Tucker for President?

The blogosphere is abuzz with rumors that former MSNBC talk show host Tucker Carlson may be gearing up for a last-minute run at the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, currently playing out this weekend at the party's convention (reason's Dave Weigel is there and already blogging).

From the NY Times:

"Tucker Carlson for president?" That's the headline at the personal blog for Brendan Nyhan, a former Spinsanity editor who is now a graduate student in political science at Duke. Nyhan says that Carlson, the former "Crossfire" host and former writer for The Weekly Standard, among other magazines, may seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party, according to a rumor making the rounds among delegates to the Libertarian convention, which is being held in Denver this weekend.

Someone is polling the idea, at least. Nyhan links to the blog of Michael Munger, the chairman of the political science department at Duke and the Libertarian Party candidate for governor of North Carolina. Here's Munger's description of the phone call he received:

Just got a call from a polling firm.

Checking on Lib Prez candidates. Made sure I was a delegate to the national convention.

Guy asks, "Which of the following candidates do you support for Lib Pres nomination?"
(Reads list, including Barr, Gravel, Ruart, and Root. Also includes Tucker Carlson. I figure that Carlson is just a spoiler; he has never said he's a Libertarian, and isn't running for Prez.)

I answer "Undecided," which is true.

Guy asks, "After that first choice, what is your SECOND choice?"

Stunned for a moment, I pause and say, "Still....undecided."

Guy says, "Final question: Which of those candidates would you say has true Libertarian values?"

I'm a big tent guy, so I say: "All of them....EXCEPT Tucker Carlson."

Guy rings off. I am smug, thinking I caught them on their spoiler question.

Except that, Tucker Carlson has apparently decided to think about it. And Carlson may be funding the polling of Lib Nat Conv delegates.

More here.

Check out Munger's excellent Kids Prefer Cheese blog here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mark||

    Benjamin Tucker maybe...

    in my dreams...

    My wet, beautiful dreams.

  • ||

    Tucker Carlson? The conservative shill? The eternal frat boy? WTF?

  • Elemenope||

    Say what you will about race, gender, or class, but there is nothing that a true American hates more than a fucking bowtie!

  • PLant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    Mr. Nice Guy,

    I didn't realize you were affiliated with a link farm.

    http://www.guy.org/

  • ||

    Tucker Carlson always struck me as a thoughtful, intelligent, principled small government conservative.

    Except when it comes to Mexicans. Then he gets all Lone Wacko.

  • DW||

    I'd enthusiastically support Carlson if he were the LP nominee, actually. I doubt he'll run, but it'd be fun to imagine if he would.

  • ||

    Carlson? Well, why not? At this point, I'll probably just walk into the voting booth, close my eyes, and randomly punch holes in the ballot, anyway. We could do worse than Carlson - and probably will...

  • Elemenope||

    Tucker Carlson always struck me as a thoughtful

    Yes.

    intelligent

    Yes.

    principled

    Now you're pushing it.

    small government conservative.

    I suppose. He's not nearly as consistent on this stuff as one might like. And he really hates the gays, despite dressing like a foppish oaf. In print he comes off as erudite and thoughtful (he did a great profile of R. Paul not so long ago)...but on TV he usually just sounds like an arrogant ass. Maybe he has foot-in-mouth syndrome or something, and just needs to think out what he says before he says it.

  • Ironic||

    Is ANYONE running for the LP nomination a libertarian?

  • svf||

    VP... maybe.

    President... nope.

  • ||

    Is ANYONE running for the LP nomination a libertarian?

    Steve Kubby, Christine Smith, Barry Hess.

    No, you don't hear much about them in the media. You don't hear much about any libertarians in the media.

  • Ironic||

    Then maybe the party should change its name.

  • Ironic||

    MikeP,

    If you are right I hope one of those people gets gthe nod.

  • ||

    Oh hell no.

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    I heard Glen Beck interviewing Bob Bar on his show today. Glen beck seemed to be supportive. I know he hates McCain. When McCain got the Republican nomination he played the Soviet National Anthem as his intro music.

  • ||

    MikeP,

    He said libertarian, not cosmotarian. [/turf war instigator]

  • ||

    In the California primary, Christine Smith won and Steve Kubby came in second.

    I am divided on the notability versus purity Libertarian candidate trade-off. It's a hard question.

  • ||

    He said libertarian, not cosmotarian.

    It is true that the three I listed are the three of the dozen or so who were on the ballot who passed my single issue test.

  • Mike||

    Lol, Tucker Carlson is a libertarian in much the same way that hydrogen is applesauce. It just depends on how you define the word "is", see?

  • ||

    Wøøt!!

  • PLant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "I am divided on the notability versus purity Libertarian candidate trade-off. It's a hard question."

    I am NOT. I see the role of the LP as an educational one. If we get a few people elected that is a bonus. If the person we nominate does not reflect our values I might as well vote for one of the two major parties. I mean if just "getting someone elected" is the poin.

  • ||

    i never watched him on crossfire when he had his spat with jon stewert but his msnbc show was really good and he's very libertarian/small convernment conservative on most things. the only stuff he's not are the same things ron paul is not like immigration. i think carlson's a bit misunderstood. he can be annoying sometimes but he's definately one of the least bad rightwing talk show pundits. he's never been for bush or the war in iraq. he's pro-gay marriage (more enthusiastically then ron paul who always has to add "as long as they don't try to push their way on others" when he says he's fine with it)

    he also voted for ron paul in the 80s when he was on the libertarian ticket and is a big fan of ''reason'' magazine.

    i miss his msnbc show. yes, he could be obnoxious sometimes but nowhere near as bad tucker-haters make him to be. he seems like a conservative who has a lot of liberal friends and associates so he knows how to talk to them (and doesn't talk or shoat over them as much as the fox pundits do) i don't even watch msnbc anymore. i hate chris matthews and keith olbermann (who somehow manages to become even more childish and petty then bill o'reilly...when it comes to talking about bill o'reilly why do people think olberman is smart??)

    i don't see him running for any political office anytime soon but if he ran for the libertarian nom i'd vote for him. i know where he stands more then the others cause of his show.

  • ||

    tucker does NOT hate the gays, melenope. he used to have lesbian air america chick rachell maddow on his show all the time as a guest pundit and they seemed to get along pretty well. and as i said above he's for gay marriage in a weirdly conservative way "i'm for everyone getting married etc".

  • ||

    If the person we nominate does not reflect our values I might as well vote for one of the two major parties. I mean if just "getting someone elected" is the poin.

    But if the goal is "get libertarian ideas into the public consciousness" because winning -- even for a notable candidate -- is out of the question, then perhaps a less pure notable candidate who does not get elected does more than a pure invisible candidate who does not get elected.

    I do have a pretty low tolerance for departure from candidate purity myself. The candidate's positions should be close to the platform's. But whether it is better for the movement or not in the long run is a harder question.

  • An Honest Question||

    "who passed my single issue test."

    What issue is that?

  • SIV||

    Tucker Carlson is a conservative?

    He is no more a libertarian than Mike Gravel.


    MikeP,

    Yea! single issue test.That is the way to pick 'em.

  • ||

    What issue is that?

    Immigration.

    Yea! single issue test.That is the way to pick 'em.

    It's at least the way to winnow 'em.

  • ||

    tucker carlson is WAY MORE libertarian then mike gravel.

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "But if the goal is "get libertarian ideas into the public consciousness" because winning -- even for a notable candidate -- is out of the question, then perhaps a less pure notable candidate who does not get elected does more than a pure invisible candidate who does not get elected."

    Having a more consistent candidate is better for this sort of thing. If in the "public consciousness" libertarianism is associated with denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants it becomes harder to explain what libertarianism actually is. We might also alienate a block of voters who are harassed by government thugs and might be a natural fit for a large pro-liberty coalition. That issue by the way, is why I was not a Ron Paul supporter. It is also one reason why I am not a Bob Bar supporter.

  • svf||

    there is no "public consciousness" if the candidate gets no press coverage and less than 1% of the vote, is there...?

  • BakedPenguin||

    It is also one reason why I am not a Bob Bar supporter.



    BobBar?

  • PLant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "there is no "public consciousness" if the candidate gets no press coverage and less than 1% of the vote, is there...?"

    The philosophy of liberty is becoming wider known and the mainstream press can be bypassed in ways not imagined 20 or even 15 years ago. This is especially true among younger generations who will be around long after the current generation of Washington elected officials are dead. It is important to remain as philosophically pure as possible so that they know that we are different. All politicians talk about "freedom" and even the current crop of Republicans talk about "small government" but we are the ones who consistently support liberty. If we compromise our principles for the sake of poll numbers we become just like them.

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    BakedPenguin, that is a great picture of him. Thanks.

  • ||

    I'd love it if Tucker ran. Of the "name" candidates, he's easily the most libertarian, and probably holds the most upside as a candidate as well. I won't be disappointed at all if they go the purist route and pick Ruwart, but if they select Barr over Tucker I'd be disillusioned. Anybody who has watched TC over a period of years would know he's always been a closet libertarian. And unlike Barr he's both pleasant and able to relate to gays and cosmotarians.

  • DW||

    If you're not supporting Ron Paul or other otherwise exceptional candidates because they actually believe in concepts such as borders, and recognize unlimited immigration and illegal immigration may have negative effects, you're hurting the libertarian cause, not helping it.

  • svf||

    Barr/Tucker intrigues...

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    " and recognize unlimited immigration and illegal immigration may have negative effects, you're hurting the libertarian cause, not helping it."

    The negative effects of unlimited immigration are not caused by the immigrants themselves but other laws that that drive them underground, force hospitals to treat people who can't pay, force taxpayers to fund government schools, and otherwise isolate them from mainstream society.

  • ||

    right on, fatdrunkandstupid!!!

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    It pisses me off when people use innocent people who just want a chance to earn a decent living are scapegoated for problems caused by government laws.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    It pisses me off when people use innocent people who just want a chance to earn a decent living as scapegoates for problems caused by government laws.

    fixed syntax problem

  • nebby||

    "laws that that drive them underground, force hospitals to treat people who can't pay, force taxpayers to fund government schools"

    Hey, it sounds like our only difference is one of batting order. As soon as the other problems you list are fixed I will support mass immigration. Why you would pick immigration as the top of that batting order is beyond me. Cheap strawberries?

  • Colin||

    I'd vote for Tucker.

    Let's face it -- no one running for the LP nomination is all that great. But whoever wins the LP nomination will be much better than anyone else.

  • Stephen the Goldberger||

    no

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    "Hey, it sounds like our only difference is one of batting order. As soon as the other problems you list are fixed I will support mass immigration. Why you would pick immigration as the top of that batting order is beyond me. Cheap strawberries?"

    Not cheap strawberries but because I have deep empathy for human suffering and the immigration laws as they exist today are causing human suffering.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    nebby, but I would be willing to work with you to end any of those other things as well even with the immigration status quo.

  • nebby||

    All of those problems cause human suffering. Actually, immigration controls don't cause human suffering as such, they just fail to take on the world's suffering as a local problem. I would like to solve all the suffering in the world, but it makes sense to solve local problems first.

    I would like to see the whole world fed, but I make sure my family is fed before I start donating to Oxfam.

  • nebby||

    PIRS,

    Likewise on working on what we agree on together.

    I really don't have a bug up my ass about immigration, but then again Mexican lawyers aren't coming here by the millions and destroying the wage structure for lawyers. If I worked in construction, I would have very strong feelings on uncontrolled mass immigration.

  • Jorgen||

    "Hey, it sounds like our only difference is one of batting order. As soon as the other problems you list are fixed I will support mass immigration. Why you would pick immigration as the top of that batting order is beyond me. Cheap strawberries?"

    Maybe because the intrusions on our freedom that we deal with as American citizens pales in comparison to the denial of movement to people for whom the ability to come to this country is more instrumental than almost anything else in achieving their dreams? Not that I would need to, but I would take a pretty huge tax hike in return for an open border. My only other big issue is the war on drugs.

  • ||

    Mexican lawyers aren't coming here by the millions and destroying the wage structure for lawyers. If I worked in construction, I would have very strong feelings on uncontrolled mass immigration.

    Would you have found the same argument persuasive during the time of slavery (i.e. that freeing the slaves would cause an influx of cheap labor which would "destroy the wage structure" of northern construction workers)?

  • GILMORE||

    I'd rather vote for a dead raccoon than that prick

  • nebby||

    I don't see the analogy there Brian. The slaves were people we had forced to come here and were being exploited by wealthy people looking to maximize profit.

    Wait a minute, I do see an analogy, but not the one you were thinking of probably. I see more similarities between stopping uncontrolled immigration and stopping slavery. To make matters fuzzier, the descendants of slaves are the group absorbing a disproportionate share of the negative externalities of illegal immigration.

    Either way, I was just making the point it is easy to be magnanimous when it costs you nothing.

  • Duckman||

    Tucker is the most libertarian guy who has been on TV. He has said he opposes the drug war, he gave lots of face time to Ron Paul's libertarian economics & war talk. I, too, would support Tucker if he ran. I'd much rather vote for Tucker than Bob Barr.

  • ||

    oh good, I see that my "insight" that it's impossible to get libertarians to compromise and/or come together on anything is coming true. Maybe we'll have a gay marriage debate (again) and we can all just scream at each other about who is more "pure" while the rest of the nation goes in the toilet.

  • ||

    I don't see the analogy there Brian. The slaves were people we had forced to come here and were being exploited by wealthy people looking to maximize profit.

    That isn't really relevant to the point. Let me try again. A slave (how he got here is not material - say he was born into slavery in Virgina)(and who is not a citizen by the way) wishes to go to Pennsylvania and live like any other human being. He cannot do so because the government reuses to allow it. The government refuses to allow it for no other reason than he happened to be born black. Someone proposes removing this law which prevents him from being allowed to go to Pennsylvania and live, work, associate with others, etc. because it is arbitrarily denying him those fundamental human rights based on nothing but the color of his skin. Someone in Pennsylvania comes along and says that allowing all those freed slaves to come here will "destroy the wage structure" of our construction workers and "it's easy to be magnanimous when it costs you nothing."

    Now, An immigrant wishes to go to California and live like any other human being. He cannot do so because the government reuses to allow it. The government refuses to allow it for no other reason than he happened to be born Mexican. Someone proposes removing this law which prevents him from being allowed to go to California and live, work, associate with others, etc. because it is arbitrarily denying him those fundamental human rights based on nothing but the place of his birth. Someone in California comes along and says that allowing all those immigrants to come here will "destroy the wage structure" of our construction workers and "it's easy to be magnanimous when it costs you nothing."

    Why is the second person justified in making that claim when the first is not? Or do you believe protecting northern (and southern for that matter) wages was a legitimate counter argument to those calling for the abolition of slavery?

  • MrBibichon||

    He might get my vote: but only if Len Goodman endorses him. Otherwise, I'm going for Jerry Springer. Or maybe Wayne Newton.

  • Raoul||

    I have deep empathy for human suffering and the immigration laws as they exist today are causing human suffering.

    Plant Immigration Rights Supporter, are you sure you're in the right political party then?

    Brian, well put.

  • ||

    Tucker should run. I agree with joe that he seems like a principled small governmentt guy. He was the best thing MSNBC had going by a lot (other than Lockup, obviously) and I cried a single tear when his show was cancelled.

    He's already done Dancing with the Stars; isn't a presidential race the next logical step?

  • Kristof||

    anyone have any criticisms of TC that don't start and end with "he seems like kind of a weasel"?

  • ||

    Brian Courts,

    State borders aren't national borders, and not letting people into the country isn't even in the same category as enslaving them. I'm sure Southern slaves would have been happy to live outside the US if it meant freedom.

  • ||

    Maybe because the intrusions on our freedom that we deal with as American citizens pales in comparison to the denial of movement to people for whom the ability to come to this country is more instrumental than almost anything else in achieving their dreams?

    Maybe they should work on fixing the problems in their home country, while we work on our country's problems. America is not responsible for the well being of every human being on Earth.

    Not that I would need to, but I would take a pretty huge tax hike in return for an open border.

    Thanks for volunteering! The question is, would you force everyone else to take a huge tax hike?

  • Fritz||

    I don't understand. If the purpose of the LP isn't to get people elected, why have a party at all? Why not just reform as a lobbying group or a PAC or something similar, if you want to exert some real influence on government?

    As for Tucker Carlson: at least he's not Glenn Beck.

  • ||

    Another concern about uncontrolled immigration is that our system of govt will not work with just any random population -- as we're finding out the hard way in Iraq. If the rate of immigration from corrupt and illiberal populations is faster than the rate of assimilation into our type of society, we could have election processes resembling sub-Saharan Africa.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    That's very strange, Nick, I got a call yesterday from 1-111-111-1111 and the guy called me by name. I asked him WTF was up with the number. He countered with wanting me to take a quick THREE QUESTION SURVEY (cue Twilight Zone intro).

    I told him that if he didn't have time to put the correct phone number in that I didn't have time to answer three questions and hung up.

  • ||

    i think the crossfire/jon stewart thing kinda ruined him in many peoples eyes forever. as i said earlier, i never really watched him before his msnbc show but i saw him on bill maher a few years ago and he impressed me enough to check out his show and i watched it almost the whole time it was on. i actually think he's less popular then someone like hannity or bill o'reilly. as many who hate o'reilly there are those who love the guy. carlson doesn't have a fanbase to my knowledge.

  • ||

    I should add that I think the number of Mexicans we allow to immigrate legally is ridiculously low, and this quota should be increased. I suspect one reason it's so low is because of the expectation of a lot of illegal immigration, but if we improve border security and get II under control, we should be able to up the quota from Mexico.

  • ||

    He countered with wanting me to take a quick THREE QUESTION SURVEY (cue Twilight Zone intro).

    Did he say, "Answer me these questions three"?

  • Kolohe||

    Another concern about uncontrolled immigration is that our system of govt will not work with just any random population -- as we're finding out the hard way in Iraq. If the rate of immigration from corrupt and illiberal populations is faster than the rate of assimilation into our type of society, we could have election processes resembling sub-Saharan Africa.

    This is Lonewacko's (and Steve Sailer's, and on his bad days, John Derbyshire's) central thesis.

    I disagree.

  • ||

    Lonewacko has a thesis? All I've ever seen are incoherent ramblings. Is there more to Lonewacko than meets the eye?

  • Elemenope||

    ...we can all just scream at each other about who is more "pure" while the rest of the nation goes in the toilet.

    I am not pure.

  • ||

    Doesn't Lew Rockwell's blog deserve a hat tip for this? They broke the story at 12:06 today.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021055.html

    I get sick of reading about how any state that gives Ron Paul more than 7% is "heroic", too, but a scoop's a scoop.

  • duh||

    Tucker Carlson is a duplicitive shitbird.

    He's a bigger phony than Wayne fucking Root even.

  • ||

    I'm not even sure that's possible.

  • ||

    State borders aren't national borders, and not letting people into the country isn't even in the same category as enslaving them.

    Neither of those things distinguishes race from place of birth in terms of denying another human being the fundamental rights that you take for granted.

    Further, the state border thing is irrelevant to the point on several grounds. One, you could have left the slave in Virgina in my story if you want. The relevant issue was government policy denying a human being fundamental rights. Notice moreover that the slave was not a citizen either, so you don't even get that distinction. It was for all intents and purposes like a slave had been born in a different "virtual country" and could not "enter" the real United States simply by virtue of being born in a non-citizen legal status.

    It's also not relevant to bring up state boundaries because the only reason they're different is because the law says so. Assume there was no legal prohibition of this - would you think it is a good thing, or promotes greater freedom (the same in my book) for states to prevent people born in other states from moving in? Should Connecticut ban poor Mississippians from coming north? If not, what principled difference (and by that I mean, non-statist) can you advance?

    Finally, as for slavery not being in the same category as being born somewhere else, that's true but doesn't change the overall point. The point was that if something is morally wrong then economic arguments are not going to carry much weight. I think it is morally wrong for the government to deny any person the right to live, work and associate with others wherever one can find someone to rent from, work for, and hangout with.

    But anyway, if slavery is too strong, the same argument can be made with Jim Crow laws. Would someone have been justified in arguing against the ending of Jim Crow because it was going to cost whites jobs in certain industries?

    Again, the issue I'm getting at is this: Is using concern for somebody's inability to charge as high a price as they are used to for their service (i.e. their wage structure) a valid counter-argument to ending a government policy that is denying humans fundamental freedom based only on arbitrary characteristics?

    Apologies for the stream-of-consciousness and un-editedness of this but I'm juggling too many things at the moment, including getting ready to head out for $1.50 pints of good beer, to do justice to a complex topic. I mean, I didn't even get to get started on the protectionist angle... Anyway I'll have to leave it at that for now though I'm sure the next chance to debate immigration won't be too far away... :)

  • ||

    Further, the state border thing is irrelevant to the point on several grounds.

    No, it's quite a huge difference. There is a sovereign govt that controls both sides of a state border. There is no sovereign govt that controls both sides of a national border.

    It was for all intents and purposes like a slave had been born in a different "virtual country" and could not "enter" the real United States simply by virtue of being born in a non-citizen legal status.

    Geography and skin color are not as interchangeable as you say. The jurisdiction of the US is not, and never has been, defined by skin color, but rather by geography. If we were to take your argument to its logical extent, that would mean the US and state govts have just as much duty to protect the life, liberty, and property of a Buddhist monk in Myanmar as it does to protect the life of a black US citizen in Detroit.

    I think some neocons would buy that, but I don't think that's where you want to go.

  • greenish||

    I love him for this:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

  • Mr Anonymous||

    And he really hates the gays, despite dressing like a foppish oaf.

    If he ran, he would be the only candidate of any party that wants gay marriage (and drugs) legalized on the federal level.

    I think you're referring to his story about the time he was seventeen, a stranger grabbed his cock in the bathroom and he had a friend come in and beat the guy up. That might be a cowardly response, but not necessarily an inappropriate one.

    I'd be happy to cast an anonymous ballot for this annoying--but more libertarian than everyone else--elitist brat.

  • ||

    Wow. The posters above are certainly betraying their ignorance.

    Tucker is the only honest person on MSNBC and gave Ron Paul his best coverage. When troglodytes like male dancer/sexual assault expert Chris Matthews or potatoe head Tim Russert have him on a panel they frequently state they "can't figure him out," which is the best endorsement of all.

    I am so bored with ignorant American chattering monkeys that discuss bowties, hairdoes, pant suits, skin complexion etc. when discussing who they would like to have be their American Idol in charge of the imperial State that steals my life's work, threatens the world, and puts people in jail for resistance. I can watch moronic discussion like that by tuning in whores and puppets like David Gregory or Mika Brezinski. Why would I want to see it on reason.com you silly pinheads?

  • VM||

    hier, Bruce, is a site without any silly pinheads. "Thanks" for your opinion, tho'.

  • Taktix&#174||

    Babar?

    No no no. We've already figured out that Bob Barr is just Royal Tenenbaum in disguise...

    P.S. Barr looks kinda stoned in that picture, huh?

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "oh good, I see that my "insight" that it's impossible to get libertarians to compromise and/or come together on anything is coming true. Maybe we'll have a gay marriage debate (again) and we can all just scream at each other about who is more "pure" while the rest of the nation goes in the toilet."

    Working together does not necessarily mean voting for the same candidate. [Insert preferred term for the descendents of slaves forcibly brought to the United States from Africa] vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. This has not improved their lot. If anything, it has allowed both major parties to take them for granted while they try to court demographic groups with far fewer members. When I advocate Auburn libertarians and Washington libertarians working together I mean that we should 1. Be respectful to one another 2. Be willing to form issue related coalitions when both sides agree that advocating a certain position will enhance the future of liberty and 3. Work on education projects together. Is this too much to ask? I have donated to both CATO and the LVMI and I subscribe to the print version of Reason. I think all three organizations have their place in advocating a free society.

  • ed||

    chattering monkeys that discuss bowties, hairdoes, pant suits

    Wow, that's blunt and cruel if not mostly accurate. Carlson hasn't sported the bowtie in a long, long time. But what the hell...Carlson, George Will...they all look alike, right?

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "Plant Immigration Rights Supporter, are you sure you're in the right political party then?"

    Are you saying a libertarian cannot have empathy? This is one of the worst slurs leveled against libertarians as a group. There is a difference between having empathy and supporting government handouts. I am not advocating socialism but liberty.

  • Taktix&#174||

    Are you saying a libertarian cannot have empathy? This is one of the worst slurs leveled against libertarians as a group. There is a difference between having empathy and supporting government handouts. I am not advocating socialism but liberty.

    I would expand on that by saying that, as there's nothing wrong with compassion or empathy, a person of reason and logic, as we libertarians claim to be, would try their best to prevent emotion from affecting any decision making.

    It's one thing to feel bad for a homeless guy and give him a buck. It's another to feel bad, but ignore emotion, and give that dollar to a food bank or a homeless shelter.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    "It's one thing to feel bad for a homeless guy and give him a buck. It's another to feel bad, but ignore emotion, and give that dollar to a food bank or a homeless shelter."

    Agreed. And it is something else entirely to rob your neighbor and donate the stolen property to an inefficient homeless shelter.

  • ||

    Oh, this is delicious. Tell me, has there been a better time in the past 30 years to be a Democrat?! Thanks, 'wingers. God bless your pointed little heads. Ha ha ha ha!

  • KT||

    What the hell are you all talking about? Tucker Carlson is an idiot, forget about his politics. Intelligent and thoughtful... sheesh.

  • Colin||

    I just read at abcnews.com that Tucker is not running. He's in Maine with his family.

  • charles||

    what is tucker been drinking lately,whats he been smelling his dirty socks,and now thinks he can run for president,what a joke this is lol.i was laughing so hard when i read this story about this lowlife possibly running as a liberal.i thought tucker hates liberals,and now he is thinking about joining the liberty union ticket.tucker is just as worst as cheney,he is nothing but a stupid man in denial all the time about what lowlife pieces of trash republican scumbags are.it would be nothing but a joke if this lowlife tucker is thinking he can run for president as a liberteranian

  • ABC||

    "Is ANYONE running for the LP nomination a libertarian?"

    RUWART

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement