Ted Cruz vs. Tucker Carlson: A Draw; Advantage – Democrats

These days when inflation is surging faster than Omicron cases, and Joe Biden’s approval rating is falling faster than his IQ, Republicans are trying to formulate a coherent plan for a decisive win in November. You would think that Fox News commentators would be on board with that, instead of helping mainstream media divert attention from Biden failures to phony controversies damaging the Republican party. But not Tucker Carlson, who is busy scoring more of his own goals than a substitute player at a Soccer World Cup.

When Tucker does not hear his name mentioned on CNN for a few days, he thinks the best way to bring it back is to knock down the party that aligns closest to his ideology. Last year, he delivered a knockout punch to young Republican governor Kristi Noem, claiming she was not aggressive enough in protecting women’s sports. Does anybody believe Kristi Noem harmed women’s sports enough to warrant the three weeks long beating that she got from “holier than thou culture warriors?” All she was trying to do was change the wording of the bill so that South Dakota college teams did not get clobbered by the NCAA legal team. But Tucker Carlson saw a way to stir up the controversy where there was none, righteously bringing himself into the mix.

These days Tucker has his sights set on Ted Cruz, who said this on the anniversary of January 6:

“We are approaching a solemn anniversary this week, and it is an anniversary of a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol where we saw the men and women law enforcement demonstrate incredible courage, incredible bravery, risk their lives to defend the men and women who serve in this Capitol.”

Tucker Carlson took issue with the Senator’s definition:

“I think you’re smarter than I am, and you never use words carelessly. And yet you called this a terror attack when by no definition was it a terror attack. That’s a lie. You told that lie on purpose, and I’m wondering why you did.”

Obviously, Tucker was too angry to check the dictionary:

 

While we may debate what the goals of the rioters were on January 6 – either to disrupt the Senate proceedings, or simply to express anger about the way the elections were conducted – those were undoubtedly political goals, and obviously, violence was used to enter the Capitol. So semantically speaking, Ted Cruz is not wrong.

Does Ted Cruz’s strong language help the Democrat (incorrect) narrative of January 6? Sure it does. But it is the Senator’s right to express his distaste over the tactics employed on January 6 in the strongest terms. Also, a clear denouncement of the “ends justify the means” mantra that is fully embraced by the far left is certainly a worthy message.

What Republicans don’t need right now is bogus controversies and in-fighting that distracts from the unifying and constructive plan to save the country from a tsunami of failure known as the Biden administration.

Senator Cruz spoke to the security failures of the US Capitol Police on Jan 6. During a committee scheduled to narrowly do just that, he uttered the phrase terrorist attack. Following Tucker’s and others’ immediate admonishments, the senator went on Tucker’s show to clarify he was not speaking about the peaceful protesters or maligning MAGA supporters. He apologized for any misunderstanding.

CNN is too dumb to understand when calling for the cancelation of Tucker Carlson, that their own cause will have more to lose, than to gain, from the absence of Tucker’s “tempest in a teapot” scandals.

If you found this article informative, please consider a small donation to our coffee cup to help support Conservative Journalism – or spread the word. Thank you.

 RWR original article syndication source.

Share this:

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Written by Tatyana Larina

Tatyana Larina comes from my favorite work of poetry.  And that's the only time you'll see me quoting Wikipedia as a source.

I came to the US in 1991, lived in Bay Area for 30 years, and I have a Computer Science degree.  I worked in software industry for several years, later switching to a career of a full time mom, and I never looked back.  I am currently a resident of Florida.

In my younger days, I wasn’t a conservative. That is not to say that I was ever a liberal – I was not anything at all. I had no idea that there were such concepts as “conservative” and “liberal”. I did not pay attention to politics at all, and the most political knowledge you would get out of me would be who the US President was, and even for that you had to catch me on the right day.

My first introduction to politics was during the second Israeli intifada in 2002. Unspeakable violence erupted in Israel. Every day dozens of people were killed. Even though I didn’t follow politics, that deeply affected me. I felt sad, frustrated, and powerless. And one night, I happened to stumble on an MSNBC program called “Alan Keyes is making sense.” He was talking passionately about Israel and the violence, and he addressed my feelings very well.  Since that evening, I turned on Alan Keyes every night, and by his commentary he was able to take away some of the frustration and anger that I had. It was like a nightly therapy session.

Feeling intrigued after watching Alan Keyes, I wondered what else MSNBC had in store. I switched through the channels, and low and behold, I found Scarborough Country. Right off, Joe Scarborough wasn’t what he is today at all. He was a solid conservative (as I now understand), making common sense conservative points. I found him interesting and engaging. Opposing liberalism had not entered my mind at that time. I still didn’t know anything about liberalism. It was just the things he said sounded very common sense and worthwhile to me. Imagine that at some point, MSNBC had a conservative host on the air. Crazy times, ha?

Exploring my new political universe, I switched through more channels, and one night I found FOX. O’Reilly Factor was on. From the very first night, I was hooked. I abandoned Scarborough. O’Reilly was not just common sense – he was aggressive, and he was a fighter. He was Scarborough on steroids. He wasn’t just talking – he was taking on what he thought to be wrong and unjust. Ever since the first time, and until untimely end of Bill’s FOX career, I don’t think I ever missed one Factor.

For forming my political views, and my ability to formulate them, I have to give special credit to three people: Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly, and Greg Guttfeld.  To Charles - philosophy.  To Bill - realistic and pragmatic approach to politics.  To Greg - realization that a good joke will change more minds than a long lecture.

And for everything else, thanks to my family.

See the Park Hotel where Djokovic was detained alongside refugees

New oral history project records conversations between people with opposing political views