Carlson: Obama campaign's targeting of young voters has "a Khmer Rouge quality to it"
SUMMARY: On Tucker, discussing the targeting of 17-year-old Iowa voters by Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, Tucker Carlson said the practice has "a Khmer Rouge quality to it," adding, "[I]t's scary." He also stated, "[I]f a right-wing candidate came and targeted my kids, I'd be mad about it. I don't want my kids near political candidates. ... They're creepy."
On the October 10 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, while discussing the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and its targeting of young voters in Iowa, host Tucker Carlson told guests -- nationally syndicated radio host Bill Press and TownHall.com contributing writer Matt Lewis -- "[Y]oung people like [Obama] anyway. ... [P]oliticizing children -- there's a Khmer Rouge quality to it. I think it's scary," adding: "[I]f a right-wing candidate came and targeted my kids, I'd be mad about it. I don't want my kids near political candidates. ... They're creepy."
The Khmer Rouge, headed by Pol Pot, was a brutal and repressive regime that ruled Cambodia in the mid- to late 1970s, leading "to the deaths of nearly a quarter of Cambodia's seven million people."
According to a Wall Street Journal report, a "quirk in Iowa election law" allows 17-year-old Iowa residents to caucus in January because they will be eligible to vote in the November 2008 presidential elections.
During the segment, Press stated: "This is, I think, one of the best things that Barack Obama has done. It's very smart. They're 17 today, they're going to be 18 next year. Volunteer this year, vote next year." Press continued: "In Iowa, they're allowed to participate in the caucus ... in January, even though they're not old enough to vote because they will vote in November. So, this is a whole new pool of new voters. And if anybody can appeal to them, get them excited and get them involved in politics and in his campaign, it's Barack Obama." Carlson responded: "I think you're right. I just disagree with it." Press then added, "I think it's a brilliant strategy." Later, Press asserted: "The fact that they've got a driver's license; they can go in the military, they're almost old enough to vote -- they can get involved in a political campaign." Carlson replied: "Ugh! Creepy as hell."
From the October 10 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Obama now targeting his campaign -- 17-year-olds in Iowa. Apparently the regulations in Iowa stipulate that if you're going to be 18 by the election, you can caucus; you can participate in the caucuses in January. So the Obama campaign is trying to get out 17-year-olds. Should a political campaign be targeting kids?
LEWIS: Well, you -- the thing I don't like about it is the whole premise of going to their parents and the teachers and sort of the coercion that this, you know, has been implied. But in terms of having a youth movement, I applaud him. However, every four years a candidate says they're going to win because of young people. It doesn't work. But what this does give Obama, I think, rather than actually a lot of voters, which I think is probably doubtful, it gives him an image. When you have a lot of young people on your campaign, it's that whole RFK image --
CARLSON: Right.
LEWIS: -- and I think it works for him, and it's smart.
CARLSON: Well, young people like him anyway. I just -- it -- politicizing children -- there's a Khmer Rouge quality to it. I think it's scary. If some -- if a right-wing candidate came and targeted my kids, I'd be mad about it. I don't want my kids near political candidates. Do you?
PRESS: Come on. Come on, get real.
CARLSON: They're creepy.
PRESS: This is, I think, one of the best things that Barack Obama has done. It's very smart. They're 17 today, they're going to be 18 next year. Volunteer this year, vote next year. And Iraq --
LEWIS: The other thing, they'll be 22 four years from now or whatever when he runs again.
PRESS: Right. But also -- and in Iowa --
CARLSON: Well, then, why not start in the fifth grade and just train a new generation of --
PRESS: Hold on a second. In Iowa, they're allowed to participate in the caucus --
LEWIS: Yes.
PRESS: -- in January, even though they're not old enough to vote because they will vote in November. So, this is a whole new pool of new voters. And if anybody can appeal to them, get them excited and get them involved in politics and in his campaign, it's Barack Obama. I think it's a brilliant--
CARLSON: I think you're right. I just disagree with it.
PRESS: I think it's a brilliant strategy.
CARLSON: And I don't care who does it, I just think you should lay off -- lay off my -- don't come near my house with that garbage.
PRESS: Wait, wait, wait. He's not putting a gun to their heads. It's just that they're flocking to his campaign 'cause they like what he's saying.
[crosstalk]
CARLSON: No, but it's like -- you know, what do kids do? They're impressionable. That's why you should let them make up their own minds and not try to either subject them to propaganda.
PRESS: The fact that they've got a driver's license, they can go in the military, they're almost old enough to vote -- they can get involved in a political campaign.
CARLSON: Ugh! Creepy as hell.
Are Republicans going to say anything about -- it's 'cause it seems like Republicans have accepted the idea that the middle class deserves entitlements, too.
LEWIS: Not this one but --
CARLSON: You know, the -- Hillary Clinton's savings plan pays people -- middle class families, people who make up to a hundred grand -- pay them to save money. The -- since when does the middle class deserve entitlements? And when are Republicans going to say something about that?
Why is it a problem for young people to be involved in the political process? I guess Tucker feels children are worthless.
Encouraging people (e.g. 14 years and up) to start getting informed and look forward to participating in the political process is very important and should be CELEBRATED. I remember all my high school teachers would say, "young people don't vote enough. It's your country, don't complain about it if you turn 18 and then you don't vote."
If people are misinforming kids its one thing, but wanting them to get involved in their country is NOT the same thing.
This is simply a dumb guy making spurious connections... nothing more. Take it at face value. I've always thought Carlson was a little creepy.
Tucker is being ridiculous here - these aren't twelve year olds being stalked by politicians. If Obama can energize young voters to become more interested, more power to him. It is smart.
"Tucker is being ridiculous..."
That's redundant, Tommy.
Why does MSNBC still tolerate this hater and divider?
Does Tucker also think it's creepy that 18 year olds are allowed to vote?
Personally, I think Tucker Carlson is creepy.
damn, you beat me to it!
They are obviously scared that someone would have the audacity to educate future voters. They want kids to be able to join the military, drink and drive by 18 years of age, but vote? Out of the question, because these kids are considered too stupid to think for themselves. Even though they decided on their own to join the all volunteer army...
Let's see...Tucky thinks that a politician making a speech to 17-year-olds is similar to...um....putting a plastic bag over someone's head and throwing their body in a swamp? I wonder...is Tucky one of those who kvetches when a liberal compares Bush's tactics to the Nazis? Just wondering.
No. What I think Carlson is trying to say is that when Obama becomes president he will issue machine guns out to every 14 year-old and have them hunt their parents.
This can only be seen as an attempt by Obama to confuse Republicans who don't want to be murdered by their children but still would have to appreciate his pro-gun stance.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Onionhead beat me to it!!
Khmer Rouge reference was little more than a scurrilous effort to rub the murderous movement from Cambodia on Obama.
The Khmer Rouge saw the extermination of millions by the children of thier nation to re-educate the nation by simply eliminating the intellectuals, something more likely to happen by the hypocrites on the right.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
More Obama bashing from Carlson. Predictable. Suddenly it's a bad thing that a politician has the ability to energize young people to vote? Tucker has run out of so many insults towards Obama he's scraping the barrel on this one.
I am sure that Carlson must have had a fit when he saw that book aimed for toddlers--"Help Mom! There is a Liberal Under My Bed" right?
I wonder then if Tucker supports banning military recruiters from highschool job fairs too? After all if they are too impressionable and it is creepy to let 'em near the "children" then he must be really upset that the military targets them too and they are actually trying to get them to make a decision that could be potentially life threatening while Obama justs wants them to pull a lever. Just for the record I don't have a problem with the military recruiters at job fairs...but apparently Tucker would.
Lost,
It's a great analogy, and a great question for Tucker to answer. Too bad Press didn't think of it.
Great point, lost.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Tucker, "Creepy IS as creepy DOES.'
In a field of very creepy Rightwing pundits, Tucker is among the creepiest.
If he showed up at a backyard Barbecue, he wouldn't have to utter but a few comments before you started watching him very closely. He's a creepy guy.
"If he showed up at a backyard Barbecue, he wouldn't have to utter but a few comments before you started watching him very closely."
I know of a few bbq events here in Chicago where Carlson might not feel quite so brave and courageous as he does in his cozy studio, uttering Obama comments like that one.
I don't know that it will have much effect on the Iowa primary...but good for Obama.
There is not one thing wrong with energizing teens to become informed and active in our political process.
There's no getting around it, Tucker Carlson is stupid. He might be a great pal to go boating with on weekends for all I know and I'd might like to see his father's million buck cane collection but he really is an airhead.
At least some of these talking heads try to be clever and hide the fact they've got nothing to say.
Carlson can't even manage that.
For Carlson to compare Obama's campaign to the Khmer Rouge is pretty disgusting. Getting teens out to vote is a good thing. I'm glad Bill Press was there to add a least a little sanity to that conversation.
How the hell does this moron get away with comparing Obama with the Khmer Rouge? WTF?
Apparently when you are Tucker Carlson you can say whatever you want.
He has the perfect right to say it, to compare the two - just as those of us who disagree with him have that right as well.
Nobody questioned his right to say this. The question is, how does he get away with saying this. Why is he employed by a major network and paid lots of money to say things as lame as that about anyone? It's not a matter of rights. He should have the right to stand on a street corner saying all kinds of lunatic things. Getting away with it is being paid to say it to millions of people.
He gets away with it because he has the right to say it. That's why he gets away with it. Simple.
Tommy
He has a right to say it , and we have a right to be critical.
I believe I said the exact same thing Doris.
So you said nothing
???
Really, all you were saying is that the right to say things exists? Why would you bother saying that?
Just as MSNBC has the right to take him off the air for saying it.
Carlson's wise, and knows what he can and can't "get away with".
If he should think he's underpaid and that "MSNBC bosses are a bunch of cheap and stupid, perverted tightwads", he has a right to say it, but knows he won't "get away with it".
However, he knows MSNBC will let him "get away with" equating Barack Obama to a mass murderer, or he wouldn't say it.
SUNDOG:
PeeWee Herman has the RIGHT to play for the Bulls. The problem is, he doesn't have the chops. The Bulls demand an extremely high level of skill and dedication, practice and rule following.
Tucker Carlson is in the "BIG LEAGUE" of Media. Having a national show is the APEX of the punditry business. Yet, the 'PROS' in news broadcasting seems to have NO REQUIREMENTS WHATSOEVER, except the willingness to cite rightwing talking points.
No long history of being "in the business", no peer awards, no formal education, NOTHING.
We don't need a "fairness doctrine". Instead, we need a TEST no more difficult than the written driving test we all must take to get behind the wheel of a car.
The FCC should require TESTING on history, political science, civics, and government. If these pundits don't pass, they can't be on the air. If these guys are going to be telling US what to think, we have the right to know if they even know HOW to think.
Tex, You've come up with some doozies, but a TEST to get on the air? That has to the most hysterical one of all.
What about a test for network anchors? Or newspaper columnists? Or tests for someone who wants to buy a radio station, or newpaper?
Will you liberals ever run out of nutty ideas in order to try and silence those you just don't like, along with their opinions? If this desperation weren't so funny, it would be scary.
Put this dilemma on a test > 1) What do liberals have to do to compete in the free marketplace of ideas besides whining to the government? Good luck.......
1) What do liberals have to do to compete in the free marketplace of ideas besides whining to the government?
Dominate the internet where the marketplace of ideas is truly free.
TOMMY:
I need to get a handle on this "whine to the government" thing.
Can I whine to the government if I want NO-BID contracts? If I want billions in oil-depeletion allowances? If I want a country invaded? If I want to prevent women from getting abortions? Should I whine to the government if I think there are too many brown-skinned workers in my town? Should I appeal to the government if I want Unions dissolved? How about if I see lots of profit in mining and logging in pristine parks? Should I whine to the government THEN?
See, I see a LOT of whining going on to the government, WANTING things, wanting things DONE, wanting LAWS to enforce the things somebody thinks is "moral" or "profitable" to a few.
But getting the FCC to have some minimal competence testing for the primary voices going out over our PUBLIC airwaves ... that's going too far? (P.S. OF COURSE test the network anchors as well. Those who are not Rightwing stooges will pass with flying colors!)
Those analogies were money Tex
Testing, testing
Well done as usual, Tex. You know, Tommy was being perfectly rational for a few moments there, but then decided he had to go up against you, and as usual ended up with his nose broken. Poor guy.
I definitely agree that there should be some kind of testing standard when it comes to pundits giving their opinions, especially when they are well paid to do so. Furthermore, the results of those tests absolutely should be made public. Can you imagine the Fox News junkies scrambling around for excuses, should their heroes come out with substandard scores? Picture the pitiful way that Limbaugh or Coulter or Savage would look as they whine about how unfair it was to have their ignorance shown for all to see. They will certainly look back to the good old days when people (i.e., their fans) thought they were brilliant simply because they said so.
I'd go a little further and say that people who run for public office should also be subjected to the same test. Then, instead of David Brooks giving fatheaded reasons as to why he thinks Sen. Obama is weak on foreign policy, we can see Obama's own score and decide for ourselves if it's good enough. This would keep people who are frankly intellectually unqualified to be in a high office out of it altogether (and only if such a practice had been in place in 2000!), if not by shaming them from running, or by receiving the well-earned disdain of the voters.
Such tests could be administered to the candidates once a month, and that way we not only see who's strong at what subject, but we'd see their capacities to improve. Speaking for myself, I want a president who is not only learned, but eager to learn more.
And finally, this would get people (and eventually even journalists) talking about real issues, and not fluff like haircuts, cackles, etc. "Electability" would actually mean something.
- tommy / Thursday October 11, 2007 06:35:30 PM EST"Put this dilemma on a test > 1) What do liberals have to do to compete in the free marketplace of ideas besides whining to the government? Good luck......." Get control of the FCC!
Tommy, would you want a doctor who hadn't passed the boards?
You're trusting journalists to inform you--don't you WANT to know they know their stuff? What they tell you informs how you vote, how others vote, which in turn affects how high your taxes are, what your kids are taught in schools, whether we go to war, and how many of our young adults are killed and maimed. The stakes are pretty high.
Besides, it's not to say that someone who isn't certified can't be on the air (for example, let's hear the thoughts from a mother with a sick child on health insurance policy), but anyone who invites them should be clear where this person got their information and what their credentials are.
I suggest that all credible "pundits" be given an honorific appellation--I humbly propose CJA--Certification of Journalistic Accuracy.
And then the little banner under each talking head would read something like Bill Moyers, CJA. Kind of like how doctors are introduced as Dr. Linus Pauling, PhD or Dr. Albert Schweitzer, MD.
You wouldn't *have* to be a CJA to appear on the air, but it's something the public should expect, and it would give networks a cache.
Also, it should have the potential to be revoked or suspended (with heavy fines!) if the journalist knowingly misrepresents information, compromises journalistic ethics, or egregiously fails to correct a mistake.
TESTS for qualification? ;-)
Who ever thought a president would appoint a horse show organiser as FEMA director......or send a college age campaign supporter with no experience to Iraq to over see reconstruction? ......And the list goes on.
The right has added the Khmer Rouge to the "rotation", along with Hitler and Stalin.
Carlson's audience consists of people who enjoy hearing the "libs/far left/moonbats", etc., compared to mass murderers. It's good fun to them, they laugh, and Carlson's ratings bounce up a little. And there's no shortage of Carlson apolgists the day after. Everybody's happy.
I guess the right "traded" for the Hitler comparisons from moveon.org, who posted ads on their website comparing him to Bush years ago.
Both comparisons were wrong. Comparing Bush to Hitler is wrong and this Khmer Rouge analogy is wrong.
Moveon.org had nothing to do with these ads.
They were a part of submission to their website in a contest to pick the best campaign ad to run against Bush. These ads were quickly taken down from their website.
You are correct sir, thank you for pointing out that fact.
Because restraint and raising the level of discourse by avoiding cheap political machinations is paramount in moveon's deliberate thoughtfulness.
Plutonium in bone has a biological half-life of about 100 years.
Has anybody successfully calculated what the half-life of right wing propaganda is?
Right wing propaganda has been researched extensivelly, and found to have a direct half life of 2 to 6 years depending on which election cycle is taking place while the propaganda is being administered.
It's indirect effects heve been known to last decades. However, those indirect effects can be substantially shortened should a Democrat (such as President Bill Clinton) take office at which time the damages are swiftly repaired.
All right, I get it. They are not perfect. But do they compare to the heinous groups on the right like Freedom's Watch, or the twenty or so groups that use the word "Family" in their name?
Oh, BTW. Do you always answer with sarcasm whenever someone factually clarifies something for you?
Tommy only seems to have a problem with groups which promote Democratic ideas. It would seem that Republicans can pretty much say whatever they wish, even bash Democrats, and he often defends them.
Sorry Tommy, just calling it like I see it.
Yep, I never touch Republicans or call them on their crap, only Democrats.
You need a vision check-up.
Its another example on here of people I call "Bind Partisans" If you question anyone on the Left, you are attacked as a Republican , conservative supporter.
In a conversation about a specific use of inappropriate analogies to smear a liberal candidate, Tommy brings up an unrelated 4 year old event so that he can say how bad the libs are. How is that not partisan?
"Tommy only seems to have a problem with groups which promote Democratic ideas."--The Rick
Seems correct to me, and others have mentioned that as well.
"It would seem that Republicans can pretty much say whatever they wish, even bash Democrats, and he often defends them."--The Rick
I didn't say 'always' defends them, I said "often."
"You need a vision check up"--Tommy
Although my vision is bad, I was wearing my glasses when I wrote this. :-)
Adding to the "lib"-bashing rotation along with Hitler, Stalin, et al.: I forgot to include "Godless Defeatist Atheists who hate the country, Christmas and the "real" troops. Etc.
Don't forget lying little 12 year old boys who had been in a coma, or the kid who liked being molested for 4 years by his kidnapper.
"How the hell does this moron get away with comparing Obama with the Khmer Rouge? WTF? - johnotoole13181 / Thursday October 11, 2007 02:14:35 PM EST"
I think it's safe to assume that Pol Pot refused to wear his American flag lapel pin. That's how these things always get started...
Wait, I'm really confused--Did Pol Pot have an American Flag Lapel Pin? Or A Cambodian Flag Lapel Pin? Did he always wear it or never wear it? Did he wear it after the US invaded Cambodia, and then take it off at some point subsequently?
Please clarify all of these details for me because it's much more important than how many people he massacred.
Actually, Tucker may be making a really interesting analogy. Here is a direct quote from the WIKIPEDIA entry on the Khmer Rouge --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
The Paris Student GroupDuring the 1950s, Khmer students in Paris organized their own communist movement, which had little, if any, connection to the hard-pressed party in their homeland. From their ranks came the men and women who returned home and took command of the party apparatus during the 1960s, led an effective insurgency against Lon Nol from 1968 until 1975, and established the regime of Democratic Kampuchea.
Pol Pot, who rose to the leadership of the communist movement in the 1960s, was born in 1928 (some sources say in 1925) in Kampong Thum Province, northeast of Phnom Penh. He attended a technical high school in the capital and then went to Paris in 1949 to study radio electronics (other sources say he attended a school for printers and typesetters and also studied civil engineering). Described by one source as a "determined, rather plodding organizer," he failed to obtain a degree, but, according to the Jesuit priest, Father François Ponchaud, he acquired a taste for the classics of French literature as well as for the writings of Marx.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Young, idealistic kids who thought that they were going to do good ... Well, communism does have an attraction to confused young people who can be easily manipulated by slick hucksters.
My God! I can't tell the two apart!
Thank you for posting this and showing that Obama is a communist dictator who will murder millions of people if elected.
Billy bob, you are my hero.
Oh let's not forget the true dangers of reading French Literature, Reading Balzac can turn anyone into a killing machine.
Sounds like this could happen here...maybe it already has via Young Republican Clubs on our own college campuses. But they are probably 18 so they aren't kids.
I don't get the connection of your post BillyBob. Maybe a further explanation will help.
The connection is pretty clear - in both cases, kids with no real connection to the daily lives of the people move in to take over and run the political apparatus.
Now, I know that communism represented the greatest evil in the history of mankind. And certainly, many left/libs are remorseful and truly regret what happened after the fall of Vietnam to the communists and the eventual takeover of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge which resulted in the killing fields.
We simply cannot ignore history, however. When a young person wears a communist emblem, or utters a communist slogan, or even says something in admiration of Che, we must try to give the child the information about the horrible crimes associated with this pernicious ideology. Fascism was horrible, but communism is and was even worse!
The connection is pretty clear - in both cases, kids with no real connection to the daily lives of the people move in to take over and run the political apparatus.
That's a connection I really don't see. Where did it come up that the kids Obama was talking to "had no real connection to the daily lives of the people"? All I see is insult in Carlson's words.
Now if figured out how a Cheney has evovle. Nothing in his daily life in Wyoming.
Sadly BillyBob...
It seems that your post--while seemingly earnest--has absolutely nothing to do with Tucker Carlson's comments.
I hope people don't start accusing you of being a troll.
Oh sweet roger/max/billybob, the politics of personal destruction drives hard the foot that has lost its hold on public opinion.
Just take a look at your thug brethren who harass fellow citizens for participating in the political process, ask the Frost family what I'm talking about.
Seriously, Republicans are imploding as their political relevance recedes. Republicans call billion dollar no bid private mercenary contracts to a wealthy family in Michigan free market economics but they get tweaked if the government helps a struggling family in Maryland pay for healthcare.
Please tell us some more about those bad, bad communist libs while all those compassionate conseratives intimidate our fellow Americans from participating in the public debate.
And Carlson, well, he ain't no different than all those other compassionate conservatives. He and those like him got nothing, they're out of ideas, so they resort to the politics of personal destruction.
roundhouse, I think you're right about the Roger/max/billybob trinity, but what about Brutus Maximus? There's a slight style difference, but short posts , so it may be an effort. The similarities;
1. Macho solid name
2. Rush Limbaugh-style confusion regarding facts
3. inability to answer questions directly related to assertions made
4. Constant receiving of ass-kickings
too much for coincidence?
I guess if we are going to blame the attrocities of Communist regimes on their economy we really should blame the attrocities of Hitler, Rios Montt, Suhuarto and Idi Amin on Capitalism
And let's not forget Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, etc. It's absurd to equate the evils wrought by Communism (not that anyone here is defending communism, anyway) with those of Fascism, much less to say that it's worse. But hey, "absurd" and "BillyBob" aren't exactly opposites.
"their own communist movement, which had little, if any, connection to the hard-pressed party in their homeland."
Ya know what's really scary: if politicians should start kissing babies. Then we're doomed. Better stay in your bunker.
Your post has "little, if any" connection to reality.
Billybob, one can never say Tucker and interesting analogy in the same sentence. He has a SHOW and is trying his best to stay on any network. But to spout trash is his right but also his oncoming doom.
[Conservatism] does have an attraction to confused young people who can be easily manipulated by slick hucksters.
There, I fixed that for you. We can see a perfect example in Young Republican Chickenhawks.
Good lord! Are you really that insane? Or are you the type of redneck who likes to whack the beehive with a stick just for fun?
I'm only trying to give context to the analogy that Carlson is using. He is not suggesting that there will be another killing field because of Obama. TC was simply comparing the use of young, inexperienced and naive students to further a political agenda.
That is a fair comparison. Although, I have to admit it is somewhat provocative. And certainly I would never compare Obama to Pol Pot. That would be totally unfair.
"And certainly I would never compare Obama to Pol Pot. That would be totally unfair."
Isn't that what you just did?
At what age do you suggest that children are no longer children? When can they start hearing about politics? 17,16,15,14,etc.
My God, at what age did Fathe and Mother Tucker indoctrinate the Little Tucker? Maybe his show is a ruse to give him a platform to be the next Lon Nol.
Political movements of almost every ideological persuasion have tried to capture the energy and idealism of youth. Sometimes, like with the Khmer Rouge (or the Hitlerjugend), it becomes twisted, but Tucker's blinkered attempt to conflate Obama with them is inane.
Right BillyBob...
That's the problem. Tuck-snot is comparing Obama to Pol Pot. You've got it! That's the problem. As you say, "it's provocative." And it's right-wing sewage.
TC was simply comparing the use of young, inexperienced and naive students to further a political agenda.That is a fair comparison. (Bloejobjones)
I can't wait for tucky to mention The O'Reilly Factor for Kids and Hitler Youth in the same sentence.Or doesn't it apply to right-wing extremists?
OOps - do I have to "Godwin Youth" myself ?
No it is not a fair comparison its INSANE and frankly delusional. A lot like your posts PRETENDING it is a fair comparison. Its frankly stupid to even PRETEND that bringing a political awareness to young people is some kind of brainwashing or indoctrination. It is a good idea. I was the editor of my High School newspaper at 16 and pretty politically aware who are YOU to decide young people are too niave to be introduced to the political context in America?
It's fun to play the passive aggressive insult game, let's all play!
For example Billy, I would never compare you to a child molesting meth addict. That would be unfair.
No BillyBob, it's not an interesting analogy...
But it is a bunch of crap.
Here we go again...OBAMAs WAR ON CHILDREN
Hey, Tuclker guess which political party sent a recruiter to my HS and took us out of the classroom, away from the teacher and tried to sign us up to volunteer for the Tricky Dick campaign? Need any more hints??
PS Never met a Democratic "recruiter" in 17 years of public education. Although a real pretty co-ed invited me to a meeting of a communist club once. Turns out that everything the leader of that discussion predicted about the course of world history came true pretty much, ie, US militarism / empire spread worldwide.
Funny how our schools ask kids to repeat a loyalty oath to the Federal government every morning. That's indoctrination. And don't even get me started on the ultra-nationalist propaganda that the high schools call "social studies".
Tucker feels he has to say something outrageous...
In order to keep the few wingnuts he has watching the show. It's absolutely amazing that this piddling snot still has a TV show. Talk about the dumbing down of America?
"Commie" works just as well as it did in the 1950s on the average American bedwetter.
As long as communism can be portrayed not as simply a different form of government, as open to abuse as any other,but as an inherently evil force, those who would rather not think can save a lot of energy.
Living among the Republicans as I do. I see it in action. "Communism" is explained to them as simply the exact opposite of "Capitalism" which is equally simplified as inherently and magically "good".
After making the commie=left and liberal=left connection, all that remains is to convince the faithful that all of history's horrible right-wing entities were leftist.Once this is done, the triggers are in place, and all it takes is an off-hand mention of any evil regime to send the real Americans into a frenzy.
huntington that was right on! They are still trying to red-bait,instead of discussing issues, Intimidate,threaten and assinate is how the right works. Tucker is so puerile,this analogy is way over the top and Damn Abrams should make him apologize like he forced David Shuster to do--even though David Shuster was right!
Exactly, except it is a form of ECONOMY not government. The Soviet Union in the 70's had the same form of government WE had. A bicameral congress, an executive branch and a Supreme Court. Which makes the point as you said that all forms of government are as open to corruption and exploitation.
True, Solon.See, they've even got me confused!
Sure, getting a seventeen year old involved in the political process is comparable to the Khmer Rouge. That's reasonable. In fact, I think it should be a crime for a child under the age of eighteen to watch a political commercial. They're "creepy".
I also believe that our youngsters are too impressionable to make the decision to join the military, ever. They should all serve at age sixteen. Being so impressionable, they might get the impression that our current war is failing. In order to avoid getting the wrong impression, I think we should just send them over in order to inject a healthy dose of reality.
But seriously, Tucker doesn't care about someone else's kids or how impressionable they are, he just wants to equate Obama with the Khmer Rouge. Congratulations sir, you just butchered history and common sense to deliver an insult.
I don't know about the rest of ya'll, but I was targeted by military recruiters on my high school campus at the age of 16.
Does that meet Carlson's definition of 'creepy'?
Any candidate reaching out to 17 year olds and effectivly getting them interested in the nation's political system (at a time when most adults don't or can't follow the issues) is performing a vital public service.
CARLSON:I don't want my kids near political candidates. Do you?... They're creepy.
Tucker, maybe if you didn't spend all of your time with Republicans...
Ticker may have spent too much...
time with Larry Craig? Mmmmmm....
Has MMfA forgotten their mission? I mean we were told by all the Limbots last week that this site is about getting HRC elected. Why is this site wasting their time defending Mr. Obama?
I think it's a clever ruse, no doubt dreamed up by the Soros/Clinton/Moveon Axis.Once the heat's off, they'll photoshop a hammer and sickle flag onto Obama's lapel.
No, wait, that would help him.Maybe a flag with Jesus and bootstraps.
The right-wing media only mentions DLC candidates. That way the Dem sheep won't hear the names Kucinich or Gravel and will think that the right-wing Dems are actually liberals and vote for them. It's the Master Plan.
1. I wonder if Tucker Carlson or anyone in his audience really knows who the Khmer Rouge were or what they did to the country of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge killed 1,5 million people and forced millions of people to live like medieval peasants because their leader Pol Pot idealized that life style. How that compares to getting young people energized about the upcoming election is anyone's guess.
2. On the other hand comparing President Bush and his Neocon pals to the Nazi regime is more than fair. President Bush has transformed our Republic into a fascist state. In his article Fascism Anyone, Laurence Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet. He discovered that regardless of superficial differences these fascist regimes have 14 points in common.
1 Nationalism: Fascist regimes make use of patriotic symbols, slogans, mottoes, songs and other paraphernalia. [link to www.oldamericancentury.org] Disdain for Human Rights: Because of the fear of enemies and the need for security people in fascist regimes are convinced that human rights can be set aside out of need.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/16/wtort16.xml
3 Identifying of Scapegoats and Enemies; In fascist regimes the people are rallied into a frenzy to defend the nation from enemies within and without. Have you taken a look at the "political science" shelf at Borders or Barnes and Noble lately?
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/godless.jpg
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/savage.jpg
4 Supremacy of the Military: Even when their are widespread domesticate problems the military is given a disproportionate portion of the budget. The US military budget is hovering around 400 billion dollars. [link to www.oldamericancentury.org]
5 Rampant Sexism: Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made stricter, the government is male dominated, opposition to abortion is widespread.
6 Controlled Mass Media: In some cases the media is directly controlled by the government. In others (the US) the media is controlled by regulation and sympathetic spokespeople. Does anyone remember the flap over Janet Jackson's nipple? And who are the government's spokesmen:Carlson, Limbaugh, Coulter...
7 Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a tool to control the masses. Department of Homeland Security anyone?
8 Religion and Government Are Intertwined: Well d'uh! The President actually said that God wanted him to go to war in Iraq.
9 Corporate Power is Protected: Do I need to explain this point?
10 Labor Power is Suppressed[link to media.www.collegian.com] Disdain for Intellectuals: Well he is a retarded chimp.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-02.htm
12 Obsession With Crime and Punishment:
http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/
http://www.alternet.org/rights/45647/
13 Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: I don't think I have room to list all of the cronyism and corruption lately.
14 Fraudulent Elections: Fraudulent Elections? In the US? In the year 2000?
Visit [link to www.oldamericancentury.org] to find out more how the Bush has turned our Republic into a fascist state and why comparing him to Hitler is not only apropos but also fair and accurate.
Why doesn't MSNBC just pay out this snot head's contract and send him home? He is so obnoxious and rude. I don't find him very well informed, so he is my last resort of what to watch. I only do so when a guest appeals to me.
Enough already!!!!
"a Khmer Rouge quality to it"...
Look, outside of Hillary(who every pundit likes to bash) Tucker seems to have some sort of vendetta with Obama.....he's constantly nit-picking his campaign to the point of obnoxiousness.....it appears that Tucker has taken upon himself to single out the minority candidates(Hillary & Obama) & put them under his warped microscope to riducule.
He does a real poor job of addressing real issues & motives.
Well I don't know about ya'll but his comment:
CARLSON: Ugh! Creepy as hell.
Are Republicans going to say anything about -- it's 'cause it seems like Republicans have accepted the idea that the middle class deserves entitlements, too.
LEWIS: Not this one but --
CARLSON: You know, the -- Hillary Clinton's savings plan pays people -- middle class families, people who make up to a hundred grand -- pay them to save money. The -- since when does the middle class deserve entitlements? And when are Republicans going to say something about that?
Pretty much baffled me....can someone tell me what he meant by this?
And what did he mean by the word "too" as in "also" does that mean that "his" class gets entitlements, lol.....and now repucks should be pissed that middle class might get entitlements, "too"?
Creepy describes Tucker Carlson to a tee.