Letterman’s half-assed apology; Update: Palin accepts
Scroll down for update…
With protests planned and growing anger over his vulgar abuse of the Palin family, David “The Perv” Letterman attempts a belated, half-assed apology tonight on his increasingly unfunny show via TV Week:
It doesn’t make any difference what my intent was, it’s the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good joke. And I’m certainly – ” (audience applause) “- thank you. Well, my responsibility – I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood.” (audience applauds) “Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much.” (audience applause)
Notice that he’s apologizing for the execution of the joke. In other words: If only he had written it more clearly to take aim at Bristol instead of Willow, he wouldn’t have been misunderstood. And he wouldn’t be under the gun having to say he’s sorry for creating the wrong “perception.” He’s sorry he didn’t pull it off better.
His initial, impudent reaction is the honest one. And it won’t be forgotten.
Now, let’s change the channel permanently and pay The Perv no more mind.
Like I said last week, he needs therapy — not just for his Palin hatred, but for his chronic mockery of working- and middle-class women.
***
Allahpundit: Why do reports keep saying Letterman’s apologizing “again” — when he didn’t apologize the first time?
***
Scraping the bottom of the barrel: Desperate Bill Maher wants in on the lecherous old, unfunny Palin-hater award.
***
Palin accepts Letterman’s “apology:”
In a statement to FOXNews.com early Tuesday, the Alaska governor said, “Of course it’s accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who ‘joke’ about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve.”
I’m not saying I’m suddenly a Letterman fan again, but we need to accept his apology. Sarah has, and good for her. She was right to call him out on his phony apology, and she’s right to accept his real one.
Now maybe she can accept his invitation and take her message to Letterman’s audience. Maybe if he meets her face-to-face, he’ll realize she and her family are actual human beings and not just props in his game of Bash the Evil Conservatives to Keep Up with Stewart and Colbert. Heck, he might even listen to what she has to say. He might realize she has something to say.
My recommendation: Let’s just change the channel on Letterman. For good.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Fire David Letterman protests June 16th, 4:30PM EST in NY: Letterman “apologizes” to Palin family | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Fire David Letterman. They Fired Imus For Less « Bob’s Bites
- Blatant Anti-Palin Bias in the Liberal Media: A Collection (172 Cases) « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- ScoopThis.Org » David Letterman “apologizes” to Palin family.
- Bullying and David Letterman | A Nutter's Prattle
- Jeebus Crisp, Sarah And Todd Palin — What The Heck Else Do You Require? David Letterman Apologizes AGAIN To The Palins For His Controversial Jokes… | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- Leaning Straight Up » Lettermen issues another apology to the Palins.
- Letterman’s half-assed apology | The 2008 Elections
- Letterman’s Apology Much Like the Joke: His Intent Very Different From Our Perception « Quick Daily Hits — Politics and Such
- Letterman Apologizes? Again? Kind Of... | Stuck On Stupid
- Moe Lane » Letterman apology, take two.
- A “Shining Example of Progressive Thought Everywhere…” « Teh Resistance Blog
- Letterman apology, take two. - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState
- Letterman Apologizes to Palin for Offensive Joke | The Great Illuminator
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Palin accepts Letterman apology
- Kerfuffles :: David Letterman - Stalker of Sarah Palin :: June :: 2009
- What if Ashley Biden was Bristol Palin? « Jim Blazsik
- You want relentless? Here’s your relentless. | The Skepticrats
- More Hate Against Palin’s Children: Bill Maher Wants Spotlight, Tops Letterman’s Willow Palin Rape Joke « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- CBS Loses Hotel Advertiser Because of David Letterman’s Rape Joke: Boycott Working, Protest Planned Outside CBS Studio « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Republican Clichés: Steven Crowder & Alfonzo Rachel Special (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Apology, schmopology -- FIRE DAVID LETTERMAN NOW!!! — Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian
- Letterman’s Apology to Palins: Pronoun “I” Used an Average of Once Every 11 Seconds; Egotism, Not Remorse « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- From The Home Office In The Interwebs… « Around The Sphere
- The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room » MORNING READ
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Sarah Palin
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Barney Frank on the Rule of Law
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Stupak: the Sanctity of Life is Important to Us, Which is Why We Will Slash Care for Old People and Further Enslave Children to Massive DeficitsLegal Insurrection
» David Frum Says We're To BlameStop The ACLU
» Dan Benishek: the alternative to Bart Sell-out Stupak
The fact that Letterman is obviously squirming gives me some hope that the culture war is not totally lost yet.
hahahahaha!!!! bring up Sarah Palin & watch nyk type!
type!
‘Sarah Palin’!
type!
thus spake the loser.
Um, yeah, it does.
So….He’s apologizing for the fact that a number of people are not smart enough to realize what he INTENDED to say as opposed to what he ACTUALLY said.
Even though what he intended to say was no different from what he actually said – a tasteless attack on an innocent kid because of her mother’s political views.
“
You stay classyGo f%$#& yourself,San DeigoLetterman”– Ron Burgandy
Most assuredly, and it was obvious what his intent was…smear, degrade, demean, and punish.
When has Letterman ever called any of the actual sluts who appear on his show “slutty”?
No, no, such language is reserved for people in public life that are perceived by the left as defectors.
It doesn’t matter than Bristol Palin had a baby out of wedlock. Is she the first ever?!?!? Hardly. How many Dems have done the same thing? Oh wait, they have abortions instead don’t they.
All I heard was Letterman saying “I would never…blah blah, blah” (that’s as much as I could stand). Well Letterman YOU DID!
Why can’t they just leave Palin & her family alone? What if we had some “comedian” making “jokes” about about Michelle Obama looking “slutty” or trashing her kids? Hmmmm?
I do not understand why Letterman thinks it is an issue over a 14 year old, a 17 year old, or their Mother. They all deserve respect as human beings. Bottom line is this was NOT a joke – - it was not and is not funny.
What kind of a twisted mind would think it was funny?
If liberals weren’t so scared of Palin (which they constantly claim — me thinks they protest too much), then why tear her and her family down so much? If she doesn’t have a chance at anything, why all the vitriol? Why not just let it go?
It only makes the libtards look more juvenile, stupid, classless and lowlife.
I am having a Don Imus moment here and wonder what would have happened if Letterman had said something simuliar while the KBPOTUS and his wife were running for president.
White male making disparging remarks about blacks on their program gets you fired, liberals making rape jokes about conservatives gets you job security and being a black liberal gives you a free pass to spew any vitrol without consequence or remorse (e.g. shabazz, jackson, et al)
GSP
“Dissent is Patriotic-hrc”
Well, here’s a list of Letterman’s top ten Obama jokes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Michelle mentioned Letterman’s contempt for working class women. I recommend that people go back to a 1984 review of the old Letterman program in the Wall Street Journal. The review mentioned the way Letterman ridiculed the little people while at the same time being sycophantic to Tom Brokaw and other media bigwigs. The article mentioned how Letterman had in 1984 tricked the winner of “The Petite Miss New York” contest into being a guest on the program and the unfortunate young woman did not know that she was going to be mercilessly ridiculed. She thought it was going to be a fun interview. Instead, Letterman reduced her to tears. The article from the WSJ is still probably on the WSJ archives. It deserves to be put online again so people can see what a creep Letterman is.
Yep, looked it up and Letterman fulfilled the requirements.
I like being consistent. I like the Constitution, because it keeps us consistent. I like the rule of law and how it is consistently applied. And, doing unto others as they do unto you, is also a principle of consistentcy that I subscribe to.
Nope, I will not see anyone about my consistentcy. Consistentcy is a good thing.
REALLY.
Letterman’s apology is insincere and self serving. His fake contrition is the result of the snow balling effect of the criticism. Only when a liberal commentator criticized him did he take the scandal seriously. Not to mention the he lost sponsors.
Although Letterman’s humiliation is fun to watch, I hope his punishment continues with a loss of audience share. That will be the death sentence he deserves.
David Letterman, as is nyk, is a vulgarian and best ignored. We have all had to deal with such people from time to time but we keep it to a minimum.
Ah, the payment of rape kits. In many states, rape kits rot on shelves in police evidence lockers because there’s no money to pay crime labs to process them. The laws in these states can prohibit rape victims from paying for their own kits to be processed because it would favor payers over nonpayers. So to be fair, states would rather have none of the kits processed. Now, was she allowing the victims to be able to pay, so as to expedited the criminal investigations or requiring the victims to pay? I would guess, it was the former. Besides, I’d rather have the option to pay rather than have a case “shelved”!
what country is that??
sure ain’t this one…the constitution is whatever 5 judges on the supreme court say it is…see KELO, among other decisions…
But the Constitution, being a human instrument, is inconsistent. Haven’t you noticed that?
The rule of law is not…never was…consistently applied. Calling it the “Justice System” is a bad joke, and false advertising. On a GOOD day, it is a legal system. Often, it is just tyranny under a thin veneer.
The Golden Rule says that I have a duty to beat the living spit out of some people, because I would want them to do that to me if I were that sorry.
Consistency CAN be a good thing. And, like all good things, it can be obsessive and weird…even dangerous. Being consistently bad or wrong is not good.
See?
Huh?
A message that can be interpreted as apologetic can also be interpreted in many other ways. Using the words ‘apology’ and/or ’sorry’ leaves no room for interpretation. The message and meaning of that statement is absolutely clear. No interpretation necessary.
As for the examples you provided. Those were facts. It was the truth. Each actually happened. Re-stating history is not an apology, it is an acknowledgement of that history.
What you got from Pres Obama’s message is that he won’t do these things on his watch. Yep, if you do not learn from history, then you are condemnd to repeat it.
Let us not overthrow a democratically elected government.
Let us not act contrary to what we stand for.
And, let us not impose any system of government on another Nation.
[Note: Yes, we have done so in the past, and it was because we were at war with those Nations. We were never at war with Iran.]
Exactly what I have said for decades.
granite, any layperson can sit in a courtroom for half a day, and know the truth of our insight.
Fire David Letterman
Fire David Letterman
Sweet Mother of God. They don’t even make the slightest pretense of objectivity anymore!
The RNC is missing a bet if they don’t inundate the airwaves with counter Obambi health care issues (better known as the truth).
Yep.
Sadly, but yep.
One of our sons recently graduated from law school.
He’ll be one of the good guys, believe me.
If we believe in freedom of speech, and we do, then move on to better and more pressing matters: The ABC wing of the White House. The Obama admin’s insatiable appetite for control over all things we hold dear. For the love of God, let’s take up arms against a fight more important than an old has-been like Letterman.
OPERATION OVER-REACH is going as planned. Still your heart. This is actually good.
Not that I am sanguine, or suggesting complacency.
STARVE THE BEAST will have a presence on July 4th, thanks to several people who have kindly contacted me to distribute stuff at TEA Parties.
Yes, many instruments of human creation have their flaws, and yes the Constitution had it’s. Over time we, humans, have corrected it.
Yep, again there are flaws. No dispute, though living and conducting yourself within that framework is good. It should not be abused, and too often it is, unfortunately. We are a civil society and have the rule of law. We should follow it, and follow it consistently.
I have no idea what your point is here.
Yep, on it’s face what you say can be true. However, in this specific example I am looking for the consistentcy between what Pres Obama said overseas, calling it an apology, without using the words, and what Letterman said, using the word apology.
One is an apology, and the other isn’t. Huh? I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation.
Moreover, in the global sense of my approach using consistentcy, it is about asking the same questions to different people. Consistentcy is the 800 pound gorilla in many discussions that is not mentioned.
By way of example -
Person ‘A’ complains Pres Obama spending and his bailouts.
Person ‘B’ responds, saying Pres Bush was a spender and bailer, too. Why did you not complain about that when he did it?
The conversation devolves into a shouting match, defensiveness and name calling, when in fact each Person was talking about consistentcy, though they did not say so.
See?
Sorry, that’s just silly.
You are one of the first binary thinkers I’ve ever come across. Black and white thinking is one thing…but you go beyond that.
So, the Founding Fathers were bad guys…
I see….
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/16/abc-the-all-barack-channel-earns-a-new-logo/
granite, I though many of us would enjoy this…
Good one.
Outrageous, but a good one.
Just when Palin Derangement Syndrome APPEARED to hit rock bottom…
Rags–lol @ the ‘new’ logo!!!
A bit of projection on your part. Are you the parent of a teenager? Have you spent any time with a teenager? I’ve known many parents, responsible parents, who let their daughters invite their boyfriends over. Some parents are too trusting. Just like the Palins. I love how you unfurl this cloak of morality when it suits you, nyk. You’re also predicting some innocent, perfect adolescence for the president’s daughters when you know nothing of the girls themselves or their parents parenting styles. This, from someone who isn’t married or who has children herself.
It’s interesting that, even though you know nothing of these people, you have them summed up in 5 minutes flat. You must have been the perfect daughter, right? You never got into trouble or did something that disappointed your parents, right? You’ll be the perfect parent because you have morals and have made good choices, right?
My parents tried to be good parents to my sister, telling her about the birds and the bees, that drugs are bad, and maybe she shouldn’t date until she was out of high school. However, this didn’t prevent my sister from becoming hooked on drugs/alcohol, running away numerous times, breaking the law, or getting raped at a frat party. Kids make bad choices even with the best of parents. I know you think yourself worldly wise, but unless you actually experienced this yourself (or have you?) then who are you (or anybody) to say what kind of parents the Palins are? You’re way off base and sound like another liberal suffering from PDS.
Why do you hate Sarah Palin, her family, and her children so much? Is there something so empty in your life that you act like the most shameless voyeaur and interpret that Palin is some self-seeking publicity hound when it was Letterman who started this very public squable. Have a little class and put the blame where it belongs- David Letterman.
If you despise Palin so much, and are so confident in the Dems’ chances, then why the hateful projection on your part? If you were at all rational (or reasonable), you’d look a little beyond politics to what’s really going on. This chick really rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. Either because she had the audacity to parent at all or because her daughter kept the baby (perish the thought!).
O/T: Berlin is the most UGLY European city. A European traveler once remarked to me: “It’s very easy to impress Americans. They’ll eat the most inedible food and put up with the most uncomfortable of accommodations.” It seems you fit this category and haven’t the experience to tell what’s a beautiful city and what’s not. Try Southern Germany, or better yet, Austria.
Rags, thanks for the logo link. It appears abc is just trying to take a bite out of crime!
Nyk:
Perhaps, you should pass this admonishment along to the Obamas. Namely, the President himself. Perhaps, Michelle Obama shouldn’t be parading herself and her “burdens” throughout Europe to expensive, exclusive children’s boutiques and visiting the Harry Potter film set.
You libs really kill me. You’re the most hypocritical, ironic of beings and yet you call out such traits in others. Priceless.
I’m sorry but this wasn’t an apology the second time either. I understand the Palins, being in the public eye, have to accept this because it wasn’t done as a joke like the last one but apologizing because of how people perceived this joke is not a real apology. His intent was still malicious even if it was supposed to be about the elder daughter. And it all went with his bash the Palins sexually meme when you look at his “slutty flight attendent” joke. If he wanted to apologize he should have stated he was unequivocally sorry and not just sorry for the perception. I disagree with Treacher, we don’t have to accept this pitiful attempt at an apology.
Huh?
I agreed with you that the Constitution is inconsistent, and therefore flawed. And, you take me to task for agreeing with you?
Is being binary taking someone to task when they agree with you? As you just did with me.
You labeled it silly, but labels are easy. What exactly is silly about it? Is it silly that I agreed with you?
Huh?
No. As you said, the Constitution is inconsistent. You said because it is a ‘human instrument’. I echoed that, saying it was flawed. Certainly those who had an impact on, and cheered, the Constitution were well meaning, and over time we corrected their original inconsistentcies and flaws.
I missed your post where you addressed why Pres Obama apologized without saying the word ‘apology’ or ’sorry’ and where you explain that Letterman’s apology lacks value, eventhough he said the words ‘apology’ and ’sorry’, in his statement. Yep, still looking for consistentcy and understanding.
Just give me the post # and I’ll go back and read it.
Just popping in and haven’t read the previous comments.
Letterman didn’t apologize “again”, he non-apologized again. It’s the typical “I’m sorry if you took offense”, not “I’m sorry for what I did”.
He still thinks that if the joke was about 18-year old Bristol and not 14-year old Willow then there’s nothing wrong with the joke.
Thousands of men and women in this country think such jokes are abusive of teenage girls, and needs to stop.
Sarahcuda is graceful and sharp at the same time…she gracefully accepts Letterman’s second non-apology, yet sharply reminds him that men who ‘joke’ about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls need to ‘evolve’.
Letterman doesn’t have a clue that even though Sarah has accepted his non-apology, thousands of people are still going to protest to his advertisers.
He will learn a lesson eventually.
Aren’t you taking the “devil’s advocate” role a little too far? If you don’t think that Obummer going abroad and offering up words of “conciliation” isn’t “apologetic” then I think your argument is more superficial and bent on tone.
Humans, at best, are inconsistent and flawed creatures. The most flawed humans (and this includes Lecherman and Obummer) will do anything to project the image they wish to create and have people believe. An apology, like anything a human does, is based on intention and believeability, not necessarily “consistency.”
You wouldn’t have lasted a day in my family or in the real world based on the flawed nature of man. I’ve had people use the words “sorry” and “apology” (often in the same sentence) to my face and it often not mean anything. They would repeat the same behavior, as before, that they had apologized for, making the apology meaningless and insincere.
I think you’re arguing semantics. According to you, we should take things people do at face value, yet not examine their patterns of behavior, which both Lecherman and Obummer both have. Both have a history of being insincere. Scrutinize that, not the delivery.
People can apologize without said apology really being that at all. People do a lot of things to pacify others (like Obummer did with his overseas conciliatory tour). I find your harping both a bit silly and not well thought out.
One last thing. Has anybody ever apologized to you and not mean it? I’m sure that’s happened to many people. I’d rather people just be honest and say what they mean and mean what they say.
For example:
Lecherman: Look, I really hate this woman (Palin) and think that her 14-year-old will follow in the path of the more legal 18-year-old.
Obummer: I’m going to do everything in my power to make the USA the world’s doormat. I will attone for every single mistake the past administration has made (even though I’m perpetuating much of those policies anyways). Oh, and Israel can go suck an egg.
emjem24:
I apologize to my wife constantly for doing the dishes the wrong way and messing up the laundry.
Darnnit though, it’s not for lack trying!
She can’t cook a steak to save her life after all. *smile*
I’m always apologizing to my wife for her misinterpreting how I load the dishwasher. It’s just easier, that way noone gets hurt. Especially me.
Rogue:
Wives just can’t cut us any slack. *sigh*
That is what is silly, and that is what makes you dishonest when you say, “I agreed with you that the Constitution is inconsistent, and therefore flawed. And, you take me to task for agreeing with you?”.
See? Your statement in the previous post was silly. This more recent post compounds it with one of your disingenuous deflections.
Sorry, I know that isn’t true with respect to understanding. As to consistency, you are just queer for that concept.
Zero/Rogue:
If your wives are expectinng your “sham” apologies over innocent, male behavior and disresect for female organization then that’s all well and good. I’m sure they get about as exasperated as I do over some of my husband’s more ingrained habits.
I’m talking more about those more serious situations such as money, cheating, or the more popular fixing something pertaining to the household. Those are the kind of things that, perhaps, aren’t as expected and therefore need to be treated a little more, ahem, “carefully.”
Of course, my husband asserts that I don’t respect him nearly enough when I tell him that his role is to mow the lawn and kill bugs. I also tell him that while I don’t like steak (I know, I know, a crime in the eyes of most males), he’s more than welcome to cook his own. What’s wrong with that?
emjem24:
I wouldn’t dare comment on another person’s marriage dynamics and I would cerrtainly be a fool to do so if the person in question was not another male.
That said, I’ll decline to answer this:
In fact, my initial reaction would be to just apologize now and keep my mouth shut.
I have my 5.1 digital surround sound and my gaming computer with dual 8800GTS’s in SLI. I am happy. *smile*
nyk:
The only time a woman has to pay for a rape kit is when she refuses to press charges. Makes sense.
BTW, how’s the nappy headed ho that is yo mama?
Just joking! Hope you can take a joke.
I am an old man and my memory fails me on occasion. But I think I remember Michael Jackson banning Letterman from Neverland, because letterman was hoarding all the children.
Don’t get you panties in a knot, it is only a joke.
Hey gang…do you need a good laff-o-the-day? Here it is for ya. Was just reading at DU how they plan to punish the Hilton Chain for pulling ads from Dave……They are urging people not to stay their hotels. LOL!
I’m not sure which is more ridiculous: the notion of those kooks leaving their parents basements or the possibility of them even having enough money to pay for a decent hotel.
Where exactly was CBS Standards & Practices? Letterman shoots around 5pm. You would think S&P would have been there and caught it. Did they think the ‘joke’ passed the smell test? Must have, if they let it pass.
I just wonder where AmeriCare crooks stay when out of town…
Sounds like you’re still trying to change him. Must be genetics with wimmen!
I love how my wife asks for my help but then finds fault with how I assist.
I love how she can rewrite history in a blink of an eye.
“That’s not what I said! I said blah blah blah , yada yada yada.”
I don’t try to change her but she insists that I evolve. Their version of 50/50. (sigh)
Believe me, that hasn’t stopped my mother.
Now, now, stop being such a, ahem, wuss. It’s really okay. You can challenge me on my philosophy of whether or not men are the best bug killers and weed killers/lawnmowers. I know I’m a sexist.
I find your instinctual apology quite annoying. I can only blame radical feminists for turning men into benign metrosexuals who can’t stand up for themselves without being called “condescending patriarchs.” No need.
As to the surround sound and tech wonder of gaming, everybody needs their creature comforts.
Me try to change a man? Nah…. not toooo much. Some men need some “tweaking.” However, too much “tweaking” will remove the rough edges that make men so fascinating.
Now if it’s bug killing, lawn mowing, and household fixes/repairs, I find no fault with my husband. I even try to help (to prepare myself if he gets deployed).
Yes, if there was one thing I wish I’d known before I’d gotten married (it’ll be ten years in 2010…. God, I was such a baby) it would be the constant historical revisits. When you fight over what you said a week, or even a month ago, things get dicey. If it’s a day… I say I’d win that argument. Heh!
Now, I think both partners evolve. My husband swore he’d never own dogs and two pugs later he loves ‘em to bits. He swore he didn’t want children and now, he’s open to trying for one. I think when you marry a military man (or woman) there’s always a bit of changing that a spouse goes through and part of the life of a military family.
Women want to “perfect” things including men. It’s in our DNA. Have you tried the 60/40… that may work out better.
emjem24:
I should use the /sarc tag. I was trying to mock those same metrosexuals by behaving as one; I think you know that though.
I am with Rogue here. You womenfolk can be tough roomies. I love my wife to pieces, but can’t stand her demands!
A wise man once said:
Why would you think that I am taking the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ role, when I never said I was. Ask a question, don’t assume.
Never said Pres Obama offered words of ‘conciliation’. I said he spoke history, truth and facts. And, since I do accept, or believe, there was any conciliation, there was no apology, according to your statement.
Superficial and tone. Hmmmm. Not sure about that. I am confining my statements to what was actually said. Pres Obama never apologized. Letterman did. One used the words that traditionally have been used in apologies, and one did not. I want to know why one is called an apology and the other is challenged. Be consistent in addressing this.
Intentions have no bearing in my discussion or question. Focus on what was actually said. The message is delivered and any number of people will infer what the intention was based on their politics, faith, feelings and what time of the month it is.
As for ‘consistentcy’ as you used the word is mischaracterized as I have used it. It is a very liberal position that you have taken that an apology is about ‘intention’ and ‘believability’. Your words not mine.
Yep, when a person offers up an apology they will say, “I am sorry”, “I apologize” or even “Mea culpa, maxima mea culpa.” That is, and has been, the traditional to apologize in this country. Letterman said two of the three. Pres Obama did not use any form of the accepted apologies used in this country.
Now, if you wish to accept the apology because you consider it ‘believable’, or question the ‘intention’, that is on you.
One more time for clarity, Letterman used the historically accepted form in his apology, and Pres Obama never did.
Why call one an apology, and not the other? Because of ‘intention’ and ‘believability’? When feelings are brought into the equation, well that is just to Liberal for me.
I will not address your family, because I do not know them. Who knows who would last in anyone else’s family.
Yep, been there and had that done to me, too. Yes, people use the words and still repeat the behavior. The thing is, they have used the words, the historical accepted traditional words, used in an apology. Letterman used them, and Pres Obama did not. Again, why is one an apology, and the other not?
You, me and everyone has the option to accept, believe, or decipher the intention of the apology. Feelings are not the issue. Feelings are what Liberals do. It is the words used. Bottomline, what were the actually words used, and hearing the words, was an apology given?
No. Not semantics. There is a way to apologize. Even you gave an example of what an apology is, though you later realized the words meant nothing. There are specific words used in an apology. Letterman used those words. Pres Obama did not. If you read deeper into what was said, good for you. You are welcome to read intent, believability, or sincerety. That does not negate that the words were delivered in one case, and not the other.
You asked me to ’scrutinize’ on a different level. OK. I have issues with both of them. One of them is a politician and the other is a comedian, and with that comes a myriad of behaviours and actions, some good, and some not so good.
One apologized, and one did not.
Yep, as you have said earlier, people will look you in the eye and say, ‘I am sorry’, or ‘I apologize’, and guess what? Letterman did so, and it is your option to accept, or believe, his apology. Pres Obama never said those words, so why is it that his words overseas are characterized as an ‘apology tour’?
Interesting that you are saying that Pres Obama said things to ‘pacify’ others. Well, pacifying is not apologizing.
Moreover, you refer to Pres Obama having a ‘conciliatory’ tour, and not an ‘apology’ tour. It is good that you are ‘walking that back’. Though the reality is that he was not conciliatory, but spoke facts, history and the truth.
Everyday. The thing is, the traditional accepted words for an apology were used. Letterman used the words, Pres Obama did not. Accept, or believe, Letterman’s apology. And, until Pres Obama uses those words, he has not apologized. Mischaracterization of reality does not help anyone.
Absolutely, say what you mean, and mean what you say. Nothing wrong with that.
I don’t know whether to laugh, or shake my head in disbeleief. You are putting words into the mouths of Letterman and Pres Obama. That is speculating and assigning motive. When you actually get them saying those things post the link, otherwise it is you who is practicing Liberalism, giving meaning to what is not said.
Yep, I deal in what was actually said, you might refer to it as face value, but I call it fact. Do you like facts, or do you establish in your mind what you think people would say and make conclusions on your guesses?
If you know something factual and can provide quotes, that is one thing, but speculating? That is just too liberal for me.
Do you even read what you write?
You said (cutting and pasting from your post #102),
“But the Constitution, being a human instrument, is inconsistent. Haven’t you noticed that?”
See? Your statement in the previous post was silly. This more recent post compounds it with one of your disingenuous deflections.
You used the word ‘human’ and I simply repeated it.
If I am dishonest for agreeing with you then then that ‘binary’ thing you mentioned is all about you.
Sorry? I suppose that is an apology of some sort.
Yep, I like consistentcy. Why is one thing an apology and not another?
I missed your post where you addressed why Pres Obama apologized without saying the word ‘apology’ or ’sorry’ and where you explain that Letterman’s apology lacks value, eventhough he said the words ‘apology’ and ’sorry’, in his statement. Yep, still looking for consistentcy and understanding.
Just give me the post # and I’ll go back and read it.
really? what do you call this? groveling?? bowing down…as to the MUSLIM KING???
he spoke lies…europe’s ‘leading role’ in the world??? you mean leading the world into 2 world wars?? what else have they ‘led’ on?? colonialism?? seriously what has europe done to lead in the last oh say 100 years or so??
here’s another one…
He should have just said ‘we submit’ Inshallah!!!
this is pathetic groveling…if you don’t want to call it an ‘apology’ its pathetic..and will cause the muslims to laugh at us, and cost the lives of americans as our enemies are emboldened….
So, to sum up… believe when humans apologize just as long as it’s in the classical form but not if it’s a foreign policy speech with “apologetic” tones. Got it. Let’s make excuses for the powerful because they use “apologetic” tones to butter up people and get what they want. Got it.
Let’s take everything at face value and be everybody’s fool. Let’s have faith in others when they’ve proven, in the past, that that faith was misplaced. I see.
If an apology includes “apology” or “sorry” it’s an apology. If you’re kissing the world’s a$$, using appeasing and conciliatory language to get what you want at the expense of those in the military and the country, and it doesn’t serve the country’s interests, then that’s not apologetic. I see. If you constantly mention what the previous administration did wrong and then verbally decry it and say how you’ll do better that’s not an apology either? Okay… your characterization of foreign policy is different than mine.
May I ask: did you vote for Obummer? You seem to jump to his defense a lot.
Your utter faith in humanity is misplaced. Apologies can be used as fake ways to appease people and get them to stop annoying you or troubling you. That has been my experience (when the apology has been insincere). Letterman has a habit of attacking those he politically opposes. His intentions are suspect.
I don’t use my “feelings” to gauge what is an actual apology but the pattern of behavior behind it. That’s the conservative in me: I judge people’s actions. I also look a little bit more closely into what they say. That’s the writer in me. Maybe I just see words and how they’re applied a lot differently than you.
Obummer has a habit of attacking those he politically opposes: be it the Bush administration, health insurance companies, financial companies, and even Republicans that disagree with him. When you publicly pledge to reverse a previous administration’s policies, attack that administration, and then use that administration’s “failings” to make yourself seem like you’re in the audience’s corner then how can that not be seen as apologetic?
You can take how people apologize at face value but many others like myself know better. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Face it- Obummer doesn’t give much specifics for many of his “plans” and all many of us have is “speculation.”
People don’t mean what they say anymore, be it one’s own family/friends, politicians, or even a second-rate commedian. You keep your open mind while cynics like myself see what many people like Letterman and Obummer are truly are: those who don’t mean anything when they say it or stick to it when it’s no longer socially or politically convenient.
Oops: my reply is to Zyzzyg’s #140. Too much posting today.
Apologists tones are not an apology. I am gaining confidence that you appreciate that fact. Yes, you have to say the words to avoid any ambiguity like Letterman did.
Nope. After the words are spoken, as I said, you can either believe and accept the apology, or you can dismiss it.
No. I am not discussing foreign policy. I am discussing the words used. If you decry what a previous administration did, you are decrying it, not apologizing for it. Decrying is not apologizing. You are free to infer what you want, but without the traditionally accepted words, it is not an apology. Letterman used those words. Accept, or reject, the apology, but without the specific words there is no apology.
No. And, I am not defending Pres Obama. Where did I ever say he right? You are inferring, speculating and assigning motive. I have never jumped to hid defense. I have asked questions.
My asking what is the difference between calling what Pres Obama said overseas an apology tour, without using the words, and calling what Letterman said as an apology, is suspect, and I want to know what the consistentcy is.
Actually saying ‘I am sorry’ and ‘I apologize’ as Letteman did is devalued as an apology. And, absent those very specific words, Pres Obama is called an apologist. I just don’t get it. Do your best to explain it to me. What you have done so far escapes me.
At the risk of repeating myself, there was an apology and you can either accept, or reject it. The words were used in one case, and not the other. What makes an apology an apology are the words used. If the words are not used, it is not an apology.
Appeasement is not an apology. It is appeasement. As you said earlier, it is pacifying someone. And, pacifying is not an apology. Pacifying is pacifying, and apologizing is apologizing.
OK, see the words and how they are used, but don’t address words that are not used. Pres Obama did not use ‘apologize’ or ‘I am sorry’. Letterman did. It is entirely too easy to take someone to task for what they did not say. I prefer to focus on exactly what they did say, and comment on that. Fine, read deeply into what you think someone said, but don’t avoid what was actually said.
Because it is attacking, your words, not mine. Attacking is attacking, and apologizing is apologizing. Pres Obama is doing what politicians do. He is a politician after all.
His specifics are certainly at issue, though what has that got to do with his not apologizing? Letterman apologizing? And, why hasn’t any one, including you, presented a reasonable arguement explaining that dichotomy?
I mean what I say, and I accept that you mean what you say. I hope we aren’t the only two.
I suppose we will have to wait and see if Letterman sticks to his apology. And, that is not make sexual jokes about Gov Palin’s children.
Look in the dictionary for the word”poltroon” and one will see a picture of Letterman.
Olive Garden Restaurants just pulled ALL advertising from Letterman for the remainder of the year due to Customer comments. A few million dollars that CBS won’t see.
I salute them.