Saturday, July 31, 2004

CNN's Tucker Carlson: Political analyst or pilonidal anal cyst?

It's amusing to watch CNN's Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson, unabashed right-wing hack, toady, lackey and simpering whore, cover the Democratic convention as if he actually had anything worthwhile and objective to say, rather than regurgitating the standard Repub talking points.

Case in point: his inane commentary here:

My overall feeling is that [John Edwards'] basic premise that America is more unfair than it used to be just isn't true.

Now, take note, you pundit wannabes -- Carlson doesn't actually present any evidence to back up his "overall feeling", 'cuz that would take, like, you know, work. Instead, we have this nebulous vibe on Carlson's part which, in mainstream media circles, sadly passes for commentary for these days. Ignore, of course, the overwhelming unfairness of the economy towards the have-nots or have-littles. Ignore, of course, the outrageously out-of-control increases in CEO pay, while those at the bottom are watching their jobs vanish in a blizzard of overseas outsourcing. And ignore George Dubya's own admission of the circles he swims in, when he described his loyal supporters as the "haves and have-mores". Luckily for Carlson, he can ignore all of this actual evidence since he has this, well, you know, "feeling."

Carlson continues:

Society is more fluid and more meritocratic than it's ever been.

Which no doubt explains why qualified but needy college applicants can't get financial help to go to school, but how a lazy, semi-illiterate, party-animal, service-avoiding, AWOL frat boy can become president of the United States. Naturally, it was all based solely on merit.

There are more sons of mill workers going to college now in America than have ever gone. It's not a perfect country but to say that it's gotten less fair or that there's less opportunity is just factually untrue.

And, once again, you budding pundits, note how Carlson can dismiss Edwards' position as "factually untrue" without providing any, you know, actual facts. Right-wing, conservative punditry. Is that a great gig or what?

No comments: