Letterman, Liberal Racism, Free Speech, and Anti-War Protesters

Intellectual Conservative.com ^ | January 6, 2006 | By Michael P. Tremoglie

[Miami Vice]

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.

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.

Profile: A former police officer, Michael P. Tremoglie recently published his first novel, Sense of Duty. His work has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, Human Events, FrontPage Magazine, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. He has a Master of Science degree from Saint Joseph's University,Philadelphia.

[Fenris6]

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.”

Better yet, by extension, if you haven't been to Iraq and fought over there, then STFU.

[Hildy]

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.

I've been saying this for years.

[rhombus]

Then, when the fascists and Mullahs took over and marched him up to the gallows in the first tier of executions of those who cannot be trusted because they would betray even their own country, they would look sad and say, "I never knew. I had no idea!"

No I don't think so. Instead, I think they'd say, "It's Bush's fault."

[Mo1]

Letterman went beyond being a liberal thinking

He got personal and nasty

It reminded me of the time Rosie O'Donnell went after Tom Selleck

[Miami Vice]

I think that is what Tremoglie wrote - the converse is true as well. You cannot oppose or advocate the war if you or someone near to you is not in Iraq - at least that is if you want to follow the liberals logic.

Liberal logic ain't that an oxymoron?

[stevem]

I don't have any relatives in Iraq. I have a son in the military, still in training. I suspect when that training is finished he will do what I did for my military effort. He will go where they send him.

I still feel utterly free to say that Cindy Sheehan is as useless and worthless a mother as any that has come down the road, and that I haven't watched more than three Letterman shows in my life. He isn't entertaining.

[Alia]

Back in the 80s when co-workers would pass around David Letterman quips and they'd laugh hard (the top ten); I just never thought he was funny. I was in that "doesn't get it" group; deciding he wasn't funny or sharp enough to engage my giggle factor.

I did think Bill O'Reilly was impressive, remaining unflappable and on focus regardless of the Letterman vitriol.

My gut instincts prove out, again! :)

[IC Ken]

I thought O'Reilly made a fool of Letterman. It was apparent Letterman (and he admitted it) knew nothing / nor the facts of the situation. Letterman proved liberals are stupid and uninformed.

[TC Rider]

Letterman went beyond being a liberal thinking

He got personal and nasty

It reminded me of the time Rosie O'Donnell went after Tom Selleck

I saw The Late Show that night. I don't watch often, but was flipping around and heard the promo for O'Reilly.

As soon as I saw Letterman's body lanquage, I knew it was going to be ugly. I thought O'Reilly acquitted himself well. Letterman was an ass and a prick.

I think at some level I always knew Letterman was capable of this, and was another NY liberal. It just took this episode to rub my face in it.

I doubt I'll ever watch him again.

[PaulJ]

I use a litmus test when deciding if someone is actually against the war or is just against President Bush. If they speak out against the war in Iraq but were silent during the Klinton years about Kosovo, Haiti, the daily bombings of Iraq, etc., then they are just bags of hot air and should be ignored.

[Miami Vice]

Good advice.

The critics inconsistency/hypocrisy needs to be pointed out to people though.

[neofight]

I agree. But then, nastiness seems to come so naturally to many libs.

I heard O'Reilly on Laura Ingraham's radio show this morning, and she asked him if he was aware that before he came on the set, Letterman had stirred his drink with a dirty pencil or something, and O'Reilly said that yes, he knew it, but drank from it anyhow, because it made Letterman look bad, or foolish, or whatever.

O'Reilly also explained that he was intentionally low key and restrained because it was Letterman's show, and it was like being invited to someone's home. He played it just right, imo, and gave Letterman more than enough rope to hang himself. Letterman is a punk!

[Jebster]

Letterman is not a punk; that would suggest he was threatening. He is too much of a wimp for that title.

Letterman is a moron and a know-nothing lib moonbat. I have never heard him say anything intelligent. Everything from his shows is done by writers. He has no capability to think for himself.

[neofight]

lol Jebster. You win. I stand corrected. He's not a punk. He's a vile, no-class, ignoramus, okay? Is that better? ;)

[Jebster]

Works for me... ;)

[nutmeg]

FoxFan ping! (article dated January 6, 2006)

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.