RSS Feed Menu
Many years ago, Tucker Carlson “accidentally” poured a Bloody Mary onto Grover Norquist’s head from above him on a raised platform. This Monday, in what might have been the settling of a legendary long-time feud, Carlson and Norquist sat together on the same platform as co-hosts of the RNC candidates debate.
Indeed, the RNC candidates debate sponsored yesterday by Americans for Tax Reform and the Daily Caller Monday may have represented far more than just the coming together of potential RNC chairs – it may have signaled the ending of long-term enmity between two conservative D.C. heavyweights known almost universally by their first names: a tribute to their outsized celebrity and chummy personalities.
“I like Grover. I was happy to do the debate with him,” Tucker Carlson told FrumForum on Monday. When asked if they had put former ill will behind them, he said, “Of course! I wouldn’t have been sitting next to him if I hadn’t done that. I guess it is kind of self-evident, right?”
The now settled feud between Grover Norquist and Tucker Carlson was one of Washington’s most spectacular and prolonged.
In 1997, Carlson penned a New Republic story that started it all. Slate described it then as an article which “portrays Norquist as a buffoonish commissar who has misplaced his principles to the extent of accepting money to lobby on behalf of the Marxist government of the Seychelles.”
In retaliation, Norquist said that Carlson had “damaged his journalistic integrity” and pointed out that Carlson’s father had previously been lobbied by Norquist as the Seychelles ambassador, something that Carlson had failed to note in his article.
Further, Norquist then allegedly tried to convince Rupert Murdoch to stop supporting the Weekly Standard, for which Carlson was a Staff Writer. According to an American Politics Journal article, Norquist may have even gone so far as to get Newt Gingrich involved:
In one version of this story, conservative David Brock claims he heard from Carlson that Newt Gingrich got directly involved and Carlson’s job was on the line. Norquist denied putting on the pressure but told others he did call Eric Breindel, a top Murdoch aide, to complain about alleged inaccuracies in Carlson’s piece.
Carlson retaliated. In a later Slate article, Carlson called Norquist a “mean-spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep,” and said that Norquist was “an embarrassing anomaly [in the conservative movement], the leering, drunken uncle everyone else wishes would stay home.”
This culminated in the legendary drink-in-face evening, on which Tucker “accidentally” poured a Bloody Mary onto Grover’s head. “The celery stuck behind Grover’s ear, making him look like a conservative Carmen Miranda,” said one valiant source, according to the New York Post. Audrey Mullen, a colleague of Norquist’s, retaliated by tracking Carlson down and throwing a full glass of wine in his face.
This feud had legs and longevity. As recently as 2008, Tucker told The Hill that Norquist was “just a finger-sniffer. I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds sort of repulsive.”
Nowadays, however, Carlson is singing a different tune. “I’m not mad at Grover about anything and I can’t imagine he’s mad at me about anything. They were doing the debate, and we just wound up co-sponsoring it, and I’m glad we did,” said Carlson.
The Daily Caller announced their co-sponsorship of the debate on December 13th, which was originally announced by Americans for Tax Reform in November. Neither Grover Norquist nor his spokesperson at Americans for Tax Reform responded to a request for comment.
Add Tim on twitter: www.twitter.com/timkmak
Is this a ‘No on Prop 8′ story?
The more asses and elbows the better!
This is precious, two of the biggest tools in the Conservative movement have a spat then kiss and make up.
So anyone should be interested?
Jon Stewart was so right: Tucker Carlson is, was and ever shall be a dick.
Kid stuff.
And those are the clowns he RNC chose to co-host a debate regarding the head of their organization? The GOP isn’t getting past puberty any time soon.
Oh, thank God! If you only knew how many sleepless nights I’ve spent worrying about these two tools and their middle-school-esque feud…
After watching the debate I have to say this is a pretty lame story to write about. To me the real important story was that all of them basically said “the inmates are going to keep running the asylum.” If the tea partiers and grassroots activists want to keep nominating Carl Paladino, Sharron Angle, and Christine O’Donnell that is a ok according the 5 bozos on stage.
Not only were the 5 candidates going to do nothing to stop it, but they all seemed to think it was great.
Would have been nice if one person had the guts to say “as good as things were in November, let’s be honest. We nominated some weak candidates that cost us winnable races and as RNC chair I am going to do what I can to stop that from happening.” Yes the would have been scorned for saying it, someone would have called them an elitist who’s out of touch with real America, and they would have lost the race. At least they wouldn’t be going along with the charade that somehow the homemade sign crowd is the ticket to electoral success.
@ditka
You make very a very good point highlighting what actually happened during the “debate”. I didn’t follow it because I somewhat expected the disaster you describe.
It seems more and more obvious that the RNC has become an empty shell who’s primary function is to keep the media busy with nonsense while the real decisions and big money go through other channels.
The question is: Who won?? Or is the question, rhetorically, the same as the question ‘who won the war in Iraq?’ (or Viet Nam, or Afghanistan, or…or…or)
It couldn’t have happened to two more deserving fools.
MurrayAbraham,
I guess I am one of those people who just can’t turn away. I have to watch the full car accident. In case anyone is wondering here were the worst moments:
1. Lame question about how many guns do you own.
2. Saul Anuzis obviously pandering to Ron Paul supporters by saying Ludwig Von Mises was his political hero (outside of Ronald Reagan)
3. Reince Preibus taking every opportunity to tell the audience he was from Wisconsin and that we were basically on the eve of destruction.
4. Michael Steele saying Crime and Punishment was his favorite book and then quoting the beginning of A Tale of Two Cities.
In short, Murray you made the right decision.
I was losing a lot of sleep over the years fretting about this. Now I can rest soundly
I hope they keep “fighting.”
Tucker can’t dance and Norquist IS a buffoon.
Both are idiots.
So why should anyone care. Stupid story.
…a conservative Carmen Miranda
Was the real Carmen Miranda not a conservative?
baw1064
Her Sombrera de le Fruita certainly wasn’t.
A must see for anyone who missed the debate:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-4-2011/top-of-the-gops
I think they should have settled the score in a UFC fight.
The winner could have been crowned the conservative “uber dork”.
As much as I love gossip this story makes me wonder about two things:
1) It seems like an old story, since one of the people quoted, Eric Briendel, has been dead since 1988.
2) I am much more interested in why Rush Limbaugh always refers to the Daily Caller as “that website by Charles Oswald Worthington III.” That feud is actually on a radio program with millions of listeners so it seems more interesting.