Letters to the Editor
-
There's a surprise.
Tucker Carlson is a hypocrite. I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find that Tucker Carlson, of all people, is a hypocrite. I am equally shocked to realize that he apparently has absolutely no awareness of the fact that he is a hypocrite.
A wino on a Gallo-bender is more sensible than Tucker Carlson, now, then, always. I've never understood why *anyone* took the guy seriously.
-
Glenn G - relieved or disappointed?
Glenn,
I'm wondering if you are relieved or disappointed you didn't cross swords with Carlson? I would have anted up pay-per-view for that one.
If anyone other than the hypocrisy-immune (ref 1) watch Carlson, you might have been able to score some serious points.
(Ref 1 http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/10/vitter/permalink/40024357accb560af0b1f9cef76a7ba4.html)
-
More Republican Hypocrisy
...that they will never have to answer for. I don't expect Tucker will ever appear on TV, and have someone ask him about the issues that Glenn raises. For some reason, the world doesn't work like that. These guys are free to say and do pretty much anything they want, with zero consequences.
-
Where to begin?
If you disagree with a policy position that a candidate or an elected official puts forward, why don't you argue against it? . . . Instead you're taking a shortcut and just trashing the guy's personal life? What a sleazy shortcut that is. - Tucker Carlson
Unfortunately for Senator Vitter, he has-- voluntarily-- conflated his personal life and his policy positions-- and has insisted that what is good enough for him and his family is darn well good enough for the rest of us, too.
...except for one small detail. Apparently, it wasn't really good enough for him, after all.
Shouldn't the public be allowed to make an "informed choice" on whether Senator Vitter's public policy/personal values are really good enough... or even adequate... not for him, since he's an adult and can decide for himself, but for themselves-- before they vote for him. Or before they vote for those he would similarly endorse, such as Candidate Giuliani? More importantly, before he votes on anything of substance, but I guess we're already past that threshhold.
You know both he (Carlson) and they (RWA/GOP) would agree on the importance of making an informed choice if this were a drug trial. (randomized, not criminal)
And Carlson? Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
-
Every conservative I've known is a blatant hypocrite
Glenn:
The more you can appear on TV and radio in addition to spreading truth by blogging, the better. This country needs to see more articulate voices fighting back against the absurd hypocrisy, lying and corruption of the conservatives. It would be great to see you throw down with Tucker Carlson or any of these other jerks on a regular basis. In contrast to a lot of liberals who are invited on these types of shows, I'm confident you'd have a better chance of putting them in their place decisively.
-
I also see a Salon contradiction today
Where is the outrage that Salon publishes a ridiculous article "Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus" after several articles such as this one by Glenn Greenwald in the same publication:
Thursday June 14, 2007 13:33 EST
Chris Matthews on Fred Thompson's sexiness and smells
-
Bryan Hayward
I'm wondering if you are relieved or disappointed you didn't cross swords with Carlson?
No, I knew exactly what he was going to argue and I was VERY ready to engage that debate. I was very disappointed when it couldn't happen.
I became even more disappointed when I saw in the video of the segment how provoked he was. I thought the guest actually did a decent job (though bow tie and "twerp" insults are worthless and the sign of frustration, as was Carlson's stupid insults -they sunk to the same trite level), but there was definitely a lot more that could have been done.
-
Makes a horse race
The fact is that when it comes to these cable TV shows, then there have to be two sides to the argument, so Mr Carlson was assigned the (well-paid) job of arguing on behalf of the whoremongering senator.
This is no different from an attorney defending a client he knows damn well is guilty. It is called doing your job.
Back in prehistoric times when there was something called the Fairness Doctrine, which decreed that two sides of every argument must be shown on TV, I used to think that it would be good to get rid of it so as to prevent pointless discussions in which one person was defending the indefensible, but boy, was I wrong!
The truth is that everyone already knows that most everyone in Washington is into someone else's pants, or would like to be, but that this does not play well in the more atavistic parts of the nation that have their fair share--well, more than their fair share--of our elected officials.
Hence we have this silly game of damage limitation when someone gets nailed and everyone else winces and thinks "there, but for the grace of God go I" and wonder what the guilty party did to offend the man upstairs and how he could be so indiscreet. The victim then apologizes, digs out his bible, calls in Billy Graham for an exorcism in exchange for a handsome donation to The Lord's Work, then goes back to his old ways once the brouhaha has moved on.
It is getting old, and no one really gives a damn. Are these politicians hypocrites? Yes, of course they are, but it is just part of the job description, and apparently American voters like it that way.
The only people who are even more stupid are those who actually watch cable TV and get all worked up about it, ignoring the fact that the whole scenario is about as ritualized as Japanese kabuki theater.
-
Don't you think Miers is a bit more important?
Sorry Glenn, I read you everyday, but I'm not even bothering with this one today. I'm sure you nailed Tucker for being a hypocrite on the Vitter scandal, but I just can't bring myself to give a crap about him the day that the House Judiciary Committee was speaking to an empty chair where Harriet Miers was supposed to be. I had really hoped to read your insights into the notion that executive privilege trumps a person's requirement to appear when subpoenaed, but I guess I won't be reading that today.