Saturday, July 31

Something about Tucker

I can't quite explain my fascination

Jackassed Hack
with this Jackass

But my intense desire to kick this man in the teeth grows daily, lets take a look at a few examples which may explain why I am so inclined:
CARLSON: But I also think there's something disturbing about any group that votes in the 90 percentile for one political party.

BEGALA: You can go lecture African-Americans about their voting patterns if you want.

CARLSON: I'm not lecturing anybody.

BEGALA: But this man says he wants to suppress voters in Detroit, by which he means black voters, I presume.


CARLSON: That's exactly what he means.
Ok Tucker, you claim that there is "something disturbing" about a group in this country voting 90% of the time for one party, and Begala calls your ass on your race baiting, but let me ask you this. Would you consider it disturbing that people who identify themselves as fundimentalist christians tend to vote for one party in higher percentages than niggers do? ..........Crickets chirping........... I didn't think so. Have you stopped beating your wife?
This started out as a discussion about remarks made to the Detroit Free Press by a Michigan state rep John Papageorge, I wrote about it here. Back to the crossfire:

CARLSON: And no one is going to prevent anyone else from voting.

BEGALA: Oh, they did in Florida. They disenfranchised tens of thousands of people.

CARLSON: That's a total lie. That's a total lie. As you know.

BEGALA: No, it's not.

CARLSON: Nobody prevented anyone from voting.

BEGALA: They knocked tens of thousands off the rolls in Florida.

CARLSON: Because they were convicted felons.

BEGALA: No, they weren't. That's the problem. They got the wrong.

CARLSON: I can't reargue something, especially when you're wrong.

BEGALA: No, I'm right.
Well actually Begala is right as we find out in this fairly exhaustive report filed by the US Commision on Civil Rights, and which you can also read about in Million vote March.
Here Carlson is either playing us all for fools or is a fool. Either way it demonstrates a lack of fitness for his job. He is on the one hand flat out lying, or he has not bothered to look into the vast wealth of information on what is the subject of at least 4 books. It is precisely this lack of respect for history and the factual record that well, should leave Carlson and his ilk, wary of dark alleys. On a lighter note it is kind of fun to watch the grownups play their version of "I know you are but what am I?"
Moving along let's see if we can find any other examples, and remember today's post is only going to concentrate on one episode.
CARLSON: Now, Tad Devine, tonight, Ron Reagan is going to speak and it's being billed as this kind of great moment. Not so surprising. He's a liberal. He voted for Ralph Nader. It's another liberal speaking at your convention full of liberals.

DEVINE: Right.

CARLSON: But I guess the problem that I have with it is not anything with Ron Reagan as a person, but with the idea that the Democratic Party is using the child of a recently dead American president to make a partisan political point.

Don't you think there's something unseemly about that? If the Republicans put on some relative of John Kerry's or one of the Kennedys who was an apostate, wouldn't you say, well, that's kind of gross? You're only putting him on because of his blood relation to this hero on the other side.

DEVINE: He's speaking tonight because he's talking about a very important issue, which is stem cell research. And there's a huge difference between what the president wants to do on this critically important issue and what John Kerry will do.


CARLSON: Oh, is he a scientist, an expert on stem cell research?
"For shame for shame" (channeling granpa Simpson) using the child of a recently dead president for partisan polical purposes, Ha ha ha ha. Please Tucker, I'm interested in any qualifications, besides passing some partisan political litmus test, that you have to fill the airways with misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and mewling partisan prattle. And you get to do this with impunity on two of the "most liberal" outlets available.