T. Boone Pickens on Bill Maher

[JI7]

Bill Maher brought up Pickens supporting Republicans and opposing Democrats including slandering Kerry. but Pickens was bullshitting the entire time. i had to stop watching when Maher started going into Pickens being a Patriot. Pickens also said nothing would have been different if Gore or Kerry had been President.

i really hate that asshole and when he dies i will celebrate. hopefully it's soon.

but i do want the fucker to be exposed for the fraud he is first.

when Maher brought up the asshole voting for McCain he started saying "well i'm the one who made the ads". who cares asshole. stupid fucker. and stupid fucking idiots like Maher and the Democrats who kiss the stupid fuckers ass.

[beachmom]

1. Actually, I saw it differently.

Last summer, when Pickens appeared on 60 Minutes he defended what he did in funding the SBVT, saying he had "no regrets". But when Maher hit Pickens with "slandering John Kerry" last night, Pickens did not want to talk about it. His answer was "What do you want me to say?". Then he wanted to talk about having lunch with Al Gore. He praised the Obama Administration. He said he was through with politics, and would never get involved with it again.

I want to know how powerful a force Mr. Pickens is going to be in our move from oil dependence to alternative fuel. We have discussed the many flaws in his plan (and the fact that it will enrich him immensely), yet we cannot deny that most environmental groups think there is merit in it. Or at least a sigh of relief that one oil billionaire is not going to be a barrier for changing the energy policies of this country. Clearly, Pickens has found an audience in the Congress and in the Obama Administration.

And I am wondering how much it makes sense for John Kerry to sit on the sidelines, not part of those conversations. If Pickens will not be a force in these discussions, then the status quo can remain. If, OTOH, he will play a large role, I am wondering if some diplomacy, if you will, will be needed. Before anyone balks, John Kerry has praised the Sunni Awakening in Iraq. Um, the Sunni Awakening was about negotiating with elements of the Sunni insurgency that were responsible for killing American troops. These guys planted IEDs and blew up our guys. And yet ... General Petraeus negotiated with them, because it was good for America and to create peace in the Sunni triangle. So my question is the same question Kerry would ask in regards to talking to Iran or Syria or Russia: is there common ground that promotes America's interests? That is the question to be asking going forward in regards to Mr. Pickens. Because I saw an opening last night.

Here is the video. Maher was fairly pathetic but did get a couple good questions in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqMruFKnY4c

[fedupinBushcountry]

2. I will always believe

that Pickens is in it for the money. Why he is such a loud voice is because he wants the government to susidize it. He has given http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/T_Boone_Pickens.php">money to the Dem parties in Colorado, New Mexico and the Rep. party of Georgia, so to me he is trying to buy something and it is votes for his plan and no one elses.

He is playing a big role in this, he was one of the top speakers at the http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-15720">Energy Summit sitting right next to Al Gore. I wish Maher had pushed just a bit farther and boxed him in more. I will never trust nor defend anything Pickens does, period. He is by no means a patriot.

[MBS]

19. ditto, ditto, ditto n/t

[karynnj]

4. I agree with you

Here by the way was a DKos diary where Maher is praised for bringing the SBVT up and pushing the issue that Gore and Kerry would have done better on this issue.

As to Kerry sitting on the sidelines in these discussions - I don't think he is. He was not at the one sponsored by the Clinton Global Initiative. I would not be surprised if Kerry were not invited. (In fact, I assume the Clintonistas would likely have leaked it as a story if Kerry was invited and stayed away because of Pickens.) I seriously doubt that he would refuse to be there because Pickens is - especially as he did mention the natural gas part negatively at the Cape Cod event MBS went to. (Remember that a Clinton person did say that "Kerry was dead to them".) Kerry after all was said to have forgiven Nixon.

In addition, Pickens wants to say that all that is in the past - but, he did that issuing a parting shot at Kerry in the form of saying that there were no lies - because no one could claim the $1 million by proving lies. This itself has been used against Kerry. As atrocious as the original campaign was, it could be attributed to a combination of no moral ethics and the idea that all is fair in politics. The bet though was pure character assassination for no purpose. This is another in my long list of reasons to think that Bill Clinton has no conscience and deserves no respect from me - and retroactively I resent that I supported him for 8 years. He could have insisted that putting this to rest - admitting that Kerry was what the Navy said he was -a war hero.

The fact is that Pickens NEEDS the Democrats more than they need him on this. Kerry's only "crime" was running as the Democratic nominee against Bush. It shouldn't cost a man his reputation to run. That they used his war service that he has every reason to be proud of - just because in a time of war - it was an asset stinks to high heavens. Every Democrat should have made it an issue that Pickens completely end his attacks on Kerry - by admitting the truth. As this was Clinton's forum - he is the one I blame for not insisting. (You are implicitly asking Kerry to be big about this - something he has done through his career. I think it about time someone ask SOMETHING of Clinton.)

I also doubt that public policy is really formed at these high profile forumns.

[beachmom]

5. I am talking about when serious negotiations are underway.

IF Pickens is a major player then Kerry needs to deal with him. We saw the video of Kerry encountering Pickens (via 60 Minutes) and an account in the WP. John Kerry has NOT forgiven Pickens, and Pickens keeps talking crap that makes the whole thing continue going. In case people haven't gotten what I said, I do NOT trust Pickens, as I don't trust Iran, Syria or Russia. Nevertheless, sometimes we have to deal with people we neither like nor trust.

I am throwing this out there, as something that hit me when I saw Pickens last night. I don't know which energy summit you are talking about, Karynnj, or when it was (re: his remarks on the $1 million), but he seemed less obstinate last night. Maybe it was a fluke or it was the audience.

My bottom line is that John Kerry is the smartest guy in the Congress on energy issues, so if he refuses to deal with Pickens (understandable thus far, but maybe not forever) and then Pickens just deals with Reid, then I think that is a problem, because Reid is not as smart as Kerry on this issue. It is possible that Kerry may find himself out of the loop. I realize Kerry is not on the sidelines in general, but if Pickens has a seat at the table with the congressional leadership and with the Obama Administration, then it puts Kerry at a disadvantage in negotiations if he refuses to deal with him. It is like saying he 100% refuses to talk to Syria. The grudge is understandable but possibly not workable. Last summer I felt the grudge was mutual with no impasse possible. Now I SENSED (perhaps wrongly) that things are changing on the Pickens's end of things.

Therefore, perhaps careful diplomacy needs to ensue (third party mediator?). Or not. But sometimes you have to talk to your enemies. And that time may need to come whether we (or Kerry) like it or not.

[karynnj]

6. Going to find a link, I found it was not Clinton's foundation

but the American Progress Action Fund. http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/02/23/national-clean-energy-project-features-chu-gore-clinton-pelosi-pickens-reid-bingaman-more-live-webcast-today/

I realize that you don't trust Pickens in any way - and should have said that. I really don't see anything that suggests that Kerry is refusing to be involved - because of Pickens or anything else. I may be wrong, but I would not be surprised at Clinton trying to keep Kerry out.

I do agree with you that if Pickens is involved, Kerry will need to talk to him. My point though is that asking Kerry to forgive him, while he is still slandering Kerry really really bothers me. As I said the Democrats should be insisting that Pickens at minimum stop slandering Kerry - and they haven't done that and I think they owe that to Kerry. That is not even saying it was not true or saying he was sorry.

[beachmom]

7. Okay, it was February this year. Never mind.

I thought he was changing his tone, but apparently not. Why am I not surprised? I agree with you that the Democrats shouldn't have been so eager to fawn all over him. Now that he is "in" with them, having not expressed any remorse whatsoever for his actions in '04, they have no leverage over him.

Sigh, that sucks. But let's face it: it was Obama who set the tone by acting like it was all in the past. Democrats really have treated Kerry badly. In complete contrast to McCain, who was defeated in a landslide, yet is omnipresent on TV these days:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/us/politics/07mccain.html?hp

What is exasperating about the above article is how they don't explain how the GOP and the Democrats treat their former presidential candidates completely differently, and that is why McCain has more leeway to do what he wants. PLUS, Obama has repeatedly given McCain the spotlight.

Apples and oranges, New York Times!

[karynnj]

8. The frustration I have with that article is that with respect to Kerry it is just

plain wrong. This time in 2005, Kerry was the strongest opponent to Bush - grilling Rice in the SFRC. He also was as close to a shadow President as we have ever had - and in spite of the media - he had accomplishments. The biggest being that the Iraq Study group pretty much took Kerry's 2005 Iraq plan as theirs and the entire party took a variation of Kerry/Feingold. Compared to Mr "No earmarks", Kerry articulated a Democratic alternative.

As to Obama - I really don't get it, though your post a few months ago on how he treated early Chicago supporters suggested that that is how he is. It does bother me that he had Kerry act as an attack dog - which he did extremely well - knowing that Kerry risked hurting his own reputation and that he earned the Clinton's enmity doing so. Not to mention, it led to the obnoxious O'Reilly challenge. Yet, though there have been comments by Obama staff- that Obama respects his opinions etc, Obama has not done or said one thing to himself show that. Obama made a big production of meeting with Gore - is there any reason that meeting wasn't Gore and Kerry? Or, could he have mentioned himself at some point, Kerry's representing him at Poznan? Or, in his thank yous at the convention - when he thanked both Clintons and Gore - would it have been hard to add Kerry?

As to being involved on the energy solutions, I assume that Kerry will be, even if Pickens is involved - and that he is far more thick skinned than I could ever be. It still hurts me that the party where almost everyone had Clinton's back on his despicable actions with Monica, doesn't really have Kerry's on his laudable war service.

[TayTay]

9. I am not so worried on this

I think the grown ups would act as grown ups in the best interests of the United States of America and the issues at hand. Invitations to hang out at dinner or the ball game would be another matter, but any serious business and serious players involved in an issue would, I am sure, be seriously regarded. It could not be otherwise.

I think it's telling that Al Gore was there. Perhaps the former Vice President also makes a nice intermediary. You don't have to get all the players together in one room all the time to make progress. Sometimes one person can relay the agenda and mission of another quite nicely.

[Mass]

10. Honestly, I'd like the Dems to forget the SBVT for a moment and look at what Pickens project really

is. This should be the real issue here (even though I despise Pickens for all the rest).

His plan is not about changing this country energy policy. It has never been. It is about creating a monopoly for a few people including himself (and mostly for himself) in those issues that may become the most important of the next century (gas rights, water rights, and lands where windturbines can be built).

I would hope (though I am not exactly sure of that) that our good Dems are not fooled by what he is proposing and are using him more than he is using them to make clear to the RW reactionary basis that things need to change. Unfortunately, coming from the same dems who have believed each time that the GOP was honest and could be trusted.

Pickens is a guy who is in it for the money. His interest in financing the SBVT was not about VietNam. It was about making sure that Bush and Cheney's policies in favor of oil would be continued. McCain was less friendly to oil than them, and now Obama is in power, so he understands that he better put this battle in the past for now, and get a place at the table.

BTW, Kerry is part of the conversations that will make the energy policies. That he does not talk to Pickens does not matter by itself. That he participates in meetings with him is not what matters. However, what matters is that the Dems do not sell their energy policies to the Pickens of this world. So, as much as people like him should be part of the conversation, I hope that the Dems see him as the dangerous player he is.

[karynnj]

11. You are right

There is hope though in that the people themselves in CA could not be snowed into voting for the proposition that would have mostly benefited Pickens. If the various interest groups were able to reach the millions of people in CA to counter his ads - there is hope that they will reach sufficient politicians.

[Mass]

12. Thanks. I had missed the results of this proposition in the noise made by Prop 8.

Happy to hear that it was rejected. It is a good sign as it is a model of what Pickens would want.

[JI7]

14. i can accept this

he isn't even right on the issue so even taking away the swift boat stuff they shouldn't be supporting him.

[JI7]

13. maybe it's because he knew Bill Maher would not accept any defense of it

he already called him out on a bunch of other stuff like voting mccain and giving bs answers.

i understand what you are saying about Kerry and the Petraeus comparison with the Sunnis but like Mass has said, i don'tt hink Pickens has good intentions in this at all . and it would be nice for Kerry to call him out on that.

[karynnj]

15. The sad thing is that it will take someone other than Kerry to call him on this,

especially if people like Gore and Chu meet with him without doing so. Pickens and the media would not even address issues Kerry brought up and examine them , they would simply call it Kerry's vain attempt to get back at, what the AP will refer to as his funding people who "questioned Kerry's version of his war service". An awful charge implying that Kerry would put his hurt feeling ahead of a solution to global warming, an issue where few people know his long time work. (Note that that will implicitly defend Pickens' plan as a serious, worthy attempt to fight global warming and to put his funding in the most reasonable light - while being a PR disaster for Kerry - that could be worsened if Democrats like Reid defend Pickens - even if they don't mention Kerry.)

To some degree, I wonder if sidelining Kerry - one of the few who would have the guts to take him on was part of his reason for reviving the issue with that bet.

PS If there are any doubts that he is really concerned with global money - note that he maxed out giving $2,300 in the primary and general election to the head of the flat earth caucus, Jim Inhofe. ( http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/T_Boone_Pickens.php )

[TayTay]

16. The Character Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street" was based on Pickens.

I think this dialog pretty much captures the movie character. Who knows, maybe it speaks to the guy it was modeled on as well. Wall Street was released in 1987, so the numbers could be updated, but the sentiment is about the same if not more so:

"Gordon Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you. "

Maybe Mr. Pickens is running a scam, figuring out who the new power brokers are and trying to worm his way in. I sincerely doubt it is because he had a moral conversion and is now ready to fight for truth, justice and the American way. I think he's in it for the money.

[beachmom]

17. Great dialogue. Yeah, I always put Gordon Gecko in my head

and wonder if the guy would ever, ever redeem himself. In the movie there was no way. I also think the chances of Pickens redeeming himself to be about 99.9% no way. But seeing that I grew up on Star Wars and watched Darth Vader change his mind and take out the Emperor to save Luke Skywalker's life, I will never say never when it comes to a man's soul.

But yeah -- I can't quite imagine Michael Douglas's Gordon Gecko suddenly changing his cynical ways. Nor Pickens.

[karynnj]

18. That was a fantastic movie - and Gordon Gekko was vile

Even on the Maher show - he really did not seem honest. I suspect that the reason Democrats are listening is that they know that they will have to involve some people who will actually develop the wind farms and whatever you call big solar energy collections. Pickens has the resources and people will the skills to actually do it. The problem is that it is unlikely that they can keep him honest - after all, it hasn't happened yet and he is pretty old. (The thing that really came across on Maher is that he is a gambler and he has won and lost enormous fortunes several times already. (Too bad he wasn't at a low point in 2004)

[ObamaKerryDem]

3. I saw this on the show on Friday..

and was glad Bill called him out on it. I knew Pickens was a Republican, but I didn't know he was involved with the Swiftboating. I find it hard to have much respect for him after that..x(