View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Michael P. Tremoglie |
January 6th, 2006
Of course David Letterman is a liberal.
Many people are outraged by the sanctimonious criticism of Bill O’Reilly by David Letterman after O’Reilly’s recent guest appearance.
However, what is more outrageous is how so many people are just realizing that David Letterman is a liberal. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Does anyone recall Limbaugh’s appearance with Letterman in 1993? He was just as critical of Limbaugh then as he was ten years later when Limbaugh’s addiction was made public.
What should anyone expect of a multimillionaire entertainer who lives in New York City? Of course he is going to be a liberal. Even if he is not really a liberal, he will do what liberals tell him to do so he can maintain a career and ingratiate himself with the liberal media.
Did anyone think O’Reilly –ho has been very critical of CBS News — was going to welcomed by Letterman? CBS has learned that many young adults get their news about politics from late night comedians such as Letterman. Obviously, they will use Letterman’s show to propagate their beliefs –- although they really do not have much persuading to do so. It is almost an absolute certainty that the Letterman show production and writing staff are all liberals.
So when O’Reilly appears with Letterman, you know he is going to be asked about criticizing Cindy Sheehan. You know Letterman is going to state the liberal mantra that Phil Donahue and others spout, which is, “ if you don’t have a loved one in Iraq or if you don’t have a loved one who is a casualty of the Iraq war, you can’t criticize anti-war protesters and you cannot promote the Iraq war.”
Donahue said this to O’Reilly when he was a guest on O’Reilly’s show. Letterman said almost the same thing. Letterman asked O’Reilly about criticizing Sheehan and then said, “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?” When O’Reilly responded no, Letterman’s retort was, “Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?”
I don’t think O’Reilly was speaking for Sheehan. I think he was criticizing her for some of her statements. I guess Letterman does not believe she should be criticized because her kid was killed in action in Iraq.
This is understandable. However, what would Letterman say to someone whose kid was killed in action in Iraq who was in favor of the war in Iraq, someone who made controversial statements similar to Sheehan’s yet advocated the war; someone who might say Jack Murtha is a traitor, or John Kerry is lying; someone like that.
Would Letterman refrain from criticizing such a person? Of course, he would not. He might not mock such a person. He would criticize though.Â
As is usually the case with liberals, they feel free speech is only for them. They feel that they can call people traitors, and say they lie, yet do not dare criticize them. You are a hater or you are mean spirited if you do.
Liberal lackeys like David Letterman never mention the hypocrisy of the anti-war crowd.
For example, there are two things important to note about the allegation made by antiwar liberals that if one does not have a loved one in the war or a loved one who was a casualty of the war, one cannot be in favor of the war.
One is that nobody mentions how so few people who protest the war have loved ones in the war or who were killed in action. If the liberal antiwar crowd is to be believed, then the converse is also true –- you cannot oppose the war if you have not served in it or do not have a loved one in it.
This means that most (if not all) of those people who are protesting the war — such as Ed Asner, Sean Penn and David Letterman, all those politicians like Howard Dean –- by their own logic should keep quiet, because by their own rationale, they have no right to criticize the war.
Most who I know who are, or were, in Iraq or who were killed in action believe the war is justified. Yet the Hollywood/Manhattan crowd does not seem to mention them.
Another important point about the antiwar protesters is their racism. Sean Penn, and other antiwar protesters, claimed the Iraq war is racist because white Americans want to kill brown Iraqis.
Let me provide another perspective –- the converse of Sean Penn’s.
One could just as easily argue that the anti-war protesters are racist because they do not think the liberation of brown Iraqis is worth the lives of white American military personnel.
The perspectives I have just provided about the racism and hypocrisy of the antiwar crowd — using their own arguments - are viewpoints that will not be represented by the David Lettermans.
elfegobaca@comcast.net
Visit their website at: http://home.comcast.net/~elfegobaca/index.htm
Responses to "Letterman, Liberal Racism, Free Speech, and Anti-War Protesters"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I choose not to respect nor follow:
1. Those who purposefully act like fools for a living.
2. Those who verbalize another person's thoughts and words for a living.
3. Those who show utter loss of common sense.
4. Those who abuse or disregard the responsibility to protect our homeland.
David Letterman and most of the entertainment community should stick to what they do best: Faking it for money.
Comment by Ed Modzelesky | January 6, 2006
Good article, and Ed makes a good point.
It bugs the heck out of me that what Leterman thinks matters to so many.
The horrible part of this is that so many people listen to him and John Stewart and other
commedians and actors and belive them. They think that these entertainers are
thoughtful enough to figure out the truth, and want to tell them the truth instead of
something "more constructive for our own good." They take their word as gospel.
I loved the part where Letterman told O'Reilly "I don't believe you." How pompous and outrageous!
People have often told me the same thing when I pop some liberally entrenched bubble for them.
My response is simple, and O'Reilly should have said it to Dave.
"It doesn't matter if you believe the truth to be true.
It is the truth without your approval or acknowledgement.
The sun will still rise and set, and time will move on even
if the great David Letterman disagrees."
Comment by Ruslfish | January 6, 2006
Of course the libs don't see the problem with telling supporters of the war that they can't support it without benefit of a loved one serving and/or killed in action while none of them have served or have family members served. In their world you can critisize the war all you want, but you can't actually support it if you haven't served or sent "your children" to serve. In their world, you can't be against their position if you haven't experienced it - ie: you're "homophobic" if you're straight and speak out against gay "marriage," "racist" and "sexist" if you're white and/or male and don't support quotas and affirmitive action, and a "chicken hawk" if you support the war but haven't served. But it's OK to be on their side of the issue and be straight, white, male, and a civilian.
Comment by Michael Breen | January 6, 2006
First, Letterman was rude to a guest.It sits and giggles and flirts with ding bat hollywood nitwits, shows dumb dog tricks, lists 10 emply things that go with nothing and shows much respect for any liberal person on his show.
Secondly, he stated he did not have the intelligence nor facts to argue with O'Reilly ( how true) Thirdly he states that just because Cindy Sheehans son volunteered to serve his country and unfortunately lost his life ( along with others) that she is right in anything she says.
So there we are, typical liberal logic.Which is non existant.
Comment by Penny Amos | January 6, 2006
I might be wrong, but I think 60% of this article is full of crap…..you guys need to get a life!!!!
Comment by mark furhman | January 7, 2006
I'm glad Letterman nailed that arrogant dutch bag. He calls himself a conservative what a hypocrit. Hey did he ever get to use that hulafah on that fat pig???
Comment by joe sanchez | January 7, 2006
I bought my first VCR years ago specifically to record Letterman's show, back when he followed The Tonight Show on NBC. Sadly, over the years, he has become far more strident in his leftist views and far less funny in his comedy, and I've found myself watching him less and less. After his asinine behavior toward Bill O'Reilly, my years of watching Dave have come to an end. Jay Leno is much funnier and classier. Although I didn't think so at the time, it's obvious now that NBC made the right choice when Carson retired.
Comment by Jim Johnson | January 7, 2006
Letterman did with O'Reilly what he does best , he played a fool. Did anyone expect more?
Comment by Jeff Mack | January 7, 2006
I don't know why Letterman and O'Reilly didn't get along.
They are both leftists.
Comment by Mistress Moon | January 7, 2006
Good article…and a great point, that criticism (as the left sees it) always excludes those who do not share their views.
This is often true in other areas, as well…as Michael Breen said. The left holds firmly to the notion that free speech is protected when it is the speech that they offer. When that speech criticizes their anti-war zealots (a la Ward Churchill and Cindy Sheehan), then mysteriously it must somehow be silenced. I beg your pardon, weren't we talking about free speech here?
While it is true that Bill O'Reilly can run circles around Dave when it comes to the real facts (Bill is more in touch with his journalistic material than Dave is even with his comedic material), Dave erred in raising his hackles at the mere mention of Cindy Sheehan, and telling Bill that he should watch what he says.
Bill trumped him when he asked Dave if he ever watched the show, but Dave in his comedic genius turned that embarassing moment into an opportunity for comedy once again.
All in all, it was great entertainment. Especially when Bill said, "I live in New York. You know what you can do with your blessed winter!"
Comment by Tyler Dawbin | January 8, 2006
David Letterman has a point!
If most conservative would get their heads out of their butt, they would find out who is really
running this country. Jews have been trying for decades to inflame the war between Dem and Rep
for their own needs, using the conservative members of House and the Senate to claim victory after
victory.
Comment by Ninus & Baal | January 10, 2006
Oops! Sorry about that last post. I just found out I'm an Illinois Nazi. I hate Illinois Nazis. My bad.
- Ninus
Comment by Ninus & Baal | January 12, 2006
I find it both shameful and discouraging to hear highly educated people my age (mid-20s), the purported "leaders of tomorrow," parroting the beliefs of those who are no more than "trained monkeys." Take a closer look at most of these liberal, celebrity anti-war advocates and you will see one thing they all have in common: limited education.
1. Barbara Streisand: Completed high school
2. Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton
3. Sean Penn: Completed high school
4. Susan Sarandon: Degree in drama from Catholic University
5. George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky
… And the mother of them all:
6. Michael Moore: Dropped out after first year at University of Michigan
And for the sake of this article, even O'Reilly (B.A. from Marist College, M.A. from Boston University)is more educated than David Letterman (B.A. from Ball State University).
The bottom line is a celebrity's wealth and popularity doesn't make him or her an authority figure, and people from my generation need to wake up and recognize the sources of their information. Otherwise, we have a long, tenuous journey ahead of us.
Comment by Adam Modzelesky | January 12, 2006
Adam and Ruslfish are hitting the most important note here (with all due respect to most of the other comments). That is the fact that celebrities use their bully pulpits to proclaim one thing or another about a certain subject ("global warming" being another popular "fact) and 'We the Sheeple' take it as gospel. While I don't agree with O'Reilly all of the time, he at least hand an educated point-of-view whereas Dave just preached the liberal gospel. Sadly, far too many people in America get their fact from Access Hollywood, a Michael Moore film, or the West Wing. It is sad that it has come to that. But, being conservative, I try to hear the liberal argument, research it, and then find some actual facts to refute it. And I do so respectfully for all to hear. That is really the only way to combat the liberals who say such outrageous things. Remember, grassroots efforts are effective and WE are the grassroots.
Comment by the right wing zealot | January 13, 2006
People should consider what is 'conservative' before criticizing liberals. The support of aggressive overseas military action, massive increases in federal discretionary spending, and a "support us or you are anti-American" attitude are NOT conservative–they are trademarks of fascism.
There is no doubt Letterman is liberal–but people like O'Reilly are radicals–just on the right side of the spectrum, and they are even more dangerous for the real tenets of conservativism than someone like Letterman.
Comment by J. D. | January 14, 2006
A conservative is someone who likes the status quo. They resist change. I have never heard a conservative say support us or you are anti-American. I will not defend every conservative just like a reasonable liberal will not defend every dumb thing their friends have said. Let’s get back to the point. I like it when liberals ask if a loved one of your is in/died in Iraq. I served in the military and can tell you that the majority (80%) believe in Iraq and what the country is doing there. I would say they have all lost loved ones there. The funny thing is that if it where the other way around and they didn’t support the war, every liberal would be crying about it. In every war there will always be cowards, I'm just glad they are here instead of on the front lines with my loved ones.
Comment by Michael | January 17, 2006