Jake DiMare is officially calling bullshit on Ted Nugent’s patriotic, tough-guy act.
It’s time to add a another word to my own personal definition of what it means to be a Good Man: ‘Duty’. As in, the philosophical concept of duty…When one feels a moral commitment or obligation to someone or something. Often, duty manifests itself as patriotism. A strong sense of commitment to one’s own country. Those men and women with a strong sense of patriotic duty will put the best interests of their country before their own.
Many right-wing conservatives are vociferous war hawks. They will often claim this sense of patriotic duty as justification for putting young men and women in harm’s way. Ironically, it is often the loudest voices among the pro-war crowd who have a strange twist in their back story.
Enter Vietnam War draft dodger Theodore Anthony ‘Ted’ Nugent. A man so patriotic he literally wears American flags on stage while playing a guitar with an American flag painted on it. A man so dedicated to American conservative ideals he brings guns out onto the stage between songs. A man so bound by duty he spent the time between receiving notification he’d been drafted to serve in Vietnam and appearing before the draft board…Well…shitting his pants.
I’ve got a serious question for conservative readers of the Good Men Project: Am I the only person who is confused when the GOP doesn’t distance itself from this guy? In a 1990 interview with the Free Press Ted Nugent explained how he intentionally avoided the draft:
“He claims that 30 days before his Draft Board Physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and a week before his physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether, virtually living inside his pants caked with excrement and urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment.”
His father must have been so proud. Here’s a guy who literally bragged about how going to the Vietnam war scared him so much, he shit his pants.
The New Hampshire Gazette has gone so far as to come up with a title for this special category of hypocrites: The Chicken Hawks. They’ve even created an online database where you can learn more about specific Chicken Hawks, and the tactics they employed to avoid duty to their country when their time came.
If you have the time, check it out. It makes for some enlightening and entertaining reading.
Photo: AP
insurance,tech,gadget,investmenr,forex,money,travel,health Youre so insightful, have so much real stuff to bring to the table. I hope that more people read this and get what I got from it: chills. great job and great web site. I cant wait to read mor…
Youre so insightful, have so much real stuff to bring to the table. I hope that more people read this and get what I got from it: chills. great job and great web site. I cant wait to read more, keep em comin!…
This argument has points on both sides. However the only relevant issue is does Nugent walk the walk and talk the talk now! Everyone of you crapped and pissed in your pants when you were young. Do you now??? That is the main point…can we convince others who were draft dodgers…liberals…etc.,…to change and reverse the course that this country is heading like a snowball to hell. I hope that others who see the err of their ways and thoughts will take a stand before its too late. Screw all of you who condemn Nugent unless you show me your record… Read more »
Sorry, I never “crapped and pissed in my pants” when I was eighteen, nor did I ever do it on purpose to disgust someone so much that I’d be excused from doing my duty. What a bizarre excuse for inexcusable hypocrisy, T. Rollins.
Dude, what are you talking about? What exactly is Nugent doing now that somehow redeems him? Is,he out there actively solving problems, or serving the common good in some way? All I’ve seen or heard is his self-glorifying bravado with some right-wing cliches mixed in. And who exactly needs to repent the error of their ways? And how will this prevent the country from going to hell? And who says it’s going to hell? Just because you don’t like Obama or liberals or whatever, doesn’t mean the country is going downhill. Lighten up, or do something constructive, instead of whining… Read more »
Now, now. I’ve heard the ‘Nuge’ is incredible at hunting majestic game animals as long as they are fenced in so he doesn’t have to do too much leg work.
You guys are totally misreading me. I’m not hurt, sad, or upset or feeling like a victim at all. I am so familiar with this kind of response that I honestly chuckle because it is so predictable. This terrain is where I live, and I’m a firm believer in the idea that if you’re going to put yourself out there, you have to be able to take it, or I never would have written the post, “Should the GMP Discuss Politics.” This thread is nothing compared to the abuse I take when I publish something in Portland’s Oregonian, which has… Read more »
Mark, I am so familiar with this kind of response that I honestly chuckle because it is so predictable. I’m sorry, so you find it funny that a substantial amount of people — according to you — are upset that your support for dishonest, ignorant, prejudiced, and divisive politics? Seriously? And you’re comfortable with that? Wow. Well, I’m not sure if I should be impressed at your ability to block out “teh haters” or troubled that you don’t seem at all perturbed at being unapologetically bigoted. But lets leave it alone guys. We’re never going to convince each other of… Read more »
Noleen,
In my orbit, digging Rush is no insult. In fact, many of my compatriots (you know, the millions of dolts who listen to Rush) wonder why I bother with the GMPM (answer: I’ve been aboard since it was a low-profile blog, and it is a good place to publish personal essays not related to politics). I linked to my column simply to speed up the process of where I knew things were heading anyway, me being called a doorknob, to save everybody some time.
Mark, Your response kinda reminds of of Eeyore — y’know, all emo and forlorn about that bad things people say/do to you, but I daresay you’ll find you’re actually the bully in this scenario. Advocating racism, homophobia, sexism, and McCArthyism as well as supporting those who are even worse is incredibly wrong to a large percentage of Americans who are covered by the categories you are bigoted towards. I mean, based on your article, you’ve essentially admitted to being bigoted against the majority of Americans. Now where’s the sense in that? You may feel sad that others attack you for… Read more »
Millions of people love to eat fast food as well. Doesn’t make it good for them.
Not sure if my comment was moderated or not, so let me just leave you something to think about Mark: Millions may listen to Rush, but Rush promotes bigotry against tens of millions of Americans, from Black people to immigrants to women to liberals to homosexuals to the poor to non-traditional men. What you wrote and what Rush says are terrible things about these groups. I can guess that to believe in them you’d have to be ignorant or a liar, because they’re patently false. Don’t play the victim when you say such terrible things about so many people =/… Read more »
Not only is this extraordinary, but extraordinary he told it public! OMG. Extraordinary…
Thanks to BarkingInTheDark I found you – this was hilarious!!
Dimare asked a question, and I answered it honestly. I never said I though Rush was always right, nor is any commentator. I can often take or leave his flamboyant social commentary, which is part of the entertainment side. He’s right enough often enough about the important things, which for me is the political landscape.
I don’t usually go to my columns, but I think it might help to show exactly where I’m coming from.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/ellis/120306
Let the trashing begin.
You said he was a “serious analyst.” Now you addd, “He’s right enough often about the important things,” and you post a column from the virulent right-wing, homophobic “Renew America” website to show where you’re coming from.
OK, I guess context really is everything.
Mark Ellis, So I read your link. I’m curious. A post about why Rush is awesome, all Democrats suck, and women are greedy whores sucking off the government teat is your justification? I mean, you kinda went beyond ignorance, “I am begging Republicans, including the radio talkers, including the granddaddy of them all. Get on message about jobs, national defense, trade imbalances, debt, deficits, the economy, Islamic jihadists, and border security. These are the party’s strong suits, and these are the issues Democrats hope we become diverted from.” As I recall it was a Democratic president who killed Osama bin… Read more »
Rush Limbaugh is a festering boil on the fat, sweating, lily-white ass (Clear Channel) of American media. If you really think he has anything of any value to add to the national discourse, we’ve got nothing left to discuss. In my opinion any further debate with someone so foolish would be like debating with a developmentally disabled child. Genuinely.
I’m not sure why you are choosing to bring developmentally disabled kids into this. Many of them are loving, sweet, and function as best they can. They have a wide variety of disabilities but that doesn’t mean some of them couldn’t debate. In a way, this is more of an insult to them, than it is to Rush. Just my 2 cents. I think it goes past what I’d consider moderation policy worthy but thought I should hear from you.
That’s fair Julie. Objection sustained.
What I meant to say is, in my humble opinion, entering into a debate with someone foolish enough to see real value in what Rush Limbaugh has to say would be, in my eyes, like debating a doorknob.
Jake, I actually think that Rush is a serious analyst who has an on-air style of presentation that is entertaining. As opposed to a respected analyst like Charles Krauthammer, who is brilliant, but who probably wouldn’t command the kind of audience Rush has over the long hall due to his drier, more Weekly Standard style of presentation. Or, as opposed to Jon Stewart, who I believe is 85% entertainer and 15% analyst.
Mark, I actually think that Rush is a serious analyst who has an on-air style of presentation that is entertaining. Hahahahahahahaha! You’re kidding, right? Right?? Right??? Seriously!? Let me show you some of the things your “serious analyst” has said: “The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane — or put your children on a plane — if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks. ”… Read more »
You’re being sarcastic, right Mark?
Ted Nugent’s hypocrisy is an undeniable fact… and that’s why it doesn’t matter to his far-right fans. They’re not interested in facts; they’re interested in how Nugent’s rants make them feel. That’s why they cheered Romney, with a strong anti-gun record, when he attacked Obama, who’s done nothing to restrict gun rights in any way: because Romney’s words reflected what they wanted to believe, not mere reality. Stephen Colbert clarified this point early on in his show: Truthiness is far more powerful than mere truth. “I promise not to tell the truth to you; I promise to FEEL the truth… Read more »
Like!
Pedro,
You’re conflating the issues of chicken-hawks and selective liberal media outrage.
Selective liberal media outrage = straw man.
Someone mention Rush Limbaugh? The bellicose de facto leader of the GOP/Tea Party rank and file?
He missed Vietnam because he had a boil on his butt. I bet he really wanted to go and serve, too.
Mike L., if his entirely fake bravura macho is tied to selling “the policies he advocates for,” when he sets himself up the embodiment of those policies, then its entirely relevant to take a long hard look if those policies are as fake as he is. In 1977 it wasn’t “cool” to be pro-war, so he took advantage of that to brag in interview about how he went to his draft board with piss and shit in his pants so other boys would be sent to war in his place. Now it’s cool to be pro-war, so out come the… Read more »
I did take a look at the chicken hawk list, and missing is Bill Clinton who avoided the draft and then had to explain the collateral damage (aspirin factory) of his bombing runs in Bosnia. Barack Obama, who didn’t serve, but has no problems unleashing drones to reign death. (Note: I support both actions) That’s often the problem with liberal analysis, one-sided hypocrisy fatally weakens their arguments. It’s like when liberals get all up in arms about Rush/Fluke, but don’t equally condemn Ed Schultz (Ingraham=slut) and Letterman (Willow Palin knocked up by A-Rod) Spare me the line about Letterman being… Read more »
Well Mark, for the record…which is Rush Limbaugh? An analyst or entertainer?
Bill Clinton didn’t serve in Vietnam, but he also didn’t brag about getting out of it. Nor did he establish his political identity with bellicose statements and condemnation of those who question the government’s military actions. As Commander in Chief he faced situations in which military force was necessary, but he hasn’t been an apologist for unchecked militarism, nor a “might makes right–America, love it or leave it” type. Obama was never of draft age during the Vietnam war, nor has he campaigned as a pacifist. (More like a pragmatist that prefers to avoid military conflict when possible.) The Chicken… Read more »
I am a big fan of Ted’s music (especially the classics “Stranglehold” and “Cat Scratch Fever”) but less so of his brand of all-American patriotism, simply because in my opinion it is not thoughtfully articulated. You don’t have to be a veteran to comment on policy as relates to the military, but if you dodged the draft and then crowed about it publically you should probably avoid coming across as Mr. Gung Ho. That said, we’ve all made mistakes when younger, and my instinct is to forgive youthful transgressions like Nugent’s draft panic as long as the individual seems to… Read more »
Meh, all political partisans suck rocks.
I thought when you were calling him a Chicken Hawk, you were referring to when he convinced a Hawaiian couple to let him become the legal guardian of their 17 year old daughter whom he allegedly wanted to marry. Apparently, in Hawaii, she was still a minor and it was illegal to do so. But why let the law stop you from getting what you want right?
Nugent should be prosecuted for his threat to commit violence in the event of President Obama’s election. If he was just “kidding” then he should shut the fuck up and go away. He was either threatening the President, or he was being a moron. Either way, his rhetoric should be condemned far and wide. If you don’t get that, shame on you. Nugent is a moron and a rube. That’s not ad hominem; it’s fact. If I ever doubt my support for Democratic party ideals, I just have to look at who is on the other side. I know I… Read more »
Professor Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist working at the University of Chicago, once engaged in a spirited debate with Ann Coulter about the merits of the theory of evolution. He acknowledged that there was no question that the fossil record was incomplete. He further admitted that, while micro-evolution was observable, no human would likely live long enough to witness macro-evolution. He was happy to report that there are many aspects of human anatomy for which evolutionary theory cannot yet explain. And then he delivered his greatest point: even if evolutionary theory was completely wrong, that left no evidence that Creationism… Read more »
I agree with you that a person’s conduct does not tell us much, if anything, about whether his beliefs are correct or otherwise justified. That said, there seems to be something to the notion of rhetorical authority (to borrow a phrase from David Foster Wallace). Is it really unreasonable for us to expect that certain people prone to using using bellicose rhetoric — people like Mr. Nugent — simply keep those opinions to themselves? I would argue that Ted is no longer entitled to weigh in on such matters. He had his chance and he avoided it. As such, while… Read more »
Taylor,
Let me put it this way.
If you had gotten an F in arithmetic, that does not mean you are automatically wrong when you tell me that 1 + 1 = 2. Indeed, 1 + 1 = 2, regardless of who the messenger is, and we need to acknowledge that.
Ted Nugent got that F in the relevant subject, but that doesn’t automatically make the policies he advocates for wrong. The policies need to be evaluated independently of the messenger.
My piece is about the ‘nuge’ and his hypocrisy, not policy
I see your point and in general agree with it. However, you seem to think that all conservatives support us going to war. In fact, many of the conservative point of view were AGAINST us going into Iraq and Afganisitian (Pat Buchannan and Bill O’Reily were very vocal in their dissent) In fact, a look at our history suggests that since at least the time oe Andrew Jackson it was the Liberal progressive type party that for using military might to expand our countrys influence (remember that Lincolns new Republicians were the progressive liberals until about the 1920’s) That changed… Read more »
bobbt, I think you’d be surprised to learn just how much I agree with you. However, I disagree I made a sweeping generalization of all conservatives in my article.
Then your piece is moot and flawed. Chicken Hawk. How about that Bill Clinton? Address the issues, or go dig a ditch.
Address the issues, or go dig a ditch? I’ve done both in my life but I reject the notion they are my only choices.
Sorry, I must have missed the day Bill Clinton was aggressively war mongering and shouting about guns and God. Which day was that again, CB?
Fun fact: The President that mentioned God and religion most, out of any President to date…Bill Clinton.
(I’m really not commenting on the rest of this and I’m not looking to discuss whether Ted Nugent (or Bill Clinton) is hypocritical or not. I am bringing up what I thought was a pretty interesting fact that’s a little bit off topic).
As I said, I clearly missed the day Clinton was war mongering and shouting about God and guns.
“My piece is about the ‘nuge’ and his hypocrisy, not policy”
If this is true, then what is it doing on The Good Men Project?
Is that what we’re about now, slinging mud? What happened to “the discussion is important” and the other ideals? What kind of a discussion are we supposed to have?
Should we be saying:
Ted is a huge idiot!
No he’s not!
Yes he is!
Is that a real discussion? If you’re not grounding your points in something debatable, aren’t you just name calling?
“If this is true, then what is it doing on The Good Men Project?”
Mike, if you’ve read my other work, you’ll notice hypocrisy is a common theme I seek to root out an illustrate as an example of how NOT to be a good man.
Furthermore, it is you who is using the straw man fallacy to try and distract readers from the true intent of my work. I give you an A for effort, but an D+ in execution of logical arguments.
Sorry, Mike L, but since when is hypocrisy something we’re not allowed to discuss at The Good Men Project? Are you in charge of setting the parameters? Whether a man is good or not (and this level of hypocrisy suggests that no, Mr. Nugent is probably not a “good man,” whether he’s a good rock star, or a good loud, bellicose right-wing blowhard talk show guest) strikes me as the very definition of the site’s mandate. If you’re a Ted Nugent fan who’s peevish at having one of his heroes, or his co-politicists, called out for hypocrisy, that’s one thing.… Read more »
While anyone who bends to calling someone a hypocrite is most likely a hypocrite themselves, one thing is certain. Mr. Nugent had a 1Y deferment from the military, but first, he had a high-school student deferment, then a college student deferment, and finally his 1Y, which is a medical deferment. There is no evidence in the official record of him defecating in his pants, although most people love to throw that story around the web, unsubstantiated in any form of record. Many people deferred from the military during Vietnam, a war that was both literally and historically wrong. That doesn’t… Read more »
Mike, Hypocrisy is an important issue when evaluating someone who advocates for us to follow certain policies. You call it ad hominem, but you’re misusing the fallacy. No one’s calling Nugent a “meany sissie-head, and thus he’s wrong about everything in LIFE”. We’re pointing out that his war-hawk advocacy, gun-totting, tough-guy persona is not genuine, but instead an incredible facade. You may not like it, but it *matters* to voters when politicians and celebrities who advocate for us to go to war are among the most notorious examples of those who refused to go themselves. It *matters* to EVERYONE when… Read more »
And as a veteran – a person who was scared of combat, but still went – I forgive his actions, if true (I would still like to see proof), all is forgiven. Will you forgive Hollywood actors that condemn law enforcent, but yet make their money off of pretending to be one, or is that acceptable?
‘If true’? Do some research, ‘The Nuge’ is an admitted draft dodger. In fact, he bragged about how he ‘tricked’ the draft board.
The really funny thing about his story is he was willing to dodge the draft by pretending to be a craven coward instead of just admitting he was.
CB, I’m sorry, but that comment didn’t even make sense. No one is asking you to forgive, or not forgive, Ted Nugent. It’s not up to you. This piece is about his hypocrisy. And rambling on about Hollywood actors playing cops is completely unconnected to any part of this story.
michael rowe, well said… i went into the military at 17 (vietnam era veteran), I had mush for brains. I could’ve done anything including what Nugent allegedly did, heck I didn’t know up from down, did no fighting. I’m 55 now and much wiser and if I was asked, right now, to fight along side my brothers and sisters to defend this great country I would not hesitate. Nugent is a patriot and I’m pretty sure if asked the same thing his response would be as immediate as I believe mine would be.
Zek, Let me give you a hand here. An ad hominem attack is when you attack the speaker rather than the argument. So something that IS NOT an ad hominem would say “We shouldn’t go to war because it will not achieve our policy objectives for the following reasons…” Something that IS an ad hominem would say “We shouldn’t go to war because the following people are advocating for it…” This piece clearly reflects the later sort of argument and is an obvious ad hominem. That’s what an ad hominem is, an attack TO THE PERSON (the literal translation of… Read more »
Mike, Okay, so I think you’re missing the point, which is surprising since it’s been clearly made by a bunch of the commenters here… This piece clearly reflects the later sort of argument and is an obvious ad hominem. That’s what an ad hominem is, an attack TO THE PERSON (the literal translation of the Latin) rather than to the argument. Believe it or not, an ad hominem doesn’t actually require traditional name calling. Believe it or not, pointing that someone’s being hypocritical is not an ad hominem. Hypocrisy is a valid criticism of someone’s policies. It matters to people… Read more »
Zek,
This is particularly hilarious because the wikipedia page on “Chicken Hawk” actually begins be defining the term as an “ad hominem” attack.
Clearly “most every else” does not “get it.”
Good luck with convincing people though…
You might also have noticed, had you kept reading the Wikipedia article, the following:
“Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[12] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.”
Of course, none of this is applicable in this case since my article MAKES NO MENTION OF POLICY.
Seriously bro, I think you’d have figured out by now this weak ass trolling isn’t going to work with me.
@john hall L
It’s a stretch to say that Nugent advocates policy. He mostly advocates an attitude and lifestyle. So if his personal life doesn’t match up with his bravado it’s totally valid to call bullshit.
LIke the old saying goes “Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn’t mean I rely on it for time keeping”. Same goes for Mr Nugent, I wouldn’t rely on his opinions about anything.
Like Wow!
And no, I don’t mean World of Warcraft…
Hee hee hee – that made me laugh heaps, Wet One!