Obama towel-smothering tantruming child. Tucker complains.
The number one rule of American politics: the greatest, most insatiable need of the standard conservative is to turn themselves into oppressed little victims. In The Daily Beast today, Tucker Carlson devotes his entire column to complaining that Obama is "bullying" Fox News, absurdly claiming that the White House and liberals are trying "to use government power to muzzle opinions they don't agree with." Needless to say, Carlson doesn't say a word about the endless -- and far worse -- attacks by the Bush White House on a whole array of media outlets, ones that went far beyond mere criticisms. (Glenn Greenwald, “Tucker Carlson and the right’s perpetual self-victimhood,” Salon, October 23 2009)
Towel smothering, to the delight of the perpetrating left.
What I hear mostly is talk of the far worse efforts by Bush et al. Obama is the entranced parent calmly smothering a towel over the tantruming child. Salon helps serve particulars on the right up as cry-babbies, and Obama silences them. It's a very brutal tag team, which will eventually turn on the very best, the most out-spoken, on the left.
Greenwald seems to especially dislike Tucker and Brooks -- two of the most free-thinking, most resistant to "party" cues, on the right. I hope you don't end up -- in effect -- becoming an Obama agent, who vents loudest against those who actually managed to remain independent.
This is brilliant parody, Patrick McEvoy-Halston. Thanks for the laugh!Comedy gold here:
Greenwald seems to especially dislike Tucker and Brooks -- two of the most free-thinking, most resistant to "party" cues, on the right. I hope you don't end up --in effect -- becoming an Obama agent, who vents loudest against those who actually managed to remain independent.
Okay, now that you've had your fun, did you have a genuine point or what? (Iokannan in the Well, Response to post, “Tucker Carlson”)
- - - - -
Greenwald seems to especially dislike Tucker and Brooks -- two of the most free-thinking, most resistant to "party" cues, on the right.
Anyone who considers Tucker Carlson a free-thinker also considers High School Musical fine American theater. (Karla_1960, Response to post, “Tucker Carlson”)
re: Anyone who considers Tucker Carlson a free-thinker also considers High School Musical fine American theater.
From Wik article on Tucker Carlson:
Carlson initially supported the U.S. war with Iraq during its first year. After a year, he began criticizing the war, telling the New York Observer: "I think it’s a total nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it. It’s something I’ll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who’s smarter than I am, and I shouldn’t have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I’m enraged by it, actually."
In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, Carlson interviewed George W. Bush, then Governor of Texas, for Talk magazine. Carlson reported that Bush mocked soon-to-be-executed Texas Death Row inmate Karla Faye Tucker and "cursed like a sailor." Bush's communications director Karen Hughes publicly disputed this claim.
Asked by Salon about the response to his article on Bush, Carlson characterized it as "very, very hostile. The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that (on the campaign bus, Bush communications director) Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard—that I watched her hear—she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness. They get carried away, consultants do, in the heat of the campaign, they're really invested in this. A lot of times they really like the candidate. That's all conventional. But on some level, you think, there's a hint of recognition that there is reality—even if they don't recognize reality exists—there is an objective truth. With Karen you didn't get that sense at all. A lot of people like her. A lot of people I know like her. I'm not one of them."
- - - - -
I appreciate your response. But my wider point is this: I find there is something is seriously wrong with the fact that other media companies simply cannot call out Fox for what it is. In fact it’s downright disturbing.
The media’s corporate owners are making it increasingly difficult for journalists to dispense with false equivalency and simply call it as they see it. The amount of daily misinformation is staggering and is hurting us at a time when we need straight, truthful news to help make critical decisions. Carlson is entrenched in the business of spin. I take your point that he plays the maverick from time to time, but make no mistake, he serves his corporate masters very well. (Karla_1960, Reponse to post, “Tucker”)
My read on Tucker is that he's about the same as a Joan Walsh or Conason. He has the capacity to remain independent, remain wholy sane and good, but can be drawn to occupy himself with the outrageous claims, advancements made by the other side. Nothing to do with party bidding with any of these good people, though. All of them need our support, most especially when they buck the tide, make themselves vulnerable to taking huge hits, something they are each capable of doing more than just every now and then.
As far as Brooks goes. I like the way Mark Shields speaks / thinks of him. Shields sees when Brooks is slipping, but also understands he sits across from a decent human being who often has relevant, very helpful things to say. He can do damage, but he's a good person we can't allow to see crushed.