This is the last article (of four) on Tucker Carlson. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest you begin with the article I published on October 30, 2025. In this excerpt, I strayed off the topic of Tucker Carlson a bit when I wrote “A Trump Aside.” 

+++ The Start of Excerpt 4 +++

The Tucker Carlson Paradox and Conundrum 

It was bound to happen. Tucker was too outspoken and visible just to comment on the news. He has become part of the news. In a sense, he has become as much of the story as Donald Trump and Joseph Biden. He has become as polarizing a figure as the past and current presidents.

The good news first: In 2021, Tucker was included in the “Time 100,” Time magazine’s annual list of the one hundred most influential people in the world – along with Harry and Meghan, Britney Spears, Tim Cook, Tom Brady, Kate Winslet (one of my favorites), Joe Biden, Liz Cheney, Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Bad Bunny.

Unlike his Fox News counterparts, Tucker is hard to categorize. While he defends Trump from unfair and hypocritical attacks, he rarely, if ever, fawns over Trump. He is as critical of the Republicans supporting Ukraine as he is with the administration and congressional Democrats supporting Ukraine.

A Trump Aside

As to Trump, I think my views are somewhat consistent with Tuckers. I had and continue to have concerns about Trump’s personality but believe that he accomplished some good things for this country during his time in office. I was amazed that he survived the unfair onslaught directed at him by the Democrats and their media lackeys. I believe that he began to drain the swamp and maybe could have mostly drained it, if he had been treated fairly over two terms. 

I could never find it in me to vote for Trump in the Nebraska primaries but was always there with my vote on election day. In 2024 (given today’s prognostications), I may enthusiastically vote for DeSantis in the Nebraska primary – and reluctantly vote for Trump in the general election.  I am, however, somewhat fascinated and drawn to Trump – like a mosquito to the light of a mosquito zapper.

As a Midwesterner dealing with work cohorts on the East Coast, I was often taken aback by the brashness of some of those living in New York and New Jersey – think Trump, but also Chris Christie, Andrew Cuomo, and Chris Cuomo. Trump’s braggadocio was just a bit higher on the spectrum. It was always a bit of a turnoff – to me – to my Midwestern sensibilities. I suspect that others must have liked it.

I have read numerous books about Trump and/or his tenure in office – by Trump himself (Time to Get Tough: Make America Great Again!), by William Barr, David Brody, Chris Christie, Kellyanne Conway, James Comey, Michael D’Antonio, Alan Dershowitz, Jared Kushner, Scott Lamb, Laurence Leamer, Brandy Lee, Paul Manafort, Mark Meadows, Kayleigh McEnany, Omarosa Newman, Dan Pfeiffer, Rick Reilly, Cliff Sims, Sean Spicer, Ivana Trump, Michael Wolff, Bob Woodward, and Byron York. A good cross section of books, I am sure you agree. 

The book that concerned me the most was Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump, by Rick Reilly – and Reilly was not writing just about occasional mulligans. 

The book that I found most interesting was, The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography, by David Brody and Scott Lamb. There, in chapter 9, entitled “The Power of Positive Thinking,” was the story of Trump’s time at Marble Collegiate Church under the influence of Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, the author of The Power of Positive Thinking. Trump’s personality finally started to make some sense to me. How could you ever expect Mexico to pay for the wall – if you didn’t believe it yourself – if you were not positive about it. This book explained a facet in Trump’s upbringing that I had never heard discussed. 

Even today, the following can be found on the Marble Collegiate Church website: “Marble Collegiate Church is a diverse inclusive community of God’s people led by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. We inspire everyone to become positive thinkers who make a difference in the world.” Trump was a positive thinker who believed what he was taught as a boy – that he could make a difference in the world.

Back to the Paradox and Conundrum 

I have digressed. Getting back to the Tucker Carlson Paradox and Conundrum, I was surprised one day when I suggested, to a person near and dear to me, that she might want to listen to Tucker’s interview with Tony Bobulinski, before voting in the 2020 election. That person instantly dismissed my suggestion, noting that she had become weary of Trump and did not find Tucker credible because of some statements that Fox attorneys had made while defending Tucker and/or Fox. That person suggested that we agree to disagree and move on. 

I suspect that she never listened to Tony Bobulinski. By association, Tucker was not trustworthy and thus Bobulinski was not trustworthy. I wonder how many other people – in and out of the media – reacted that way. That was part of the paradox and conundrum. 

I later surmised that the person just cited was referring to a 2020 ruling by federal judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, which accepted Fox News’ defense that reasonable viewers would have skepticism over statements Carlson makes on its show – as he often engages in exaggeration and is not always stating actual facts on its show.  

As a frequent viewer, I would agree that Tucker – with a twinkle in his eye, with a smirk on his face, and/or with a forced cackle – sometimes exaggerates facts. I find his thinking to be sometimes both non-literal and critical. I personally would prefer to hear (for entertainment purposes) exaggerated “facts” on Tucker’s shows, than lies – presented as facts – on the evening news.

So, if you believe (as I do): that the worldview of those voters who listen to Tucker is radically different than the worldview of those voters who watch CNN, MSNBC, and/or the Today Show, you should be concerned about the perceived credibility of Tucker. Some people cannot process the “entertainment” aspects of Tucker’s shows; they just dismiss him.

The other reaction I often get, when I bring up Tucker, leads back to the “weary” statement that I noted previously – about how some people feel about Trump. Some people that I know get all huffy and suggest that by watching Tucker, I am only getting myself all worked up – that I should find better ways to spend my time. As to the latter suggestion, I have three thoughts. 

[1] All the stuff that the Democrats and the mainstream media have thrown at Trump have worked, in that they have exhausted a large swath of the American people. A large percentage of the American electorate have tuned out, not necessarily because of what Trump did but because of all the hullabaloo. They are tired and just want to have some peace and/or fun. Just go away!

[2] A goodly number of American service members fought and died to protect the freedoms that I enjoy. I (and others) should fight back against any such exhaustion and fight to protect the freedoms they fought for. 

[3] I should do more than just get worked up. I should act positively, via my voice, actions, books, and wallet to fight for my beliefs.

[The paragraph below is the only paragraph in Chapter 6 that I modified after Fox News fired Tucker on April 24, 2023.]

The woke, the swamp elite, and those so influenced, have a visceral (not intellectual; but instinctive, and unreasoning) hatred for Tucker, second only to their visceral hatred of Donald Trump. They are threatened by Tucker’s arguments and logic, to the extent that they ignore them. They will attempt to permanently cancel him. If they can come up with the modern-day equivalent of the Tower of London or Marshalsea prison, they will attempt to deliver him there. 

So, I will continue to watch Tucker – to recharge my batteries. I will watch the opposition from time to time to see where they are trying to take the narrative. I will try, in my small way, to fight lying, pomposity, hypocrisy, and groupthink – just like Tucker – just like Sir Francis Burdett.

+++ The End of Excerpt 4 +++

Excerpt 4 – An Update

As I reviewed the list of names in the 2021 “Time 100,” I noted that I had failed to highlight Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, Liz Chaney and Bad Bunny. The first three were certainly involved in the politics of the last two years, and Bad Bunny’s scheduled Superbowl LX halftime performance has created some recent attention and criticism. The 2021 class of the “Time 100” was certainly one of the more interesting.

 I have trouble getting a handle on Tucker’s relationship with Donald Trump. Earlier in this series you may have noted Michael Wolff’s reference to Tucker’s “anti-Trump sensibility.” Tucker often seems (to me) to be lukewarm to Trump; never fawning over him like many of his conservative contemporaries. But, then again, there was Tucker speaking at the Republican National Convention. Overall, I think that Tucker is more issue focused. When he and Trump agree, so be it. If they don’t agree on an issue, Tucker will not shy down. Trump seems to like “loyal” people – so I doubt that he and Tucker will ever become “close” close.

As predicted in the excerpt, I voted for Ron Desantis in the Nebraska primary. He had dropped out of the race so quickly that the Nebraska Secretary of State had removed his name from the primary ballot – forcing me to write him in. I gave a few bucks to his campaign and the Doug Burgum presidential campaign (because of our North Dakota connection). 

After Trump won the nomination of his party, I contributed to his campaign (twice) and voted for his election. He was, in my opinion, head-and-shoulders better than his opponent. I have admired much of what Trump has done since. He went on the offensive from the get-go, forcing the Democrats towards their communist fringe (think ACO and Mamdani). I love Trump’s CEO approach to the cabinet this time around. He seems to have selected people that are both competent and “loyal” to him. It is unfortunate that he did not do so during his first term.

As to Tucker, I am a dues-paying member of the Tucker Carlson Network (tuckercarlson.com). I enjoy reading his morning notes and watching some of his interviews. His network gives him the freedom to do wherever he wants to do. The “streaming” gig is good, but I think it has hampered his ability to reach and sway the nation (versus Fox News). 

I have detected two trends over the last couple of years. Tucker now seems to be more inclined to take on some of the legacy Republican stalwarts (e.g., Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz) over issues involving things like national security (e.g., Ukraine, Israel). Tucker also seems to be more “Christian.” In the past he would acknowledge his Episcopalian roots, but now he talks more about God. I believe that this aspect of his life is still in a state of flux. I suspect that Charlie Kirk played a part in this change. I noted today that there is a section of his TCN website devoted to “Faith.” 

Tucker also seems to stray off into the weeds sometimes, interviewing people with (for lack of better terms) weird stories and conspiracy theories. I think this goes back to his feelings about freedom of speech, but those are the interviews I tend to ignore and the interviews that tend to spook liberal democrats.

The bottom line: I will continue to follow Tucker Carlson and join his fight against lying, pomposity, hypocrisy, and groupthink. I love his morning notes – they recalibrate my brain.