Carlson -- who has said Obama "seems like kind of a wuss" and "sounds like a pothead" -- now claims he "give[s] the guy a pass at every turn"
SUMMARY: Discussing what he described as "slavish" and "slobbering" media coverage of Sen. Barack Obama, Tucker Carlson stated: "And I will freely confess that I am absolutely part of the problem. I give the guy a pass at every turn and I'm nice to him even though I disagree with him." In fact, over the past year, Carlson has leveled personal attacks against Obama and spread misinformation about him.
On the January 29 broadcast of MSNBC Live, host Tucker Carlson asked Huffington Post media editor Rachel Sklar: "[H]ave you ever seen press coverage more slavish, more slobbering than the coverage [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] gets?" He added, "And I will freely confess that I am absolutely part of the problem. I give the guy a pass at every turn and I'm nice to him even though I disagree with him."
In fact, over the past year, Carlson has leveled personal attacks against Obama and spread misinformation about him. Carlson has said Obama "seems like kind of a wuss," "sounds like a pothead," and gave a speech that was "kind of wimpy." After Obama reportedly ribbed New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd for mentioning his ears in a column because, as he told Dowd, "I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears," Carlson said, "So maybe he needs to toughen up," adding, "What a sensitive little man!" In August 2007, Carlson said of a speech in which Obama proposed a strategy to fight terrorism: "In the space of a day, Obama the weak has become Obama the fierce."
Further, in May 2007, Tucker parroted Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) attack on Obama regarding the spelling of "flak." On the May 25, 2007, edition of Tucker, less than two hours after MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira reported that "flack" is an "alternative to the spelling of 'flak,' " Carlson uncritically quoted McCain's assertion that Obama had misspelled "flak" in a May 25 statement and called Obama a "greenhorn" because of it.
Regarding Obama's faith, on the February 7, 2007, edition of Tucker, Carlson asserted that the "theology" of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, of which Obama is a member, "sounds separatist to me" and "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity," a subject Carlson said he was "actually qualified to discuss." On the February 19, 2007, edition of Tucker, Carlson said that Obama's faith had become "suddenly conspicuous," even though Obama has been speaking and writing about his faith for years.
On the June 5, 2007, edition of Tucker, after playing a short excerpt of a speech that day in which Obama discussed what he called "quiet riots" of despair and hopelessness in poor communities, Carlson accused Obama of "giving a political justification to totally unacceptable, never justifiable behavior." He also stated, "[I]t seems to me that when people burn down stores, kill people because they're Korean, or beat people in the head with cinder blocks because of their race, like Reginald Denny [a white man who was injured in the 1992 Los Angeles riots], that's not a political statement." But contrary to Carlson's suggestion, Obama, referring to the 1992 riots, explicitly denounced such violence in the speech: "This is not to excuse the violence of bashing in a man's head or destroying someone's store and their life's work. That kind of violence is inexcusable and self-defeating."
Carlson also said on October 10, 2007, that the Obama campaign's targeting of young voters "has a Khmer Rouge quality to it."
From the January 29 edition of MSNBC Live:
CARLSON: Rachel [Sklar], have you ever seen press coverage more slavish, more slobbering than the coverage Barack Obama gets? And I will freely confess that I am absolutely part of the problem. I give the guy a pass at every turn and I'm nice to him even though I disagree with him.
SKLAR: I thought you were a fan of Ron Paul, Tucker?
CARLSON: But is anyone noticing this?
SKLAR: Yes.
CARLSON: Well, I love Ron Paul, you're right.
Could it be, BOTH could be true?
Carlson does the ad hominem, substance free, insulting sexist "feminizing" attacks, doing his best to tear Obama down on a very PERSONAL level based on Tucker's own "impressions", BUT ...
... BUT, Carlson ALSO gives Obama "a pass" on anything substantial, anything issue-oriented, anything FACT-BASED that might help voters, anything that might HINT of actual "reporting".
So Tucker may BELIEVE he's telling the truth, that he has no memory of actually doing any WORK on Obama's history, researching records, or participating in investigative journalism. Nope. Never done any of THAT, so Obama's gotten a PASS on that stuff.
Maybe Tucker doesn't COUNT personal attacks, belittling, false characterizations, Tucker's own opinion ... as being worthy of notice?
Of so, he's right about THAT, TOO.
Obama sounds like a pot head? Nah...
Now, George W. Bush sounds like someone who drank too much and did way too many drugs. Sorry, it's true...
Why is Carlson's opinion even relevant?
IMO, It's Not!
Hey there Snoop Dog
Gotta say my New Years resolution was to not curse but between Bill, Hillary and posting here I've blown that resolution to h*ll. Oh well there's always next year. ;-)
I think it is important to know this comes from the mouth of a self-admitted batterer.
geez, Republicans and their bathroom antics...
Perhaps not relevant.
But I think this blog-o-shpere is now our collective memory bank.
While I admire the pressure MediaMatters has put on Chris Matthews (the poster boy for Adult Attention Deficit Disorder), I keep hoping you'll target this piece of journalistic excrement. Tucker's rantings are inexcusable. I expect to hear the kind of snarky garbage this boy spews on Fox. But Huntley and Brinkley are both spinning rapidly at the thought that NBC gives this nasty, irresponsible and vicious person a paycheck.
Unfortunately, it's illegal to fire Carlson because he's a conservative. It's in the Constitution.
When they fire Matthews, they can pretend he's a liberal, just like with Imus.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Coming from a 'perpetual teen' wearing a bow-tie as though the argyle sweater and tie together were evidence of intelligence makes calling anyone a wuss is quite the stretch!
The man has little more than sarcasism and hyperbole to offer in place of analysis. He would presume to tell an audience whom is getting special treatment is a little like George W. Bush complaining the press was'nt fair during the run up to the war.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
If it's McCain vs. Clinton, as it now appears, I have no reason to believe that Hillary will get a fair shake from the press. It'll be like 2000 and 2004 all over again.
At the same time, if elected, they'll hold him to his reaching-out-across-the-aisle rhetoric. Any attempt to address Bush Administration crimes and misdemeanors will be seen as rank partisanship and a cynical betrayal of Obama's purple-state campaign strategy. If Hillary gets the nomination, Obama will largely be allowed to keep the nice guy narrative in the press as they intone that his bid for the candidacy was derailed by the vile (possibly racist) Clintons, and this will be used as a future wedge tactic against the Democratic Party. I will happily pull the leaver for Obama if he gets the nomination (until then, I'm still pulling for Edwards), but Carlson and others in the media aren't "giving him a pass." They are simply keeping their powder marginally dry.
I have heard some pundist say that he'll shop to get the best deal. Who will offer him the best position in return for his endorsement. Who will pick him as VP or make him the AG or offer him some other prime position ?
Do you think his endorsement will really send his supporters to that particular candidate ? Because I kind of get the feeling that everyone has already made up their mind, already prioritized the candidates and are ready to go down the line.
Truth Is Neither Fair Or Balanced
Does Tucker Carlson ever say anything that is not just plain stupid? I understand that he is pandering to an audience of sub par intelligence, but isn’t it part of Main Stream Media’s responsibility to inform the public sometimes? Whether Carlson is miss stating the role of the ACLU, baselessly smearing Canada, Jimmy Carter, the Clintons or Democrats in general, blindly slurring race, gender and poor people or making clueless foreign policy comments he manages to coat it all with his own special patina of shallow, narrow-minded obtuseness. I can understand MSNBC’s need for a right wing demagogue in the ethics and fact bereft battle for cable TV ratings, but is Tucker Carlson the most competent shill they can find?
I have all but given up on corporate media ever reverting to professional journalism. I understand that the guiding journalistic principle of “seek truth and report it” has been replaced with the profit-motivated principle of “fair and balanced”. Of course, news and information must be sensationalized, hyperbolized and subjective to be cost effective while appealing to Americas base and prurient interests. But is it necessary for this social injury to be so intellectually insulting at the same time?
Tucker Carlson isn’t the only dim bulb that MSM needs to replace but it is an obvious place to start.
Ol' Tuck moved into my neighborhood awhile back, a few blocks from me (he's up the hill, the rich section) and now I see him far too often (at Starbucks, the park...).
But I did catch him bending over reading my bumpersticker at the park which says
I'm a Liberal, not an Enemy
Stop Right Wing Media Lies and Liars
He saw it, stopped, bent over to re-read. As I walked to my car he looked at me then looked away. I smiled.
Tucker Carlson (and John Gibson) puts lie to the claim that there are any actual job-related qualifications to host a national "news" program, since they put this idiotic, ignorant, unqualified, superficial, flip-flopping, hypocritical, fake-libertarian, x-George-Will-bow-tie-wearing-wannabe, rich, white, male, preppy, doofus on the air every night.
How about dumping Tucker and actually giving a news show to someone who is qualified? How about Rachel Maddow for his slot? or Alison Stewart? or if they can't stop giving us three hours of white guys, how about firing Tucker and hiring Joe Trippi? (who is probably looking for a new job, sorry John) If they hire Scarborough, they can surely hire Trippi. Frankly they could hire Doctor Evil and he would be a charming, credible, and entertaining improvement over Carlson.
I know Tucker saw the commercial writing on the wall and switched from uber-conservative to convenient fake libertarian to keep working, but gee, MSNBC, let the guy get a real job based on his actual talents and let him join Paris Hilton on the no-talent celebrity/jail circuit.
Who cares if he is a pot head and snorted some CC.
This IS America baby....
Thomp,
Who, specifically what reporters, entail this liberal media you speak of? NBC, owned by GE, gave $$ to Bush, ABC is owned by Disney and ran the factually-challenged (to put it mildly) "Path to 9/11," CNN has one political commentary show, Glenn Beck. Fox, well is Fox. You can try to claim MSNBC, but Matthews says "McCain is in his heart," KO seems liberal, I will grant you that for now, but his show has not been on while Dems have had a large amount of power (before you counter, 51-49 with Libermann on the fence is not a large amount of power), I don't know much about Abrams, but they have Tucker and Scarbourough with their own shows. Before you tell me the reporters have contributed more to liberal candidates to conservative ones, answer this: Do reporters set the agenda for a network or do the owners/general managers?
And his guy Ron Paul doesn't come off as the nutty professor?
Boot his lameness of TV ASAP