They canceled Tucker, now they’re coming for us… but you can fight back. Cancel Fox Nation and instead click here to subscribe to Revolver. Or give the gift of Revolver—simply select the annual subscription and select “This is a gift” on the next page. If you want to give extra during this critical time, you can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation — whether it’s $1 or $1,000, every bit goes towards the battle to save our great nation.

The left’s sensitivity regarding Tucker Carlson has officially reached an all-time high. It appears liberal snowflakes can’t tolerate hearing anything about Tucker that doesn’t involve the words “Nazi,” “racist,” or “bigot.” It’s as if they’re programmed to associate those words with his name and if someone on their side dares to write a truthful, fact-based piece about him, without all the sensational “Nazi” hype, they lose their minds. It’s almost like they’ve created a caricature of Tucker that’s so over-the-top and exaggerated that they can’t handle the reality of who he really is.

That’s precisely what happened when journalists Lee Harris and Luke Goldstein wrote a piece about Tucker’s departure from Fox News for the left-wing publication “The American Prospect.” Apparently, they were too flattering and didn’t call Tucker a “Nazi” and a “white supremacist” so the mob grabbed their pitch-forks and torches and began wailing and gnashing their pointy teeth.

The article starts off by praising Tucker Carlson right in the sub-header: “Goodbye for now to Tucker Carlson, who punctured the lazy pieties of the media class.”

The article then went on to note that Tucker’s mockery of “Doctor” Jill Biden revealed a sort of ruling-class snobbery.

The American Prospect:

After starting his career as a fact-checker and magazine columnist, Carlson went on to occupy many roles as a talking head. His style rankled adversaries but often freed up his show to entertain controversial subjects that other mainstream shows wouldn’t touch. Carlson’s incessant mockery of first lady Jill Biden’s insistence on being called “Dr. Biden,” for example, bordered on the absurd while subtly exposing an elite obsession with credentials and meritocracy.

The left has a long-standing reputation for being triggered by smirks, and Tucker’s infamous sly grin has become their latest obsession. But according to Lee and Goldstein, there is something praiseworthy about Tucker’s distrust of and skepticism towards authority as embodied by the smirk:

Tucker, as his enormous fan following knows him, was adored by viewers and reviled by critics for his signature incredulous stare—the slack-jawed expression he wears when he simply can’t believe what he’s being told.

That look of smirking disbelief is deliberately theatrical. But Carlson’s insistent distrust of his powerful guests acts as a solvent to authority, frequently making larger-than-life figures of the political establishment defend arguments they otherwise treat as self-evident.

It’s almost as if they’re admitting that not everyone on the right is a knuckle-dragging Nazi, and that’s unacceptable! Lee and Goldstein went on to praise Tucker for tapping into populist insights and undercutting the political establishment:

Tucker’s willingness to challenge and mock ruling elites went alongside an obsessively nativist message that alienated viewers who might otherwise have embraced his populist perspective. His popularity with a wide audience begs the question why other nightly news shows that attacked him didn’t raise the same critiques, without the nativism.

One answer is that Tucker Carlson Tonight was an outlier in corporate-owned cable news, which is typically hostile to independent critiques of executives and political elites. The show declined to play the gatekeeping role that many of Carlson’s detractors demand of mainstream media platforms. Carlson hosted heads of state in the same week as fringe characters of both the far left and far right. He tapped into populist insights, cutting through left- and right-wing echo chambers and putting hard questions to corporate executives and members of the political establishment.

Though Carlson spent years as a staunch libertarian, he made a populist turn around the time of Trump’s election, rejecting many of the free-market doctrines he’d previously espoused.

The article went on to highlight even more of Tucker’s strong points, and we won’t belabor you by excerpting all of them—it’s worth a read, and you can do so yourself, here.

After the article was published, a mob of hormone and anti-depressant guzzling soyboys and feminists cried out in pain and lashed out in anger at the editor for daring to “platform” a piece that would praise such a Nazi Fascist Racist Transphobic Misogynist Bigot.

Predictably, the editor surrendered to the Maoist brigade and delivered this cringe-worthy statement:

Here’s a closeup of the pathetic, groveling statement:

Image

The staff responses to the original article was bonkers. They ran an new story, complete with an editor’s note that read like a mix between a hostage apology and a plea for forgiveness from the Twitter mob:

Editor’s note: On Tuesday, we published a story from two of our writers about the firing of Tucker Carlson. We received a lot of correspondence taking issue with it.

I wrote a longer statement expressing my views on the story, which you can read here. What’s pertinent in this moment is that two other members of our staff requested to write a response to the story, and we are running it below. I have learned a lot from this episode and hope to continue our work while drawing upon those lessons. —David Dayen

The sub-header was truly hysterical and loony.

And here’s the how frantic staff response to the “badthink” pro-Tucker article began:

On Tuesday afternoon, the Prospect posted an article about Tucker Carlson on its home page. Focusing almost solely on Carlson’s opposition to corporate globalism, it missed a very large forest for some very cherry-picked trees. It failed to note the roots of Carlson’s positions, in a broader sense failing to note that opposition to neoliberal orthodoxy is an element of both progressive and fascist politics, and hence, depending on whence it comes, not automatically worthy of celebration. The piece failed to take into account Carlson’s racism, xenophobia, misogyny, disdain for democracy, affinity for autocrats and autocracy, habitual lying, and demands to Fox management that they muzzle or fire reporters who had the chutzpah to acknowledge that Joe Biden had won the 2020 election. It omitted the fact that Carlson had been second only to Donald Trump in building the neofascist right that threatens American democracy.

What a bunch of pathetic, academic politically correct nonsensical tripe that makes your eyes glaze over two sentences in.

But wait, there’s more…

The Tucker Carlson who actually impacted American politics is the guy who promoted the “great replacement” theory, through which Democrats supposedly make war on white people by supporting immigration, and conspiracy theories about the deep state. Nothing Carlson offered to viewers was unique to the Republican tradition. Phyllis Schlafly was getting on television to talk about the globalist banker cabal and criticize establishment conservatives long before Tucker’s career began. Rush Limbaugh’s response to the utter failure of the Iraq War, which Tucker initially supported, was to suggest the “deep state” faked evidence of weapons of mass destruction to discredit President Bush. A feigned interest in the working class is nothing new for the GOP, but the left’s propensity to take such at face value is a concerning trend.

And if that wasn’t enough irrational emotion, check out this hysterical podcast title:

It’s getting to the point where the left’s obsession with Tucker Carlson is starting to resemble a Lifetime movie.

Someone needs to stage an intervention before they start collecting his hair and creating a Tucker voodoo doll.

SUPPORT REVOLVER— DONATE — SUBSCRIBE

NEWSFEED — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — TWITTER