National Rifle Association board member and Washington Times columnist Ted Nugent lost his cool during his first televised interview following the firestorm that surrounded his infamous claim that he would "be dead or in jail" if the president is reelected. During a May 4 appearance on CBS This Morning, Nugent took umbrage with interviewer Jeff Glor's suggestion that Nugent will have a hard time attracting moderate voters for Mitt Romney:
TED NUGENT: I'm an extremely loving, passionate man, and people who investigate me honestly, without the baggage of political correctness, ascertain the conclusion that I'm a damned nice guy, and if you can find a screening process more powerful than that, I'll suck your d--k.
Nugent then turned to a female CBS producer and said, "Or I'll f--k you, how's that sound?" CBS' video bleeped out some of Nugent's words at the end of his tirade, but they were transcribed by TMZ.com.
CBS reported that "Nugent's wife told him after the interview ended that Nugent owed an apology to the producer. And Nugent did. He also called Glor Thursday and said that, after the interview, he was rushed to the emergency room and had a kidney stone removed." Just earlier this week, Nugent appeared on NRA News to suggest that he could play a role in convincing moderates to not vote for President Obama this fall:
CAM EDWARDS, HOST: I think between now and November, I think you would agree, that the most important thing that anybody listening could possibly seek to do is to make sure that on election day we elect somebody other than Barack Obama.
TED NUGENT: Correct. And so -- I know it's that middle ground, it's the moderates. We've already got the Second Amendment community. I hope we have the hunting community and conservation community. I hope we have the most productive community in America. But I will learn from, maybe the greatest articulator and believable and revered man in the history of individual freedoms, and that's Charlton Heston. And I know that's quite a leap going from the "Motor City Madman" to the supreme eloquence of Charlton Heston, but officially on Cam & Company right now today May 2, 2012, I vow to my fellow patriots that I will work hard to be as efficient and effective for that middle ground to understand the right to keep and bear arms and to gut the abuses in our federal agencies, including Fish and Wildlife and EPA and FDA and USDA etcetera etcetera ad nauseam. I will try to be more -- I hate the word moderate -- but effective to the moderates because they're the voting block we need to access.
Nugent's appearance on CBS was not, of course, the first time that the "Motor City Madman" had a rather immoderate meltdown.
From the May 3 edition of Cumulus Media's The Mike Huckabee Show:
Loading the player reg...
This morning, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced that Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) "has distributed a staff briefing paper and draft of the contempt of Congress resolution against Attorney General Eric Holder to Members of the Oversight Committee" due to the Justice Department's refusal to provide documents the Committee subpoenaed concerning the ATF's botched Operation Fast and Furious. Fox News has since run several segments on the potential contempt citation, in one case issuing a "Fox News Alert" about the "bombshell developments" in the "big story" before conducting an extensive interview with Issa himself:
Given that Fox's The O'Reilly Factor and On The Record each ran segments on reports that such a citation had been drafted on Friday, this coverage is likely to continue. By contrast, the network's primetime lineup provided minimal coverage in 2007, when then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sought and received contempt citations against two senior aides to President Bush. The network devoted less than nine minutes of time to the story during its evening lineup.*
The eight minutes and fifty-six seconds of coverage the network provided regarding the House Judiciary Committee's citation of then-White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers for contempt of Congress consisted of one news segment, two news briefs, and one panel discussion -- all on Special Report. Right-wing Fox hosts like John Gibson, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly did not weigh in on the story.
These instances are not perfectly analogous, but each involves contempt charges against senior administration officials whom a powerful committee chair of the other party alleged had failed to provide information to Congress that the chair believed Congress was entitled.
During a May 1 appearance on MSNBC's Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, discredited gun "researcher" John Lott continued his whirlwind media tour in defense of the "Kill At Will" law (called "Stand Your Ground" by its proponents) that has been linked to the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman. In his appearance, Lott reiterated many of the misleading claims he pushed in his April 25 op-ed for the New York Daily News defending the controversial law.
Lott began his appearance by suggesting that prior to the widespread codification of "Kill At Will," victims of serious crimes had a duty to retreat from an attacker at his or her own peril. He told Todd, "You have to understand where the laws were before. Before people had to retreat as far as possible before they could go and act in self-defense." Just because Lott repeats this falsehood over and over does not make it true. States that did require duty to retreat largely did so only under the narrow circumstance where the victim could do so safely. What Lott is attempting to do is to set his defense of "Stand Your Ground" upon the premise that these laws were enacted to fix an existing problem. His argument, however, is not credible because it seriously mischaracterizes basic legal principles of self-defense.
In an April 25 op-ed for the Daily Caller, National Rifle Association CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre took to the opinion pages to once again deploy faulty logic to claim that the reelection of President Barack Obama will precipitate an "all-out war on the Second Amendment."
LaPierre's primary piece of evidence concerning what he calls "the web of lies spun about the president's phony, claimed support of the Second Amendment," is that current Chicago mayor and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been "tapped as the star co-chair for Obama's re-election effort." LaPierre claims that this is "no honorary job" but rather "real power linking Obama's re-election with Emanual's fanaticism for destroying the Second Amendment." But if Emanuel wanted to work with Obama to push gun bans nationwide he most certainly missed his best chance, which would have occurred when he worked in the highest levels of the Obama Administration.
The record is clear that the Obama Administration did not enact any gun violence prevention legislation during the time that Emanuel served as the highly influential White House chief of staff. Between January 2009 and October 2010, President Obama signed only two gun-related bills into law, both of which expanded, rather than restricted, the right to carry firearms.
In May 2009 President Obama signed into law legislation allowing firearms to be carried in national parks. A later bill allowing guns onto Amtrak trains was enacted in December 2009. At the time, the NRA called the legislation "a major step forward." Gun violence prevention groups, however, were furious. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave President Obama an "F" rating in every category that it assesses. The failing report card was accompanied by a scathing publication entitled, "President Obama's First Year: Failed Leadership, Lost Lives," that called the president's record on gun violence prevention "an abject failure."
Repeatedly burned by stings intended to demonstrate the ease with which individuals who are banned from purchasing firearms can buy guns from private sellers without passing a background check, the National Rifle Association appears to have found a solution: Make those stings illegal. As usual, their allies at the American Legislative Exchange Council are happy to help.
ALEC documents obtained by Common Cause indicate that in August 2011, NRA lobbyist Tara Mica presented an "Honesty in Purchasing Firearms" bill to ALEC's since-disbanded Public Safety and Elections Task Force, which the task force adopted as model legislation. Mica has at times served as the task force's Private Sector Chair.
The bill states that "[a]ny person who provides to a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition what the persons knows to be materially false information with intent to deceive the dealer or seller about the legality of a transfer of a firearm or ammunition is guilty of a felony." Violators are punished with up to a $5,000 fine and five years in prison.
According to the group's minutes, the state legislators on the task force voted unanimously to adopt the legislation; the motion to adopt the bill also passed among its private sector members.
The NRA has explicitly stated that such legislation is intended to target undercover stings by gun violence prevention activists intended to shine a light on some unscrupulous private sellers. Those efforts typically involve individuals telling private sellers that they don't think they could pass a federal background check, which are not required for the transfer of firearms by private sellers, and being permitted to purchase the weapon nonetheless.
Since it is illegal to sell firearms to individuals if you have reason to suspect they cannot legally possess them, the NRA-backed ALEC law effectively shields criminal activity.
Discredited gun "researcher" John Lott has done it again. In an April 25th op-ed for the New York Daily News, Lott strongly defended the "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law that is at the center of the shooting death of 17-year-old Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. Lott provides a number of distortions about "Stand Your Ground" in voicing support for the law.
Lott opens his piece by stating, "Call them what you will: 'Stand Your Ground' or 'Castle Doctrine' laws." In doing so, he is grouping together two laws that are in fact radically different - this faulty conflation is at the center of his entire argument. For example, Lott later claims that "In states adopting Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws from 1977 to 2005, murder rates fell by 9% and overall violent crime by 11%." But "Stand Your Ground" largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless.
From the April 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Loading the player reg...
On the morning of Saturday, April 14, 2012, things were going well for the National Rifle Association. The gun rights organization's annual meeting was in full swing. Bloggers crowed about record attendance at the St. Louis, Missouri event. Friday's "Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum" went off without a hitch--all 13 featured speakers were Republican men. Barack Obama was called a "post-American President," "incompetent," and the most "radically liberal" president since Jimmy Carter. But the most incendiary comments about the president had yet to come.
On Saturday afternoon, Ted Nugent, a member of the NRA's Board of Directors, addressed the NRA faithful. Nugent implored NRA members to support the Republican ticket in the fall, declaring, "Your goal should be to be able to get a couple of thousand people, per person who's here, to vote for Mitt Romney in November." After that rather innocuous endorsement, Nugent turned his sights on President Obama, and things quickly spiraled out of control.
"If that dead Marine isn't worth it to you to demand that the enemies in the White House are ousted, then you probably ought to just move to France," ranted Nugent. He continued, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. Why are you laughing? Do you think that's funny? That's not funny at all. I'm serious as a heart attack." Nugent then characterized the Obama administration as "vile," "evil," and "America-hating," before concluding his diatribe with a call for the audience to "ride into that battlefield and chop [Democrats] heads off in November."
For some reason The New York Times decided to give a trend piece on concealed carry clothing for the "fashion aware gun owner" prime placement on the front page of today's paper. Shockingly, the Times decided that the piece was not complete without commentary from economist and gun researcher John Lott:
After a campaign by gun rights advocates, 37 states now have ''shall issue'' statutes that require them to provide concealed-carry permits if an applicant meets legal requirements, like not being a felon. (A handful of other states allow the concealed carrying of handguns without a permit). By contrast, in 1984 only 8 states had such statutes, and 15 did not allow handgun carrying at all, said John Lott, a researcher of gun culture who has held teaching or research posts at a number of universities, including the University of Chicago. ...
A majority of states have long allowed the open carrying of handguns, said Mr. Lott, who also provided the data on gun permits. But the reality, said Mr. Lott and other gun experts, is that people do not want to show others that they are carrying a weapon or invite sharp questioning from the police.
It's curious that the Times went to Lott for comment, given that the paper has previously noted that studies of his work "have found serious flaws in his data and methodology."
Lott first gained fame in the 1990s for his claim that the passage of laws allowing for the concealed carry of handguns causes levels of violent crime to drop -- a claim that hassince been debunked. Lott has since been convincingly alleged to have fabricated data to claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses don't involve the firing of a weapon, cited data that doesn't exist to claim that the end of the assault weapons ban reduced murders, altered blog posts after the fact to eliminate false claims for which he had been criticized, and invented facts that don't appear in a study he cited, among other instances of fabricated, misrepresented, and sloppy research.
Notably, as the Times noted in 2006, Lott "acknowledged in 2003 using the online pseudonym 'Mary Rosh' for more than three years to attack his critics and praise his own work."
Was there really no one else the Times could have found to provide data on how many states allowed concealed carry permits in the 1980s? And does the Times truly think that describing Lott as a "researcher of gun culture" is sufficient?
Last week we broke down the variety of falsehoods and misrepresentations Townhall news editor Katie Pavlich employs in her new book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameless Cover-up. But more insidious than her sloppy adherence to the facts is the conspiracy theory she weaves as the heart of the book.
It is universally acknowledged that the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious was a debacle that never should have been allowed to happen. No one questions that it is a complete disaster that federal agents knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked across the border to Mexico, resulting in tragic consequences including deaths on both sides of the border.
Heads should roll in response; several individuals involved in the case have resigned or been reassigned and Attorney General Eric Holder has said further personnel changes could come in the wake of the inspector general's report.
But Pavlich is unsatisfied with simply investigating who approved of this flawed operation; instead she succumbs to the paranoid conspiracy theory from the National Rifle Association that the operation was originally conceived not as an attempt to build a case to bring down a Mexican drug cartel, but rather as part of a sinister plot to push a gun control agenda.
These claims may pass muster before an NRA audience, but they are not credible for most. Here's Bill O'Reilly - not someone inclined to think well of the administration - interviewing Pavlich about what he calls her "conspiracy thing." Even he's not buying it:
The fallout continues over the American Legislative Exchance Council's support of the National Rifle Association's "Kill at Will" self-defense laws. On his RedState.com site, CNN contributor Erick Erickson reported today that an "NRA representative took issue with ALEC getting rid of his public safety section" at last Wednesday's weekly conservative discussion hosted by NRA board member Grover Norquist.
Last Tuesday ALEC announced that they were eliminating their Public Safety and Elections task force, which drew fire for its role in promoting NRA-backed gun laws and voter restrictions, and refocusing solely on economic legislation. Over the previous week at least 10 companies had left the organization in the wake of Color of Change's campaign to encourage corporations to end their association with the group due to their promotion of those laws.
At Grover Norquist's Wednesday meeting a discussion about the ongoing assault against ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, came up. Multiple sources (there are hundreds in the room) tell me that the NRA representative took issue with ALEC getting rid of his public safety section. That section has drafted a model "stand your ground" law, which Florida passed.
The NRA representative claimed that if ALEC was going to run away from the fight on these public safety issues, ALEC might just run away from other issues too, e.g. immigration.
Erickson further reported that an ALEC representative present at the meeting complained that the NRA had refused to help his organization push back on attacks they were receiving.
It was only a matter of time before conservative media rallied behind National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent. In the space of a few days, he has garnered support from CNN contributor Dana Loesch, Fox News host Mike Huckabee, and frequent Fox guest Lars Larson, who have defended the firebrand rocker and Washington Times columnist for recent comments he made about the Obama administration. Those comments alarmed the Secret Service enough to seek a meeting with Nugent. (The Secret Service has since announced that "the issue has been resolved" and the agency "does not anticipate any further action.")
During the NRA national convention on April 14, Nugent accused Obama of having a "vile, evil America-hating administration" that is "wiping its ass with the Constitution" and told the crowd that "[w]e need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November." He added: "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
Those comments, by the way, have now been scrubbed from the organization's official YouTube account and from the NRANews.com website.
Loesch, Huckabee, and Larson have denied that Nugent was making any kind of threat -- Nugent himself has disclaimed this point -- and by way of defense, have offered their own interpretations of what Nugent, whom they all referred to as a friend, was really saying. But in casting doubt and trying to deflect attention from the inflammatory comments, these commentators are fueling an old myth that Obama is a "gun grabber" out to "take away" Nugent's freedoms and Americans' guns.
Regardless, why would it be OK for Nugent to stoke fears that Obama will come for Americans' guns and liberties -- and that people will die as a result? How this is acceptable is anyone's guess.
In her new book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameless Cover-up, Townhall news editor Katie Pavlich offers up a number of false and misleading claims about the ATF's fatally flawed Operation Fast and Furious. In doing so Pavlich baselessly suggests that high-ranking Justice Department officials were aware of that operation's use of the tactic of gunwalking, in which agents knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked across the border to Mexico in order to identify other members of a trafficking network.
Don't take our word for it. He literally wrote a song about it. Here's video of the National Rifle Association board member rocking out to his song, titled "I am the NRA," at the 2008 NRA annual meeting, where it debuted:
Keep that in mind as the gun lobby attempts to distance itself from the aging rocker over his incendiary comments at this year's convention. Nugent is a longtime spokesman for the organization and a linchpin of their Trigger the Vote voter registration campaign.
Nugent's statement over the weekend that the Obama administration is a "vile, evil America-hating administration" that is "wiping its ass with the Constitution" was startling but not surprising. His claim that "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year" represented the sort of rhetoric that may be news to the Secret Service, but certainly isn't to the NRA.
Indeed, Nugent has a long, long record of inflammatory, offensive, and extreme comments, on stage, in his Washington Times columns, and on NRA Radio. His remarks over the weekend simply echo that record - and indeed, echo vicious comments made by many members of the NRA's board.
At a concert in August 2007, Nugent brandished two assault rifles while yelling, "Obama, he's a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun," adding, "Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch."
Nine months later he was singing "I am the NRA" at their convention, with no indication that the group's leadership disagreed.