MSNBC's Carlson corrected falsehood documented by Media Matters
SUMMARY: Tucker Carlson corrected his false claim -- first documented by Media Matters for America -- that the American Civil Liberties Union did not "stand[] up for" Rush Limbaugh while he was being investigated for allegations that he illegally obtained prescription painkillers.
On the May 3 edition of MSNBC's The Situation, host Tucker Carlson corrected his false claim -- first documented by Media Matters for America -- that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) did not "stand[] up for" right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh while he was being investigated for allegations that he illegally obtained prescription painkillers. As Media Matters noted, in January 2004, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Limbaugh's case protesting the state of Florida's seizure of Limbaugh's medical records as a violation of his right to privacy.
In correcting his falsehood, Carlson acknowledged that the ACLU had "repeatedly" defended Limbaugh, citing the group's court brief and press releases issued in Limbaugh's defense. Carlson added that "[o]ver the years, I've spent a fair amount of time beating up on the ACLU, and I assume that tradition will continue in earnest." But he admitted that, "in this case, I was wrong; they were right. Good for the ACLU."
From the May 3 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson:
CARLSON: Well, earlier this week, we did a segment on the Rush Limbaugh drug case. Limbaugh spent years and untold millions fighting charges that he bought too many prescription painkillers.
I made the point on the show that the case never should have been brought against him in the first place. He didn't steal. He didn't sell drugs. He didn't hurt anyone but himself in any way. Where, I wondered out loud, was the ACLU in all of this? Why weren't they defending Rush Limbaugh?
Well, it turns out they were defending Rush Limbaugh, repeatedly. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Limbaugh's behalf and issued a series of press releases supporting his right to keep his medical records confidential.
Over the years, I've spent a fair amount of time beating up on the ACLU, and I assume that tradition will continue in earnest. But in this case, I was wrong; they were right. Good for the ACLU.
At least we admit it -- always and everywhere. If you think we've been wrong, tell us. If you disagree, don't bother.
Well that's quite the little correction. He admitted he got a fact wrong, but also promises to continue "beating up on the ACLU" and tells us "don't bother" telling him about any disagreement with him. I guess that's as close to class as Bowtie will get.
If there's every going to be real debate -- open and honest debate -- in this country, it's going to start with little things like this. Admissions of errors.
People can disagree. But let them make their decisions based on facts. And this is a small nudge in that direction.
And I think Media Matters has a lot to do with moving the debate in the direction of honesty. Thanks, MM.
A Right Wing paradigm has imploded. Their favorite whipping boy has come to the defense of their most vile propagandist. How long will it take them to revise THIS history. Two weeks?
Now the ACLU is going to bat for the vilest of right wing homophobes, the, so-called, Reverend Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KA. At issue is Phelps and his flocks protests staged at miliary funerals.
Even though I find the Westboro Baptist cult's crede reprehensible, I am equally appalled by state legislatures nationwide using Phelps-led demonstrations as an excuse to stifle lawful dissent.
That small gang in KS (I think they're little more than a single screwed-up family), they don't need the ACLU, they need therapy or even something a little stronger.
Were they to be brought before a Judge, for say 'Disorderly Conduct' or 'Parading w/o a Permit', the matter would not be one of Free Speech, but of their competence to safely go about in public without unnecessarily provoking others to confrontation.
They're more typical of the kind of cult that self-destructs in a ritual group suicide, than of any functional family (or even tiny congregation) that I can think of.
As for the Bow Tie Boy's correction, as transcribed above: It reads stubborn and smug, self-proud of opinion and hateful of criticism (no wonder these people identify so closely with the president); the words transcribed above easily fit to the boy's face that spoke them, as does the president's words so easily fit his own.
CARLSON: "At least we admit it (when we're wrong)-- always and everywhere."
Sure, but only when it's been rubbed in your smug face, and even then only in the person of the Royal "we"...
And without mentioning who it was who pointed your mistake out to you.
I hope that the ACLU does support Westboro Baptist. They are no less disgusting to me personally than the Klan or any number of other groups the ACLU has supported legally, but they have just as much a right to be idiots as anyone else.
Off topic, but I think that the real response to the Westboro Baptists is to counterprotest. A silent and tasteful display of support for the families and condemnation of the Westboro Baptists is the best answer to their vile protests. I suggest a sign with Bin Laden's and Phelps' pictures on them with a notation to the effect of "Birds of a feather," or "Religious Extremism is dangerous everywhere." I'm very much against the war, but I have friends over there, and if I ever have to attend one of their funerals and these jerks are there, my commitment to pacifism will be SERIOUSLY tested.
I find it ironic that no one was upset about this "church" when they were protesting at the funerals of gay men who died from AIDS. I agree that they must be allowed to make fools of themselves.
Yes, it was big of Mr. Carlson to admit his error. But it was much bigger of him to state that the case should never have been brought against Mr. Limbaugh because "he didn't steal, he didn't sell drugs, he didn't hurt anyone but himself in any way."
Is Mr. Carlson speaking for only himself, or for a larger body of Conservatives when he so boldly suggests the decriminalization of simple drug possession and use?
falsified a prescription, which is a fellony.
Only IOKIYAR
our favorite little right-wing shill is growing up. I wonder if he'll take a medical leave when his voice starts cracking.
No right winger ever grows up!
"Over the years, I've spent a fair amount of time beating up on the ACLU, and I assume that tradition will continue in earnest."
Why do conservatives hate the ACLU so much that they have to continue their tradition of bashing it?
Isn't it obvious what they are about?
for MMFA!
This is what MMFA is for. Keep up the good work.
what can you say?
Good job MM.
It's refreshing to see you compliment MMFA for a change.
I always wondered if Carlson could be another David Brock in the making. At time he acts intelligent and like he has a conscience.
He'll always be daddy's little snot-nosed punk to me.
It would have been nice if Tucker had told us exactly who had set him straight. Was it MMFA? Was it someone with the ACLU? Was it (try to keep a straight face here) Limbaugh himself?
Still, let's give him passing marks for humility and having at least one foot grounded in reality. Would be that O'Reilly and others show similar traits when they're proven wrong.
He again blasts the ACLU, just as easy after his 'humility '.
So, in that case users/abusers of pot, crack, coke, heroine, etc., etc., should not be arrested either. I mean, these people are not "hurting anyone but themselves"!
Suicide is illegal.
He does identify himself as a Libertarian (or, as I call it, a Republican who doesn't want to be called a Republican, but whatever ) and the Libertarians are generally for personal freedoms including the elimination of drug laws, so as far as feeling that Rush never should have been arrested, that IS part of the ideology he professes. However, I do NOT understand, based on his being a "Libertarian" how he can possibly support the GOP - they've done more to limit personal freedoms than anyone since the Nazis in my opinion - however, that's my opinion, so don't bother criticizing me - I have not claimed that it is factually correct.
Tucker LIKES Limbaugh, they're kindred spirits ideologically, so Tucker felt certain that the mean old ACLU would NOT support Limbaugh in any civil rights question.
See, Tucker stereotypes, based on his OWN EXPERIENCE. HE attacks in knee-jerk fashion, based on his preconceived notions of who is "with him" and who is "against him".
The ACLU is FOR the Constitution, and FOR preserving individual's rights under the Bill of Rights. The ACLU does not make ideological distinctions among those whose rights are being violated.
For Tucker to admit that THIS TIME he was wrong, but he will continue opposing the ACLU "IN EARNEST", shows that he has learned nothing, and cannot stop to examine WHY he was wrong this time.
He was WRONG, because his entire premise about the ACLU is incorrect and bigoted. He has decided the ACLU is the enemy of his personal philosophy. He also is prone to attaching his own motivation to the actions of others, meaning they cannot be motivated by anything except ideology, because that's HIS motivation.
Since the ACLU finds itself often championing the case of the underdog, Tucker can feel fairly confident that he can usually OPPOSE the ACLU, since Tucker himself champions the cause of those in power, those with money, and those who manipulate the system to their own advantage.
As long as the ACLU says the Constitution applies to ALL, even the poor and powerless, those with unpopular ideas and who are part of tiny minorities, they will often be defending people Tucker dislikes.
What Tucker's faulty reasoning cannot fathom, is that defending a Rightwing blowhard from governmental intrusion of his rights is no different than making the same defense for a citizen who happens to be a Communist. The RIGHT remains constant, it's Tucker's approval that wavers depending on the specific PERSON being defended. In typical projection, Tucker accuses BIAS when he is the practicioner of that characteristic. The ACLU reliably ignores the politics, and focuses on RIGHTS applying to ALL.
You're a brilliant poster, Tex. That was beauty. You should run your own blog. Keep up the great posts, I've always enjoyed reading your words here.
The other great thing about your posts, Tex, is that you are a clear thinker who can communicate on paper the essence of those thoughts succinctly. That is a rare and powerful gift. Thanks for sharing.
Oops, (did I really type 'ditto'?)
Let me get this straight
When the ACLU helps tuckers allies their good guys. When they help his non allies he slams them.
It's obvious that the ACLU has a measure of consistency Tucker has a difficult time respecting. This would explain why Tucker can't seem to keep a steady job at one outfit, his inconsistency most affect is overall performance in more than one area.
excellent.
and I do add good for Tucker. maybe he's growing up.
Nice. In other words, if you can't alsolutely prove it with documentation don't say it - but I can say anything I want until I'm caught?
I think Tuck has a magical portrait of himself locked away somewhere. No matter what falls out of his mouth, he continues to look and sound so gee-whiz youthful--thre's gotta be a Dorian Grey spell lurking in the background.
It's obvious that the ACLU has a measure of consistency
Until it comes to the 2nd Ammendment. They stay silent on that one everytime.
The ACLU is very clear about its stance on guns and the Second Amendment: "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." Read more here: [link to www.aclu.org]
When has the ACLU ever infringed on the well-regulated militias' right to bear arms?
The conservatives' expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous and counterintuitive. By their reckoning, how could the government ever keep a law-abiding citizen from owning a cannon, tank, nuclear bomb, anti-aircraft missile, or any other weapon that is useful to no one but terrorists and scared white people running around the woods of the south and west worrying about the UN World Government. The 2nd Amendment is there so that citizens can overthrow the government if it falls out of line. It is also there because our Constitution forbids having a standing military, thus necessitating militias.
That sounds like just about every right wing pundit out there. "If you can't prove me wrong with evidence, don't speak up. Only I can voice my own punditry and claim it to be news."
Now if we can just get him to admit that the 2oth century is over and that some haircuts should only be seen in Brady Bunch reruns.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
This from Wikipedia....
So does this mean the "Minutemen" can expect help from the ACLU if they end up in court?
If they end up in court for what?
As a vigilante group that is not affiliated with any official government or law-enforcing body, there's no way to predict what a few bad apples could do to illegals coming across the border. If it happens in a remote area that happens to be out of the prying eyes of the Border Patrol at the time, it's possible that no one will ever know except the perpetrators.
In the same way that law enforcement can have its own share of bad apples, a vigilante group can have them as well.
Absolutely - and if they end up in court for that kind of thing, of course the ACLU would not be on their side. I was just trying to figure out what Dave was getting at.
Maybe if the prosecution demands medical records.
If they were charged with something that was unconstitutional. Get it? The ACLU protects the Constitution.
He does seem to have some integrity. He reported Bush mimicking Karla Tucker begging for her life even though he was a big Bush supporter at the time. He IS consistant in his beliefs. Carlson is not the brightest crayon in the box but he is not an ideologue immune to facts and/or reality. A HUUUUGE step in the right direction
That is why the right doesn't watch him. He doesn't get the ratings because he actually has a bit of integrity.
nice to see someone admit a mistake. good idea losing the bow tie.
"Over the years, I've spent a fair amount of time beating up on the ACLU, and I assume that tradition will continue in earnest."
Let me see if i've got this right...
Tucker first lambasted the ACLU under the spurious claim that they weren't coming to Limbaugh's defense -- basically, claiming that they should be supporting Then, when he was compelled to retract his statement in the face of evidence that the ACLU was coming out in support of Limbaugh, he developed a case of "sour grapes" and stated his intent to bash the ACLU whenever possible...
Oh, I see -- so the ACLU is only a good thing and should only exist when it's helping conservatives? Feh! FEH, I say! Where I come from, this is called being an ingrate and/or biting the hand that feeds you.
..no tie?!
didn't a judge order the release of a bunch of pictures/videos that contain rape according to Seymour Hersch? The Government keeps stalling.
What Limbaugh's take on the ACLU is now? I haven't listened to him regularly in years, but I assume he's bashed them baselessly and constantly since he came to national attention in the 90's. What, if anything, has pig boy said about them now that the ACLU stood up for his</> civil rights as an American? Is he still pointlessly slamming them? Smearing their good name? Distorting their purpose and motivation? What is his take on them now that they've worked to protect the rights of obscenely rich rightwing propagandist junkies, and not just slimeballs, the unpopular and the poor? Just curious....
...about messing up the html in that post!