Tucker departs with class

I've already blogged about Tucker Carlson's show getting canceled, so no need to further comment on that, other than to bring you the video above of Carlson's last show and classy exit. My impression of him is that he's a good guy and a family man - he's a guy I really do want to like, and on many occasions I do, other than when he makes his occasional crazy statement. I'm sure he'll land on his feet somewhere, and I hope he stays in the political conversation.

Oh, and white men really can't dance.

h/t Crooks & Liars for the video

Tucker, we hardly watched ye

I can't claim credit for the title - that goes to the author of this pretty funny video from the people over at 23/6. Take a look - this one's pretty funny.

Buh bye, bow tie

I'm still catching up from with a few old items, so please forgive me, but I still think some things from the past week or so bear mentioning.

When I found out that MSNBC canceled Tucker Carlson's show, Tucker, last week, I had mixed emotions. (Okay, I know, he recently ditched the bow tie, as evidenced by the picture above.)

Carlson is a guy I so desperately want to like - he seems nice enough, he's a family man, and best of all, he doesn't kowtow to the rest of the Republican pundits like Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Lielly, etc. He's a guy who dared to oppose the War in Iraq (after initially supporting it), and he had plenty of unflattering things to say about then-candidate Bush in 1999 following some time with him on the campaign trail. He subsequently had a dust-up with Bush's communication director at the time, Karen Hughes.

So, there are plenty of things I like about Carlson. But then, he comes out and says something really stupid, right out of the Limbaugh play book. For instance, recently on the Bubba the Love Sponge Show on Sirius (he's a weekly guest), I heard him say this about Hillary Clinton:

"I'm convinced that if she were to become president, a million people would die."

Oh, you mean like our current occupant of the Oval Office, Tucker? I guess Carlson hasn't been paying attention since the war began five years ago; an estimated 600,000 to 1 million Iraqis have lost their lives, to say nothing about the estimated 4 million who have fled the country, as well as the nearly 4,000 Americans who have lost their lives and countless more who are permanently maimed physically and mentally.

Even more outrageous, what proof does Carlson have that that would happen? He doesn't, and it was just a flat-out stupid thing to say (And it wasn't the first time I'd heard him say it, either). So it appears that MSNBC's attempt to be the next Fox News has hit a roadblock. Good, because having one channel that endlessly spews propaganda in America is enough; we certainly don't need two of them.

Now, if only CNN would get the message. I'm sure not holding my breath. The network seems desperate to recapture the fame and ratings it achieved in the first Gulf War in the 1990s, even if that involves hiring conservative hosts hacks like Glenn Beck, who is an absolute disgrace. Take one week and listen to his show on CNN Headline News (I have), and if you're even close to being a fair- and open-minded person, you'll see how this guy has zero credibility. The scary part about it is that more than a handful of people watch this fool - after all, he's on the air.

To be clear, I don't advocate CNN kicking off Beck, or MSNBC kicking off Carlson, because I disagree with their political views. (Or any talking head I disagree with.) The bottom line is that I'm just not going to patronize the advertisers that support these shows. I'll have more on this in the coming weeks - I'm going to TiVo these shows and just watch the commercials. I'm sure I'll have plenty of companies to add to my Boycott List.

Bill Clinton is wealthy. So what?

The Washington Post reports today that President Bill Clinton has earned more than $40 million from speaking fees in the six years since he left office, at $150,000 per speech. It's not news that former presidents become fabulously wealthy. What's not well-known, according to Bill Press this morning, at least, is that the $40 million is only from 20 percent of the speeches he made - the other 80 percent of his fees he either did pro bono, or he donated the money to his AIDS Foundation.

Tucker Carlson was upset the other day, saying it doesn't look good for a former president to become so wealthy. I would tend to agree with that, but it's the reality that all former presidents will become wealthy when they leave office. After going through all of the misery it takes to become elected in the first place, I say let them have their money, and that opinion applies to both political parties.

For instance, how wealthy do you think President Bush will become when he leaves office, with all of his corporate donors and friends? Anyone think he won't have tens of millions of dollars at his disposal? Good for him. Let's check back on this in a decade and see how wealthy President Bush is. I can't say I'll have a problem with it, really; former presidents are in demand to give speeches and be heard, and they have a right to earn money, too.

Funny how I didn't hear conservatives whining much when President Ronald Reagan earned $2 million for one speech in Japan after he left office. I also wonder how wealthy President Bush Sr. has become since he left office? The guy isn't hurting, that's for sure. But then again, as a one-term wonder, he might not be as in demand as Reagan was or Clinton is.

The bottom line here is that conservatives are angry that Bill Clinton has continuously beat the odds, and efforts to destroy him. I have a great amount of admiration and respect for Clinton - a whole lot more of both than I do for our current president. At least Clinton admitted his mistakes (albeit late). When is the last time Bush has publicly stated he made a mistake about anything?

People also forget that Clinton was basically bankrupt when he left office, with millions in legal bills that needed to be paid, mostly from right-wing funded witch hunts, which he needed to defend himself against in the courts.

But boy, Paula Jones sure did get a nice nose job from her settlement, didn't she? James Carville said it best about her - she's what you get when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.

Has Mike Wallace gone soft?

Earlier tonight on 60 Minutes, journalism legend Mike Wallace interviewed Fox Noise Channel's Bill O'Reilly. I was underwhelmed.

I didn't expect a shouting match, but I did expect, and hoped for, tough questions. Not because Mike was interviewing blowhard Bill (okay, maybe a little), but because Wallace, unlike his son, Chris Wallace, who is picture-postcard proof of a hack if there ever was one, has a well-deserved reputation for going after guests and asking tough questions.

Fizzle.

Wallace did take Bill to task for several things, including Bill's pointing at him and guests on his show (wife's advice be damned); pointing out Bill's incorrect assertion on Maria Shriver; and for arguing with guests he doesn't agree with (which seems to be just about everyone).

But, there were some whoppers that Wallace didn't approach. How about a Keith Olbermann question? Bill-O has a notoriously short fuse, and that would have undoubtedly lit it. The Wallace of 20 years ago would have wasted no time going there. But tonight, no mention of Keith.

How about O'Reilly falsely boasting about having won two Peabody Awards when he hosted Inside Edition? (He later cleared it up after Al Franken bitch slapped him by saying, "I misspoke, I called a Polk Award a Peabody Award." The show did win a single Polk Award, but after Billy left. He just utters these lies thinking no one will check on their accuracy.)

And what about a host of other lies, including O'Reilly's repeated assertion that he never tells guests to "shut up." He even repeated this whopper during Wallace's interview, stating that his staff went back and looked up how many times he's said it since being on the air, and they found "six times" when he told guests to shut up. The irony isn't lost on me that Bill lies about his lying.

That's my issue with him more than anything - he lies. Lies, lies, lies. And no one calls him on it. Political differences I can deal with - I listen to Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and even Michael Smerconish from time to time. But, the far right idiotas who just lie, degrade, defame and name call, like Billy, aren't worthy of my time. I laugh with glee at people who equate O'Reilly with Al Franken, and I've heard this from a number of conservatives I know. Really? When's the last time Franken told someone to shut up, or threatened a guest on his show with violence, or was sued for sexual harassment? Just a thought.

Is there anyone who believes O'Reilly anymore? One can hear Billy say "shut up!" six times in a few shows, or in a week at the most. The thing is, there are people who believe whatever he says and take it at face value. Very few people take him to task for his lies and distortions.

Not even Mike Wallace.

I just dug up Billy and Franken fighting at the Book Expo on C-Span. This is how Billy reacts when called on a lie. When he's busted for lying, O'Reilly calls it a vicious attack. Really, it's just someone calling bullshit on his lies.

Anyway, enjoy - this is good stuff.



One final thought - Bill O'Reilly accusing someone, anyone, of being blinded by ideology is the height of idiocy, and hypocrisy.

Joe Scarborough drops the f-bomb?

Did Joe Scarborough drop an f-bomb while talking to Tucker Carlson? You be the judge, but it sounds like it to me. I wonder if MSNBC will face fines, or if there will be a big uproar? Well, he's a Republican, so you decide.

ABC = All But Caving? (To right wingers)

Predictably, this is a story that's not going away anytime soon. Former Clinton administration officials are pissed, as they should be. Many people are deriding ABC for "interpreting" and "dramatizing" events on 9-11. As if 9-11 requires dramatizing.

Clinton's staff fired off a letter to ABC demanding certain portions of the movie be changed, including one scene depicting Clinton as being too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to go after Islamic terrorists who blew up embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Clinton's former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, and former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke are similarly outraged.

To wit, Clarke's response:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL (that's Usama bin Laden, as Clarke refers to him - RJ).

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

##

There you have it, from Clarke, who was counterterrorism chief under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II until shortly after 9-11, when he quit in disgust.

Another amusing anecdote, this one from Tucker Carleson, a conservative that I normally admire (I occasionally watch his show on MSNBC). As reported in Media Matters today, Tucker wants this argument both ways. Well, he can't have it.

Here's what Media Matters had to say:
During a discussion with Media Matters for America president and CEO David Brock on the September 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson falsely claimed that when CBS chose not to air the 2003 biopic, The Reagans, he had "sort of agreed" that the move constituted "censorship," just as he now argues that it will be "censorship" if ABC is pressured into not running The Path to 9/11. In fact, in 2003, Carlson specifically denied that CBS' decision to pull The Reagans was "censorship," saying that the use of the word in the context of CBS' Reagan movie "devalue[d] the term" and defending CBS' decision to pull the film because it was "inaccurate."

##

What the fuck, Tuck?!? You're better than that.

Oh, and one more thing - yesterday I wrote of the urban legend that persists that Clinton could have had bin Laden. The source of this bullshit is Fateh Erwa, a known liar. The Washington Times, one of the most radical right-wing papers in the country, had this to say about Erwa and his allegations:

"No one should believe these allegations" from "Fateh Erwa, a Sudanese intelligence officer known for his penchant to deceive, that there was an offer to hand bin Laden over to the United States."

Folks, if the Washington Times is saying it, trust it, because that paper never, EVER misses an opportunity to make Clinton look bad.

Enough said.

ABC needs to do the responsible thing, and pull or significantly alter this movie. My prediction? The network will puss out, because all of the major media outlets (excluding Fox News, for obvious reasons) are afraid of being labeled "liberal" and of getting attacked by the right wing distortion machine.

The movie's a disgrace, and so is Tom Kean for being involved in it.

Lies and distortions should be called out as lies and distortions, no matter when they happen. They can't just be bad when it's politically convenient, Mr. Carlson.

Gore Smear, Part I, by STOSSEL?!?

This one's pretty good - it's John Stossel trying to sound like a global warming authority on MSNBC's Scarborough Country.

Listen to Scarborough's words and hyperbole. It's a kick. He claims Gore has said, "If we don't turn things around, in 10 years the ice caps are going to melt, we are going to boil, Manhattan will be underwater," blah blah fucking blah. Gore never said that in the movie, or anywhere else, genius. It's exaggeration to try to discredit Gore, and it's hilarious. Another Al Gore "quote" along the lines of I invented the Internet.

In Scarborough's Country, this kind of shit may be acceptable when you are out to discredit someone, but in the rest of the country, bullshit detectors go off everywhere, unless you are a card carrying member of the radical religious right.

The best part about this clip is how Scarborough gets bitch slapped on his own show by Tyson Slocum. At least someone has something intelligent to say in Scarborough Country.

Stossel should go back to 20/20 and expose more defective child seats. He doesn't have a coherent, intelligent thing to say in this piece, not one shred of scientific proof, and notice we don't get one actual name of the scientists "who he spoke to."

Stossel goes on to call us "the cleanest country in the world." Hilarious. As we belch out more greenhouse gases than any other country on Earth? Where in the hell does he believe the smog comes from in LA, fog machines on movie sets? Bravo, John. And, as usual, the obligatory comment about people sounding the alarm bell on global warming "hating capitalism." Whatever. Why am I wasting my time on this?

And Scarborough? Keep miring in obscurity, douche bag. You're about as popular as cancer, and your stellar ratings prove it. I wonder how MSNBC, an up-and-coming network, could have a no-talent like Scarborough when it has coherent, likable guys like Tucker Carlson and Keith Olberman? Yes, you read that right - I like Carlson. I don't always agree with him, but I like the guy and respect his opinions. I've enjoyed Carlson since his Crossfire days on CNN.