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

jimnyc

...
Aug 28, 2003
19,763
271
83
New York
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
 
"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."

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:
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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:

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.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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:

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?
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
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?

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.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
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.


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?
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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?

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.
 
"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?
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Then he should have stated that instead of making a blanket statement without it.

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?

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. [/B]

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.
 
I can't believe you're even thinking of 'understanding' or condoning the actions of terrorists.

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?

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.

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'.

"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?

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.
 
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.

His position of ignorance wasn't too hard for me to miss. It's not my fault that he's blind to the fact that he does.

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

It does when your arguments are identical to their position, which are ineffective.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
His position of ignorance wasn't too hard for me to miss. It's not my fault that he's blind to the fact that he does.



It does when your arguments are identical to their position, which are ineffective.

No. It doesn't.
 
gee, I must have imagined WMD's were the issue, right?

If you thought that was the sole reason, yes.

You need to stop spinning the issues of the reason given for the Iraqi war.

Ummm, I believe that would be you doing the spinning. The humanitarian reasons for war have been a priority since 1991. Ignoring that fact and concentrating solely on WMD's shows your liberal side concentrating on bashing Bush.

There were many reasons for invading Iraq, and they were all equally important.

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'.

The primary goal was Saddam's removal.
 
The humanitarian reasons for war have been a priority since 1991.

If that were the case then we wouldn't have continued sanctions for 12 years, we would have continued the advance or gone back in. Instead, we let a population suffer under the tyranny of a despot who wasn't bothered in the least by those very sanctions we helped enforce.

Ignoring that fact and concentrating solely on WMD's shows your liberal side concentrating on bashing Bush.

It wouldn't be that way if it hadn't been stressed so often and so loudly. how many times were they stressed as the danger over everything else?

The primary goal was Saddam's removal.

I never said this wasn't the primary goal, I said the primary reason given was one that could be agreed upon by all, and that was weapons of mass destruction as stated by wolfowitz.
 
Dennis Miller proved how popular he is by getting shitcanned from Monday Night Football. Funny story about Dennis Miller. My wife was a flight attendant for American Airlines. When she worked position one, which caters to the first class cabin, she would often have celebs in her care. She had Dennis Miller on one of her flights and said he was the rudest man she had ever met. When he wanted another drink, he would just lift his glass and shake the ice cubes while not even looking up. She said he was an absolute ass to any person who approached him.

He will be a great Rush clone.


-Bam
 
Dennis Miller proved how popular he is by getting shitcanned from Monday Night Football.

Sure, one can only be popular if they can make it in professional sports. :rolleyes:

Funny story about Dennis Miller. My wife was a flight attendant for American Airlines. When she worked position one, which caters to the first class cabin, she would often have celebs in her care. She had Dennis Miller on one of her flights and said he was the rudest man she had ever met. When he wanted another drink, he would just lift his glass and shake the ice cubes while not even looking up. She said he was an absolute ass to any person who approached him.

Great story, very credible. :rolleyes:

He will be a great Rush clone.

What, you mean another one that speaks the facts about liberals and leaves them looking like stuttering fools?
 
THis is off-topic, but I really don't get Dennis Miller's comedy all that much. Maybe because I don't understand half of his jokes. And, really, I don't think he should be bragging about being on CNBC, I thought that channel got canned like two years ago. Am I thinking of MSNBC?
 
Great story, very credible.

Barring difference between Bam's beliefs and yours, what was incredible about that story? I would imagine Miller would be an ass, his entire personality derives from smarminess and smarter-than-thou attitude.
 
Originally posted by Dan
Barring difference between Bam's beliefs and yours, what was incredible about that story? I would imagine Miller would be an ass, his entire personality derives from smarminess and smarter-than-thou attitude.

Dean has a similar attitude.

I once met him and he flipped me the middle finger for asking him the time of day. What a loser.

There, I guess mine is now fact too.
 
Originally posted by Dan
THis is off-topic, but I really don't get Dennis Miller's comedy all that much. Maybe because I don't understand half of his jokes. And, really, I don't think he should be bragging about being on CNBC, I thought that channel got canned like two years ago. Am I thinking of MSNBC?

His humor is probably just head and shoulders above what you are used to. He IS quite popular though and can pretty much write his own ticket across any talk show platform. He was on SNL, had his own HBO show, he's been in quite a few movies and was on MNF. You don't have to like him, but to say he isn't popular is a bit off base.
 

Forum List

Back
Top