Tag: fight
Dogfight Erupts In Right-Wing Media Over War With Iran

Dogfight Erupts In Right-Wing Media Over War With Iran

As Israel’s conflict with Iran escalates into open hostilities, MAGA media figures are divided over whether the U.S. should intervene in the conflict and have resorted to attacking each other. Opponents of U.S. military intervention in Iran — like right-wing podcast host Tucker Carlson — have gone after Fox News, calling its pundits “warmongers” and claiming that pro-war talking heads have “empty, tormented personal lives.” Some right-wing figures who support war with Iran have attacked Carlson, with Fox’s Mark Levin calling his former colleague “increasingly unhinged” and claiming that anti-interventionists “have never been MAGA.”

Right-wing media draw lines in the sand over U.S. intervention in Iran as Carlson and Trump spar

  • Following Israel’s attacks on Iran and Iran’s counterattack on Israel, many right-wing media personalities have chimed in to advocate for or against U.S. military intervention. Some in right-wing media have argued this is “not our war,” while others like Fox’s Sean Hannity have said, “America doesn't have any choice but to get involved in this.” [Media Matters, 6/18/25]
  • The Trumpist right, usually united against Democrats, have split into “rival factions” over the conflict and are fighting “over the true meaning of an ‘America First’ foreign policy.” The isolationists include online talk show host Tucker Carlson and War Room host Steve Bannon. On the other side, Fox News fixtures like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are making the case for the U.S. to intervene directly in the conflict. [The Atlantic, 6/17/25]
  • After Carlson suggested Trump was “complicit in the act of war” against Iran and that the conflict “will define Donald Trump’s presidency,” Trump fired back, calling him “kooky Carlson” and emphasizing that “IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.” [The Hill, 6/16/25, 6/17/25]

Some in right-wing media are calling out Fox News for being “warmongers” and having “amnesia” about previous wars in the Middle East

  • Tucker Carlson called Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Fox Corp.’s chairman emeritus Rupert Murdoch “warmongers.” Carlson posted: “The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it — between warmongers and peacemakers. Who are the warmongers? They would include anyone who’s calling Donald Trump today to demand air strikes and other direct US military involvement in a war with Iran. On that list: Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rupert Murdoch, Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson. At some point they will all have to answer for this, but you should know their names now.” [Twitter/X, 6/13/25]
  • On War Room, Carlson also said, “My temptation in a moment like this is to go low and to note that a lot of the people pushing for this stuff have really empty, tormented personal lives.” Carlson added, “This is a way to kind of feel powerful. I mean, nothing makes you feel more powerful than killing other people.” [Real America's Voice, War Room, 6/16/25]
  • On Jones’ show, far-right media personality Nick Fuentes questioned if Fox host Greg Gutfeld has “amnesia” for arguing “we need to forget” the legacy of Middle East wars and “trust Trump.” Jones then attacked Levin for his “sophomoric” comments calling Jones and Carlson a “lovely couple." [Infowars, The Alex Jones Show, 6/17/25]
  • Bannon attacked “the same crowd at Fox News” for “sounding the war tocsins” and arguing that “we have to go on offense.” Bannon: “When you start making decisions that are predicated upon the assumption that America is going to come in not just for defense but for offensive because the same crowd at Fox all weekend has been sounding the war toxins, ‘America's got to go on offense, we have to go on offense, we have to support — we've got the equipment, we've got the pilots, we have the refueling, … we have to be there.’ No. We have to make decisions that put America first.” [Real America’s Voice, War Room, 6/16/25]

Other personalities have attacked Carlson for being “increasingly unhinged” and shamed “isolationists” for trying to “co-opt” MAGA politics

  • Mark Levin reacted to Carlson’s disapproval for war with Iran, calling him “increasingly unhinged” and “a special pleader for all kinds of evil, genocidal, maniacs.” Levin said, “He’s defending a country that has killed American soldiers. Israel’s taken them on. Israel took on Hezbollah that killed American soldiers. A whole barracks of marines. And I could go on and on and on. So Tucker Carlson is an apologist. He’s an appeaser. He’s actually worse. He's a special pleader for all kinds of evil, genocidal, maniacs. And he’s not alone.” [Westwood One, The Mark Levin Show, 6/13/25]
  • Levin later wrote an op-ed in the New York Post attacking “isolationists” on the right, writing, “These reprobates have never been MAGA.” The op-ed is titled, “Isolationism is the same as appeasement – and it’s keeping Trump, Netanyahu from transforming the Middle East.” Levin also claimed, “The isolationists, such as ‘Chatsworth Qatarlson’ (Tucker Carlson), are turning on our president, as they’ve spent months demeaning Netanyahu. They prefer the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who apparently is more MAGA than Trump. They wind up turning themselves into pretzels, actually characterizing the Iranian regime as oppressed and victimized.” [The New York Post, 6/16/25]
  • Fox contributor Ari Fleischer called Carlson “a carnival barker and a clown” whose “entire career was marked by lurching from one cause to the other with no ideological consistency.” [Twitter/X, 6/16/25]
  • Sean Hannity accused isolationists on the right of trying to “co-opt” the MAGA movement. Hannity claimed, “Donald Trump has never been an isolationist,” adding later, “People that can't seem to understand that kind of puzzle me. But it's not up for them to decide what Donald Trump's foreign policy or how to define the MAGA movement but it looks like they are trying to co-opt it.” [Fox News, Hannity, 6/17/25]
  • Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro said that Carlson’s arguments on Iran are not “rooted in reality, rooted in rationality at this point.” He also said, “President Trump calls Tucker Carlson kooky Tucker, which again, I think is a very, very good descriptor of Tucker Carlson at this point. Let’s just say that he has pushed a bunch of theories that are specious in the extreme, unbased in evidence or reason.” [The Daily Wire, The Ben Shapiro Show, 6/17/25]
  • Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany compared Bannon and his allies who are advocating for “just sitting back and taking it easy” to “Biden’s foreign policy.” She added later, “America first is not sitting in a beach chair and using words. It’s taking decisive action when we can take out Fordo with one swoop of an airplane.” Fordo is a fuel enrichment plant in Iran. [Fox News, The Five, 6/17/25; CNN, 6/18/25]
  • Newsmax host Rob Schmitt told viewers not to “fall for Tucker and Bannon, as much as you probably love them.” Citing a statement from National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard in which she said “too many people in the media don’t care to actually read what I said” about Iran, Schmitt argued she was “probably talking about Tucker and Bannon.” [Newsmax, Rob Schmitt Tonight, 6/17/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Drug Prices

Democrats Should Pick A Fight With Trump Over Drug Prices

Donald Trump is executing a shock and awe strategy, burying the public in a smoky cloud of flamboyant proposals. Some, like ending birthright citizenship, are quickly slapped down in the courts. Some, like threatening to invade Greenland, are dismissed as moronic. But all are radical enough to provide news media with easy entertainment.

The problem for Democrats is that these flashbangs distract from plans that would hit Americans, in Bill Clinton's words, "where they live." Democrats need to focus.

Start with actions to weaken Biden-era programs to restrain the prices drugmakers may charge for their products. His first day back in office, Trump canceled the Biden order to test new models for lowering drug costs.

When Trump ran for president in 2016, he promised to have Medicare negotiate drug prices. Why? It was a very popular idea. Upon election, the vow promptly vanished. Trump named Alex Azar, a top executive at Eli Lilly, to head Health and Human Services. (Under Azar, Eli Lilly tripled the price of its top-selling insulin drug.)

But Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act did follow through. As a result, 10 popular drugs covered under Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit) were selected for price reductions by 2026. They include such popular medications as Jardiance (diabetes), Enbrel (rheumatoid arthritis) and Eliquis (blood clots).

In its last days, the Biden administration targeted another 15 Part D drugs for price negotiations. They include Trelegy Ellipta (asthma, COPD) and three big-name drugs for weight loss, diabetes and heart disease: Rybelsus, Ozempic and Wegovy. These negotiations would have to be implemented by the Trump administration. Don't bet the farm on much relief.

Novo Nordisk, maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, has been charging Americans outlandish prices for these blockbusters. Wegovy's list price in the U.S. is over $1,300 for a month's supply. It is five times the price in Canada ($265) and 14 times the price in Britain ($92).

The right-wing argues, as Project 2025 puts it, that government negotiations on Medicare drugs amount to "price controls" that will reduce patient access to new medication. That's news to the citizens of just about every other advanced country. And no, other countries don't let drugmakers charge their people whatever they want.

In Novo Nordisk's home country of Denmark, Wegovy costs only $186 a month. It should surprise no one that 72% of the company's sales come from the United States. We are the land of suckers.

Thanks to Biden, the catastrophic coverage tier for Part D begins when a beneficiary's out-of-pocket spending reaches $2,000. Project 2025 calls for "eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share." (You may laugh at the "requiring manufacturers" part.)

It's true that Trump has yet to reverse the caps already in place on seniors' drug costs, and so beneficiaries won't notice much change right off. He's certainly too clever to mess with the $35 limit on the monthly price of insulin, one of Biden's marquee achievements. Doing so might break through the smoke.

However, Project 2025 has its own ideas, and Trump is stocking his administration with Project 2025 folk. Furthermore, as Republicans comb through the budget for ways to pay for tax cuts, Medicare would seem a ripe place to slash spending. Trump did vow to leave Medicare alone. Then again, he vowed to have Medicare negotiate drug prices.

Why would Trump be OK with forcing Americans to pay more than the rest of the world for their drugs? The answer is simple: Because the drug companies want them to.

Democrats, step around some of those rabbit-hole distractions. You have an issue.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

US Mexico border fence

Republicans Only Exist To 'Fight,' Not To Make Policy

The border bill circus is the latest demonstration of a bedrock reality of today's Republican Party: It does not exist to achieve political outcomes. Its chief function is fan service.

The overriding concern of GOP voters, according to polls and to elected Republicans, is immigration. In the ranty precincts of the right, they believe that the southern border is open; that criminals, terrorists and drug dealers are crossing en masse. Among less febrile Republicans, the argument is that while legal immigration is good for the nation, we are swamped by illegal border crossers and must get control of a border that is out of hand.

Whichever version of the immigration argument they favor, every Republican who truly cared about solving the "crisis at the border" would presumably favor a bill that would have tackled — or at least ameliorated — the problem right now. In October, a group of senators including Shelley Moore Capito and Todd Young sent a letter to the president warning that 169 people on the terrorism watch list had been apprehended in the preceding 10 months. In early January, a 60-member delegation of House Republicans traveled to Eagle Pass, Texas. They were enraged, they said, by the fentanyl coming across the border.

In reality, fentanyl is mostly smuggled by American citizens, not would-be asylum seekers. Ninety percent of seizures occur at legal border crossings and interior vehicle checkpoints. In recent years, just 0.02 percent of people arrested for crossing the border illegally had any fentanyl in their possession.

Speaker Mike Johnson thundered that "One thing is absolutely clear: America is at a breaking point with record levels of illegal immigration." Rep. Mark Green, who yesterday announced his retirement from Congress, claimed that the FBI director had testified that members of Hamas can "just walk right in." But as The New York Times clarifies, Christopher Wray said no such thing. Rather, he explained in response to a tendentious question, that he could not 100 percent guarantee that none of those who evaded the border patrol ("get-aways") were members of Hamas.

While the risk of terrorists crossing the southern border is not zero, the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh has shown that the southern border is not a common vector for terrorists attempting to enter the United States.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that most Republicans are unfamiliar with Nowrasteh's research and fully believe the Mark Greens and Mike Johnsons of their party who claim that we are being overrun by terrorists and foreign drug smugglers, to say nothing of immigrants "poisoning the blood" of real Americans.

Would they not be outraged by their elected officials' decision to tank a border bill that would achieve many of their objectives? The base has not been shy about accusing Republican leaders of cowardice and betrayal over much less. Yet on this issue, supposedly the one they feel most passionate about, they are tamely accepting that GOP congressmen and senators passed up a unique opportunity to get much tougher enforcement just in order to give Trump a campaign issue?

Well, some might explain, the average Republican voter thinks that if Trump is reelected, they will get even better (i.e., harsher) measures to keep immigrants out. But that is false.

The only reason the Democrats are willing to agree to a lopsided border deal that gives Republicans 80 percent of what they demanded and get nothing in return (like a path to citizenship for Dreamers) is because Democrats are worried that the issue hurts them with voters — and since Republicans linked support for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan to border security, Democrats would have to bend.

But that political calculation goes out the window if Trump is reelected. Democrats would not have any incentive to compromise.

So if GOP voters believe that illegals are flooding into the country to our sorrow and that we are in danger daily from infiltration by terrorists, how can they accept that Republicans would choose to continue this "unconscionable" status quo a day longer than necessary — much less the years it will likely take before another deal is possible? And if the Republican Party is a political entity, don't voters have a duty to understand political realities, including that this was a unique moment to achieve their cherished objective?

But if the party doesn't exist to solve political problems, if instead it exists only to "fight," then the voters' passivity makes sense. The GOP doesn't need to get control of the border, merely to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas. Lauren Boebert released a triumphant video after the (second) impeachment vote boasting that "Just now we impeached Secretary Mayorkas who has endangered our country by deliberately handing over control of our southern border to the cartel. Now that's delivering for the American people!"

No, that was a gross misuse of government power against an official that even the GOP's favorite legal advisers had said did nothing to merit impeachment. Besides, it was a pointless, empty gesture since the Democrats control the Senate and will certainly acquit him (as he deserves).

The show is everything. Results don't count, only the fight.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Lauren Boebert

Police Probe Boebert's Latest 'Physical' Confrontation With Ex-Husband

A Colorado police department is actively investigating "an alleged physical altercation" between US Representative Lauren Boebert and her ex-husband, Jayson Boebert, that occurred Saturday night, The Daily Beast's Roger Sollenberger exclusively reports.

A Boebert aide told Sollenberger, "Jayson Boebert had called the police to the Miner's Claim restaurant in Silt, claiming that he was a 'victim of domestic violence.' The aide emphasized that Lauren Boebert denies any allegation of domestic violence on her part, and that the events as depicted in social media posts on Saturday were not accurate."

The aide also confirmed "police did come" but no one was arrested, and "a friend drove Boebert home."

When Jayson Boebert spoke to the Beast about the incident, he said, "I don’t know what to say."

According to the report, the incident occurred when Jayson Boebert apologized to the GOP congresswoman following a prior incident, and asked to meet. Rep. Boebert agreed, but only if the meeting could take place in public — which led the former couple to "Miner's Claim, a restaurant in Boebert's small hometown of Silt."

The senior political reporter notes:

Inside, at the table, Jayson Boebert apparently started 'being disrespectful,' 'being an a**hole,' and getting 'lewd,' the aide relayed. The alleged behavior revolted Lauren Boebert, but that seemed to make her ex more aggressive, the aide said. There was then apparently a physical altercation of indeterminate severity.

Jayson Boebert 'made a motion' towards his ex-wife, 'to grab her.' It was 'an aggressive move, not romantic,' the aide relayed.

As Lauren Boebert described it, the aide said, she tried again to keep him back and in the process 'put her hand in his face, put her hand on his nose.' (The Muckrackers’ post describes a violent confrontation, with the congresswoman landing two punches on her ex’s nose. The aide said that Boebert maintains she didn’t punch him.)

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World