Despite Keith Olbermann's journalistic integrity and some occasionally solid reporting and analysis on Hardball (not to mention even Joe Scarborough making sense now and then) there is still plenty of hackitude at MSNBC. But even among the usual parade of media whores on that best-of-the-worst cable news network (hello Norah O'Donnell), Tucker Carlson stands out as extraordinarily biased and unserious. Nobody recites right-wing talking points with quite the enthusiasm and flare that Tucker displays, and his show usually comes across as something out of the FOX Noise alternate universe, or perhaps as a leftover from the GOP-MSM glory days of five years ago. Let's take a quick look at the nonsense Tucker was spewing today, culminating in his attempt to give Democrats equal blame for Bush's Iraq invasion.
Tucker's show today included a segment on fund raising by Democratic presidential candidates, featuring a series of absurd assertions and conclusions by Carlson. For starters, Tucker declared that Hillary Clinton receiving money from Hollywood donors (a process he describes as "unseemly") is somehow equivalent to a Republican candidate taking campaign cash from Big Tobacco. Hollywood = Big Tobacco? Tucker is actually comparing America's movie industry with those who produce and sell a product that kills millions every year.
Tucker then went on to explain that the more money Hillary raises, the more "precarious" her front-runner status becomes. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but suggesting that her ability to raise money is somehow a campaign liability reeks of toner on a GOP blast fax. I wonder if Tucker will apply the same standard to Republican candidates? Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question. Agreeing with all of this, of course, was "liberal" Peter Beinart. Like I said, Tucker's crappy show belongs on FOX.
But of all of that was a warm-up for the big lie Tucker was ready to slip in to our public discourse. Doubting Hillary's chances in the campaign, Tucker explained that the American public believes that there was "collusion between the two parties to get us into this disastrous war."
Now, I understand that Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq bear some responsibility for a lack of political courage. But that's far different from "collusion," which suggests some kind of secretive pact between Democrats and Republicans. I fear this is only the beginning. Democrats did not collude with Bush to start the Iraq war. Bush lied to the American public and deceived many naive Congressional Democrats so that he and the neocons could get their war on. Suggesting that Democrats were working behind the scenes with Republicans to take this country to war is yet another reprehensible lie. Shame on Tucker Carlson. And shame on us if we let the Mighty Wurlitzer hand ownership for the Iraq debacle to the Democratic Party.