Skip

Folks, that's the news, and I am outta here
October 21, 2003 1:51 AM   Subscribe

Sen. Dennis Miller, R-California
posted by Espoo2 (83 comments total)

 
I didn't know that he was republican, but it goes a long way to explaining why he's not funny. Besides, California had Tom Hayden for many years, and his voice was obnoxious enough.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:10 AM on October 21, 2003


Remember The Off-White Album? I do... but I'm afraid that Dennis doesn't.
posted by grabbingsand at 5:13 AM on October 21, 2003


I don't either, can you explain what you mean grabbingsand?
posted by biffa at 5:24 AM on October 21, 2003


Every day, Douglas Adams gets a little more right: the purpose of elected office-holders is not to wield power, but to distract attention from those who wield power. Senators Dennis Miller and Bozo the Clown will fit in perfectly.
posted by Zonker at 5:42 AM on October 21, 2003


"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." -- P.J. O'Rourke
posted by marcusb at 6:11 AM on October 21, 2003


biffa... The Off-White Album was Dennis Miller's stand-up comedy album released in 1988.

He was at the top of his game in the late 80s. Miller's Weekend Update was the very reason to watch Saturday Night Live, or at least it was to me. The man used pop culture references the way a ninja used shurikens, and it was damned funny. He had this brilliant anti-establishment bent that I could've sworn was born out of a mostly liberal (libertarian) distrust of Reagan/Bush era politics.

And that's what makes his joining the Republican party so jarring. It's been referenced here before, but Rick Chandler's Miller's Crossing is worth another look.
posted by grabbingsand at 6:22 AM on October 21, 2003


There are worse republican celebrities who could run for office... like Kelsey Grammer. Miller shows signs of an intellect, while I sometimes think that Grammer believes he's intelligent because he plays a smart man on television.

That said, I think Miller writes his own material. That's more than some politicians do.
posted by mikeh at 6:24 AM on October 21, 2003


Why do people without any political experience think they can run for office? Sure, there are worse than Dennis Miller, because I do think he's intelligent and insightful, but how much experience does he have? What does he know about leadership and management of the large and unwieldy organization that government is?
posted by orange swan at 6:56 AM on October 21, 2003


its time for the dems to talk to some of their own about running for office. redford 2008.


posted by specialk420 at 7:05 AM on October 21, 2003


Every politician, at one time or another, was an inexperienced neophyte. Perhaps Miller would be better served by running for, say, state Senator rather than the national Senate, but the Republicans have to field *someone* against Boxer, and with the recent success of Schwarzenegger, Miller is as good a candidate as anyone, and far more likable than McClintock. And isn't that the whole idea behind term limits? That the inexperienced neophytes - rather than the entrenched machine-politicians - get a chance to work the wheels of government? New blood is new blood, with all that connotes both for good and ill.

As for him being a republican, well, I would welcome him to a party that has a real dearth of people with senses of humor. I've made this point before (to crickets, but nevertheless) but being a republican does not necessarily indicate that an individual agrees with every pronouncement or action that the party makes or has, any more than it does on the Democratic side of the aisle. That might go a ways toward reconciling the apparent dissonance of learning of Miller's party choice, especially so in light of the ineffectual Libertarian party, to which Miller might seem more suited to. Libertarians routinely choose to list/insinuate themselves in the Republican party, since declaring oneself the Libertarian candidate is usually the kiss of death for a prospective politician.
posted by UncleFes at 7:13 AM on October 21, 2003


Bennifer For President!!
posted by briank at 7:14 AM on October 21, 2003


I used to love Miller on stand-up specials and Weekend Update, but I can't stand the new (read: Post 9/11) Dennis Miller. Ever since his seemingly weekly standing gig on The Tonight Show during the weeks before and beginning the war in Iraq where he did nothing but tell the exact same jokes bashing anti-war people and those that would speak out with questions like a supposedly comedic Ari Fleischer out to get the gen-x audience behind the President, I can't stand the sight of him, much less hearing him say something.
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:20 AM on October 21, 2003


I, for one, welcome our new Celebrity Overlords. I think we should abolish the office of President and elect Johnny Depp as Pirate-in-Chief.
posted by kozad at 7:44 AM on October 21, 2003


Miller's move to the right is the act of an avaricious comedian more concerned with tapping into the dollars of a "mainstream" audience, rather than producing anything edgy or authentically contrarian. In flinging wiseass grenades into easy targets, he looks more irrelevant than ever. I preferred him when he was lobbing projectiles into institutional paddocks, causing the sacred cows, left or right, to scamper through the slats. And that includes his two years on Monday Night Football.
posted by ed at 7:47 AM on October 21, 2003


Bill Hicks is howling in heaven.
posted by gottabefunky at 8:14 AM on October 21, 2003


Every politician, at one time or another, was an inexperienced neophyte.

Right, and every race car driver started on a Big Wheel. But, you see, there are steps you should really think about taking before running the Indy 500. Perhaps a driver's education course, for starters. Miller doesn't know anything about the law, or policy, or even simple campaigning -- the guy's driving without a license. To flog this analogy to death, I'm sure there will be a corporate right-wing bastard chauffeuring his ass around while he waves at the masses like Queen Elizabeth on a Demoral bender.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:18 AM on October 21, 2003


That said, I think Miller writes his own material. That's more than some politicians do.

No...no he doesn't. He has a team of writers.

I used to love Miller on stand-up specials and Weekend Update, but I can't stand the new (read: Post 9/11) Dennis Miller.

Totally with you there. He used to be funny. I remember he was funny. I guess getting rich made him a "conservative". (Scare quotes only because conservative when I was growing up didn't mean hate filled, religious zealots out to control the world by any means necessary...)

I, for one, welcome our new Celebrity Overlords. I think we should abolish the office of President and elect Johnny Depp as Pirate-in-Chief.

Yo Ho Ho!

Bill Hicks is howling in heaven.

Yes. Yes, he is.
posted by dejah420 at 8:24 AM on October 21, 2003


I did mention that perhaps it might be a better idea for him to start out as a california state senator, rather than at the federal level. Driver's ed, so to speak. On the other hand, the California Republicans have a momentum going here, and it would be foolish of them not to take advantage of it if they can, and if it actually does mean getting a puppet-Miller installed in the Senate (although I would find it difficult to believe that Miller would be a easily manipulable puppet, I think he'd more likely just simply fuck up the aspects of the job that his inexperience would preclude expertise in), so much the better from their POV. California is an important state, and getting a republican governor and freshman senator elected would be significant cap-feathers for the party.

Scare quotes only because conservative when I was growing up didn't mean hate filled, religious zealots out to control the world by any means necessary...

And it doesn't always, even today.

What's the old phrase? A liberal over 30 is a fool, and a conservative under 30 has no soul? Or something like that. Either way, it is not entirely unexpected that a person might advocate the party that would seem to best serve their interests.

Bill Hicks is howling in heaven.

Not in heaven, I'd bet :)
posted by UncleFes at 8:31 AM on October 21, 2003


its time for the dems to talk to some of their own about running for office. redford 2008

Naw, fight fire with fire: Lewis Black for Senate.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:32 AM on October 21, 2003


Why screw around? Draft Streisand!
posted by UncleFes at 8:35 AM on October 21, 2003


When liberal celebrities dare speak of politics, they are painted by the right as incompetent - what the hell could a celebrity know about politics? In the lead up to the war, people like Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen etc. were vilified as unpatriotic and worse. But Arnold is a republican? Oh, he's a born leader. Dennis Miller is one of us? He's smart as a whip. Frasier too?
posted by blefr at 8:47 AM on October 21, 2003


Jon Stewart for president 2008.
posted by callmejay at 8:54 AM on October 21, 2003


As I recall, the left painted Arnold as a Nazi gangbanger with a speech impediment. I'm not sure that distills down to "born leader."
posted by UncleFes at 9:00 AM on October 21, 2003


David Cross for Postmaster General!
posted by jpoulos at 9:05 AM on October 21, 2003


Danni Ashe for Secretary Of The Interior.
posted by jonmc at 9:08 AM on October 21, 2003


If these actors keep it up, one day we will treat politicians like them; switch channels, quit paying to see them.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:28 AM on October 21, 2003


Bono for God!
posted by bukvich at 9:31 AM on October 21, 2003


Miller couldn't be worse at being a politician than he's been at being a comic. I don't think he's ever been funny.

When's John Tesh gonna run for office?
posted by dobbs at 9:32 AM on October 21, 2003


Miller doesn't know anything about the law, or policy, or even simple campaigning -- the guy's driving without a license.

How do you know what Miller knows about law or policy? Are you suggesting that everyone who is elected in a democracy should have a degree or some demonstrable specialized education in political science or public administration? Why should we be represented by 400+ lawyers, a doctor, and a few entrepreneurs?

Shouldn't our body of "leaders" be more reflective of the diversity of the constituencies in this nation, not just people who jumped onto the legislative or leadership track from the day they arrived on their college campus (or earlier) and have spent their time getting entrenched in politics? Is that truly preferential to someone who has been out working in some non-executive position, tracking events, aware of public interests and imbued with a perspective that isn't wed to the "let's hash this out in committee" and "work up a response and get a short brief to the senator for walk-up interviews" mode that currently dominates Capitol Hill?

Truly, what good reason could there be, in a representative republic, that there shouldn't be nurses and software engineers and farmers and publishers and realtors and bricklayers and printers and builders and mechanics and professors and court clerks and yes, even entertainers in our legislative bodies?

I think it's odd that MeFites, who seem so very generally disgusted with our current slate of congresscritters, are so opposed to opening up their ranks to something new.
posted by Dreama at 9:36 AM on October 21, 2003


And don't be surprised if Ali is in the White House
Reverend Ike, Secretary of the Treasury
Richard Pryor, Minister of Education
Stevie Wonder, Secretary of FINE arts
And Miss Aretha Franklin, the First Lady
Are you out there, CC?
posted by badstone at 9:38 AM on October 21, 2003


yup, and the vanilla suburbs are witchoo too, CC.
posted by jonmc at 9:40 AM on October 21, 2003


Sean Penn for White House Press Secretary!
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:41 AM on October 21, 2003


No, Sean Penn for pinata.
posted by jonmc at 9:42 AM on October 21, 2003


I've been harping for years that Warren Beatty ought to run for president. He's smart and politically clued-in, and I don't think there's a foreign policy crisis he can't solve by flashing that smile.

Kudos to blefr, btw, for pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right on this issue.
posted by mkultra at 9:50 AM on October 21, 2003


If Miller were to become a Senator, at least the Congressional Record might be worth reading.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:53 AM on October 21, 2003


If Dennis Miller has no business running for office or voicing his opinions because of his occupation and supposed lack of political credentials then maybe all of you MeFi'ers who daily post political links and pontificate endlessly about politics should shut the hell up.

I mean, really people. Get a grip.
posted by xmutex at 9:58 AM on October 21, 2003


no one is saying he shouldn't have opinions, only that he may not be the best senator ever. get a grip yourself.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:03 AM on October 21, 2003


people like Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen etc. were vilified as unpatriotic and worse. But Arnold is a republican? Oh, he's a born leader. Dennis Miller is one of us?Kudos to blefr, btw, for pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right on this issue.

There is a difference; one ran or is running for office, ones are running their mouths. Starting out in your political community would be wiser and better for all those you want to represent than TV to a high public office.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:07 AM on October 21, 2003


I'm with Dreama
posted by dhacker at 10:18 AM on October 21, 2003


Xmutex, do you ever say anything around here except that someone should shut up?

(Hey, I'll write your response for you; "if you don't like it, a) shut up or b) take it to MeTa, where I can tell you to grow a thicker skin/shut up")
posted by norm at 10:21 AM on October 21, 2003


I think anyone who wants to run should run. The problem isn't that clowns like Schwartzafugger run for office, or that people would seriously consider D. Miller as a Senator, the problem is the thousands of idiots who actually vote for these people. It's the same reason so much money is spent on TV ads during a campaign, name recognition is everything. People are too busy to find out what the candidates actually stand for, so they look at who's running that they've heard of and pick a favorite.

So there's the problem. Now would somebody fix it already, cause it's pissing me off.

Pretty much.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:22 AM on October 21, 2003


Why do people without any political experience think they can run for office?

Perhaps because that is the idea behind democracy: government of the people, by the people.

Not saying that I would vote for Dennis as Senator, but he has the same right as anyone else to run for office.

How many of our current Senators and Congressmen (of both parties) had no experience before they ran for office?

Take for example one of my Senators, Herb Kohl (D-WI). While I disagree with Sen. Kohl on most issues, one can not say that he has not been an effective politician in furthering his stated causes and securing monies for Wisconsin. Yet before Kohl ran for office in 1998, he was President of both the family owned and operated Kohl's grocery stores & Kohl's Department stores. After that he bought the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. The man had never held a political office in his life, and by using his inherited multimillion dollar fortune to bank-roll his campaign, some might say that he 'bought' himself an election.

But Senator Kohl has been no more incompetent than any other elected politician that Wisconsin has.

In the coming 2004 Senate election here in Wisconsin the two top GOP contenders to unseat incumbent Russ Feingold (who severed all of one term in the state senate before running for the US Senate) both have no formal political experience. One is a owner of several car dealerships, and the other the owner of a major construction company.

This whole thread smacks of elitism.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:29 AM on October 21, 2003


norm:

I didn't tell anyone to shut up. I stated a conditional such that if a certain condition X were to be met then it follows that everyone should shut up.

So shut up.
posted by xmutex at 10:31 AM on October 21, 2003


Bill Hicks is howling in heaven.

Its a rare day when the very same thought doesn't occur to me.

He woulda made an absofuckinglutely awesome celebrity-politician.

With George Carlin as VP, I can't think of a better team to put in charge of it all...

(factoid: Chuck Heston was a registered Democrat till the mid or late 1960s)
posted by BentPenguin at 10:32 AM on October 21, 2003


Chuck Heston was a registered Democrat till the mid or late 1960s

So was Ronald Reagan til '62...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:40 AM on October 21, 2003


It's not regular citizens we're talking about here, or even longtime activists or active residents who did not have the time or fortune to dedicate their lives to professional politics, etc. We're only talking about celebrities. Arnold won attention by virtue of his being Arnold. As far as could tell, there was no other reason why he got attention. If Republican partisans want to call this a victory for the little people, and a revival of citizen participation, and a return to what the Founding Fathers wanted, or whatever, go right ahead. But please be aware that you come off like, oh, partisans, maybe.
posted by raysmj at 11:18 AM on October 21, 2003


I honestly feel that Dennis Miller is one of the public figures who I have the least amount of respect for. I don't mind the fact that Miller supports the war in Iraq, but I expected him to actually be one of the people would engage in debate instead of deciding that "they're evil and need to all die, assholes!" got applause easier. This is a person who is inarguably intelligent and chooses to act ignorant for the purpose of popularity. I have real difficulty in forgiving that.

As such, he's doomed in a major election because he thinks his act (note: ACT) is what will win him voters. It won't. Let's face it, Miller isn't Schwarzenegger, even his fans think he's an asshole, and next year there won't be a Democratic governor to be angry at. Wrap that all up in the fact that this is the Moonie Times, who still post "rumors" about Hillary Clinton's 2004 run. The fact is that Dennis Miller becomming a member of Congress from California because he "speaks his mind" is as likely as one of the asshat panelists on "Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn" winning an election. The only reason the Moonies aren't hawking that is because the level of its baselessness is simply more transparent.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:48 AM on October 21, 2003


Not saying that I would vote for Dennis as Senator, but he has the same right as anyone else to run for office.

Well no shit. No one's saying that comedians should be barred from holding office. We're just saying he'd probably make a lousy senator.
posted by jpoulos at 11:51 AM on October 21, 2003


The last Republican male to make a run for the Senate from Santa Barbara county ended up...and I do mean that literally...coming out of the closet and seeing his ex-wife become more of a celebrity than he.

Just sayin', Dennis ... just sayin'.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:15 PM on October 21, 2003


Truly, what good reason could there be, in a representative republic, that there shouldn't be nurses and software engineers and farmers and publishers and realtors and bricklayers and printers and builders and mechanics and professors and court clerks and yes, even entertainers in our legislative bodies?

Because we don't live in tthe eighteenth century, and because the 'New England township model' does not work at the federal scale (nor, really, at the scale of state government). Simple as that. People who think that term limits and neophyte outsiders are the solution to the problems of governmental corruption are deluding themselves. Lobbyists have no term limits, and are able to develop a much greater grasp of government as a result (I mean government as practiced, not as found in a textbook). Politics is a profesion like any other. If you want to accomplish anything, you have to know what you are doing.
posted by amauck at 1:25 PM on October 21, 2003


How do you know what Miller knows about law or policy? Are you suggesting that everyone who is elected in a democracy should have a degree or some demonstrable specialized education in political science or public administration? Why should we be represented by 400+ lawyers, a doctor, and a few entrepreneurs?
posted by Dreama at 9:36 AM PST on October 21


This is all a fair example of the dizzy limit of our great love affair with celebrity which has simply run amuck. These people aren't pundits, they're not political experts, they're, typically not speaking from fact, just offering opinion. If they want to blather, let them start warblogs like all of the non-famous schmoes in the world who have an opinion. There's no reason for them to have a public stage for their nattering opinions....But I'm slightly more willing to give credence to a business leader whose company (at one point) was a powerhouse in the economy and who employed thousands having a powerful voice than a carping celebrity whose societal contributions are in no ways tangible....there's a lot more involved in being the working chair of a national organization with millions of members than there is in being a griping celebrity.
posted by Dreama on September 15, 2002


What a truly wonderful change in the philosophies of many right wingers over time...as expressed in this very special thread, on Metafilter, and in America at large...on the issue of celebrities in politics.

Yes. It is so very wonderful and so very heartening to see the wingers' ethical coming-out, as it were....to note their newfound, timely, and compassionate call for fair and balanced treatment for celebrities like, oh....Arnold Schwarzenegger...Dennis Miller...Charlton Heston....as these celebrities pursue their political leanings.

~tear of joy~

Why, did you have any idea that right wingers weren't always this tolerant of celebrities in politics? Sure, this is probably hard to believe given their newfound fair and balanced and anti-elitist approach to today's celebrities, but back in the day, some right wingers here on Metafilter and in America actually attacked or strangely failed to defend celebrities....celebrities like, oh, Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, the Dixie Chicks, et al as they dared express their political views.

'Course, it had nothing to do with the political views expressed by those celebrities of yesteryear. Really.

Gosh. One can only imagine the deep soul searching that no doubt preceded such a wonderful change in right wing opinion and ethics over time on the rights of celebrities to get involved in politics. Bravo. It is so very stirring to hear these newfound cries of "that is the idea behind democracy: government of the people, by the people" for today's celebrity politicians, despite the strange silence (or cries of "traitor") from many of these same mouths over the past two years.

(Factoid: many of those conservatives who once so harshly condemned our very own President for boorish behavior toward women have somehow found it in their Christian hearts to accept and forgive celebrities like The Gropenator. Why, that's as amazing as the Heston/Reagan flip-flop....)
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:40 PM on October 21, 2003


Robert Downey Jr. for Drug Czar!
posted by pejamo at 2:01 PM on October 21, 2003


If these actors keep it up, one day we will treat politicians like them; switch channels, quit paying to see them. -- thomcatspike


There are times when you are so brilliant it's spooky...either that, or my pain meds have kicked in. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 2:38 PM on October 21, 2003


Bill Hicks is howling in heaven.

I'm thinking this is all his fault, really. "Okay, God, I'll bet you half of Australia that these morons will vote Arnold Fucking Steroid Injection Into My Nazi Cock Swarzenegger as Governor. We on? Cool."

Anyone who thinks Miller is intelligent is easily impressed.
posted by solistrato at 2:57 PM on October 21, 2003


Dennis Miller wasn't liked when he was doing Monday Night Football, I wonder if people will like him on the campaign trail.
posted by mathowie at 3:07 PM on October 21, 2003


Count me as another MeFite who has lost a great amount of respect for Miller.

It has alot to do with his many appearances on the Tonight Show earlier this year. He would say some of the most asinine, uninformed things, and I couldn't really tell if he was joking or not.

The final straw for me was when he was talking about the Iraq museum that got looted, losing thousands of priceless items. Miller just sat there and said something like "and I don't give a fuck if a bunch of stones were stolen from an old Arab museum!!" to loud applause by the audience. I couldn't believe someone could say something like that. There were many other ridiculous things he said on those appearances, and it became painful to watch, since I'd always liked him during his SNL days.

So, yes, if he thinks of running for senator here in my state, I will do everything I can to stop him.
posted by fishbulb at 3:38 PM on October 21, 2003


No one's saying that comedians should be barred from holding office.

No, that is almost exactly what some people are saying.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:58 PM on October 21, 2003


According to Open Secrets, Dennis Miller donated $1000 to the Gore Campaign in 2000. No such donation was made to the Bush campaign. What could've caused his ideological switch from Democrat to Republican?

I remember he stated on an interview that there are two things that he likes about Bush. (1) he's going after the bastards that caused September 11th and (2) Miller likes being able to keep at least one out of the two dollars that he makes. Now, assuming that ANY PRESIDENT WOULD GO AFTER AL QAIDA AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH! The only logical reason I can think for Miller's Crossing over to the Republican party is that he makes more money with a Republican in office because his taxes are lower. So, yes, it's all about the money.

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v5/alertv5_52a.asp
posted by graventy at 4:07 PM on October 21, 2003


Yeah I'm, with Dreama (...the 2003 Dreama, not the 2002 Dreama). The fundamental problem with successful carreer politicians is that, by virtue of having made it to the top, they are completely compromised and unsuitable for the job at hand. The aim of representing their electors is surpassed by the aim of representing their party. You only have to look at how clueless the standard crop of lawyers-turned-politicians-turned-cabinet position are in their portfolios, around the world. Real-world people have a right, and a duty, to run for office - you can't leave it all up to the penguin suits. It's fine to take swings at Miller because of his failed career or distorted ideology, but not because he chooses to run in an election.

Note - reading the article, however, it's appear's he is being pushed, rather than making the decision himself.
posted by Jimbob at 4:30 PM on October 21, 2003


National Review article on Miller's politics.
posted by ed at 4:41 PM on October 21, 2003


No one's saying that comedians should be barred from holding office.

No, that is almost exactly what some people are saying.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:58 PM PST on October 21


I find it fascinating how Steve sticks his little mole head up out of obscurity occasionally and posts some strange, irrational blanket statement that says nothing except to negate whatever it is he is quoting. Never an explanation, never a reason... and then *poof* back into the metafilter netherworld for a few months. It's really quite neat.
posted by Espoo2 at 4:41 PM on October 21, 2003


The fundamental problem with successful carreer politicians is that, by virtue of having made it to the top, they are completely compromised and unsuitable for the job at hand... Real-world people have a right, and a duty, to run for office.

Can you give any justification for why novices are more trustworthy and less corruptable than career politicians, or are you just assuming this?

This is the fundamental problem with those crowing the virtues of term limits. The can't seem to get any farther than "get the corrupt bastards out."
posted by amauck at 4:54 PM on October 21, 2003


The: they
posted by amauck at 4:55 PM on October 21, 2003


It's really quite neat.

Oh no it isn't...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:31 PM on October 21, 2003


Danni Ashe for Secretary Of The Interior

Jennifer Lopez for Secretary of the Posterior!
posted by groundhog at 5:47 PM on October 21, 2003


he makes more money with a Republican in office because his taxes are lower

He makes the same amount, he gets to keep more of his money if there is a lower tax rate.

Your phrase speaks volumes, whether it was a slip or not.
posted by Mick at 6:12 PM on October 21, 2003


strange, irrational blanket statement that says nothing except to negate whatever it is he is quoting.

Really? Did you read this post?

The two implications in this thread are that:

1. In order for someone to run for national office, they need to have prior political experience to "qualify" to be put before a vote.

2. That somehow Miller's (or any presumed entertainer) celebrity give them a 'unfair' advantage since people who are fans might vote for them.

As for why I stick my little mole head up out of obscurity occasionally and post, well this has to do with the content of the site. I simply don't have the time to waste that I used to.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:31 PM on October 21, 2003


That's the way to do it!
posted by inpHilltr8r at 6:38 PM on October 21, 2003


Yes, Steve, I read the thread. I posted the link.
While reading it, I did not see anyone stating that celebrities didn't "qualify" to run for office. I saw people thinking it was a bad idea, but never saying it shouldn't be done.

So please, again, back up what you are saying with *gasp* a quote of said "implication".
posted by Espoo2 at 7:07 PM on October 21, 2003


In order for someone to run for national office, they need to have prior political experience to "qualify" to be put before a vote.

How one infers such a thing from this thread is beyond me. Perhaps you explain the particular magic trick through which you reduced the variety of statements here to such a vast overstatement?
posted by amauck at 8:05 PM on October 21, 2003


Danni Ashe for Secretary Of The Interior.

Dibs on Secretary of Danni Ashe's Interior!
posted by billsaysthis at 8:16 PM on October 21, 2003


How one infers such a thing from this thread is beyond me.

Reading is beyond you?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:09 PM on October 21, 2003


I understand the need to guarantee our subsistence,
but I lost respect for the guy when he started shilling long distance.
posted by troybob at 10:57 PM on October 21, 2003


Metafilter: Changing your mind will come back to haunt you.
posted by Dagobert at 11:34 PM on October 21, 2003


No haunting here. I wasn't talking about celebrities running for office in 2002. Running for office indicates a distinct and unquestionable willingness to engage in some action to back up beliefs, to go beyond talk and open ideals to scrutiny, debate and public inspection.

Running for a major office (in a normal election, not some seven week recall insanity) is a far cry from being a nattering idgit on a talk show doing "skits" calling for the stoning of congressmen, or being pulled aside for interview after interview at a protect because you're the celebrity on the scene, not because you have any special insight to offer, or additional information of the type that the protest coordinators would undoubtedly have on hand, if only the celebrity driven media could bother to ask.

I've had no change of heart, merely an opportunity to expand upon my views. My contempt still runs high for the no-action loudmouth set, and will continue to do so for the duration.
posted by Dreama at 12:48 AM on October 22, 2003


Politics is a profession like any other. If you want to accomplish anything, you have to know what you are doing.

Thank you for saying this. I'm just quoting it because I think it needs reiteration.

Oh, and Steve_at_Linwood, nobody said "they need to have prior political experience ".

What we "elitists" said is that they should. The first is a requirement. The second is a recommendation. See the difference? Good boy.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:01 AM on October 22, 2003


Reading is beyond you?

Apparently ad hominem attacks are not beyond you. What, are you twelve?
posted by amauck at 11:42 AM on October 22, 2003


I wonder how many of you "elitists" voted for Nader?
posted by Dreama at 11:52 AM on October 22, 2003


I think it's odd that MeFites, who seem so very generally disgusted with our current slate of congresscritters, are so opposed to opening up their ranks to something new.

I'm quite in favor of that, actually, but alas, electing a pandering, self-important reactionary is as far from "new" as it gets.

one can not say that he has not been an effective politician in furthering his stated causes and securing monies for Wisconsin.

Yep, cuz it's all about securing da monies.
posted by rushmc at 12:38 PM on October 22, 2003


The can't seem to get any farther than "get the corrupt bastards out."

Whereas you, apparently, are quite content to skip over that important first step entirely.
posted by rushmc at 12:46 PM on October 22, 2003


I wonder how many of you "elitists" voted for Nader?

It is awfully presumptuous to suggest that a concern with the novice state of many potential candidates directly correlates to green/leftist sympathies. Besides, identifying what you see as hypocrisy in a person's argument is not really an effective counterargument.

Whereas you, apparently, are quite content to skip over that important first step entirely.

That is not precisesly what I am saying. What I am suggesting is that term limits are a bad strategy for limiting corruption because they place certain constraints on elected officials that do not exist for the unelected part of government. Since this unelected contingent plays an active (and far more instrumental) role in the everyday business of government than elected officials, the 'quick fix' of term limits simply exacerbates the problem.

Perhaps this will satisfy my interlocutors to the extent that they will pass on the glib one-liners and move towards more substantive arguments. Or am I expecting too much?
posted by amauck at 5:53 PM on October 22, 2003


Since this unelected contingent plays an active (and far more instrumental) role in the everyday business of government than elected officials, the 'quick fix' of term limits simply exacerbates the problem.

Elected officials expand government, bureaucrats enable them. You haven't explained how limiting the former can make the overall problem worse.
posted by rushmc at 8:53 PM on October 22, 2003


Elected officials expand government, bureaucrats enable them.

In order to function, elected officials need to be integrated with the bureaucratic apparatus. This integration is tacit- it develops over time and through personal experience. I don't know what bureaucracies you are used to contending with, but no bureaucracy that I know of functions according to the ideal type of rational organization and hierarchy through which the 'ends' introduced by elected officials are easily and efficiently put into practice by the bureaucratic apparatus. The success elected officals experience in 'expanding' government (whatever that means) is contingent on how much they know about how government works. If they have not worked with a particular bureaucratic apparatus for a sufficient period of time, they will not be able to accomplish their goals, as they will have no idea how to go about doing so.
posted by amauck at 11:49 AM on October 26, 2003


« Older Is Syria next?   |   Metahomework Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post