Tucker Carlson’s audience is booming — and so is chatter that the popular Fox News host will parlay his TV perch into a run for president in 2024.
Republican strategists, conservative commentators, and former Trump campaign and administration officials are buzzing about Carlson as the next-generation leader of Donald Trump’s movement — with many believing he would be an immediate frontrunner in a Republican primary.
“He’s a talented communicator with a massive platform. I think if he runs he’d be formidable,” said Luke Thompson, a Republican strategist who worked for Jeb Bush’s super PAC in 2016.
While practically every Republican eyeing a 2024 presidential run is professing loyalty to Trump the person, Carlson has become perhaps the highest-profile proponent of “Trumpism” — a blend of anti-immigrant nationalism, economic populism and America First isolationism that he articulates unapologetically and with some snark. At the same time, he’s shown a rare willingness among Republicans to bluntly criticize Trump when he believes the president is straying from that ideology.
In another twist, Carlson has established a friendship with Donald Trump, Jr., according to a source familiar with their relationship. Trump Jr. has drawn his own share of presidential buzz.“Tucker Carlson Tonight” is currently the most watched cable news program in history, according to the second quarter ratings released this week. And on Fox News’ YouTube channel, Carlson’s segments from the past quarter have drawn well over 60 million views and are among the most popular videos in the eight years since the network began posting on the platform.
His popularity with the base would instigate a debate over the future of the party — essentially whether Trump was an aberration or a party-realigning disrupter — a fight that will be all the fiercer if Trump loses in November.
“Let me put it this way: If Biden wins and Tucker decided to run, he’d be the nominee,” said Sam Nunberg, a former top political aide to Trump who knows Carlson. But Nunberg said he doesn’t believe Carlson will run because “he’s so disgusted with politicians.” — Source: Tucker Carlson 2024? The GOP is buzzing – POLITICO
Now here is why this would never work. Tucker is an ideologue and he is quite hardcore with his beliefs. He would never appeal to anyone ever remotely anywhere near the center. I personally find his commentary and speaking style horrifyingly annoying. Personally, I think he sounds like a smart aleck rich kid, who thinks he knows everything. Don Imus summed him up, by calling him a “bow tie wearing faggot.”
In reality, Don Imus was not referring to his sexuality, he was referring to what he was, which was and still is, an entitled white rich kid, who is a bit of a smart aleck. The problem with that perception of him is, that the perception of him is rooted in reality. See here from Wikipedia:
Carlson’s mother was artist Lisa McNear (née Lombardi). He also has a brother, Buckley Peck Carlson (later, Buckley Swanson Peck Carlson), who is nearly two years younger.[7]
In 1976, Carlson’s parents divorced after the nine-year marriage reportedly “turned sour.”[7][8] Carlson’s father was granted custody of him and his brother. Carlson’s mother left the family when he was six, wanting to pursue a “bohemian” lifestyle.[4][9] She eventually split her time between Beaufort County, South Carolina and Cazac, France, where she had little contact with Carlson’s family and later married artist Michael Vaughn.[10][11][12][13]
Dick Carlson was said to be an active father who had a specific outlook in raising his sons:
I want them to be self-disciplined to the degree that I think is necessary to find satisfaction… you measure a person on how far they go, on how far they’ve sprung. My parents, the Carlsons, they instilled a modesty in me that, at times, gets in my way… I know it’s immodest of me to say it, but it’s difficult sometimes when you want to beat your own drum and say what you really think.
In 1979, Carlson’s father married divorcée Patricia Caroline Swanson, an heiress to Swanson Enterprises. Swanson is the daughter of Gilbert Carl Swanson and the niece of SenatorJ. William Fulbright.[4][14] This was the third marriage for Swanson, who legally adopted Carlson and his brother.[12][14]
So, to say that he was typical kid from the city; would be a very bad statement to make. To be absolutely clear, I do not hate Tucker Carlson, I just happen to know that he is simply a product of his environment, as am I. We could have some very different outlooks on life, the World as a whole and so forth.
So, in closing, let me say this; While Trucker Carlson might be good for the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, he would be a disaster in an general election. I just hope that Tucker or some of his people, and someone from the GOP reads this.
This is not going to be good for the President at all.
Mary Elizabeth Taylor approaches the lectern before Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch makes a keynote appearance at Trump International Hotel in September 2017 in Washington. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)
A senior State Department official who has served in the Trump administration since its first day is resigning over President Trump’s recent handling of racial tensions across the country — saying that the president’s actions “cut sharply against my core values and convictions.”
Mary Elizabeth Taylor, assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, submitted her resignation Thursday. Taylor’s five-paragraph resignation letter, obtained by The Washington Post, serves as an indictment of Trump’s stewardship at a time of national unrest from one of the administration’s highest-ranking African Americans and an aide who was viewed as loyal and effective in serving his presidency.“
Moments of upheaval can change you, shift the trajectory of your life, and mold your character. The President’s comments and actions surrounding racial injustice and Black Americans cut sharply against my core values and convictions,” Taylor wrote in her resignation letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “I must follow the dictates of my conscience and resign as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs.” — Source: Top State Department official Mary Elizabeth Taylor resigns in protest of Trump?s response to racial tensions in the country – The Washington
I believe that is quite obvious, that this woman; who by the way, is a lifelong Republican, is basically beginning to feel the same way, that a lot of conservatives probably are feeling or Republicans are feeling about this president… that he is not a Lincoln Republican. But rather someone who has taken the stance of the alt right.
Between this and what John Bolton has published, I believe the president of the United States is going to be soundly defeated in the November election.
It is sad to too, because I honestly thought that this president really had good potential. I thought maybe that his whole ego thing would be shoved aside and the good of the country would be put first and it started out that way; he did promise to get tough on trade, which he did. However, he ended up reneging on the promise and turns out, he was doing it simply for his reelection chances.
So truthfully, the only thing that Donald J trump was honestly interested in doing and that was making himself look good. Which is what happened after the George Boyd protests began. This is why he did the photo op and this is why the peaceful protests in front of the White House were basically gassed, because Donald Trump tried to put an appearance on of being tough to try and salvage his reelection in November.
Of course, this is turned out to be nothing but a futile mistake.
I hope everyone who is a conservative or Republican has enjoyed, especially the trump loyalists — what we got in the past 4 years. But. sadly I think it’s all going to end and it’s going to be sad to watch.
Because, I believe what’s going to happen at the convention is going to be a sad display and it could be like what happened with Richard Nixon or what happened in 1968 at the Democrat party convention
One highlight came when Xi said he wanted to work with Trump for six more years, and Trump replied that people were saying that the two-term constitutional limit on presidents should be repealed for him. Xi said the U.S. had too many elections, because he didn’t want to switch away from Trump, who nodded approvingly.
Wow. Just….Wow.
Trump came close, unilaterally offering that U.S. tariffs would remain at 10% rather than rise to 25%, as he had previously threatened. In exchange, Trump asked merely for some increases in Chinese farm-product purchases, to help with the crucial farm-state vote. If that could be agreed, all the U.S. tariffs would be reduced. It was breathtaking.
Then, This:
Trump then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability and pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome. I would print Trump’s exact words, but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.
I would advise you to go read the rest of this. It is a truly amazing read. This man is going to lose and I mean BAD in November. Subscription to WSJ is required, or there’s always this for firefox and chrome.
The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads through the United States.
Documents reviewed by POLITICO detail the department’s requests to lawmakers on a host of topics, including the statute of limitations, asylum and the way court hearings are conducted. POLITICO also reviewed and previously reported on documents seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the documents.
The move has tapped into a broader fear among civil liberties advocates and Donald Trump’s critics — that the president will use a moment of crisis to push for controversial policy changes. Already, he has cited the pandemic as a reason for heightening border restrictions and restricting asylum claims. He has also pushed for further tax cuts as the economy withers, arguing that it would soften the financial blow to Americans. And even without policy changes, Trump has vast emergency powers that he could legally deploy right now to try and slow the coronavirus outbreak.
The DOJ requests — which are unlikely to make it through a Democratic-led House — span several stages of the legal process, from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.
In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”
The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ document wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies, but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”
The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus –– the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release.
“Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, the executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”
Reimer said the possibility of chief judges suspending all court rules during an emergency without a clear end in sight was deeply disturbing.
“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he said.
The department also asked Congress to pause the statute of limitations for criminal investigations and civil proceedings during national emergencies, “and for one year following the end of the national emergency,” according to the draft legislative text.
And….:
Another controversial request: The department is looking to change the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in some cases to expand the use of videoconference hearings, and to let some of those hearings happen without defendants’ consent, according to the draft legislative text.
“Video teleconferencing may be used to conduct an appearance under this rule,” read a draft of potential new language for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f), crossing out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”
“Video teleconferencing may be used to arraign a defendant,” read draft text of rule 10(c), again striking out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”
I have always suspected something like this might happen, irregardless of which party is in power. Now, it does say that the Democrats likely will not allow this to happen. But, you never know. I just find it amazing that a Republican lead Justice Dept. would do such a thing.
Regardless, I’ll stick with Ben Franklin: ” They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
But, if she is not, what the hell do you call this?
(WXYZ) — Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has signed a new Executive Order reducing the number of people allowed at assemblages and events.
The new Executive Order reduces the allowable number to 50. A previous Executive Order had reduced it to 250.
It comes on the heels of new guidance from the CDC and will go into effect Tuesday, March 17 at 9:00 a.m. and will remain in effect until April 5 at 5:00 p.m.
The order provides an exception from its prohibition on assemblages for health care facilities, workplaces not open to the public, the state legislature, mass transit, the purchase of groceries or consumer goods, and the performance of agricultural or construction work.
“My number one priority remains to protect the most people we can from the spread of coronavirus,” said Governor Whitmer in a news release. “We are all better off when all of us are healthy, and that’s especially true for the most vulnerable. These aggressive actions are aimed at saving lives. My administration will continue to do everything we can to mitigate the spread of the disease and ensure our children, families, and businesses have the support they need during these challenging times. We are going to pull through this together, just as Michigan has done in the past.”
Dear Mrs. Stupid Democrat,
You can not call it martial law, but when you issue an order, not allowing people to gather; that’s damned martial law.
First amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance
So, call it what you wish, but it is a forcing of the state government to force people to do something. That is martial law.
A day after he was accused of sexual harassment by a journalist, MSNBC decided to keep host Chris Matthews off its airwaves during coverage of the South Carolina primary results.
Matthews is normally a fixture of election night coverage, which made his absence on Saturday all the more notable. His disappearing act came as MSNBC faced calls from a feminist organization to fire him because of sexism and sexual misconduct allegations—after raised eyebrows over other on-air remarks.
<….>
MSNBC did not immediately return a request for comment.
It’s starting.
—-Original Story Below—-
Honestly, I do not see Chris Matthews surviving this report.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews, whose long history of sexist comments and behavior have somehow not yet gotten him fired, tested the boundaries of his own misogyny again on Wednesday night. After the tenth Democratic presidential debate, the Hardball anchor grilled Elizabeth Warren about one of her lines of attack against Mike Bloomberg during the debate: that a pregnant female employee accused Bloomberg of telling her to “kill it.”
“You believe he’s lying?” Matthews asked Warren of Bloomberg’s denial.
“I believe the woman, which means he’s not telling the truth,” said Warren, who recently had to defend her own credible story of pregnancy discrimination.
“And why would he lie?” Matthews said. “Just to protect himself?”
“Yeah, and why would she lie?” Warren responded pointedly.
“I just wanna make sure you’re clear about this,” Matthews said. Right there on America’s purportedly liberal network, the anchor spoke to a 70-year-old United States senator who is running for president—and a renowned Harvard Law professor, no less—like she couldn’t possibly understand her own words, as if she were a child choosing between a snack now or dessert later.
The allegation that Matthews, a veteran journalist, was trying so hard to undermine was actually corroborated by a third party to The Washington Post earlier this month. There was no reason for him to harp on its veracity, except, perhaps, that he himself has made so many sexist comments over the years that he has a vested interest in Bloomberg being let off the hook.
Some of Matthews’s behavior has already been well-documented. Like Bloomberg, who frequently remarked “nice tits” and “I’d do her” at the office, Matthews has a pattern of making comments about women’s appearances in demeaning ways. The number of on-air incidents is long, exhausting, and creepy, including commenting to Erin Burnett, for example, “You’re a knockout…it’s all right getting bad news from you,” while telling her to move closer to the camera. Behind the scenes, one of Matthews’s former producers told The Daily Caller in 2017 that he allegedly rated his female guests on a numerical scale and would name a “hottest of the week,” like a “teenage boy.” In 1999, an assistant producer accused Matthews of sexual harassment, which CNBC, the show’s network at the time, investigated. They concluded that the comments were “inappropriate,” and Matthews received a “stern reprimand,” according to an MSNBC spokesperson.
This tendency to objectify women in his orbit has bled into his treatment of female politicians and candidates. He has repeatedly lusted over women in politics on air, including remarking in 2011 that there’s “something electric” and “very attractive” about the way former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin walks and moves, and noting in 2017 that acting attorney general Sally Yates is “attractive, obviously.” But he has reserved a particular contempt for the woman who made it closest to ascending the heights of American political power, Hillary Clinton, calling her “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “She-Devil.” The Cut obtained footage of him joking in early 2016, just before a live interview with then candidate Clinton, “where’s that Bill Cosby pill,” referring to the date-rape drug. In 2005, he openly wondered whether the troops would “take the orders” from a female president; after another interview, he pinched Clinton’s cheek; and in another, he suggested that she had only had so much political success because her husband had “messed around.” This evening anchor, in addition to everything else, has repeatedly challenged whether women are legitimate politicians or could be president at all. “I was thinking how hard it is for a woman to take on a job that’s always been held by men,” he said of Clinton in 2006. – Source: Like Warren, I Had My Own Sexist Run-In with Chris Matthews | GQ
There is much more, click the link to read this story. You should look for Matthews to retire very soon.
Never though I would ever write that headline here…. Especially seeing Harsanyi is an atheist.
But, when he’s right, he’s right.
Mr. Harsanyi is responding to this:
First he came for @comey, and I said nothing because I was mad at @comey because of the Clinton email investigation and I blamed him for Trump’s election.
Harsanyi had something to say about that, seeing he is Jewish. He writes at National Review:
When fellow Hungarians came for my grandfather — he was one of the first to be deported from the country — they sent him to sweep mines on the Eastern Front before handing him over to the Germans at Mauthausen and then Gunskirchen.
At some point he perished, no doubt, in a vile and undignified manner, perhaps succumbing to starvation or typhoid or dysentery, or maybe he was shot in the head and left in a shallow unmarked grave. We don’t know. His wife and son, the latter of whom he would never meet, would never find out how he died, despite decades of trying. His loss, like the deaths of millions of other powerless and now anonymous victims of that age, would have repercussions that reverberate today.
When “they” came for James Comey, on the other hand, he landed a massive book deal, made millions on the speaking circuit, wagged his finger at his former boss through social media to his million followers, and spent some quality time with family. He never once had to worry about state-sanctioned violence. Comey, a man powerful enough to oversee a cooked-up investigation into a presidential candidate, merely lost a job.
Like Comey, all the alleged victims on Wittes’s ludicrous list served at the pleasure of the president and could be fired by Donald Trump for almost any reason he desired, just as they could have been fired by Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter or FDR. Many of the people on the list, in fact, have been investigated by the inspector general, who found that they acted either incompetently or potentially illegally.
Government bureaucrats aren’t endowed with a God-given right to work in the executive branch of the United States government. Most of these “victims” will find lucrative work elsewhere. None, I confidently say, are going to be thrown into camps. If you don’t like who Trump fires, or how he fires them, you can always vote for another candidate.
It might come as a surprise to those who, through hyperbole, demean the real victims of history, but Nazi Germany didn’t hold impeachment hearings for their leaders in 1938, there was no institutional anti-Hitler media in 1939, and most people in 1940 did not publicly accuse Hitler of being a seditious criminal and madman. Those who did, such as Martin Niemöller, ended up in Sachsenhausen and Dachau, not the green room at CNN.
God bless him. It is about time that someone spoke out against that sort of nonsense.
Here is the letter, that President Donald Trump wrote to Nancy Pelosi. I am not a fan of hers either. But, this is some seriously stompy foot stuff here. 😒
This is a must read on Joe Biden and his involvement in the Iraq War.
In September, former Vice President Joe Biden attempted to portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war he voted for 17 years ago. Sure, as a U.S. senator, he voted to authorize the war, Biden told an NPR interviewer who asked about his foreign policy judgment. But that was only after Biden got a “commitment” from George W. Bush, the war’s architect, that the former president “needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program.” Alas, he continued, “before we know it, we had a shock and awe”—the opening aerial bombardment of the March 2003 invasion—and then “immediately, the moment it started,” Biden opposed the war. His mistake, he said, was trusting Bush.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews, whose long history of sexist comments and behavior have somehow not yet gotten him fired, tested the boundaries of his own misogyny again on Wednesday night. After the tenth Democratic presidential debate, the Hardball anchor grilled Elizabeth Warren about one of her lines of attack against Mike Bloomberg during the debate: that a pregnant female employee accused Bloomberg of telling her to “kill it.”