Here's what the CBS Golf Analyst said:
Here's what DelawareDem said:
For the record: I don't consider DD a blight on true progressivism as much as I disgree with him on multiple issues.
For the record (2): the only thing I really disagree with in his post is the sentence, What is it about Nancy Pelosi that angers these thugs so? because it makes Mr. Feherty some sort of unofficial spokesman for the GOP, who is merely stating what they want to say but are afraid to.
On the other hand, however, with Mark Davis repeating this on Rush Limbaugh's show today, I cannot dismiss DD's position out of hand, either.
So I am waiting to hear GOP and conservative leaders take a public stand to condemn both Mr. Feherty and the Limbaugh show (and anybody else who passed this on) with words like this:
I hope they say that. I don't get to speak for them, do I? But I will join DD in condemning them if they do not do so.
I will presume speak for my fellow soldiers, active and retired:
No equivocation. [And for the moment I do not care one bit whether or not she lied about being briefed on torture. That is immaterial to the issue at hand.]
From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.
Here's what DelawareDem said:
He will be fired shortly. And screw the apology that no doubt will be forthcoming. I understand reacting in anger and wishing that all Republicans would die. I have done it. Anger can do strange things to you, and even though it is no excuse, at least it is understandable. By all accounts, Mr. Feherty was calmly answering a question in an interview, as if in a golf whisper. Hell, he may have even been joking. But whose jokes are as detailed in their murderous design. Yeah, Mr. Feherty has issues, and I suppose none of us want to see what crosses his mind when angry.
What is it about Nancy Pelosi that angers these thugs so? Trust me, as a Democrat, she is harmless and powerless. Indeed, if it is her liberalism that angers them, I can assure them it could have been much much worse. Imagine me as Speaker. Well no, since Steve Newton and Dana Garrett consider me a blight on true progressivism…. consider Dana Garrett as Speaker. Then these right wingers would have something to cry about.
I am convinced the right wing pathology concerning Nancy Pelosi, and concerning Hillary Clinton for that matter, has everything to do with hatred of women. My mother, a die hard Hillary Clinton supporter during the primaries, says she learned one thing about America during 2008: we are more sexist as a country than we are racist.
For the record: I don't consider DD a blight on true progressivism as much as I disgree with him on multiple issues.
For the record (2): the only thing I really disagree with in his post is the sentence, What is it about Nancy Pelosi that angers these thugs so? because it makes Mr. Feherty some sort of unofficial spokesman for the GOP, who is merely stating what they want to say but are afraid to.
On the other hand, however, with Mark Davis repeating this on Rush Limbaugh's show today, I cannot dismiss DD's position out of hand, either.
So I am waiting to hear GOP and conservative leaders take a public stand to condemn both Mr. Feherty and the Limbaugh show (and anybody else who passed this on) with words like this:
David Feherty does not speak for us. Speaker Pelosi is an American citizen and political leader whose policies we may oppose, but whose patriotism is not open to question. There will be no differences between Republicans and Democrats on this issue.
I hope they say that. I don't get to speak for them, do I? But I will join DD in condemning them if they do not do so.
I will presume speak for my fellow soldiers, active and retired:
American troops take the orders of their lawful superiors regardless of their political opinions. We may curse them some days, as soldiers have been known to curse their political leadership since time immemorial, but no American soldier worthy of wearing the uniform shares the opinions of David Feherty. We disown him, and those who think and speak as he does.
No equivocation. [And for the moment I do not care one bit whether or not she lied about being briefed on torture. That is immaterial to the issue at hand.]
Comments
By condemning them, aren't you attempting to "demonize other American citizens who have committed no crimes, and threaten--even by implication--their rights to free speech and free association."
These statements are exactly the kind of nonsense that is legal but has no place in legitimate political discourse. It is exactly this kind of garbage that I believe it is perfectly acceptable to attack by whatever hyperbole and other rhetorical techniques are necessary to make it socially unacceptable to say or write this stuff.
Should it be criminalized? Of course not. Should it be roundly condemned? Yes, indeed.
anonone
I did not know that the Limbaugh show referenced this today, and by your tone, it would appear that Rush or whoever else was on his program referenced it in a positive light. And if that is the case, with all loyal Republicans repeatedly bowing down and kissing Rush's ring over the past few months, then yes, I would then cast Feherty as the official spokesman for the GOP if they do not condemn him.
Look, many GOPers will now respond to this with two points: 1) But DD, you wanted to round up and shoot all Republicans, and more generally 2) all sorts of left wingers joked about killing Bush during his eight years.
First, recognize that for what it is: deflection. Supporters of the GOP and the right wing generally excel at that, just as much as they excel at projection. That their expected and usual first response deflects attention away from condemnation of Feherty is revealing.
Second, as I addressed, there is a difference between my hyperbole and Feherty's comments. But at least I knew I was wrong and apologized. I expect any apology will be the type of nonapology apology: "To those who were offended..." Alas, my hyperbole will be an old chestnut to throw back at me whenever this kind of issue arises.
Third, if a liberal made the same statement about Denny Hastert and Bill Frist, or even about George Bush, they would be equally wrong.
Finally, Steve... it must have really pained you to write that title. ;)
You are tiresome, and have the foolish consistency that Emerson declared to be the hobgoblin of little minds.
DD
Actually: it did not pain me to write that title.
Although I do not always achieve it, I do try for intellectual integrity.
I did not hear the Limbaugh show quote either, but every reference has suggested it was in a positive light.
I don't give a shit what you said about rounding up people here, because it is not relevant to the case at hand; nor are jokes about Bush.
Both will be raised as deflection--you are right.
But I am not playing that game.
And, as I have said: you are right in this particular case that if the GOP does not disown him and those who support him, they have tacitly made him their spokesman. I really do hope they are more ethical than that. But I am not holding my breath.
Here's your answer (now that I have dealt with DD whose issues are actually important on this issue):
Condemning the actual explicit speech of one person or the people who second it (in which that person makes explicit reference to condoning political violence rather than taking positions that allow you to somehow "read between the lines") is different from from demonizing an entire category or group of American citizens from things you infer but they do not say.
It is also different, as DD has recognized, to condemn their speech (which is inherently part of your free speech rights) than to advocate restrictive action by the government against people who have neither committed a crime nor advocated a criminal action. That, to me, is demonization.
In all of your comments you have never even acknowledged the difference, much less dealt with it.
I strongly agree with your position that advocating "restrictive action by the government against people who have neither committed a crime nor advocated a criminal action" is not a good thing, particularly if one might be in a position to effect or initiate such actions.
I say that as having supported peace and social action groups that we learned later were infiltrated by government agents and/or monitored by the FBI.
But unless such language is explicit, then I think that it does become more interpretive. Obviously your sensitivity to language around perceived restrictive government actions is very high; others have high sensitivity to perceived public threats of political violence.
So we need to recognize that there is a difference between explicit calls for "restrictive action by the government" versus perceived calls interpreted "by implication" same as there is a difference between explicit calls for political violence versus perceived calls interpreted from "reading between the lines."
I think that it is this gray area that can get people into disagreements.
anonone
What I disagree with: that any organization--left, right, libertarian, or communist--has to rush out and denounce anything that some crackpot says in some local magazine. The "Gotcha!" game would go on forever. "But you didn't denounce that jackass!" Wake me up when Michael Steele or Eric Cantor gets caught making the joke.
However, I must say this. I know alot of Vets, and what he said is probably true (although perhaps not literally). At least in my circle of Vet friends, Pelosi is reviled.
DD is also very funny is in his "rationalizations." Remember -- conservatives and the GOP are ALWAYS worse, no matter what.
DD remains a sicko.
And screw the apology that no doubt will be forthcoming. I understand reacting in anger and wishing that all Republicans would die. I have done it. Anger can do strange things to you, and even though it is no excuse, at least it is understandable. By all accounts, Mr. Feherty was calmly answering a question in an interview, as if in a golf whisper. Hell, he may have even been joking. But whose jokes are as detailed in their murderous design.This is what makes DD such a despicable specimen. We're all supposed to accept his apology, but "screw" Feherty's. Why? Because of DD's assertion that 1) he wasn't angry, and 2) jokes like that "aren't funny." (Yeah, uh-huh -- just look at what passes as "humor" over at DL one day.)
You also agree, Steve, with I am convinced the right wing pathology concerning Nancy Pelosi, and concerning Hillary Clinton for that matter, has everything to do with hatred of women.Really? The Dem playbook is to DEFINE any opposition to minorities as "racist," and to women as "sexist." Of COURSE DD is going to say just that.
Who the F cares what his mother said. That should be taken with less than a grain of salt. She probably wants to kill Republicans too.
If the 1st Amendment was only intended to protect polite speech that isn't going to offend anybody, we wouldn't need it.
Do we really want to live in a country where people get fired on a regular basis for saying things that we disagree with, or for making off-color jokes?
Jokes about lawyers and politicians have been around for decades. Why is it so hard to take now? Because our liberal media can't take the truth even when presented in humor.
What does that say about our current political environment.
I started out on this "news" quest from a poll that put American's solidly on Feherty's side. If they were to fire them, I do believe most of us would feel
not only that first amendment rights were violated but that the increasing creep toward socialism and the violation of the bill of rights was solidly upon us.
Grow up media and Dems - it was just humor. You know - like the political cartoons that have existed since the birth of our nation.
Most believe Polosi a liar and, depending on who you listen to, think it can be proven.
The man was making a joke. He didn't say "I hope she is shot in an elevator". Maybe Wanda Sykes should take some notes.