That is true, but what is also true is what @LibWingofLibWing pointed out in Why Isn’t Tucker Carlson's Hate Speech a Deal-Breaker? I’m not so sure he’s the best choice of the next in line at Fox to get the axe. Jimmy Dore had a piece of him early on questioning any US role in Syria (while on Fox) and it was amazing - I have never heard such questioning from anybody else on MSM (not that I watch all that much). Maybe he’s actually doing more good than harm? If he can turn a certain percentage of Fox viewers from being reflexively pro-war to being willing to go against Trump on the decision to go to war (with Venezuela, Iran, or anybody else) and that makes the difference for opposing such a war, that would dwarf whatever stupid things he has said in the past.
Note that I disagree with David French who wrote:
And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.
I had better hopes for French after hearing him on Fresh Air for being a conservative we could perhaps deal with. He talked with emotion on how much discrimination his adopted daughter had faced. I must have read a dozen NR pieces by the guy before finally giving up - he is as stubbornly tied to stupid ideas as most of his compatriots. How the fuck does he know no one was hurt - maybe some asshole who listens to this stuff is incited to beat his wife or harass an Islamic person on the street, or maybe much worse. There is no need to defend Tucker Carlson the way he is doing it. I am not really defending him either (and LibWingofLibWing certainly isn’t which she makes clear), but it is possible to defend him without apologizing for this type of behavior - French completely fails at this.