August 10, 2005, - 1:41 pm

Won’t “Start Me Up”: Tell the NFL to Drop the Rolling Stones

By Debbie Schlussel
As I first reported , weeks ago (later reported on Drudge–yesterday), the Rolling Stones have a song on their new album, entitled “Sweet Neo-con,” which attacks President Bush, Christians, America, and the war in Iraq.
That’s bad enough.
But now, the NFL plans to feature the Stones in their NFL Monday Night broadcasts, this season. As reported, yesterday, by my friend, Detroit Free Press rock critic Brian McCollum (the only conservative rock critic for a major American newspaper), the NFL plans a whole season joint venture with the Stones.
Big mistake.
McCollum reports the NFL will do a season-long promo campaign with the Stones and, likely, feature the anti-American band in the Super Bowl halftime show in Detroit. The NFL will also feature the Stones in a September 8th kick-off show on ABC.

Big lips, the official new symbol of America-haters (licking the rears of our enemies)

In case the NFL didn’t notice, Bush got re-elected, and more than half the country voted for him. Regardless of the political views of NFL and ABC Sports execs, featuring the Stones–just after they will have released a left-wing diatribe set to music–isn’t just bad politics. It’s bad business.
Red Staters are big football fans. Why upset them? And why feature a band that now disdains the country off of whom it made its fortune–America? No country fan am I, but I vote for Toby Keith, instead.
I love pro football, but it’s a good thing there were no televised NFL games and no Rolling Stones during WWII. Imagine our troops in Iraq, viewing the Superbowl in their tents, having to watch these British old-fogies–who denounce our soldiers’ efforts in “Sweet Neo-con”–strumming in air-conditioned, lip-synch comfort. Big lips sink American ships.
Tell the NFL to drop the Rolling Stones. They gather no moss.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses

As Rush noted today on his show, the last few times the Stones announced yet another world tour, the media ridiculed them as old, wrinkled, over-the-hill, near-recipients for Social Security, etc. Now, with this new Bush-hating, America-bashing scheme, they’ve become the new darlings of the media. Watch for the ever-glowing coverage these SOB’s will get from now on.
BTW, music was banned under the Taliban’s Islamic rule in Afghanistan. Just as taking drugs and boozing is banned in all Islamic societies. Gee, I wonder how the Stones would fare if they were forced to live under a repressive, intolerant Islamic world.
Finally, what does Jagger & Co. have to say about Tony Blair? Isn’t Britain an ally of ours in the War on Terrorism? I have to go with Rush on this one.

Thee_Bruno on August 10, 2005 at 3:34 pm

Bruno is right. The Stones have been “has-beens” for over three decades, which must be a record even Spinal Tap can’t match.
Liver Lips must be desperate to sell CDs and keep his name in the papers. Although he is still popular with the Left over Altamont crowd.

Grant on August 10, 2005 at 7:48 pm

I don’t know what it is with football and bad music, especially the NFL. I’m surprised they didn’t try to get Ashlee Simpson, guess her lip synch machine thingy was broken or she had a relapse of acid reflux. Their Super Bowl music is usually terrible.
Pop/rock music doesn’t exist these days. The only one I would like to see is Kelly Clarkson, who surprisingly put out a good record. Or, Beyonce’ or Gwen Stefani.
How about the return of Up with People?

The_Man on August 10, 2005 at 9:13 pm

Sorry to post again so soon, but I just saw on Drudge grandpa Jagger says the song is not about President Bush. He’s either a coward or liar.
Here’s a line from the article linked from Drudge, “It’s liberty for all, democracy’s our style, unless you are against us, then it’s prison without trial.”
Let’s see, the song is title “Sweet Neo-Con”, contains that line, and it’s not about Bush? Uh huh, righ-h-h-ht. Take your Geritol, grandpa Mick, and I am glad the Altzheimers didn’t keep you from touring yet again.

The_Man on August 10, 2005 at 10:02 pm

Mick is backpeddling pretty quickly.
Somewhere, one of the Stone’s financial handlers probably said:
“OK, your idiotic political/song rant just isolated a large percentage of your fan base. Compound that with the fact that you’re now a “nostalgia band” with a combined age of over 1000, and we have a demographic target audience that’s hard to define… Leftist Bush-bashers over age 60. Mick, for cryin’ out loud, say it’s not about President Bush and stick to “Satisfaction” for cripes sake!”

SonOfTheGodfather on August 11, 2005 at 5:13 am

I once saw former Detroit Lion quarterback Bobby Layne throw a hundred dollar bill on the piano at
Baker’s Keyboard Lounge in Detroit,with a request
for the great jazz guitarist,Kenny Burrell to
play “Take the A Train.”He may have been drinking,but I don’t think he’d have done that for
the Stones-and who needs crappy lyrics,anyway?

jaywilton on August 11, 2005 at 10:06 am

My biggest question is why you right-wingers are throwing such a fit about the Rolling Stones when Green Day has been included in the NFL’s promotions as well. Did you catch the title of their last album? Assuming the answer is no, it is called “American Idiot.” It really has some brilliant lyrics. I recommend you check it out sometime. There are also a number of glaring errors in your article Iíd like to point out for you.
1. Having actually read the lyrics to the Rolling Stones song (as I imagine you and your readers did not), there is no attack on Christians or Americans. I would have been very impressed if you had made it through one whole sentence without lying.
2. Over half the country DID NOT vote for Bush. Approximately 60% of eligible voters voted in 2004. 51% of those voted for Bush. So we can say that about 30% of eligible voters voted for Bush. Of course, thatís assuming nothing ìfunnyî happened in the states with unaccountable and paperless voting machines (a big assumption.)
3. Something you conservatives often forget; Anti-Bush does not mean Anti-America!!!! I canít stand President Bush and his policies precisely because I love this country. I love everything it is supposed to stand for, which is the opposite of Bushís policies.
4. Most importantly, STOP TRYING TO SPEAK FOR THE TROOPS! You are not one of them and probably have no better concept of warfare than fighting in line for the next Venti Espresso double mocha coffee from Starbucks. You have exactly no right to try and prance upon their suffering and efforts to spread your hysteria and lies. The most disrespectful and disgraceful people to our troops are those that are willing to send them into harms way for poor reasons.
I only ran across this site while doing a search for the Rolling Stones story. I decided to email the NFL and tell them that, as a life long football fan, I would be extremely disappointed to see them pull the Rolling Stones because of right wing hysteria. Letís all watch them stand up for free speech and the right to dissent. Oh wait, Iím sorry, you people have no concept of how important those things are. Okay, Iíve wasted enough time on an Ann Coulter wanna-be nut such as yourself. Letís see if you can put a dissenting point of view on your site.

adam876 on August 11, 2005 at 9:02 pm

1. An attack on the President of the United States in a time of War emboldens our enemies and gets soldiers killed. If you were capable of actual reading (and comprehending), you would see that this leftist drivle is indeed an attack on Americans.
2. Even MORE than that DID NOT vote for John Kerry. That’s why George Bush is our President. Sucks to be you, huh?
3. I suppose you “support the troops, but not the war” too? Can’t have both, ignoramus – see #1
4. “STOP TRYING TO SPEAK FOR THE TROOPS!”… Good point. They are overwhelmingly in support of our President, but I’ll forward your request to the ditch outside the Crawford ranch, c/o Cindy Sheehan.

SonOfTheGodfather on August 15, 2005 at 5:30 am

1) How does disagreeing with our President get soldiers killed? Why is anyone who disagrees with the President referred to as “someone who can’t read”?
2) Actually, it sucks to be all of us. With Bush on control.
3) When someone says the “Support the Troops but not the war”. It simply means they don’t want what happened to our troops returning from Vietnam.
4) That wasn’t a slight attack on that poor woman whose child was killed, was it? SOTG, do you have children? I do…and if he were a soldier I would be proud of him and if he were killed in such a pointless conflict such as this…well I would be torn to pieces like Sheehan.

Cheezkid on August 16, 2005 at 2:47 pm

1) My point here was sloppy and ill-worded. Disagreement with the President is one thing. I disagree with certain policies myself, BUT, doing absolutely everything to undermine an administration in a time of war, solely for political purposes is not only treasonous, it DOES get folks killed. How many jumped on the bandwagon about the incorrect “desecrated Koran” Newsweek story? How many front pages of Abu Ghraib “panties on the head” story have you seen in comparison to stories about rebuiling Iraq’s infrastructure? Do you not agree that these types of things are used to fuel the insurgenct against our own soldiers? Or do you simply subscribe to the Michael Moore theory that the terrorists are merely “minutemen” fighting against an invasion?… Whichever you believe, the actions and agendas of current anti-Bush groups are causing people to die.
2) Sorry, I like being me. I am happy we are in Iraq (long overdue), and I am very proud of the current administrations actions as well as most of it’s policies.
3) What happened to our troops after Vietnam will not happen here. Different actions, different reasons, different time. When someone says “Support the troops but not the war”, it’s a cop out. You can not support the troops without supporting their actions. If you do not support the actions of our troops, by definition, you cannot claim to “support” them.
4) Cindy Sheehan is by no means simply a grieving mother. A little research will show anyone how much a leftist agenda she has (and had, even before her SON’S sacrifice). The fact that you state this is a “pointless conflict” pretty much ends our discussion though, doesn’t it. If you are so myopic that you are unable to see any view other than the doom-and-gloom visions of left-wing articles, it renders any debate moot. One more note – Casey Sheehan was a grown man, not a child. He was a soldier who volunteered for duty. He even volunteered for reenlistment. Finally, he volunteered for the final mission which resulted in his death. Casey Sheehan is a hero. Cindy Sheehan is a tool of the left.

SonOfTheGodfather on August 17, 2005 at 5:29 am

1. OK I agree with you on these issues. The media tend to go for stories that are negative. Of cousre I don’t subscribe to anything Michael Moore says. He’s just the other extreme to all of the propaganda out there.
2. Hey, I love being me too. I was completly for going into Iraq. Every day I waited for the discovery of WMD. That never happened. Nothing. And how long over due is this war in Iraq? Maybe since we stoped supplying them with weapons?
3. I’m pro military. I’ve always been and I always will. I’ve always been in favor of a large strong Armed Forces. I don’t agree with the war, but it’s not the individual soldiers choice to be there.
4. Once no WMD were located I became suspect of our reasons for our invasion of Iraq. What happened to bin Ladden? He was behind 9/11 and now he’s been put on the back burner. If by doom-and-gloom you mean thousands of men, women, and children dead and billions of dollars spent destroying and then rebuilding a country that had nothing to do with Osama bin Ladden…then I guess I do have a pretty narrow view of this war. And I suspect so do you.

Cheezkid on August 17, 2005 at 8:39 am

i would prefer that the government that sent soldiers as well as national guard units to war would actually “support the troops” with decent body armor so they don’t get blown to bits by daily insurgent bombs going off. i think it is more important that this imperialistic administration support the troops more than PUBLIC citizens or actors or musicians (who make you so angry) who have the right to any opinion they want you MORONS!! if you’re going to be a war hawk like cheney and rumsfeld you have to take the good with the bad. patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and it is easy to see that cause for a war is not good when you have to FORCE people to quiet their dissent because it bothers your love for your candidate. look, the insurgents are just waiting for a civil war. sadam was an ally of ours for nearly a decade. shouldn’t we know about the people he killed in the 80’s? sure, we did. we didn’t care then. they were expendable as they say. mostly because they were shiites or kurdish rebels that we didn’t really give a rat’s ass about anyway. plus they’re hardly angels if the truth be known. sometimes a country must be ruled by an iron fist. there’s simply too many factions of nutballs over there. not that we should have gotten involved up to our necks. i actually agree with pat buchanan on an issue like this. STAY out of all conflicts such as these. this is nothing but a DEBACLE. i’m sorry our troops are over there but when you join the military, you never know what draft dodging war hawk with a vendetta for his daddy is going to be in office to send yo ya to GOD knows where. or his so called VP who is waiting for the rebuilding contracts to go out so he can make a few billion dollars for his company. is this what you call supporting the troops?? sending them over there for crap like this??? then i say i will support the troops after i get my hands on some real cash and invest in Halliburton. I’ll support them til we rebuild that stinking god forsaken hell hole of a country.

idiotbush on August 17, 2005 at 2:01 pm

To quote SOTG, “doing absolutely everything to undermine an administration in a time of war, solely for political purposes is not only treasonous, it DOES get folks killed.” How are most of those on the left doing that? Unless you’re physically attacking our troops/government or funding those that do, you’re not doing that. It’s a giant stretch to go from vocally disagreeing with government policies to treason. So quit the scare tactics.
True, the media has shown more of the negatives in Iraq than positive. That’s true for everything. The media will always show more bad than good. It doesn’t matter if it’s a war, politics at home, or infrastucture issues locally. Bad news always gets more viewers than good. Unfortunatly, ratings mean much more to them than journalistic integrity or presenting an honest portrayal of things.
You say that what happened in Vietnam will not happen in Iraq. I hope you’re right, but can not share your blind faith in that. Let’s not forget that a big reason Vietnam ended when it did was because of a lack of support at home. Maybe you could consider that supporting the troops while disagreeing with the war actually helped save the lives of countless soldiers in that case. I think that’s a lot more supportive of the troops than slapping some magnet on your car (none of the $ of which goes to the troops, by the way.)
So what if Cindy Sheehan had a leftist ideology before her son was killed? Why does that invalidate what she’s doing? If you had a personal tragedy which emboldened your views and drove you to action, would that lessen the importance of what you’d be doing?
Finally, I’m not going to call the war in Iraq pointless. There are many reasons, most of which I strongly disagree with. What reason makes it worth it for the deaths of tens of thousands of people? It is unlikely at best that there were WMD’s. So why are we there? To liberate the Iraqi people? Bull. It’s a nice side effect for this administration. We don’t care enough about the Iraqi’s to even bother to try and keep track of how many have died in this war. We didn’t care in the early 80’s while Saddam was gassing his own people. Are we trying to rid the world of despots and tyrants? It sounds great, but there’s literally dozens of them. We don’t have the resources to even attempt such a thing. We could stop supporting some of them however. The problem is that if a tyrant’s foreign policy favors America, than we look the other way when atrocities are commited within their own borders. Saddam was a menace and it’s better not having him in power, true. But, the same things could be said for China’s rulers, but we’re not about to go in there for many obvious reasons. So is the argument that might makes right? And SOTG, please try and respond without personal attacks. It only serves to weaken and undermine your arguments.

adam876 on August 17, 2005 at 9:56 pm

I’m so sick of the conservative garbage. Who cares what the Stones think about George Bush ?
It’s better than what I think when I pay $60.00 to fill up my gas tank. I thought that we lived in a free county with freedom of speech and the press. Normally, I do veer with democrats, but our biggest problem is that EVERYONE is leaning to far from each other and noone is in the middle. It’s now Right versus Left with noone willing to compromise. We really are all to blame. Also, a sidenote. If the Rolling Stones are ‘has beens’, then why do they continue to sell out huige stadiums ? People, try to use your judgement correctly. A ‘has been’ is not someone who rakes in millions in a day. You don’t have to like them, but ridiculing the most popular band of the year as unpopular is only idiotic.

timg101 on September 1, 2005 at 12:18 pm

P.S. I believe that I spelled ‘judgment’ wrong. One penalty for not previewing my note. Oh well.

timg101 on September 1, 2005 at 12:20 pm

P.S.S. My response is to old news. I have since read what has been scripted between ‘Won’t “Start Me Up”: Tell the NFL to Drop the Rolling Stones’ and today. I don’t have a right to comment on the war. I would not have voted us into it, but we can’t really cower out. It is unfortunate, but I feel all that I can do is show up on election day. I do for all of them.

timg101 on September 1, 2005 at 12:31 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field