Carlson blasted "wrong and creepy" liberal children's book because "kids ought to be immune from politics" but previously "hope[d]" a "clever" conservative children's book "sells"
SUMMARY: Tucker Carlson blasted the new children's book Why Mommy is a Democrat as "propaganda," adding that "[i]t doesn't matter what your politics happen to be. Kids ought to be immune from politics." However, in November 2005, he hosted the author of Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed! and stated: "I thought I wasn't going to like it, but actually it's a clever book. ... I hope it sells."
On the September 21 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson blasted a new children's book by Jeremy Zilber titled Why Mommy is a Democrat, which, according to the book's website, "depicts Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others." Carlson declared that the book is "propaganda, and it's always and everywhere wrong and creepy and should be obviously a bad thing to do to impose your politics on children," adding that "[i]t doesn't matter what your politics happen to be. Kids ought to be immune from politics." He then demanded: "Be quiet, don't push it [politics] on them." But Carlson had a very different reaction to a conservative children's book while interviewing its author in November 2005.
On the November 28, 2005, edition of Carlson's previous MSNBC show, The Situation with Tucker Carlson, he interviewed Katherine DeBrecht, author of the children's book Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed! (World Ahead Publishing, September 2005). During the segment, Carlson described a character in the book as looking like "a pretty mannish [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY]," while DeBrecht added that "you also have Mayor Leech, who resembles a portly senator from Taxachusetts." But even though Carlson said, "I can't stand politics in children's books," he also claimed: "I thought I wasn't going to like it, but actually it's a clever book," adding: "I hope it sells."
From the September 21 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: If there was ever any doubt we've closed the book on Dick and Jane, here's the definitive proof. It's a new children's book. It's entitled Why Mommy is a Democrat.
The publishers describe it as a nonjudgmental explanation of the Democratic Party's policies -- peace and tolerance, as they put it. Still, if parents read between the lines, they might see the book's not-too-subtle swipes at President Bush and his fellow Republicans. Fans say it's perfect bedtime reading for Democrats of all ages.
It is, of course, propaganda, and it's always and everywhere wrong and creepy and should be obviously a bad thing to do to impose your politics on children. Doesn't matter what your politics happen to be. Kids ought to be immune from politics.
Be quiet, don't push it on them. Childhood should not be a political time of life. There'll be enough time for that later. Knock it off. As if people needed to be told.
From the November 28, 2005, edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson:
CARLSON: No offense, but your book has absolutely no chance of making it alongside Rainbow Fish. I'm sorry to say. Now, I'm looking at the illustrations, here. And -- what are the -- who are these figures? One looks like a pretty mannish Hillary Clinton, I would have to say, and who else is represented in the book? What political figures we might recognize?
DeBRECHT: Well, you have -- well, you do have Representative Clunkton, as she's called in the book, which is the pantsuit-clad senator from New York. You also have Mayor Leech, who resembles a portly senator from Taxachusetts.
CARLSON: OK.
DeBRECHT: The other characters are basically generic characters that are going to be throughout the series.
[...]
DeBRECHT: The message in my book is really about self-reliance. You don't expect the government to give everything to you. And it's really about pursuing and really despite all the obstacles, to really try and strive and pursue the American dream.
CARLSON: Katherine DeBrecht, I can't stand politics in children's books. And I thought I wasn't going to like it, but actually it's a clever book, I have to say. Thanks a lot for coming on. I hope it sells.
hahaha
Did your mommy have the city put a slow children sign outside your house?
that's original.
(not to mention condenscending and insulting to those who have mentally disabled children.)
Oh wait. I forgot. You're one of those open minded, compasionate progressives now, aren't you?
Thanks for reinforcing the stereotype. ;-)
did our widddle feeewings get hurt? you seem to think that only conservofacists can be rude and insulting. Say something worth responding to if you don't want to be insulted anothermoron.
I'm with you. I can be as big an ass as any conservative, and WE'VE got the moral high ground, to boot!
... for Carlson.
<<"hahaha"<<
I would have thought you'd be interested in children's books, considering your childish comment.
Why wait until they get older? Let's teach our kids to be discriminatory, divisive and deriding while they're still in elementary school! Carlson was right the first time; too bad creating li'l cons appears to be more important to him than principle.
Thats exactly what I got out of what Tucker said. It seems to be ok if you teach children to be cons but if you show your Children what it is to be a Democrat, old Tucker has a hissy fit.
He is the one who is creepy.
Attempting to indoctrinate kids when they are this YOUNG is pathetic.
Shame on BOTH authors and on Carlson for being a HYPOCRITE.
teaching children religion too. If reading these books to your kids is indoctrination then teaching children religion definitely is.
If a parent can't choose what a parent teaches their kids, who do you think should decide?
Perhaps you didn't UNDERSTAND what I wrote?
I said that *I* wouldn't have bought either book for *MY* kids. What *YOU* choose to do is *YOUR* business. So I don't believe I SUGGESTED *BANNING* what anyone else CHOOSES to do.
HOWEVER, I STILL believe it's rather RIDICULOUS to attempt INDOCTRINATE kids at a YOUNG age to ANY particular POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. That's *MY* opinion.
*YOU* of course are FREE to do whatever you'd like.
OK?
Geez....
just to make sure no kids get indoctrinated at all.
"Maybe we should just ban schools altogether just to make sure no kids get indoctrinated at all."...by skiploader1111
=====
Over the top CHILDISH response. BUT thanks for giving me YET another reason to roll my eyes at the way SOME Liberals here think...
both books were written for liberals!
hahaha...
(just kidding.)
"Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!" at least has the appearance of being a book that an ADULT could look through and get a LAUGH out of. The OTHER book "Why Mommy is a Democrat" is definitely geared ONLY for children which does make it a tad creepy.
I STILL wouldn't recommend either for kids, BUT I'd definitely give "Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!" to a Conservative [Adult] friend as a joke.
Since conservatives tend to read poorly and hate books. I mean since you thanked fatbob for reinforcing stereotypes its reasonable to assume you are reinforcing one of your own.
Better late than never eh Solon?
I'll admit I was being a bit snarky with FatBob. I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop... You didn't dissapoint.
Have a great weekend!
See if you can get through "My Pet Goat" this weekend. Even our president couldn't seem to put it down.
"Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!" sounds more like a smear book than a children's book. Whereas "Why Mommy Is A Democrat" sounds like a book that might actually teach you valuable lessons about peace, tolerance and understanding.
I imagine "Help! Mom!" might carry such wonderful depictions as a crack addicted homeless man, who by chance is also a serial rapist. "Mommy! Why is that man on the street like that?!"
"Well Marta, it's because the liberals don't want to clean up crime. They're opposed to putting people in jail for rape! That's why you always need to help mommy's hand when we go out: you never know where a liberal might be lurking."
Granted I've never read either book. Just judging them by their cover. And trying to be funny and failing miserably. ;)
so stop apologizing. You stepped up and showed your sense of humor, and you are to be commended.
Progressives really need to try it (havin' a good time) more often.
When will MSNBC see the error of their ways and remove this idiot from the lineup? The inane commentary, the high girlish voice at the end of every sentence, the utter lack of depth in every analysis, the talking over his guests. When MSNBC? For God's sake when?
As soon as puppets like Carlson are reduced to the substance that you find under you shoe, it'll be at that point that MSNBC and other networks would move on to something else.
As long as there's an audience and willing advertisers, these puppets are going no where.
the substance found under my shoe only when I walk through cow pastures, or hen houses.
something unshrill like AirAmerica, something people will really support.
Huh huh, like er ElRushbo, dude!
It's only natural that Tucker is so concerned with what children are reading/watching since MSNBC put him into that hot time slot (4:00 PM weekdays) where he has to fight for ratings with Sesame Street for that after school is out demographic who are the primary viewers at that time of day.
Let's make children read creepy conservative books....like the BIBLE. Most conservatives would think nothing of having a 6-year-old read the Old Testament, yet, who knows how many cases of childhood psychosis could be traced back to the brutal, bloody and bizarre stories in that book?
...of the Bible as a creepy conservative book, particularly with reference to the Gospels. Within current context, much of Christ's teaching is clearly liberal.
As for the suggestion that a 6-year old read the Bible, I'll agree that there are parts that are inappropriate for a child. Comprehension alone would be a challenge. However, there are planty of alternative materials that have been produced specifically for a younger audience.
The rest of your comments are conjecture for which I'm not aware of any supporting evidence. Anecdotally, I'm aware of more damage done by evengelicals at the college level than in elementary school.
plenty...say goodnight, Gracy!
It may be too glib to say that childhood psychosis is caused by reading the Bible. However, I think it safe to say that many children have been permanently scarred psychologically by Bible Thumping parents. No, I can't cite a study, but I do remember a documentary about serial killers, and they talked about these people having a "facilitator" or paradigm through which they found "inspiration" and "justification" for their crimes. According to this documentary, the most common facilitator is the Bible.
I also agree that Jesus's message was essentially liberal, much to the chagrin of modern Republican "Christians". I still laugh when I think of Puddinhead George in an early debate naming Jesus as his favorite philosopher. Too bad his policies do not reflect that philosophy.
Now that wouldn't surprise me...and, from my own childhood, I can think of one example of the classic "preacher's daughter"
"...of the Bible as a creepy conservative book, particularly with reference to the Gospels. Within current context, much of Christ's teaching is clearly liberal"
Christs teachings are only contained in the New Testament. The old "Testament" is just history as it was remembered and written down after centuries of oral tradition.
or maybe the history of our own country--guess that's why we're so weird. We should just let the social engineers revise the whole story so our kids will be well-adjusted.
Hell of an idea you got there.
One episode of the Boondocks provides a perfect rebutal to "Help, mommy." Jasmine sells Lemonade to get money for a pony, but the rich, White guy buys the stand and forces her into slave labor, screwing her over in the end. I don't know if Aaron McGruder had this book in mind while planning the episode, but it really did trash the story.
These books and the debate surrounding them reveal much about our political and religious culture.
I haven't read either of them, but from their titles and the way Carlson describes them, the liberal one seems to be more or less a positive declaration of democratic principles. He does say that if you "read between the lines," you can detect subtle swipes at Republicans. That may be so, but I suspect that detection would also depend on the reader's inclination.
The conservative book, on the other hand, appears to be an overt screed against Democrats. It uses fear and ridicule to demonize Democratic politicians. It is not a positive declaration of conservative principles. This has become the modus operandi of the Republican party.
I'm also mystified why people would object to other parents "pushing" their politics on their own children, while they think it's not only natural, but desirable, to indoctrinate their children with their religion. Both are belief systems.
As for me, I have pushed neither my politics nor my non-religion on my children. Two of them are grown, and they have their own beliefs. My youngest is still forming hers, but when she asks me about mine, I try to respond clearly and let her know she is entitled to her own beliefs.
Is a chosen lifestyle. So, according to Conservatives, it should be okay to discriminate based on religion, shouldn't it?
I agree with you that the conservative book looks to be more of a parody than an actual children's book. I doubt seriously if anyone buys this book for their children. Okay maybe there are a few. :-)
I find it interesting that some comment on how "evangelicals" have damaged their children, when it is not the religion that damages the children, but the psychosis of the parents. Yes, evangelicals may use their interpretation of religion to convey their psychosis, but for most reaonable people it is not the religion that is responsible for the damage, it is the parents.
I wonder how many of the progressives here transfer their very negative view of Bush and/or conservatives to their children? My guess is a lot. Whether it is done via a book or general comments around the dinner table, the results are the same. I know a number of libs/progs/cons and see how they either purposefully or unwittingly convey their attitude openly regarding politics and religion for their children to learn. The same can be said of everyone who has children. So it is not simply the evangelicals who transmit their beliefs to their kids, its' everyone.
To put forth the idea that "evangelicals" damage their kids by teaching their brand of religion shows me that you are most likely are "damaging" your kids the same, albeit secular, way by protraying them as many posters here stereotypically do.
Of course, we all have the right to damage our children as we see fit. I'll damage mine by teaching them that all people have equal rights, and that it is wrong to discriminate against them because of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. I guess I could teach them that they were born evil, and will burn in hell for eternity unless they believe that a man was tortured to death 2000 years ago to appease the jealous wrath of a psychotic war god worshipped by nomadic Bronze Age shepherds. I could also teach them to hate people who are different because ancient priests hated people who were different and attributed that hatred to their vicious god. Naaaaah....I think I'll pass.
be a good progressive : "John Wayne bad. Robin Hood good."
Why would anyone teach their children about two fictitious characters?
John Wayne was real.
"I wonder how many of the progressives here transfer their very negative view of Bush and/or conservatives to their children? My guess is a lot."
What a loaded question.
The implication being that we have a "very negative view of Bush and/or conservatives" as if that were an actual fact, and if it is fact, we somehow will poison our offspring with such rediculous notions.
The best part is when you answered the question you begged; "My guess is a lot." So, why bother to write it?
I don't speak for anyone else here, but, I often spew negativity in that direction and my views are formulated by checking out the facts, then limiting my negativity to the argument at hand, and not the person delivering it.
I've tried to teach my children (and now grandchildren) to gather facts on any issue in question, then form an opinion (or not) based on those facts. Example: negativity concerning Bush and/or conservatives--there's oh so many facts out there that it's almost like they want people to think negatively of their beliefs.
Those two sentences of yours contained many of the devisive metods often used by Limbaugh--a straw man, red herring, ad hominem, they begged the question, and worried about the snowball effect. Good job. [and they said it couldn't be done]
Help, Mommy, there's another conservative hypocrite on tv!
because she's too dumb to see the Democrats are lying to her and are really conservatives and take AIPAC money to vote to kill arab children and refuse to give us single-payer health care or stop all the corporate subsidies or the insane levels of funding for the military/industrial complex and....on and on and on.
There is only one liberal party....go Greens!
it's KHMER GREEN. And deserving of the name.
Me, a militant communist? I run a small business. All the state Green candidates are business owners. We're capitalists...we're just into the joys of self-employment and not the greed of mere aquisition. We're grown adults creating business art, not selfish children willing to poison to make a profit like much of Wall Street today.
Peace, transparent government, sensible regulation...that's not communism...that's common sense.
Ok, Redking--thanks for an articulate position statement sans hatred (for the most part) for enterprise. However, I'm sure you won't try to deny the huge Marxist plank in a lot of green platforms.
It's infrastructure investment using taxation. Did you know 25% of the road and rail bridges in this country need repair? That's a lot of work, uses a lot of manhours, costs a lot of money. The money's not there...it's being thrown away on wars and corruption.
is "TUCKER!" on Dancing With The Stars. Yeesh.