CNN's Costello failed to ask NRA's LaPierre about Nugent's slurs against Obama, Clinton, Feinstein
SUMMARY: During a September 21 interview,
CNN's Carol Costello interviewed National Rifle Association executive
vice president
Wayne LaPierre, but she did not ask LaPierre about controversial remarks made by Ted
Nugent -- an NRA board member -- during an August concert in which he insulted
Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Dianne Feinstein.
On the September 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, contributor and guest host Carol Costello interviewed National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, but she did not ask LaPierre about controversial remarks made by musician Ted Nugent -- an NRA board member -- during an August concert at Anaheim's House of Blues. As Media Matters for America noted, in video footage from the concert, Nugent held what appeared to be two assault rifles and boasted that he told Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "to suck on my machine gun" and said that he told Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "you might want to ride one of these into the sunset." Also during the concert, Nugent called Obama a "piece of shit," referred to Clinton as a "worthless bitch," and called Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) a "worthless whore." Portions of Nugent's remarks were aired on the August 28 and 30 editions of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck.
LaPierre and Costello discussed live remarks by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and taped remarks by Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) to the NRA's "Celebration of American Values" conference.
The National Rifle Association listed Nugent as a member of its board of directors whose term would expire in 2007. As Media Matters noted, according to Nugent's biography on his personal website, he has been a member of the National Rifle Association's board of directors from "1995-present." In addition, Nugent frequently performs at the NRA's annual convention. The AP quoted Nugent speaking at the NRA's annual convention in 2005, urging National Rifle Association members to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense."
From the August 28 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: So what happens when a rock legend decides to exercise his free speech and use assault rifles to help make a point? Take a look.
NUGENT [video clip]: Obama, he's a piece of [expletive], and I told him to suck on my machine gun! Let's hear it for them. And then I was in New York and I said -- I said -- "Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless [expletive]." Freedom!
BECK: All right. Look, I am no stranger to getting criticized when my words have been taken out of context and also being criticized when I deserve it because I stink sometimes. But that clip from the Nuge just seems a little hard to understand. You know? I -- you know, I'm not necessarily clear on his intent here. I know what he said. But why did he say it?
Joining me now is musician and activist Ted Nugent. Hello, Ted. You're still mad at me from this morning, aren't you, Ted?
NUGENT: Bottom line is, I think your representation on the radio this morning -- which, by the way, I'm not mad at you at all. I love you madly. You just don't seem to grasp what literally tens of millions of Americans do grasp, in that good rock 'n' roll, the best rock 'n' roll, especially Ted Nugent rock 'n' roll, is over the top! It's intense. It's scary! It's uninhibited; it's even irreverent.
And I'm not going to try to get a list from anybody of what they authorize me to say, because I draw the line at law. I'm not going to break the law. I'm not going to incite any illegal activities and I'm not going to hurt anybody.
BECK: Hey, look --
NUGENT: Other than that, nothing is sacred.
From the September 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
COSTELLO: So, Rudy Giuliani stood up there and he said: "I know you're not going to agree with some of what I have to say, but you can believe this, that I will put into place the plan that I have." How did that go over with the NRA?
LaPIERRE: Well, a lot of what he said, I mean, I liked. He said that he was in favor of overturning the D.C. gun law, which prohibits people from owning a firearm in their home for protection. He thought the Second Amendment was an individual right. He thought we didn't need more gun laws. He thought they just ought to enforce what was on the books.
But this whole forum today was the first step in a process of our involvement in the presidential race. I mean, we're going to send this out to our members. We're going to listen to what they have to say about all the candidates. And then, eventually, we are going to do what's right to defend the Second Amendment.
COSTELLO: Do you think with his words, though, he changed minds?
LaPIERRE: Well, I -- I -- if you look at history, I mean, there are legions of people in this country in political office that have attempted to square themself away with the Second Amendment, after listening to the majority of the American public on this issue, that want their freedom to own a firearm defended. So, I mean, I don't think there's that much unique about someone that looks at the public opinion in this country, the majority of the Americans, where they are on the issue, and, you know, changes -- evolves to that point.
COSTELLO: But how can you marry what -- how can you marry what Rudy Giuliani said today and what he has said in the past? I'm going to read you something that he said in 1995 to Charlie Rose.
He said: "The NRA is, in essence, defense of assault weapons and their willingness to deal with some of the realities here that we face in our cities is a terrible, terrible mistake."
And, by that, he's talking about gun control. And he says the NRA is making a mistake by not -- not touting gun control for big cities with crime problems.
LaPIERRE: Well, I don't have to. I mean, he has to sell that to the American public and justify it.
I mean, I remember when Bill Clinton came out of the '94 elections and when he said, hey, I listened to the public and I have changed. It -- if you look at the '90s, I mean, the whole Democratic Party at that point was following Clinton and Gore, basically trying to ride destruction of the Second Amendment to victory. It backfired on them.
And, since then, most of the center of the Democratic Party has been much more, we support the Second Amendment and we favor individual rights on firearms.
COSTELLO: So, do you see the NRA supporting Rudy Giuliani's candidacy over other GOP candidates?
LaPIERRE: You know, we're not even to that point. This was a first step in a long process. We are going to defend the freedom of Americans to own firearms, like we always have, and do what's right to achieve that.
COSTELLO: Is there anyone you like best right now, though?
LaPIERRE: We're really not at that point. This was about listening to the candidates. This is about opening up a process. It was about listening to what these candidates have to say, so these type of judgments you're talking about can be made down the road.
But -- but any candidate that wants to come before us and say, hey, look, I've seen the light on the Second Amendment, we're going to hear what they have to --
COSTELLO: Like Bill Richardson, who believes in -- in gun rights, and he's a Democrat?
LaPIERRE: Bill Richardson was very strong. Hey, I mean, he helped pass right-to-carry out in New Mexico. He's been a strong defender of the Second Amendment. And he, by video today, had a very strong Second Amendment rights message.
COSTELLO: So, would you like Bill Richardson, a Democrat, over, let's say, Rudy Giuliani, a Republican?
LaPIERRE: I think Bill Richardson is great. I mean, he's been a strong defender of freedom. We aren't even to that point yet, but I'm happy that Bill Richardson supports the freedom.
I'm happy that any American out there, whether in political office or not, supports the Constitution and supports the right of Americans to own firearms, supports the right of self-defense, and is on our side.
COSTELLO: OK.
I have to ask you about the cell phone, because, right in the middle of Rudy Giuliani's speech to the NRA, his cell phone goes off. So, I'm going to play that for our audience right now --
LaPIERRE: OK.
COSTELLO: --so they can see it.
GIULIANI [video clip]: This is my wife calling, I think. Hello, dear. I'm talking -- I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello? I love you. And I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished, OK?
OK. Have a safe trip. Bye-bye.
Talk to you later, dear. I love you.
COSTELLO: What did you make of that?
LaPIERRE: I figured his wife called him. I don't know. That -- that was my take on it.
COSTELLO: How did it go over with the audience?
LaPIERRE: I think it was a lighthearted moment, and they were amused by it. And --
COSTELLO: Would you take a phone call from your wife in the middle of an important speech?
LaPIERRE: Hey, I -- I think we -- I think we've all taken a lot of phone calls from our wives.
COSTELLO: So, you would keep it in your pocket, on --
LaPIERRE: Well --
COSTELLO: -- during an important speech --
LaPIERRE: -- I don't know that I would have a cell phone in my pocket on during a speech. But I -- I -- I agree with you on that.
COSTELLO: All right. Wayne LaPierre, thanks so much for joining us today.
LaPIERRE: Thanks, Carol. Thanks for having me.
COSTELLO: Appreciate it.
Isn't it the job of the Senate to address these issues?
The vote is tommorow, I think. :-)
After the NRA disgusting behavior in the Columbine era and how could anyone even want to be a member of such a group?
Because guns don't kill people, people kill people.
No, one time I saw a gun stand up, load itself, and blow someone away. I think it was a video game though...but if it's in a video game it must be true, right?
Yes, that's true.The machines will rise up against us and try to wipe out humanity. Someone please locate Sarah Conner ASAP.
here's a story about how the gun lobby is fighting the banning of lead bullets in california, which is contributing to deaths of california condors. they had begun a slow march back from the edge of extinction. naturally no one is proposing banning hunting, but that's where the argument is headed.
http://www.gunguys.com/#post-2504
and florida is showing an increase in deaths due to assault rifles. the ban was allowed to expire in 2004. naturally the right of an individual to own these weapons takes precedence over the safety of the public and police officers.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008524503
Because guns don't kill people, people kill people.
By throwing bullets at each other.....
I agree. People kill people, guns just make it a heck of a lot easier.
I just don't get the Republican double standard. They panic over some lunatic in the Middle East possibly possessing weapons, that he might use against us, and take him down with force.
HOWEVER, they will defend to the death the right of some lunatic like 'the Nuge' to possess assault weapons, within our borders.
Does that make sense to anyone?
Um, I don't see where the comparison comes in here. Nobody's bent out of shape that some lunatic in the Middle East possibly has weapons. In fact: ALL of the lunatics in the Middle East have weapons. The concern is that one of these lunatics may get their crazy hands on a NUCLEAR wepon, get it?
Noone wants a lunatic to have a NUCLEAR weapon. And I'm pretty sure that noone wants Ted Nugent to have a nuclear weapon, either.
Your comparison doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying that guns are the same as NUCLEAR weapons. In fact, I don't think I said nuclear at all, nor did the administration. The panic was over WMDs, and how Saddam was going to 'use them against Americans'
Obviously guns are not WMDs, but they can be used in the same manner. Guns and WMD both make it easier to kill people.
My point was not to conflate guns with WMDs, but to point out the silliness in Republicans sowing fear over Saddam killing Americans, but for some reason nobody seems to fear a guy like the Nuge, who probably has even more potential to be deadly towards Americans. He even made the threat!
Still seem silly?
Also, I don't think it's inappropriate to compare guns to larger weapons, such as nukes. Both of them will kill you dead. Sure, a nuke could kill a lot more people at once, but people die from guns every single day.
Why are we SO scared of nukes, but not afraid of guns? You're much more likely to die from the latter.
Hilarious article by MMfA...the 2 min interview about Giuliani and Richardson didn't bring up something completely unrelated. Hilarious.
I have to agree, I don't really see why she would ask about Ted Nugent. I would go so far as to suggest she probably doesn't even know Ted is on the board. The only connection I can see is she did a puff piece interview.
I think MM might be trying to highlite the fact that there is a double standard for right and left hate speech especially in light of the recent grandstanding over the moveon ad. Not sure this piece is really a good opportunity to do that.
The whole thing is hilarious. I'd say that these people are so dumb to what it is that's on the minds of the American Electorate right now (guns?), but I'm pretty sure these people already know what it is that the American People are concerned about right now (and it's not guns)...
I'm pretty sure they're simply "rallying their base" by beating the drum of an issue that's hardly at all an issue, in the upcoming presidential election.
Here's where the geniuses are funny, and this is what they think:
They think that if they can work overtime trying to inject this issue (guns?) into the campaign, then they think they have ground on which Mrs. Clinton can't beat them, or even meet them.
Will she try and don hunting gear, and grab her 20-gauge or her 30-06, and go out for a photo-op into the fields, to blast some birds (like Kerry did)?
Will she invite the "media" into her den, to show off her gun collection, and maybe hold up one or another prized firearm, and say the "you'll have to pry it from my cold dead hand" thing?
Nope.
Sound funny though?
That's how they think; that's what the geniuses think over there in the Greedy Old Party, where the trade association the NRA is such a player (commerce and trade, and the manufacture and sales of firearms, being the interests of the NRA: it's got nothing to do with the Second Amendment, or "cold dead hands").
The NRA's "Celebration of American Values" conference
Funny, that's what those geniuses thinks this election is all about: "Values" and guns.
Hey, now that I think about it, maybe guns are important to the American People, in this upcoming election...
I mean, Iraq has something to do with a gun or two, doesn't it?
Dem, you're forgetting that they really aren't running against Clinton or any other Democrat. They're running against other Republicans. They may talk smack about Hillary but all of their moves right now are calculated to get the nomination. Some of their moves are even calculated to steer the Democrats into nominating the candidate they think they have the best chance of beating. But the upcoming election isn't between a Democrat and a Republican. That's the one after the next.
It's an important distinction if you're really trying to understand their motivations right now. Once a candidate has the nomination he will change. He will try to sound more mainstream about issues like guns and even abortion. Then they'll have to rely more on code words and innuendo to speak to those voters.
Dem, I think you had the context wrong. It's not values and guns, it's they value their guns. Their guns keep them safe from fear.
And what is wrong with home protection?
as a hunter, nothing, as long as we are talking only about sane and trained owners.
So, you feel you have to be a hunter to own a gun? We disagree.
Home protection?
Got a lot of invaders in the neighborhood, to keep off your property?
No, but can you say I NEVER will?
Yeah, I want to hear Costello ask LaPierre about some hideous cuss words uttered by this Nugent - I don't care how long he's been an NRA member, or even if he was on the board.......his offensive slurs needn't be dignified by anyone, not to mention their irrelvancy to this interview is obvious.
Good point, Tommy. How dare Costello NOT due her mainstream media duty of coming to the mindless defense of the moveondemocrat party. Here's how the interview SHOULD have gone:
Costello: I know we're not talking about this incident, but MMFA still carries a torch for one of your members who, by the way, is also not part of our topic, but to placate MMFA's tender feelings, tell me about Ted Nugent.
LaPierre: But, wait. I thought this interview was about Rudy-j
Costello: Yeah, yeah, I know. But if I don't go completely off-topic here and bring this incident up, then that means I'll be guilty of "Conservative Misinformation", and I certainly don't want that on my resume.
LaPierre: But how does that have anything to do with what we're talking a-
Costello: Well, it doesn't. But as a media figure, MMFA feels that I should be some sort of Seargent-at-Arms for the moveondemocrat party. Now, Ted Nugent is a NRA member, YOU are the V.P. of the NRA. Therefore, you're just as much to blame for Nugent's actions as he is, so what's the deal?
LaPierre: Wait! Nugent wasn't at an NRA sponsored event, he was putting on a concert of his own. He certainly wasn't acting as--
Costello: No, sir! You wait! I need to be biased toward the moveondemocrat party, here, or MMFA will say that I'm not doing my job, now admit that you're a radical wingnut so we can get this over with.
You are back again trolling? I see you still do not change the name as you promised. Stealing my name and now defending the NRA? Yeah you really believe Bush Lies. Please tell us why CNN should not have asked these tough questions?
When I read the first line of one of this poster's post I knew it wasn't you. There used to be another poster here that copied open mind's sign on he finally either got tired of posting or he got the boot. I think duplicating a sign on from one of the regular's buys a few more days of trolling time.
Lynn
It really is pathetic when trolls steal names of people , it was done to discredit me. Someone does not like how I feel about Bush.
Lynn, gotta say I thought the same thing. When I read the post I knew .
Because........it........was........irrelevant........to........the........conversation.
Oh look! Name jacker is back, putting rush limbaugh talking points in our mouth and then condemning us for it. Good for you, namejacker. Got your talking points down pat.
For the NRA to be credible it needs today to tell Nugent that hate speech is not accepted and tell him to leave. Of course they will not do that though. Cons want to complain about Rosie ODonnell but its ok for Nugent to smear a Senator , and a senator and former first lady. Deplorable.
Not sure that Nugent being on the NRA board is the best PR move by them, that's for sure.
Hannity just couldn't bring himself to even say that he wouldn't have used the same language as Nugent, and repeatedly deflected the questions instead of addressing them. Taaalking head.
To me Nugent is one of the lowest forms of life, his hate speech is dangerous. People like him were the reactionaries in the 90s after Waco. They are very dangerous.
I'm glad I stole cherries from his farm. He's a crappy shot too. Needs an automatic assault rifle to hunt corn fed deer. Just dresses like a bad @ss.
You're lucky you didn't get the bow.
You feel the same way about lyrics in songs?
I'm not sure the problem is so much Nugent representing the NRA but rather the NRA representing people who don't think the government has the power to completely bar us from owning guns.
I believe they have been helping polarize the debate to the stupidly simple state of "guns r good VS guns r bad." Of course when you're talking US Constitution and our ability to shape our communities, nothing is that simple. My family has hunted for generations and we own a respectable collection of historically interesting guns. But none of us would ever associate with the clowns over at the NRA.
For the NRA to be credible it needs today to tell Nugent that hate speech is not accepted and tell him to leave.
As far as I'm concerned, until Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre are removed from their leadership ranks, NRA will stand for Nuts Ruining America.
Oh, yeah....."hate speech". Which pretty much means, "someone has a view that differs from mine, so instead of agreeing to disagree or respecting the other opinion, I can just call it 'hate speech' and then I'll feel all superior and stuff." But that's just my view.
Whatever speech you choose to call it, remember, even "hate speech" is free speech. Ted just so happens to have a microphone and an audience willing to listen. Just like Michael Moore, The Dixie Chicks, Sally Field, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins. But because you don't like what Teddy says, it's "hate speech".
Troll
What exactlly does Bush Lie about? And why did you steal my name? How can you say Nugent did not engage in hate speech?
Oh, the dixie chicks are allowed back on country radio? News to me, name jacker.
Ted Nugent a "rock legend"? - in his own mind, perhaps, but not to anyone who who cares about music. The guy is a fraud and a poser who got lucky.
"The guy is a fraud and a poser who got lucky"
You said it best. That is why I do not understand the hype his remarks get out of many posters here.
The last time I attended a Ministry concert was back in 2004, when the race between Kerry and Bush was reaching its apex. To open the show, frontman Al Jorgensen engaged in a dramatized tackling and smack down of a man dressed in a suit wearing a Dubya mask. Later, some middle-aged activist who I didn't recognize was brought on stage to give a long-winded diatribe on why we shouldn't vote for Bush.
Halting the music for political hackery always irks me whenever it happens at a concert I paid good money to get into. I don't care how much I may agree with the viewpoint that's presented, if I want ginned up politics I'll surf the blogs or turn on the radio, but not pay admission for it.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there to get some thoughts on what differentiates these two events. Is video footage the real big difference between what Ministry and Ted Nugent did at their shows? Maybe it's just because Ted Nugent purposely puts himself in the public eye and has thus made himself more open to scrutiny.
Discuss...
Pete,
Good points. I have no interest in celebrities, washed up ones or otherwise, espousing their political views, especially in a forum designed to showcase their talents, not their ideology.
They are free to express themselves, I could care less - but I don't get worked up or even concerned when they say something provocative or offensive, or even when it's bantered around on these cable shows and pointed at by their detractors as some "gotcha" moment of clarity, or something.
Who cares what the Rosies, or the Nugents, or any of them say? They are as probably as interested in my opinions as I am in theirs.
Pete,
What did Ministry actually say when he tackled the Bush doll? Did the long-winded guy call for Bush to suck on a machine gun or ride one into the sunset?
From MMFA:
"In the video clip, Nugent holds up what appear to be two assault rifles and says he told Obama "to suck on my machine gun" and says he told Clinton "you might want to ride one of these into the sunset."
The content and props made Nugent offensive. If he had simply said, "Obama and Hillary are bad for America" or something to that effect, it probably wouldn't have raised the eyebrows it did.
Also, does Ministry have the same history of inflammatory remarks as Nugent?
I agree that I would rather just see music, but they are free to do what they want.
The tackling and smackdown happened during a new song that I was not familiar with and was unable to, for the most part, ascertain the lyrics of, even with earplugs installed.
I am guessing that the song was entitled No 'W' which "contained the most explicitly political lyrics Jourgensen had yet to author"*
There was no verbal reference that I can remember that incited violence toward Bush, but there were plenty of labels and adjectives used. There were no weapons, fake or otherwise.
(*Wikipedia)
Here are the lyrics for No 'W'.
Pete,
Thanks for the lyrics. I think, and feel free to add in your opinion, that this is almost apples and oranges. The lyrics (I am assuming they were only #1 on the link) seemed mild.
I think the insinuation made by Nugent makes his "talk" far more dangerous, and disgusting than this.
Just my two cents.
99% of what Nugent does and says is part of his act. That is what most a failing to realize here. IT IS HIS ACT! Without a act, the guy has almost nothing to stand on, other then a couple hits.
I hope you condem Hardcore Rap and Death Metal and such to be fair?
When have either of those genres talked about killing someone specific? If they do, yeah, that's awful and I would condemn it.
They do it all the time.
Funny you say that. I had this very argument with my conservative friend, we discussed the dixie chicks. His point was crystal clear - he pays to hear them perform, not to hear their viewpoints. He says they have no business using a venue he paid to attend to try to shove their views on him. I mentioned nugent's statements done during a concert, he "wasn't aware" of it. Didn't hear a word about it in the news.
The following discussion about the liberal media did not go well for him...
Snoopy, double standard indeed. The Dixie Chicks have been all over the news and radio. The excuse that I have heard for covering them so much is their comments about Bush took place on foreign soil which is BS in my opinion. Ted's comments have barley made a blip on the radar. He appears on Fox cause their audience relates and agrees with Ted.
What I don't understand is those who say they came to hear the music not the artist's personal comments. Most songs performed are written by the artist who's personal feeling surely appear in the words and the meaning of the song.
I say double standard exists more in the right than I see on the left. Charlie Daniels never misses a chance to go political during his concert, and his audience eats it up. I think it hypocritical to only allow political speech that supports your point of view.
"Halting the music for political hackery always irks me whenever it happens at a concert I paid good money to get into. I don't care how much I may agree with the viewpoint that's presented, if I want ginned up politics I'll surf the blogs or turn on the radio, but not pay admission for it...
Discuss...
- pete592 / Tuesday September 25, 2007 12:37:11 PM EST"
A lot of good art and music have traditionally been either implicitly or explicitly political. This was, of course, on great display during the 1960s when many rock groups became politicized, but politics in art and music are age-old. I can understand why someone might be irked if they went to a quiet evening of chamber music and one of the musicians interrupted it for a diatribe, but many artists are political and have every right to express themselves on stage.
The example you site, Ministry, have political songs going back at least as far as 1991 (NWO attacked Bush 41), so if you are a fan enough of their music to be at one of their concerts, I find it odd that you would be surprised that political theatre is at least part of their act.
The political theater that took place during the song No 'W' was not the issue, it was stopping the concert and turning the lights up for 15 minutes that really disappointed, and yes, surprised me.
This was not the Ministry that I saw during the Dark Side of the Spoon tour. That show was unrelenting and was only stopped so that the security guys could 86 a renegade stage diver who was attempting to climb the speakers, but even that part of the show was entertaining just because of the amazing fight that was put up by the perpetrator. I think it took 6 guys, including a member of the band, to wrestle him off stage. Afterward, when they were getting their gear back into working order, Al came on the mic and said, "That ****ing ruled!".