On Tucker, radio host Mark Williams said of "left-wing lesbian": "Got it all going for her, doesn't she?"
On the September 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, radio host Mark Williams responded to host Tucker Carlson's description of a "friend who is a left-wing lesbian" with the retort: "Got it all going for her, doesn't she?" And Carlson uncritically repeated Wall Street Journal editorial writer Bret Stephens's assertion that liberals "are typically the most reluctant" to fight "Islamic extremism." As blogger Digby noted, in Carlson's account of his conversation with the unnamed friend, Carlson attempted to defend Stephens's premise that liberals have the "most to lose when Islamism wins" by saying to his friend, "When they win, when Al Qaeda takes over the United States, who do you think is going to be the first to be hung up by his or her thumbs? Me or you? No, you. You are."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the same show, Williams called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "the Hildebeast" and said that former Vice President Al Gore is "nuts" and "out of his mind."
From the September 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Well, here's an interesting debate -- I mean, can we -- considering -- wait, let me -- let me stop you right there because, considering the argument that you're having, I think this next story actually may inform it. Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal today, you may have seen it, asks what I think is a really interesting question. He writes, quote: "Why is it so frequently the case that ... people who have the most at stake in the battle against Islamic extremism and the most to lose when Islamism wins [sic] -- namely, liberals -- are typically the most reluctant to fight it?"
Alex, that's a fascinating -- I had this conversation with a friend of mine who is a left-wing lesbian, and she was defending, literally, she was defending --
WILLIAMS: Got it all going for her, doesn't she?
CARLSON: No, well, she's a great person, someone I like a lot, but she was essentially defending this lunatic Islamic group. And I said to her, you know, "When they win, when Al Qaeda takes over the United States, who do you think is going to be the first to be hung up by his or her thumbs? Me or you? No, you. You are. Why are you defending them?"
BENNETT: Well, wait. Face it. To begin with, Al Qaeda is not going to take over the United States of America. There aren't enough of them.
CARLSON: No, but I mean you get point.
BENNETT: No, I don't get the point. It's a hypothetical situation.
CARLSON: You think they hate you more or Mark?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Why is this always brought up by people who themselves are never involved in the fight, but send others to be their proxies? Let's face it, we are not at war, our military is. Most of those on the right have no family members in the military or in danger of being put in harms way. The people who send us to war are never the ones to die. We are not sacrificing anything. In fact, we're benefitting. We get tax cuts and send the bill to the grandkids.
So stop with the distractions about Liberals and try to come up with some solutions that don't involve us spiraling deeper down the rat hole. I'd be willing to bet that Carlson's friend has more balls than he or any of his frat boy friends. It takes more courage to stand up to authority and tell them they're wrong then it does to just parrot their talking points.
King.
I love your candor, but, the time for trying to convert the sirens of war are long since over in Nov '04. We spat on the grave of every patriot and service man/woman whomever laid thier lives for our nation when we re-affirmed the leadership of draft-dodgers, scoundrels, and profiteers.
"I swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" an oath lost on those whom would expect blood for their profits.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Most of those on the right have no family members in the military or in danger of being put in harms way.
***********************
I noticed nobody else (big surprise) has called on you to pony up some evidence to backup this claim of yours, so I will. And then there's this you also said; "Let's face it, we are not at war, our military is."
So, let me ask you, when and if we get attacked again does that mean they will only attack our military and leave the rest of us alone? After, we are not at war, it's only those military people.
Most of those on the right OR ON THE LEFT have no family members in the military or in danger of being put in harms way. Most of those in positions of authority on the right including GWB and Dick Cheyney have never been in harms way. None of the pro-war media have ever been involved in combat. And most actively avoided service. Yet, they all know that the only answer to our present trouble is a military one.
The War is OVER. We now have to win the peace. Being at war means more than parroting ridiculous slogans like "stay the course", etc. We are not at war. Wartime means sacrifice. We are not sacrificing. We are putting the bill on future generations. Our military is fighting in Iraq, while at home those on the right have consistently cut benefits for veterans. We've allowed the military to be sent into harms way without the tools to fight the war. We sent them without proper protection or a plan of any kind other than to topple the regime. We now need a plan to win the peace.
When and if we're attacked again, implies that you think there'll be another terrorist attack. Terrorism is a tactic. You can fight a war against a tactic.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, although I think you make way too many generalizations about whose fighting the war and who isn't - which to me is a lame argument offered by many who don't support the war........they often say "Well, if you support going to battle then you are a hypocrite unless you sign up yourself". That is a hollow and absurd angle to take when opposing some military effort.
But in any event, I do agree with you on terror being a tactic. What we are fighting are Islamic jihad fanatics who use terror as a tool in an attempt to destroy us.
Your comments are well said, thank you.
Sorry about the generalizations but it's a very touchy subject with me.
"Well, if you support going to battle then you are a hypocrite unless you sign up yourself". That is a hollow and absurd angle to take when opposing some military effort."
-Nice generalization yourself
No one is stating that you need to sign up with the military, but I would like to know how you support the war other then your cheerleading?
The reality is that the majority of the supporters of this war are asking our troops to make a sacrfice that they are unwilling to make themselves (or any sacrifice for that matter.)
Why doesn't the pro-war crowd support our troops with the same furvor when they come home? Have you been to a VA hosptial latley? Have you read about the support and services that we offer to the veterians and thier families?
Specifically, the ones most BULLY on the WAR ... which is costing hundreds of BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars ... are the ones hollering for ever more TAX CUTS to affect the highest income brackets, and all when our debt is soaring into the trillions.
SACRIFICE? Let the other guy sacrifice his life; I want my millions. Let lesser men get blown apart, I want my quarterly BONUS in the millions. Let the sucker sacrifice all his disposable income on gasoline and health care; I want my millions NOW. We're at WAR? Then I want my huge government defense contracts TOO.
Never before has blatant war profiteering been so celebrated as "smart business" by a government in collusion. Shameful, and should be CRIMINAL.
You wrote: "So, let me ask you, when and if we get attacked again does that mean they will only attack our military and leave the rest of us alone?"
Ann says something similar when she asserts that it wasn't NYC that was attacked, but America, and that it wasn't the 9-11 victims' families who suffer, but all of us. Now, on 9-11, I wept. I lived in Boston at the time and in subsequent days, I looked up and saw only fighters in the sky, but I will not, I WILL NOT, co-opt the suffering of New Yorkers who inhaled what remained of relatives and workmates and friends. All suffering is not equal. Some of us suffered more than others. And it should be noted and repeated and repeated again that New Yorker, who suffered most, and who might suffer the most again, voted against Bush. And in voting against Bush, they also voted against the ongoing, illegal occupation and they voted against homobigotry.
for I admire civility and admire both Tommy and King, and then I go and unload on Tommy, but Tommy, it squeezes tears from me when I see the losses of New Yorkers diminished. I stand by my assertion that suffering is not equal. Those of us who suffered less truly need to honor those who suffered more.
Hi Baby,
I never intended to diminish anyone's suffering and I wasn't referring to New Yorkers or anyone in particular. I was merely responding to King's statement about how we are not at war, but the military is. We, as Americans, are all at war when our military is fighting on our behalf, whether we support the effort or not. That's not the issue.
He clarified his statement.
I don't think I'll post anymore today. I feel very emotional and tipsy. Sometimes, I just don't have a firewall between me and the suffering.
I agree with what you said about those who've suffered less. We've all suffered, but most of us have it pretty darn good compared to most.
I do try to be civil, but at times I fail. I guess I need to work on it. Tommy and I bring out the best in each other, I think. (Or is it the worst?). But we try, and that's all anyone can do.
I believe we usually give out what we get back. I also can be sarcastic and at times my temper clouds a tactful response. But I don't think anyone should ever apologize for being opinionated or passionate, as we all are. It's all in the presentation, I guess.
(group hug)
I have a better question - since it appears that you support our governements actions in the Middle East.
What sacrifices or actions should non-military personel make to support our actions in the middle east?
Do you think that the American public is accoutable for the actions that our government and miltary make?
To be clear, this is what I support. We need to tell the Iraqi government this, in so many words "We are OUT very soon, we are going to dramatically decrease our presence here VERY SOON. You need to get your act together and FAST. You need to be responsible for securing your own government and policing your own streets against violence. We have done our part, so just know we will be gone VERY SOON!"
Then we need to stick to it, without an announced timetable to the world, and leave.
answer my question however.
How do you support our troops and are the American people accountable for the decisions of thier government?
Our troops should be supported through their military commanders and efforts financially as well as politically and emotionally.
And the people are accountable for the decisions of their government because the elected officials work for us, the people. We can vote them in or out. And we enjoy vast freedoms, within the law, to express ourselves.
explain how YOU or the majority of the pro-war folks support the war and our troops?
You support them by working with homeless vets? Disabled vets? I know your an advocate for vets rights and your working with your local Congressman to get increases to their benefits and the VA?
The fact is that you and many of your ilk are willing to put others in harms way and ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice, yet at the same time you cannot be bothered to support them in any real way that would make a difference their situation.
Cheerleading, hanging a flag on Vets day or a magnet on your car is not a substitute for the type of support these people deserve.
If your so admit and steadfast in your belief that they should be in this war then why does that same resolve seem to evaporate when these people get back and need your help?
Talk is cheap
I cannot speak for anyone except myself, so my "ilk" as you so unjustly put it, well, you will have to ask them........try ilk.com.
As for your other assumptions, you have no idea what I do or who I choose to help or where I put my resources, time, efforts or dollars - so unless you know what you are talking about where I am concerned, and I can assure you, you do not, then I suggest you take your outrage elsewhere.
I think your protest speaks for itself.
n. 1. Kind; class; sort; type; as, him and his ilk; - sometimes used to indicate disapproval when applied to people.
If you feel insulted that is your issue Tommy. I'm giving you the opportunity to explain yourself yet you continue to dodge the question and refuse to provide examples. You asking them to give up everything in a military situation you support that is potentially lethal, yet you take offense when your questioned on how you actually support them? HOW DARE I ask you to provide me with an example of how you actually support our troops? My personal life has been effected by this war, people that I know and care about have been put in harms way.
If your willing to beat the war drum, I have every right to question you on how you actually support our troops.
Not likely from you, believe me.
Usually when insulted and one desperately tries to accuse one of some inaction or action, it normally goes directly to their shame or guilt or some other silly attempt to diffuse their own inactivity. With you I assume that is probably the case.
My position on this issue or any other does not require me to give you some laundry list of my personal activity, despite your pathetic claim otherwise.
So you believe what you want, I am indifferent to it actually.
if you find ilk insulting - you need to get a thicker skin. I've seen a number of posts where you have said far worse without provocation. I find it telling that your going to dismiss my comments because you've decided that your feelings are hurt.
From your comments I get the impression that you think that by advocating to put our troops in harms way your not culpable each time one of them dies or is horrible maimed. You do realize that we are talking about real people, not pawns on a chess board, right?
You don't have any problem voicing your opinion to put them in harms way, yet you get indignant when someone asks you to list how you actually support them in any meaning full way? Seems kind of odd to me .
I'm always amazed at how many of these folks have no clue what fighting is: I have served my country. I doubt they have ever served thier fellow man at all....
The liberals are weak argument is brought up almost as much as the hypothetical situation that Carlson brought up, as to "when Al Qaeda takes over the United States". Al Qaeda "taking over" the United States is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Red Scare anyone?
I'm glad Bennett stood firm in his disagreement.
At what point does a hypothetical present such a remote possibility that it automatically would seem to invalidate itself.
Monkeys may fly out of my butt and take over the USA at some point in the future. Should I really be that concerned with the possibility? Should anyone?
I have to question the sanity of anyone who would take such a question seriously.
BTW, I thought Carlson was against this war and last I checked he is under 42. As long as he has a pulse, he really doesn't have any excuse for not joining up himself as long as he sees fit to question others about it. Maybe he can put some of that Classical Latin or Elizabethan Drama knowledge he learned at the liberal arts college to good use in Iraq. I just hope for the sake of anyone bunking with Carlson that they let Tucker have the bottom bunk to avoid any abrupt late-night showers seeping through the bottom of Brave Sir Tucker's bunk.
This is indeed one of the stupidest of the chickenhawks' stupid canards. If Al Qaeda had the power to "take over" a country, they'd probably start with something smaller in the Middle East. They don't even have Bahrain.
The home of the Fifth Fleet. Full fleet headquarters and port facilities have been there since the late 1980's. Biggest US naval base in the Persian Gulf. 20 years on and still planning to stay. That's how entrenched the American Empire is there.
In my social circles, if one's a homobigot, one keeps that homobigotry deep in the closet. But in Williams' circle, it seems, homobigotry isn't a source of shame.
So, shame on Williams. And shame on his circle.
King, I love what you wrote up above.
Now who would have thunk such a thinn?
Yuppy Bowtie Carlson sucken up to the Redknecks!!
Yup, GOP Hillbilly Politics, with all the slurs, and KKK, skin heads, and the like, why I'm sure their all going to the polls come November? Yup!!!!
This is just so precious. I feel as thow the sun has shown on the pile hidden in the yard, and the stench can't be any longer denied.
To those whom are ashamed for the state of our nation, and will not see it fall into the Fascist's hands, I'll see you come November, SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Happy thoughts;
Dan Grady
What is Carlson's obsession with mentioning lesbians? Maybe because his ratings are so low. That would explain him appearing on Dancing With the Stars
From Carlson's performance (and subsequent bouncing) he may now claim that liberals are better dancers.
Rachael Maddow, recent part-time co-host on his show "the Situation", may have enlightened Tucker a little.
My guess is that she is his un-named left-wing lesbian friend.
She's witty, educated and articulate and used to clean his plow on a regular basis.
But she was always nice to him while she was doing it.
Maybe some common sense and class rubbed off on Tucker?
Always reluctant to fight. Thank God for the real patriotic Americans like Tucker and all his buds on the other channel who show such courage everyday when they ride to work, put on a fancy suit, and sit behind a desk reading a teleprompter for an hour. God bless you heroes.
Looks like it's always 2 on 1 to me. Conservatives just can't win intellectually if both sides are given the same voice. That's why they love talk radio and cable TV so they can slant all debates to be either 2 on 1, or in the case of talk radio, 1 right-wing blithering idiot who can say anything he wants and get away with it because there's noone to call him on his bs.
Tucker's MAIN premise is that THIS "WAR" (in Iraq) is what is preventing the USA from being "taken over" by Al Qaeda.
His secondary premise is that "leftists" are "reluctant to fight."
It's only his THIRD premise that Al Qaeda would be more likely to harm a "lesbian leftist" than a white male talking head on the television.
The CONCLUSION Tucker suggests is that a person "more likely" to be harmed/killed/tortured by an Al Qaeda member (were they to take over in America) should be MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT BUSH's WAR.
Tucker's first premise is invalid, because we now know that the WAR in Iraq has swelled the roles of Al Queda from 20,000 to 50,000. So EVEN IF his third premise were true, his first premise would be the WORST way to achieve that "safety".
Tucker's second premise is just a lie and a slander without any supporting basis.
Tucker's THIRD premise ignores that radical Al Qaeda terrorists (whose numbers -- while now MUCH HIGHER since Bush took office -- are still relatively few in comparison to all Muslims and those who follow Islam in the world), consciously discriminate and hate SOME Americans "more." In fact, they are "equal opportunity" killers when it comes to Americans. Many more males have been killed in terrorist attacks and in battle than women, lesbian or no. Those few radicals who wish "Death to America" do not make a distinction between gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other characteristic, other than being "American". Dead is dead; does Tucker think it would be WORSE for a lesbian leftist than for any of men who have died in Al Qaeda terrorist attacks?
"Leftists" would do well on these shows to challenge not only the invalid and bogus conclusions these rightwingers spout, but to challenge each and every PREMISE that underlies their lies. PREMISES are presented as agreed-to FACTS, indisputable, and thus questions can be rationally asked on their basis.
Establishing bogus PREMISES as a basis for arguing another point is a subtle and insidious practice, and having those premises ACCEPTED is much more damaging than debating a hypothetical on which they are based. If one tries to debate the conclusion, then the rightwinger has already WON, because his premises make it into the public psyche as "facts" -- when they are utter propaganda.
Cogent analysis as usual. The premise is the big Kahuna. If the premise is flawed then by definition the arguments is invalid
To lesbians and freethinkers is really the Right Wing Religiofascist Junta that is now governing our country and working hard to eliminate the Constitutional balance of powers. They will loot and rape this country and turn it into a fascist cesspool long before Al Queda could ever grow big enough or strong enough to conquer it. Carlson is one of their paid mouthpieces.
But, you have to remember, these are guys who sat in their darkened dens and masturbated while watching "Red Dawn".
Amen to that.
What does this conversation have to do with lesbians? Is it their love hate relationship with lesbians? Homo bad, but girl on girl action is so "hot"!
I would put my money on an armed troop of lesbians to defend our country in the event of an invasion before I would ever entrust it to silver spoon and the gerital force.
I'm a little confused by the GOP message to liberal lesbians.... You cannot talk about the war unless your willing to enlist to defend the country. Unless of course your part of the GOP and you put a "get out of the war free" Support Our Troops magnet on your SUV (made in China) Oh wait, I forgot you can't enlist unless your willing to lie and say your not a lesbian and we had better not find out about it or we're going to kick you out! And don't even think about getting equal rights in this country lesbian, your a second class citizen...... Ok we may allow you some privileges, like the right to pay taxes or die in a war ***only if you lie***, but don't get all uppity and expect the full benefits of citizenship.
Sign up now and enlist so you can defend the freedom of the American aristocracy or shut your mouth!
that's how I feel, more and more. There are enough people beating the drums of war and not nearly enough people going off to war. The U.S. military is desperate for people willing to wage war. We are not desperate for more war-mongering.
I canvassed a neighborhood last month. It was mostly Republican. There was one house on the street with anti-war signs. That guy was the block's lone Democrat and the only father on the street with a child in the military.
He said, "All my neighbors voted for war and many have 18-year old sons, but none serve. Not a one of them."
I know this is an anecdote and it's therefore of limited value, but we all know neocons that won't send their children to war...or serve. It's past time to pony up. So much understanding will come out of turning a paralyzed son, so the bedsores won't grow...or helping strap the prosthetic arms onto the stumps of one's daughter...or laying flowers on the grave.
And because the military now accepts Americans up to the age of 42, so many neocon mothers and fathers can go...and when they return, tapping their cane to cross the street or swallowing pills to help them sleep, they will have, at long last, a measure of understanding beyond the flag whipping in the wind, beyond the flag that so many cowardly Americans wrap around themselves.
How many warmongerers would open their mouths if such words meant automatic enlistment?
I've had very similar experiences in my own life. My brother and father served in the military. One is a democrat, and one is independent with democratic leanings. I know how they feel about war.
I would never question someone's right to oppose or support the war. However the hypocrisy of these pundits and the examples I've seem on a personal level make me take pause. Why do they think they have the right to tell someone else that they shouldn't voice their opinion?
Each day I walk in the parking garage on my way to work I get this nauseous feeling in my stomach. I see all the "support our troop" magnets and I wonder how these people are actually supporting our troops? I don't begrudge them their freedom of speech, I just wonder how they can look in the mirror each morning and can reconcile their position on this. How can you ask someone to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our country when your not willing to do so yourself? How can you ask someone to make this sacrifice when you can't even get your lazy a$$ off the couch and actually help a homeless veteran or a family that is dealing with a son or daughter in the war?
Have we stopped to think about why it's ok to ask our troops to give up everything for our country and then when they come home, less the whole, we treat them like they're disposable or some dirty secret that no one wants to deal with?
Cheerleading on the sidelines doesn't cut it.
No one wants to see the amputees or look into eyes that don't see. W should eat with an amputee every night. Or a vet with her colostomy bag hanging from her side. Or someone who stinks from living on the streets, due to post-traumatic stress. We have prettied up this occupation, but it's ugly. Every war is ugly. I'm not saying that some wars aren't righteous, but we should all witness the costs. The troops are due that. That and more.
Too many show their support with the magnets on their cars but will cross the street rather than face a homeless person. And the chances are pretty good that the person they try to avoid is a veteran. I'm not going to bore anyone with the statistics that I post on the subject.
In the last thirty-five years, we've become a "throwaway society". If our TV, DVD player or computer breaks, It's cheaper to throw it away and get another one. We've done the same to the ones who've fought in our names.
A crucial point in my mind. War is ugly. It COSTS, in money and in lives both ended and ruined or at least horribly afflicted. IF a war must be fought it must be because it is so crucial that these costs MUST be paid, that the cost in the long run would be much worse. This time we are hiding all of the costs. If we must fight we must do so with out eyes open to those costs. For those reasons the bar for state violence must be high. By hiding those costs, by ignoring them, warmongers like this administration are lowering that bar and we cannot accept the lowering of that bar. A great post Holly, insightful and moving.
I think there's something strange about men who don't like lesbians. It just un-American!
If I was a woman, I would definitely be a lesbian. What is so difficult to get about that?
Men are pretty darn disgusting looking to me, but I thank God that my wife seemingly inexplicably doesn't share my disgust.
Perhaps Dick Cheney's daughter could command such a unit. She appears to have inherited her parents' genes for toughness.
She's been totally brainwashed. I heard her interviewed on NPR a while back, and she just mindlessly repeated the GOP talking points. I fear that she's too far gone.
...hardness...and I don't mean hard as in tough, but hard as in a hard heart.
"She's got it all going for her" still burns me.
Would he same the same about a black lib?
Nah.
Racism isn't nearly as safe as homobigotry. This bigot won't be apologizing for his slur. It's just another day of homobigotry in America. I truly wish that God would bless America and remove such stains, such men, such ugliness, from our state.
but I think only applies to a lesbian with an income level below $300,000.00 per year. And don't forget that thanks to John Kerry everyone in the US already knows she is a lesbian therefore she would not be allowed to serve.
Sucks she's off the next too days from her radio show. I wonder what her response would be?