Pompous twits

But this seems to be a bit of sore spot for Tucker. In a 1997 column, Howard Kurtz wrote about a dust-up over an article Tucker Carlson had written in The New Republic, in which he slammed Grover Norquist as a "cash-addled, morally malleable lobbyist" for his dealings in the Seychelles islands -- but failed to mention that his father, as U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles, had butted heads with Norquist over those dealings.

At the time, Tucker Carlson told Kurtz that there had been no need for him to run a "disclaimer" because "I didn't talk to my dad about the piece."”

At no point did he ask for me to ignore the quotes. And to give him his due, when the book was published, he did not deny saying anything I had reported him as saying to me about his fellow ministers. Given that I had (have) them all on tape, and he knew that, he could hardly have done so.

That wasn't the end of the story, however. In the book, I revealed his view of Lord Stevens. As I put it:

Blunkett considered Stevens to be a weak commissioner, lacking in judgment. He could talk a good game but was rarely able to deliver

Clearly, Stevens had failed to do what he had promised. Blunkett called the commissioner, pointing out that both their jobs were on the line . . . Blunkett was not impressed with Stevens’s response: more bluster, as he told his colleagues, and more empty promises.

That man [Stevens] needs to start feeling the pressure he is under.

It was male, macho, silly laddism. Boy’s Own comic stuff. They couldn’t help themselves.

[A]long came a two-page letter from Blunkett himself . . . apologising for all the rude remarks about me, and alleging that he had never made them. Indeed, he claimed that he had hardly spoken to Stephen Pollard, and believed, on the contrary, that I had been a splendid commissioner.

Despite his famed memory, it seems that Mr Blunkett's deserts him sometimes. Curiously, however, this only appears to happen at convenient times. When the news broke of the speeded-up visa for his own son’s nanny, he claimed to have no recollection of having raised the matter with his private office. And he lost any memory of having spoken to me for my biography.

I realise that this isn't quite about the idea of what is and isn't 'on the record'. But it is about what should and should not be reported. And in that context, Ms Peev deserves congratulations on an interview well done. And Tucker Carlson deserves to be treated as a pompous twit.