TUCKER NEW CABLE KING/GETS 9 PM FOXNEWS...Carlson totally deserves this. They gave him an early slot and he knocked himself out making it as exciting as he could. He replaced Brit Hume who was just filling in after Greta Van Susteren left suddenly. Hume coasted amiably, doing his grumpy but mellow old man routine. Here's how he acted on election night. That's peak excitement from Hume.
The dramatic move caps Carlson's rapid rise at the nation's top-rated cable channel.
"Tucker has already proven to be an audience powerhouse at 7 PM, now sky is the limit!" an insider explains. ... In recent weeks, the Carlson show hit #1 audience and demo with a mix of explosive interviews and hard-hitting topics.
I'm charmed by Hume's demeanor, and Carlson annoys me. But Carlson operates by being irritating. I've said this before. He deliberately antagonizes his guests by being an annoying man. That's how he manufactures a show, and it's not easy. He's won an audience doing that and he has thereby earned the time slot upgrade.
I think there was an assumption out there that a woman would be chosen to replace Megyn Kelly. Fox News has its woman problem, but would that problem be solved by finding the best woman they've got and leaping her over the go-getter, high-performing Tucker Carlson? I don't think so. Fox has entered its new era, post-Roger Ailes.* And it should operate in a new way. Giving Carlson what he deserves is a good start. Give Carlson's slot to a woman and challenge her to prove her worth, the way Carlson did.
And I'm saying all this as a woman and a woman who finds Carlson very annoying. (And I do record his show and attempt to watch it until he annoys me too much.)
_____________________________
* I'm not going to get back into the Ailes matter, but here's "The Revenge of Roger’s Angels/How Fox News women took down the most powerful, and predatory, man in media."
Posts
158 comments:
This is exactly what I thought would happen:
Althouse blogs she thought Tucker Carlson would get the Fox News time slot vacated by Megyn Kelly after Tucker Carlson got the Fox News time slot vacated by Megyn Kelly.
As mentioned many times by Ace of Spades, at what point will the lefties who agree to appear on his show realize that Tucker intends to rigorously debate them with logic and facts? (not #DemTalkingPointFacts but actual facts)
If you appear you'd be wise to prepare for an Oxford-type back and forth and, thus far, the lefty guests have been skewered as if they had never operated in any environment where the #LeftyReceivedWisdom had to be actually defended.
Carlson dismantled Jim Himes of CT last night and it was a joy to watch all the dem lies and memes get criss-crossed into a Mobius-strip of illogic and deception.
It was especially helpful last night to learn from the "erudite" dem representative that Obamacare is unpopular because Sarah Palin said "Death Panels".
#FakeNews
Fox is one the few places where merit rules. That's probably why they rule the market.
As long as you include traditional attractiveness as merit, sure.
Carlson has always had a kind of frat-boy personality that is annoying. He comes across as if he's debating for points.
I was hoping for Dana Loesch. I hope she gets Tucker's old slot at least.
I don't think the annoying part is Tucker, but the guests he brings on. He brings on the opposition, gives them a chance to state their case, then he points out the illogical or flat wrong parts. The attempt to defend themselves is priceless.
A win for snarky bastards who are usually right. I guess Tucker represents this new Trump era pretty well, aggressively pushing back against the absurdities of the Left by mercilessly mocking and insulting them. As much as I may enjoy this sort of comeuppance after 8 years of arrogant progressives dominating our culture, I'm still unsure if it's a good or a bad thing to be so constantly adversarial. It might make you feel good and it might generate loads of ratings, but does it actually convince people, does it win more of them to your side?
"Big Mike said...
I was hoping for Dana Loesch. I hope she gets Tucker's old slot at least."
I mwas hoping for Patti Ann Browne.
Part of it is that Tucker is much, much more aggressive than most hosts. He wants a dialogue and expects people to come prepared to talk, not bloviate. I hope that's a real world. It looks like a nice word to mean what I want it to mean.
I always preferred Tucker Carlson as a writer than a TV presenter. On TV, he can come across as quite juvenile and obnoxious. But then again, Don Lemon seems like a perfectly gorgeous specimen of male beauty but is dumb as a box of rocks. Carlson has been a refreshing voice in the Trump era, and he is usually quite skilled at dismantling SJW arguments. His scuffle with uptight Greta Van Susteren over Sarah Palin and Mike Tyson was fun to way. The way he torpedoed Mickey Kaus' piece at The Daily Caller calling out Fox News for its pro-immigration bias was not his finest hour, but generally speaking Carlson is probably the best fit for the time slot. He can do much more good there than sandwiched between the Fox & Friends trio of nitwits.
"This is exactly what I thought would happen:
So did many others from what I read yesterday before it was announced, but I understand. In this day of most predictions (especially by experts) being wrong, it's truely special to be right.
2016 should be remembered as the year of the crow (eating it). From the elections, to Obamacare, to melting icecaps, to race relations, the stock market, to Syria, Turkey, and on and on; 2016 was the year that things just didn't turn out as predicted by the experts. Why do we call them that anyway? Clearly it just means some generic person with an opinion. Hey, I'm an expert too!
" ...exult in my prescience." Very nice.
How long before lefties figure out that they're bound to lose on that show? That they got nothin'?
Carlson should mix it up and go after the right equally hard, if only to toughen them up. Unlike the left, we'd enjoy it.
Tucker comes across as a college student politely asking an innocent right wing question to a Liberal Professor. And the dumb Liberal guests proceed to display their arrogance learned in a career in Academia where they always had the last word.
Then Tucker laughs at them for being so weak minded on the subject. He never lets them have the last word, which befuddles them. It is like he is shooting fish in a bowl, and the guests flop around like fish out of water.
That's Great Entertainment. Bravo Fox.
Annoying, but in a good way.
Good choice! Carlson is one of the few FNC interviewers who doesn't constantly interrupt his guests and is also the least annoying. Harris Faulkner would also have been a good selection. Her competence and poise are wasted on the morning show, Outnumbered.
Steve Doocey is not a nitwit. As to his co-hosts, well. . . . I think there's a reason that Doocey usually has that amused/exasperated/"Why the hell am I here" expression on his face.
I did like E.D. Hill. Gretchen Carlson was pure annoying. The current token female is very good looking and doesn't say things that are obviously stupid, but doesn't really add much to the conversation either. Brian Kilmeade is, of course, the class clown.
I don't think it's fair to call Tucker a "frat boy" - unless the frats at your school had a lot more intellectual wattage than did the ones at mine.
I do worry that he'll run out of gullible lefties to humiliate - sort of the Ali G problem.
good, At what speed does the Earth move around the Sun
J. Farmer opines: Don Lemon seems like a perfectly gorgeous specimen of male beauty but is dumb as a box of rocks.
LOL! Men usually consider men gorgeous when they are 'pretty', like women. But I guess that makes sense. As a woman, I don't find him at all attractive. And he really is as 'dumb as a box of rocks'.
Fox should give Obama a prime time show. It could follow "The Five". Call it "The One".
Nonapod: "As much as I may enjoy this sort of comeuppance after 8 years of arrogant progressives dominating our culture, I'm still unsure if it's a good or a bad thing to be so constantly adversarial. It might make you feel good and it might generate loads of ratings, but does it actually convince people, does it win more of them to your side?"
This is a great question and I would answer it thusly: at this point in time, given the current political battlespace orientation with the left basically attempting to rule any and all conservative positions as utterly out of bounds and actually criminal, "constantly adversarial" is a NECESSARY and too long delayed reaction.
Martha MacCallum is very good and I remember her from CNBC years ago, getting a little age on her but still pretty. She is getting the 7PM time slot according to The Daily Caller.
@mockturtle:
I know plenty of women who find Lemon attractive, but of course that's a very subjective judgment. Pretty boy Ryan Gosling seems to have a legion of female admirers after all.
What I find when watching Carlson interview is that I'm more interested in what he will ask than what the answer is. The answers are entirely predictable with most political guests, but Carlson's questions are right to the point of the dispute rather than beating around it, and he comes back repeatedly with just what I want asked until lefties guests are forced to show their totalitarian nature which they seem unaware of and clearly have never been challenged on before. It's very satisfying these days.
I think Carlson will be hard on Trump. He soured on Bush and will sour on Trump.
I would not jump to the conclusion, or take the bait that Kelly "vacated" the slot. I suspect she wanted more than she was worth, and they said no. They gave her a counter-offer and her agent told her to take the better offer. Loyalty in network programming is not an option. It's a pay to play kind of a deal.
I think she was ousted by the dreaded "no-raise" tool of personnel management.
After the "talent" left (given the kiss of death raise), they did what they all do, and selected the best "talent" they had. Obviously Carlson is lower maintenance and was willing to take less money.
My experience has been, when they don't give you a raise, or give you a minimum raise, it is your signal to move on. This has proved true in my last two jobs. They already had the going away party planned before I resigned.
"News of Mr. Carlson’s appointment was first reported by Drudge."
Noted at the bottom of the New York Times article.
Megyn Kelly, expressly unwilling to perform disgusting, degrading sexual favors for Fox News executives, is out after many years of excellent work.
Tucker Carlson is promoted to a top time slot after only how many weeks at the network?
Draw your own conclusions.
Interesting how the Roger Ailes takedown (and Megyn's new gig at NBC) validates the Left's dismissal of FoxNews blond bimbos.
Megyn's default to daytime TV, competing with The View and Oprah, suggests that she really doesn't have what it takes to be a Prime Time news player. She has the legally honed skills to keep guests from filibustering, but her default to the offended woman shtick in the Trump debates showed that she really doesn't have the policy smarts to be a Presidential debate moderator.
Whatever happened to that guy Kurt Eichenwald Tucker roasted so spectacularly? The next thing I heard after that was that he was claiming someone on Twitter gave him seizures, then that he had filed a police report and was going to sue them, then...not much of anything.
Bob Boyd:
Tell us your conculsion(s).
My conclusion is that Kelly alienated a number of her viewers, had extraordinary salary demands and options. At least one of those options was what she viewed as more desirable.
It is what I hoped would happen.
Out here "Tucker Carlson Tonight" collides with the Evening News, so I have only got to watch snippets during the commercials, but they have been very good, surprisingly so, since as guest on various panesl in the past, Carlson indeed had appeared a bit annoying to me. But on his own show he has been prepared and done a very good job, IMHO.
As for the women, there just is not anyone else with Kelly's ego and charisma (and glam looks) to carry the 9PM ET slot. Kelly also could be really annoying with her tendency to take out after her guest as a prosecutor based on the state's theory of the law regardless of common sense, (Isn't there anyone of these people who worked as a defense lawyer in a previous incarnation?), but at least she did not go falsetto along with the high speed delivery.
Miss "Me Again" Kelly had gotten rather too full of herself and made herself very unpopular at Fox, and regardless of how wonderful you are, it is hard to work someplace where at least half the building hate your guts.
I have always liked Tucker Carlson; but his new show has been a bit horrifying. He routinely invites low-ranking and/or unknown guests from various left-wing factions, and then he argues with them and berates them. I've seen a couple of lefty women -- utterly unknown to me -- with whom I have no political affinity (whereas I have about 90% political affinity with Carlson), take down Tucker by simply observing that they can't seem to get an answer out, that Tucker won't accept the answer, and that Tucker just wants to argue, it seems.
Brit Hume was and is a pro; I'd watch any FNC show that he hosted. While he was temporarily doing the Greta time-slot, Brit's show was the third best thing on Fox, just behind Fox News Sunday and Bret Baier's weekday show. Followed by the weekend Journal Report (tremendous content, with zero production value).
I get the feeling that The O'Reilly Factor -- which got by on pure production (maybe the best in the business) with no thanks to the bloviating BillO -- is now just coasting, with BillO mailing it in. And Hannity's program has become a caricature. A Trump infomercial. Night after night of Sheriff David Clarke in one of his haloween costumes, and Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the "security expert" who tried to get on a plane at Reagan National with a 9mm in his bag.
Annoying, Ann? That is the kindest thing you can about Tucker. I have watched him now for a couple of weeks to observe his patterns. There are those who say he is "Taking so and so down." He doesn't even listen to the people he has on. He has a prepared series of statements that are "zingers", formulated to humiliate anyone who dares to cross him. He is obnoxious and a real jerk. Why FOX hired him is beyond me. I would have been happy to have him languish in obscurity forever.
Will he take on Trump? No way. He is in the tank for Trump and is almost fawning over any of his operatives, much like Sean Hannity. They both repulse me. I think O'Reilly is better and far more fair.
Please don't give me the blah, blah blah about my being a liberal and I don't know what i am talking about. At least I watch the "other" networks, which is more than i can say for many of your responders.
Vicki from Pasadena
"And I'm saying all this as a woman and a woman who finds Carlson very annoying."
My wife feels the same way about Bill O'Reilly. I'm not even gonna try to get her to watch Tucker.
OMG, Chuck, you are right on the money. If I had said that i would have been accused of being a left-wing hack. Bravo!!
vicki from Pasadena
Dana Perino is the person at Fox whom I was most hoping to see promoted.
And why is there not a time slot given to Fred Barnes? Maybe Fred just wants to retire.
Media Matters reported in 2010: Carlson, who joined Fox News in May 2009, has called O'Reilly a "thin-skinned blowhard" and a "humorless phony" who talks "about himself so goddamn much," and said of The O'Reilly Factor: "I don't know who would want to watch that shit. Do you?"
Anyone who dislikes O'Reilly that much can't be all bad.
victoria exclaims: If I had said that i would have been accused of being a left-wing hack.
What? You mean you're not???
"I'm still unsure if it's a good or a bad thing to be so constantly adversarial."
This is the Fox shtick. I find it annoying and don't watch it much. I don;t watch any TV except football and that mostly college.
My wife watched Fox but I find it annoying. MeAgain Kelly used to be pretty good but she has gotten one of the swelled heads so common in celebrities. I'm happy to see her go where she will probably shrink like Katie Couric.
I do like what I've seen of Carlson, mostly in replay clips.
He is in the tank for Trump and is almost fawning over any of his operatives, much like Sean Hannity. They both repulse me.
OMG ! What a surprise !
Vicki, you are a lefty clown. Have a nice four years. It's going to be fun.
mockturtle said...
Media Matters reported in 2010: Carlson, who joined Fox News in May 2009, has called O'Reilly a "thin-skinned blowhard" and a "humorless phony" who talks "about himself so goddamn much," and said of The O'Reilly Factor: "I don't know who would want to watch that shit. Do you?"
Anyone who dislikes O'Reilly that much can't be all bad.
lmfao.
I love Tucker, when he talks like that. He's such a great guest. He's got a lot to learn about being a host.
I actually think that some O'Reilly/Hannity producer got to Tucker and told him how FNC hosts are supposed to act. Beat up on the guests.
But Greta van Susteren never did that, and Fox gave her all sorts of space. And they let Megyn Kelly do things her own way.
I don't get it.
robother opines: Megyn's default to daytime TV, competing with The View and Oprah, suggests that she really doesn't have what it takes to be a Prime Time news player. She has the legally honed skills to keep guests from filibustering, but her default to the offended woman shtick in the Trump debates showed that she really doesn't have the policy smarts to be a Presidential debate moderator.
It is an unfortunate fact that many female and minority news personalities have their own axes to grind.
If you want to know how a Presidential debate moderator is supposed to work; all you need to do is watch Chris Wallace.
Tucker thinks too fast on his feet for many who want an old slow pace. And he uses that skill to argue with memorized lecture types who on cue refuse to respond to his quick interrogations mid spiel.
So Tucker is a acquired taste. But it has a good finish.
"I should have blogged it. Then I could exult in my prescience."
That's exultation enough, thank you. Anyway I believe you.
Tucker does not stack up well against Kelly. We will see how his ratings go.
And he is annoying. Smug preppy from Trinity with his smug bow tie. He would look terrible in spiky black heels.
But smug preppies have rights too. And talents. I wish him every success.
As long as the libs in media/academia/entertainment keep supplying idiotic blowhards for TC to expose, embarrass and ridicule, he'll continue to excel.
Considering their supply of such, he's in for a long run.
.....and he's come a long way from his bizarre overheated performance on that Dancing show.
No surprise that Lifelong Republican Chuck dislikes any host that makes Democrats squirm and look like idiots. Not that that takes great skill, really, but since Tucker appears to be the only guy who likes watching them wriggle and get caught out like the totalitarian despots they are, I say good for Tucker.
--Vance
I only saw the one segment, but I guess Carlson should not have interrupted when his guest started talking about black stars at the CIA when asked a yes or no question.
You are both left wing hacks,Vicki,but Chuck does his homework,I will give him that.
Having been on a debate team in college, I love to watch Tucker Carlson debating with his liberal guests.
Debating is something, akin to many sports, that requires agility, speed and practice. Being able to think "on your feet" and instantly detect the flaws in your opponents' arguments. Being able to have at your fingertips (or in your mental rolodex) the facts that support your arguments. Thinking ahead to what your opponents' arguments are going to be and being ready to counter. All crucial in winning a debate.
Those are skills that are so sadly, obviously lacking in the liberals who merely spout talking points and who oblivious to any ideas that may counter theirs. They are like unthinking parrots repeating phrases that they have learned to mimic. When confronted with thoughts, facts, arguments that are counter and confounding, the liberals then resort to ad hominim attacks, call names, get emotional and look like toddlers about to cry because they didn't get the cookie.
Liberals argue from emotion. From feeeeeelings! Tucker debates with facts, logic and skill.
I love the expressions on this face. First: the look that says....."I can't believe I'm hearing this sh*t." Then: the Ah Hah look with that little smile that says. "You are really saying this. You left an opening a mile wide...NOW I've gotcha!!!" Pounce!!!!
The funniest part is that the liberals all "think" that they are the smartest people in the room and when they devolve into sputtering frustrated parrots the lack of awareness or rarely, the awareness that they are losing and that they are outclassed....Priceless.
O'Reilly is everything you say he is, but he is also a good showman, and with his ratings, he does get the guests. They cannot afford to ignore that much viwership, and their egos won't let them admit they are just exposing themselves.
"Carlson totally deserves this. They gave him an early slot and he knocked himself out making it as exciting as he could....Carlson annoys me. But Carlson operates by being irritating. I've said this before. He deliberately antagonizes his guests by being an annoying man."
All to what purpose? If the intent is to educate and inform the public, exciting and irritating and antagonizing are the exact wrong notes to play. But, of course, the purpose of tv news and public affairs programming is not about educating and informing the public, but simply about entertaining them, whether through arousing outrage, resentment, fear, or salacious interest. What if we try an old approach, which would be novel today: have serious, well-informed interlocutors interviewing guests who have knowledge, experience, and/or expertise that might be informative to the viewers, especially if the interview is conducted as a conversation meant to elicit thought?
Nah! It'd be a loser in the ratings! It'll never happen.
I said this the other day. I think that Kelly was caught by her own hubris. She went after Trump for his exaggerations. And, then couldn't help herself, and became his adversary. She couldn't not attack him and his way of expressing himself. I think that it just conflicted too strongly with her attorney training, and she just couldn't let go with him. Which is fine with the other (liberal) networks, but, Fox can't afford to have a prime time host so adversarial to a Republican President. Not when their declared marketing strategy is appealing to the 50% of the market to the right of that serviced by the other networks. She needed to get on the Trump train, and couldn't. Her statement about the Ailes scandal didn't help either - there is a time to be honest, and a time to be loyal, and she picked honesty over loyalty, at a time when her loyalty was already in question. Which, I think, was why Fox wouldn't meet her salary demands.
Tucker Carlson, warts and all, is giving them what they need right now, an attack dog on the left, and a fierce protector of the incoming Trump Administration. Sure, he comes across as somewhat juvenile at times, but his willingness and ability to effectively attack Trump attackers is really, probably, what the network is looking for right now. Keep in mind that a lot of the working class whites who are still registered as Democrats love the fact that Trump takes the fight to the enemy, to the self-anointed elites. And, voted for him because of that. I think that Carlson will do well with that demographic. A different demographic from the one that Kelly attracted, but, maybe even more important right now.
"All to what purpose? If the intent is to educate and inform the public, exciting and irritating and antagonizing are the exact wrong notes to play."
Well, you have written your answer: The intent is not "to educate and inform."
"But, of course, the purpose of tv news and public affairs programming is not about educating and informing the public, but simply about entertaining them, whether through arousing outrage, resentment, fear, or salacious interest."
That is what these nightly commentary shows do. I don't know why this is the pattern that has developed since the 90s -- I remember watching it first over the Clinton scandals, with Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly — but that's what the people who watch news channels at night seem to like.
"What if we try an old approach, which would be novel today: have serious, well-informed interlocutors interviewing guests who have knowledge, experience, and/or expertise that might be informative to the viewers, especially if the interview is conducted as a conversation meant to elicit thought?"
That is tried all the time. That's kind of what Brit Hume was doing. It's less popular. The Sunday morning shows do it. I watch them, but I don't think they're terribly popular.
He has a prepared series of statements that are "zingers", formulated to humiliate anyone who dares to cross him.
Actually, he asks questions that require answers instead of regurgitated talking points. Real answers. He asks for facts to substantiate the guests' declarations. Instead of answering the question, like that guy from Newsweek (IIRC), the devolve into a loop of repeating the same canned nothing verbiage.
I've seen some actually very good back and forth with some of his more intelligent and articulate liberal guests. It is the stupid, brain dead ones that get the full Tucker treatment and they deserve it for their hubris, stupidity and smugness that they ooze all over the place.
What if we try an old approach, which would be novel today: have serious, well-informed interlocutors interviewing guests who have knowledge, experience, and/or expertise that might be informative to the viewers, especially if the interview is conducted as a conversation meant to elicit thought?
I don't disagree, Cookie, but the left has pretty much gone to appeals to authority instead of honest debate.
There are so many examples that I don't have to point them out. Climate change is only one.
Male behavior is another.
You're right about TV. Look at History Channel, for example.
@Cook - I don't think that you can look at Tucker Carlson in isolation, but rather, should look at him in context with those in similar positions in other networks. I found his attack interesting the other day on someone trying to claim that the Ruskies hacked the election interesting. He asked the questions that we have repeatedly asked here - why did the "hacking" matter if all it meant was that the American people were made aware of the corruption at the top of the Dem party. That the DNC really was in cahoots with the other networks, and that Bernie Sanders really didn't have an honest chance, because the insiders did all they could to take him out. Was anything released false? No evidence of that. Did they hack the voting machines? No. What is wrong with the truth? Why is releasing true incriminating information bad for our democracy?
The reason that the debate was important is because the whole hacking thing was a big nothingburger from the first, ginned up to delegitimize Trump. Pure spin and narrative, with essentially no substance behind it. It is impossible to rationally explain how or why it mattered, without admitting that it mattered because inconvenient truths were not kept from the American public. Yet, this narrative is being pushed hard by the rest of the MSM, almost relentlessly. Most of us here knew this, but it took Tucker Carlson to do this deconstruction publicly.
"All to what purpose? If the intent is to educate and inform the public, exciting and irritating and antagonizing are the exact wrong notes to play."
I dunno. If educating and informing the public is done by: exposing the inadequate thought processes, lack of facts or supporting documentation for their positions, exposing the contradictions and hypocrisy in their positions and in general showing the absolute poverty of thinking from the demagogues on the left who believe themselves to be the arbiters of what we should be thinking........that is doing the public a great service :-)
Michael K.
I don't disagree, Cookie, but the left has pretty much gone to the worst possible appeals to authority instead of honest debate.
FIFY.
...his willingness and ability to effectively attack Trump attackers is really, probably, what the network is looking for right now...
Very well stated.
Hannity is a Trump-promoter. Tucker Carlson is a counter-puncher. We'll see how Fox's blue collar audience takes to a prep school product from La Jolla via Trinity College. I don't think we'll see any more bow ties.
Tucker Carlson versus Jon Stewart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
(Paul Begala was there too, but since he and Stewart are mostly the same, the real fight was Carlson and Stewart.)
"What if we try an old approach, which would be novel today: have serious, well-informed interlocutors interviewing guests who have knowledge, experience, and/or expertise that might be informative to the viewers, especially if the interview is conducted as a conversation meant to elicit thought?"
IOW, only people who agree with me should be allowed to speak on the public airways.
tim in vermont said...
I only saw the one segment, but I guess Carlson should not have interrupted when his guest started talking about black stars at the CIA when asked a yes or no question.
You are both left wing hacks,Vicki,but Chuck does his homework,I will give him that.
Who was the guest in that case? Doesn't sound like an a A-lister.
One of the tricks of any program in this genre is booking guests. That is often not the fault of the host. I have been underwhelmed with the guest booking so far on the Tucker Carlson show.
I do not understand how people find Tucker annoying.
He allows his guests to talk and asks them logical questions that ought to make them think. Some guests go ape shit because they live in a liberal echo chamber where thinking is not allowed. For them, it's all about feeling and virtue signaling.
He is respectful to lefties that respond in a thoughtful and respectful manner. He laughs at those who act nuts (e.g., the Eichenwald guy) or just repeat their talking points. He is good at sussing out people who do not know what they are talking about.
I find him highly entertaining and appreciate his composure and use of logic.
Educating and informing have become lost causes in an agenda-driven age. What I find even more appalling than spin and bias is the utter lack of news. The same 'stories' [features, not really news] are regurgitated by every network every day and usually in parallel.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, does not much like a conservative television host because the guests the conservative host brings on screen are not able to properly promote Leftism.
News at 11pm.
You guys know your Fox News roster....sad.
Many of Tucker's guests (is that a good word for someone being ritually sacrificed?) deserve what they get from him: a good skewering for expecting him to believe their obvious lies. He could stand just a soupçon of humility, though, not the gleeful end zone dance he usually exhibits. I think this is what makes him appear to be a frat boy.
Tucker Carlson, or as Jehmu Greene calls him, a bow tyin' white boy. Not sure why that's acceptable.
I, for one, miss his bow ties.
I would much prefer something more at the pace of Firing Line, but I doubt something that leisurely would work today, except possibly on C-SPAN.
Even Crossfire when hosted by the likes of Buchanan or Novak was enjoyable.
I would prefer the style of Tony Snow who was certainly in command of the facts, but seemed genuinely polite, while Tucker seems to always be in a hurry.
I guess it is the debating format, and the adage there is nothing worse than dead air.
I don't watch Fox News, but I would watch Carlson.
"I, for one, miss his bow ties."
Bow ties seem to stimulate a rage reaction in lefties. I changed my Avatar after one went apeshit here about a photo of m wearing a bow tie. It is just a trifle elitist because not many can tie one well.
Fred Barnes???
"Bow ties seem to stimulate a rage reaction in lefties."
I think Greene was more outraged that he's a "white boy".
Yes, Hagar.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, wishes that the stammering and 73 year old Free Barnes had a primetime TV show. This is an obvious wish for any lifelong Republican.
After all, Republicans should support a lineup as old as that of congressional Democrats. It's only sporting.
Chuck, Tucker only books people he can bully. He doesn't listen to them, no matter how reasoned they are and is only interested in furthering his own rhetoric. Most of the people he has had on the show are, at best, D list operatives. I would like to see him tussle with someone who has actual gravitas, I think he would shrivel and die.
Mockturtle, if Tucker were educating and informing i would not have a problem with him. There is no educating or informing on his show. He is only interested in skewering those who do not think exactly the way he does. He is embarrassment,but he fits into the rhetorical morass that has become fox news. Used to be interesting and informative, now just a mouthpiece for Trump. That honeymoon will be short lived. Then what will they do?
Really, he has been on fox since 2009? Where, in a foxhole? Where he belongs.
Vicki from Pasadena
Birkel said...
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, does not much like a conservative television host because the guests the conservative host brings on screen are not able to properly promote Leftism.
Birkel, nobody believes your shit anymore. You should give it up.
I think I have said three or four times in this thread that I am something of a fan of Tucker Carlson. With some misgivings about his newest assignments.
I like George Will, Bill Kristol, Steve Hayes, Paul Gigot, Bret Stephens, Dan Henninger, Kim Strassel, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Jason Riley, Charles Krauthammer, Chris Stirewalt, Dana Perino, and too many others to name.
Basically, I like all of the smart conservatives on the Fox News Channel.
You just can't stand it, that I think Donald Trump is a bit of a fuckhead. A sentiment, I dare say, that everybody I have listed just above would agree with in private.
"if Tucker were educating and informing i would not have a problem with him. There is no educating or informing on his show."
LOL - your only problem with Tucker is that he is an effective conservative. Name all the FOX hosts you like. Y'know the ones who "educate". And tell us all the MSNBC ones that "Bully" - and you don't like.
People like "Vicki" think we call have amnesia. No, Vicki we remember you calling Trump and all his supporters "raciss, fascists, bigots and homophobes".
So you don't get to play the "open minded" liberal who just wants "education".
He is only interested in skewering those who do not think exactly the way he does. He is embarrassment,
You can't treat us like that, only we can treat you like that!
I think everybody agrees on how important, and even revolutionary, it is to have something like a Fox News Channel. If someone called FNC a political game-changer, I'd agree.
I would just prefer that it also be good, and not merely a reversal of the usual media partisanship.
NPR, and the New Yorker, like the New York Times, are all terribly tilted toward left-wing partisanship. But they manage to be good, and interesting, and compelling, and intelligent. As the Wall Street Journal has become, under Murdoch mostly but even before. Fox News has a long way to go, to hit that mark. Longer than ever it seems, in the age of Trump.
rcocean said...
"if Tucker were educating and informing i would not have a problem with him. There is no educating or informing on his show."
LOL - your only problem with Tucker is that he is an effective conservative. Name all the FOX hosts you like. Y'know the ones who "educate". And tell us all the MSNBC ones that "Bully" - and you don't like.
I watched Rachel Maddow interview Kellyanne Conway on MSNBC a week or so ago.
Now, I mostly hate Rachel Maddow. I held my breath at first, expecting the interview to go sideways, and fast. It didn't. The TRMS producers held Kellyanne on through two commercial breaks. Kellyanne stayed, like a trooper.
Kellyanne was smart, and gracious. Rachel was smart, and insistent, and she also gave Kellyanne ample time and space to answer EVERY question. It was altogether brilliant, on both parts.
Kellyanne, I will say, got badly and effectively trapped by some of the questions. Not because of the questioning, and not because she wasn't doing well with responding; rather, it was because of the indefensible positions set up by Trump himself.
Look that one up. It's the best thing I have seen on MSNBC in a verrrrrry long time.
Rick:
You have correctly identified the one-way ratchet.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, sees it too and hopes that Republicans narrow their appeal to people he prefers. You know, the ones who gave us the expansion of Leviathan.
Night is to dark as Tucker is to gettin' all wee-weed up.
IMHO.
Regarding Megyn Kelly, my growing irritation with her over the last few years had nothing to do with the "Trump Altercation".
When Fox had debate or election night coverage, her comments and demeanor (and attire) on camera often seemed unserious when compared to Martha McCallum, Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and others.
In those hard news settings she always looked like she should be doing election coverage for Entertainment Tonight.
Maybe NBC will allow Megyn to cover the red carpet for the Golden Globe Awards.
Yesterday,I watched NHK coverage and riff between Thailand and Australia,on PBS Newshour a long interview with John Brennan, and in-depth piece on Gen 1V Nuclear Reactors, ( this is liberal bias?) and what was on Tucker-- more entertainment and attack propaganda. When will folks wake up?
JRoberts said...
...
When Fox had debate or election night coverage, her comments and demeanor (and attire) on camera often seemed unserious when compared to Martha McCallum, Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and others.
By the time she was given her own prime-time show, she had learned how to play the news-kitten-with-a-law-degree. To the hilt. To her enduring ratings advantage.
Compare her performance when she was a legal correspondent for the O'Reilly Factor. She was much more of a straight journalist, trying to put O'Reilly right, versus all of his prejudgments.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, thinks the hoi polloi should remain where they are.
He cannot see that he is insulting the majority of Republican voters, regardless of their vote for president.
Birkel said...
...
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, sees it too and hopes that Republicans narrow their appeal to people he prefers. You know, the ones who gave us the expansion of Leviathan.
Dude, you are going to have to explain "Leviathan" to Donald Trump. It would help a lot, if you could find him a tv show that explains it. He doesn't want to read any books.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, thinks in an election between a second-best option and a worst case scenario demands for perfection from a very narrow perspective make sense.
Perhaps if I were in the business of explaining anything, I would start there. I am not in that business.
So, to summarize "lifelong republican" Chuck:
Rachel Maddie, BRILLIANT
Tucker Carlson, Meh.
Unexpectedly.
Oh, and Trump sucks.
Thanks "lifelong republican" Chuck!
Darn auto correct.
Victoria, there is no such thing these days as educational or informative TV news. It's all propagandist stuff, like climate change, rain forests, identity politics, feigned outrage. Not on Fox, not on PBS, not on CNN [which, at one time in the distant past I considered a fairly reliable news source]. Ever since news networks merged with the entertainment industry, it's been downhill.
I admit to seeing a few Frontline programs that were informative but it is far from the norm.
Because, Drago, you can't read. At least you can't comprehend more than a single sentence at a time.
Little wonder, you're a Trump man.
Everybody here can read what I wrote through this whole thread. And they can judge for themselves whether I am anything less than a Republican.
You fuck heads have a lot of goddam nerve, challenging whether I am a Republican, when Sean Hannity has been proclaiming for years that he was NOT a Republican at all. And Donald Trump was donating to Democrats.
It's all because you have no other angles to attack me on, after I call Trump a Birther, a Truther, a Vaxxer and a draft dodger.
Chuckles is apparently attempting to turn damning with faint praise into an art form.
Fox News isn't and has never been about educating people. That's not to say that people won't ever learn things from watching it. It's just that, like any "news" outlet, the primary goal isn't so noble as simply providing information or education. So let's be honest here: criticizing Fox News for being primarily entertainment that reinforces and reaffirms the beliefs of its viewers is like criticizing water for being wet, and obviously the same can be said for any successful news outlet.
And sadly it turns out that most people aren't really interested in calm, reasoned, fair, and honest debate, despite what people will claim.
We live in an era of quick snarky ejaculations on social media. And we live in an era of long sardonic monologues that are unchallenged in real time from privileged liberal comedians like Jon Stewart and John Oliver. By and large people are far more interested in appearing right than actually being factually right in a defensible manner. People are terrified of being rejected, shamed, or ostracized en masse. And few people like to admit they may be wrong, and they definitely don't want to be challenged. It's all just human nature, but magnified to some absurd contentious level.
You fuck heads have a lot of goddam nerve, challenging whether I am a Republican,
But it is OK to challenge whether Trump is a Republican.....
It's all because you have no other angles to attack me on, after I call Trump a Birther, a Truther, a Vaxxer and a draft dodger.
Why would anyone think that someone who obsessively attacks the Republican president-elect could be anything other than a lifelong Republican?
But to be fair to Chuckles, the Republican Establishment does despise the Republican base and Trump as much as he does.
someone said "I do worry that he'll run out of gullible lefties to humiliate" --don't worry, not only is there an infinite supply, but they are immune to learning that Tucker will rip them up.
Too many TV interviewers either want to be liked too much or don't have the killer instinct. If your guest says something stupid, rip em. And he does. "wait, you are going to flip cars? whose cars?" hahahahaha yep
Dude, you are going to have to explain "Leviathan" to Donald Trump. It would help a lot, if you could find him a tv show that explains it. He doesn't want to read any books.
Wow..that's a new one...nobody ever said that about the Bushes or Reagan......
Fox News has its woman problem
Does it, really? I think it has the highest ratings of all the news networks. Can that be possible with only men watching? Or do men only watch Fox while women's viewing is spread out between MSNBC & CNN? Maybe it also surprises you that so many women voted for Trump.
"The Sunday morning shows do it. I watch them, but I don't think they're terribly popular."
The Sunday morning interview shows present a more respectable face, but they do not educate and inform. Their guests are made up of an incestuous and relatively small circle of ever-recirculating Washington insiders--typically other media personalities or Senators and Representatives. These professional guests largely repeat prevailing insider assumptions, perceptions, propaganda and boilerplate. They actually reduce knowledge in the viewers.
Gahrie said...
Dude, you are going to have to explain "Leviathan" to Donald Trump. It would help a lot, if you could find him a tv show that explains it. He doesn't want to read any books.
Wow..that's a new one...nobody ever said that about the Bushes or Reagan.....
They said it, sure, and it wasn't true. I don't know that much about Reagan, but he certainly cultivated deep roots with thinking people like Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley.
George W. Bush was in a weekly reading competition with Karl Rove, in which they were each polishing off a book a week.
Donald Trump is more of a Don King/WWF/Omarosa/reality-tv kind of guy.
He watches the shows! By his own account; reported on Breitbart; he "watch[es] the shows."
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/16/trump-i-get-my-military-advice-from-watching-shows/
@ Bruce Hayden:
"I don't think that you can look at Tucker Carlson in isolation, but rather, should look at him in context with those in similar positions in other networks. I found his attack interesting the other day on someone trying to claim that the Ruskies hacked the election interesting. He asked the questions that we have repeatedly asked here - why did the "hacking" matter if all it meant was that the American people were made aware of the corruption at the top of the Dem party. That the DNC really was in cahoots with the other networks, and that Bernie Sanders really didn't have an honest chance, because the insiders did all they could to take him out. Was anything released false? No evidence of that. Did they hack the voting machines? No. What is wrong with the truth? Why is releasing true incriminating information bad for our democracy?
"The reason that the debate was important is because the whole hacking thing was a big nothingburger from the first, ginned up to delegitimize Trump. Pure spin and narrative, with essentially no substance behind it. It is impossible to rationally explain how or why it mattered, without admitting that it mattered because inconvenient truths were not kept from the American public. Yet, this narrative is being pushed hard by the rest of the MSM, almost relentlessly. Most of us here knew this, but it took Tucker Carlson to do this deconstruction publicly."
Tucker approached the matter from the point of view of a bully. I agree nothing has been present that is evidence the Russians hacked the DNC or interfered with our elections. However, 'twere better to hear out the (no doubt) strained rationalizations of Eichenwald and then refute them one by one than to talk over him and ridicule him, resulting in his self-embarrassing spluttering. It prevented viewers who don't have knowledge or opinion on this issue from hearing what is actually known about the matter so far. The viewers are left having learned nothing at all, and expensive minutes of network airtime have been devoted to "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I think it's interesting the left is positioning the Kelly departure as fleeing the sexual harassment frathouse. But if you recall she defended Ailes.
"IOW, only people who agree with me should be allowed to speak on the public airways."
Hagar, if that's what you got from my comments, then you definitely need to learn to pay attention to what people say and not what your biases permit you to hear.
I'm happy to hear people who disagree with me speak on the public airways. But I want it to be intelligent, fact-based speaking and not carnival geek-show histrionics a la Morton Downey or Jerry Springer.
Dude, you are going to have to explain "Leviathan" to Donald Trump. It would help a lot, if you could find him a tv show that explains it. He doesn't want to read any books.
Oh God. I accidentally read a chuck comment.
The bile is going to drown you.
Carlson has a pretty good demeanor. He's not the two dimensional character that O'reilly and Hannity are. He's made a good showing out of the gate that he can attract viewers and I expect he'll adjust his approach and get bigger name guests to joust with. I agree he can be annoying (purposely) but don't think he'll overdo it. It's just one skill in his repertoire. He can also be funny and charming and astute.
Michael K;
You think Trump is a problem for me? Could not be farther from the truth. He seems to be producing a conservative administration, as I'd like; and yet I can distance myself from him as I wish. (And as I feel I must.) I voted for him, and he won. I can continue to trash him, and feel good about that, because I am right.
I feel a bit like the union worker in a right to work state, who is getting gold-plated benefits but who doesn't have to pay union dues and who can bad-mouth the union leadership without fear. If the union gets decertified someday, it might be a problem for all of us, but I'll be first in line saying that I was never a union man anyway. A new non-union employer might like that.
Trump is not my alma mater. Nothing of loyalty, or kindred spirit with Trump. Trump is a nominal Republican, and so I am a nominal supporter of Trump.
Robert Cook: "...intelligent, fact-based speaking..."
It would be nice to get a definition of this set of terms. Does a Leftist, collectivist believe there is only one truth? One set of facts? How can that be so? I have been assured that we all have our own, distinct truth.
And if the debates only have facts, how can there be disagreement? More likely, you wish to have an echo chamber like that which existed in the 1960s.
Shall we debate the number of organs in the human body? A week ago if I had said one more than the accepted number you would have called me crazy. Today you would admit I am correct.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton: "...I am a nominal supporter of Trump."
Wow. Just wow.
"traditionalguy said...Tucker thinks too fast on his feet for many "
--
Actually, from what I've seen, he's prone towards interrupting, misconstruing and fixating on elements of his guest's response that make him seem like he's trying to heat hings up for the sake of it.
TBH the current format where Tucker invites some liberal lunatic and shoots them down is almost played out, no? Maybe he can get some heavy hitters to debate in studio. His show is based in D.C. after all. I want some GOP guests.
Nah! It'd be a loser in the ratings! It'll never happen.
If you want to be educated, go read some books. Cable news is not the place for that. It's entertainment.
Cookie aptly notes:
The Sunday morning interview shows present a more respectable face, but they do not educate and inform. Their guests are made up of an incestuous and relatively small circle of ever-recirculating Washington insiders--typically other media personalities or Senators and Representatives. These professional guests largely repeat prevailing insider assumptions, perceptions, propaganda and boilerplate. They actually reduce knowledge in the viewers.
Yep. Round up the usual suspects. Such an enlightened bunch! Who can ignore their scintillating discourse?
Fox made Megyn Kelly.
"Actually, from what I've seen, he's prone towards interrupting, misconstruing and fixating on elements of his guest's response that make him seem like he's trying to heat hings up for the sake of it."
-- The few interview sessions I've seen, he usually fixates on them not answering his question. Like his: "What proof do you have?" lines of attack or "Could you answer yes or no please?" Those are fair things to get fixated on [getting answers] during an interview.
"However, 'twere better to hear out the (no doubt) strained rationalizations of Eichenwald and then refute them one by one than to talk over him and ridicule him, resulting in his self-embarrassing spluttering. "
-- Eichenwald was given MULTIPLE opportunities to provide a rationalization or point. He didn't. He reverted constantly to empty bromides and nonsense/fact free statements. That's why Carlson started getting shorter and shorter with him; Eichenwald was running in circles -- Carlson was demanding that stop and he actually PROVIDE a rationalization so that Carlson COULD debate him.
"He watches the shows!"
-- Like Obama, I'm sure he'll learn all the bad things his administration did from the news first.
Chuck: "I feel a bit like the union worker in a right to work state, who is getting gold-plated benefits but who doesn't have to pay union dues and who can bad-mouth the union leadership without fear."
What a revealing simile.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: " I don't know that much about Reagan..."
LOL
But chuckie is quick on the draw in directing folks to Jon Stewart and John Oliver videos!
Matthew, a lawyer who has a witness under oath gets to ask yes/no questions, and there is a judge to make sure the lawyer doesn't badger the witness.
If you invite a guest for an interview, it is -- or should be -- because the guest has something interesting to say, and you and your audience want to hear it. That does not mean that you should only invite guests with whom you and your audience agree. But it does mean that there needs to be an interchange. The guest speaks, and you ask about the meaning of the previous answer.
I think this video is a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9ebsrOt7x8
Tucker's producers scoured the internet, and found a Tweet from the left/Democrat Teen Vogue writer Lauren Duca. Now to be sure, Lauren Duca is not a heavyweight in the news world. As I understand it, she's put out some pretty silly -- or worse -- Tweets. (I hate Twitter, whether it is Donald Trump or Lauren Duca.)
But Carlson invited her onto his new program, to berate her about what Carlson presupposed was her insensitivity to the verbal abuse of Ivanka Trump on a recent JetBlue flight from New York to Florida. (Althouse blogged the story, with lots of comments.) But Ms. Duca immediately declaimed any supposition that she thought it was okay to do that to Ivanka and her children. Tucker thereafter succeeded in using about 15 minutes of airtime to try to show that Lauren Duca was a villain anyway, and he failed. He probably succeded in proving that she has a history of silly Tweets; in which case why put her on-air?
It wasn't even any good as "gotcha" questioning; it was a bust. Most of the time, Carlson is just peering into the camera with a confused expression, his brow furrowed. Ms. Duca didn't convince me of anything of substance or importance; but I came away rather amused at how she handled Tucker.
Hey Drago;
I'm not on your team. I'm not trying to help. I don't want any community with you. I don't care about building anything with you.
And I sure as hell am not going to ever waste any of my time trying to defend the countless stupid things that Trump has said and done. Trump has done NOTHING for me. Maybe he will, someday. I expect that if he does, it will be because he has been coached and counseled into it, by many of the same people who would be assisting in a Rubio or a Kasich or a Jeb Bush administration.
In the meantime, I am doing everything I can, to keep distance from all things Trump. As forcefully, and as publicly, as possible.
"If you want to be educated, go read some books"
There is a down side to books as I am packing them for a move to Arizona.
I've given away thousands of books and tend to use Kindle for fiction. Even so, I have about 40 boxes of books to move.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton:
I like the heads I win, tails you lose analysis. If Trump is awful, Trump is awful. If Trump is not awful, he was given good coaching and deserves no credit.
Further, I like how you pretend to need to distance yourself from somebody who would not take your counsel. Consider yourself to be a safe distance away.
Tell me, Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, if you were a Democrat what different things would you currently be typing? Would anything need to change?
Don''t tell anyone, but Carlson is Bill Buckley redux. All he needs is a quirky move or two . God and Man At Fox News.
I'm not sure Tucker's business model is sustainable. How many liberals can be stupid enough to want to come on and subject themselves to that seeing the past?
Oh, wait. . .
I dunno. I watch Tucker Carlson a bit. His pattern of debating a politically correct liberal or progressive (but then I repeat myself)--and making the interviewee look like a cross eyed and confused chimpanzee is amusing --at first. After a while it gets old, but there is an audience for it.
But to make it work, you need a progressive moron to be the interviewee. So I ask myself, what happens when the supply of progressive morons dries up, or they get smart enough to avoid running into the Carlson buzz saw?
But then I realize that(a) the supply of progressive morons is almost infinite; and (b) even if some of them smarten up, others will step in to fill the gap.
But the shtick still gets old.
In which Robert Cook attacks the deconstructionists.
Left on Lefter crime is sad.
"Does a Leftist, collectivist believe there is only one truth?" What do you mean by "truth?" "One set of facts?" Facts are facts; there may be uncertainty what the facts may be at a given time, but they they can be and are known. "How can that be so? I have been assured that we all have our own, distinct truth." Who assured you of that? We all have our own interpretation of the world we perceive around us, and our own opinions about what it all means. Can that be called "truth?" No. It's just the individual's understanding of the world around him, based on his understanding of the facts, (which may be incomplete or faulty). "Truth" is, not always, but more than we might acknowledge or like, provisional.
"And if the debates only have facts, how can there be disagreement?" The disagreement is in what those facts mean or signify. If one asserts that 50% of the volume in a glass container is taken up with liquid, does this mean the glass is half-full or half-empty? Is it good or bad that the glass is half-full or half-empty? Should the glass be made smaller so the area within it is less empty? Should it be made larger so more of the area within it can be filled while leaving a comfortable amount of the area empty of liquid? "More likely, you wish to have an echo chamber like that which existed in the 1960s." I don't know exactly what echo-chamber you refer to, but it seems to me that we have an echo-chamber today, an excruciatingly clangorous one. I would like to see a respect for the idea that facts do exist and can be known and are important, even if they are not always known fully at a given time. It is only by getting at the facts that we can even try to determine what they signify. There will never be a time when we all share the same interpretation of even the most incontrovertible facts.
"Shall we debate the number of organs in the human body? A week ago if I had said one more than the accepted number you would have called me crazy. Today you would admit I am correct." Which goes to my point that "truth" is provisional.
Meta Point:
I am not sure the business model of cable/satellite is sustainable.
Poor form to delete a comment that already has a response, Robert Cook.
I reposted it with an added comment to your lasts paragraph, which I missed.
Poor form, sport.
I thought the Megyn Kelly spot was a blond spot. That's why I didn't see it coming.
Tell me, Chuck ... if you were a Democrat what different things would you currently be typing?
So many things, so little time...
If I were a Democrat I would not type any of the following, all of which are true statements of my personal views:
~I am thrilled, to have Jeff Sessions as Attorney General
~One of the biggest swamps to drain in D.C., is the Justice Department. Jeff Sessions is a great guy for that job.
~Another swamp is the EPA. From what little I know, Scott Pruitt sounds like a wonderful nominee.
~Betsy DeVos is among the handful of the toughest teacher-union-fighters in the nation. That alone makes her a good choice at Education.
~I hope Trump nominates William Pryor for SCOTUS. If not Pryor, then somebody very much like him.
~With careful stewardship of the economy, we can hopefully win 60 seats in the Senate, in 2018.
~With still more careful stewardship of the economy, we can win bigger Republican majorities in states across the country, in time for the 2020 decennial redistricting. And create a near-permanent Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
~For my home state of Michigan, I hope that a Trump Administration can and will roll back almost everything that the Obama years did to Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which are a monstrous concoction designed to assuage green activists, UAW interests (not very well, in their case), and federal power-grabbers. Yeah, they are concerned with 'global climate change' in Germany. A lot more than we are. And even then, they are not so stupid as to try to carve out regulations on fleet-average fuel economy. They tax gasoline and diesel, and then let the industry and buyers sort out the details.
~And I am now saying good-fucking-riddance, to EricHolderLorettaLynch, to John Kerry, to Tom Perez, to Michelle Obama, and to Richard Cordray.
Birkel, your interpretation of the facts are faulty.
Rather, your interpretation of the facts is faulty.
Robert Cook: "Rather, your interpretation of the facts is faulty"
Did he happen to toss in a purloined SR-71 for a quick jaunt across the Atlantic to meet with Americas enemies?
Just asking since we are all very, very, very, very, very concerned with "facts".
"lifelong republican" Chuck: Hey Drago; I'm not on your team."
Don't care.
"l.r." Chuck: "I'm not trying to help."
Well, not trying to help one particular side that is....
"l.r." Chuck: "I don't want any community with you. I don't care about building anything with you."
Hmmmm, just like Rachel Maddow.
"l.r." Chuck: "And I sure as hell am not going to ever waste any of my time trying to defend the countless stupid things that Trump has said and done."
Whew! It's a good thing no one asked you to! Talk about good luck!
"l.r." Chuck: "Trump has done NOTHING for me."
And now we get to it...
"l.r." Chuck: "Maybe he will, someday. I expect that if he does, it will be because he has been coached and counseled into it, by many of the same people who would be assisting in a Rubio or a Kasich or a Jeb Bush administration"
LOL
There would be no Rubio or Kasich or Bush admin, as you well know.
Too funny.
LMFAO.
Greta van Susteren has found a new home, it seems. So natural; so cozy.
Of course; it is MSNBC.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-greta-van-susteren-to-host-new-6-pm-show-on-msnbc/
Now that is what I call a good fit.
"Lifelong republican" Chuck, your point about being a "lifelong republican" could really be buttressed if you provided additional praise and links to Maddow and Jon Stewart.
I am probably being too harsh on Jeb.
He might have defeated Hillary with a $500B budget.
.....nah.
In any event, I hope Tuckers show continues like gangbusters.
Don't worry Chuck, no one expects you to watch it. Besides, where would you find the time to pry yourself away from your heroes at MSNBC and Comedy Central?
Poor form to delete a comment that already has a response, Robert Cook.
You'd be amazed at some of the people who do this.......
@Chuck
Back in the 70's pseudo-intellectuals used talk about people who watched TV with disdain. They NEVER watched the popular shows, but AWAYS watched PBS. Virtue signaling, in its early form? Trump watches TV, therefore ...?
Note that I rarely watch TV, not because of my intellectual superiority, but because it has become boring, unfunny and overly political. I don't really have the time either.
The amazing thing about Tucker Carlson's show is that the liberals keep coming on like lemmings. Have none of them ever seen the show before coming on? Do they not understand that Tucker's going to eviscerate them and then perform a puppet show with their innards?
"Then I could exult in my prescience."
A former law professor*, you could have exulted because of the infrastructure built on your behalf.
But me?
I misused the term "precocious" when I intended prescience, all because I was concerned how my blog image here would be altered if I use terms inferring "before science."
I give myself enough heat for my belief in God such that I don't need to give others evidence I ought be ostracized for using a term, like marriage, that is subject to the emotive whims of people other than me.
I just checked my unprivilege and assume nobody gives a shit but me.
*to my knowledge although I would assume, hope?, some current title could allow you the use of "law professor" to be accurate with only slight adjustments.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton: "So many things, so little time...
If I were a Democrat I would not type any of the following, all of which are true statements of my personal views:
~I am thrilled, to have Jeff Sessions as Attorney General
~One of the biggest swamps to drain in D.C., is the Justice Department. Jeff Sessions is a great guy for that job.
~Another swamp is the EPA. From what little I know, Scott Pruitt sounds like a wonderful nominee.
~Betsy DeVos is among the handful of the toughest teacher-union-fighters in the nation. That alone makes her a good choice at Education.
~I hope Trump nominates William Pryor for SCOTUS. If not Pryor, then somebody very much like him.
~With careful stewardship of the economy, we can hopefully win 60 seats in the Senate, in 2018.
~With still more careful stewardship of the economy, we can win bigger Republican majorities in states across the country, in time for the 2020 decennial redistricting. And create a near-permanent Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
~For my home state of Michigan, I hope that a Trump Administration can and will roll back almost everything that the Obama years did to Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which are a monstrous concoction designed to assuage green activists, UAW interests (not very well, in their case), and federal power-grabbers. Yeah, they are concerned with 'global climate change' in Germany. A lot more than we are. And even then, they are not so stupid as to try to carve out regulations on fleet-average fuel economy. They tax gasoline and diesel, and then let the industry and buyers sort out the details.
~And I am now saying good-fucking-riddance, to EricHolderLorettaLynch, to John Kerry, to Tom Perez, to Michelle Obama, and to Richard Cordray."
That list is odd. From that list I would gather you support a great number of things that Donald Trump - and Donald Trump alone - has placed in motion. Personnel is policy. The choices you pretend to support are Donald Trump's choices as personnel.
In fact, as best I can tell, you are doing your best to deny Donald Trump has agency in this whole thing. If I believed you were a "lifelong Republican" I would ask if it was simply pride getting in the way of admitting reality.
Instead I just assume you are a narcissistic, Democrat gas bag who cannot fathom so many of the hoi polloi doing the unthinkable and supporting New Money like Donald Trump.
Especially when Old Money Jeb Bush and Bought-and-Paid-For No Money Marco Rubio were imminently available!! Egads.
No doubt Chuck will inform us that, like Trump, Tucker Carlson has failed to win him over.
Greta van Susteren has found a new home, it seems. So natural; so cozy.
Of course; it is MSNBC.
I once thought Greta was pretty smart.
Then I saw she was a Scientologist.
Brit Hume was and is a pro; I'd watch any FNC show that he hosted. While he was temporarily doing the Greta time-slot, Brit's show was the third best thing on Fox, just behind Fox News Sunday and Bret Baier's weekday show. Followed by the weekend Journal Report (tremendous content, with zero production value).
Brit is great...but he didn't want to do it. He filled in because it was needed, but I thought he was quite open that he did not want to do that show long-term.
And folks, Chuck was open and repeatedly stated he did not support Clinton and that he voted for Trump. Just because he doesn't LIKE Trump doesn't mean he likes Clinton. Not to talk for him, but he voted for the lesser of two evils and wants to make it clear he voted for the lesser of two evils, not for a candidate he liked.
I have always liked Tucker Carlson; but his new show has been a bit horrifying. He routinely invites low-ranking and/or unknown guests from various left-wing factions, and then he argues with them and berates them.
Except it is those groups that send them. Penn & Teller, on their old Bullshit show, did a show on environmentalism/recycling and had a girl who couldn't answer any of the most basic questions about anything. They had to remind people, constantly, that she was the group's CHOSEN spokesperson and they weren't just making fun of some random, low-level flunkie.
LOL! Men usually consider men gorgeous when they are 'pretty', like women. But I guess that makes sense. As a woman, I don't find him at all attractive. And he really is as 'dumb as a box of rocks'.
I doubt either sex has a firm grasp on what the other sex thinks is sexy. Women seem to think men like really skinny girls while most of us like women with curves (I had an ex-girlfriend who tried to convince me that notoriously-horse-like-woman Sarah Jessica Parker was gorgeous). It's why I laugh when I hear that men cause women to have eating disorders. I can buy "men make women get fake boobs", but eating disorders? Nah.
I think men who I think look like douchebags are hot for women. I know I'm wrong there, but I heard a lot of women say Ryan Gosling was attractive and he looks like a total douchebag.
Megyn Kelly, expressly unwilling to perform disgusting, degrading sexual favors for Fox News executives, is out after many years of excellent work.
Tucker Carlson is promoted to a top time slot after only how many weeks at the network?
Draw your own conclusions.
She turned down $20M a year and a slot on the network opened and Tucker has more buzz than anybody on FNC right now?
I'd have loved a prime-time Red Eye with Gutfeld back as host, but my wishes don't matter.
damikesc:
Good post.
My prime example of a sort of nothingburger guest for Tucker Carlson was the one for which I posted video; she was a writer/editor for Teen Vogue, and was presumably picked out (and promoted to national cable tv news in prime time!) by Tucker's producers because she had done a Tweet concerning Ivanka Trump following the JetBlue harassment debacle.
Tucker's producers were trolling for controversy on an eminently trollable and decidedly untechnical and easy topic; a gay man verbally abusing Ivanka and her kids on an airplane. It ain't healthcare reform, or tax policy. It's something that mouthbreathers watching cable news think they can figure out and reach a reach a reasonable conclusion.
That woman wasn't a spokeswoman for anything other than the amorphous world of educated liberal Manhattanite women at large.
A program with Gutfeld as you describe is one of the really underperforming parts of FNC programming. Couldn't agree more; they could do a lot more with Greg Gutfeld. Of course he's getting good airtime on O'Reilly (same as how Megyn Kelly got her start); and while I like Gutfeld as you do, I expect FNC wants to be newsier and more serious in prime time programming, than an hour of Gutfeld joking.
I like Gutfeld when he's funny and he often is. When he tries to be serious, he's just another PITA.
Annoying? I would call it: showing the flimsiness of the guest's position.
Yes, to anybody whose weakness is revealed this is normally annoying, but it is not the essence of the act.
"NPR, and the New Yorker, like the New York Times, are all terribly tilted toward left-wing partisanship. But they manage to be good, "
Exactly how old are you? This statement is years, maybe even decades, out of date.
damikesc,
"(I had an ex-girlfriend who tried to convince me that notoriously-horse-like-woman Sarah Jessica Parker was gorgeous)"
Talk about a deal-breaker.
Next thing they'll pull is trying to tell us Julia "Moose-face" Roberts is pretty (rather than the truth, which is simply that she has nice-looking boobs.)
Post a Comment