« no comment | Main | just saying »

Now get in the pit and try to love someone
(Song of the Day)

Kid Rock - Bawitdaba - mp3 Kid Rock - good enough to entertain the troops, but not good enough to be seen in public with. Here. And here. Eh, if the Concerned Women for America and AFA are against it, I'm for it. ----- Update; Speaking of downloads, there's a new song annotation here.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Now get in the pit and try to love someone
(Song of the Day)

» What would Grandma Mildred say? from Darleen's Place
A rather dismissive and snarky "report" on the inaugural festivities can be found here, pointing out again how loathsome some "blue-state" anointed media find middle-America. Reading the "report" one can just sense the flared nostrils and arched eyebro... [Read More]

» Bonfires of the Kid Rock vanities.... from Smoking Gun
- Before anyone misunderstands the spirit of this post let me just say that Michelle Malkin is, and will continue to be, one of my personal favs in terms of journalistic excellrnce. That said, in regard to the "Kid Rock at the Inaugural" tempest in a t... [Read More]

» Kid Rock and 'South Park' Conservatives from Mr. Blonde's Garage
The fights still go on within the Republican party. Social conservatives are upset that Kid Rock has been invited to play at the President's inaugural gala, so much so that some are protesting his appearance. Kid Rock is one of the few well known Holl... [Read More]


I'm surprised I like that - thanks. And I'm with you. He's good enough for the USS COLE, he's good enough for Republicans.

I'm with ya,

I'm with ya too. I'd made some comments to the contrary (or just with ambiguity) on some other sites where this debate is raging...but I was only aware of some of his earlier stuff, apparently...

I'm with ya, too--totally.

I'm totally with you. The stuffed shirts can kiss my @ss. Hypocrites.

Damn straight...maybe these people are Twisted Sister fans? I am sure, unlike Ozzy, if he was asked not to swear he would not.

You might say that I agree. I took the slightly longer route to say so, though. ;)

I'm completely opposed to Kid Rock being anywhere near the inauguration. Have you read some of his lyrics? Check out this post:


Anyone who promises "I'll f*ck you blind leave you face down [in other words, dead!] in the ditch," is a sick b'tard that doesn’t deserve to get within a thousand miles of the inauguration.

He's loathsome; I don't want his stench associated with the Republican Party.

Yeah, he's one of "those." Maybe we should make him live in the barn?

I'll take Rock and his lyrics over this kind of elitism nonsense any day of the week. Check the bathroom, clark, because your shit stinks like everyone elses.

Yeah, he's one of "those."

If by that you mean he's a sewer-mouth worthy of disdain, oh yeah, you'd be right. ;-)

Elitist nonsense

It’s “elitist” and “nonsense” to reject KR and his disgusting lyrics? It’s a ludicrous charge, JimK, and completely divests your arguments of validity or force.

All in all, it’s pretty amazing the ire of KR supporters directed against those who take issue with the dreck coming out of KR’s mouth. You’re just fine with KR singing about leaving “[b*tches] face down in the ditch," but are outraged at those who condemn KR’s lyrics for the filth it is. I would suggest that your sympathies are seriously misplaced.

your shit stinks like everyone elses

That's right, but mine I flush; KR finger-paints with his in public. Deal wid’ it.

The above having been said, I'm really not interested in talking smack with KR supporters; KR is so not worth it.

I'm not a big fan of Kid Rock's music (full disclosure) but I do appreciate the fact that he entertained the troops, and I think he deserves praise for that.


"I'll take Rock and his lyrics over this kind of elitism nonsense..."

There is a difference between elitism and good taste, between a sense of propriety and a complete lack of it.

If Kerry had won, and Whoopie Goldberg had been invited to perform at the inauguration (even after agreeing to 'tone it down'} it would be inappropriate and sent a terrible message considering her vile diatribe during the election at a Kerry fundraiser.

Just because Kid Rock supported Bush and was supportive of the troops, does NOT mean he is appropriate for such an event. Just like a Kerry supporting, woman hating, gay-phobic guy like Eminen would not be at a Kerry inauguration (well, come to think of it...) Margaret Cho also was a Kerry supporter; should SHE have been invited to a Kerry inauguration? If you think so, try checking out her 'act'.

The bottom line is that there are appropriate forums for different acts. By inviting someone to perform, you are endorsing what they are and represent. Overall, Kid Rock may be a decent guy, and you support him performing for the President of the United States in front of the entire country and world.

Now, how many of you want him dating your daughter or siring your grandkids. Please reread ALL the guys lyrics before you answer. I rest my case.

Kid rock played at a similar function during the Republican Convention. The show was reportedly packed with young Republicans. No one complained then because votes were on the line. Now that the votes have been counted, the Evangalicals come in with their noses in the air and their Inquisition cattle prods at the ready. Johnny Cash wrote and sang lyrics of murder - would the prudery wing of the Republican party also want to "eradicate" him?

Second, its a myth that Bush won because of so-called "moral values" - those faulty exit polls have long been proven false - he won because we don't change horses during a war, a war that the entertainer has supported in word and deed.


Captain Wrath--I would suggest YOU read all his lyrics--and not just the three songs Michelle Malkin selected for you.

I am amazed how so many people are willing to define a person by a few old song lyrics. You have no idea what he's about. None whatsoever.

Lighten up people, he was invited to entertain the segment of republicans who enjoy his music--obviously not those who think the GOP should be a theocracy.

Okay, so you old folks don't quite understand Kid Rock, but I'll tell you this: kids listen to him, and they like him. We drink beers, too. Sometimes we even dance. Occasionally we have sex with members of the opposite sex, and some of us enjoy sex with members of the same sex. And we vote Republican. Odd, ain't it? It's a big tent party, whether you like it or not.

To those who are upset about Kid's being uninvited to a pre-inaugural bash: you're right, on one level. On a "political" level, I think this will make the CULT-ural bigots in the Southern Baptist Convention demographic happy, but I agree that it's not a good sign for the future of acceptance in the Republican party.

Oh well, it's late on a Saturday night, I should hit the hay.

"Captain Wrath--I would suggest YOU read all his lyrics--and not just the three songs Michelle Malkin selected for you."

By your reasoning, the fact that Whoopie has managed to say things that are NOT vile and loathsome at some point in her life makes her exempt from criticism for the things that were. The fact that Jerry Falwell does NOT always say things like homosexuality caused 9/11 makes it alright that he did so.

Look, I am not a fundamentlist Christian, a bible-thumper, or whatever epithet you want to use. I like my video games violent, my sex sexy and my humor can run to the raunchy and politically incorrect. However, there are times and places appropriate for all of these.

I do not play Grand Theft Auto Vice City with my young cousins, I do not view racy websites while at work, and I do not tell anal sex jokes to a pastor. Why? Not because I have a double standard or am a prude, but because there are appropriate places for different things.

I think BJ's are a good thing in general, but if I am in a public bar, and some chick starts going down on a guy RIGHT THERE (I swear to God I have seen this in Queens, NY, Bell Blvd), I have an issue with THAT! Does that make me a hypocrite? No, because blowjobs at home, or even a "private club" that encourages that is one thing, but doing it wherever you feel like? How about at a ballgame or Chuck E. Cheese?

You know, not evertything Michael Moore says makes him an A*hole, but enough of it does. Not everything Jessica Simpson says makes her a twit, but she is. Not everything Michael Savage spouts makes him a loud-mouthed jerk, but enough of it does.

There's a good example. Michael Savage was a big supporter of Bush for President this year. Should he get a speaking part in the festivities? And before you answer, don't just read the jerky things he said, but everything. its only fair, right?


Lemme see if I follow you. You enjoy things that some people consider vile and loathsome, but you are blessed with the good sense to recognize when and where to revel in it. I also suspect you don't define yourselve as a vile and loathsome person at heart simply because you have fun behind closed doors. The more public aspects of your life probably consist of admirable deeds, and you probably feel that your own presence at the inaugeration would or should be acceptable by mainstream Republicans.

If so, then why should Kid Rock be defined as vile and loathsome on the basis of three songs that are not representative of his work or his existence? I suspect he, like you, also has the good sense and taste to refrain from having his salad tossed on stage in front of Jenna and Barbara Bush.

The comparisons to Michael Moore and Whoopie Goldberg leave me mystified. They are vociferous Bush detractors, and obviously have nothing to add to a republican celebration. On the other hand, Kid Rock supports the administration and the troops, he has plenty to celebrate, and he obviously has some republican fans who deserve a break from the gospel-laced white bread pap of Pat Boone, or the irritating country western crap.

Since he was already invited, I see no reason to rescind that invitation.


The references to Goldberg and Moore were to a hypothetical situation where Kerry had won. Sorry for any confusion if that was not clear. I thought it was, but...

Also, I did not say I considered Kid Rock vile and loathsome. I even said I thought that maybe he was a decent guy, and that he certainly deserved praise for what he did. What I have been saying was that I feel that him performing based on his act, or elements of his act, might not be appropriate for this event. I do not think it would be inappropriate for them to invite him as a guest, mind you. That way, you can acknowledge his efforts while not endorsing some of his sentiments.

What I find amazing is that for all this talk of "tolerance" being thrown at people here, there is an amazing amount of intolerance for our "no kid rock" viewpoint. We're either a religious bigot or a stuffed shirt or a theocrat. No chance that maybe we have some point here? Maybe we are even wrong, but does that mean its because we are intolerant?

If there is a big tent, guys, that means there are a bunch of different people in it. There are gonna be your religious, your reserved and culturally conservative. Instead of complaining so loudly that you are being pushed out, try looking at it like you are the ones doing the pushing. Just because someone has an issue with something does not make them a bigot or religious fanatic or a prude.

I'll give you an example. My cousins ARE what you call religious, or devout, or just a couple shades lighter than born-again. They are not prudes or stuffed shirts, but they won't let their kids read or watch Harry Potter because it involves Magic and Witchcraft and ultimately Satanism. I understand their concern regarding this, but I do not agree with them. I think the stories are harmless in this matter, but I respect their opinion about it. I do no consider them fanatics because of it, but I do no see the situation on the same way.

Can't we approach some these issues the same way?

If there is a big tent, guys, that means there are a bunch of different people in it. There are gonna be your religious, your reserved and culturally conservative.

Most of whom don't want to make room for those that don't fall into those categories but would like to hang out in the tent for other reasons.


Pithy, but your remark does not address my point regarding tolerance on all sides. Again, it is as if those who are more open to Kid Rock performing are the oppressed, and those that are against are the oppressors. Says who?

I am not saying get out of the tent to Kid Rock. The discussion here is about coming to a consensus on whether he goes on stage in the tent right now. Why can there be no argument over this? Why does it automatically devolve into a question of intolerance, and not disagreement of principle?

A big tent with a lot of people in it is going to get crowded. People are going to jostle on another, step on each others toes a bit, and some will get on the nerves of the other. The question is; is the basic respect for EVERYONE there? Respect, mind you, not acceptance.

Respect involves saying I think you are an individual worthy of being treated politely, cordially and with affinity, even when I disagree with you.

Acceptance is the ability to sign off on someone's viewpoint or lifestyle, or song lyrics saying, "I have no problem with that." People who believe in anything or never going to be able to accept everything. Think about it.

Let me give an example. I am a Christian by birth and practice (a little irregularly, heh). I know Christians, NOT born again, who think that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you ain't going to heaven. It does not matter if you are a good Muslim, or Buddhist. You also have to be a good Christian, mind you, but believing in Christ is what gets you in.
I've argued with their points, and I understand them; "Jesus says no one gets to the father except through me." S'okay. It would not be a religion if it did not ask belief in some basic tenets.
But, even though I am a Christian, I can't accept this. I find the logic of it mystifying. To me, a kind and just God would not send good people to purgatory just because they never heard of Christ or did not convert. Some people tell me I have to believe this, otherwise I am not a Christian. But, I can't believe it, and I don't, and I don't feel the lesser a Christian for it. But, I respect their view of it, even though I do not accept it. Maybe theyíre wrong, maybe I am. Maybe Vishnu will turn us all into snails in our next life. The point is, they have a right to believe and express what they want.
And, just so we all are aware, this kind of orthodoxy does not come from just the religious right, and we can see how the left can push just as hard.

My wife's friend is a feminist who believes woman should never stay at home, EVER. If you are a stay at home mom, she believes, you are limiting your potential and in a way are betraying all women and their struggles. Period. There is no discussion of the merits of staying home with kids here. She believes this as a hard and fast rule, no exceptions. I respect her viewpoint, but I donít accept it.

The people upset about Kid Rock have a viewpoint about his lyrics, old or not, and what an appearance by him would say about the acceptability of those lyrics and the view THEY express. You say it does not bother you. Fine. But it bothers them. Are they entitled to have a viewpoint? If so, then they can argue their point and exert pressure like everyone does in a democracy. If you donít accept their viewpoint, fine, but try to respect it. Just because they don't agree with you, does not mean they are pushing you out.

Tolerance on all sides....okay.

Kid Rock was set to perform at one inaugural event, at the behest of one of the Bush daughters. One. Not all of them, just one. Other performers would perform in different venues for attendees who enjoy different music. No one would be forced to listen to Kid Rock if they didn'tt like him.

Yet, instead of having tolerance for the simple fact that not all Republican voters want to hear the same thing, the soc-cons decide that they can, and should exclude a performer they don't even have to listen to---for our own good.

See a problem with that? I do. I decide what's for my own good--and the good of my kids. And I can keep tyhem away if I choose to--as can the soc-cons who are against Kid Rock's performance. But that's not good enough, they have to impose their opinions on everyone.


I don't recal why I singled you out in an earlier post, and I'm too lazy to scroll back to read it. What has become clear is that you are not the extremest I initially took you for. You and I merely disagree on the propriety of KR in the kids tent.

What set me off and apparently created a boulder on my shoulder were two fundamentalist Christians who posted on Michelle Malkin's site, and their posts were republished on Protein Wisdom. They apparently think religious extremism and republicanism are synonymous. Not only does one need to be Christian before they'll get an invitation to heaven, but also to join the republican party. These people felt Kid Rock did not deserve to label himself republican. The posts shocked me, and I momentarily questioned my party affiliation.

I was raised Christian, but I don't practice except to the extent that I try to lead a good life. I mention this only so I am not confused as one who would need to convert religions to gain acceptance of the zeaolots; I would merely need to find a bible and go to church to boost my hypocricy a couple notches.

To me, republicanism is not about religion, song lyrics or life style. To me, it usually means the better candidate to support smaller government, sensible fiscal policy, entrepreneurial capitalism, and national security. There is nothing about Kid Rock that infringes on those interests. Hell, as a guy who taught himself to play more musical instruments than most people can name, and who carved a niche for himself in hip hop despite his midwestern trailer trash persona, he fits the Horatio Alger model nicely.

As to your comments on oppressors vs. oppressees, we disagree. In my view, the holier-than-thou Christian Fundementalists who seek to prevent the Bush twins from presenting a fun and harmless show in the "kids tent" are being oppressive. They seek to limit the choice of entertainment, and to squelch the exchange of ideas they find repugnant. That is oppression.

Conversely, the presentation of Kid Rock agaisnt the wishes of the prudish right would not be oppression. Those who do not care for Kid Rock don't have to listen. They can step outside during the brief set, or go to another tent. Is that unfair? The youth have been doing this for decades to avoid Pat Boone and the country acts that infest republican gatherings.