The Joke Is on Liberals, Says Dennis Miller, Host of His Own Show Again

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by jimnyc, Jan 15, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14 — Dennis Miller, the liberal-turned-conservative comedian and defender of President Bush and the war in Iraq, is less than two weeks away from being the host of a new talk show on CNBC. For him it can't come soon enough.

    "People say I've slid to the right," Mr. Miller said in his office at the NBC Studios in Burbank, speaking in his rat-a-tat-tat style. "Well, can you blame me? One of the biggest malfeasances of the left right now is the mislabeling of Hitler. Quit saying this guy is Hitler," he said, referring to Mr. Bush. "Hitler is Hitler. That's the quintessential evil in the history of the universe, and we're throwing it around on MoveOn.org to win a contest. That's grotesque to me."

    Mr. Miller, who was speaking about television advertisements submitted to a competition held by MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a liberal political group, was just getting started.

    "Did you see the Democratic debate the other night?" he asked. "To me Dennis Kucinich's politics are more scrambled than Rod Steiger's dream journal. And Clark? He's a wizard in many ways, but when I hear him speak, it's almost like he's slumming. There's a mensch discrepancy there. At least John Edwards, who to me is a reasonably shallow guy, at least he can dog-paddle around in that park and not look out of place."

    Mr. Miller's rapid-fire monologues and obscure, even weird cultural references — Rod Steiger's dream journal? — have made him one of television's most visible comedians over the last two decades. He was a regular on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" from 1985 to 1991; had an Emmy Award-winning weekly series on HBO, "Dennis Miller Live," in the 1990's; worked as a film and television actor; was a commentator for two seasons on ABC's "Monday Night Football"; and most recently was an essayist for Fox News.

    Mr. Miller's metamorphosis from iconoclastic liberal to free-wheeling conservative — which he partly attributes to the Sept. 11 attacks — has not only made this 50-year-old comedian an esteemed figure on the Fox network. It has also made California Republicans, who have triumphed with a movie star in the governor's mansion, look to Mr. Miller as a possible opponent to Senator Barbara Boxer, the liberal Democrat who is up for re-election this year. (Mr. Miller supported Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for governor and performed last summer at California fund-raisers for President Bush.)

    Mr. Miller said he told the Republicans he had no interest in running against Ms. Boxer, largely because winning would mean moving to Washington from Santa Barbara, where he lives with his wife and two children. "They inquired about my availability to run against Barbara Boxer, but I'm not at the point where I would consider it," he said.

    His new hourlong show, "Dennis Miller," at 9 p.m. weeknights (with a repeat of one show on Sunday), will have its premiere on Jan. 26. It will include his usual venting on current issues, as well as interviews with political figures, journalists and others, and a nightly "right-left" debate among figures at different points on the political spectrum.

    Pamela Thomas-Graham, president and chief executive of CNBC, said Mr. Miller's "kinetic energy" appealed to the network, now mostly an outlet for financial news. By hiring him, she said, CNBC hoped to retain and expand its daytime audience with a politically savvy show. She added that the CNBC daytime viewers were probably "interested in relaxing at night" with material that reached beyond Wall Street.

    Ms. Thomas-Graham said Mr. Miller's political positions had played no role in the decision to hire him. "We are completely agnostic in that direction," she said. "We were looking for someone who has a point of view and is willing to defend that point of view."

    Mr. Miller is also not a traditional conservative. "I've always been a pragmatist," he said. "If two gay guys want to get married, it's none of my business. I could care less. More power to them. I'm happy when people fall in love. But if some idiot foreign terrorist wants to blow up their wedding to make a political statement, I would rather kill him before he can do it, or have my country kill him before he can do it, instead of having him do it and punishing him after the fact. If that makes me a right-wing fanatic, I will bask in that assignation."

    Mr. Miller said he remained socially liberal. "I think abortion's wrong, but it's none of my business to tell somebody what's wrong," he said. "So I'm pro-choice. I want to keep my nose out of other people's personal business. I guess I fall into conservative when it comes to protecting the United States in a world where a lot of people hate the United States."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/a...00&en=453ca59b13001290&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
     
  2. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I notice that as a 'pragmatist' he doesn't care to know WHY a foreign terrorist wants to blow stuff up. Obviously there wouldn't be any reason whatsoever in his 'right-wing fanatic' mind. :rolleyes:
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    There is no acceptable answer to the question "Why". First priority is to stop the action. You figure out how to prevent the actions later, but first you stop the threat. Makes complete sense to me.
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Maybe he has examined the reasons why and found the stated reasons do not justify terrorist attacks on innocent americans. Is that possible in your miniscule world?
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Then he should have stated that instead of making a blanket statement without it.


    speaking of miniscule, if you'd stop thinking in a binary language maybe you'd actually wise up and start learning about things in this world instead of swallowing the bullshit from coulter and limbaugh like it was the gospel.
     
  6. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62

    are we not currently in the mindset of 'an eye for an eye'? why should we not think its permissible for others to think the same way?
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I can't believe you're even thinking of 'understanding' or condoning the actions of terrorists.

    We are not involved in an "eye for an eye" type of war. The goal here was not death. The goal was to remove Saddam and liberate the people of Iraq, making the Middle East safer, and the rest of the world safer for that fact.

    The thinking is not even comparable.
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    "Why" should never cost lives. When you have a murderer on the loose, do you try to figure out why he wants to kill people and try to appease him? Or do you stop the murder from happening as first priority?
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    He should have stated that? Maybe he didn't realize that the first assumption on the part of the audience would be that he must be operating from a position of ignorance. Maybe you just don't have a good sense of humor, Dennis Miller being a comic genius and all. Pearls before swine, ya know?

    Oooh, binary language, wow, are you one of them thar techies?:p:


    Associating me with pundits you don't like does not refute any arguments effectively.
     
  10. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    First off, don't presume to know what I'm thinking.

    Am I condoning the actions? No. Would I like to understand the why? Hell yes. Does that mean we don't stop it until we know? No, it does not. But the new security strategy of the US does NOT even attempt to understand the why and therefore we are DOOMED to continue the cycle of violence. Those who think that terrorism will be stopped by destroying all the terrorists are the ones who are denying reality. By simply ignoring the cause, whether its valid or not(notice that I'm NOT saying terrorist actions are valid, only that maybe their reasons for it might be) perpetuates the continued strife between whatever groups are at odds.

    Now, if we DO make a valid attempt to understand what the issue that is causing terrorism is, while at the same time preventing more terrorism, and we determine that the reasons are wholly selfish(other than the lame excuse of 'they hate our freedoms' then hell yes, quash the SoB's, but if they have a legitimate beef wouldn't it be prudent to come to terms?

    gee, I must have imagined WMD's were the issue, right?

    You need to stop spinning the issues of the reason given for the Iraqi war. Yes, removing hussein was indeed one of many reasons listed by the Bush administration but never forget that WMD's were the PRIMARY reason given, as wolfowitz said 'the one that we could all agree upon'.

    a lesson I'm sure that many have learned from our own actions throughout history. The native americans tried to appease the white settlers and look where it got them.
     

Share This Page