A few days ago, editorial cartoonist George Danby came up with a rather interesting take on the minicontroversy that is Ted Nugent’s visit to Bangor. In the cartoon, two people are sitting in a diner of some kind, with one complaining that criticism of Nugent is unfair because he meant no harm, “unlike the comments about Bush from those Tarts in Texas, the Dixie Chicks.”
A somewhat dated reference, as the Dixie Chicks firestorm happened nine years ago, but still an accurate criticism of the political double standards too many of us engage in.
My trouble with the cartoon wasn’t so much the point it was making — it was largely true — but rather that the exact opposite point could just as easily have been made, with just as much truth.
Imagine a cartoon lampooning liberals who defended the Dixie Chicks’ right to say offensive things about President Bush, but who are now calling for Nugent’s head when the criticism is aimed at a president of their own party. Just as poignant.
The hypocrisy of engineered outrage flows both ways. Never was this more on display than in Bangor recently.
Last week, at a National Rifle Association convention, Nugent began to opine about the danger of re-electing President Obama. He said, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”
Anyone who listened to what he said before and after that comment would know that he was making a hyperbolic statement, implying that the Obama administration is going to come for his guns, and other freedoms, and his refusal to cooperate will lead to his arrest or death. It was a magnificently stupid comment, but little more than that.
But when stupid comments become fodder for politicians trying to engineer controversy for their own benefit, watch out.
Bob Dole once quipped that “the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera.” In 2012, it seems that the most dangerous place to be is actually between Bangor City Councilor Charlie Longo and a keyboard. Mr. Longo wasted no time trying to take advantage of this situation to gain some publicity for himself.
On April 19, Longo sent a letter to Alex Gray, CEO of Waterfront Concerts, which is hosting Nugent’s performance in Bangor. Not content to simply send his letter of concern to Gray, Longo decided to take a self-congratulatory victory lap for his good deed, and post the letter to his website and mention it every chance he could.
In the letter, Longo asserts that Nugent’s comments were “violent” and “threatening.” In a bit of delicious irony, he claimed, “Mr. Nugent has proved time and time again that he will use any means necessary to keep himself in the headlines, regardless of the shameful things he says.”
With trumpets no doubt blaring and a dramatic, West Wing-style crescendo accompanying the rant, Longo closes by declaring, “Regardless of your feelings on the upcoming election this November, I believe we both agree there is no room for violence in our democracy.”
That is a rather remarkable perversion of reality, and all done in the name of political showboating.
I certainly have no respect for the particular opinion espoused by Nugent. I do not support the president’s re-election, but I don’t think he will be instituting a gun confiscation program that will result in armed showdowns with citizens who refuse to abdicate their Second Amendment rights. Frankly, I don’t think Nugent believes that either.
But I always have subscribed to the sentiment, popularly attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Ted Nugent has some spicy things to say, to be sure. So do radicals of all political stripes. They are extreme, they often make us uncomfortable, and sometimes, they are even right.
The First Amendment guarantees that people have the right to say unpopular, controversial things. While Mr. Longo is within his own First Amendment right to request Nugent be dropped from the concert series, such a request is inappropriate and foolish. Attempting to punish political speech should be something we all seek to avoid, and a city councilor should know better.
Matthew Gagnon, a Hampden native, is a Republican political strategist. He previously worked for Sen. Susan Collins and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You can reach him at matthew.o.gagnon@gmail.com and read his blog at www.pinetreepolitics.com.
Hey Matt, did the Secret Service ever investigate the Dixie Chicks?
Sure, there was probably political motivation behind what Longo posted. But don’t equate the two; you know that offensive, political speech isn’t the same as a threat. That’s the difference here.
Here’s the context of Nugent’s quote, by the way: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/apr/19/context-ted-nugent-saying-if-obama-wins-i-will-be/ Yes, it’s offensive. I’ll let everyone else here decide whether or not it’s more than that. But to say Nugent didn’t expect his quote to be this controversial might be showboating in itself.
I like how you failed to mention that the Secret Service left the meeting with Nugent satisfied he posed no threat to the president and his comments were not inciting violence against the president.
The secret service investigates even the most abstract of threats to the president. Except Columbian prostitutes, it seems.
I thought the Columbian prostitute situation was taken care of by that Republican Congressman who blamed it on President Obama.
Excellent column Mr. Gagnon. I for one am so sick of the “offended”. We all know about Baldacci, but Longo comes across as a little spoiled brat, a political weenie. I’m surprised that the people of Bangor would find their representation better off with him than without him.
I agree with you about Nugent. I find him to be a bit much in his political views but I’m not going to a political rally but rather a rock concert. I saw Ted back in 1981 at the BA and it was a great show. He can still bring it with the guitar. A little less mouth would be a nice touch though.
Longo and Baldacci shouldn’t have sent comments or criticism to Gray while acting in their elected capacity. As private citizens, they had the right, but not when they’re acted as if they represented the council. They should take the mandated state ethics course for elected officials again, in case they missed the relevant portions.
They also believed that they were talking for the entire City which is just plain wrong. Hopefully we will remember these comments at the next council election.
—–
Wow. Now the Bangor Daily News is hiring Columnist who specialize in commenting on cartoons.
Are you pretending that their political cartoons aren’t – well – political?
Not at all. What I am amazed at is that a columnist would comment on cartoons. Stay tuned next week for Matt’s take on Beetle Bailey.
The column was about Longo and the attempt by sitting City Councilors, him principally, attempting to stifle political speech. If you think the column was about the cartoon simply because I mentioned it up top, then… well… I guess I can’t help you.
And when did I ask for your help ? I have managed to make it this far in life without your help. I am sure that not only myself but the majority of readers of the BDN will manage to get along without you after you have left the pages of the BDN like you left the State of Maine.
—–
You apparently do need my – or somebody’s – help… with basic reading comprehension… which was my point… since you so drastically missed the point of the column, or even it seems the FOCUS of the column.
Mr. Gagnon I do not need the assistance of you or any other self impressed “political strategist” as far as reading comprehension is concerned. Even with what you seem to feel is an inability to comprehend what I read I have been able to achieve not only an undergraduate degree from the University of Maine in Engineering , but also two advanced degrees as well. I have also managed to get married , raise a family of 4 children to adulthood and pay for their educations as well (two engineers, one nurse and one teacher). In addition my wife and I started and have operated a company successfully in Maine for over 25 years which employs 18. You see Mr Gagnon I am one of the people you radical right know- it -alls refer to as “job creators”, only I did if long before it became a buzz word for people like you to use. Speaking of job creation Mr. Gagnon have you ever created a job for anyone other then yourself? Have you ever had to meet a payroll Mr. Gagnon. Do you have to make sure vendors get paid Mr. Gagnon? You know what vendors are don’t you Mr. Gagnon? They are companies like the Bangor Daily News whom I have been cutting checks to for over two decades. No Mr. Gagnon I most certainly do not feel the need for your assistance or insults. You keep commenting on important things like cartoons and I will keep on living my life just as I have.
Matt, if there’s one thing I’ve understood in the comment section of the BDN is that reading comprehension is a lost art. Oh, and throw logic in with that. Apparently, there are much more important subjects to cover in government schools.
It seems we have a cartoon character city councilor by the name of Longo.
That would seem about right
BaLdacci and Longo, the perpetually offended are offended. Surprise!!!
After weeks of essays chock full of manufactured outrage, suddenly this author has the authority to condemn that behavior?
My last five columns were, in order:
1. Defending the governor’s use of a line item veto, while defending the idea of the line item veto itself. No manufactured outrage here.
2. Attacking the phony concept of the “war on women” and the manufactured outrage by the left over said phony war, by reminding them that they live in a glass house and aren’t in much of a position to throw rocks. Only manufactured outrage here was the manufactured outrage I was pushing back AGAINST.
3. An argument that unexpectedly found revenues should not prevent the pursuit of real reform. No manufactured outrage here.
4. An argument that suggested that we start over from scratch on health care policy in this country, given the fact that it seemed likely the Supreme Court would be overturning the Affordable Care Act. No manufactured outrage here.
5. A profile of the contenders for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate. No manufactured outrage here.
So… if I may… what in God’s name are you talking about? Or are you… manufacturing outrage, perhaps?
Girl, get real.
None can be given. It’s the liberal way to slant and skew the argument in an attempt to make the conservative look like an uneducated “unable to sustain critical thought” kind of person, and totally discredit the said individuals position, all the while hoping to trump up supportive posts from fellow liberals and left leaning indies which this state has no shortage of. Sorry Matt, we are vastly outnumbered here. I will stop my rant now. Time to take off my camo and slip into something more comfy, (crap, the ‘ol lady didn’t wash my wife beater shirt this week). Gotta get some bible study in, and clean the guns for a weekend shoot.
I don’t know what the heck that little rant was about, as I condemned Nugent like five times in the column… and I find the idea that what he said being racist to be the most ludicrous over-reaction I’ve seen in ages… stupid? yes. Inpolitic? Yes. Ignorant, fearmongering, extremist drivel? Yes?
Racist? Huh?
Selective reading or lack of comprehension, this is what Danby wrote under his cartoon.
“It’s just such an angry, violent rant, almost racist in tone directed at President Obama.
When the Dixie Chicks made their comment about President Bush – everyone went overboard with criticism. Nugent’s comments have barely raised any eyebrows.
I find that interesting.”
You really think Nugent would have said this if there had been a “white” man in the White House? I got a bridge for sale here.
You’re the one that brought this silly cartoon up not me. It is about
the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy coming from your side……. Heck Fox News
doesn’t even pretend to be fair and balanced anymore, ask Newt. They
should just change their name to Republican News Network.
You have nothing to say about all those men that lost their lives so your Hero the Butt Head, Draft Dodging, Diaper Wearing, Fake Cowboy can say what he wants……….. says volumes about you and yours.
Were you alive to hear what the right said about Bill Clinton when he was President? Or what the left said about George W. Bush? What the left said about Reagan and Bush? What the right said about Carter?
Yes, professor, I’m quite certain that Nugent would have said this about any leftist president… black, white, yellow, brown, red, purple, orange, green or magenta. This is what politics is – a team sport, and one side craps on their hated rivals when they are in power. The right thinks the left is coming for their guns and money, and the left thinks the right is coming for their cherished programs and is interested in nuking the world.
None of it is true, but both sides – of which you very obviously count yourself an enthusiastic participant in – go absolutely off the deep end whenever their antagonists are in power.
Seeing race in this is actually a better indication of your own inherent racism, and obsession with superficial differences. I have absolutely no respect for anything Nugent said, as I said countless times in this column, but I’m not about to start spewing racist accusation when there is absolutely zero indication that is a part of this. At all.
Calling out racism isn’t racist in itself. That’s an offensive and obviously false assertion.
Being so obsessed with the concept of race that you see racism in places that have absolutely no logical indications of racism… is indeed an indication of “racism”. Racism comes in a lot of different breeds… sometimes it is the traditional “guy hates black people” stuff… and sometimes it is the person who can’t seem to see beyond race for anything, and is so consumed with racial identity that he or she can not let go of that identity for any reason, and starts making inappropriate accusations based off that all consuming obsession.
It is no less racist, and in fact I find it more insidious, because it openly rejects the ideas behind Dr. King’s color-blind society, instead more DEEPLY focusing on racial identity to the point where you start seeing racial boogymen everywhere. So much so that it is actually laughable.
But you’re not arguing on the merits. You’re just dismissing someone’s claims by calling them a racist. Calling someone’s concerns about racism racist in itself and then punctuating your non-point with a distorted Dr. King remark? I’d be laughing at you if that wasn’t so offensive.
Let’s start over at the beginning.
1. Nugent’s comments were unbelievably stupid, but contained absolutely nothing that even mildly hinted in any way shape or form, at racism. The only bizarre connection you could make to race was the fact that the national leader he was talking about happened to be an African American.
2. Nugent himself has said similar things about Democrats for years and years and years, including the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. These people he criticizes are essentially all white. It is blindingly obvious that his motivation is ideology, not race.
3. Danby suggested that he felt – based on nothing at all – that the comments were borderline racist. JohnR took that mild comment and took it to the extreme, hurling the race card around like it was nothing. All based on absolutely nothing, other than their own personal believe that criticizing a black leader means one has to be racist… because… Republicans NEVER crap on Democrats if they are members of the same race… right?
4. I pushed back on that assertion, because it is utter lunacy, and suggested that anyone who is so pre-occupied with racial identity that they see racism everywhere even when it very obviously doesn’t exist, is themselves “racist”, because they concern themselves with the differences between us based solely on race to a very inappropriate extreme. I cited Dr. King’s belief in a color blind society as a direct refutation for that kind of perverted thinking, as he wanted to build a society in which ones’ racial identity did not matter and we as people were judged on, in his words, the content of our character.
5. Despite my being the only person here who has attempted to justify my assertion with any kind of logical argument, you are dismissively laughing and “offended”. That says all I need to know about you, I suppose. Like it or not, my point is correct. Being race-obsessed to the degree that it makes you see racial boogeymen EVERYWHERE and constantly and inappropriately play the race card makes you a racist, yes.
You nullify your point though when you make sweeping generalizations and claim that people are race obsessed. Then you punctuate your remarks with a reference to Dr. King. It’s disgusting. Dr. King talked a lot about racism. According to your rubric, that makes him race obsessed. Racism DOES exist and it’s perfectly fine and healthy to discuss the varying degrees of it. Because you’re uncomfortable and because you have to at times defend racists (after all, you said politics is a team sport) you want to have the ability to dismiss others by saying they’re playing the “race card.” It’s lazy and not even close to being fact-based.
Also, you criticize others for the exact behavior you engage in. You talk about things being laughable and label things lunacy and then you screech when someone doesn’t take you seriously. You want to know why? Because you have an irrelevant job and are constantly behaving like a hypocrite.
So, no, your point isn’t correct. You have weak and unprincipled arguments. Being concerned about racism isn’t racist. That’s like saying refusing to tolerate intolerance is intolerant in itself. It’s non-sensical. But yeah, keep pretending racism doesn’t exist anywhere and anybody who brings it up is a big racist. That’s what King did, right? Just never said the word and ignored the issue?
What??, you say…….
“Seeing race in this is actually a better indication of your own inherent racism, and obsession with superficial differences.”
You’re the one that brought Danby into this by invoking his cartoon. I simply asked if you had read what he wrote UNDER the cartoon and somehow that gets to my being a racist. Look in a mirror and what do you see?
My point is that Nugent is a sorry excuse for a girlie man and I ask you to respect that there are those of us that actually served in Nam and didn’t hide behind mommies skirt like the loud mouthed cowards on your side of the aisle did. Speech may be free but for Ted to held out as some kind of hero by your side is funny and sad. Speaks to your sides integrity, on the issue of war and who should serve and who gets a free pass. My thoughts are that ALL able bodied men and women should serve. Since your side wants to keep starting wars then your side should put some skin in the game, or maybe we’ll just make cannon fodder out of your children instead Matthew. You do know what a chicken hawk used to mean don’t you? It is someone who “willingly advocates and applauds war while doing their best to avoid SERVING their country”. Tell me if Ted fits that description? Then tell me which side of the aisle R or D BEST fits this description????? Your side is a disgrace to all decent soldiers, sailor, and airmen while your guys clamber to make it appear that you are patriotic those of us that have been around for a while certainly know better.
Careful, John, you’ll get kicked off for making MG look bad.
Yep, I agree. It is totally racist to call a racist racist.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2007/01/ted-nugents-racist-spectacle-texas-governors-inaugural-ball
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108140001
http://mediamatters.org/research/201107190016
The Dixie Chicks comments, and I had to look them up, merely stated they were “ashamed Bush is from Texas.” They later clarified, and apologized for being disrespectful. A class act, for sure.
Nugent is somewhat known for his vulgar and crude comments toward Democrats, which, while considered political speech, is more akin to rudeness.
They only apologized to stop the “landslide” of critizism and mend fences. And Nugent was wrong to say what he said.
Oh, yeah. And what excuse to you make for Bill Maher?
He also makes them towards minorities in general. I personally can’t stand the man, so I don’t buy a ticket. The councilors can’t stand the man and urged the promoter to not book him. They did not say “the city of Bangor will not let you book him.” They are doing everything legally in their power to make sure that the promoter is bringing in “talent” that is not racist and divisive. Unfortunately, the promoter seems to want to bring the racist in still. I hope that people who have bought their tickets to see this trash ask for refunds, but if not, then they can go and watch the racist trash all they want.
This is similar to the politicians like Eliot Cutler, the Pingrees and many other liberal women who had artificial outrage over the Rush Limbaugh comments and who attempted to equate opposition to taxpayer funded mandates to be a “war against women”. It is disgusting and insulting to the intelligence of their constituents.
And your response to Longo and Baldacci is political spinning. Won’t work. Nugent is a has-been that threatened the President. Had he not been a “celebrity”, he would have suffered a long, drawn out investigation and harassment. Sure, for the money these councilors are paid, they want to grandstand to hang onto the plum salaries.
Repeating the lie that he threatened the president doesn’t make it true. Had he, he would be in jail for inciting violence – they take that very seriously. Just because you WANT him to have threatened the president so you could score some political points doesn’t mean he actually did, and repeating it until you are blue in the face won’t make it true.
And ranting the tea party line ad nauseum, with its clear undercurrents (and scripted direction), is one of the most futile undertakings I have ever observed. I didn’t vote for Obama. Let’s clear that up. But you seem to be seriously misled. The SS took it seriously enough as a “threat” to actually interview Nugent. And it was clearly intended as a veiled “threat.” Simply repeating the Rushtalk of “liar liar pants on fire” places you in pretty weak company.
There is a fine grain of truth in this editorial. We should be concerned about the standards of public discussion, regardless of political affiliation. It is also somewhat inappropriate for a government official to take aim at a private citizen — although in this case the citizen in question was speaking publically and politically. The occasion for criticizing Nugent was also poorly chosen.
The criticism of Nugent was misdirected. The object of our criticism should have been Romney, who pointedly failed to disown Nugent’s comments, thus milking outrageous and incivil language for political gain. That was utterly despicable.
There is no room for violent and rude language in public discourse, even when it seems justifiable on the basis of a politician’s outrages against decency, law, justice, and human dignity. Such a person (I refer to Bush of course; I am not here to patronize the fantasies of the right wing). Condoning such language is a road to extremism. The reason we do not condone such language is because everyone feels justified in their opinions. There are no limits to self-deception and hypocrisy. Therefore, those people who believe themselves to be ethical and moral in their political behavior have the obligation to demonstrate this — not just brag about it — by showing other members of the public how to conduct public debate with decency and decorum. The Dixie Chicks may have stepped over a line (they didn’t say anything remotely as offensive as did Ted), and thus provided safe harbor for the rationalizations of the opposing extreme.
Certain members of our society are verbally pushing shoulders, like run-of-the-mill bullies, daring others to “step outside.” The reason they prefer to do their fighting “outside”, of course, is because there they can fight without restraint. That is what they want to do. That is what a sociopath like Ted Nugent wants to do. He is daring his enemies to provide him with what, from his point of view, would constitute a justification for his criminal impulses. After all, if someone joins him outside, didn’t they intend to fight? Wasn’t he only acting in self-defense? All he needs is for you to stoop to his level and come outside. Such people are still afraid to fight indoors. There is still a part of them that fears society’s disapproval. And we cannot register our disapproval if we all “step outside.”
This is America. You are allowed to speak your mind. That is after all the FIRST thing we are protected from in the bill of rights. This being America we also have the right to not like what one says. If a person does not wish to “support” the person speaking that is their right. It is NOT the gooberments job to get involved. The difference between the dixi chicks and Ted is vastly different. The chicks spoke out going against there supporters. Ted is saying exactly what his supporters support him for. Ted offends those who do not like him anyway.
Just wondering if Conservatives ever take the high road.
I’m basically making the ACLU’s argument here, Bob…
I didn’t realize the ACLU had prepared a statement. Do you have a link?
And you’re making the ACLU’s argument because it’s a conservative you’re defending. The difference between you and the ACLU though is that they have principles and do beneficial work. Can’t say the same for you.
Clearly you haven’t read pretty much anything I write. I have had more than my share of columns crapping on conservatives and defending liberals. I would have enjoyed writing this column just as much if it was a conservative acting like an idiot against a liberal windbag making stupid comments.
I do not like, have never liked, and never will like Ted Nugent, so my defense of him has nothing to do with him being on “my side”. Extreme conspiracy theorists who believe the world is ending with every election are of no interest to me, and I believe they discredit the entire movement to which they ideologically subscribe. I would prefer he shut up and go away, for the benefit of the movement I care about.
Believe me, defending Ted Nugent was as painful to me as defending Cindy Sheehan would have been. This column being written about this subject at this time is a matter of nothing more than the timing of how everything happened.
You’re comparing a draft dodger to the mother of a fallen soldier? Just wow. You should stop digging yourself deeper into that hole now.
Thank you. I’m glad this event brought Nugent’s dishonorable past into the spotlight.
Nice column, well stated.
Bah. Ted’s remarks were unforgivable, a perfect trifecta of mean, stupid and crazy. I think you are just slotting into conservative talking points and defending the indefensible because you think it’s good copy. I think the “if a coyote pisses on your couch… you shoot the coyote” sounded about a hairsbreadth away from a call to murder the president. I think your defending this guy is a sad use of column space at best, and at worst? Defending a criminal.
Great article Matt, keep them coming..