Powered by i.TV
October 4, 2015

Danny Devito drunk on The View - VIDEO

by Bob Sassone, posted Nov 30th 2006 8:07AM

The ViewWhat the hell is going on at The View?! Forget Meet The Press or Face The Nation or Bill O'Reilly, the most controversial show, week after week, is an ABC morning show where a bunch of women sit around and talk about stuff. Who woulda thunk it?

This week's edition comes from Danny Devito, who appeared on the show yesterday to promote his new Christmas movie Deck The Halls. Not only is he clearly tipsy, he has released a statement apologizing for the entire escapade. You can actually feel that Rosie and Joy and Elisabeth and Barbara and the entire audience knew he was drunk. Of course, the women knew it when he hugged them all, but the audience could probably smell the fumes, and you there at home will probably be able to as well.

Jeez, at 11am in the morning? Well, he does say he hadn't even been to bed yet. We should start a contest to guess which celeb is going to do what next. Video after the jump!

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:

I thought he was funny and makes the show even funnier!!

December 21 2006 at 10:12 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I don't see what the big deal is about. How many celeb's have shown up drunk on, the tonight show, Late night, and all the other panel type shows? Who cares? it was funny. And also, it is his right to say what he feels about the President just as it is anyones right to be upset that he did say something not to nice about the President. He did not attack the office, he attacked "Numb nuts", I mean the President. I'm just waiting for the day when we elect a person to the office who has no personel agenda. I may never see the day. ALL Politicians scare the crap outta me!

December 13 2006 at 1:17 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I saw the show and thought it was one of the funniest things I had ever seen. It was nice to see a funny drunk, especially since it seemed that if you are a celebrity you have to be a mean or stupid drunk. Funny thing is no one is getting down on George Clooney and he is partly to blame.

December 02 2006 at 5:35 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Re: 21

Since when does the Middle East fall under our jurisdiction? Those acts you described aren't crimes against our Constitution, thus it doesn't deserve our government's responsibility and my tax dollars. You know, tax dollars, that thing that Republicans always bitch about?

PS. stop listening to talk radio, it will at least help lessen some of the vitriol in our country.

PSS. if you are 42 or younger, please feel free to join your fellow citizens in Iraq (not that I want you to suffer the ramifications of war, just, you know, they could use some help)

December 02 2006 at 4:56 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

You say "liberating;" I say "occupying." You say "but Saddam;" I say "who put him there." (And Castro. And Pinochet. And the list goes on). You say "nukes;" I say "there weren't any." You say "al-qaeda;" I say "there weren't any." You say "he would have;" I say "we will never know, cuz once he did, we coulda talked." (Only before he did, someone lied, ignored the UN and the opinion of the whole world and pre-emptively did something for 'no good reason.' At least he didn't give us one, except falsified lies - oops).

You say "evil Saddam;" I say "Sure. No one disagrees." But if Americans are going to donate their lives to a noble cause, please don't herd them like sheep to the slaughterhouse. And what about the Iraqi people, do they realize what price they are going to pay - death, civil war, etc.... I mean they would be eager to sacrifice their lives for democracy right? Did someone ask them? You say "democracy;" I say "should not be wrought by the military." How is forcing something on someone American or un-Saddam? You say "morons;" I say "no need to call names." No need to widdle like children. Even the Iraqi people who the great hand of democracy is supposed to help have diverse views on what's going on, just like Americans have diverse views on what's going on.

Surprisingly, I am not saying democracy does not come at a cost (that is not realistic). I have been and lived outside the US, and I can tell give you an example of a country that just went through decades of civil war, where a huge part of the population is still marginalized after all that war and death; I can tell you an example of a country with ultra-corrupt politicians that I wish would have a civil war because I think it will teach them something about what they need to fight for. . BTW this country is supposedly democratic (and on top of that, the democracy arrived in said country without being wrought by the military). One truth: "democracy" does not solve all problems. Another truth: democracy always comes at a cost. Another: the resultant struggle/war is not going to be fought on American soil - it is going to be fought within the lands and homes and hearts of let's say, the Iraqi people, so shall we say, they decide when and where they want to go to war, not George Bush, from a land far, far away. It is only further complicated by the fact that the spread of "liberation" is not going to be handled by Bush's children, but other people's children.

What Bush proposed at the outset of the war sounded simple, Rumsfeld said - 6 weeks, 6 months, [he doubts] 6 years, but all of us that knew differently (that had stepped outside of the country's bubble) got a bitter taste in our mouths - we knew it wasn't going to be simple. It is going to be a continual struggle +/- America. America declared itself a democracy some 200+ years ago, but I hope no one thinks it was a democracy - marginalizing the Native Americans, and the African Americans, and women and now gays and lesbians. (So forgive me if I think we should all have different views, after all, those marginalized American populations would have been just fine without that). But I digress.

I only mean to say democracy is something that requires great thought, sacrifice, years, and continual struggle ... and the vibe off Bush is of thoughtlessness and a light approach to all of it - I just don't believe this act of war gave him pause 5 years ago, nor does its cost now. For some people, connecting those dots might mean he is a courageous leader, who forges ahead despite the odds. For others of us, we only really like leaders like that in the movies. In real life, we want to know that our leader is wise and thoughtful and truthful, because if he has these attributes and is courageous, we will follow him to the end of the earth.

Such a long rant from me, but I could not ignore this topic because it is less about Danny Devito (who cares!) and more about America, and its very fabric.

December 02 2006 at 4:54 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Steve C.: I will take a "Hollywood Liberal" drunk + a slutting president (all politicians, right and left, sleep around, don't kid yourself) + Arnold S. (who by the way is a Hollywood conservative, who says things that makes one wonder if he was drunk when he said them) + Mel Gibson (get him a little drunk and whoa...) + a confederate-flag-totin' and twirlin' country music star, all of them together, over George Walker Bush. It is my opinion that what he did is what has proved by far the most eroding of the American integrity.

This is not a liberal v. right rant: I respect left and right presidents, unless they give me reasons not to, and I would respect Bush if he wakes up one morning and decides to tell the truth, I swear, I will 100% respect him for that (compare: Tony Blair). As you say, people make jokes about Clinton because he deserved it. Well, George Bush deserves it, in spades, no matter which party he belongs to.

But see I am all about respect: I respect people who are passionate about Bush, they have their reasons. I also respect people who are dispassionate about him, they have their reasons. I respect that you are passionate about Bush, Steve C.; I understand your points, though I do not connect the same dots. What I am saying is I am dispassionate about Bush to the bottom of my soul. That feeling should be respected too. What he is doing pains me, and it is not a "liberal" feeling; and it is beyond hate. It is profound disappointment and deep disgust.

To get back on point though, no one should drink and drive, no one should drink and spew hate-ridden words on national television, no one should drink until the age of 40 and somehow find themselves a politician and a president, no one should drink and spew hate-ridden words at police, no one should drink and do anything, period. But I still respect Danny Devito's point. And I will still ignore him; I can afford to ignore him - he is so minisculy unimportant.

Political debate, however, is what is important - that is a utopic state where honest politicians and honest citizens can debate with each other, for example, about the president's decisions and points of view. But since we have no honest politicians, and meh citizens, the political debate will be subpar, but it should still be present. Without that, America is another country. Let me be clearer: Danny Devito has a right to say what he wonts; so do you; so do I, about the president of the US, a man who is supposedly a civil servant (and public figure), working for Danny Devito, and you and I. I will save my unconditioned admiration and support for God, you know the infallible almighty. Fin rant.

December 02 2006 at 3:29 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Steve C

Yes, I suppose liberating a nation from the evil tyranny of Saddam, allowing millions of their citizens to vote for the first time ever, giving a nation the chance to govern themselves and set their own democratic course for the first time, closing the REAL torture chambers of Saddam, and eliminating any chance that Saddam would develop and use chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons against anyone was simply a war for "no good reason". If we hadn't done this, he and his evil sons would still be cutting off ears, slicing out tongues, holding his people in desperate poverty, he'd be hosting Al Quaeda training grounds, and I'm quite sure he'd have his nuke by now. Yeah, you're right. I guess that's just not reason enough. Morons.

December 02 2006 at 3:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Bob not liberal but with common sense

How can anyone be upset with a guy who is taking a shot at a administration that has lied, cheated and sent 1,000's of people to their death for no real reason. He is entitled to his opinion right wrong or indifferent. I do not think it was right to come on and be drunk but how many of us have got up after a long night and went to work. If this is all we have to worry about life would be a breeze.

December 02 2006 at 1:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

who gives a crap about what condition he was in, for a drunk he acted pretty good! and for slamming Bush, who cares, comedians do it all the time! If ole bushie wasn't in office we would have more of our own boys and girls still alive instead of fighting a war that just cant be won. I say cheers to you Danny and thanks for a good laugh. If the stiff tightasses on the view cant just chuckle about it then they need to get a life and lighten up a little!

December 02 2006 at 12:15 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Steve C


You're confused. Country stars who "wrap themselves" in the flag and do beer commercials are in NO way similar to a disgusting drunk liberal slug who riducules an American President in a time of war and defiles the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House ("wrecks the joint"). Our founding fathers swilled quite a bit of ale in their time, and doing a beer commercial has nothing to do with undermining our President, our nation, or our troops while they're trying to stabilize the middle East and fight a global war to keep Al Quaeda from blowing me and you up. No connection.

John McCain didn't make that joke while drunk, and the nation was not at war at the time (even though Al Quaeda had declared war on us, but Bill didn't pull up his pants long enough to notice).

Same with Dennis Miller. And all those things he said were true. Making jokes about American senators and congressmen, or even the President is one thing, but you don't viciously attack a wartime President, because it weakens our whole nation in the eyes of the world. You don't have to agree with his decisions but you do have to respect him. He's in charge.

Conservatives made jokes about Clinton because he deserved it. He undermined the office he was elected to, he lied under oath, and is a disgrace to the nation. Even so, there was no "hatred" of Clinton, just disappointment and disapproval.

There's a BIG difference between that kind of treatment and what Bush gets. The left in this nation HATE him, they viciously attack and undermine him and our troops, and unrightfully so. They claim he lied and troops died, which is simply false. They want civil rights for foreigners who would slit your family's throats without batting an eye. Bush is determined not to have another attack on US soil on his watch. Undermining him is simply un-American, and aids our enemies. Thanks Danny Devito. We need more pigs like you.

Madonna, Streisand, Pink, the Dixie Chicks, and many others in entertainment were all fine with me, until they started their hateful attacks on our President. If they want to sell their music, they should be careful not to piss off at least half their potential fan-base. We vote for them with our dollars.

December 01 2006 at 1:33 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners