Once More into the Breach, a Maher Wrap-Up

Friday night I was joined by Team Breitbart in L.A. at CBS Studios to appear on “Real Time with Bill Maher.” It was exactly what I thought it would be except for one thing: I was taller than most of the men on the panel. Maybe it was the heels, but I positively towered over a couple of them when I went to shake hands and I’m not a particularly tall woman.

Originally we were to discuss the Chamber of Commerce, Christine O’Donnell, over-population, and the Nobel Prize to the pioneer of in-vitro fertilization; topics changed a bit shortly before the show which was fine except that I was really hoping to see where my fellow panelists stood on free speech and the CoC because that could’ve been a party.

A few things:

1. My fact resolutely stands on my statement that we spent MORE in stimulus than in Iraq. Saying “nu-uh” doesn’t change this. The stimulus adds up to $862 billion dollars, $100 billion MORE than Iraq. Really, I could be a total and correct brat and argue that the stimulus is further beyond even this figure – factor in the second stimulus, the EduJobs bill (a $26 billion-dollar payoff to unions as we had $38 billion in unspent stimulus allocated specifically for this same purpose laying by the wayside), additional billions added for food stamps and unemployment, Cash for Clunkers – all of it an artificial mechanism to stimulate the economy to some idiotic Keynesian economic principle by spending cash we don’t possess. Correction: spending CHINA’S cash. I know how the left loves to pass cash with China, but this is becoming ridiculous.

For argument’s sake, let’s say that the stimulus (minus all the other stimulus projects I mentioned above) didn’t cost $100 billion more than the cost of Iraq. Iraq was a success. The stimulus was not.

We spent more money we didn’t have on something not enumerated in the Constitution as a responsibility of our government. We put our financial security at risk by selling our debt to China to fund temporary projects that only worsened our unemployment rate and further devalued our dollar. We’re going to couple this disastrous move – if Democrats have lame duck success or conservatives don’t take back congress – by raising taxes (like Japan’s lost decade) in a recession. Let’s do the simple connect-the-dots on how this works:

1. Raise taxes
2. Discretionary spending decreases
3. Less demand for goods = slower production
4. Slower production = bad for business
5. To offset, businesses, manufactures halt job creation, lay off employees
6. More unemployment

We will end up with more unemployed than were originally unemployed for whom the stimulus was designed to help. It’s a “Pinky and the Brain” episode gone horribly, horribly wrong. Too many people on the left think that when you move a chunk of money away from people for entitlements that the money magically reappears and that discretionary spending will be unaffected.

Of course, it’s difficult to make such a point when a guy in a Redenbacher getup is busy talking over you with total speculation as fact, but I digress. My point stands.

2. Reagan didn’t give Chrysler a bailout, he just happened to take office after Carter bailed out Chrysler. I was shocked that the car-expert dude seemed oblivious to this fact.

3. How is it you can claim to be a civil rights leader but unable to name or recognize a single black conservative in this country except for Michael Steele? It was a point I made to Sharpton in after-hours discussion when he was saying that he had his own Bible like King James and I was thinking (but was prevailed upon to show manners), “He wants to be the ‘Wisest Fool in Christendom?'”

4. The term “teabagger” is dead.

/p>

Lastly, number five.

5. Email from reader Jen:

I don’t get why conservatives slum it and go on these ridiculous liberal talk shows, why? You know you’re not going to get a fair shake and that they’re going to talk all over you. What’s the point of trying?

This is why. From my inbox:

Not a fan of the Tea Party, but you are the first spokesperson for the movement I’ve heard who sounds intelligent and sane. For the first time since this whole nutty movement began, I actually listened. I guess I want to thank you for elevating the level of political discourse to something more noble than polarizing sound bites. I feel compelled to admit my respect for a political opponent. Well done.

— Rob W

[…]

Hi,

I just want to thank you for appearing on “Real Time with Bill Maher”. I define myself as a liberal woman, a registered Democrat and proud of it but because you were willing to come on to our ground and open yourself to questions I’ll meet you halfway and say that my view of the tea party has been changed. Thank you for being real.

— Erika S.

[…]

I disagree with every single thing you stand for and I’m a huge Bill Maher fan but I’m not so biased that I can’t say good job being the one against four and also that my opinion of the tea party is more positive than I had originally viewed it.

— Ed V.

[..]

I have more mail where this came from.

That’s the point. Willingness to engage the other side shows people a truth that contradicts the government media’s stereotype of Tea Partiers. The goal, as has been echoed so many times by myself and by Andrew Breitbart, is to plant the seed.

It’s easy to talk a good game in an echo chamber, it’s easy to witness to people who think exactly the same way you do, but to test your convictions by going outside your comfort zone is where the ideological battle needs to go.

I should also note that Maher has agreed to return the favor by appearing on my show in the coming days. I’ll keep you apprised.