I like Sarah Palin in the sense that there’s something viscerally impressive about a poorly-educated backwater housewife working her way to a governor’s mansion. I think she got a raw deal in that she was promoted way above her ability level, and she doesn’t quite get that she’s trying to bat out of her league. Then again, most people wouldn’t. I don’t really think she got a raw deal in the media in the sense of unfair treatment; they’re sharks, and when there’s blood in the water the go into a frenzy, regardless of whose it is.
Back on topic - I don’t really think of Bill Maher as a liberal, per se, but he sure annoys the hell out of me. Jesse Jackson is a doofus. Keith Olbermann I actually like, but he commits the cardinal sin of trying to blur the line between editorial content and news.
I don’t dislike them but they are/were the go-to people when certain Republicans try to smear Democrats. Used to be Clinton but with her getting bumped out of the limelight, it’s all Pelosi these days. I can’t count how many times someone’s tried to score points off me in a debate/argument by insulting one of these two women and each time I just think “Ummm… huh? Okay.”
Oh, Al Gore too. I believe the planet is warming, etc but I couldn’t care less about Gore. He could be flying around in a coal-powered rocket ship made of spotted owl beaks and it wouldn’t change the studies I’ve read which form the basis of my beliefs. But people try to tell me all about Gore’s house as if this is something I care deeply about.
Again, Bill Maher is not really on the left. He voted for Bob Dole in 1996. He supports the death penalty, privatizing Social Security, and is always whining about bloated government bureaucracies. He also self-identifies as a libertarian.
I’m a Canadian, so this doesn’t apply to me. (OK, being fascetious, as I know “left” and “right” are universal, and for the record, I self identify as “socialist” (or some brand thereof))
But, one “side” I do consider myself a member of the team is Christian. And my major bugaboo with self-identifying as such is all the ignorami who definitely need to go away and stop giving us a bad name. Too many to list - could list those who I want to stay (ie those not on the list), but, of famous people, that list is incredibly short.
But, I think the OP is going more towards politics than religion, so I won’t open up that can of worms.
Chris Hitchens really makes me feel for religious people who want to distance themselves from crude, creepy zealots. Like a few others, I love Bill Maher half the time and want to side with him until PETA or vaccination comes up, then I want to slink away. It’s just so disappointing.
Theoretically they’re on my side, but overall, they both come across like guys who really side with the right on most things, but are pretending to be center-left in order to concern-troll more effectively.
When either of them finally ends his far-too-long tenure on the WaPo op-ed page, I’ll be popping a champagne cork.
Wayne LaPierre: I expect someone who represents something I have an interest in to act with a certain amount of decorum. He does not. He is typically a polemicist. I think it would be much more high-road of him to present his views matter-of-factly and leave the rhetoric to the opposition. Of course, he’s wildly popular with a lot of people, but I find myself cringing when I listen to him.
John Murtha: He does not represent my district, but he does represent my state. I think he is one of the dirtiest guys around, yet he is always a lock for re-election in spite of ABSCAM and the white elephant John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport.
Well then, as a libertarian, can I say Bill Maher then? He claims to be a libertarian, but he’s often siding on issues that are against libertarianism like a lot of his anti-gun, pro-nationalized healthcare, and pro-regulation spiel. He may have voted for Dole in '96, and but he seems to have had an anti-Dennis Miller effect where he was so opposed to Bush’s presidency that he has ultimately made some left-ward movement.
Also, I find his hypocricy to be infuriating. For instance, he criticized Bush for saying that global warming needs further study, but when being called out for being idiotic about vaccines he justifies his position by saying that vaccines need further study. IOW, if his opinion is consistent with the accepted science and you disagree, you’re a moron, but if his opinion is inconsistent with accepted science… well, he’s just thinking for himself.