The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Tucker Carlson is More a Symptom of Our Problems than a Cause
I have more reason than most to cheer his departure from Fox News. But it's unlikely to significantly diminish the problem of political misinformation, which is driven by demand more than supply.

Tucker Carlson's abrupt departure from Fox News today is being hailed by many as a positive development that will improve our political discourse. But I fear it won't make nearly as much difference as some hope.
I certainly will not miss Carlson. I was on his show in 2017 (video linked here) to talk about immigration and public ignorance. He was a jerk to me on the air; in fairness, I knew he was likely going to be that way, so can't say I was tricked into appearing.
Afterwards some of his more rabid fans sent me death threats. One of them was Cesar Sayoc, who later became famous as the "pipe bomber." I don't blame Carlson for the death threats. I do blame him for his constant promotion of lies, malice, and xenophobia.
At the same time, I think it's at best premature to conclude that Carlson's departure will significantly improve the right-wing media scene. Tucker Carlson didn't become popular by persuading his audience to change their minds. He did it by telling them what they wanted to hear. Whoever replaces him is likely to do the same.
Admittedly, in the wake of the Dominion case in which Fox was forced to pay $787.5 million to settle a lawsuit arising from its mendacious coverage of the 2020 election, the network may be more cautious about airing material that verges on defamation. But most political lies and misinformation aren't clear and egregious enough to meet the appropriately high legal standard for a successful defamation lawsuit targeting political speech about a public figures (ironically, Donald Trump and some other right-wingers have been trying to get that standard lowered).
The Dominion lawsuit revealed that audience preferences drives Fox's decisions much more than the reverse. Ultimately, the supply of political misinformation is far less of a problem than the demand for it. Regardless of what happens to Carlson, that problem is likely to persist - and not just on the political right.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Remember with the leftwing media pushed Diebold voting fraud lies and got off completely scot free?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Yes, Diebold stolen election conspiracies were a regular feature tech website comment sections (like Slashdot for example) in the early 2000's. The CEO was a big George W Bush contributor, we definitely need to audit the hardware/software, they could be rigging the count, yada yada.
Nothing new under the sun.
Even more from the "nothing new" files: one of the biggest pushers of those conspiracy theories was… RFK Jr. The same guy who conservatives are now feting because he's pushing even wackier conspiracy theories.
I'm trying to remember if any deep pockets made the claims (i.e., the actual networks) or if it was just a bunch of randos on the internet. Because I also definitely remember the conspiracy theory claims, but I wonder if Diebold concluded that the defendants would likely be judgment-proof. That being said, the cases are certainly similar enough that, if they wanted to, they could have filed suit.
Go cry about it to Rupert Murdoch, see if the supposed equivalence interests him one iota.
Agree with you there. I’m sure the legal team took this into account but the only thing that matters is that the progs now have the institutional control to use the legal system as their attack dog.
I don't know what you think that means. Fox played a stupid game with Dominion, won a stupid prize.
Progs have institutional control of the legal system? With a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court? Now pull my other leg.
Conservatives have some public officials, bloggers, and a few high ranking pols on their side. Progs, since they realize politics is total war don’t naively limit themselves to the ballot box and Facebook and have control of most of the media, corporations, the government bureaucracy, the ‘education’ system, holyweird, tech etc etc.
In terms of institutional control I’d trade you straight up any day of the week.
When you say they have ‘control’ of these things, do you mean that actually this is how most of the country thinks and you can’t persuade them to think differently as you shrink into smaller enclaves and rely on anti-majoritarian tactics and technicalities to promote minority rule.
I'm not sure how to understand "Diebold voting fraud lies" here. Diebold's software was shown to be vulnerable, and Diebold had to pay the attorney fees and court costs of losing its threats to silence critics. Ultimately it was Diebold that paid $2.6 million to settle a suit against it -- kinda the reverse of the Dominion case.
So no, I don't remember leftwing media "lies." But I do remember a lot of problems with Diebold that cost it millions.
It's kind of a joke, in that left-wing 'voting rights activists' are currently freaking out over Trump possibly having a look at voting software.
The simple fact is, if the voting software is solid, Trump having access to it shouldn't matter. If it's not secure, Trump having access to it is redundant: SOMEBODY will have access to it!
That sounds like rock-solid reasoning to let the guy who wanted the Supreme Court and then Pence to throw him the election, and wanted to seize voting machines, access to anything voting-related, beyond what he was entitled to.
Yeah, it actually is rock solid reasoning. If somebody out there knowing the voting machine code is a threat, we're screwed, because that's a given.
The only secure code is code that's secure even if everybody knows what it is.
If he's not entitled to have access to it and is on an all-out campaign to fuck up the election results, then it's probably best to tell him to fuck off.
I'm so convinced, I'm going to visit my bank and demand that they publish the source code for all their secure systems to make them more secure. Won't you do the same?
Your link is about Trump's effort in December 2020. I am not aware of any voting rights activists freaking out over this old story, except for satisfaction that it tends to confirm the left-wing belief that Trump violated the law.
You somehow missed the fact that it was breathlessly posted two whole days ago?
I see neither "freaking out" nor anything "breathless." Other than perhaps yourself.
One little detail that could be relevant to discussions like this is that Dominion is the one that ultimately ended up with the assets from Diebold's circa 2009 voting system spinoff.
There's not a doubt in my mind they threw away all the bad code and everything going forward was uber-bulletproof.
Remember when conservatives didn't respond to everything with false equivalence what-aboutism? Me neither.
No I don't remember that.
I do remember Diebold being almost criminally negligent with their voting machines (poor digital security, zero paper trail, and an openly partisan CEO).
A spokesman for DES said it was similar to "leaving your car unlocked, with the windows down and keys left in the ignition and then acting surprised when your car is stolen."
However, there was never any specific evidence of these blatant security holes being utilized to change the outcome of the election. There was some initial skepticism when the exit polls badly missed in States that used the voting machines, but when the polling companies figured it was their fault, and no other evidence emerged, everyone outside of some fringe characters like RFK Jr. figured it was a fair election.
In contrast this to the right wing conspiracy theories are very mainstream. They're also pretty dumb. You think the vote counting machine was corrupt? Ok, do a hand count, oh, the hand counts matches. Then why do you still blame the vote counting machines!!
Now who will call out the scourge of woke M&Ms?
Oh, in no way will this improve the right wing media scene, but his departure seems more likely to be linked to the upcoming lawsuit about his behaviour behind the scenes - Carlson wasn't the biggest promoter of the Dominion stuff on Fox.
What Murdoch has achieved is to remove the only remaining reasons for conservatives to even look at Fox News. In a year they will be gone or merged into some other establishment channel. They may as well change their name to Pravda and have done.
I expect soon to see Tucker on a platform that can't cancel him, such as Locals.com.
There is no reason to watch any cable opinion shows, on Fox, CNN or MSNBC. Its all screaming and bubble thinking.
You think the market is bad now?
I don't like FOX News at all, but there are many many people who seem to have found reasons to watch it. They just don't generally comment here.
The "market" supports my view.
Fox gets about 3.25 million households to view it.
131 million US households.
They were never that big as a percentage of the market, they did manage to be the market leader often enough by not having competition for half the political spectrum.
The problem is, they weren't a conservative outlet, because Murdock isn't a conservative. They were an outlet designed to be what a liberal thought conservatives wanted.
You really think that the only way something could possibly push an ideology is if it's owner is an ideologue, and that business is a propaganda outlet.
Profits over ideology is like the American go-by.
No, I think Fox wasn't trying to push an ideology. I think they were trying to profit from serving an unserved segment of the market.
And that segment sure liked to call themselves conservatives...
So? It's still a different motive.
Being an ideological channel does not require an ideologue in management.
Wow, you really put the Castro in SarcastrO.
'No true scotsman' is joining 'whataboutery' as your core political philosophies.
That’s why you have to rely so much on gerrymandering, voter supression, the electoral college and massive lies about stolen elections.
Attacking the electoral college? Now we know you're a hopelessly partisan hack.
That precious institution that's your only hope of power.
Maybe, but if aging Republicans stop watching Fox News to be reminded to be terrified of brown people and load up on ammo to shoot the woke mind-virus, they might stop being Republicans. It's essential for maintaining the Republican voter base.
Lots of brown and black people load up on guns and ammo, and it ain't because of whitey. Your narrative is shit.
Yours is non-responsive.
The man is not stupid, and he has a perfectly good studio up in Bryant Pond -- which now has modern telecommunications. (It was the last place in the country to have the old-fashioned hand-cranked phones, which were replaced in 1983.)
IF he doesn't want to run for Senate, or for the US House -- and this is the very conservative 2nd District which went for Trump in 2016 -- he could become an independent contractor to any number of outfits.
He ain't gone, Ilya.....
You're not even sad about Tucker no longer getting the FOX platform; you're coping about the fact that he won't make other people sad anymore.
Fox News is just controlled kabuki theater just like the Federal GOP party is.
Too bad for the Federals and their bootlickers that we have other sources of information and they can't control the narratives anymore.
It must be a great comfort to you that you will still have reliable sources of news, like Don Lemon on CNN. Oh, wait....
Can we at least hope that this is a sign of dwindling demand?
Have you read the comment thread?
Leo, contact me.
It appears Tucker Carlson's final lie at Fox was his final on-air assertion:
"We'll be back on Monday."
A fitting end.
This reads like a ramble ... could you please give concrete examples of his "constant promotion of lies, malice, and xenophobia"?
Your article reads like you just don't like his politics ... and your ego was hurt by a contentious interview.
I mean, I don't watch Tucker, but ever heard him talk about the Roma? Or The Great Replacement? He is absolutely a shill for white resentful shittiness.
What's your beefsteak with tomatoes?
This would hold a lot more weight if Somin would actually admit he's fallen for and spread political misinformation before. Might help his TDS.
FOX News and Rupert Murdoch understand that the best way to capture eyeballs and keep them in a media landscape with diminishing revenues and too many competitors in the market was to sell the idea of Fox News as the only reliable source of conservative media and then reinforce it as part of the conservative identity. It's far more difficult to change people's sense of identity. Tucker was just the most recent loud-mouthed hate-monger on Fox hired to keep the fear ratcheted up to 11.
If there is demand for this stuff, Fox helped build it and bound the customers to itself. Murdoch shouldn't get off so easily as merely the drug dealer here.
“The Dominion lawsuit revealed that audience preferences drives Fox's decisions much more than the reverse.” It’s a chicken/egg deal. RW media, RW pols, and RW voters form a positive feedback system with each driving the others to greater extremes.
Your thermostat is a negative feedback system. If it gets hotter than it should, it turns down the heat and maintains stability. In a positive feedback system, each ratcheting up of temperature demands yet more heat. As FOX drives fear and resentment, it takes ever more outrage to maintain the ratings. Positive feedback systems run hotter and hotter until they run out of fuel or something breaks. I hope it’s not the country that breaks.
The claim being circulated is he wanted to discuss how management was telling hosts to spin certain stories even when the hosts did not want to do so and management told him if he did that he would not go on air so he left.
Losing Bogino or whatever his name was something I was happy to see - he is one to freely push the conspiracies but testimony and documentation showed how Tucker and others at Fox knew everything to be false that Trump and Co were claiming and got told to play ball or else.
Honestly he was great for standing up to the shit show that is Ukraine and propping it up with our money with little to no recourse. We need less warmongers and at least Tucker was a constant source for avoiding getting us deeper into that war. Some of the left openly talked about nukes ... seriously both sides were nuts in Congress but some media darlings actually went that way too
So, are you just ignoring that he was so close to the Russian propaganda line about Ukraine that Russian state media was literally using clips of him?
So, you're saying the Russians can ban anybody from American discourse by running a clip from them? Man, that's power!
So you're saying that's why he was banned?
Well, he DID blame Biden for blowing up the Nordstream Pipelines.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-happened-nord-stream-pipeline
It wouldn’t surprise me if he blamed Bud Lite, it’s still not why he was fired. Or 'banned.'
1. That's a great video of Tucker and Ilya that is linked to. I highly encourage you all to watch it. Full link below.
https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/ilya-somin-discusses-washington-post-article-can-we-overcome-public?fbclid=IwAR1ccjw7fmIY4233j6PtpXBz_Obm9hxd7i60uopoMUgdwFUMC50ZYqBJu6M
2. In it, I don't see Tucker as a "jerk". I seem him making points that Ilya seems incapable of responding to. Importantly however, it's a show that contrasts two different viewpoints and people discussing them. And that is critically important, seeing that discussion, and not just having the echo box of one's own viewpoints recited back to them, having one's viewpoints challenged.
3. However, it does point out a major flaw in Ilya's most common viewpoints...Ilya doesn't meaningfully respond to criticism about his viewpoints. And because he doesn't meaningfully respond, he has no good rebuttal for points that are made. And there ARE meaningful rebuttals. But just saying "well, you're ignorant for your viewpoints" isn't meaningful.
4. Let's illustrate this, using the Tucker video.
a. Tucker argues that immigrants vote Democrat, and from a GOP point of view, this ends up being a key element that is undesirable. From an "American" point of view, they are off the mean. Ilya responds that, socially, immigrants act like normal Americans. But here's where Ilya fails. When Tucker brings up Hispanics making California democratic, the response should be Hispanics...especially Cuban Hispanics...in Florida trend Republican. Not all Hispanic Immigrant groups are the same, like "native-born" Americans, they have a diversity of views. But Ilya just doesn't respond well. He defaults to "surveys say" too much.
b. Then Tucker brings up Gay Marriage in California. The proper response should have been Prop 8.
The critical element here, is that because Ilya is unused to defending his views (he did appear to prepare rather poorly for the talk with Tucker), he doesn't understand other people's views and arguments....he defaults back to his own talking points too often.
I might say that the fact that partisan politics is all you and Tucker care about means you are pretty sad.
I think you did say it.
Only you could read that post, and somehow believe it was about partisan politics.
No, it just means Somin is a moron.
Well, that is kind of the way he operates here, isn't it? If he posts a broken link and you point it out, he'll thank you, but substantive responses are few and far between, especially on immigration.
Fundamentally, open borders are a moral crusade for him, he doesn't care if his position is unpopular, it just deserves to prevail anyway. That being the case, the arguments against it are kind of irrelevant to him.
Fundamentally, open borders are a moral crusade for him, he doesn’t care if his position is unpopular, it just deserves to prevail anyway. That being the case, the arguments against it are kind of irrelevant to him.
No - believing something is morally right doesn't mean you stop engaging with counterarguments.
Actually, it often does. It shouldn't, tactically speaking, but an embarrassing number of people, who ought to know better, think, "If I acknowledge the arguments of my opponents, I'm just giving them free exposure and legitimizing their views."
I don't find that to be the case.
No, I don't believe it's a moral crusade, so much as a narrowmindedness.
If it was a true moral crusade, Ilya would understand the counterarguments, and have the rebuttals ready for them. A moral crusade would want to convince people.
But in that clip, Ilya just kinda stutters, then falls back on his talking points about surveys, or brings out a tidbit about "GOP anti-immigration" in California. Tucker is much more informed, the comment on Texas is telling.
What it looks like is, that Ilya just hasn't been really challenged in his worldview. He sees it how he sees it. If you don't see it how he does, you are "ignorant". Ilya falls back on old pieces of Liberal talk-radio on occasion. That all speaks to a narrow-mindedness, that he doesn't want to actually challenge.
You're right. For a lawyer Somin doesn't seem to know how to debate. No wonder he's in academia rather than practice.
Ilya is a leftist and leftists don't debate they dictate.
The number of people here who think Ilya is a leftist is a barometer of how moronic this comment section has become.
He'll tell you he is a "libertarian," but the impression I've gotten is that he is as "libertarian" as Reason Magazine ... or the Democratic Party. Does he want to end the welfare state? Does he want to bring back freedom of association? Oh, please!
I decline to engage your No True Scotsman. I'll simply point out how far you moved the goalposts.
The problem with yelling "No True Scotsman" is that there actually are people who aren't Scotsmen. MOST people aren't Scotsmen!
So the yell, (I hesitate to call it an "argument" devolves to insisting that people must be whatever they claim to be, and anybody who denies it, no matter how much evidence they adduce, is guilty of a fallacy.
I suppose that IS a popular stance on the left these days.
I think it's funny that when extreme conservative beliefs differ from extreme libertarian beliefs, the conservatives claim the libertarians aren't actually being libertarian. The conservative/libertarian 'small-government' overlap was always illusory.
So it you're neither, wtf are you doing here (besides vomiting up The View-level talking points)?
The sparkling repartee.
Yes, and?
Leo, contact me.
Amazing! For most of the day all the media could talk about was one of their own being fired (Carlson or Lemon), meanwhile 16,000 American are trapped in Sudan.
No apologies or retractions by any media entities for pushing Russia-gate and the Steele dossier on us. Lie in favor of the elites and you get Pulitzers
Why would they apologize for truthfully reporting that Russia tried to help Trump get elected and Trump welcomed that help?
Ilya is a selfish, petty little bitch?
Who knew????
Somin passionately supports open borders, and no amount of the palpably obvious negative consequences will move him to reconsider his thesis. Admittedly, he's pretty isolated from those consequences in the faculty lounge. His sinecure is secure. And as someone who was born and has lived in Latin America for many years, I can assure him these legions of border-crashing migrants will not usher in the libertarian utopia he seems to desire.
And for a purported "libertarian", he's not very big on free speech. Rather he chooses to fascistically bang his drum and repeat his "MISINFORMATION!" mantra at anyone who dares question the government-approved narrative. Naturally, his concern for the spread of misinformation was nowhere to be found during three years of pee-tape talk and the Russia hoax.
An actual libertarian would despair the loss of prominent contrarian voices, not celebrate it. And the fact that Fox News has parted ways with by far its most popular host belies the idea that it is driven by what its audience wants. Rather it shows it is driven by the emerging Gleichschaltung that continues at an alarming pace. Someone whose underlying philosophy seems to be "free markets" should probably be concerned about that.
It is difficult to understand why Prof. Somin chooses to continue to associate with a faux libertarian blog that caters to an audience of disaffected, authoritarian, right-wing bigots.
There was no "Russia hoax," and your understanding of libertarianism is very very very very confused. You think that imaginary "negative consequences" of immigration should override libertarian principles, while completely failing to grasp that an "actual libertarian" would be perfectly fine with a private business firing someone for lying. Especially when that person is an authoritarian thug.
Hey, a time traveler from 2017! Don't worry, 81 million real-life voters saved us from certain populism with Basement Joe and his CCP handlers.
The problem with this demand vs supply argument is that it lets media figures off the hook too much. Consumers that demand something harmful to themselves or others are responsible for what they consume. Anyone producing those things is still responsible for producing and marketing something harmful. No one is forcing them to meet that demand.
It also can exist in a feedback loop. People can demand that they be told what they want to hear because that is what leaders that they admire and trust are always giving them. It is like they become addicted to those feelings they get from tribal politics. And the success of populists that follow those patterns encourages more to do the same.
In an ideal world, people would recognize that they need to put in extra effort to be skeptical when told things that seem right and true at an emotional level. Absent that ideal world, no one should promote or celebrate public figures that prey and feed off of people’s failures to be skeptical and rational, even if they would be useful allies.
Here is notorious lefty Tyler Cowen reflecting on Tucker Carlson: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/04/a-few-random-tucker-carlson-thoughts.html
Unlimited-immigration advocate "Ilya Somin" can't handle any opposition toward open borders; instead he prefers to smear his opponents as "xenophobes," "white supremacists" and "conspiracy theorists" - all while simultaneously accusing them of defamation. It is getting tiresome.
Everything has context. Standalone theory is like saying the more government pays for subsidized medical care and subsidizes medical mutilation (such as trans surgeries) and prenatal infanticide, people will not be harmed in their wallet.
One big proof that the policy is not just the open-door come one come all policy this article purports (while also showing that the big federal bosses do not believe in the brutal house arrest and masking and social isolation ("distancing") and their Covid scam is that they did not require entrants to be injected or require proof of having had the toxic shot before sending them all over the US.
The GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED illegal immigration, including the no-jab practice, shows that it is pure and simple a numbers game. Yes, it's a replacement policy. They want to overwhelm the freedom-loving traditional Christian and liberty-minded culture with people who are not so accustomed. People that the author of this piece despise (and I think most of the people at Reason.com).
He can't even have sympathy for the black underclass that has complained about being pushed out of the job markets or at least had their pay lose its clout.
In a completely libertarian world, migration would be massively lower, and trespassers would know they could get shot.
It “feels” like a purge event, driven by deep state players – HOWEVER – if this is linked to the Don Lemon firing then MAYBE, just maybe – this is a deescalation effort from all sides. I would praise that effort for sure. But, it is more likely that the left and right are collaborating to help each other maintain power over the media messaging. My largest fear is that we lose the right and left balance and therefore lose the ability to extrapolate the “truth” – sadly the FULL TRUTH is too boring to report these days.
Tolerate? You mean participate in to the max.
Yeah, the reaction of most computer professionals to the idea of using computers for voting machines is, "Are you mad?". Tabulating, that's another matter, but actually casting the votes? Totally nuts, you want [re]programable devices as far from that as possible.
The US has had dirty elections, always.
Sounds like you've bought a narrative!
As a computer professional myself, no, this isn't true. We don't think it's "mad." Software developers especially believe that for every issue there is a suitable application of technology to solve it. (Or, if you prefer simpler explanations: we all have hammers and every problem looks like a nail.)
But as long as the actual media voted on is marked directly by the voter, there's a physical record of what the voter actually did, which if necessary can be examined by the human eye. (Yes, there is currently a push on to define hand recounts as inherently illegitimate...)
If you have voting by programable device, that physical record itself can be falsified, and there's no recourse.
Whack-a-mole.
Naive software developers believe this. Seasoned software developers believe that for every issue, application of technology should be a last resort.
You're confusing "computer professional" with "tech bro".
A key way to tell the difference is how much they mention "crypto", "blockchain", and "the cloud". If you hear any of those terms, the chances that you're talking to a real "computer professional" (and not a "tech bro") go down.
Because while there are some domains where those are legitimate solutions, the number of times they're proposed as solutions inappropriately by a tech bro vastly outnumbers the times they've been proposed as solutions appropriately by a computer professional.
Presumably Murdoch thought it was cool and profitable or advantageous in some way to have the lies pushed. Or didn't care as it was business as usual at Fox. It’s great that billionaires can buish off these kinds of damages after doing all that damage, I suppose.
Murdoch doesn’t own CNN. He doesn’t own OAN either, who have their own case pending with Dominion. So, of the three stories, the CNN one was the closest to accurate, given that no evidence of fraud was presented despite the massive outcry that still persists. Y’know, if truth matters.
No, there isn't. Not a shred of evidence has been produced. The rest is hot air. It absolutely matters. It only doesn't matter if it's important to your politics or beliefs that the truth does not matter.
massive sounds like a lot of evidence. so much that trump appointed judges should have been easily convinced.
if you mean the d'souza movie about mules, 2000 might seem like a massive number of mules. so much that some of them might have been tracked down.
perhaps maybe the evidence is something less than massive?
There is no evidence of any voter fraud, unless you want to count the handful of Republican voters who cast multiple votes.
Yes, we all have our biases. You think I don't realize I have them?
You're the one who seems to claim you've got the inside scoop on all that evidence of the election being stolen, which makes you more than biased, it makes you a conspiracy theorist who loves their narrative sooo much they have discarded critical thinking.
Trump's a crook, so he'll probably do it crookedly. It's like saying Trump's massive lies about voter fraud are the same as any other act of challenging an election result. If you pretend they're generically identical, the deatils don't matter.
Bezos uses the Washington Post as a his mouthpiece
Any evidence of that? I mean Bezos sucks, but he's by all accounts been pretty hands off.
You're saying the media isn't about truth, or even about profit, but some kinda conspiracy by the rich? Have you ever met a journalist?
It's not even a conherent question because whiteness is not a monolithic culture to be replaced, and neither is nonwhiteness.
Nobody sane believes the 'great replacement' is anything more than an outright Nazi conspiracy theory, since, obviously, it's an outright Nazi conspiracy theory. Even actual Nazis admit it's a Nazi conspiracy theory.
The Trump Justice Department was no better at getting him charged. Any theory on why that might be?
When has Mitch McConnell ever refrained from using political power because he’s worried about what the other side might do?
And most of the time, conservative what-aboutism isn’t even on point. Upon close examination the two situations aren’t even comparable. Usually not only isn’t it an apples to apples comparison, it’s not even apples to some other fruit.
Sure, everybody remembers when he ended the filibuster for judicial nominations, just before an election, on the assumption that the election was in the bag, so what could the Democrats do?
Oh, wait, that was Reid.
The more someone mentions "crypto", "blockchain", "the cloud", and that new favorite "AI/ML" the more I believe they are a computer marketing or sales professional, not a computer technical professional.
Because the system protects its own. Political appointees at the top can only do so much when the subordinates are unwilling. A lot of people in the DOJ and IRS are more than happy to protect the Bidens or other mainstream Dems. Anyone pushing for fair application of our laws will probably be tagged as not being a good team player and find their career stalled.
It really doesn’t matter because it is going to become SENATOR Tucker Carlson….
Tucker Carlson is either already a Maine resident or easily could become one — he has a studio up in the Oxford County ski country near Bethel. See: https://wgme.com/news/local/fox-news-host-tucker-carlsons-maine-studio-almost-ready
That was two years ago, and he also has a home up there as well. If he’s not already a Maine resident, all he’d have to do is (a) register to vote, (b) change his driver’s license, (c) change his vehicle registration(s), and (d) file a Maine state income tax return — and Maine doesn’t tax out-of-state earnings. Then he’d be perfectly eligible to run against an 80-year-old Angus King (I-ME) in 2024.
Angus King is a former Democrat who switched to Independent to run for Governor in 1994 because he knew he couldn’t win a primary race against former Democrat Governor Joe Brennan, with King winning a 35% plurality in a four-candidate race. After running for the seat vacated by the retiring Olympia Snowe, King has served two terms in the US Senate, accomplishing nothing more than making himself fantastically rich with ethically-questionable windfarm deals. This in a state where alternative energy is not exactly popular, with a controversial transmission line being built in spite of an overwhelming referendum against it.
Tucker Carlson would have both the money and name recognition to be a formidable candidate against someone who really hasn’t done much newsworthy since the Clinton Administration. As a journalist, Carlson has the ability to dig up and articulate King’s questionable windmill deals, something often mentioned but never really discussed.
And are the Dems going to come to the rescue of someone who abandoned their party 30 years ago, before some of them were even born?
Ilya, get used to Senator Tucker Carlson, the Ted Cruz of the North….
And for those who think that Angus King is a strong candidate, remember that in 2012 he defeated a Ron Paul campaign worker -- someone best known for dancing in a Brazilian bathing suit in a commercial for a brand of coconut-flavored water. King's going to be 80 years old, running against a 54 year old Carlson.
It's okay for the Dems to talk about how immigrants will become Dems and lock in their control of government. That's good racism.
What do you think the Great Replacement says? Because it's a bit more than 'immigrants tend to vote for Democrats.'
Dr. Ed,
I will bet you $100 right now that Carlson will not be elected to the Senate from Maine in 2024.
First, why would he run? He takes a big income hit, and gets a job that he probably wouldn't enjoy.
Second, I doubt he would win. Do you think Maine is full of MAGATs? I don't.
Name recognition will as always triumph, just as long as he can get an endorsement from Senator Oz.
Great way to dodge the question.
So it's all down to unfalsifiable conspiracy theories. How convenient.
No, it's not dodging. Let's see the examples of Mitch using his power careless of what the other side might do in power.
That's more of a Democratic thing, due to your strange conviction that the next election is going to be the dawn of perpetual Democratic control of the country. Over and over you've done stuff on that assumption, and had it blow up in your faces.
Yes it is dodging. The question asked was when was the last time Mitch McConnell refrained from using political power. Nothing you’ve said answers that question.
Leo, please give me a call.
"Practically every day".
The claim of "whataboutism" is absurd in all cases. Oh wait, ignoring history and embracing hypocrisy are key Democrat planks. Never mind.
Could you define 'Great Replacement' first? It might help for clarity.
"You’re saying the media isn’t about truth, or even about profit, but some kinda conspiracy by the rich?"
No, he's saying (((the media))) isn’t about truth, or even about profit, but some kinda conspiracy by (((the rich))). It's just the usual barely-bothering-to-hide-it white supremacist shite.
Who's claiming that they have inside scoop?
Look's like Sarcastro's playing fast and loose with the truth again.
Hah, your TDS is showing. Embarrassing.
Nice bubble you live in. So comfortable.
Yeah, tell me how the guy behind Trump University isn't a crook.