Skip to comments.Bill Maher pitches Clinton-Warren 2016 ("Granny ticket" -wants carbon tax for AGW)
Posted on 05/16/2014 1:01:22 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Bill Maher said he would love to see Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) run as part of a 2016 presidential ticket with Hillary Clinton, calling the potential duo a granny ticket.
Speaking on Ora.tvs PoliticKING with Larry King, the liberal comic called Warren one of the most gutsy people in politics.
When asked by King whom he thought would be able to lead the country to address climate change, Maher said: I think someone like Elizabeth Warren, one of the most gutsy people Ive seen in politics in a long time. Shes somebody, I think, who would really say what she feels. She may not ever win anything. Id love to see her run with Hillary, how about that? A granny ticket.
But earlier in the segment, Maher criticized former Secretary of State Clinton, a Democrat, and Republican ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, both potential presidential candidates. Were talking about two centrist, corporatist type people, who are not really going to move this country off the track its on, Maher said. I cant see either one of them doing anything bold, like demanding a carbon tax.
He said that he didnt think either candidate would take serious measures to fight climate change, an issue he said requires great leadership and is the most important issue of our time.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Hey, Joe Biden doesn’t want to be sacked with the “dumbest VEEP eveh” tag.
2 true outlaws.
Well, Warren is used to lying about her “Indian ancestry”, so she should fit in just fine with the globull warming bunch.
Gutsy is right. It took a lot of guts, as a blonde blue-eyed Caucasian, to stand in front of tv cameras and claim native-American ancestry.
This mean,nasty leftist is the farthest thing from funny.
Granny is an indian outlaw and we know about many of the things Hilary has done.
If any of these people were truly interested in journalism and truth, they would be pushing to have an ongoing series of publicly broadcasted discussions amongst climatologists, physicists, computer modeling experts, atmospheric chemists, geologists, ocean current experts, etc. etc., from every side of the issue, and have them present and debate their positions.
They would ensure that anyone participating had to disclose where every one of their grant dollars came from, what investments they have, and to discuss the limitations of their own data sets. They would hold them accountable for their predictions, past, present, and future - and have them explain why their past predictions that were wrong turned out that way.
The bottom line is that we have the capacity, with all the advancements in telecommunications etc., to enlighten and debate any issue, and make these accessible to the general public for them to use in formulating their own opinions. Unfortunately, these tools are generally only used now for propaganda purposes.
Sheesh. Warren does about as much as Cruz.....good talkers. No accomplishments. Why do both sides want the talkers to become President. It makes little sense.
I think you present an excellent idea. But as you well know, there is so much hostility between those of either side of the issue to ever consent to presenting their ideas in a common setting, though that would be the best approach in terms of good public policy.
The first “of” should be “on.”
Gore doesn’t count?
Eh, it’ll be Abortion Barbie (Wendy Davis) on the VEEP ticket anyway...
The Democratic Primary debates might be fun to watch: Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Al Gore, Joe Biden, John Kerry all on the same stage, all ripping each other apart, all wanting to win at any cost.
You puttin' out the straight dope here?