Michael Moore's performance on CNN the other day inspired me to do my part in exposing pathetic television anchors who take on the job of obfuscating topics to the point of ridiculousness. Being loud, articulate and sure-footed is the strategy of many pundits who want to ensure the ignorant remain ignorant, as well as gain a few confused viewers.
What is a sane viewer to do? Send a letter.
tucker@msnbc.com
viewerservices@msnbc.com
Dear Sir/Madam:
How long will the public have to endure the inanity of Tucker Carlson? Granted, I am not obligated to watch the show, but occasionally I am in the mood for MSNBC, so I turn to your channel. What I sometimes find there is Mr. Carlson infuriatingly confronting someone with such a myopic perspective that he cannot even properly address the issues at hand. I truly do believe that he is a very poor representative of your station.
The most recent example of his ludicrous assertions was in his interview with Mr. Rectenwald who listed the clients’ numbers of the DC Madam. Mr. Carlson strongly asserted that his guest was acting "superior" to Senator Vitter because he claimed he didn't pay for sex, after Tucker asked about his sex life. In essence, Tucker presented a "no win" question because Mr. Rectenwald would have been attacked if he DID pay for sex and, evidently, Mr. Carlson thought it appropriate to attack him for NOT paying for it. I will admit that in response to Tucker’s baiting, Mr. Rectenwald did answer in a condescending tone, demonstrating that he also lost track of why he was exposing Senator Vitter.
The true nature of Senator Vitter's woes is that he is seen as a hypocrite. Period. It did not seem to me that Mr. Rectenwald has an issue with the act of Senator Vitter paying for sex. Nor do I. Yet, Senator Vitter campaigned on fidelity and high moral standards. The voters of his state, particularly the ones who voted him into office based on his rhetoric of purity, deserve to know if he walks the walk and deserve to assess his judgment. Therefore, Mr. Rectenwald is arguing that exposing a person who represents the interests of others, based on criteria that he is acting contrary to, is a legitimate reason to reveal their name. Now some, like Tucker, do not mind him pushing for legislation based on high moral standards without his commitment to such behavior. But others may take offense to the hypocrisy, and may now even wonder how strident the Senator is with these moral causes on which he campaigned.
Being "holier" than Senator Vitter is not the issue, at least not for me nor for Mr. Rectenwald. The issue is saying one thing and doing another. If Tucker wants to continue to protect Senator Vitter may I suggest he assert that he was elected to represent his constituents, which he has done "admirably"? The fact that he acts contrary to the campaign promises that he has kept (as far as I know), is a testament to his commitment to working for those he serves, not for his own, personal, agenda. Therefore to expose him as a hypocrite is unfair if he is indeed doing the job he was elected to do.
Though I do not believe that I can appreciate anything about Senator Vitter, I had to show how easy it might be to defend his actions without losing track of the issues at hand, even though I am sure someone out there could shoot down this last contention as well. Now if someone who has no interest in defending Senator Vitter can present a halfway decent argument in his defense, then why can’t Mr. Carlson? Supporters of the Senator deserve a better spokesperson than Tucker. As a matter of fact, anyone who usually agrees with Mr. Carlson’s conclusions, erroneous as they may be, deserves a better one too.
Sincerely,
I know most readers may cringe at my argument in defense of Vitter. But I am going after Tucker, not Vitter. Showing how one might defend Vitter merely shows how badly I hate Tucker. Plus, aren't we the reality-based community?
Others may find the argument weak. I can only hope that there are more of you than not.