Skip to main content

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”)

- - - - -

Patrick McEvoy-Halston

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”)

Karla 1960

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."[18]

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."[17]


- - - - -

Patrick McEvoy-Halston

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”)

Karla 1960

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.

Link: “Tucker Carlson’s perpetual self-victimhood” (Salon)


Popular posts from this blog

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"Life" as political analogy, coming to you via Breitbart News

Immediately after seeing the film, I worked over whether or not the movie works as something the alt-right would produce to alienate us from the left. Mostly the film does work this way  -- as a sort of, de facto, Breitbart production -- I decided, though it's not entirely slam-dunk. There is no disparagement evident for the crew of the space station being a multicultural mix, for instance. Race is not invisible in the film; it feels conspicuous at times, like when the Japanese crew member is shown looking at his black wife on video conference; but the film maker, wherever he was actually raised, seems like someone who was a longtime habitat of a multicultural milieu, some place like London, and likes things that way. But the film cannot convince only as macabre relating to our current fascination with the possibility of life on Mars -- what it no doubt pretends to be doing -- because the idea of “threat” does not permeate this interest at all, whereas it absolutely saturates our …