The correct answer is, a visit from the Secret Service.
The U.S. Secret Service is looking into the incendiary and potentially threatening remarks made by rocker and Mitt Romney-backer Ted Nugent at the National Rifle Association convention over the weekend.
“We are aware of them and we are conducting the appropriate follow-up now,” Secret Service spokesman George Ogilvie told ABC News.
Nugent told a crowd of convention goers that “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”
“If you can’t go home and get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don’t even know what you’re made of,” he said. The comments were caught on tape and posted online by the website Right Wing Watch.
The Democratic National Committee and Obama campaign have launched a multimedia offensive against Romney over Nugent, demanding that the presumptive GOP nominee disavow the statements of his high-profile supporter.
But the White House today refused to join in the condemnation and said that it won’t be “policing the statements of supporters across the board.”
I sure am glad that the Secret Service agreed with me. The rhetoric seemed a little extreme to me, but what do I know? Threats against the president, both explicit and implicit are usually taken very seriously. I don’t hold Mitt Romney responsible. I hold the NRA responsible. The mouth flashing happened on their watch. Poor Mitt would probably shoot his foot off if he handled a gun.
More to the point, the NRA is busy spreading lies and creating hysteria about Obama taking everyone’s guns. Clearly, that has never been suggested. Remember before President Obama was inaugurated? Ammunition was very scarce and had gotten expensive. Why? The rumor that Obama was rounding up everyone’s guns.
It’s really time for the lies to stop. Gun laws have become much less restrictive since 2008, across the nation. It’s time for thinking people to stop falling for NRA’s tricks. They and other 2nd amendment groups want your money and your membership. I see the crap that they send out. It comes to my house. It is alarmist and incendiary and has one purpose.
Apparently, the Nuge is not a young Columbian hooker….so little if any interest, really.
I read that he is a spokeman for the D,A.R.E. program. He needs to resign. He is a poor role model.
Doubling down on the Ted-hate?
He didn’t do anything wrong. He didn’t break any laws. And he’s been a feat example this past week of free speech and what people would do if they had the power to quell free speech.
I think he’s a great role model as proven by the Left.
He is a poor role model for children. He has a potty tongue for starters and says disrespectful things about the president, VP, and others in the administration. Role models should keep politics out of organizations.
Nugent has violated all the rules of good taste.
If someone had spoken that way about Bush, you would be up in arms Marinm. Just like Limbaugh, they can look like ignorant fools, but along with the right to free speech, there are also consequences. Measured adult debate, even heated, will not have the consequences that result in having dozens of advertisers jump ship or having the secret service ask you questions. Like any freedom, you have to be willing to accept consequences if you abuse it.
Who here was calling for Nugents head? No, our point was that he behaved like a moron. I just think its funny that people like O’Reilly went ape doodoo over the Dixie chicks one pretty benign comment but he appears to have been quite silent on condeming Nugent.
Sounds like alot of Republicans I know.
The difference between the Chicks and Nugent is that the Chicks were talking to a foreign crowd while Nugent was talking to Americans. That is one of the reasons why so many people got upset. You don’t criticize to foreigners.
yes….I know everyone sees it in the media…. but that was the gist. I for one, didn’t care.
The difference between the Dixie Chicks and Nugent is that the Dixie Chicks were speaking for themselves and not a national organization. They also weren’t vulgar and they didnt issue veiled threats.
His comments were very public. He criticized to foreigners and Americans. As a matter of fact, I believe the Prez and Sec. of State were both out of the country at the time.
“If someone had spoken that way about Bush, you would be up in arms Marinm.”
Your assumption is in error. Ive already addressed that concern previously.
“Just like Limbaugh, they can look like ignorant fools, but along with the right to free speech, there are also consequences.”
Yes. Like not listening. You have a right to free speech. I have a right to tune you or anyone else out. As Scalia noted, you can always change the channel.
If people were pissed at Ted’s speech just don’t listen to it. Maddox can be a bright lady at times but she’s enough of a tool that I just don’t watch her. I’m sure it doesn’t hurt her feelings.
My major issue here is that this was categorized as hate speech. It was not. Did Holder investigate? Nope. USSS did and they didn’t find any threat… I’d like to see an apology to Ted because his speech was found to be standard allegorical political speech.
Ted and the NRA own this one. He can say what he wants. They can say what they want. They will be held accountable. No, I don’t have to change the channel.
It was hate speech. I didn’t walk away with the attitude that he secretly loved Obama.
Screw him. He is a redneck AH.
Now THAT sounds like hate speech. I mean, what have you got against rednecks? Why use THAT as a pejorative? 😉
But, then….hate speech because he doesn’t love OBAMA? Because he hates the corruption of Pelosi? Then again, what’s wrong with “hate speech” assuming that I accept the premise that there is such a thing…. if that hate is directed at something worthy of said hate?
Wouldn’t you want strong speech directed toward such things as politicians abusing your rights?
Actually, I am just tired of having people defend the indefensible. If Elena and I said the sun rose in the east, there would be a hue and cry and then an argument. There is no such thing as real discussion or what I call discussion of what is acceptable for spokespeople.
If Nugent’s words are acceptable to you, then all the discussion in the world isn’t going to change that and I have nothing else to say.
I feel the same way about the guy who fired blanks at the students. Why would this be taken further? You want people like that carrying weapons in a school? Why is that an argument?
You know that members of congress aren’t members of the communist party. Again, an argument.
This isn’t discussion. Its a walk in absurdville. Arguing the indefensible.
“Now THAT sounds like hate speech. I mean, what have you got against rednecks? Why use THAT as a pejorative? ;)”
Too funny.
“Its a walk in absurdville. Arguing the indefensible.”
I agree. But not for the reason you think..
What we are arguing is that Nugent’s words, while over the top, while they were hyperbole, did not reach the level of threats. He has the 1st amendment rights to say what he did. The SS have the power to talk to him about it. Notice….WE did not object to that though we thought that it was a waste of money. We were arguing about the double standard rearing its head once again…. Republican hyperbole = threats. Actual leftist threats = ignored.
And you are missing the point about starter pistol man. BECAUSE he used that starter pistol wrongly, he is an example of how gun free zones are useless. Shooters ignore gun free zones. All we are saying is that an armed teacher in a K-12 school or students and teachers in colleges gives the victims a fighting chance.