Letterman: When I joked about Palin’s daughter having sex, I meant Bristol, not Willow
posted at 8:41 pm on June 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
A sneak preview of tonight’s monologue from EW. He wasn’t joking about her 14-year-old daughter being a prostitute, silly. He was joking about her 18-year-old daughter being a prostitute. Perfectly legal. Whew!
“We were, as we often do, making jokes about people in the news and we made some jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter [Bristol]… and now they’re upset with me…” Letterman says on tonight’s show. “These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl…. Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No.” Saying he hopes he’s “cleared part of this up,” Letterman extended an invitation to Palin to come on the show as a guest.
Don’t you see? He’d never condone statutorily raping a girl who’s underage. All he meant to do was goof on the idea that Palin’s eldest daughter, a single mother with a baby, is a whore. Everything cool now? Let’s move on.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
I think it goes a little far to suggest that it’s about a lack of respect for freedom to suggest he should be fired. People have the right to be offended and to respond accordingly. If they try to pass legislation, then I’m on your side, but if people think that something is fundamentally wrong, why shouldn’t they do what they can to stop it?
The reason I don’t think that that’s attacking freedom is because they don’t have the authority to attack anyone’s freedom. All they can say is “I am going to do this”, like “I won’t watch your network”, “I will boycott your sponsors”, etc. all things that they must be free to control as per their interests. The network is still free to run Letterman, Letterman is still free to make whatever jokes he wants, but just as they are free to do what they want, and the offended have no right to expectations of their conduct, Letterman and CBS have no right to expectations of the offended’s conduct.
David Letterman’s freedom of speech isn’t at stake. It’s his platform, a platform that is premised upon the actions of others. Once we start equating the loss of the independent actions which enable his access to this platform as a loss of freedom, freedom is doomed. Once you accept that, you accept that a business demanding less regulation or else it will relocate to a less restrictive locale is depriving their employee’s of their right to govern themselves.
I like where your heart is at on this. I think there’s a problem with people getting too easily offended, or disingenuously offended. I just don’t think it’s an issue with freedom, it’s a freedom with being thin skinned.
galenrox on June 11, 2009 at 2:30 AM
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 2:13 AM
broadcast television using public property airwaves
So, by that logic, the Left has a point in the Fairness Doctrine, no?
Not without a vote of the people or an amendment to the Constitution. Notice I said public property. Not government property. 10th Amendment and all that other stuff you obviously missed during those naps during Civics class.
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 2:32 AM
You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You praise the group/mob that boycotts someone out of a job, but you’re appalled by the group/mob that says he should lose his job. Um … huh? Don’t watch the show and don’t buy the sponsors’ products … just don’t tell anyone why you’re doing it? You make no sense.
I see a square.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 2:33 AM
OK. I know a difference in degree can be a difference in kind. My point is that the outrage will be subjective. I lisen to Rush as much as possible (sometimes my AM doesn’t work on, and I miss the show, but I go read the transcripts). I generally don’t find much of anything he says objectionable. The few examples I’ve heard about I didn’ hear live. Is it true he disparaged Chelsea Clinton when she was young because of how she looked? If he did, I find that “off-color.” But I’d be damned if I let a bunch of leftists of NOWers push Rush off the airwaves because he offended their sensibilities.
I’m just not that into collecive action to ruin a person’s livelyhood because some people find them objectionable.
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 2:34 AM
It should also be remembered by some that Letterman is an employee. When he becomes a liability legally and monetarily all this rubbish about poor little Dave’s rights and freedoms will be moot. Letterman had the perfect right to keep his mouth shut yet he chose otherwise. Actions have consequences.
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Outrage can just as easily be objective. It’s subjective poppycock to suggest otherwise.
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 2:39 AM
I rest my case.
Night all!
hawkdriver on June 11, 2009 at 2:39 AM
G’night Hawkdriver. Stay safe and well.
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 2:41 AM
Ugh.
Nope, I’ll stick with this. Why do you believe that the airwaves are public? Or, more accuratley, why do you think we view the airwaves as public?
Thanks.
This is the crux of it for me. I don’t like what Letterman said, but I’m not about to impose my views on those who enjoy his shtick. I think it is both consructive and instrucive to let people like Letterman be Letterman and tthose who like him like him. Is there not a correlation in the conduct? I don’t like what you said, so I’m going to try and shut you up. Not my style.
Anyways, thanks for being the first to post a response that wasn’t targeted at a “troll.” :)
So, we can ammend the Constitution to restric liberties, or otherwise vote ourselves out of those same liberties, in your view?
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 2:47 AM
Sure I do. You just have to be able to sense the nuance.
That’s an outrageous comment, and I suggest you be banned! See, unlike other things, outrage is a purely human reaction to a given situation. Example: I and most people are outraged that Hitler gassed Jews. Hitler was not outraged that Hitler gassed Jews. Subjective.
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 2:52 AM
But you have no problem saying, “Don’t call for him to be fired.” i.e., shut up. You are a contradiction. While you are “not about to impose [your] views on those who enjoy his shtick,” you seem quite content to do it to those who don’t. ‘splain.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 2:55 AM
People have been ignoring Letterman for years, so if they want him off the air, that’s not the way to go about it. You most certainly can and should call for someone to be fired, if you feel they’ve crossed a line. That’s freedom. This has nothing to do with “the market.” It’s his mouth.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion (pointing out the obvious IMO.)
He must not have gotten the memo that the White House gave up on that strategy.
They sure do come out for the Palin threads, don’t they Hawk? It reminds me of the full moon in May at Sheepshead Bay when all the horseshoe crabs mate on the beach. Yuck!
alliebobbitt on June 11, 2009 at 2:57 AM
And he was not banned. You have imposed nothing.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 2:57 AM
There are certain laws about hate speech that trump freedom of speech. Inciting child rape would fall into that category.
alliebobbitt on June 11, 2009 at 2:59 AM
Slander is also not protected by the First Amendment.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:00 AM
That “your freedom ends where others’ begins” concept eludes our frenemies on the left.
alliebobbitt on June 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM
Certainly. Letterman, however vile his antics, did not infringe on anyone liberties. By calling for his removal in a collective action when he is a viable commodity for the network, you are trying to infringe on his liberties. That is the difference.
Like I’ve said, boycott, don’t watch, etc.
If your actions lead to him being an unviable commodity, he will lose his job and you will get your way. There is a difference in this approach and the one where a relatively small group of people raise such a big stink that he looses his job while he is still profitable.
Maybe that is the confusion. I sometimes am not clear, especially over the internet. When I’ve said it is not the right apporach to call for him to be fired, I have in mind something like what happened to Imus. He clearly is a viable commodity, as he was hired back. But a small group of people forced him from his job due to intense media pressure that did not reflect the market’s value of Imus. That is, it did not take into account the many, many people who found the “nappy headed hos” comment vile, but it did not cause them to write him off or stop listening to him completely.
Is that clearer?
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:02 AM
It’s clear that you support a boycott (that could get Letterman fired), but you don’t support people saying, “Letterman should be fired.” That’s … weird.
So tell me about this liberty Dave enjoys — this right to do a talk show. How do I demand this liberty?
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:08 AM
So now Letterman is inciting child rape? I give.
If this is slander, better send out the word to all comedians, writers, and commentators that absolutely everything they say has to be 100% factual or they will be sued/fine/jailed.
Better tell the RNC that calling the Democrats Socialists is slander, as they are not technically socialists in the absolute sense of the word.
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:10 AM
Slander. Hate speech. Next.
Does Letterman have a right to his soapbox when he uses it to slander and incite hatred?
That would be an argument if he were using his position responsibly and not infringing on others’ liberties. There is nothing in the law to prevent people from calling for a public figure to be fired. If there are no grounds, then the person in question could keep their job.
alliebobbitt on June 11, 2009 at 3:10 AM
Well, if you’re not even going to try to understand what I’m saying, it’s a bit of a lost cause.
The right Dave has is to be employed by an employeer who will pay him what he is worth as an asset. Same right you or I have. And no small group should be able to distort to market value of an asset. For Dave, you, or me. If enough people boycott/don’t watch, then the market will reflect that vlaue of Dave as less then he is being paid, so he will be fired or quit when offered less money.
What is so hard about that?
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:13 AM
Public airwaves yet regulated in the same way as crying fire in a theater would be. That’s where Letterman goes too far and the 14 year old Palin child now has grounds for a case against him.
Slavery was permitted before the Constitution was amended to prohibit it. Eminent domain was substantially restricted before the Kelo decision screwed private property rights. A publicly traded corporation formerly known as General Motors had its leadership chosen by stockholders and a board of governors before tyrant Obambi came along. Our Posterity had a specifically enumerated and secured right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness before the Roe decision came along. We’ve already voted ourselves out of most of those liberties by empowering various vain oligarchs in robes whom have chosen to interpret the Constitution with little or no regard as to its contents. As I would not be a slave I would not be a master however a certain blackguard comic has injured the rights of an innocent bystander and should be called to task for it.
Sad sack Letterman… what he said has infringed upon the rights of Willow Palin. Washed-up Dave can sleazily attempt to repackage his comments any way he wishes. His problem is no longer a matter of his rights warranting protection but of Willow’s.
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 3:15 AM
Andrew Dice Clay’s AIDS jokes gave the impression he was inciting violence toward homosexuals. You be the judge.
Here are some examples of sexual harassment pulled up at the top of one search attempt.
* Direct or indirect threats or bribes for unwanted sexual activity
* Sexual innuendos and comments
* Intrusive sexually explicit questions
* Sexually suggestive sounds or gestures such as sucking noises, winks, or pelvic thrusts
* Repeatedly asking a person out for dates, or to have sex
* Touching, patting, punching, stroking, squeezing, tickling, or brushing against a person
* A neck/shoulder massage
* Rating a person’s sexuality
* Ogling or leering, staring at a woman’s breast or a man’s derriere
* Spreading rumors about a person’s sexuality
* Name-calling, such as bitch, whore, or slut
* Sexual Ridicule
* Frequent jokes about sex or males/females
* Letters, notes, telephone calls, or material of a sexual nature
* Pervasive displays of pictures, calendars, cartoons, or other materials with sexually explicit or graphic content
* Stalking a person
* Attempted or actual sexual assault
Would you not think that likening a female elected official to a “slutty flight attendant” hurts her image and defames her character? What did you think of Anita Hill? Drama?
alliebobbitt on June 11, 2009 at 3:16 AM
None of which address why you think we view the airwaves as public. I’ve had 20 years experience in philosophy and economics. Would you rather talk about something with which you are at least passingly familiar? ;)
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:17 AM
Go to Hillbuzz.org. They have some good recommendations in regard to email that can be sent to Gutterman’s advertizers.
CBS is a disgrace.
Geochelone on June 11, 2009 at 3:18 AM
It negates the feelings of people who legitimately believe he should lose his job over entirely inappropriate comments.
alliebobbitt on June 11, 2009 at 3:18 AM
It’s not my job to send out the word. You do it. But you are correct, when you’re talking about a private citizen, you need to be factual or expect to be sued if the other party can show damages.
You expose your ignorance of the law. This actually has two defenses — it’s an opinion and it pertains to political figures.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:19 AM
If that were the case, you would not think “unviable” is a word, and you would know how to spell “privilege.” We have regulars on this site who actually have this background. The difference is like night and day. Look up the Highlander.
alliebobbitt on June 11, 2009 at 3:22 AM
He is on the public airwaves. You are distorting the argument like a true sophist.
Geochelone on June 11, 2009 at 3:22 AM
Why are they “public” airwaves?
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:24 AM
When the hell did we get the right to be employed?
I see. So you’ll be writing a letter to CBS to tell them to stop advertising his show?
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:25 AM
You just outwitted someone who has 20 years experience in philosophy. Good Job.
Geochelone on June 11, 2009 at 3:25 AM
or I should say – the right to a job.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:25 AM
Is he thinking of the glorious future when Obama’s kangaroo court can rewrite our Constitution. You’re not entitled to a job, an education, healthcare, a living wage, etc. Those are privileges, not rights.
alliebobbitt on June 11, 2009 at 3:26 AM
That just means he spent two decades trying to figure out how they got the penny inside the bottle.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:28 AM
Ever hear of the FCC?
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587522
Geochelone on June 11, 2009 at 3:29 AM
Yes, you should, because that is not what I said.
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:29 AM
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:17 AM
Isn’t extensive “experience in philosophy” usually better known as the “economics” of unemployment?
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 3:29 AM
Yes, I have. Why do we have the FCC?
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:30 AM
Oh, here I thought he was going to lose a job. You’re now arguing that he’ll lose the right to be employed? I made the correction because what you said made no sense.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:31 AM
Heh. I get by. But good one. I was mostly joking on the rather pompous post you put up earlier anyways. :)
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:32 AM
Yes, I have. Why do we have the FCC?
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:30 AM
Why not give them a call and find out? After about 30 seconds they may seek a restraining order so use a pay phone.
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 3:32 AM
“Pompous” is a purely subjective term so don’t go all highbrow on us now.
(Scoffs disdainfully.)
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 3:34 AM
Alright, so if I can’t call for Dave to be fired, then I would like CBS to stop advertising his show. There’s no reason why this Aquateen BS shouldn’t go both ways. Stop promoting his success and I’ll stop calling for his failure. Deal?
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:38 AM
Hmmm. Let me reiterate, in another fashion, what I believe I have said. Any outside influence on an employer/employee contract that is not market based is an aggressive infringement against both the employer and the employee. I am against aggression of this kind. If you cannot change the contract through the free choices of free people, and opt to go another way, you have commited an immoral agression (ceteris paribus on the morality of the original conrtact).
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:41 AM
I know that they have a purpose, but why do we suppose that their purpose is either valid or necessary?
Apparently no one here has any idea why we view the airwaves as public.
Oh well. See you all around. Hopefully on a post where we can agree.
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:44 AM
d
You certainly can, just know what you are doing when you do so. That’s all.
Aquateen Hungerforce on June 11, 2009 at 3:45 AM
Thread winner.
One of the pillars of post-modern liberalism is the rejection of any fixed, external definition of right and wrong, instead leaving it up to individual locales (nations usually) or even just individuals. A foolhardy notion at best and a totally unworkable way to run a civilized society.
Dark-Star on June 11, 2009 at 3:45 AM
I already mentioned the 10th Amendment. “Reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” The Constitution further states that other rights not mentioned specifically by the Constitution are to be protected (reserved to the people) similarly.
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 3:49 AM
I see. And you believe that a boycott does not do this, but saying “he should be fired” does. In fact, wouldn’t the boycott be more likely to get him fired?
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:50 AM
And what am I doing? Keep in mind that I have no personal connections to anyone at CBS or any of their sponsors. You seem to support actions that would actually get Dave fired (a boycott) and condemn actions that probably wouldn’t (some nobody saying he should be fired). ‘splain.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 3:53 AM
Makes me feel so much better,knowing that the degenerate pedophile cleared that up.The freaking idiot probably thinks that makes everything O.K.Gee,I’m sort of,kinda sorry I called you a slut,and your 14 yr.old daughter a whore–am I forgiven now?
Dave,it is long past time for you to go.Get off the air.
By the way,why is it that liberals have to resort to calling conservative women names that carry some stigma of sexual promiscuity,when in fact it is the liberal women who are promiscuous?Projection,or wishful thinking?Considering the beauty of the consevative women,I guess its the latter.But then again it appears that liberal women consider such names compliments,just like they wouldn’t mind being “hate-F***”ed.
DDT on June 11, 2009 at 4:01 AM
Dave was hilarious again tonight. Poor sarah has no idea what she is doing, and no competent advisers to clue her in.
benny shakar on June 11, 2009 at 4:15 AM
Therefore her daughter should be raped. Gotcha.
Ronnie on June 11, 2009 at 4:38 AM
Dave’s gonna hilariate himself right out of a job then, benny.
I hope he keeps it up.
manofaiki on June 11, 2009 at 5:06 AM
Let the station know what you think of their “programming”…
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php
Lockstein13 on June 11, 2009 at 5:36 AM
Morality is hard.
Mommypundit on June 11, 2009 at 5:49 AM
Sorry y’all. I’m a little late to the
lynchingparty.AP 8 pages. Wow.
Now for my summation.
Make fun and ridicule the politician? I have no problem with that.
Make fun of somebody’s children? That’s strike one.
Make fun of rape? That’s strike two.
Promote pandering and prostitution of a minor? That would be three.
Davey, you just struck out.
I’m the proud daddy of three girls, too.
Blacksmith8 on June 11, 2009 at 6:07 AM
Fire Letterman, boycott his sponsors.
Viper1 on June 11, 2009 at 6:46 AM
Exactly.
Rancid material is running thin these days.
MUST KEEP DRONES LAUGHING…
MUST KEEP DRONES LAUGHING…
MUST KEEP DRONES LAUGHING…
fpenza on June 11, 2009 at 6:49 AM
Well if Benny thoroughly enjoyed Letterman’s show last night that’s a ringing endorsement that it sucked.
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 6:51 AM
The thing is — when civilizations crumble — and I am saying this extremely non-PC thing out loud regardless of how it goes over — women are the easiest (or among the easiest) targets for abuse. These commenters who feel perfectly in the right insulting Palin and her daughters are just a preview of what is coming from the less educated (regardless of the college degrees), more primitive segments of our society (who have no idea what’s outside their city in the flyover country and no desire to ever find out – somewhere William Faulkner is shaking his head in disgust). These are not “well rounded” stable people to begin with and when the economy goes into hyperinflation this kind of rhetoric and abuse is going to increase. Why are conservative women so much easier to denigrate and why are liberal women so damned vicious and in some cases just plain crazy?
BrideOfRove on June 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM
I could tell you that 2+2=4 and you would then ask “why do we have an equal sign?” as if your question somehow falsifies a fact. Weird.
Geochelone on June 11, 2009 at 7:00 AM
Letterman is still an a**hole.
drjohn on June 11, 2009 at 7:12 AM
Dave has shown us one thing.As obviously a liberal Democrat, he’s not only shown that, like most liberal men, he finds attacking another man too dangerous, so to show off to the liberal women out there, and gain their admiration, he attacks 14 year old girls. They eat that kind of thing up.
Jeff from WI on June 11, 2009 at 7:19 AM
So who ends up looking better in this? More mature?
The barely legal mom or the 60+ year old entertainer?
All Dave has really done is make Bristol Palin (and her younger sister) look like ladies of great character (at least compared to his own) … and enhance Sarah Palin’s chances of winning national office.
Thanks, Dave. Michael Moore re-elected Bush in 2004; maybe your big mouth can elect Palin in 2012. Keep it up.
Professor Blather on June 11, 2009 at 7:22 AM
I would very much like to lock Todd Palin and David Letterman in a room for about maybe less than five minutes, just so Todd could express his dissatisfaction with Letterman making crude and uncalled for “jokes” about his family.
Then Letterman could take a nice relaxing vacation……..after he gets out of traction, of course.
pilamaye on June 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM
Letterman and Olbermann are basically the same guy. They are given a pulpit in spite of poor ratings because they are useful to the Democrats and Obama.
Both were caricatured in Atlas Shrugged. Olbermann is someone like the propagandist, Chick Morrison, and Letterman is like Mort Liddy, a third-rate failed composer.
Letterman has a job to do for the administration. That he once was a young comedian with a fun outlook has nothing to do with the sour, bitter old man he became.
JiangxiDad on June 11, 2009 at 7:37 AM
It’s not humor if you are still explaining it the next night. Beyond that there was nothing to clear up with this. Letterman should have apologized on gone on an extended “vacation” the way Imus did for his nappy little ho’s comment.
highhopes on June 11, 2009 at 7:37 AM
I haven’t watched Letterman in over 30 years.
But there is nothing wrong with calling for his resignation either. Will the network do it? Hell no – but if they’re smart someone will take Letterman aside and say … “Uhm … Hey Bro”.
You’re arguing that we shut up about something that we disagree with. If I owned that network – I’d fire the guy for going there. There’s nothing wrong with me picking up the phone or sending an email to the network saying that they are a bunch of losers for not doing exactly that.
Or – is David Letterman the only one who has freedom of speech here.
I think what you’re saying – “just turn him off” – is absurd on it’s face.
HondaV65 on June 11, 2009 at 7:47 AM
Oh please Letterman, we all know you’re a pedo bear and meant Piper, not Willow or Bristol.
Just joking! /Letterman defense.
BKennedy on June 11, 2009 at 7:47 AM
So complaining to the manager about a McDonald’s clerk who isults you while you buy a “Happy Meal” is an immoral infringement?
Uhm … Okay.
HondaV65 on June 11, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Sorry Dave! It’s not enough. Get down on your aging knees(if you still can)and apologize to Willow. You have demeaned this child on national TV and there’s no excuse, no excuse at all.
jeanie on June 11, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Thank you kind sir.
And congrats to you! I wish for much happiness for you!
ladyingray on June 11, 2009 at 8:13 AM
“We were, as we often do, making jokes about conservatives in the news and we made some jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter [Willow]… and now they’re upset with me…” Letterman says on tonight’s show. “These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I am guilty of poor taste but I’ll do it again. Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? Yes.” Saying he hopes he’s “cleared part of this up, and that he only meant to imply that her daughters were whores” Letterman extended an invitation to Palin to come on the show as a guest.
rollthedice on June 11, 2009 at 8:19 AM
To all the people saying no one would ever make fun of Obama’s daughters like this: If one of them was dumb enough to get pregnant by an equivalent to Levi Johnston, I assure you that every conservative web site would be laughing about it.
Speedwagon82 on June 11, 2009 at 8:21 AM
It seems this has become a moral dilemma, not for Letterman the anti-feminist, but for the left and right. If one would consider his statement and substitute their daughter or sister or wife for Palin and her daughters, it would be obviously sexist and degrading. Since when does any grown man have the “right” to act like some “hip hop thug” demeaning women? His excuse was equally disgusting and a letter to his network or sponsors would be justifiable. In my opinion, Governor Palin scares the hell out of him and demeaning her in this way just proves it.
elclynn on June 11, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Letterman should get the Imus treatment!
joedoe on June 11, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Speedwagon82 on June 11, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Remember the old adage about assume?
viking01 on June 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM
I agree. She’s a true pill. By the way, she didn’t sign up this week; I’ve read her drivel before.
ladyingray on June 11, 2009 at 8:36 AM
I’ll never watch anything on CBS again.
I wrote CBS after that outrageous “interview” that Rather did with Saddam Hussein, and said I’d never watch CBS news again. I have never seen CBS news since, except for excerpts online…without the commercials.
Now, I’m done with the whole network.
Bye, CBS!
Saltysam on June 11, 2009 at 8:39 AM
“To all the people saying no one would ever make fun of Obama’s daughters like this: If one of them was dumb enough to get pregnant by an equivalent to Levi Johnston, I assure you that every conservative web site would be laughing about it.
Speedwagon82 on June 11, 2009 at 8:21 AM”
You’re dead wrong. There would be some fringe…but most would not.
And they would never make jokes about the chimp-in-chiefs daughters because….
they’re black,
they’re spawned by a dem who they think is a god,
they have to make themselves feel better about themselves by adoring the minorities.
LtE126 on June 11, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Does Letterman really think he’s gonna get off that easy? Pardon the double entendre. Why, pray tell, should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt about which daughter the joke was about? The 14-year-old daughter was at the game, Letterman’s joke was about the daughter at the game having sex, and we’re supposed to accept his statement at face value? One would think other television “comedians” would be having a field day making fun of Letterman, but alas…
olesparkie on June 11, 2009 at 8:44 AM
I have never heard Obama insult Palin’s family. Now if this happened to Letterdouche then there would certainly be some comments rubbing his nose in it. But we would still have empathy for the child and the difficult time the family will have.
csdeven on June 11, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Letterman is a two-bit clown and demonstrates quite vividly the rot that is permeating this society.
rplat on June 11, 2009 at 8:46 AM
I think conservatives would be horrified…twice.
First, by the baby’s execution…
…and second, by the display of the execution as a party platform political event.
No sir, we would cry.
Saltysam on June 11, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Letterman needs lessons in manhood. Even his explanation places the emphasis on the childs actions rather than on the thought of an athlete committing statuatory rape. All the natural instincts of manhood are lost among liberal men-the instinct to protect women and children, even ones you think are white trash hillbillies-never mind the general good manners of chivalry and gallantry.
Liberals won’t be happy until the lines are completely blurred between men and women – and judging by his choice of wife, it looks like he’s off to a good start.
CarolynM on June 11, 2009 at 8:47 AM
“To all the people saying no one would ever make fun of Obama’s daughters like this: If one of them was dumb enough to get pregnant by an equivalent to Levi Johnston, I assure you that every conservative web site would be laughing about it.
Speedwagon82 on June 11, 2009 at 8:21 AM”
Did you mean “punished by having a baby?”
olesparkie on June 11, 2009 at 8:49 AM
I do believe it takes a vile person to suggest a child be raped. And I do not forget that his vile jokes are being laughed at by a vile audience.
csdeven on June 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM
How many years was Letterman having sex with the mother of his bastard child before he realized he was sleeping with a whore and decided to marry her? Five I think. How many years was Letterman sleeping with the whore before that? By his standards the woman he now calls his wife (with apparent embarrassment) must have been a whore all those years.
BTW, I would tend to agree with him. The woman who is finally his wife was a whore all those years. Congratulations Dave!
Know It All on June 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM
When I was a child I remember the silent majority warning us against loosening the standards of decency that would be allowed on television. I also remember thinking they were prudish and close minded. Then I had children and now I hear suggestions that a child be raped on national TV and the media just shrugs their shoulders at it.
I know those folks from my youth knew of what they spoke. I am now part of that group and simply shake my head at the kids I know that bristle against morality having influence in our society.
csdeven on June 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Wow – almost 800 comments. Good job Allahpundit!
From a purely business standpoint, I dont understand why Letterman wants to alienate 1/2 or more of the country. The strongest signal would come from a sponsor or two dropping out and his ratings crashing. If a tree falls in the forest, etc etc. Leno, the McCartney vs Letterman as Lennon has the formula for enduring success: keep it clean and take shots at both sides.
As a purely sophomore psych observation, it is fascinating how success and celebrity tends to curdle a person. Remember that Dave used to be a relatively fresh faced kid from Indiana who would put acts like a young R.E.M. on his show. After 25 years living in the NY celebrity bubble, he has become a creepy old geezer. In the words of the immortal Austin Powers, there is nothing more sad than an aging hipster.
johnboy on June 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Forget about Letterman. He is not worth the trouble. Do you watch him; I’ll venture most on this blog do not. Do you care what he says other than attacking a conservative icon, I doubt it. If you insist on going after him then go after his advertisers. That is the only message he or his network will understand.
georgeofthedesert on June 11, 2009 at 9:05 AM
I don’t think we need to pick on Dave any more. This picture says it all:
http://www.usmagazine.com/files/letterman-b.jpg
johnboy on June 11, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Nothing wrong with this. I heard Johnny Carson talk about Pete Rose raping 14 yr old Amy Carter all the time, right? Disgraceful.
marklmail on June 11, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Again, thank you to all those who have wished me well well on my engagement. Letterman is old and bitter. He can’t defend Obama. All he can do is lash out against any perceived threats against his Dear Leader and political ideology. Sarah’s right. He’s pathetic.
kingsjester on June 11, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Do we not recognize the difference between freedom of speech and common decency? How sad that in our society today liberals can say whatever they want and then hide behind freedom of speech. Do we EVER hear these kinds of horrible slurs against any liberal or liberal’s family member? The answer is absolutely ‘NO’. Whoever is equating Rush calling Chelsea Clinton ugly with Letterman making an inexcusable pathethic attempt at a joke about a Palin daughter being raped is just as sick and deranged as Letterman.
How about some ‘jokes’ about Sasha and Malia ‘being punished with a baby’? Would that be tolerated on national television? I think not.
maryo on June 11, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Just curious. Who are the main sponsors for Letterman?
johnboy on June 11, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »