Dixie Chick Damage Control - Comments Page 2

Nashville is NOT Hollywood. Do we need any more proof of that than two concurrent stories out of the Music City: the Charlie Daniels pro-war rant, producer for country TV channel replies, gets fired story; and the Dixie Chick Natalie Maines busts loose with an anti-Bush statement at a concert in London, feels the wrath of suburban Republicans from coast to coast story.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

  • 26 - Rowdy Girl

    Mar 18, 2003 at 4:40 pm

    I LOVE the Chicks music...but will not support them at this time. Not because of what anyone else says or does but because I am ashamed that they are from Texas! I absolutely loathed Clinton and thought him a womanizing good-ole-boy, but would never have disrespected the office of the Presidency by stating how I felt in a public forum. We expect our kids to have respect...but show none ourselves in front of them and then wonder why they have no respect for us or anyone else!? MOST Texans are not ashamed of Bush...just of the Chicks right now! A Newsweek poll shows that 65% of Americans support Bush....the Chicks will wonder where 65% of their sales go!

  • 27 - Anon

    Mar 18, 2003 at 5:00 pm

    Judging from the comments, it looks like this board is being Freeped too. You should be aware that linking to a freeper post is sure to get you noticed. The operators scan their logs and retaliate when they notice substantial numbers of hits referred from liberal websites.

  • 28 - Anarchist666

    Mar 18, 2003 at 9:01 pm

    "It is a right they have that most of the world does not, because hundreds of thousands of American soldiers from the Revolutionary War to now were willing to give their lives to protect our freedoms, including freedom of speech."

    The scary thing is, I'm sure you believe this nonsense. What did the Spanish American War, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War I, among many equally pointless conflicts, have to do with freedom of speech for Americans? Oh yeah, that's right, during WWI they put someone in prison for making a movie critical of British conduct during the Revolution, and someone else for passing out copies of the constitution. And let's see, during the Vietnam war we had CONINTELPRO and dead students at Kent State. I'm willing to bet you know nothing about any of these subjects, with the exception perhaps, of Kent State.

    "I will support to the death their right to say what they will in this country - among members of our American family. But to do so outside our borders, among people who hate us and our way of life seems treason to me and much of the US."

    The British hate us? Everybody except Blair I guess. Funny, my copy of the constitution omitted that part about it being treason to question the US government while abroad. Treason carries the death penalty. So should we execute the Dixie Chicks? Just who is it exactly that hates our way of life? Maybe all those Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and want to censor our books and movies.

    "Most people with families know that however much family members may fight amongst themselves, no outsider may attack one member of the family without attacking all."

    So if my brother-in-law molests his neighbor's daughter, or drives drunk and runs over a kid on a bicycle, I should consider an attack on him from outside the family an attack on me, and defend him? Are you Hatfied or McCoy? Or do you really believe this drivel? This might be a good attitude for a tribe of superstitious primitives, but it's downright pathological in an ostensiblly civilized constitutional republic.

    "If you feel more closely aligned with our enemies, please go live with them and see just how much you are allowed to protest there."

    This childish attitude about dissent was passé in the 60's, when it was far more eloquently expressed as "love it or leave it." It means: I can repeat mindless slogans as I've been told, but I have nothing intelligent to say of my own.

    Try thinking for yourself instead of repeating idiotic cliches.

  • 29 - The Damned Yankee

    Mar 18, 2003 at 9:33 pm

    This whole Dixie Chicks thing seems like yet another tempest in a teapot for the Right to start beating on their chests and loudly proclaiming their undying love for the President of the United States (aside: How come Clinton was never cut this kind of slack when he bombed Sudan and Afghanistan?). I mean, let's get serious, here. Is Natalie Maines' one off-the-cuff comment that much worse than anything said by Jay Leno, David Letterman, or the cast of Saturday Night Live, all of whom have taken any number of shots at the President in the past? And yet, nobody is demanding that Tina Fey be tried for treason.

    Get some perspective, people.

  • 30 - Aimee

    Mar 19, 2003 at 8:41 am

    If you think that anyone is supporting the Dixie Chicks just look at ebay. You can get any concert ticket you want, anywhere you want. You can also buy a "Piss On" the Dixie Chicks sticker for your car. I think that will be a hot seller.

  • 31 - david

    Mar 19, 2003 at 12:48 pm

    The logic of the argument in the post below is typical of the misrepresentation by liberals of conservative arguements :

    "So if my brother-in-law molests his neighbor's daughter, or drives drunk and runs over a kid on a bicycle, I should consider an attack on him from outside the family an attack on me, and defend him? Are you Hatfied or McCoy? Or do you really believe this drivel? This might be a good attitude for a tribe of superstitious primitives, but it's downright pathological in an ostensiblly civilized constitutional republic."

    Using the same metaphor, the real point is if you join with, or condone, someone from outside your family attacking a family member, you then align yourself with the outsiders reason for the attack. In this case, it means you believe all the nonsense about war for oil, and believe that the President is wrong to act upon his belief that Iraq is a threat that must be confronted, and you believe Saddam should remain in power come what may, which is what the outsiders are preaching, among other more outlandish things. The Dixie Chick aligned herself with a point of view that the majority of Americans disagree with, and in fact find offensive, thus the backlash. If she had said the same thing in the context of a worldwide debate over tax policy, she would not have gotten the same reaction, because the reasoning behind the attack would not be as disapproved of. I.e., in the same over simplified nature of the above post if someone attacks your brother physically because he took your candy, you may very well rise to his defense, as you don't consider the provocation merits the attack, however in the delibrately extreme case given above, most people would not defend the brother.



  • 32 - Marc

    Mar 20, 2003 at 9:32 am

    Regarding the Dixie Chicks... What natalie said was insulting. Being famous does not mean that your opinion is more important than others yet I am amazed at the number of people in hollywood (and now 1 small corner of the country music industry) that seem to think it is. I, personally am not part of any "group" or "organization" but simply an American who was insulted by her statement. I have lost any and all respect for her and could care less what they do from now on.......no apology neccessary. The damage has been done.

    I also think the conspiracy thing listed above is a load of crap.

  • 33 - Gene

    Mar 20, 2003 at 1:33 pm

    I pay alot of money to hear a groups music not their political position. Stick to the music only and keep your opinions to yourself.

  • 34 - LindaSoG

    Mar 20, 2003 at 11:05 pm

    FACT:

    More Americans support the Troops then don't support the troops. As hollywood and nashville will find out, when they mouth off thinking that the majority is with them.

    Dixie Chick found out!

    Support the troops.

    Everything you treasure here in the United States you have because of our Military. Someone's son died for your right to wake up and have a cup of coffee, trim your nails, wash your hair, have children, go to beach, eat, walk, sing and worship the G-d of your understanding.

    LindaSOG

  • 35 - Saira

    Mar 23, 2003 at 11:46 pm

    It's been said before, but the same 1st Amendment right that allows the Dixie Chicks to say they hate the President is the same 1st Amendment right that gives people the right not to support them.
    Now, well I'm no republican I support the troops in Iraq and President Bush. How many more people does Saddam need to butcher before the left will want him removed? That being said I have a question for the conservatives. How come it's okay to insult Clinton and not to do the same for Bush? I'm not asking this to be offensive, I just would like an answer.

  • 36 - Heather

    Mar 25, 2003 at 5:46 pm

    It just seems funny to me that musicians, such a Toby Keith can release "Courtesy Of The Red White and Blue" which makes reference to "Putting a boot up their ass." And as the news is stating the death tole of the Iragi people: Woman, the elderly, children and babies are getting that boot up their ass, as Toby Keith so proudly sings. THAT is something to be up in arms about! Not whether the Dixie Chicks like Bush or support this war. They support life and I support them!

  • 37 - Roger Dobson

    Mar 25, 2003 at 6:50 pm

    WHere was Natalie when Saddam was gassing over 5,000 of his own people, if she is so concerned about Iraqi life. She has left her Texas roots and traded them for the left wing radical "Girls Gone Wild" party life style, which does'nt make good Mommy material. Now, who is the shame on?

  • 38 - Ash Plissken

    Mar 25, 2003 at 7:04 pm

    Um... there are women, elderly, and babies fighting against our troops in Iraq? The boot-asses to whom Mr. Keith is referring are those who are actively fighting against the ideals of liberty, not the civilian casualties with whom they intentionally shield themselves.

  • 39 - Tina

    Mar 25, 2003 at 11:44 pm

    This is directed to Heathers comment.....Just think about this..... what about the men,women, and children....who 'got a boot up their ass' and died on Sept 11th. And think about all the babies who don't have a mother or father, because of it.

  • 40 - Heather

    Mar 26, 2003 at 6:33 pm

    In response to Ash: Are you that naive to think that the ONLY civilans that are being killed are the ones that are being used as shields? This from BBC: "US raid 'may have caused deaths'
    Coalition forces say air strikes on Baghdad may have resulted in civilian deaths after 14 were killed in a residential area of the city." We're NOT just bombing, as you stated, civilian casualties with whom they intentionally shield themselves. And if that's what you believe, you're lying to yourself. We are bombing their cities, homes, killing their family members. This is not a war to liberate the Iragi people. "Kill them to liberate them" Doesn't make much sense. This is a war for oil.

    And to Tina: Yes, Tina those children of September 11th lost their Mothers and Father. But Irag had NOTHING to do with that. Find me one article says it did. And as they say, this war is to prevent further attacks to the U.S. and destroy their weapons of mass destruction, then why aren't we going after Japan? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE OIL! Don't just rely on government owned news stations to give you the "facts." Do your research and come to your own conclusion. You'll be amazed at what you'll find.
    What makes an American life more important than an Iragi one. September 11th shouldn't have happened and neither should this war. An eye for and eye, seems to be the what American's feel is justice. Yes, remember September 11th, how it felt, how many we lost...that is EXACTLY what's going on in Iragi right now. Lives are being lost. If this war was happening on Amaerican soil, this country would be feeling a whole lot different about it!






  • 41 - Don

    Mar 27, 2003 at 9:46 pm

    "WHere was Natalie when Saddam was gassing over 5,000 of his own people, if she is so concerned about Iraqi life." (In grade school, I'm guessing)

    Ask instead "Where was Rumsfeld?". He was shaking hands with Hussein and promising him our undying support. We sold him the chemicals to make the poison. We sold him the helicopters to deliver the poison. We (the US govt) supported him before, during, and after the gassing. Who's evil?

  • 42 - Heather

    Mar 28, 2003 at 4:12 pm

    RIGHT ON, DON!!!!


    "WHere was Natalie when Saddam was gassing over 5,000 of his own people, if she is so concerned about Iraqi life."

    I would also like to comment on the above statement posted by Roger.

    Where were you?


  • 43 - PFC. M. Sprague

    Apr 07, 2003 at 1:34 pm

    What's A FReeper??? are they like the protestors that threw water baby dolls full of red food dye at my dad when he returned from Nam?? Or are they people who support our country or soldiers like me and freedom in General? Probably neither..probably just another group pushing it's agenda and thinking it is right ..or left if you will.. The Chicks can say what they want about things; but like my Dad always said if you say something be prepared for the shit that comes back and don't cry about it and blame someone else..and above all never apologize for it..you beleived enough to say it..stand by it.. or just don't say it. Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom to think first...that is supposedly a given that occurred before you opened your lips. It was just something probably targeted to the French..designed to endear them to the French popular opinion and sell more tickets and records...a live commercial if you will..never intended for the folks back home. After all music is a business and business above all must sell to it's market. If your looking for artists who won't sacrifice beliefs for profit go to a starving artists art auction, they are among the few who are left.

  • 44 - Marty

    Apr 09, 2003 at 9:51 am

    Have we all gone mad? Maines is not a sophisticated diplomat. She made a relatively innocuous statement, even if overseas, that wouldn't make the smallest dent in President Bush's standing. Every president gets hammered in far stronger terms without his critics being blacklisted and reviled in such an unseemly way. We have seen the midgets like Charlie Daniels, but where are the level-headed moderates with some sense of decency and proportion? Where are those in the industry who will say: "Maines said a dumb thing off-the-cuff, but this exercise in overkill, this nastiness, intolerance for dissenting views and ruining of careers has got to stop." She apologized. She did not criticize our troops. Her comment was uttered before the war began. From the reaction, a reasonable person could conclude that she had called for the defeat of our country.

    Of course fans have every right to boycott, apply pressure, etc. and dj's and country stars have every right to bludgeon a dissenter who doesn't toe a particular line. Nobody disputes that. But where does this spirit of intimidation, lack of forgiveness, lack of generosity, this ice cold hardness come from? These 'patriots' who wrap themselves in the flag and work themselves and others up to fever pitch hysteria over such a minor incident are behaving in a most un-American way. These people who are among the first to accuse others of political correctness are themselves enforcing a political correctness and conformity of thought that is truly frightening. Is this the America our troops are fighting for? Let it go already. Marty

  • 45 - marty

    Apr 10, 2003 at 7:58 am

    I know I said that it's time to forget this incident, but I just did a little more reading about Charlie Daniels and his comrades. God bless Charlie Daniels! God bless Travis Tritt and the rest of the Thought Police! God Bless these Paragons of Political Correctness! Super Patriots! Natalie Maines’ comment had all the sting of a wet dishrag. To call it a pinprick would be an overstatement. President Bush does not need the likes of Charlie Daniels to defend him. I would bet that if President Bush were acquainted with this idiotic episode, he would have graciously accepted Maines’ apology. And if he were informed that Charlie Daniels and his pals were trying to destroy Maines for her comment, he would be shocked and embarrassed. With friends like Daniels, our President doesn’t need enemies.

    Any mature adult, of whatever political orientation, upon hearing Maines's comment would simply have reacted with a shrug of the shoulders and maybe a tiny wince before letting it go. But not Charlie Daniels! Stewing in his own bile, hateful, petty, he wants to destroy Natalie Maines. Step one inch over the line and that’s it. There are no second chances. Don’t waste your breath with an apology - it will be rejected out of hand. Boycott Lipton! Pulverize some cds! No, lets burn them! Better yet, let’s use both methods! Let’s get a rope, grab Maines and head for the nearest tree! Charlie Daniels! What a warmhearted, forgiving kind of guy! What magnanimity! What courage! What gallantry! What a hero! What a Patriot! What a Man!

  • 46 - marty

    Apr 11, 2003 at 8:42 am

    CORRECTION:
    The above comments about Charlie Daniels were based, in part, on a posting on another website that I can no longer find. The posting said (approvingly) that Daniels was writing to Lipton to protest the company’s sponsorship of the Dixie Chicks. There has been an organized campaign to get the company to drop the Chicks, but I am no longer sure if Daniels is a part of the effort. I do not know if Daniels is out to destroy Natalie Maines or not. It is not reassuring, however, that he has failed to disavow or criticize the efforts of fanatic talk show host Mike Gallagher to organize a concert in Greenville, S.C. to be held the same evening as a previously scheduled Dixie Chicks concert. The purpose, under the guise of raising money for military families (which could be held at another time), is to punish the Dixie Chicks and especially Natalie Maines for her politically incorrect comment, innocuous as it was. Gallagher has lined up the Marshall Tucker Band and according to press reports, the only reason Daniels and other big shots will not be there is due to scheduling conflicts. While I don’t know if Daniels wants to destroy Maines, you can substitute any number of names in place of Daniels in my earlier post and the point remains the same. Gallagher will do and so would the names of a number of country celebrities or fans.

    Charlie Daniels is a supreme hypocrite, and because of his willingness to exploit his celebrity and influence, contributes mightily to our nation’s political and moral malaise. As a celebrity, he climbs up on his soapbox to impugn the patriotism of other celebrities who climb up on their own soapboxes to espouse views with which he disagrees. While lamenting the political correctness of those on the left, he attempts to intimidate those who don’t adhere to his own brand of political correctness. I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but I wonder if Daniels criticized Tom Delay and Donald Rumsfeld when they went on TV to denounce not only the President, but also the prosecution of the war in the Balkans at a time when American pilots were risking their lives in the skies over Serbia. Being the hypocrite that he is, I doubt it.

    As far as I know I have never heard the music of the Dixie Chicks or Charlie Daniels. What drew me to the controversy was the gross overreaction to Maines’ comment, and this despite the fact that it was uttered in England. Far, far stronger comments have been leveled at every president who has served during war, while the war was underway. Maines mild remark was uttered before war had broken out. In particular, Clinton and FDR were savaged during wartime concerning prosecution of the war and the critics were not subjected, as far as I know, to such a brutal reaction as Maines has been. So I have tried to understand the hatred and vindictiveness that Maine’s remark has engendered. I have failed in this.

    I have always detested and argued against the political correctness and shallowness displayed by so many on the left. But I have concluded that the political correctness, shallowness, and fanaticism on the right at this time represent the greater danger to our nation. People of good will had better fight to strengthen the moderate, non-ideological center, where forgiveness, compassion, and respecting the views of others are attributes that are not frowned upon.

  • 47 - Malachi

    May 07, 2003 at 11:44 am

    Hey, I don't think the Chicks deserve all of this controversy over a little comment made about the way she feels. And neither does Toby Keith. What if every time you said something you felt, you got punished for it? That's NOT what America is about. Sure, there are plenty of poeple dying, but they are dying so we can have our freedoms, the first being freedom of speech. Toby Keith very effectively and proudly displayed his feelings about his country,as did Natalie Maines. To punish them for that would be un-American.It would be like punishing me for wearing this Dixie Chick shirt right now, or typing my feelings into this computer. I love my country. I support our troops. But I also support and love the Dixie Chicks, because they will always be the #1 trio in country music. If you have a problem with that, who cares? I am an american. I have the right to speak my mind.If you don't like that, Toby Keith, or the Dixie Chicks, MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY. I'm sure France would accept you with open arms. Au Revoir!
    Malachi

  • 48 - mugu

    Oct 27, 2003 at 7:55 pm

    am here pls keep offffffffffffff

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.