After repeated attacks on Obama, Carlson claimed: "I don't spend my time trashing the guy"
On the July 18 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's July 18 speech on urban poverty, host Tucker Carlson responded to New York Times international business editor Marcus Mabry's assertion that Obama was "talking about ways to give fathers the ways and means to be responsible, and not be ashamed, and not have to run away from their families" by claiming that the speech "struck me as much more shallow than that, though." Carlson claimed that Obama's "diagnosis is that jobs are paying less because we've, quote, busted up unions, and there aren't enough jobs for the poor," and added, "[A]ctually, there's some deeper syndrome here that I don't see addressed in any way." Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter responded that Obama had "one sentence fragment" on the "atroph[y]" of unions and accused Carlson of mischaracterizing the speech because Obama also discussed issues including "the earned income tax credit."
Nevertheless, Carlson asserted: "I have higher hopes for Obama. I don't spend my time trashing the guy. I just thought, 'This is a guy who is kind of a broad thinker,' and I expected more." In fact, in the month of July alone, Carlson has said Obama "seems like kind of a wuss," "sounds like a pothead," and gave a speech that was "kind of wimpy," as Media Matters for America has documented.
In addition, on the July 12 edition of Tucker, Carlson teased an upcoming segment on the New Hampshire book clubs Obama's presidential campaign recently established by saying: "Well, everybody knows that a book club is no place for a man. So why has Barack Obama suddenly turned into Oprah? [Producer] Willie Geist rounds up the girls, brings the chardonnay, and heads to the Oprah book club -- or the Obama book club -- when we come back."
From the July 18 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Jonathan Alter, I was amazed with this speech for what it didn't contain. It's clearly a well-thought-out speech; he means it. Not one mention of marriage. Not one. Not a single one. And yet, people who are serious about studying poverty know that whether your parents are married is one of the key factors, maybe the key factor, to whether or not you grow up poor, whether you graduate high school, et cetera, et cetera. Why not mention that once?
ALTER: I'm actually kind of surprised to hear you attack his speech on those grounds because Obama, in the speech, specifically criticized the left by name -- he called it, "the left" -- for not focusing enough on fatherhood.
CARLSON: No, but -- but marriage is the key, and he didn't mention it. And anybody, left or right, who studies this knows that that is the key.
[...]
MABRY: Exactly, and it's interesting because he's saying, "It takes a father to have a family with hope to come out of poverty." And that -- it's not saying marriage, which some might say was a conservative buzzword, so he wouldn't use that word, but he also condemns the left, and at the same time, he's talking about giving fathers the ways and means to be responsible and not be ashamed, and not have to run away from their families.
CARLSON: But wait, it struck me as much more shallow than that, though. I mean, his diagnosis is that jobs are paying less because we've, quote, busted up unions, and there aren't enough jobs for the poor. Well, our immigration problem exists partly because there are actually a lot of jobs for the poor, and they're taken by people from Guatemala. So actually, there's some deeper syndrome here that I don't see addressed in any way.
ALTER: Those jobs -- but, see, those jobs don't lift people out of poverty. The old union jobs are long gone.
CARLSON: Oh, they don't?
ALTER: No, no, they don't. They're minimum-wage or sub-minimum-wage jobs.
CARLSON: They don't give people dignity? Then why are people coming here to take them?
ALTER: Because they're a hell of a lot better than they get in Mexico. But they don't lift you out of poverty. So the old jobs -- and, by the way, he did not dwell on this in the speech; this is not the same old, same old, if you look at the speech closely. The old jobs are long gone --
CARLSON: Right.
ALTER: And one of the reasons, if you are diagnosing the problem, is that, you know, the union movement in the United States has atrophied badly. He had one sentence fragment on that. Don't mislead people into believing that the bulk of his speech --
CARLSON: Mislead people? I --
ALTER: -- was a defense of unionism --
CARLSON: I didn't suggest that. I'm merely saying --
ALTER: -- it was a fragment of one sentence. The focus of his speech was on doing real things, like on the earned income tax credit --
CARLSON: What, is this an ad for Obama or something? I mean, you've gotta be kidding.
ALTER: No, but don't --
CARLSON: I'm not misleading anybody --
ALTER: Tucker, you're mischaracterizing the speech, saying it's the same old, old-fashioned, Great Society liberalism --
CARLSON: I certainly am not --
ALTER: It's not. It's not.
CARLSON: I had higher hopes -- I have higher hopes for Obama. I don't spend my time trashing the guy. I just thought, "This is a guy who is kind of a broad thinker," and I expected more than "Children should go to day care right from birth," which is -- you know, Clinton -- but -- I mean, it has just been demonstrated on the front page of The New York Times that, in fact, going to daycare right from birth maybe doesn't presume -- produce optimum children. I mean, that's a retro solution. Were you surprised to read that?
Carlson is acting more like a neocon with his lies.
It is amazing that anyone tolerates his hate speech.
I have no doubt it has racist underpinnings.
Moreover, he's an embarrassment to MSNBC, which has become more respectable in the recent months.
He is all about supporting big corporations.
Robert Kennedy was right, we should start treating these trogs like the traitors they are.
Carlson is why we should not only push the fairness doctrine on the airways, but cable as well.
You left out "carlson crosses his legs like a girl whenever he sees Hillary".
There, now you are complete.
Let's see 7/3 he was a "wuss" and 7/6 he was a "pothead" and 7/11 he was "wimpy" not much time in a year but a lot's time in the month of July.
Snoopy, he's afraid that Hillary's ba**s are bigger than his own hence him crossing his legs. :)
Now he does satire, oh CDBS, you are a dear!
Satire generally has SOME inherent social value. Dubiousdissent.blogwhore.nut only does parody.
Except it's not very good satire, because in trying to be absurd, he's posted the most truthful things to ever come out of hs mind.
Or maybe that's a whole 'nother level of satire- The backward thinker, in attempting to be facetious, accidentally stumbles into reality.
I do enjoy the use of "moreover", in nearly every post, though. Usually begins the second to last paragraph, lending an air of serious analysis.
Bra.....Vo, CompliantConsent.
Such a well-reasoned and thoughtful contribution, Copious! If it's full of such pithy insights as these, I cannot wait to read your blog. What's the address, again?
Who exactly is pushing for the fairness doctrine?
If Tuckers job was to present informed and useful political analysis then he is a complete failure.
If Tuckers job is to present effective propaganda against Democratic politicians, then he is also a failure (the key term is "effective"; only a complete moron would believe what he says and those that do likely cannot even find a voting booth).
If Tucker's job is to sell stuff by keeping viewers around until his show breaks for a commercial (which is really the only reason he is on the air) then his success is measured by the ratings and how well the show's advertisers keep on believing they are getting some benefit from the bucks they spend at MSNBC.
Please....
Trying to compare what Tucker says to real political analysis is like comparing the sound a hog makes at feeding time to a performance by Pavarotti.
"I had high hopes for the guy..." But, of course, never went so far as to voice them in public...
Hack, hack, hack.
The only good part is that he goes to bed knowing Obama Girl will never sleep with him...
Has this "analist" even met Barrack Obama? Jeepers, the drivel he comes up with. This is why nepotism is such a bad idea. Just like Shrub in politics, could he possibly have had a career in journalism, with no college degree, without the influence of his father?
Just to glance upon Tucker "Little Twisted Sister" Carlson's stupefying visage makes one wonder how stupedly inept a person can be...based opon their selection of tie.
Stupify...twice? How base, crass & inelegant to allow something such as this to occur!...Oh?...hang on!...now then, "Tucker, I know you can read. Now go slow, easy does it, sound out each syllable...I know it's not easy. Here, it says, "When Tucker talks, he is doodie ka-ka!"
Tucker Carlson is the consumate smart a__. He perpetually has that fake confused look on his face like he did today when he spent the entire first segment of his show discussing the non-event of Obama supposedly endorsing sex education for kindergarten kids. I did happen to think during his gentle sparring with Bill Press how odd it is that a network that cancelled Donahue when his ratings were at least as good as Chris Matthews or any other MSNBC host, would continue to waste air time and money on someone like Tucker who is obviously so trivial in his thought process and style.
In addition to his mendacity, Tucker Carlson is dishonest in another way--and it's quite similar to Bill O'Reilly. Whenever he has liberal guests on his show (at least the ones I watched), he hardly allows them to speak without interrupting them and speaking over them. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to appear on his show and have him talking over you without letting you complete your thought. This is another, perhaps more insidious, form of dishonesty. Carlson can claim he "interviewed" a liberal even while the interviewee hardly got a word in edgewise. Instead, it's virtually all Tucker Carlson all of the time.
Thus, we hardly hear the other perspective. It's almost entirely Carlson's one-sided pronouncements on Obama, without any real debate. Indeed, his "interviews" simply provide him with a forum to attack Obama while his interviewees have little or no opportunity to make a counter argument. Furthermore, there's no discussion of substantive matters, it's just vague attacks and smears. The irony here, of course, is that Carlson, like so many other loudmouth conservative media pundits, doesn't even realize it when he contradicts himself. But no matter, what's a little hypocrisy to a neo-con? The important thing is to make your point, over and over. Right?
Well put, which leads me to a really nutty idea:
How about, instead of having three guys on talking about the speech, the network actually SHOWS the speech?
How about, instead of Tucker telling us what Obama said, NBC could actually SHOW us what Obama said?
Or does GE think Tucker is so unbelievably telegenic and intelligent that we need to hear him talk about Obama rather than hear Obama himself?
Unfortunately the public is used to being treated like idiots. Nobody expects to be shown the speech, just to be shown a 3 second sound byte and then to be told what was said and what to think about it.
Tucker is there to translate speeches by humans like Obama, so they can be understood by members of whatever species Tucker is.
Prof, whenever reading "doodie ka-ka's" name, one can easily substitute another flabbergasting, moronic slimeball's moniker. Remember: The mere substitution of another ugly mug never supplants the mendacity of their deceptive rhetoric. To wit, another unnatural blandishment—upon which the hurlings, with clichéd triteness...look more than, vaguely similar.
Tucker just doesn't get it..... I think he just there to collect a paycheck.
I thin Obama and Tucker should meet face to face and look each other in the eye. I then want Obama to go over all the things tucker has said about him and let Tucker respond......face to face.
That would be excellent!
I can see the look now on tuckers face as Obama asks him "just what did you mean be saying that I have become the "female" candidate, you wussified ignorant wanna be journalist"
ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE GETTING BASHED. OBAMA BY NO MEANS HOLDS THAT DISTINCTION ALONE .LOOK AT HANNITY REGURGITATING THE VINCE FOSTER STORY AND SO ON.ITS THE SLIMMY SIDE OF MEDIA THAT SHOWS ITSELF AND THERE SUBLIMINAL PREFERANCES TOWARD POLITICIANS AT ALL LEVELS AROUND ELECTION TIME
oops....that was a different "journalist"
OBAMA DOES NOT HOLD THE DISTINCTION OF BEING ATTACKED BY MEDIA ALONE.LOOK AT HANNITY BRINGING UP THE VINCE FOSTER STORY AGAIN AND GUILLIANNI BASHING ETC. MEDIA EXPERTS AND I USE THE TERM LOOSELY SHOW THERE PREFERANCES SUBLIMINALLY AND WEAK MINDS TAKE THERE WORD AS GOSPEL.
"I had higher hopes -- I have higher hopes for Obama."
Interesting mid sentence correction don't you feel?
Yes.."high hopes" is what I had..er..HAVE for Obama.Hey-no one has more respect for the man than I do,and I defy you to prove otherwise.I just need him to prove to me that he isn't in cahoots with the enemy.
Tucker never fails to weasle his way out of a losing argument without a little dab of some ridiculous example of BS for lube at the end and a smile.
He reciently used the same tactic when defending against the fairness docturine by saying some off the wall thing about the Holocost and the need to provide an oposing viewpoint if it was enacted. Kind of like letting people marry sheep if gays marry. Sounds like the right wingers think everyone is at the mental capability of a paranoid 12 year old like them. We are incapable of using common sense and decency and at the mercy of extreme illogical madmen who put political party and superstitions before country. Well, while their in charge that may be true.