I love the idea of a President threatening to kick a music critic in the balls. Sadly, threats like that in a more civil age seem refreshing, while in today's non-stop brawl it just sounds like George Bush pretending to be tough. George Bush is NOTHING like Harry Truman. Truman had a pair of balls himself, for starters.
The days when Democrats had balls.
Hah! This is such a great post. I love it.
I'm totally bringing "poppy-cock" into my active vocabulary usage.
Truman was a badass.
@4, sounds kind of incestuous to me. Or the description of a tryst with Bush Senior.
eh -- is this the behavior you really want to be praising and promoting? and for a democrat? i don't like it now, and i though i understand it was a different time then, i'm glad it is not as acceptable.
besides that, it was trumans's comments, not mrs. daniel nor mr. hume's review, that sunk her career. so, i'd say that was a huge backfire.
@7 - Of course, this is behavior to be praised and promoted instead of hearing the insincere, manufactured, pabulum issuing every minute from some candidate's oral hole. People understand plain speaking, confusion is cleared up. Why should the public have to guess what our politicians mean, say, feel? Oops - I forgot - they want to get elected - so we, the sheeple, get sheared.
yeah -- whatever. just because i think our president should have enough self-control to not say he's going to kick someone's ass DOES NOT MEAN i want someone to lie or be insincere. i want someone who is sincere, who says what they honestly think, and who honestly doesn't believe violence is an appropriate response to insults.
I like that he wants to settle it man-to-man instead of trying to pull rank or authority, such as "I'm the President. How dare you?"
Today's Chimp-in-Chief would handle this with a Signing Statement. Problem solved. No need for nasal reconstruction.
what's what "man-to-man"? what is that supposed to mean? aren't we supposedly moving beyond that?
looking to our leaders to be violent frat boys is bad enough, to perpetuate that men are violent is bad enough (which insinuates women are not), but to suppose that the best way to handle a situation is the man's way, and is the violent way... that's just too much.
listen to yourselves! no wonder we have a gun-culture. no wonder we have domestic violence. no wonder people are getting shot outside of nightclubs.
Infrequent: apparently you cannot identify with a man whose apple-of-his-eye daughter has been vehemently trashed in the press. Most fathers I know would have similarly reacted. As much as I abhor violence and am anti-capitol punishment, I am in favor of summary execution for stupid drivers. Notice - no violence occurred between HST and Hume. Merely the threat - sometimes that is sufficient rather than trying to read a crystal ball.
eh, i'm not a father. is that your argument?
i still rather he reacted in a way that demonstrated how he felt without the threats of violence. i do not wish to honor nor promote violence, nor threats of violence.
and while i don't necessary think to odd fist fight is really that bad (if both parties consent), that's not really the shape of violence we see these days.
besides, we are talking about encouraging a certain type of behavior here. you know what? you can end every debate with a threat of violence... and the more we admire people for doing so... the more we call them bad asses... the more say they had balls... that's all the more that we encourage this wrong (violent, childish, sexist, base) behavior.
is that what you want in the american leader?
not to mention the fact that
1) truman was wrong. his daughter was a bad singer.
2) his threat had the opposite effect.
know anyone else who was wrong and made threats of violence? yeah, over half the country ate it up, just like you are doing right now. i guess i shouldn't be surprised.
Truman was a boss.
I would marry a man that actually put a raw steak on his blackened eye. Serious caveman action. The very thought makes me crave a little rocks glass of Jameson. Neat.
First: I was living then and remember the incident very well, and the affair demonstrated that What Was Then Is Still Now.
Margaret Truman was not a particularly good singer, but she was the President's daughter. Chelsea was endlessly tormented by the press during their WH years because she didn't meet certain people's standards of attractiveness. Ditto - Amy.
Nor am I a father, but I had a father. Father's get upset when their kids are publicly humiliated - deservedly or not. Something called human nature. Do you think Hume might have disliked HST and took it out on Margaret? Hmmmm...now there's a thought.
Harry might well have written Hume: "Dear Sir: I do not appreciate your unkindly review of my daughter's performance, and Bess and I (though she admonished me not to) shall think ill of you for the next few days. Thank you, good sir, and we shall give some consideration to finding Margaret a job in a factory or something."
W. made a threat - Saddam didn't listen - violence ensued. So I guess you're right - threats are bad, but how nice for all of us if Saddam had listened.
And yes, if Kerry and Gore had had a pair, we might now be better off than we are. I suspect that under those pantsuits, there is a pair, and really isn't that's what's making the straight white man queasy? Not to forget the occasional woman who thinks it's just fine for one bitch to call bitch on another. Like W's momma...but she was so grandmotherly coy when she said: - "You know, Witch with a B" -
how about this, truman didn't have to write at all. do you know how many negative reviews there are out there? but if he did respond, do you really think your sappy fake message is even close to what i would find acceptable? give me a break.
what you advocate is what bushie did. and, as happens often, threats of violence lead to... wait for it.... wait for it.. actual violence.
i don't want our leader to be chosen based on who has the biggest balls. that might be the way it's done. but that is the problem.
and it's not going to change quickly when the democrats are the ones impressed by all this ball brandishing. and your mildly sexist suggestion aside, no wonder clinton's having such a tough time.
The fantasy letter was sarcastic - Truman would have never written such a letter.
I'm pro-Clinton - so what was mildly sexist? suggesting she had a pair?
There's a vast difference between rightly responding to withering criticism from a badgering newspaper columnist and going to war.
That's why Truman was so admirable - what you saw was what you got: he didn't threaten, he acted. Do you think he polled every TomDick'n'Harry before he issued the Executive Order racially integrating the U.S. military.
Oh, if only for a second Bill Clinton had had Harry's balls - now, wait that don't look right - and put the don't-ask-don't-tell pig out of its misery.
If John Kerry had walked up to one of those Swift Boat liars in a public forum and slapped him in the face, he would be our President today.
@21 are you crazy? no, he would not be.
and while i cannot prove what didn't happen any more than you can, i can think of so many ways that would have hurt his particular campaign that it's laughable.
not to mention the fact that you just shouldn't go around hitting people even if they are liars.
Of course, you shouldn't go around hitting people if they're liars - because your hands would get really tired.
What if Kerry had just said: "I call bullshit on your untrue, false, slanderous, shabby, inconsiderate, unconscionably misinformed accusations regarding my participation in the Viet Nam conflict."
Oooh - scary! Yeah - that would have worked. The Swiftboat liars deserved more than a public face-slapping; they should have been placed in the town square stocks and pelted with right wing garbage.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).