Tag: lindsey graham
Amid Fuentes Blowup, Tucker Carlson Targets Lindsey Graham's Senate Seat

Amid Fuentes Blowup, Tucker Carlson Targets Lindsey Graham's Senate Seat

Tucker Carlson’s friendly interview with prominent white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust-denying Hitler fan, has triggered a right-wing civil war over the last week, drawing in Republican politicians and reportedly triggering a meltdown at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative movement’s most prominent think tank.

On Wednesday, Carlson opened up a new front in that conflict that seems likely to put him in direct opposition to his former colleagues at Fox News.

Carlson’s latest program features an interview with and endorsement of Paul Dans, a candidate for U.S. Senate who is widely regarded as the “architect” of the politically toxic right-wing manifesto Project 2025. Dans is mounting a primary campaign against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is one of Fox’s most frequent guests.

Both candidates have spoken out on opposite sides of the Fuentes firestorm in recent days, with Graham identifying himself as a member of “the ‘Hitler sucks’ wing of the Republican Party” and Dans declaring: “Tucker Carlson is a leading light of America First, and anyone taking out after him is not America First by definition.”

Fox has championed Graham for years

Graham has appeared on Fox’s weekday programs at least 565 times since Media Matters began tabulating cable news guest appearances in August 2017 — more than any other member of Congress except for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR). Fox hosts regularly praise Graham, who repeats the network’s talking points and has used the network’s stars as a sounding board for his policy ideas.

The South Carolina Republican is a particular favorite of Sean Hannity, President Donald Trump’s political operative who also hosts a propaganda show on the network. Hannity hosted Graham 270 times over that period — more than any other congressional guest by more than 40 appearances.

Fox founder Rupert Murdoch is personally invested in Graham’s political success, as messages made public during the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against the network show. In October 2020, when Graham was last on the ballot, Murdoch emailed Fox CEO Suzanne Scott: “You probably know about the Lou Dobbs outburst against Lindsey Graham. Could Sean say something supportive? ... We cannot lose the Senate if at all possible.” Scott later followed up to confirm she had “addressed the Dobbs outburst.”

Murdoch was apparently referring to Dobbs, then a Fox Business host, saying during an October 23, 2020, rant: “I don’t know why anyone in the great state of South Carolina would ever vote for Lindsey Graham. … Graham has betrayed President Trump at almost every turn.” Hannity did a friendly interview with Graham three days later and stressed to viewers that the senator’s reelection was critical.

Carlson’s brand of ethnonationalist isolationism, meanwhile, put him in conflict with Graham even when he was still at that network.

Carlson attacks Graham as an extension of the Fuentes firestorm

On Wednesday, Carlson addressed the ongoing debate spurred by his effort to launder a toxic antisemite’s bigotry into the mainstream right. In a monologue at the top of his show, the host positioned himself and his faction as the true heirs to Trump and the America First movement, claimed that his critics are seeking “a return to the Republican Party that we had before, which is a party that has all kinds of other agendas, most of which are never publicly revealed, and that spends a lot of its time policing its own members.”

Carlson went on to accuse his opponents of dishonestly invoking the Holocaust as a ploy to bolster their effort to take control of the GOP after Trump leaves office:

The people who are benefiting from the old arrangement, which only continued because it was maintained by threats and silence, those people are going absolutely bonkers. And they have been all week, and they're claiming it's about one thing, the Holocaust or something like that.
But, no, really it's about who controls the Republican Party after Donald Trump. That's what it's really about. So ignore the moral posturing. This is a power struggle as all political parties have from time to time, and this one just happens to have a lot of emotionally unbalanced hysterical people with no limits who have access to social media, so they're scaring the crap out of everybody.

But Carlson didn’t only give his viewers and supporters a reason to disregard the complaints of his critics — he also offered them a target.

Graham, Carlson told them, “symbolizes what we're actually debating and the stakes of this conversation.” And for the remaining half-hour of his monologue, he attacked Graham’s views on Israel, immigration, the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump’s Russiagate scandal, the murder of George Floyd, and more, presenting the South Carolina senator’s positions as anathema to the MAGA movement.

Carlson then introduced Dans and praised him for taking on Graham, who he said “is very obviously evil. And if he is the face of the Republican Party, normal people can't support it, including me. So it's so important to send the statement that we are not for killing of innocence or bloodlust or whatever weird demonic trip Lindsey is on.” Carlson added that he is “really praying for your victory.”

Dans — who described Graham upon launching his campaign as “a 70-year-old childless warmonger” who “has no stake in the future of this country” — told Carlson's audience that he is “original MAGA” and his race “is about the future of the movement, whether MAGA, America First, lives or dies.”

The remainder of the show was a typical Carlson special. The host gave Dans space to lay out his biography and make his pitch, and he egged on Dans' attacks on Graham. At one point, Carlson mocked Graham for being “scared shitless” during the January 6 insurrection, leading Dans to explain that Graham “knows that 2020 was infirm, it was a rigged and stolen election, and he did nothing really for it,” which Dans contrasted with what he described as his own “battle scars” from aiding Trump’s election subversion plot.

Carlson concluded the interview by asking Dans, “How can people who support the program you just described and think that it's so essential to stop this insanity before we have, like, World War 6 — how can they support your campaign?” Dans urged viewers to go to his campaign’s website and donate.

It’s worth thinking of Carlson’s latest program as a response to The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro. Shapiro devoted his entire show on Monday to a withering critique of Fuentes and his “groyper” supporters — whom he termed “neo-Nazis” — as well as Carlson and the Heritage Foundation, which he said had “facilitated and normalized” that faction “within the mainstream Republican Party.” Shapiro’s program featured numerous video clips of Fuentes, Carlson, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts to build his arguments.

Carlson, by contrast, never mentioned the names of any of his critics. Rather than address their arguments directly, he positioned them as lying about their motives in order to steal Trump’s legacy. Instead of playing defense he went on the attack, targeting for defeat Graham, a politician whom he views as supporting that project. In doing so he suggested his viewers should back that politician’s opponent, Dans, to demonstrate their loyalty to the president.

Fox is the biggest weapon Graham has in response, other than Trump himself, and the senator was on Hannity’s show the hour after the Dans interview dropped. But it remains to be seen how eager Fox’s stars really are about getting down in the muck with their former colleague.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Where Would Trump Be Without His Spineless Enablers?

Where Would Trump Be Without His Spineless Enablers?

It's amazing how men who prided themselves on strength and toughness will submit to a gangster.

In 2022, after Russian tanks rolled across an international border into Ukraine and missiles pierced the quiet of cities like Kharkiv and Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky earned worldwide acclaim for his courage and heroism. No one was more pro-Ukrainian than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who exulted in an arrest warrant the Russians had issued against him:

"I will wear the arrest warrant issued by Putin's corrupt and immoral government as a Badge of Honor."

Last Friday, after mad king Donald and his scheming viceroy, JD Vance, performed a tag-team ambush on Zelensky in the Oval Office, Graham sounded a different note. "Somebody asked me if I was embarrassed about President Trump. I have never been more proud of the president. I was very proud of JD Vance for standing up for our country."

Disgusting. A politician whose identity was forged as a hawk and staunch defender of liberty and democracy now praises the most powerful man in the world for sandbagging the beleaguered leader of a bleeding ally, a victim of aggression? That's standing up for America?

Ditto Marco Rubio, that gelding who has likewise transformed himself from a champion of freedom into an obedient toady to the man whose project is to destroy the Western alliance.

We live in an upside-down world where the far greater man, Zelenskyy, is being hounded to apologize to the gangster who behaved abominably.

Consider that even before the Oval Office debacle, Trump and his team had been grossly disrespectful and abusive toward Zelensky and Ukraine. Trump called him a "dictator" (though he declined to say as much about Putin). Trump then repeated Putin's propaganda that Ukraine, not Russia, had started the war. Vance told a European audience that he feared "the threat from within" far more than Russia or China. And then Trump proposed a "deal" that amounted to extortion, demanding the right to mine rare earth elements (which Trump called "raw earths") on Ukrainian soil in return for ... nothing. It was a shakedown. As Trump unguardedly admitted when he lost his temper, he regards Ukraine as a target for extortion because they "don't have any cards."

It was the most shameful moment in American history in at least a century, and a special shame attaches to the explainer class of analysts who, without even the excuse of fearing voters, perform pirouettes on their principles.

Marc Thiessen used his perch as a Washington Post columnist to excoriate not Trump for this blatant betrayal of 80 years of American world leadership but Zelensky.

As recently as June 2023, Thiessen had seen his role differently — that of guide to help MAGA types remain on the side of Ukraine. He outlined an "America First Case for Supporting Ukraine." But now, when the leader has pivoted, so has Thiessen. "The blowup was Zelensky's fault," he wrote. Thiessen excoriated Zelensky for resisting a deal without security. "He summarily dismissed Trump's idea of an immediate ceasefire — something that is extremely important to Trump, who is committed to stopping the killing — because he said Putin had already broken ceasefires 25 times."

But that's a key stumbling block, isn't it? Trump is demanding a ceasefire without security guarantees for Ukraine, which is an open invitation to Putin to sign the deal and then regroup and attack again as he has done repeatedly. Thiessen was quick to accuse Zelensky of disrespect but didn't notice the key part of an exchange he himself highlighted. When Zelensky noted that Putin had broken previous agreements, Trump interrupted to say, "He never broke to me. He never broke to me." Putin's agreement was not with Trump. But Trump's narcissism, solipsism and moral obtuseness were painfully obvious in that exchange.

Thiessen further scolded Zelensky for contradicting Trump in front of "the entire world." Well, it was Trump's decision to invite the cameras, not Zelensky's. As he boasted afterward, it was "great television." Thiessen was referring to a moment when Trump was repeating Russian disinformation about how all of Ukraine's cities have been destroyed. Zelensky was the soul of restraint saying, "No, no, you have to come, Mr. President, you have to come and to look."

Trump is as deaf to such appeals as he was indifferent to the photos of starving Ukrainian POWs Zelensky had brought along. Throughout the latter part of the meeting, when it became heated, Trump's favoritism toward Putin showed through. He scowled when Zelensky called Putin a war criminal, and when a member of the press asked whether Trump saw himself as "in the middle" between the warring parties or "on Ukraine's side," Trump said he was not on Ukraine's side and went on to scold Zelensky for his harsh words about Putin.

"It's wonderful to speak badly about somebody else," he noted sarcastically, "but I want to get it solved." Later, he said about Zelensky, "You see the hatred he's got for Putin. It's very tough for me to make a deal."

Trump is a soulless sociopath. This is not news. But without the Vances, Rubios, and Thiessens of the world, he would not be quite the danger to the Atlantic alliance, peace and security that he is.

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.


GOP Legislator Torpedoes Trump's Nebraska Electoral Gambit

GOP Legislator Torpedoes Trump's Nebraska Electoral Gambit

Nebraska is among the few states in the U.S. that splits its electoral votes, and the area around Omaha — which has one electoral vote — has been leaning Democrat in recent years.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been urging Nebraska to abandon that system and switch to a winner-take-all format.

But Nebraska State Sen. Mike McDonnell, a former Democrat turned Republican, is, according to the New York Times, pushing back against the proposal.

In an official statement on Monday, September 23, McDonnell said, "In recent weeks, a conversation around whether to change how we allocate our Electoral College votes has returned to the forefront. I respect the desire of some of my colleagues to have this discussion, and I have taken time to listen carefully to Nebraskans and national leaders on both sides of the issue. After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change."

McDonnell, according to the Times, said he told Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, "I will not change my long-held position and will oppose any attempted changes to our Electoral College system before the 2024 election."

The Nebraska Examiner's Aaron Sanderford notes that "McDonnell's no on winner-take-all leaves Republicans in Nebraska's officially nonpartisan legislature with no path to overcoming a promised filibuster unless a Democrat or nonpartisan senator defects."

"Part of the GOP urgency is wrapped in national polling that shows a close race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee," Sanderford reports. "Some political observers have argued the 2nd District could break a 269-269 Electoral College tie. Few Democrats were surprised that the fate of winner-take-all largely swung on McDonnell, a former Omaha fire union president who switched to the GOP this spring after facing political pushback from Democrats for backing abortion restrictions."

Sanderford adds, "Several said the abortion debate should have shown Republicans that McDonnell is largely immovable once he has made a controversial position clear. McDonnell said when he switched parties that he would not support winner-take-all. Others said he did what helped him most politically.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Chuck Grassley

'Flip-Flop Fest': Republicans Whine After Garland Names Hunter Biden Special Counsel

Republicans expressing outrage after Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday elevated the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney investigating Hunter Biden to special counsel status are now being mocked and chastised after it was revealed they have been demanding the Attorney General appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden for over a year.

“Half of the House Republican conference wrote to Merrick Garland last year asking him to appoint a special counsel in the Hunter Biden case. Now that he’s done it they are acting mad,” wrote Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA).

Fritschner pointed to this letter to Garland from April, 2022, signed by nearly 100 House Republicans, demanding he appoint a special counsel.

“We believe that in the case of Hunter Biden a Special Counsel must be appointed to preserve the integrity of this investigation and any subsequent prosecution. A Special Counsel would also ensure there is no bias in the investigation or undue influence from the White House,” the Republicans wrote.

Doing so, they insisted, would “help restore” some “trust for the American people…in government institutions.”

For example, among the House Republicans who signed the April 2022 letter demanding a special counsel, is Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV), who on Friday, responding to a report about the elevation of David Weiss to special counsel status, wrote: “The Biden Justice Department is trying to stonewall congressional oversight. All this while the House Oversight Committee has put fourth mounting evidence of President Joe Biden’s role in his family’s schemes.”

The ridicule of Republicans came quickly.

Fritschner blasted U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ron Johnson (R-WI):

Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall, pointing to Fritschner’s comments, responded: “Friends don’t let friend[s] try to appease Republicans.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), known for his sarcastic and scathing remarks ridiculing Republicans during House committee hearings, ridiculed the entire House GOP Friday afternoon. After pointing to a post from February they made demanding a special counsel, he suggested they might need treatment for amnesia.


Fritschner blasted Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ron Johnson (R-WI):



That social media post from the House GOP included a letter from Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan blasting Garland for not appointing a special counsel.


National security attorney Brad Moss slammed Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for demanding a special counsel be appointed, only to complain when one was.

Norman Ornstein, the political scientist and emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, responded, adding: “Chuck Grassley has long been an embarrassment to the Senate and clearly seems to have been privy to the attempt to steal the election. He needs to resign.”

Indeed, Sen. Grassley was one of 33 GOP Senators who, in September, not only demanded Garland appoint a special counsel, but demanded David Weiss be granted special counsel status.

“Under Department of Justice regulations and federal law, you have the power to provide special counsel authorities and protections to U.S. Attorney Weiss. Given that the investigation involves the President’s son, we believe it is important to provide U.S. Attorney Weiss with special counsel authorities and protections to allow him to investigate an appropriate scope of potentially criminal conduct, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and provide additional assurances to the American people that the Hunter Biden investigation is free from political influence,” the GOP Senators wrote.

Read the tweets above or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World