the worship, then I will be happy.

If you don’t like being identified as Palin worshipers…
bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 3:45 AM

I said the Palin worship is bad.
bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 6:20 AM

and –

we need to let go of the Palin obsession.
bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 3:54 AM

Do “we”?

rrpjr on March 30, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Okay, I see what you’re saying. To answer your question, I think it is just you grasping at straws. You desperately don’t want to believe that even 8 in 10 Alaska Republicans don’t want Palin to run.

You want to deny the poll because you don’t like what it’s saying.

Wolf, believe it. People there know Palin very well, and even the Republican voters don’t support a potential Palin 2016 run.

bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Where did you see me claim the poll was inaccurate? Your ability to copy and paste is evident. Impress me.

wolfsDad on March 30, 2013 at 11:46 PM

BTW, why are you all still wasting time with this Democratic mole, bluegill?

She relentlessly uses the same keywords over and over again “worship” and “cultist”.

This is a dead giveaway, you know. Bluegill is a Dem. I’ve been saying that since last year. I just make fun of her by pointing out how Romney should be President.

Problem is, the ownership around here is too loose with the banhammer. Oh well; every punch bowl needs its turd.

victor82 on March 31, 2013 at 2:05 AM

Problem is, the ownership around here is too loose with the banhammer. Oh well; every punch bowl needs its turd.
victor82 on March 31, 2013 at 2:05 AM

Who the hell do you think you are? I am not a Dem. How dare you say I should be banned for criticizing Sarah Palin and the zombies who worship her? I just don’t think she would be a strong nominee.

Hey, genius, it is the Dems who want her to run, in case you haven’t noticed. They know they can beat her. I am the one telling the truth!! Problem is, you Palin groupies aren’t the swiftest bunch.

bluegill on March 31, 2013 at 3:56 AM

Who the hell do you think you are? I am not a Dem. How dare you say I should be banned for criticizing Sarah Palin and the zombies who worship her? I just don’t think she would be a strong nominee.

Hey, genius, it is the Dems who want her to run, in case you haven’t noticed. They know they can beat her. I am the one telling the truth!! Problem is, you Palin groupies aren’t the swiftest bunch.

bluegill on March 31, 2013 at 3:56 AM

You seem to be the only one hung up on the possibility that Palin may decide to run in 2016. It’s like you feel you have a responsibility to destroy the woman now so that she doesn’t gain any more power.

Palin is focused on 2014, as all of us real Conservatives should be. You are guilty of conflating her effort to help keep the House and take over the Senate with some mythical fear you have that she will turn out to be a possible candidate in 2016.

Palin was effective in 2010, just a short time after she was destroyed by the media and shortly after she resigned. Logic should tell you that if she was such a lousy spokesperson for the Conservative brand, 2010 would have seen her at her least effectiveness.

Palin was effective in 2012. Even though she didn’t endorse as many candidates in 2012, those she did endorse were significant because she showed the power that the GOPe feared the most.

Palin will be effective in 2016, much to the chagrin of you and others who want to continue to send good ol boys to D.C.

Palin isn’t just a force that the GOPe must reckon with, she is a force multiplier. When Palin steps forward to endorse, or even to praise a candidate in any way, the result is that phones start ringing in the candidate’s campaign office, people step forward to volunteer, and the campaign coffers start to swell. The maximum donation of $5000 that SarahPAC may send to the candidate is a very minor part of a Palin endorsement. When she puts her “seal of approval” on a candidate, that $5000 donation has the effectiveness of a $100,000 donation because now all of a sudden, the candidate is getting noticed by the media and the media starts writing or talking about the candidate. That’s a lot of advertising that the candidate doesn’t have to pay for.

You see, that’s why people like you speak out so negatively about Sarah Palin. It’s not really about her “lack of smarts”, her “lack of polish”, her “shrill voice”, the “she’s a quitter” meme, or “her family is dysfunctional”. It’s not really about Sarah Palin as an individual speaking out. It’s all about the Sarah Palin Effect. When Sarah Palin speaks, people listen, and people like you just can’t let that happen.

Sarah Palin may never again hold elective office. She may not ever desire to hold public office again. Make no mistake, Sarah Palin will effect change and she’ll do it by speaking and writing and endorsing good Conservatives. She’ll do it and there is nothing that you and the other PDSers can do to stop her.

NoNails on March 31, 2013 at 7:20 AM

bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM

figure that a democrat would post a democratic poll attempting to bash Sarah. nice try. no cigar.

I don’t believe Sarah is interested in getting into the nitty gritty of Alaska politics anymore. There has been a cultural shift. the takers outnumber the makers. Sarah threatens there free cheese.

Sarah has bigger fish to fry. Palin 2016

renalin on March 31, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Bluegill’s a Dem troll. Has been for some time. All this “we” bullsh*t. EVERY time, EVERY Palin thread.

Notice, btw, how she basically soaks up every Palin thread using the same tactic ALL the time? Using the same term? “Worship” “cultist”…

I had figured that some of you would have figured Bluegill out by now.

Trolltard.

victor82 on March 31, 2013 at 8:38 AM

It’s not a match up likely to occur but Clinton would destroy Sarah Palin in a hypothetical match up in the state, 53/37, including a 62/25 lead with independents. There’s no appetite among Alaskans for Palin 2016-

Thought I’d say Bye before Palin disappears off the front page.
And Bluegill, that is a devastating poll. Which I’m sure was met with fingers in the ears and “la-la-la-la-la”.

Marcus on March 31, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Bluegill’s a Dem troll.
victor82 on March 31, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Correct. It’s not only the mindnumbing “worshiper”, “cultist”, “groupie,” “zombie” loop that gives her away but the “Dems really want her to run” nonsense.

The dems want and wanted who they got — Romney. Just as they want the next Romney. That was and remains the whole point of the attacks on Palin. This is only happening because of Palin’s threat and relevance. How could anybody possibly sustain such a preternatural monotony of attack over a public figure who had no relevance or posed no threat?

Don’t engage, mock.

rrpjr on March 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM

bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM

That just reminds me of that poll from Rasmussen from a couple of years ago that if Palin were the GOP nominee, 20% of all conservatives intended to vote for Obama, and another 10% were undecided. In other words, Palin was supposed to be so colossally repulsive that suddenly Obama wasn’t so bad. But then Romney became the nominee, and suddenly kicking Obama out of office, no matter how we felt about the GOP nominee, was important again, and not just important, but the absolute duty of every American, and anyone who didn’t support Romney was an Obama voter.

Now bluegill pulls out some poll from some Democratic polling firm saying that Alaskans wouldn’t vote for Palin for dogcatcher and that Alaska would gladly take Hillary Clinton over Palin after eight years of Obama. Really?

I always wondered where Rasmussen found all those conservatives who were prepared to re-elect Obama, and where they went once Romney was the nominee.

What’s funny, though, is that Palin isn’t running for office.

And yet here is bluegill, on her lonely quest to convince even ONE drive-by reader that running Palin for office is a really, really colossally horrible idea — mostly by repeating the same points over and over again, and using biased articles and outright lies to support her claims.

Yeah, bluegill’s definitely the obsessed one here. We Palin supporters are just happy to see her giving speeches and providing support to people like Ted Cruz.

Aitch748 on March 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Thought I’d say Bye before Palin disappears off the front page.
And Bluegill, that is a devastating poll. Which I’m sure was met with fingers in the ears and “la-la-la-la-la”.
Marcus on March 31, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I think that’s a pretty good assessment of what likely was the reaction. :-)

Well, people… better make a comment now or forever hold your peace. This thread is soon to go to retired thread heaven.

rrpjr on March 30, 2013 at 11:41 PM

And I have to give you credit for that compilation. It did come off very funny, and I enjoyed it.

bluegill on March 31, 2013 at 10:48 AM

In the months to come, we’ll doubtless start hearing that Palin is destroying candidates by endorsing them, and that Alaskans will gladly vote for Democrats because Palin has ruined the Republican Party by being in it. That is, once the haters are finally satisfied that Palin isn’t running for anything but have noticed nevertheless that Palin isn’t going anywhere.

Oh, and Palin helped Ted Cruz get to the Senate. Because Ted Cruz himself told us so. And because the haters seem to want us to believe instead that Palin made no difference.

Aitch748 on March 31, 2013 at 11:04 AM

who else would ride a dead horse like romney for so long other than an obama supporter.

who would continue to burn with hate for so long if not for an obama supporter.

getting paid minimum wage must suck eh bluegill. LOL.

renalin on March 31, 2013 at 11:12 AM

bluegill on March 31, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Reaffirming Palin’s currency comment by comment.

Keep it up.

rrpjr on March 31, 2013 at 11:30 AM

You seem to be the only one hung up on the possibility that Palin may decide to run in 2016. It’s like you feel you have a responsibility to destroy the woman now so that she doesn’t gain any more power.

Palin is focused on 2014, as all of us real Conservatives should be. You are guilty of conflating her effort to help keep the House and take over the Senate with some mythical fear you have that she will turn out to be a possible candidate in 2016.

Palin was effective in 2010, just a short time after she was destroyed by the media and shortly after she resigned. Logic should tell you that if she was such a lousy spokesperson for the Conservative brand, 2010 would have seen her at her least effectiveness.

Palin was effective in 2012. Even though she didn’t endorse as many candidates in 2012, those she did endorse were significant because she showed the power that the GOPe feared the most.

Palin will be effective in 2016, much to the chagrin of you and others who want to continue to send good ol boys to D.C.

Palin isn’t just a force that the GOPe must reckon with, she is a force multiplier. When Palin steps forward to endorse, or even to praise a candidate in any way, the result is that phones start ringing in the candidate’s campaign office, people step forward to volunteer, and the campaign coffers start to swell. The maximum donation of $5000 that SarahPAC may send to the candidate is a very minor part of a Palin endorsement. When she puts her “seal of approval” on a candidate, that $5000 donation has the effectiveness of a $100,000 donation because now all of a sudden, the candidate is getting noticed by the media and the media starts writing or talking about the candidate. That’s a lot of advertising that the candidate doesn’t have to pay for.

You see, that’s why people like you speak out so negatively about Sarah Palin. It’s not really about her “lack of smarts”, her “lack of polish”, her “shrill voice”, the “she’s a quitter” meme, or “her family is dysfunctional”. It’s not really about Sarah Palin as an individual speaking out. It’s all about the Sarah Palin Effect. When Sarah Palin speaks, people listen, and people like you just can’t let that happen.

Sarah Palin may never again hold elective office. She may not ever desire to hold public office again. Make no mistake, Sarah Palin will effect change and she’ll do it by speaking and writing and endorsing good Conservatives. She’ll do it and there is nothing that you and the other PDSers can do to stop her.

NoNails on March 31, 2013 at 7:20 AM

Wow! This says it all! I just had to repeat the whole thing.

pugsly on March 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Thought I’d say Bye before Palin disappears off the front page.
And Bluegill, that is a devastating poll. Which I’m sure was met with fingers in the ears and “la-la-la-la-la”.
Marcus on March 31, 2013 at 9:55 AM

It’s about as “devastating” as all those polls showing His Electability beating Obama. It’s a poll, in other words.

ddrintn on March 31, 2013 at 6:58 PM

bluegill on March 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM

That just reminds me of that poll from Rasmussen from a couple of years ago that if Palin were the GOP nominee, 20% of all conservatives intended to vote for Obama, and another 10% were undecided. In other words, Palin was supposed to be so colossally repulsive that suddenly Obama wasn’t so bad. But then Romney became the nominee, and suddenly kicking Obama out of office, no matter how we felt about the GOP nominee, was important again, and not just important, but the absolute duty of every American, and anyone who didn’t support Romney was an Obama voter.

Now bluegill pulls out some poll from some Democratic polling firm saying that Alaskans wouldn’t vote for Palin for dogcatcher and that Alaska would gladly take Hillary Clinton over Palin after eight years of Obama. Really?

Aitch748 on March 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM

LOL. Exactly.

ddrintn on March 31, 2013 at 7:09 PM

This just in from the red state of Alaska:

It’s not a match up likely to occur but Clinton would destroy Sarah Palin in a hypothetical match up in the state, 53/37, including a 62/25 lead with independents. There’s no appetite among Alaskans for Palin 2016- only 16% think she should run to 78% who think she should not, and even among Republicans just 18% would like to see her make a bid.

ddrintn responds for the distraught Palin worshipers:
“It’s just a poll. A Dem poll. You are a Dem troll for telling us there is no desire among Republicans for Palin to run. La-la-la-la I can’t hear you. Trollcott!!

And so it continues. Denying reality and distrustful of anyone outside their comfy Conservatives4Palin website confines, the Palinista cult soldiers on, with lowered morale but still full of faith in Sarah. Which of them will be the next to break ranks? The Palinista movement has already lost PappyD61. That loss was was a bitter pill for the Palinistas to swallow. Can rrpjr be far behind? Rrpjr seems a bit sharper than your average Palinista, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we soon noticed him/her breaking free of the Palin worship and entering reality.

bluegill on April 1, 2013 at 3:49 AM

bluegill on April 1, 2013 at 3:49 AM

The fishwife just latches onto one idea and harps on it over and over again. Last week it was that CPAC straw poll; this week it’s some article from the website of a Democrat polling organization claiming that Alaskans are so fed up with Palin that they would vote for Hillary Clinton if Palin were running against her.

(Never mind that there is a huge push to get Hillary Clinton to run for Obama’s job in 2016. I’m sure that had nothing to do with the article.)

Aitch748 on April 1, 2013 at 6:19 AM

Since this thread is about Palin, I thought readers might be interested to learn about her views on illegal alien amnesty.

Warning: Beware of egomaniacal, overly self-promoting frauds like Sarah Palin who also support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

The following aired on October 21, 2008 during the broadcast of “Aquí y Ahora” on Univision Network. The following excerpt was taken from that interview: ( http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?chid=3&schid=10414&secid=0&cid=1716304 )

Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?

-I don’t know, I don’t know. That’s a good question.

As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?

-There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?

-No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They’ve got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

-I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

————
From here: http://www.americanpatrol.com/GOP/PALIN/ProAmnesty091205SP_.html
Lars Larson interview with Sarah Palin – December 3, 2009

Note: Lars Larson is a talk show host on KXL – AM 750 — Portland, Oregon

Lars Larson: The amnesty proposal that was defeated in the Congress — in your view, was that amnesty for illegals and would you back amnesty or a path to citizenship, as the current president calls it?

Sarah Palin: … And you know, there are humane ways to deal with the 11-13 million illegal aliens that are in our country right now, but if they’re not going to follow the rules, they need to get out.

Lars: So you would be in favor, not of a path to create legalization process, but tell them, if you’re not here legally, leave and, in the meantime put up a barrier to keep new illegals out?

Palin: Uh, I would absolutely prefer the latter that you’re suggesting right there. To secure the border and to not allow this generous amnesty that the Democrats are proposing. No, that’s not how we’re going to create or form an economy – that’s not how we are going to create a fairness and equality to allow people to be here illegally.
——–
Notes from article linked above:
Since Illegal aliens haven’t followed the rules as it is, when Sarah Palin said, “but if they’re not going to follow the rules, they need to get out,” she must mean new rules. When she said, “I would absolutely prefer the latter,” she was agreeing with Lars about putting up barriers, but not necessarily when he said, “if you’re not here illegally, leave.”
Palin has cleverly left room for proposing a path to citizenship for all illegal aliens presently in the U.S. Some call that amnesty.
bluegill on March 28, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Sarah Palin supports a Rubio-style path to citizenship/amnesty.

What do you Palinistas have to say about pro-amnesty Sarah Palin being Democrate-lite here? I bet many of you didn’t even know this about her.

bluegill on April 1, 2013 at 6:49 AM

What do you Palinistas have to say about pro-amnesty Sarah Palin being Democrate-lite here? I bet many of you didn’t even know this about her.

bluegill on April 1, 2013 at 6:49 AM

You’ve posted that before, too. “Sarah Palin: … And you know, there are humane ways to deal with the 11-13 million illegal aliens that are in our country right now, but if they’re not going to follow the rules, they need to get out.” Yeah, we obviously need to start ignoring her endorsements from now on. We need to ditch Democrat-lite Sarah Palin for Alaska’s true-Democrat choice for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton. /sarc

Aitch748 on April 1, 2013 at 7:17 AM

Aitch748 on April 1, 2013 at 7:17 AM

But isn’t entering the country illegally ALREADY not following the rules?

As the article says:

Since Illegal aliens haven’t followed the rules as it is, when Sarah Palin said, “but if they’re not going to follow the rules, they need to get out,” she must mean new rules. When she said, “I would absolutely prefer the latter,” she was agreeing with Lars about putting up barriers, but not necessarily when he said, “if you’re not here illegally, leave.”
Palin has cleverly left room for proposing a path to citizenship for all illegal aliens presently in the U.S. Some call that amnesty.

bluegill on April 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM

This little Palin thread is hanging onto the front page for dear life. I have to admit, I am going to be little sad to see it fall off the front page.

bluegill on April 1, 2013 at 8:40 AM

to see it fall off the front page.

the good news is you’ll go with it.

gracie on April 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM

371,506 views on youtube. AMAZING. So much for the little small group of supporters. No wonder the GOPe is trying a full court press wiht people like Ben howe at redstate and John Avolon of no labels mediate to knock this ad down.

Jeb bush’s CPAC speech 883 views.

hmmm lets see 883 goes into 371,506 how many times…..

well Mitt’s speech must have got a lot of views he was the 2012 nominee after all……oh wait…..only 452 views….

But wait you say its a 3 minute add not a speech so Jeb and Mitt must have beat Gov Palin’s cpac speech then. She only got what…..239,544 views….

Hey Ben and John you are so correct in trying to tear this woman down after all what do Republicians need with a person who can bring that many eyeballs to the conservative message. Right….I mean SSM passage and open borders will bring all the eyeballs you need for 2014 and 2016 right? Might as well tear down the only person people care to listen too. ….after all those people don’t vote, RIGHT? Buller?

freaking idiots.

unseen on April 2, 2013 at 6:57 PM

unseen on April 2, 2013 at 6:57 PM

How do you know all the views were from rabid supporters?

bluegill on April 4, 2013 at 3:51 AM

bluegill on April 4, 2013 at 3:51 AM

ROFL…that’s the best you got? I suppose all of Mitt’s 442 views were from his “rabid” supporters which explains the election results in NOV.

unseen on April 6, 2013 at 6:47 AM

http://www.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/republican-party-sarah-palin-advice?mobile-redirect=false

Conclusion

The truth is that Sarah Palin was very briefly a successful politician, then a divisive one; and she has chosen instead a career path as a celebrity. Republicans would be nuts to follow her advice, unless they wanted to follow her path to unpopularity.

bluegill on April 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 … 6 7 8