Tag: donald trump
Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson's Somebody Days Are Nearing The End (Or Should Be)

Tucker Carlson's problem, it would seem, is that what he says doesn't matter, because he has a long history of not saying what he thinks. True, he once starred at Fox News, and even now his followers on social media number in the millions. But he's shifted into crackpot conspiracies and turning on Donald Trump. Anything for an audience.

Carlson long hated Trump in his heart while praise poured from his mouth. The war in Iran polls poorly as does Trump, and so Carlson uses the opportunity to inflate his diminished importance by blaming himself for making Trump possible.

"We're implicated in this, for sure," he said. "You know, we'll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be, and I want to say I'm sorry for misleading people."

On trying to mislead people, Carlson is expert.

In 1999, he wrote that Trump was "the single most repulsive person on the planet." But when Trump was elected president in 2016, Carlson wrote a Politico piece headlined "Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar and Right." In it he gave Trump the lightest of spankings. Trump was "imperfect."

After 2020, Carlson expressed contempt for Trump but only privately. He had a job to keep as political pundit on pro-Trump Fox News. There he was paid more than $15 million a year to air fake opinions.

When Trump tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, Carlson sent private messages doubting the Trump camp's claims of election fraud. "I hate him passionately," he also texted.

On air, though, Carlson tiptoed around Trump's phony assertion that Dominion Voting Systems software helped steal millions of votes. Instead, he vaguely stated that "something was wrong with the election."

After Fox dropped Carlson as a legal liability as well as pain in the butt, he rebranded himself on social media. He was now a persecuted truth-teller focused on corporate power, demographic changes and other sprawling issues.

But when Trump ran for reelection in 2024, Carlson jumped right back in line and heartily supported him in public. After the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, Carlson said the shooting "changed everything." That's when Trump "became the leader of this nation," he said.

Thus, a "commentator" who wrote in an email that Trump's first term was "a disaster with no upside" started campaigning for him. As a warm-up act at a Trump rally, Carlson did his icky "Dad comes home" routine.

In Carlson's recent telling, Trump has been manipulated by Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu into entering the war in Iran. If true, where was the strong patriarch Carlson had been heralding for a decade?

It is Netanyahu's job to look after Israel's interests. It is the American president's job to look after America's interests. Often those interests align, but sometimes they don't.

Netanyahu had urged other presidents to strike Iran, but the other presidents declined. There may be an argument for stopping the exporter of terrorism from developing nuclear weapons. Too bad Trump's big mouth couldn't stop itself from hurting the cause with bloodthirsty threats against Iran's civilization.

I share Carlson's displeasure at Trump's many character flaws, but I didn't cover them up when Trump was more popular. Nor did I buy into the president's vows to save Obamacare or "drain the swamp" of Washington corruption. Only suckers would believe a man who stiffed his workers, oversaw six bankruptcies and transparently lied about Barack Obama not being American born.

Carlson wasn't a sucker. He knew, like Trump, how to play the chumps by selling himself as an honest man speaking his mind. Nonetheless, The New York Times just ran a long interview credulously titled "What Does Tucker Carlson Really Believe?"

Unbelievable.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

'Critical Deadline': More Republicans Breaking Ranks Over Trump's Unpopular War

'Critical Deadline': More Republicans Breaking Ranks Over Trump's Unpopular War

Today marks "a critical deadline" for President Donald Trump and his war with Iran, as The Hill reports that he is running out of time to resolve the conflict while more and more Republicans break ranks and threaten to back measures to force the fighting to stop.

As the deadline loomed, the outlet on Friday morning reported that the milestone now "stands to complicate things" with lawmakers, including a growing number of Republicans, who have "voiced concerns" about the war continuing. Per the War Powers Act, the president requires authorization from Congress for a military conflict after it reaches the 60-day mark, which it will do on May 2, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed, dubiously, that the ongoing ceasefire paused the clock on that count.

"And such concerns already played out ahead of the deadline, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) on Thursday breaking rank to vote in favor of a war powers resolution to halt military actions against Iran, along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)," The Hill reported. "The resolution however, was ultimately defeated for the sixth time by Senate Republicans. Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) had previously indicated that the 60-day deadline would be a sticking point for him did not break with the GOP in the latest vote."

The White House has insisted that talks with Iran are continuing to progress, but The Hill noted that negotiations are "effectively stalled" as Trump digs in on his decision to blockade Iranian ports in response to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A statement from the administration also warned lawmakers against trying "to score political points by usurping the Commander-in-Chief’s authority" via a war powers vote, despite Congress having the explicit authority to do so.

"The War Powers Act intends to limit a president’s ability to conduct and continue military action without congressional approval," the outlet added. "Should the hostilities continue past Friday, however, it could prove to be another example of how the president takes another opportunity to bypass the legislative branch’s powers."In keeping with Trump's own assertions about the war, House Speaker Mike Johnson insisted that a war powers vote was not needed because, he claimed, the U.S. is not actually at war with Iran.

John Ullyot, a former spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee and National Security Council spokesman during Trump’s first term, suggested that historical precedent is not on Congress's side, despite the letter of the law.

"Almost every President who has used force over the last 45 years has ignored the 60-day deadline, so it’s hard for Congress to make a case to enforce it this time around,” Ullyot told The Hill. "If Congress were serious about having a voice on hostilities, it would either change the law, or get serious about its oversight responsibilities and withhold funding when the executive doesn’t cooperate. Neither of those will happen, especially whenever Congress is run by the same party that holds the White House."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

I've always been both a small-r republican and an Anglophile, so I looked upon the British monarchy with at least a pinch of smug superiority. The Windsors are revered for nothing more than birth — not talent, nor accomplishments, nor virtue. It's all a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, when people were not mature enough for representative democracy.

I wasn't feeling smug as I watched King Charles III address Congress the other day. Quite the opposite. Though I remain a small-r republican, I couldn't help but be embarrassed at what we supposedly mature, self-governing Americans have wrought.

Seated behind Charles were the vice president and speaker of the House, among the highest officers of the land. But befitting our descent from mature self-government, they were both bedecked in the MAGA uniform — blue suits, white shirts and red ties. Everything about them — every word, every gesture and even their clothing — attests to their fealty to their liege lord. Ditto for more than half of the representatives and senators in attendance. While they didn't all wear the uniform (they weren't on camera), the Republicans in Congress have surrendered their self-respect and independent judgment to the man who would be king. They are far more subservient to Trump than any member of Parliament is to Charles.

Trump revels in the servility of his vassals. The White House tweeted a picture of the two men with the caption "two kings." Yes, this tweet is partly a troll to enrage the "libs," but frankly, it doesn't go far enough. Trump aspires not just to be a king but to be a god-emperor. Look around — the massive Trump banners defacing official buildings, the renaming of the Kennedy Center and U.S. Institute of Peace, the coins, the proposed triumphal arch, the Trump ballroom, the reflecting pool (which will now look like Mar-A-Lago north), the new passports, the Trump class battleships, the national park passes, to say nothing of sidelining Congress, disregarding court orders, making unilateral war, and attempting to criminally prosecute his critics — all of it flagrantly un-American. And this from the party that garlands itself in flags and showy patriotism.

King Charles had a tricky task. His government (did you notice the way he referred to Kier Starmer as "my" prime minister?) and our other European allies are both horrified and scared about what Trump is doing to the transatlantic relationship. They've been adopting different tactics — concessions, flattery, toughness — to deal with the unhinged president who has stooped even to threatening military action against a NATO ally. Are the British questioning the "special relationship" with the United States?

Oh, yeah. In contrast to King Charles' soothing words, the Financial Times reports that Britain's ambassador in Washington, Sir Christian Turner, told a visiting group of students in early February that the phrase "special relationship" was "quite nostalgic, quite backward looking" and that the only country that currently enjoys a special relationship with the United States is "probably Israel." He did add that "there is a deep affinity between us, particularly on defense and security," but the message was clear. Trump has strained, if not quite ruptured, relations.

The king's visit can thus be interpreted as one more effort by the spurned Europeans to keep Trump on their side. Starmer, aware of Trump's imperial pretensions, played the "King Charles" card. The pomp, the state visit, the photo ops, and the speech to a joint session of Congress are all in service of both flattering and taming the disordered president.

King Charles, despite his title, is not free to say what he thinks. And yet he managed, subtly, to convey his awareness of the threat Trump poses not just to the relationship with the United Kingdom but to the values on which the Euro-American relationship is based. Referring to the shared legal traditions of the United States and Great Britain, he said:

"The U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances."

The King also mentioned September 11, and reminded his audience that it was the first and only time that NATO invoked Article V. The allies came to our aid, not the reverse — a pointed rebuke to the president who has repeatedly disparaged Europeans' contributions to NATO and to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He then added, "Today, Mr. Speaker, that same, unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people."

The king's speech closed with an invocation of Abraham Lincoln (hard to top), and a prayer:

"I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values, with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, and across the world, and that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking."

We all know who is issuing those clarion calls. One of the callers hosted the state dinner, and another was sitting over his right shoulder. The actual king has never looked better than in contrast to the American pretender to a throne.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators


Now It's The Fed Chair's Choice: Should He Stay Or Should He Go?

Now It's The Fed Chair's Choice: Should He Stay Or Should He Go?

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that the Clash had those numbers right re the trouble ratio if he stays or if he goes. But it did seem to be the relevant hook.

Now that the pathway for replacing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell with Trump’s nominee, Kevin Warsh, was cleared yesterday, I expect Warsh’s nomination to quickly get out of committee and over to the Senate floor, where he should have no problem getting a majority (he may not get any D votes, but he doesn’t need them). He could then take over the chair in mid-May, when Powell’s term as chair ends.

Why the bold above? Because even though Powell’s term as chair ends, his term on the Fed board doesn’t end until January ‘28. The norm, however, is for Chairs to leave the building once their Chair term ends, with, as far as I can tell, one exception: when Marriner Eccles stepped down from the Chair in 1948, he rolled over to the Fed board for another few years.

In this case, if Powell stayed on, Miran would have to resign to make room for the newly minted Chair Warsh to take over.

A number of folks, including commenters here, have argued to me that, in the interest of protecting this critically important institution and the economy itself from Trump’s destructive influence, Powell should emulate Eccles. I certainly understand their argument, but I’m not wholly there. I’ll explain my thinking, but only briefly, because this is Powell’s call and there’s nothing anyone can tell him about this that he doesn’t know. (Read Nick Timiraos in the Wall Street Journal this morning for a comprehensive treatment of the stay/go question, with strong stay-vibes from former Fed economist David Wilcox, who knows more about the inner workings and history of the institution than most).

The motivation for stay, Jay, stay! is understandable nervousness about Warsh’s independence from Trump, a concern I share and have written about in recent days. Powell has been a fierce defender of such independence and thus his presence, especially absent Miran, who has consistently voted, often alone, for the rate cuts Trump wants, would be reassuring in that regard.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Powell’s staying on the board would yield better, more balanced, and more independent-from-Trump monetary policy, which would in turn be better for the U.S. and even the global economy. But there are two countervailing factors.

First, Powell has earned the right to do whatever he sees fit. He’s delivered consistently thoughtful, carefully explained, effective monetary policy in 14 years of service, eight of which he was chair. And many of those years were under Trump (who, for the record, reappointed him), wherein he got more presidential harassment than any Fed chair in history, from daily badgering and name-calling, to a phony criminal inquiry.

To be clear, our hearts should not over-bleed for him. He also had one of the coolest jobs in the world, backed by a deeply talented staff and some very smart colleagues on the board. You take the bad with the good. But the point is he served admirably, and has not only pulled rabbits out of monetary-policy hats—the post-pandemic soft landing, which many tony economists said couldn’t happen—but stood up to Trump and preserved the Fed’s independence. He’s earned the right to make whatever next move he desires.

But second, and I know not everyone will share this take, Warsh deserves the chance to establish himself as the new chair without the old chair hanging around. Readers know that I fear where he’s going with his new gig, but under the assumption that he’s legitimately confirmed in coming days, he has the right to takeover and begin to put his imprimatur on the joint.

If Powell should decide otherwise, i.e., that, as Wilcox argued in the Timiraos Wall Street Journal piece, the institution should at least initially be protected from Warsh’s unencumbered leadership, or, for that matter, that he (Powell) is still at risk of prosecution from the bullshit inquiry that Trump cooked up, I’ll of course support his decision.

But the norm of the Chair stepping down is a norm for a good reason: clearing the path for the new Chair is good for the institution. Of course, independent monetary policy is also very good for the institution, so there are good arguments on both sides.

Luckily, there’s only one person who has to make that call. And his call will be the right one.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World