Whoopi Goldberg Slams Mike Johnson’s Sh0cking ‘Tar and Feather’ Comment Amid Minnesota Attack

The rhetoric of political discourse in America has reached a boiling point, and tensions are becoming impossible to ignore. On a recent episode of The View, Whoopi Goldberg didn’t hold back as she called out House Speaker Mike Johnson for his controversial remarks about the potential for violence against Democratic leaders.

Goldberg’s scathing rebuke came in the wake of a disturbing attack on Minnesota lawmakers that left Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband dead and State Senator John Hoffman and his wife lucky to survive an attempted murder.

The attacks were immediately recognized as politically motivated, and Goldberg was quick to tie the violent rhetoric from figures like Johnson to the growing political extremism that appears to have inspired such horrifying actions.

On the Monday episode of The View, the hosts discussed the chilling details of the attacks on the Minnesota lawmakers. Goldberg, along with her co-hosts, expressed outrage that such violence could be tied to political disagreements in the first place, saying that no matter the political party, any attack on lawmakers should be condemned.

Yet, it was when Goldberg brought up Johnson’s inflammatory comments that the conversation took a sharp turn. Goldberg specifically shamed Johnson for his call for the "tar and feathering" of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom just the week before.

“I’m not gonna pull my punches here. Last week, when that ‘tar and feather’ — you know, it’s like ‘What are you doing?’” Goldberg began, her voice filled with disgust.

"You always say ‘Oh, we’ve got to come down on the rhetoric, stop doing it,’ and then you don’t!” Goldberg’s comment was a direct response to Johnson’s previous remark, which many perceived as promoting violence against political opponents. 

The phrase "tar and feather" itself is a historically violent term, conjuring images of public humiliation and punishment, often associated with mob justice, and it was deeply disturbing to see such language emerge from a sitting House Speaker.

Goldberg’s frustration was clear as she pointed out the hypocrisy of Johnson’s rhetoric, condemning violence while simultaneously making statements that seem to incite it.

Goldberg’s response was not just an indictment of Johnson's words, but also a broader critique of the political environment in which they were spoken. "So, I’m putting this in your hands," she continued, speaking directly to those in power.

"I’m putting this in the hands of the people who are supposed to be representing us. If you’re not gonna represent us, then don’t run for office, because this is not the way to do it."

Her remarks were aimed squarely at those in political leadership positions who, according to Goldberg, are contributing to the problem by failing to curb dangerous rhetoric that fuels violence.

The situation became even more alarming when news of the shootings of Minnesota lawmakers came to light. The attacker, later identified as 57-year-old Vance Luther Boelter, was arrested by police on Sunday.

Authorities found Boelter to be wearing a vest, taser, and a badge when he entered the homes of the politicians, making it appear as though he was a police officer.

This further raised suspicions that the shootings were politically motivated, which was confirmed when Boelter’s voting record showed he had voted for former President Donald Trump.

The brutal attack has since been linked to political extremism, with the suspect’s actions appearing to be in response to the political divide in America.

Following the arrest, Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley commented, “No question, if they were in this room, you would assume they were a police officer,” underscoring the cold, calculated nature of the attack.

Boelter’s apparent disguise as a police officer added an extra layer of shock and horror to the situation, as it painted the picture of a carefully planned assassination attempt.

The political motives behind the attack were evident, and it didn’t take long for the public to draw connections between the violent acts and the inflammatory rhetoric that has come from certain political figures in recent years.

Goldberg’s comments echoed this concern, highlighting the dangerous precedent set by leaders who make incendiary remarks without considering the consequences.

The attack on the Minnesota lawmakers was a tragic example of how words can fuel actions, especially in an environment where political discourse has become increasingly polarized and violent.

Goldberg’s frustration was not just directed at Johnson’s words but also at the broader culture of political violence that seems to have been nurtured by years of escalating rhetoric.

The notion that political leaders could call for the "tar and feathering" of opponents is a clear sign that the discourse has gone too far. When such remarks come from high-ranking officials, it sends a message that violence against political opponents is not only acceptable but almost encouraged.

Goldberg’s powerful call for accountability is a plea for those in power to be more responsible with their words and actions, understanding that rhetoric can have deadly consequences.

The attack on Minnesota lawmakers isn’t an isolated incident, as political violence has been on the rise in the United States in recent years. From the January 6 Capitol riot to the numerous threats against politicians, the nation has witnessed firsthand the dangerous consequences of unchecked political extremism.

As Goldberg pointed out, any politician who fails to condemn such rhetoric and action is complicit in the problem.

In response to Goldberg’s remarks, Johnson has not backed down from his earlier statements. He has defended his comment, insisting that it was a metaphor and not an incitement to violence.

However, many in the political world have criticized his defense, pointing to the fact that using such charged language in today’s climate only serves to escalate tensions. 

Johnson’s comment about "tar and feathering" was made during a public discussion about Democratic leadership, specifically Governor Gavin Newsom, in which Johnson expressed frustration with the Democratic governor’s policies. But the context of such remarks, especially when delivered by a public figure with significant influence, cannot be overlooked.

As tensions continue to rise, both Goldberg and many others are calling for a shift in the political culture. "We need to stop this madness," Goldberg said in the wake of the Minnesota shootings, urging both political parties to come together and reject the kind of violent rhetoric that has plagued American politics.

She called for a more civil discourse and for leaders to take responsibility for their words and actions. For Goldberg, this is not just about condemning the violence, but also about recognizing the role that inflammatory language plays in enabling it.

The tragic events in Minnesota serve as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked political rhetoric. With each passing day, the divide between political factions deepens, and the risks associated with that division continue to mount.

Leaders like Mike Johnson, who hold positions of power, must recognize that their words matter and that they have a responsibility to create an environment where debate and disagreement can occur without resorting to violence or incitement.

In the coming days, the fallout from Johnson’s comments will continue to ripple through the political landscape. As more details emerge about the Minnesota shootings and the motivations behind them, the conversation around political violence will only intensify.

Goldberg’s powerful call for accountability is a reminder that it’s time for leaders to reflect on the kind of rhetoric they are endorsing and to take concrete steps to de-escalate the dangerous climate that has taken hold in American politics.

In conclusion, Whoopi Goldberg’s sharp rebuke of Mike Johnson was a necessary intervention in the ongoing conversation about political violence in the United States.

Her call for leaders to take responsibility for their words and actions serves as a vital reminder that rhetoric has consequences. As the political landscape continues to shift, it is crucial that all parties recognize the dangers posed by extreme language and the importance of fostering a more civil, respectful discourse. Only then can the cycle of violence and division be broken.