In case you haven’t followed what Tucker Carlson’s been saying lately (and I can understand it if you haven’t), he seems to be heartily endorsing El-Sayed
And for anyone who has paid attention to him, that should not be a surprise.
Nor am I exaggerating; take a look:
Tucker Carlson has unexpectedly praised Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, calling his platform “literally Trumpian” and saying he would not vote for his GOP rival Mike Rogers “at gunpoint.”
The right-wing broadcaster hosted podcaster Saagar Enjeti on his self-titled show, in the course of which the duo discussed the race between El-Sayed and Rogers, noting that while the former had started out as a “full-blown leftist,” he had undergone an “ideological evolution.”
“I watch his campaign now, it’s America First,” Enjeti said. “When he talks about Israel, he says, ‘Israel is committing a genocide, but ultimately I want to make sure that you don’t pay more for healthcare.
“‘I don’t want your tax dollars going abroad to fund this barbaric military.’ He stands in front of a giant American flag. It’s almost Trumpian in terms of a lot of those problems.”
“Well, it is literally Trumpian,” Carlson agreed, with both men going on to predict that the progressive former public health official was likely to beat Rogers in November.
I take issue with the word “unexpectedly” in the first sentence of that quote. Nothing could be less unexpected.
I also take issue with the phrase “right-wing” that begins the second paragraph of that quote. Tucker isn’t on the conventional right and it’s not clear where to categorize him, except that if anyone is against Israel and Jews, he’s for them.
And of course El-Sayed’s “ideological evolution” from “full-blown leftist” is because he now has to pretend to tack a tiny bit to the middle in order to try to win the election in Michigan.
The idea that El-Sayed is “literally Trumpian” would be comical if it weren’t so unhinged. But I’m not of the opinion that Tucker is actually unhinged. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing, and is giving free rein to ideas and impulses he’s had for a long long time. One motive is to split the GOP and try to take over the wreckage. He doesn’t have to cater to Fox News or anyone else now; he’s free to speak his mind. I’ve already written many many pieces about Tucker, so I won’t go into what I see as his “ideological evolution,” except to refer you especially to this post and this, as well as this one.
ADDENDUM: I originally was thinking of writing a separate post on this article in Tablet about J. D. Vance’s recent address to the Republican Jewish Coalition this past Tuesday. I may still write about it separately. But for now I’ll just link to it here, because it’s relevant to the ongoing discussion of why Vance has refused to criticize Tucker Carlson at all – not just refuse to “denounce” him, by the way, but refuse to be specific about whatever disagreements he might have with him. I wonder whether Tucker’s words on El-Sayed and Rogers would be enough to get Vance to say something; I tend to doubt it, but it’s certainly possible.
The Tablet piece I just linked is well worth reading, in order to see what Vance is saying about Israel and related topics. It’s considerably worse than I had originally thought; I wasn’t aware of some of the Vance quotes discussed in that piece.
Tucker who?
El-Sayed is to Trumpian as Jews are to genocide.
J.D. Vance is doing today’s White House press briefing. He was asked about Tucker Carlson. He said he disagrees with Carlson on many political issues; however, Tucker has been a friend for many years, and he doesn’t like the new trend of denouncing one’s friends because of political disagreements.
This is similar to my feeling about my Left Coast family. I disagree with them on practically any political subject, but they are my family. I love them, and I don’t want to cut them off because I think they are uninformed and biased about politics.
Vance has made strong statements against El Sayed’s candidacy. He’s doing it now on TV. Carlson has just endorsed the Islamist.
And I agree that calling Carlson “right wing” these days is no longer accurate.
Does Vance consider Tucker family? That would be about as nutty as Tucker.
I’m in no rush to be anti-JD. I think Kate made a good comment a few posts ago about it, and I’m sympathetic to what she had to say. That said, with this endorsement, given that El-Sayed is an avowed enemy of the Republican party and JD’s boss, this is a spectacular opportunity for him to clarify his thoughts on the matter. I sincerely hope he rises to the occasion.
Practically speaking, though, Vance is paying a price for his friendship with Carlson in terms of political support.
A price likely to increase as Tucker heads further into his anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim positions and claiming they are Trumpian.
Vance is a MAGA politician with presidential ambitions. He will have to square that circle somehow or suffer the consequences.
I know I don’t see Vance as I did before and I’m now skeptical of him as President.
Kate; Mike Plaiss:
Tucker is not a private person, unlike your family. Nor is Vance, for that matter. And Tucker is also not Vance’s family, either What Tucker is saying is pernicious, destructive, and in the public arena as part of his public political life. There comes a time when citing loyalty in a situation like that is a total misjudgment. It is not appropriate under those particular circumstances. Vance is showing that he puts personal loyalty (to someone doing evil) above his duty as VP.
I don’t know why Tqur has gone to the Dark Side. Spells, Demon positive, friends turning him over, no idea.
Skip:
If you haven’t read the three links I put in the ADDENDUM, you might want to read them. They might shed some light on the subject.
One might say that El-Sayed is indeed “Trumpian” in that just as Trump has been devoting all his energy, initiative, time and talent to Make America Great Again (though some would say, “to SAVE THE COUNTRY”), El-Sayed is devoting all HIS energy, initiative, time and talent into destroying it.
(Same basic thing, right?…)
Moreover, one might just say (according to such scintillating Tuckerian logic) that Hitler was, in fact, “Churchillian” (or that Churchill was “Hitlerian”)…except that in Tucker-Speak, Churchill was far, far worse(!).
Whatever.
It’s just Carlson going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole….
(Yes, it’s possible…apparently.)