| Blog | Login/Register | Home | About Us | News Feeds | Email News Tips |

    More Ads:

Proud member of

The Liberal Blog Network

a FeedBurner Network

Advertise in The Liberal Blog Network

Subscribe to this network

    Good Books:

    Great Music:

    Must See:

The Democratic Daily

A liberal dose of news, national and local politics, commentary, opinions and common sense conversation…

Another Dip in the Nugent Slime

Posted by harto
July 5th, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

There is an important point about the Ted Nugent editorial I discussed yesterday that I didn’t touch on, but which seems, in retrospect, important.

I’ve been a professional writer for over thirty years.

The best prior experience here, I believe, was when I was an editor with HUSTLER, and part of my duties were to read the foot-high stack of “readers letters” that passed over my desk every morning.

You see, it’s not that difficult to tell the difference between a real writer, a ghost writer, and a rewritten piece.

Writing is, you might have noticed, not as easy as it looks. I was “lucky” enough to be shown that in spades: Half of that stack of “reader letters” I read every morning — about “real” sexual experiences — might as well have been written in crayon. And, there were the wannabe writers who were obviously writing (awful) fiction. And there were the actual interesting experiences so hobbled by amateurish prose that the best one could do was extract the seed of a letter from them. The number of letters I ever read that were ready to go out of the box?

Zero. I never read one that didn’t have glaring flaws — AS writing. AS storytelling, which, ultimately, is what was being asked, no matter the ‘legitimacy’ of the story subject.

To write a tight piece in the short space alloted took something more than a recitation of banal sexual experience. It is not much talked about, but writing a tight piece that elegantly* fit in the short space alloted to “real” readers’ experiences took a good fundamental grasp of writing. Hack writing, perhaps, but up to a necessary professional standard.

[* ‘elegant’ as in the mathematical concept of elegance: the least number of propositions to prove the theorum.]

And the foot-tall stack dumped on my desk every morning proved that the actual number of amateur writers capable of that feat was miniscule to nil. Even one that passed muster was extensively rewritten to make the point in 1500 formulaic words.

(The same holds true for types of writing other than that of the subgenre concerned with the soft mucosa of those regions anterior to the navel and superior to the knees.)

It is telling, perhaps, that more months than not, when it came time for “Kinky Korner,” I was ultimately assigned the job of writing the story either based on a small kernel of an idea from a letter,(we paid the letter writer), or, often, out of whole cloth.

“The Lesbian Wedding” June 1980, comes to mind — Althea Flynt had seen an Olivia De Berardinis postcard she really liked and wanted a story to go with it. Things being the clusterf**k they always were at HUSTLER, after I wrote it and it was approved, they couldn’t get rights to reprint the Olivia card, and had to commission another artist to come up with a NEW illustration based on the Olivia card (far enough different to avoid a lawsuit, of course), and the story that had been written specifically for it. Sisyphus never had it so good.

So: the question becomes, what happened to those stacks and stacks of mail I had to read EVERY MORNING? (”Slush” is the old, forgotten term).

Well, they were too abysmal to even bother with. One in literally hundreds was even worth a second look. That is the average cross-section of American prose.

You never know what professional prose looks like until you’ve seen a significant chunk of amateur stuff.

So, too, I would imagine that the prose stylings of Ted Nugent would fall into the category of those letters. If you’ve ever seen the difference between professional prose and amateur prose, you can’t mistake the two. Nugent’s final words are not the words that appear in the WSJ editorial: he don’t write that good, guaranteed.

In the case of the Nugent editorial (See yesterday’s: “Nugent: Die HIPPIE! Die!“) I have no doubt that it was heavily rewritten by the WSJ staff, if not– as is too often the case with our books, our articles, and columns by “famous” people — entirely ghost-written, with a vague idea of where Nugent either stood, or what he was willing to ’say.’

A good (alleged) example is Chuck Norris’ “column” on the WorldNetDaily website. Joseph Farah, the malady behind the WND internet publishing empire loves “celebrity” columns, and I have no doubt that virtually none of the “celebrities” involved ever lifts a finger to have those columns written.

This is the dirty secret of American publishing for a century and more. The vast amount of ghost-written, and simply written to go with a ‘licensed’ name (recognizable, ‘celebrity’) adds to a staggering heap of lies. Lies: in that they are fundamentally dishonest about who wrote them, and, therefore, prima fascie (famous fascie) untruths, propaganda, lies to get you to buy.

We are inured to them. But when Lindsey “Bionic Woman” Wagner pops up on the late night infomercial spots shilling for the “sleep number” mattress, even though we know she’s reading words written for her, and oozing fake sincerity, we believe it ANYWAY, because we “know” her. She is “familiar” to us, because of her celebrity.

Which brings us back to Ted Nugent.

I cannot prove it, other than via my understanding of the editorial process, but I believe that the Wall Street Journal’s “Fourth of July” editorial was specifically dreamt up at a WSJ editorial meeting, and planned for that date. Certainly the decision to run the editorial allegedly “written” by Ted Nugent on the Fourth of July* was entirely handled at the masthead level.

[* And one has to appreciate how little the WSJ understands what the Fourth means that they would attempt to negate and minimalize a generation that EMBODIED the ideals of the Revolutionary generation and the Enlightenment on that selfsame date.]

Make no mistake: it was the WSJ’s intention to slur an entire generation.

Seeing how quickly progressives fail to take offense, and how easily they are diverted, I cannot fail to understand the raw simplicity of the propagandists’ approach: put out every red herring possible, and they’ll lose the trail very quickly. (GOP: Trolls ‘R’ Us.)

Witness the “strategery” of the post-Libby Skating Scot-free spin. (Less than 21% of us are buying it, reportedly.)

So, in a very real sense, I consider that Nugent op-ed no more “real” than my ghost-written “real letters” for HUSTLER. (As any free-lancer of the period knows, the writing of “real” letters was a sure-fire way to pay your rent, while the hoity-toity magazines fiddled and your personal Rome burned).

With HUSTLER, it was a post-card that Althea Flynt saw. With the WSJ, it was probably some Nugent sound bite that a sub-editor saw.

And, while I don’t doubt that Nugent holds the vile opinion that is presented, I don’t accept that he’s professional enough to have written it, any more than you ought to accept that I, who CAN play an electric guitar pretty well, mind you — could automatically substitute for Nugent at the local big hall, and run through his entire set.

There are skills and there are skills.

And then there’s the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.

Who have just slurred a good and decent generation, who doesn’t seem to take any offense, or, perhaps, even notice. Whether Nugent wrote, limned, or just put his name on the piece in question, it was an extension of the WSJ editorial board’s feelings about that “sixties” generation.

Don’t you get it? These people wouldn’t mind if we all showed up dead tomorrow (as long, in most cases, as THEY didn’t have to do the dirty work). They have expressed their contempt in terms as clear as John Hancock’s signature. Will we appreciate the magnitude of the insult? (They probably just think it’s all in good ‘ol boy fun, like the cheap sophistries that that whore of the Right, David Brooks, is spinning over the Scooter Libby case in the pages of the formerly reputable New York TIMES.)

How we can remain “civil” in the face of this is beyond my ken.

I will only reiterate what I’ve said before: WHEN they manage to inevitably push their litany of hatespeak into actual bloodletting, and full-blown civil war (for there is no other place that this hatred of American against American can go), well …

I’ve got dibs on Rush, as soon as it’s legal and lawful to shoot him.

Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him, but I would prefer that you would call it now, so as to conserve on ammunition. We will need to manage it prudently.

But when the day comes that they have finally set brother against brother, and sister against sister in the name of their pocketbooks, I won’t approach exterminating them with anything approaching remorse. They’ve already told me what they think of me, of my friends and of my peers.

Now, I’m returning the favor.

Put that in your pipe and have the WSJ editorial staff show you how to smoke it, Nugent.



© 2007 Hart Williams. Cross-posted from Zug - Hart Williams’ Blog
The continuation of
Skiing Uphill and Boregasm, Zug is ‘the little blog that could.’

877-851-6347 call congress toll free

45 Responses to “Another Dip in the Nugent Slime”

  1. Ginny Cotts Says:


    My ex and I used to read the Playboy letters for the laughs. Where you developed your sense of humor is now clear :lol:

    Gee, I was thinking peaceful and nonviolent (in full body armor with a gas mask).

    Noonan would be my temptation.

    Great info. NOTHING surprises me about the media anymore.

  2. Hart Williams Says:

    Actually, it was my sense of humor that made it possible to survive it. Like the man says, you can either laugh or cry, and I decided to laugh.

    But I will say that for a couple of months there, every funny thing I said on the phone in our shared office mysteriously ended up in “Bits & Pieces.” Helford really should have been writing his OWN damned jokes.

  3. Truth and Proof Says:

    Do you have verifiable proof that Ted isn’t writing his articles?

    If so, I would certainly like to know where you obtained such proof, and have the opportunity to read it for myself.

    If you do not have any proof, then your post is subjective, and therefore, totally lacking in credibility.

  4. Darrell Prows Says:

    I’m still getting up to speed on this blogging thing. What is Truth and Proof? I mean, I think there is an agenda there but this one is over my head. Can anyone help?

  5. Hart Williams Says:

    Truth and Proof:

    You make two assertions, in ‘attack’ mode. Therefore, I will answer the second. If you play nice, I’ll answer the first:

    There IS no such thing as “objective.” It is a paradigm … a useful one, but an artificial paradigm. A ‘convention,’ to echo Hume.

    In order for “objective” to be an objective reality there must be an objective being.

    And, since the only being that would meet that definition would be “God” and/or gods/goddesses, we’re returned to St. Anselm’s ontological arguments for the Existence of God.

    Therefore, the reflexive canard that “it’s subjective” is precisely a tautology, since everything is subjective.

    As such, it is interesting as a definition, but useless in imparting additional meaning or analysis.

    What this means is that your conclusion, “If you do not have any proof, then your post is subjective, and therefore, totally lacking in credibility,” is a meaningless statement, since the logical construction, If you do not have any proof, then your post is subjective” cannot be separate terms, since, by definition ALL posts are subjective, and, ALL experience is subjective. Which makes the conclusion “and therefore, totally lacking in credibility”merely an unproven (in the logical sense) assertion, and the “therefore” cannot be true, since there is only one “If A, then B” and that is a tautology. Wherefore the ‘therefore’?

    Finally, “totally lacking in credibility” is, finally more a Valley Girl coinage than a meaningful criticism. The ASSUMPTION that this is a terrible thing must necessarily be added to the logical stew to make sense of it.

    Since the implicit original assertion was that Ted Nugent was totally lacking in credibility, whether or not I have credibility is meaningless, and NOT logically derived from your construction at any event.


  6. Ginny Cotts Says:


    Hart’s answer is excellent. I will add that the misuse of concepts and pretending to be logical or scientific (by using your own facts or science) is a form of misinformation, distraction and detraction used in the rhetoric of conservative reaction.

    Or as my dad would call it.


  7. Hart Williams Says:

    I guess “Truth and Proof” wasn’t able to play nice. (Or else lost interest and wandered away to lurk elsewhere.)

    Too bad.

    What I was going to say was that, after some additional poking around, I DO believe that Nugent’s “writing” came from the Nugent camp. He has a column in the Waco Texas newspaper, and likes to do op-eds all over the country. This suggests that the WSJ stuff was only marginally rewritten by them, but says nothing as to who actually produced the writing attibuted to Nugent.

    Now, does that prove that HE writes the stuff? The jury is still out.

    The fact that there’s so much of it suggests that Nugent either farmed it out a long time ago, or has superior (for a writer) work habits. The preponderance of evidence still seems, to me, to be on the “ghosted” side.

    But, what I want to point out is this:

    I was perfectly aware that I was making a certain kind of unsubstantiated allegation. It is based on experience, but was only a best guess. Nothing wrong with that.

    Now, the SYNDROME I described is absolute fact: the use of “celebrity” names for ghosted op-eds, columns, and other attributed pieces of writing.

    What “Truth and Proof” never noticed was that I constructed the original essay so that it DIDN’T MATTER whether Nugent wrote the piece in question or not. The points made would be the same in either case.

    I learned a long time ago that you have to ALWAYS know the difference between what you know, and what you think you know.

    But, this is journalism, and not a court of law, and the rules of evidence don’t apply. I voiced a perfectly legitimate suspicion, and the essay in which the suspicion is limned DOES NOT depend on the veracity of my inferral.

    Besides, after what “Nugent” wrote, where in hell would anyone get the idea that I was under any obligation to be either nice or fair to the prick? Oy.

  8. Darrell Prows Says:

    Truth and Proof was just a plain vanilla shit stirrer?

  9. You Don't Rock or Kickbox Says:

    Obviously, Ted Nugent has a staff of ghost writers waiting on call for him at newspapers all over America.

    These same ghost writers, no doubt, penned the hundreds of songs Nugent has written since 1965. He should have fired the ghost writers who penned “Wango Tango”, no doubt, but still we all know that any moron can write a song. Supposedly, little gnomes hiding under the stage play Nugent’s outrageous guitar solos.

    Also, a concert pamphlet I got at a Nugent show in 1979 had an essay penned in his own hand– the tone, content and diction were almost identical to that of Nugent’s recent essays. You must not have rocked much back then to notice this. And Nugent’s ghost writer(s) is awfully loyal to have stuck around for 30 years, anonymous, uncredited, and no doubt paid roadie wages.

    As for Chuck Norris, his columns are so unremarkable, the fact that you think an average, educated person could not have written them speaks more about yourself than him. Of course, you must be brain-dead if you think that being an “editor” for Hustler, the dumbest rag of all time, qualifies you for anything. Of course, you don’t notice that, since you don’t believe in “objective” reality anyway (”truth” is whatever your Party leaders tell you to believe at this moment).

    Why don’t you go rent some Chuck Norris DVDs, and get yourself a copy of Ted Nugent’s “Kill It & Grill It”. The fact that Ted Nugent, Chuck Norris or millions of other Americans may be actually smarter than an ex-porno editor evades you.

  10. Ginny Cotts Says:

    You Don’t Rock or Kickbox Says @ 7:23

    There are people in America smarter than Hart. Ted and Chuck would not be among them, IMO. We read Hart’s stuff a lot and once you do that, comprehending it gets easier. It is not written for someone with 6th grade reading skills (For which some of us thank lucky stars because we DO believe that stars exist.)

    A lot of interesting stuff that turned out to be true has been discovered by various forms of reasoning. Inductive, deductive, etc.

    Meanwhile, a lot of long held hypothesis about how the brain works, how we think, etc have been severely undermined by new research using the latest scanning techniques.

    For instance, your support of Ted is probably a form of overstatment brought on because he was attacked. I am not up to going to get the book right now. It is in Stephen Pinker’s The Blank Slate. I would guess Pinker is one of the people smarter than Hart.

    He isn’t as funny.

  11. Donnie McDaniel Says:

    Hart, you might have to start keeping the post down to ten sentences. Anything over that, and wingnuts will just start skimming over till they see a word that gets their fancy. Then they open with both barrels of their spew guns! All humor and points are then lost. Think “see spot run” when you do the next one. :lol: It would still be a challenge for them, so you might think about putting something shiny in the post to keep the attention level up. Maybe some pictures of a tractor pull would be the ticket!

  12. Hart Williams Says:


    And I’ll try to use crayons.

    The problem, you see, is that I refuse to spoon-feed, which makes my stuff so hard for Righties to get through.

    (There’s always the hideous chapping of the lips from too much involuntary movement, as they sound out each word, just like they learned when their moms home-schooled them with “Hooked on Phonics.” Then they moved up to that GOP fanfest: “Hooked on Phonies.”)

    Sorry. Didn’t mean to be rude, guest:

    Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent epitomize the term “mediocre,” Kickbox.

    I will give them this: Norris’ “acting” ability is right up there with Nugent’s understanding of quantum mechanics.

    But arguing the prose merits of either with you would just be futile.

    So I won’t. Thx.

  13. Right Wing’s Panties In A Bunch « his vorpal sword Says:

    […] 217;re weird, we’re smeared, get over it. No, not you, Gentle Readers. It seems that my second commentary on Ted Nugent’s lovely slur of an entire generation offended the delicate s […]

  14. Democratic Convention Party Political Local Advertising Presidential Campaigns » Blog Archive » The RightWing Smear Machine’s Panties In A Bunch Says:

    […] 217;re weird, we’re smeared, get over it. No, not you, Gentle Readers. It seems that my second commentary on Ted Nugent’s lovely slur of an entire generation offended the delicate s […]

  15. spacelysprockets Says:

    Hart first you fabricate a story. Then you try to change that fact with an explanation that makes no sense at all. Which proves you can write. Too bad you have to change the facts, to make them fit your agenda.


  16. Hart Williams Says:

    Thanks for the comments, Ginny, Donnie and Darrell. ‘Preciated, muchly.

    spacelysprockets (and how HIP that you watched “The Jetsons.” just think what y0u might have accomplished had you read books instead):

    You know, your trenchant criticisms would benefit a lot more if a) you had the guts to use your real name, b) your points weren’t all based on blind, unsupported assertion (”fabricate” “makes no sense at all,”) and c) you eschewed clueless slurs. Saying a thing is so, isn’t the same thing as proving it.

    In fact, it would buttress your arguments quite a bit if you actually used logic and reason, rather than simply claiming that I don’t.

    And don’t forget that this posting was PART TWO. You’d better read the first part, before you post.

    It’s cute. But I’m going to call a timeout.

    When I went over to FreeRepublic dot com — which has loving smeared me personally, racially, sexual orientation-wise, and generally in the same “critical” manner that you do, spacely — I noticed that almost all the comments were on a par with yours. And, for me to post, I had to submit to moderation and approval of my posts. So, I’m putting the same conditions on posts on this thread.

    I’m sending all Freeper-type comments to the trash can, and commending you to that forum, where you can cluelessly snark to your little heart’s (I mean those last two words sincerely) content.

    Free Republic Dot Com attacks HW

    Not only will the comments seem more in context, but the commenters will feel much more at home over there. OK? OK.

    In the immortal misspeaking of our most recent troll: Chow.

  17. whitey894 Says:

    WOW…talk about those whack-jobs on the right. You ever stop to wonder that’s why moderate Americans think we’re lunatics?

    Lets examine your rationale…we must kill those who are intolerant of our beliefs…hmmm…doesn’t that make us intolerant of their beliefs also?

    Oh…and one more thing…

    “Our goal is to engage members and readers in civil conversation. Bashing or attacking members of The Democratic Daily or Democratic leaders in office or candidates will not be tolerated. Remarks that may be construed as slanderous, bigoted, racist or advocating violence towards others, will be removed or edited.”

    Insane in the membrane…

  18. fishinabarrel Says:

    Hart is absolutely right. How dare conservatives like Nugent shill for the 2nd Amendment. Why if people in flyover land have guns, they might shoot back. Then how will Hart kill Rush Limbaugh? I am absolutely for Gun Control. Only then can we finally enforce the Fairness Doctrine, and make people listen to Air America, at the point of our guns (which we want to control) Because, they sure don’t want to listen otherwise. Viva La Revolucion!

  19. Hart Williams Says:

    Well, if nothing else, you’ve proven why the GOP runs on a bumper sticker philosophy.

    You guys can’t seem to actually comprehend any thought longer than a bumper sticker.

    Impressive. I knew that you were reflexively hateful, and not all that bright.

    But I had not realized until today just how not so bright you actually were.

    fishinabarrel posted something almost as witty in another forum.

    And Whitey894 likes to grab stuff out of context and come up with absurd ‘propositions,’ that he then argues with — leading one to suspect he’s a fundie minister when not dazzling us all with his ‘incisive’ ADD arguments.

    Bravo, barbarians! You spelled many of the words right.

  20. FredZepplin Says:

    Yep, a guy who has written more music than most symphony conductors can’t write and editorial………..right…….sure………it’s not how it was written that pisses you off it’s the content. Do we need a Fairness Doctrine for rock stars? I know you left wing fascists want to control EVERYTHING on the radio, so maybe……….why no control that sub human slime John Edwards? He need mouth control……he spews more hate than anyone alive today….and I’m betting he doesn’t write his stuff ………….

  21. Hart Williams Says:

    Hey “Fred”!

    You must be the toast of your junior high school class. See comment # 19, since it applies so perfectly to you.

  22. FredZepplin Says:

    Hart, I’m not a GOPer, or a Freeper. I AM a native North Carolinian and I live just down the road from that man pig, Edwards. Hey, if he wants to see how the poor live, let him come and see me.

    Oh, yeah. I’ve been a Nuge fan since I was a kid……..which unfortunately for me has been a long time………still, I’d do it for a little bit of that Nashville P***y………..


  23. FredZepplin Says:

    Opps, I forgot, here is where I found the link to your site ***LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR***

    I’d really never hear of you before, but I’m guessing you never heard of me as well.

    Here’s another Nuge link as well:


  24. FredZepplin Says:


  25. Ginny Cotts Says:

    fishinabarrel Says:
    July 9th, 2007 at 7:12 am

    Excuse me, gun control = oxymoron.


    I don’t care if you use crayons, just please don’t dumb it down. I am sick of spending so much time on drivel that could have been said in much tighter writing.

    I will comment again here on the question of whether this post should have been edited on the basis of ‘advocating violence towards others’.

    This is my opinion, not Pamela’s. Anyone reading the blog regularly knew that she was taking some time away due to her daughter’s 18th birthday and high school graduation. As a friend who speaks with her by phone almost daily, I was also aware that she had other issues going on that were taking more time away from the blog.

    I read this without any difficulty because Hart took great pains to write - so he could not be misunderstood - except by those whose reading comprehension is clearly challenged by anything more complicated than ’see Spot run’-:

    And, while I don’t doubt that Nugent holds the vile opinion that is presented, I don’t accept that he’s professional enough to have written it, any more than you ought to accept that I, who CAN play an electric guitar pretty well, mind you — could automatically substitute for Nugent at the local big hall, and run through his entire set.

    There are skills and there are skills.


    How we can remain “civil” in the face of this is beyond my ken.

    I will only reiterate what I’ve said before: WHEN they manage to inevitably push their litany of hatespeak into actual bloodletting, and full-blown civil war (for there is no other place that this hatred of American against American can go), well …

    I’ve got dibs on Rush, as soon as it’s legal and lawful to shoot him.

    Maybe I’m too open minded here. I am certainly one of the people who have been watching, with increasing horror since ‘88, what has been going on below the radar in American politics. Forewarning was Futile . We got laughed at, ridiculed, and ignored - for thinking the religious right could take over American politics. Now go look up the number of books on the American Theocracy at Amazon.

    The Neocons have taken it to global insecurity of even more horrifying proportions.

    How long are we supposed to remain ‘civil’ in a society that lets Ann Coulter on major news programs advocate killing people - without any qualifying idea that this would be under civil war conditions?

    How long are we supposed to keep turning the other cheek while idiots keep hitting us with full brass knucles?

    How long can you stay on the high road when the violent types keep bombing it out from under you?

    How irrational, illogical, and cognitively dissonant can you people get?

    You keep trying to make us afraid of the big, bad, evil world out there. We actually do understand. We just have a different perspective on bad and evil.

    Until these cognitively challenged people will point to where they have criticized Ann Coulter and others for their comments on actual assassinations - and the media that keep giving them the microphones- I will only concede that this may have been over the line. I just read it as the kind of humor some of us have to resort to for sanity these days.

    Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him, but I would prefer that you would call it now, so as to conserve on ammunition. We will need to manage it prudently.

    As with all good humor, it has a nugget of truth it is based on.

    And if you really think this is bad. Go find some of the humor that is generated by people working in America’s emergency rooms over the past few decades. Even I cringe at some of that. Then again, I have only worked in critical care and home care.

    Some people may see this as crossing a fine line. I see the line as fine, very black, and if Hart’s shoes are over it, it’s the very front part that doesn’t actually touch the floor and the line.

    If no one in the administration or these other blogs had never done this, gone over it, or made other blatant, unbelievable mistakes, I might be a little more contrite.

    I, like Hart, am human. I am not totally consistent, I have strong emotions, values and I try to act on and for them.

    If I sincerely think I have made a mistake or need to retract something, I will.

    As far as this situation goes, these folks need to get a clue what they are doing.

    It makes me think of the Japanese Minister who cautioned that Pearl Harbor may simply have awakened a sleeping giant.

    It’s about time Americans wake up and quash these termites before they bring down the whole house.

  26. CarlosHathcockClone Says:

    It would appeer the other side of the isle has gotten under your skin - and, like all weak-mineded people, you ca’nt accept it.
    I hope you don’t have an aneurism alone at home - have the good sense to let it happen in public so we can point and laff.
    You’re adept at shooting off your mouth, but that’s about it.

  27. Donnie McDaniel Says:

    CarlosHathcockClone Says:
    July 9th, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    Oh hell no! Carlos Hathcock was a Marine’s Marine. A sniper’s sniper! Not in the name of my brothers! Carlos was the Marine of Marines, and I do not except you using his name! You have now gotten under my Marine skin!

  28. Ginny Cotts Says:


    The actual point is that the other side of the aisle is determined to ‘get’ people to a breaking point. The only way you can ‘win’ anything is through ridicule, intimidation and violence, not honest communication. So those of us who abhor violence except as a last resort, are forced to consider it seriously.

    We are the ones who are too ‘wimpy’ to use force, to fight wars. Despite the overwhelming statistics that plenty of liberals have served - especially amongst the politicians in charge of taking us to war, funding it, etc. Not that anyone with a cognitively challenge brain such as yours would let facts they can’t understand interfere with the emotions their pea sized reasoning faculties can’t control.

    The warning is what has been said many ways by many wise people. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Some of us are fully aware that trying to debate or argue with the likes of you and the people who control the media is futile. We carry on some of these conversations for our own benefit. When the idiots show up, we engage for the purpose of illustration to those who come through to read but don’t comment.

    Your comments are classic bully baiting, nothing more. You folks have taken ‘hot air’ to unbelievable extremes. America has been watching the cliche bar scene so long you would think the ending would be obvious enough for them to get over it.

    This is the country that made a tv show “about nothing” one of the most popular and long running in tv history. The one before that was MASH. Talk about the difference between night and day.

    It’s sunset AGAIN in America.

  29. Rick James Says:

    Isn’t taking on an editorial by Ted Nugent a bit like debating the Dixie Chicks? I would also like to reference something from part one. You provided a list of musicians and their conservative contemporaries. This proves a point that is generally lost in all of this bullshit about the youth vote and generational politics. That is, young people are as likely to disagree about politics as any other demographic. You can go ahead and mock my writing now.

  30. Hart Williams Says:

    Well, thanks for reading that far down into the “birthday twins” part, but your point isn’t the point.

    Since you can’t figure it out on your own, I’ll spoon feed you, this ONCE:

    The current “neocon” bunch is basically the dweebs of the 60s, getting even with their contemporaries. Which is why I asked the reader to imagine the politicians at the musicians’ concerts. Mick Jagger and Newt Gingrich were born less than 60 days apart.

    This is THEIR generation now trying to destroy everything that it accomplished in its youth.

    Don’t cry ‘foul’ when you’ve never been fair.

  31. Rick James Says:

    Thank you for spoon-feeding me, just this once. What, pray tell, are they trying to destroy? I haven’t seen bids to overturn various equal protections for black people. They aren’t passing laws requiring women to spend a certain number of hours per week at home. They aren’t trying to outlaw sodomy. They oppose gay marriage, which as grievances go is incredibly minor. I suppose you would argue that the attempted overturn of Roe v. Wade is a theocratic attack on women’s rights, but there are perfectly rational arguments to make against the practice without invoking God. The fact is that the left won their arguments for the most part in the ’60s. You can’t turn back the clock on the sexual revolution or civil rights, but more importantly, nobody beyond a few fringe dwellers on the right are trying to do so. Perhaps I’m being too unfair, but I don’t notice any more restraint in the rhetoric of the left than I do in the rhetoric of the right.

    Oh, and if you think political rhetoric is heinous now, look back at what went on in the early days of the republic, between the very people whose spirit you claim the ’60s counter-culture embodied.

  32. Pamela Leavey Says:

    Rick James, the Super Freak is in the house expounding on right and wrong. That’s rich.

  33. Hart Williams Says:


    You beg the entire question of both posts.

    That’s why I said “JUST THIS ONCE.”

    Every question you ask, every point you make has already been explained IN THE TEXT.

    The problem, evidently, isn’t in my writing. It seems to be in your reading. (click)

  34. Rick James Says:

    Pamela Leavey Says:
    July 10th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
    Rick James, the Super Freak is in the house expounding on right and wrong. That’s rich.

    I think the only time I used the word “right” was when referring to what is traditionally considered the aisle of conservatives.

  35. Rick James Says:


    Your piece addresses none of those points. You simply assert that conservatives seek to destroy the gains of the ’60s revolution, apparently through rather poorly reasoned editorials since I see no other evidence in the article.

  36. Pamela Leavey Says:

    Rick James

    Try reading Hart’s post slowly and absorbing it all.

  37. Rick James Says:

    Ah yes, I just didn’t understand it. He quoted from an article by a nutjob and threw in things like Klan Fest when referring to The Wall Street Urinal’s editorial staff. Obviously, this is heady stuff. Nowhere in the post did he actually show how conservatives are trying to reverse the gains of the ’60s. I will concede that most conservatives are not fond of hippies or the counter-culture they represented, but as a society civil rights are protected and nobody with any actual power is trying to overthrow them. His post is loaded with assumptions and little in the way of facts.

  38. Ginny Cotts Says:


    The problem with your comments is that they reveal so much ignorance. Are you unaware that many conservatives, including constitutional law specialists and professors, are livid at what the Patriot Act, other legislation and Bush’s behind the veil of secrecy actions have done to our Rights?

    Do you know what Habeus Corpus means? That there have been unconstitutional decisions by the Supreme Court on three major cases against the Bush Administration ?

    The issues of the US Attorney firings being related to such things as ‘caging’, not to mention the fact that the DOJ Civil Rights attorney group lost it’s last member of color several years ago? Before that it was the Florida Felons of Color that had their voting rights taken away - along with anyone who had a remotely similar name, address, birthdate or SSN. Oh, wait, since then we had the Ohio voters of color left in ridiculously long lines to vote in ‘04.

    Shall we go into DWB, the percentage of Americans now incarcerated and the percentage of the incarcerated who are people of color? I would not be surprised that the Supreme Court reversal on the school desegregation decision was ok with you. There are many subtle ways to undermine and sabotage civil rights.

    What is lost on you and others is something you actually said. “You can’t turn back the clock on the sexual revolution or civil rights, but more importantly, nobody beyond a few fringe dwellers on the right are trying to do so.” You apparently can’t see what is going on under your nose. (Does “Abstinence based sex education’ ring any bells?)

    Your comments are loaded with misinformation and lacking in too many relevant facts.

  39. Rick James Says:

    So you believe every rumoured offense whether proven or not so long as it implicates your political opponents. My apologies for taking your argument seriously. It won’t happen again.

  40. Ginny Cotts Says:


    Which of those offenses do you mean when you say ‘rumored’? Three are actual Supreme Court decisions. Some refer to statistics that are kinda difficult to massage. About the only thing in that list which is not proven is whether the DOJ firings had anything to do with caging.

    The emails are enough to warrant further investigation. The stonewalling by the DOJ and WH only makes them look guilty. I believe there is a country that has three verdicts. Guilty, innocent, and not proven. As far as the caging is concerned, the indictment has not been rendered. To trust this administration after all the lies it has been exposed on is foolhardy.

    There is no rumor that the warhawks will not believe about the people they want to make enemies. Our ‘political opponents’ have set us up as the enemy and wimps who won’t fight - would rather turn this country over to Bin Laden. That is the kind of nonsense that just becomes so ludicrous we have to keep from banging our heads on brick walls.

    There is a difference in believing something and having reasons to think it may be true. A person who is charged with a crime may be held without bail if the judge determines they are a flight risk.

    Nancy Pelosi took the LA Congressman off his committee posts when he was being investigated for a crime.

    The world is not good or evil, it is not black and white. Some shades of gray are just fine. Others hide evil.

    Checking to be sure there is no one hiding behind the front seats of the car is not paranoid, it’s common sense.

    I grew up as a Republican and I firmly believe that every country needs a strong conservative and a strong progressive party. That the two should see each other as checks and balances from getting too far off course either direction. This is why very intelligent, strong conservatives have been speaking out against the Bush administration in growing numbers over the last 3 years. It is not just us speaking against BushCO because it is a political opponent, it is because they have been wrong, over and over again. It is costing us many tons of flesh and fortune.

    As someone put it, Democrats play politics as a game, sometimes we win, sometimes the GOP does. The GOP is the party that plays it as war - to annihilate their opponent.

    Well, we just aren’t going to turn the country over to the neocons and the theocrats anymore than we would turn it over to OBL. Anytime the GOP talking heads want to try respectful discussion, our voices will revert quickly to normal tones and volumes. Meanwhile, we will keep yelling to the speakers at the RW bullhorns just to make sure our opponents are not deluded into thinking we aren’t paying attention or don’t care.

  41. WM Sarf Says:

    Dear Mr. Williams:

    Your opinion piece was very badly written.

    Perhaps you should take some writing lessons from Ted Nugent - or his ghost-writers, if they can be proved to exist.

    Mr. Williams Replies: Dear Mr. Sarf, your critique of my opinion piece is rather poorly written, itself. I cede to you my place on the waiting list for the “Ted Nugent School of Journalism and Real Good English.” I sincerely hope that you can make the best of this wonderful opportunity.

  42. CarlosHathcockClone Says:

    To Mr. McDaniel,

    If you’ve ever met and had the opportunity to both speak with and go to the range with ‘Gunny’ Hathcock, then I’ll ACCEPT your EXCEPTION. FYI, we first met two years before his death on the only US Warship authorized to display the US Marine Corps Flag - any idea what the name is? One small hint - it’s the same warship our Commander in Chief refused to visit overseas on July 4th 1997 due to a fear of negative press.
    If you’ve got a pipe, you know what you can put in it.

  43. Liberal Hypocrisy » Blog Archive » Nobel Prizer winner wants to kill President Bush Says:

    […] hate this.  They are so out of control, they are ready to kill people.  Hart Williams said this: I’ve got dibs on Rush, as soon as it’s legal and lawful to shoot him. Who […]

  44. Democratic Convention Party Political Local Advertising Presidential Campaigns » Blog Archive » ‘Ship of Fools’ Reveals the Hatred on the Right Says:

    […] my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!Any one who got the point that Hart was making here with his piece on Ted Nugent that was largely misinterpretated and taken out of context by first World Net […]

  45. Nugent Disgusts Anew, My Response « his vorpal sword Says:

    […] Readers may recall the grand Faux Nooz Flap of July, wherein Sean Hannity featured my Democratic Daily July 5 post on Nugent’s disgusting Wall Street Journal attack on the “ […]

Leave a Reply

COMMENT POLICY: The Owner/Admin and Moderators of The Democratic Daily reserve the right to Edit or Delete comments as per our guidelines.

Our goal is to engage members and readers in civil conversation and discourse. Name-calling, bashing or attacking members of The Democratic Daily, Democratic leaders in office or candidates will not be tolerated.

Remarks that may be construed as slanderous, bigoted, racist or advocating violence towards others, will be removed or edited.

Comments are the view of the commenter and do not express the view of The Democratic Daily.

Please include a link when quoting news in the comments - comments containing links may be held in Moderation due to Spam posted in our comments. Thank you for your cooperation.


You must be logged in to post a comment.

Web blog.thedemocraticdaily.com