There has been a concerted effort lately to make the "Worst Person's in the World" segment by Keith Olbermann a controversial flashpoint. It has been pointed to as proof of liberal bias in the media by a number of people affiliated with conservative political causes. The latest is one of these segments that goes after "America's Sweetheart" Katie Couric, anchor of the CBS Evening News.
Tucker Carlson, on the Scott McClellan "revelations," is typically duplicitous.
He's [McClellan] opening a whole new line of questioning, I think, that's important. Look, McCain's explanation you just heard is defensible: 'I support the war because I thought Saddam was going to hurt us, so we should hurt him first.' That's a reasonable point of view.
What's unreasonable in my view is what Scott McClellan is saying, which is the White House wanted to invade Iraq for theoretical reasons. Because establishing democracy there would somehow bring peace to the Middle East and make the world a better place. That is very, very hard to defend. In fact, I think it's borderline ludicrous.
If that's true, then I think, you know, historians have a stronger case that the Bush White House was, you know, negligent and acting against the best interests of the United States. But again, that's not a debate most people are interested in having. I mean, every survey shows, television ratings show, people don't want to revisit this. Most people think the war was a mistake. They don't want to hear about it. Which is why almost nobody covers the war any more.
Wowee-wow-wow-wow.
Wow.
So McClellan's book "opens up a whole new line of questioning" regarding whether "the White House wanted to invade Iraq for theoretical reasons."
Gee, what a "new" line that would be. And in other news, if General Francisco Franco is still dead, that opens up a new line of questioning and...
This is a really tightly-packed one minute of bullshit, though.
First of all, what Tucker's really saying here is, "In order not to look like a total moron, I need to say that Scott McClellan might be saying something important here. But I can't throw the whole war and McCain under the bus just yet." So what he says is, oh, well, John McCain's position on the war is defensible. Preemptive war is defensible. But theoretical war -- however that differs from preemptive war -- is not. Bad White House! Unless, of course, you walk the war rationales back and say it was purely preemptive, which is "reasonable" and "defensible."
Anyone think the White House is going to be hesitant to do that?
Right. So the escape hatch is built right in. Tucker gets to be on TV being "relevant," gets to make the comments necessary in order for the host not to immediately dismiss him as being a moron, but then gets to wrap his comments in the blanket statement that if the White House will just say they were being reasonable, well then, they were being reasonable. Not like what this nutty guy is saying.
Second of all... historians? Historians will have a stronger case that the Bush White House was negligent and acting against the best interests of the United States?
Why "historians?" Why would we be waiting on history here? Why wouldn't you say the Bush White House was negligent and acting against the best interests of the United States, Tucker? Why would that job fall to historians?
Third, here comes the set up. And oh baby, what a set up it is!
Nobody wants to hear about this! Nobody wants to revisit this! It's all in the past! Water under the bridge! It was a mistake! 4,000 dead and fifty years to go ("Maybe 100!"), but hey, look, we're rightfully chastened, we feel bad about it, but let's not get hung up on it. Let's look to the future.
Oh, man. Our future understanding of our immediate past is really gonna suck.
Tucker Carlson had some very strong words for the neo-conservatives and the Bush White House this morning. He maintains that John McCain's argument that Saddam Hussein was a bad man who meant us harm so therefore we must strike him pre-emptively is "reasonable". However, he said that if Scott McClellan's new book is accurate and the White House wanted to take us to war not by virtue of any threat but because of ideological and theoretical reasons (democracy, stabilizing the region etc.) that the argument for war then becomes "very, very hard to defend" and in fact "borderline ludicrous"
Although Tucker Carlson hasn't been the biggest supporter of the war since it became clear that it was an unmitigated disaster... its still surprising to see him using such strong language to call a spade a spade.
This whole situation seems slightly surreal. If you had told me back in 2003/2004 that Scott McClellan would end up becoming a scathing Bush administration critic and Tucker Carlson would be on television calling the real rationale for war "borderline ludicrous" I would have never believed you.
For months, political punditry has centered around race and gender politics. Yet virtually every show’s host is a white male, the pundit selections often fall short (yet far more diverse than hosts), and Pat Buchanan is somehow still receiving a paycheck. But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of punditry has been the last month of euphemism-laced questions about "Obama’s problem" getting "the white, working class vote" whether in Pennsylvania or West Virginia or Kentucky. A prime example took place this early Wednesday morning on MSNBC’s "After Hours" with Dan Abrams. Pundit Tucker Carlson states:
Be prepared for a rant. Or don't.
I've had enough, dammit. My husband insists on watching so-called 'news" channels all the time. And I mean ALL the time. He won't even shut off a Bush speech!!!! I leave the room, dammit, I can still hear the bastard. I stick my fingers in my ears and sing....Lalalalalala.
In the past couple of weeks, Chelsea Clinton has been getting quite a bit of attention following a question and answer session at a university in which a student asked Ms. Clinton her take on her mother's handling of the Monika Lewinsky scandal. Her response was, "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question. Um, in the, I don't know maybe seventy college campuses that I've now been to. And I do not think that's any of your business."
While watching late night television this evening, my favorite show was interrupted for a news break coming live from a boat in the middle of the Pacific. After a few minutes of speculation by Tucker Carlson, who was for some reason chosen to report live from the boat, Al Gore appeared at a podium, making the announcement that many of us have waited for a long time to hear.
Full story below the fold. Suffice it to say, Obama's got no chance now!
Having transcribed for my work just about every Hardball and Tucker for the past two years, I've finally decided it's a good time to take a look back and get a bit of perspective on how the campaign narrative has evolved over the past 15 months.
I offer here a chronological sampling of some of the most memorable quotes I've found in my personal files from these shows. I do the last 20 minutes of Hardball, which is the "Politics Fix," and the second half our of Tucker, so all of these quotes are from those parts of the show.
I also transcribe Countdown, but I decided to give Olbermann a break, because he's generally a decent guy, not to mention this was already a pain in the ass to put together (actually, there's one Olbermann quote in there).
Part one has all of 2007, which will be followed sometime soon by part two with the first three months of 2008.
The first full week of the post-Tucker era on MSNBC validates the long overdue decision to cancel the perennial loser. David Gregory's new program, "Race for the White House," outperformed Tucker by 35% (Gregory's first week vs. Tucker's last week). What's more, on Friday, Gregory was the second highest rated program on MSNBC's evening schedule (trailing only Countdown and beating Hardball). He also came in second against his competition, surpassing Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room on CNN. Tucker never came close to these achievements.
Brought to you by... News Corpse The Internet's Chronicle Of Media Decay.
So... I hear that Bill O'Reilly says bloggers are just like the Klan, just like Nazis. You would think that someone like Bill would have a better understanding of the whole Klan/Nazi thing - after all isn't there an explanation or mission statement somewhere on his membership cards?
But then, I thought, perhaps I have this all wrong, perhaps I am not understanding the oppression, prejudice, and brutal injustices Mr. O'Reilly and his brethren have experienced. And to help others understand the plight of these poor, underprivileged plutocrats struggling for freedom, I offer the following. I know it's long, but how long is too long if it helps the world be a better, more empathetic place?
Here ya go. Remember, it's a script, so read it with some character:
"Race for the White House with David Gregory" will feature reports from MSNBC and NBC News correspondents around the country with the latest breaking political news and in-depth analysis of the campaigns.
The operative words to me are "IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS" and "CAMPAIGNS"....
Mea Culpa. It is my wrong-headed custom to leave the television set on MSNBC as background noise throughout the entire day. I don't have an excuse, other than the fact that I think FoxNews is simply a propaganda arm for neo-fascists and CNN has become so amateurish that watching local Eyewitness News broadcasts of freeway accidents is more intellectually stimulating and reliable. That being said, for the last three days now I have been so offended and exasperated by the irresponsible MSNBC partisan assault on Senator Obama that I now feel compelled to demand a thorough and comprehensive examination of their editorial policies and political agenda. It appears to me that, far from reporting events, the producers and personalities of MSNBC are attempting to frame the public debate in a way similar to what we've come to expect from those modern-day Father Coughlins at Fox.
Sen. Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’ speech was so perfect that I now regret sticking around to watch the post speech analysis. It was the sort of analysis that made it clear that there’s more inherent value in watching cute pet tricks on local news programs than indulging the ‘expert’ opinions of most of the mainstream media; opinions that lack crucial or valuable insight. Where have all the journalists gone? I spent more time listening about the concerns of ‘Angry White Males’ (AWMs) than anything to do with racial unity and social justice following Sen. Obama’s speech. Frankly, I’m sick to death of hearing about the concerns of the AWM. I’m sickened by the pandering to this constituent by the Conservative Right and the Conservative Left (headed by Hillary Clinton, as it suits her). I’m sick of the power placed in the hands of this group, rather than realizing that it’s time to call this country back to it’s path of greatness and leave the ‘angry’ behind, if we must.
I'm up in the morning and listening to Morning Joe's show and boy was I in for a disappointment. The discussion was about Senator Obama's yesterday's speech and about Rev. Wright.
Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson were on the show together with Mika Brzezinski. Mika was intellectually head and shoulder above these two. From what I have seen on this episode I think it should be her show.
