Video of Letterman Apology and Webcam Image of Anti-Letterman Protest Rally


Here is the actual video of David Letterman’s apology to Sarah Palin and her family on last night’s show. Palin later accepted the apology. Unfortunately many Palin supporters have not accepted the apology and still plan protests against Letterman.

We also have the first pictures of the leaders of the anti-Letterman marches being held outside the Ed Sullivan Theater:

Nazi march

Update: Reuters reports on the anti-Letterman protests (emphasis mine):

Still, more than a dozen protesters held up banners outside Letterman’s Times Square studio as Tuesday’s show was being taped, but they were outnumbered by spectators and media.

Sounds like they are having trouble getting attention from anyone other than a handful of right wing kooks.

Update 2: The New York Daily News places the count at about fifty. MTV estimates three dozen. CNN says there were fifteen protesters.

Searching around the web I also found another comment worth quoting which I had missed in my earlier round ups. Kate Harding writes that Letterman and Palin are both jerks, but she felt compelled to defend Letterman (as I did) because he was the target of false accusations which went way beyond what he actually said. After summarizing what Letterman said and the distortions spread by Palin, Harding wrote:

She and her daughters do not deserve sexist attacks any more than Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem or your mom do, and she’s absolutely right that what Letterman said was out of line and indefensible. She’s absolutely right that jokes like that contribute to an oppressive culture for women and young girls. But on this rare occasion when she’s absolutely right about a couple of things, she can’t just stop there. She has to blow straight past reasonable outrage and into disingenuous, over-the-top accusations.

Earlier this week, a Palin spokesperson said in a statement, “It would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman.” When Lauer asked her about that, she said, “Hey, take it however you want to take it.” OK, here’s how I take it: You’re implying that Letterman’s a pedophile. Nice. See also: calling the jokes “sexually perverted,” which they weren’t, instead of “sexist and tasteless,” which they were. So now here I am, inspired to defend Letterman from spurious attacks on his character, when I should be reinforcing the accurate attacks on his character in response to his spurious and sexist attacks on yours and your oldest daughter’s. Why do you torment me so, Sarah Palin? Letterman said unequivocally offensive things, and he deserves to be condemned for them. But now, so have you, which complicates the matter of defending you as a fellow woman. Don’t get me wrong; I will always denounce anyone who calls you a slut, or any other misogynistic slur. You don’t deserve it, and that crap hurts all women. But if someone wants to call you a liar and a loon? You’re on your own, lady.


  1. 1
    Ethos says:

    I still can’t get over how many important things there are out there to be discussing (Iran, health care, Sotomayor, etc) and this item is still dominating the news.
    I’ll give Palin credit for being very adept at manipulating both the media and her base supporters’ negative feelings toward the media generally.

  2. 2
    Brent says:

    I love your webcam of the protest. I hear there were also a number of people there wearing white sheets.
    You might like this commentary:

  3. 3
    Christoher Skyi says:

    Meanwhile, south of the bible belt, comes something from a GOP member what’s unarguably in bad taste. Let’s see if prominent  right wing voices get upset about this, as they should (and some are):  Sherri Goforth, should be fired. In the private sector, she would already be fired:
    Sen Diane Black’s (R-Gallatin) legislative aid circulates racist email

  4. 4
    sauerkraut says:

    If any of the Letterman protesters were intelligent, I’d be afraid.  Really afraid.  What was up with that head bobber?  And the woman in yellow…   nice southern accent from the other.   Idiots.  All of them.  None of them read Shannyn Moore’s Top 10 list of when Palin didn’t object to similar (or worse) jokes prior to getting her face on yet another television program.
    That desire for attention appears to be what’s driving her words.  And is what drives the idiots like John Ziegler to have these poor excuses for protests.  It’s not the underlying issue but the quest for attention.   Maybe Sarah Palin’s mother spanked her too often as a child.  Or too much.   Whichever, she needs to get back to actually being a governor of a state instead of creating these contrived controversies.

  5. 5
    Mike says:

    I love that Kate Harding comment Ron. I feel like I’m constantly having to agree with opponents of my beliefs when it comes to wrong actions taken by people that voice some of my same beliefs. Of course this is what I always want to see in opposition, so maybe it is a good thing. Example, if and when any person claiming to be Muslim does something horrific, I want to see other Muslims speak out against it more than I want to see opponents of Muslims speak out against it.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    “That desire for attention appears to be what’s driving her words.”

    Sure. Palin saw an opening to get some publicity and took advantage. I can’t believe she was unaware of the even worse jokes told by others. The timing just turned out to be right. McCain’s people wouldn’t put up with a distraction over a Dan Quayle-like attack on a comedian during the campaign. Now Palin needs something to keep her in the news.

    What I don’t think she realized at first is that this only fired up the base who already supports her, while making her look even more petty and foolish to everyone else. At least she was smart enough to know when she held a weak hand and folded (by accepting the second apology) even if her nutty supporters do not realize they have lost.

  7. 7
    Mike says:

    Also I’ve seen another “Mike” post on this blog, nothing wrong with that. But perhaps I should come up with a more distinctive name to avoid confusion. I’m thinking “Mike the flaming conservative” but am undecided.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    There have been a number of comments from people named Mike. Besides the posted comments, Mike seems to be a common name picked by people who send anonymous hate comments. Some might be named Mike but for some reason the name comes up very frequently. There have also been a number of comments from people signed Mike which include an email address which has a different first name in it. Perhaps they are sharing an email account but it also makes me wonder if they are signing their comments with a fake name.

  9. 9
    Christoher Skyi says:

    “I still can’t get over how many important things there are out there to be discussing (Iran, health care, Sotomayor, etc) and this item is still dominating the news.”
    I have to agree — at this point, these protests against DL are much ado about nothing, and the Constitution allows — in fact — encourages this kind of expression: its what help keep civil society “civil” rather than have things boil over into open violence.  Without this kind of open expression, we’d have a much more violent society.
    The protests are what is so new (historically) in the world and across the world today (e.g., look at Iran).  In short, they are a celebration of freedom. I don’t think the Nazi images are an appropriate or accurate comment on what they’re doing and it’s true political meaning.
    If anyone here what’s to see what real potential American Nazism is, what is the greatest threat to our freedom, check out this headline from May 2001:
    U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
    Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

    It’s ironic these documents came to light a few months before 9/11. I don’t believe there was a 9/11 conspiracy, but I do have more sympathy for those who do believe this — there were those in our government who were not above using False flag terrorism to achieve political ends — from the ABC news report:
    “In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
    Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
    America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
    Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America’s largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
    The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
    “These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ”
    A few days ago, Obama has admitted that the U.S. was involved in the Iranian coup in 1953, and direct intervention into sovereign county’s “democratic” processes.  No wonder they hate us — don’t trust us.
    The greatest threat to freedom in America? DL protesters?  Right-wing extremest groups? No, the greatest threat to freedom in America was, is, and always will be — by far — our own government.
    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
    ~ George Washington

  10. 10
    Christoher Skyi says:

    Here’s a couple of the relevant books by investigative reporter James Bamford– they make for a depressing, sickening, and frightening read:
    Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency
    The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:


    Nobody denies the right of people to criticize or protest against Letterman. The point is that the goal of those attacking Letterman, who began this well before last week’s jokes, is to silence anyone who criticizes people like Palin or the agenda of the far right. Letterman is just their current topic as they desire to silence anyone who disagrees with them. They are waging an assult on freedom of speech. While there may be  even worse cases of analogies to Nazis, the analogy in their case is also significant.

  12. 12
    Christoher Skyi says:

    “to silence anyone who criticizes people like Palin”
    be careful not to confuse expression and disagreement with an overt attempt to silence someone.  Sure, they want him fired, but that’s they’re opinion, nothing more.
    One of the difficult things about speaking up, loud and clear, is that you attract attention, and people know where you stand — that’s the goal and purpose of speaking up. It’s uncomfortable because people can disagree with you, get mad at you.  In American, in the human condition, you can either ran from that or decide to take a stand anyway.  A lot of people keep their opinions to themselves because they don’t like the exposure or confrontation. But you shouldn’t blame the exposure or confrontation  for their decision to hide.
    They  silenced themselves, out of fear.
    DL is not a victim — this is what happen when you voice your opinion loud and clear. You can’t expect applause and flowers. It takes courage to speak up.  To paint the protesters as Nazi’s isn’t appropriate because you’re focused on the wrong thing.  Other people’s opinion and expression is the challenge you need to step up to. The Constitution gives you the right to step up — it doesn’t protect you from the consequences (unless the consequences are violent).
    There is nothing wrong or inappropriate or dangerous in those protest.

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    “be careful not to confuse expression and disagreement with an overt attempt to silence someone. ”

    This is a clear attempt to silence him. Their goal, which began well before the jokes, was to get him off the air. Team Palin and others have made this very clear on their sites. They are using tactics such as intentionally distorting what he has said. While nobody would question their right to speak out or protest, these people are acting inappropriately and these people (if there were more of them to matter) would be dangerous. They are not offering any real disagreement over issues here–just trying to silence opposition.

1 Trackbacks

Leave a comment