Infinite MonkeysLet me start out by saying that I have limited experience with Tucker Carlson. When I saw the famous Jon Stewart on Crossfire clip, I thought he came off as a typical partisan blowhard.
Since then, I've only stumbled across him once or twice. Most recently, I stopped on his MSNBC show, "The Situation" - not because of Carlson, but because his guest was our much-beloved radio shock jock hawking his new book.
When I read one of his previous tomes, I was very disappointed by Hugh's apparent "party over principle" attitude. But nowhere was this perspective on display in its full absurdity like it was last Thursday night on Carlson's show. Here's the transcript of his appearance.
The most troubling quote? When Hewitt lists his criteria for being recognized as a participant in his fairly gigantic Republican tent. I've excerpted the conversation here (the ellipses are all my edits):
CARLSON: . . .But it does seem like the Republicans time and again, at least to me, have sold out their own views, their own values, their own beliefs. Whatever happened to small government and eliminating federal agencies? All that talk we heard in 1994, not so long ago, unimaginable now. They don‘t talk about getting rid of anything. . . . I—you know, I don‘t agree with the war in Iraq at all. I think it‘s bad for America.So, entering the Republican tent has nothing to do with desiring smaller, constitutional government. Nothing to do with respecting liberty, free markets, opposing pork, getting the government out of your personal life, or anything that Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan used to stand up and fight for. It's about supporting George W. Bush whether he's right or wrong. Never mind that there are principled, conservative reasons for opposing almost every one of Hewitt's criteria (only the supreme court justice placements appear to be unassailably conservative - and remember Hewitt continues to say the Republicans should have supported the thoroughly unqualified Harriet Meirs).. . .
You make an interesting point in your book about the big tent theory. . . . What does it mean to be a Republican, and should they boot out people who don‘t fit that description? . . . So what are the parameters, though, of that tent? I mean, what—define for me quickly and succinctly what it means to be a Republican, because I‘m losing track.
HEWITT: You‘ve got to be right on at least one of the big issues. The first big issue was the decision to invade Afghanistan, the second the decision to invade Iraq. A third big issue would be the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and the confirmation of Justice Alito. Those, and then finally, the reelection of the president. Those are four.
. . .
CARLSON: Interesting. I strongly disagree with you, but I don‘t think I‘ve ever heard your point of view articulated as well as you just did. And so I appreciate your explaining it. Hugh Hewitt, thanks very much.
I'm sorry, Hugh, but Partisan IS a dirty word. It means you've sold out what you believe to win elections, imagining that you've chosen the lesser of two evils. Well, congratulations. The Republicans are now indistinguishable from the Democrats of the 60's, and the Democrats have become complete wacko leftists in response. Worse yet, the Republicans are on the verge of losing their majority to those very leftists. Mission accomplished.
Posted by RobbL at April 2, 2006 09:55 PMAt the risk of appearing to be an apologist for Hugh, I would point out that it does not appear that he said these are the four big issues, just four of the big issues. From that perspective, and from a party operative point-of-view, Hugh probably is not too far off.
But you're right on the Big Picture. Hugh seemingly has abandoned the principles that built the modern GOP (sadly, he is not the only one to have done that). Maybe if he had defined the "not so big" issues that we need to be right about.
Posted by: JamesPh. at April 2, 2006 10:49 PMI'm not so sure he was just giving examples. The "and finally" seemed to be indicating the termination of the list. I may be mistaken, and I haven't read the book, but the way he presented the list on Carlson's show, he really seemed to be indicating that these are the four test cases for Republican purity. When I heard this, and the rest of the stuff in the transcript, my jaw dropped at his transparency. Tucker seemed a little surprised, himself.
I'd like to see video of the interview again, just to make sure my memory is correct.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at April 2, 2006 11:15 PMI was, however, stunned by his dismissal of the spending issue by saying "there's a war on." Yep, that justifies the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, the "No Tax Dollar Left Behind Act" and the continued use of earmarks to run up the budget. You would think that such items might be eliminated or delayed "because there's a war on", but no.
Posted by: JamesPh. at April 3, 2006 05:55 AMHugh has been growing crazier in recent months. He used to be one of the bastions of the conservative blogs. However, I was caught a little off-guard with the 48-point font gospel during the Terri Schaivo mess and the insistence on GodBlogs. Then the immigration thing started to sound less like pragmatism than racism. More recently, his "recording in the Empire State Building means I'm on the frontlines of the GWOT" shocked me. And his book kind of freaks me out. Not only is it pretty much advocating a one-party government (since when has that been a good thing?), but it takes the whole idea of the good of the party over the good of the country waaaaay too far.
Posted by: zombieflanders at April 3, 2006 06:31 AMI have to agree with RobbL on this one. When asked "what does it mean to be a Republican," or "what are the parameters of the tent" individual, specific actions should rarely, if ever, appear anywhere near the top of the list. "Republican" is about point of view, and to that extent Hewitt speaks truthfully - but he does so, at least to my mind, because the positions he outlines are part of a larger worldview with which those specific positions are consistent. For example - support for the war in Afghanistan or Iraq has less to do with supporting war than it does supporting the ideology that made that war necessary (or advisable, depending on your take). I'm ordinarily on Hewitt's side in these things - but this time I'm afraid he literally missed the forest for the trees.
Posted by: The Random Yak at April 3, 2006 04:35 PM