That’s your opinion, which is fine…but don’t expect others to accept it as gospel.
I don’t really believe it’s so much that they are afraid of being labeled conservative as it is that they genuinely regard themselves and independent or whatever. They may be wrong in this assessment, but I don’t think they’re trying to hide from a conservative label. I know I’m routinely astounded to hear people with obvious and undeniable liberal leanings claim they’re not liberal. This is usually followed by their claim to be an “independent,” “centrist,” or such. But by any description of liberal that I’ve ever seen, they are indeed full-blown liberals.
Exactly. Spare us the self-proclaimed independent, great Zeus.
What annoys me about Miller is his statements that 9/11 scared him and that he supports the Iraq war and Bush because he likes an administration that goes out and gets the bad guys. He seems to be making the popular connection between 9/11 and Iraq that simply isn’t there.
That said, I saw his new show a day or so ago (the one with the chimp) and he still made me laugh a few times.
I also agree with those that say giving a president a free ride is a ridiculous thing for a political comedian to do.
. . . any more than yours should be, dear heart.
I’ve been a fan of Miller for a long time. He has always been a conservative. I haven’t seen any of his recent stuff that I can think of, though. Maybe he has just become more conservative and it’s pissing people off?
I am thinking it’s more likely that he has just been “outed” as a conservative now that he has publicly considered running for office as a republican.
It was similar to the South Park creators. It’s obvious to anyone who watches the show that they are conservative guys. However, they didn’t get a hard time about it until they actually came out and said that they were conservative. Everyone was all of a sudden shocked about it.
Maybe some people have come to think that liberals have a monopoly on comedy. 
Moral fiber can run thin, and personal preferences can be flexible when you are hungry.
I feel the need to respond to this, because it’s been brought up several times.
Look, the formula is simple:
irreverent = funny
sucking up to the powers that be =! funny
Liberals are more likely to poke fun at existing power structures because they are more likely to want to change them. That doesn’t mean that there are not funny conservatives, just means that there are fewer by nature.
Also, I don’t recall anyone giving Matt Stone and Trey Parker a hard time over being conservative, mostly because they take shots at EVERYONE, whatever their own views are. I’m a liberal, and can appreciate when they point out the weird extremes that liberal thought can be taken too. Heck, John Stewart is the funniest guy on TV right now because, liberal or not, he does not hesitate to take a shot at anyone that does something silly.
But giving the president- the most visible, gaff-likely individual in the world- a total pass in your comedy is shooting yourself in the foot. It also reinforces the belief that conservatives have no sense of humor, other than mean-spirited sniping at the left.
I think that many people, myself included, equate 9/11 with terrorism per se, not just with al-Qaida. There are certain groups and certain countries that either engage in terrorism outright, or who support it and encourage it and fund it. Who is worse? Those that engage in it, or those who make it possible? If a certain neighborhood has a drug problem, do the people who want to go after the suppliers and financiers suck? Should they concentrate only on local street pushers, or go after those who make it possible for the pushers to exist?
Iraq was blatant in its support of terrorism. At the very least it offered payment to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. This to further such attacks without the bombers being afraid their families will be left in poverty. It was also blatant in its use of WMD against Iran and its own people. Countries either support terrorism or they don’t. Terrorism presents far too great a threat to far too many people to allow for a “don’t hit until you’re hit first” policy.
Those who feel “preemptive agression against soverign nations” is wrong should stop to consider the fact that these “soverign nations,” by engaging in or supporting terrorism, are committing actual crimes as defined by international law against the U.S. and the world community at large. Just as drug suppliers and financiers open themselves to aggressive action to stop the threat they pose, any country that supports terrorism, i.e., the murder of innocents as a tool of leverage to further their own ends, not only should be but deserve to be shut down. This is not the type of agression that throughout history has resulted in Imperialism. We are not trying to colonize anyone, we are not trying to bully anyone. We are protecting our citizens from the very clear threat of terrorist attacks from international criminals.
Furthermore, I have no doubt that the current opponents of our aggressive stance toward Iraq and terrorism would do a complete 180 and demand to know why Bush didn’t do something more to stop it had we continued on in our benign way (bombing aspirin factories, etc.) and another catastrophic terrorist attack occurred.
I’ve seen this phenomenon in action before. Robert Packwood chases a woman around a desk and is reviled and driven from office; Clinton imposes himself on women in such a way that would ordinarily have people screaming for prison time, and then makes matters worse by using the power of his office to ruin the credibilty and reputations of those who dare to come forward, and there’s hardly a peep from the left.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Dennis Miller has become exactly the sort of person he used to rightfully make fun of. His conservativism isn’t well-read or carefully considered - it’s knee-jerk. I honestly expect him to trot out “America - love it or leave it!” any second now. He’s gone from being a thinking man’s comedian to being someone whose politics are seemingly motivated only by fear.
How about this possibility: Dennis Miller is simply a whore who has bet his career on the certainty of George Bush’s re-election.
When Bush loses in November, anyone want to take bets on how quickly Miller switches back to a different political stance?
Lillian Hellman is not the best of political sources to quote, but her line “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions” is certainly apt here. Miller has taken a large pair of scissors to his own.
Yes, Miller is a sellout. He basically would have no career anymore if weren’t pandering to Bush fans. He’s smug, unctious and smarmy, which gets old fast and intelligent people got tired of his schtick a long time ago. he’s also intellectually shallow, despite his carefully scripted “references.” He expresses only the most trogolodytic understanding of politics. The fact that he thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11 is proof of that, as well as his stupid, mindless, “kill 'em all” mantra.
There are things about Bill Maher which drive me nuts, particularly his misogyny and his supercillious putdowns of marriage, but in other ways he’s dead on. I liked it that he pushed so hard for the legalization of drugs on a network show. Most people with network show don’t have the nutsacks to advocate anything remotely controversial.
I also think that Maher, whether I agree with him or not (and it’s about 50/50) is at least informed. He knows what he’s talking about. He does his research. Miller is just a snide, sniping prick who seldom has any real grasp of an issue.
Also, Maher, on occasion, is funny. Miller hasn’t said anything funny since he was on SNL.
War is not a tool by which one country doles out justice to another country that’s committing crimes against international law.
And this hypocrisy is somehow exclusive to liberals? Folks on the right were popping a blood vessel in “moral outrage” duing the Lewinsky investigation, but did any of them say boo about Strom Thurmond fathering an illegitimate black child and paying money for the rest of his life keep the woman quiet?
From what I can see, Miller is quite happy with the “conservative” tag, though he’s quick to point out he’s pretty liberal socially—he has no beef with gay marriages, for instance.
There was always an undercurrent of “let’s kick some ass” in Miller’s humor; even back in the 80s he was talking about hitting terrorists head-on: if they kill one of ours, we kill one of theirs. “I know some might say that brings us down to their level, and they win. OK, maybe they do win. But it’s nice to know some of their boys won’t be showing up for the trophy ceremony.”
Even then, that line of thinking puzzled me—how could a smart guy espouse a position he knows is counter-productive, and serves no purpose other than to allow him a vent for his own rage?
Anyway, whether conservative or liberal, comedians have no business sucking up to those in power. Particularly in Miller’s case, he’s so obviously star-struck by Bush, and expresses his devotion so fan-boyishly, I find it nauseating.
So Miller has sold out, but not by coming out as a conservative; he sold out by declaring he wouldn’t criticize the Prez because “I give my friends a pass.”
(I also want to just note that I like Bill Maher, and I agree he’s better in interviews than doing his own monologues.)
Now, if it’s good political humor you want, well, I say look no further than Lewis Black.
I agree. I’ve long thought that his $2 words and semi-obscure allusions ame him sound a lot more intelligent than he actually was. He was always trying so hard to sound smart, but once you get past the references, he was never nearly as smart as he though he was. His knee-jerk reaction to everythinh 9/11 really exposes this.
I’m not a huge fan of Bill Maher either (he is smarter than Miller though).
He sold out for MNF and went downhill ever since. After bombing in the ratings, he is trying to reinvent himself as a Limbaugh with a vocabulary. I don’t think he is fooling anyone, and the field of right-wing commentators was already quite full to begin with. Notice he is stuck on MSNBC, which should tell you the level of interest remaining in Miller at this point.
I expect to see him on the next edition of Celebrity Mole or the Surreal Life given the nose-dive is career has taken.
Agreed! However it is a tool to protect ourselves against those who show themselves to be a threat to our nation and our allies, as Iraq has done consistently over the last twelve years.
With all due respect, I did not say this phenomenon was exclusive to liberals. Did I not end my post with the observation that these sorts of things depend upon whose ox was being gored?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Agreed! However it is a tool to protect ourselves against those who show themselves to be a threat to our nation and our allies, as Iraq has done consistently over the last twelve years.
[QUOTE]
How exactly was Iraq a “threat to our nation?” Cite?
Yes, thank you, exactly. I’m irritated by all the “oh yeah, liberals just can’t take it” comments on here because I’m not even a liberal. My beef isn’t that he’s openly conservative but that he’s as spineless and partisan now as Coulter and Moore.
sell out? I dunno. I still think he’s funny and thats about as deep as I’ve thought about Miller. I’m not a huge football fan unless its my hometown team (long suffering Chiefs girl), but I liked the idea of him as an announcer. At least he’s intelligent.
But if I could take this slightly OT for a sec,
what do you guys consider a “sell out”? Its a common accusation among music fans when their favorite indie bands make it big. So, okay pandering to the common taste to make a buck.
But what about product placement? Is that selling out? Is that something that is just an necessary evil or does it detract from the overall quality of a program?