Time for a Blogger Ethics Panel

If only the progressive blogosphere weren't so full of extremist views, profanity, and personal attacks:

I was in Chicago last week, I said, "Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these, you punk!" Obama, he’s a piece of sh*t and I told him to suck on my machine gun! Let’s hear it for them. I was in New York and I said, "Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch. And since I'm in California, how about Barbara Boxer? She might want to suck on my machine gun! Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these, you worthless whore!"

Oh, wait, that's musician and sometimes Wall Street Journal columnist Ted Nugent:

Strikingly, this is somewhat more cogent than typical WSJ opinion page fare.

Comments

Isn't the Secret Service obligated to pay this man
a visit?

Posted by Pritesh | August 26, 2007 2:48 PM

I remember after the shootings at VaTech, Nugent penned an op-ed suggesting the problem was that Tech was a "gun-free" zone. If only the other students had been allowed to pack heat, maybe one of them could've done something!

Nuts, just plain nuts.

Posted by ProfD | August 26, 2007 3:00 PM

Gosh, and such a potty mouth.

I wonder if he'll be castigated for his incivility? I hope Instapundit gets on the case.

DU

Posted by The Mechanical Eye | August 26, 2007 3:01 PM

Matt, I think you may need to check your facts here.

You called Nugent a "musician."

Please don't let your journalistic reponsibilities slip like this. Thank you.

Posted by Cash | August 26, 2007 3:02 PM

Someone call the CDC - apparently, cat scratch fever causes insanity.

Posted by Woody Bombay | August 26, 2007 3:33 PM

Hard to believe the same city gave us the MC5, the Stooges, and Ted Nugent. Still a net positive (even without Motown), but a definite stain on the great record of the city.

Posted by MikeJ | August 26, 2007 3:34 PM

The Man from Motor City, he is mad. So very, very mad.

Come to think of it, so is Kid Rock. And Eminem. And Iggy Pop. Jesus, what's in the water up there?

Posted by sangfroid826 | August 26, 2007 3:42 PM

Hey, I think the Nuge was a not-so-bad 70s hard rocker, in the same league and Foghat and Z.Z. Top. So phooey on you, Cash.

That he has become a an outspoken rightwing nutcase in his dotage...well it happens.

What I find amusing is that the WSJ and other right wing media outlets give him space and really think his political opinions are worth expressing in public. They seem so freaking relieved that some rocker is on their side.

What they should do is ask themselves why it is that so many artists, musicians, actors, and other creative people tend to the left. Could it be the vague hostility that the right has for the kind of eccentric, free-thinking people (many of whom are gay! horrors!) who are likely to become artists of some kind? I once read a book about Texas in which an artist from Dallas bitterly commented that in Dallas, a person who buys art is much more respected than a person who creates it. I think you could replace "Dallas" with "the Republican Party" and still be stating the truth.

Posted by RWB | August 26, 2007 3:43 PM

"Strikingly, this is somewhat more cogent than typical WSJ opinion page fare. "

now *that* is a good line.
okay, you earned your salary today.

Posted by kid bitzer | August 26, 2007 5:16 PM

>Hey, I think the Nuge was a not-so-bad 70s hard rocker, in the same league and Foghat and Z.Z. Top.

I stand by my comment.

First, Nugent isn't fit to carry Billy Gibbons' razor.

And putting someone in the same league as Foghat doesn't prove he's a musician.

Posted by Cash | August 26, 2007 5:41 PM

So Ted Nugent is a hater. Displaying a weapon while hating, even.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 26, 2007 5:46 PM

He's stealing Tom Friedman's material!

Posted by Hoyt Pollard | August 26, 2007 6:02 PM

Recall the outrage on the right over the statement by the Dixie Chick's lead singer that she was "embarassed to be from the same state as George Bush?" Wasn't that considered to be "over the top" on the right? Has anyone on the right condemned Mr. Nugent for his statements?

Posted by RaymondA | August 26, 2007 6:04 PM

Ted Nugent is not the only one who thinks arming students is a good idea, ProfD.

Fred Thompson thinks so too.

Posted by THS | August 26, 2007 6:07 PM

Wow, bad 70s metal fascism.

I think this may be on the border line of criminal. Brandishing a machine gun and suggesting a presidential candidate might want to "suck on it" is a bit out there -- if you or I did this I am guessing the Secret Service would be at our doorstep the next morning. Be interesting to see what they do with the Motor City Douche Bag.

How has the right wing media been playing this plea for civility?

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | August 26, 2007 6:32 PM

Nugent was/is a very, very good rock guitarist. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about. Sorry, Cash: that means you.

Posted by Guy in Jersey | August 26, 2007 6:35 PM

How has the right wing media been playing this plea for civility?

Klein's tiny left nut, I think this not the topic to be snarky about. What is it with liberals who must state everything with sarcasm?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 26, 2007 7:12 PM

Ted Nugent needs to take his machine gun and shove it up his ass.

(I hope Obama or Clinton have the guts to say something to that effect, but sadly they will try to remain above the fray.)

Posted by eltoro | August 26, 2007 7:45 PM

Cash:

Ian Mackaye and Henry Rollins are big fans of Ted Nugent's music. Obviously not for political reason. I can't speak for his solo music, but the Amboy Dukes stuff on the Nuggets boxset is pretty good, if a little silly.

Posted by Bryan | August 26, 2007 7:49 PM

Guy in Jersey, I'll happily start listing better rock guitarists and reach triple figures long before I hit Nugent's level.

He wasn't even the best guitarist in Damn Yankees, which is a fairly sad state of affairs--somewhat like that of the state of his political thinking, actually.

Posted by Cash | August 26, 2007 7:58 PM

Bengt,

Although snark is my middle name -- it takes too long to type out "Kleins' tiny snark left nut" -- I wasn't actually being snarky for the most part. It is an honest question -- how are the folks in right wing media who portray someone, say like Markos Molitsas as the anti-Christ dealing with this extraordinarily ugly fascistic outburst?

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | August 26, 2007 8:13 PM

Question: are any of those devices he's carrying actually a machine gun? I can't even ID them since the video is typically YouTube quality. If they're legal, what's the problem (aside from the fact that the gutless punks on the left and center don't like guns at all)?

Statement: He's right. Obama is a punk, Hillary is a worthless bitch, and Boxer and Feinstein are corporate whores. Diane Feinstein lobbied for increased gun restrictions in San Francisco, turning in a .38 just to show she cares - except she forgot to turn in the SECOND .38 she was licensed for. Lying bitch, right? In San Francisco, she's been known to be owned and operated by PG&E since forever. So, corporate whore, right?

So where was he wrong?

As for his music, I've never heard him that I can remember, so can't comment. Besides which, that's all opinion. Wikipedia says: "To date, he has released more than 31 recordings and sold more than 35 million albums."

I'd call that success.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 8:53 PM

Richard Steven Hack,

It makes a difference that he told Obama, Clinton, Boxer, and Feinstein to go suck on his MACHINE GUN. He may or not have been actually holdng a machine gun in the YouTube video, but whether or not it is a real machine gun (let along one that is legal) does detract from the fact that he made a veiled threat in his rhetoric. He deserves to be villified for that, as much as he would be if said the same thing about Bush or Cheney (who are also punks & worthless bitches and even worse corporate whores.) He also deserves to be told to go shove that machine gun up his rectum.

Posted by eltoro | August 26, 2007 9:06 PM

Richard Loser Hack, the only gutless punk and worthless bitch is, well, YOU, and the assclown currently defacing the White House. So your boytoy Spooge was actually right, just got the names wrong. Funny thing about pole-smoking Relosercant's like you and Teddy-Weddy: when you come up for air, your oxygen-deprived brainstem wags your pathetic lips in truly amusing, tho' pathetic, ways. Good luck with your prolapsed rectum, junior.

Posted by Conrad's Ghost | August 26, 2007 9:20 PM

So where was he wrong?

You shouldn't threaten people, and you definitely shouldn't threaten people while holding a gun.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 26, 2007 9:24 PM

Let us compare the fallout from this to the Dixie Chicks incident.

Posted by Mike | August 26, 2007 9:39 PM

You know, guns aren't freedom. Real dictators threaten your family. Saddam, for example, did (Iraq is full of guns, and was also before when Saddam ruled). There were also plenty of guns in the Soviet Union. But what would happen if you took one of these and shot the Communist Party leader? Horrible things (like torture) would happen to your family, that's what.

All real dictators hold people hostage this way, ie, they rule very much like a Mafia leader would; because it works. They use force, yes, but that is not the main thing.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 26, 2007 10:11 PM

Recall the outrage on the right over the statement by the Dixie Chick's lead singer that she was "embarassed to be from the same state as George Bush?" Wasn't that considered to be "over the top" on the right? Has anyone on the right condemned Mr. Nugent for his statements?

The statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks was considered to be not only over the top, but beyond the pale. Radio stations stopped playing their music, and many concert dates were canceled because ticket sales were low.

There's a good account of the whole story at Wikipedia. (Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but the account is consistent w/ what I've heard and read in other sources.)

Posted by THS | August 26, 2007 10:38 PM

How does one ride a machine gun into the sunset, anyway?

Posted by El Cid | August 26, 2007 11:12 PM

Addressing RSHack is like addressing Ted Nugent: pissing into a particularly foul-smelling wind. He is right about Feinstein, though, she is a huge gaping hypocritical corpopoly-owned cunt.

And you know how I feel about Hillary... but lay off my man Barry Hussein! He the best!

Posted by Gregorio | August 26, 2007 11:17 PM

Has anyone on the right condemned Mr. Nugent for his statements?

Not his buddy Sean Hannity, for one.

The firearm/penis thing is overstated, but when someone tells women to suck on his machine gun, you do have to wonder if he's packing much downstairs.

Anyway, I long for the day when elks learn how to plant landmines.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 27, 2007 2:12 AM

Oh, please. The "suck on my machine gun" seem obviously to be a political statement regarding gun control (though a crude one), rather than any kind of threat.

Posted by too many steves | August 27, 2007 3:00 AM

That said, Nugent's a dumbass, and he has no place on even the WSJ opinion page. He's a pretty good guitar player, though.

Posted by too many steves | August 27, 2007 3:02 AM

Ted just learned. a long time before Ann Coulter did, that in today's world there's a lot of profit in just acting obnoxious. There are, of course, plenty of other "celebrities" like that now: crabs in the pubic hairs of the body politic. The only really revolting fact is that the WSJ editorial page is printing him -- but then, this is no more revolting or outrageous than anything else the WSJ editorial page has done during the 35 years since that strange fanatic Robert Bartley took it over.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 27, 2007 3:18 AM

The intellectual capacity of the posters here is clearly demonstrated by their reaction to any suggestion that 1) Nugent was not in fact threatening anybody, and 2) that the targets of his criticisms were in fact deserving of criticism, if not necessarily in the terms used.

I have no idea what Nugent's political philosophy actually is, other than that he is apparently considered a "conservative" (whether Old Conservative or neoconservative is not clear.)

Apparently, merely being a gun rights advocate and an opponent of certain Democratic cretins is enough to be considered a hanging offense here.

In any event, nothing I said could be construed to mean that I agree with his political philosophy, whatever it might be, since I obviously don't know what it is (and for the record, I don't care.)

I merely pointed out that it seemed to be an over-reaction to proclaim that he should be arrested by the Secret Service for threatening assassination of various persons while holding an illegal weapon - none of which was established by the video presented.

But of course, facts aren't relevant here - only the opportunity for brain dead trolls to wax eloquent (not that any of them could be considered "eloquent" except by the standards of, say, morons.)

The amusing thing is that half the posts are complaining about his manner of speech - while the other half are demonstrating their equal mastery of the same level of discourse.

I hope the latter aren't representative of Matt's readers, or this blog will quickly go the way of HuffPo or the worst of the rightwing blogs.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 6:20 AM

"You know, guns aren't freedom."

I don't recall saying they were. They're a tool.

"Real dictators threaten your family. Saddam, for example, did (Iraq is full of guns, and was also before when Saddam ruled)."

And the US is finding that out very effectively in Iraq today.

As for dictators killing your family, well, at some point decisions have to be made. If your family is going to get killed anyway, you might as well kill the dictator. If not, then you might think twice.

Saddam ruled for years because he didn't - as a rule, anyway - kill anybody who wasn't opposed to his rule. The notion that Saddam was somebody who just killed anybody at random has been disproven. Anybody who managed to stay out of the way of him and his sons didn't do that badly in Iraq (leaving aside the Bathist bureaucracy and the like - I'm not saying Iraq was some nice place to live in general - only that it didn't automatically mean you got killed if you lived there.)

It also matters whether you have enough people on your side willing to oppose the dictator. The US has arrested over 20,000 people in Iraq - many of them innocent relatives or acquaintances of insurgents - yet the insurgency just keeps on keeping on. The US military in Iraq has even been known to take family members hostage in order to pressure insurgents to surrender. This has failed, too.

It's a matter of attitude. Given the right attitude - and enough guns - on the part of enough people - the usual percentage is considered to be five percent - and most governments can be brought down. The majority of any population will be indifferent to or either mildly supportive or mildly non-supportive of the insurgency. In the US case, thirty percent of the colonists were against British rule, thirty percent were in favor and thirty percent didn't care.

In any event, the Founding Fathers of the US explicitly and repeatedly stated, as illustrated by Patrick Henry, that "the great object is that every man be armed." There's no arguing that point as a matter of interpretation of the Constitution's language, or of Supreme Court decisions. The words of the Founders were very clear.

And today, an armed citizenry is STILL more than capable of rendering even an advanced military force inoperable, provided there is enough desire and enough strategic planning. It might take ten years and millions of lives, but it can still be done. Nukes and jet fighters have not changed that. Jet fighters are useless when the expensively trained pilots are shot while they are on the ground (the Palestinians haven't figured that out yet, apparently.)

The problem for the United States is that the citizenry is not yet suffering ENOUGH to motivate a real insurgency. Neither does the modern US citizen have any concept of US "freedom" other than as an almost "religious" "talking point" devoid of any actual meaning.

I suspect that not even the canceling of Presidential elections and the imposition of martial law would be enough to stimulate any significant fraction of the US population to take up arms, as long as most people had jobs and weren't directly threatened by the state.

Just like Saddam's Iraq, actually.

This is why you don't have any sort of significant "antiwar movement" in this country. By now, in many countries, people would be rioting in the streets at the incompetent and criminal way this country has been run for five years. At the very least, government leaders would be resigning regularly and being replaced. Not in this country. The average US citizen is so complacent that almost nothing could motivate him to actually do anything to oppose the state's policies beyond complaining to a newspaper editorial page or a blog.

But the comment here shows why - hey, I might actually be threatened. Better to let everything go to hell rather than take a risk myself.

By definition, such people don't make insurgencies - or need guns.

People who do make insurgencies do need guns.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 6:45 AM

RSH,

Who are the trolls here?

And you don't think someone from the left making similar statements vis a vis our heroic presdient would prompt Secret Service inquiry?

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | August 27, 2007 7:28 AM

RSH,
You like to hear yourself talk, don't you?
Christ you're boring, do you know that?

Posted by Northern Observer | August 27, 2007 9:44 AM

Didn't the secret service investigate a CONSERVATIVE cartoonist a few years ago, merely for drawing a cartoon that contained both the President and a gun? This seems mroe worthy of investigation than the cartoonist was.

Posted by Father Figure | August 27, 2007 10:47 AM

Wow, it's almost embarrassing the extent to which he sees his "machine gun" as a stand-in for his dick, isn't it? And he couldn't think of one non-black white male politician he didn't like? The naked misogyny and racism is pretty incredible.

Posted by tps12 | August 27, 2007 10:59 AM

Whenever I hear Ted Nugent speak, I get the sense he's just another repressed Republican desperate to overcome his "Brokeback Mountain" urges. He's ashamed so he overcompensates with guns and amplifiers. So sad. I hear there's a cure for this sort of thing nowdays. He should really look into it.

Posted by ny nick | August 27, 2007 1:17 PM

People who do make insurgencies do need guns.

Well, there's no arguing with someone who's MySpace page says he's a 58 yr old radical transhumanist and computer repairman.

Posted by Flavor Flavius Julianus | August 27, 2007 4:02 PM

Let's look at this rationally. Is the Nuge implying that he could harm or coerce certain democrats with a machine gun? Of course not. Their Secret Service guards would take him out before he got to the "u" in "Suck on this!".

Perhaps he means he could take them on, guno-a-guno, if they were alone and both armed with machine guns? I doubt it, as he usually only hunts unarmed animals, and the politicians mentioned are far tougher than he is. Boxer, for example, presents a very small target, and is a noted crack shot.

So he probably means, that, presented with an unarmed, undefended politician, he would probably defeat them if he had a machine gun. I don't have to agree (I think he'd wet his loincloth), but it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Posted by M. Peachbush | August 27, 2007 4:30 PM

"Well, there's no arguing with someone who's MySpace page says he's a 58 yr old radical transhumanist and computer repairman."

And you are what? Flavor Flavius Julianus? What the hell is that?

A moron, apparently. No point in discussing anything with you.

Same goes for "Northern Observer", who is sufficiently bereft of balls that he doesn't use his real name either.

16-year-old punks tossing cheap shots, most likely.

Trolls are a dime a dozen on blog sites.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 11:20 PM

I think Ted Nugent is a worthless, pants-pissing, chicken-hawk, piece of whale dung... and nothing sinks lower than whale dung.

Too much cat scratch fever, if you ask me.

Posted by Stash | August 28, 2007 5:20 PM