Now Playing at Reason.tv: Tucker Carlson on Campaign 2008, Libertarians, and the Future of the Freedom Movement

Journalist and MSNBC commentator Tucker Carlson emceed Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic (and reportedly walked out in disgust after former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura's bizarre questioning of Osama Bin Laden's role in the 9/11 attacks). reason.tv caught up with Carlson at the rally and talked to him about Campaign 2008, libertarians, and where the freedom movement goes from here. (Approximately nine minutes.)

Comments

[JMR]

Well, this interview pretty well explains why MSNBC fired him. Even though he's against big spending Republicans, he's not lefty enough to be ideologically pure enough for that or any other MSM network.
JMR

[Elemenope]

I've always kinda liked Carlson. If he weren't a perennial dick, he'd be a good voice for Libertarianism generally.

[P Brooks]

reportedly walked out in disgust

I've never perceived Carlson as especially libertarian, but this makes me think somewhat more highly of him.

[Mistress She-ra]

That Tucker would look so pretty on his knees, begging for treats. I miss his little bow ties.

[emerson]

"I'm a Nick Gillespie fan."

haha.

Seriously, this interview is why I love Tucker, despite the fact that my generation's mouthpiece called him a dick once.

[Goodlife]

I agree with all of Tucker's sentiments except the idea that we should vote for one of the two major parties simply because Libertarianism will never gain popularity. I absolutely believe if all Americans (who vote and are well informed) voted their convictions and didn't subscribe to the popular misconception that voting Libertarian is essentially "throwing your vote away," the majority of Americans would choose Libertarian candidates. If nothing else, the substantial results would send a message to the two major parties that we are tired of government intervening in our lives in ways that our forefathers would never have imagined. And that alone might well be enough to shift the rising tide.

[Elemenope]

goodlife --

Although there is something to the point that we as a nation became far less libertarian (in a practical sense) as people found it more difficult to avoid/ignore all the people doing things around them differently than they would.

I think he is right insofar as humans are not inherently restrained when it comes to wanting to place the world in a personally pleasing order. You have to come to the conclusion only either after long thought or by being continuously and repeatedly burned by those who have had power over you through the government.

[anon]

Is it just me? Everytime I play a Youtube hosted video on this site, I can not get the sound to work, if I go to the Youtube site and play it, then sound works fine.

[Brian24]

he's not lefty enough

Uh, yeah...he's a conservative.

I agree with all of Tucker's sentiments except the idea that we should vote for one of the two major parties simply because Libertarianism will never gain popularity.

That wasn't his argument at all. He specifically said he disagreed with "voting for the lesser of two evils" and would never do it himself. However, he said he could understand how someone might decide differently, given that either the Republican or the Democrat will definitely win, and he conceded that this was probably a more "adult" argument.

I've always sort of disliked Tucker, and I now understand why. As one who came to libertarianism by way of liberalism, I've always hated dinguses like Tucker who managed to call themselves "libertarian" while defending every drug war / police state excess of past Republican administrations. Some of us didn't have to spend years as Republicans before realizing that the elephants don't give two hoots for liberty.

And no, it really isn't always a question of left vs. right.

[Politeia]

"...and reportedly walked out in disgust after former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura's bizarre questioning of Osama Bin Laden's role in the 9/11 attacks"

What's bizarre about questioning the obviously phony story we've been told? So far as I can tell, if "Osama bin Laden" ever existed, there's certainly no way to tell if he still does, or who's in the occasional videos which always seem to so exactly support the neocon agenda.

No, I start with "cui bono" -- and it's obvious who's benefited most from the events of September 11. Clue: it's not the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East who've died since then.

Brian24, I too came to libertarianism from the "left", and it's clear to me the whole "left vs. right" dichotomy is a charade, designed to distract from the real issues. The only differences between them are like the differences among the dominant members of a pack of hyenas after they've cooperatively brought down their prey.

So no, I'm not a "disaffected Republican". I'm a libertarian based on the Non-Aggression Principle, whose only visible exponent these days is Ron Paul (the LP has been completely co-opted by "conservatives"). I've been a Ron Paul supporter since I first heard about him in 1981, voted for him in 1988, and haven't voted since. (Though I liked the late Harry Browne, the exercise in futility just didn't seem worth the trouble.)

In 1988, one of my liberal friends remarked that I was the only person he knew who was "voting for something." That's "adult" enough for me. Maybe I will again, if there's ever anything else to vote for. If not, since my vote is my responsibility, I won't give it to liars and thieves.

[Nick]

Tucker is a work in progress....just like most of us. He is far more humble than 3 years ago...and seems pretty intellectually genuine at this point in his life. I think he'll continue to grow intellectually as we all do.

Tucker's probably not "the dick" anymore as labeled by Stewart...somewhat rightfully at the time. I've been a dick before, and I've no doubt I'll be a dick again sometime down the road...but I hope to be a better human despite my inclinations towards "dickiness". (Is that a word?)

[Andy White]

It's bizarre to question why the FBI publicly states they have no evidence linking Bin Laden with 9/11? Why should we assume someone's guilt when no evidence exists to prove their guilt? Michael Jackson was the Zodiac killer, but I don't have any evidence so just trust me.

[Jim Carrey]

You know what else?

911 is 9 + 11 = 20 add three for the three digits in 911 and what do you get? 23!!

[Joe S.]

Tucker may not know as much about the Fed as he should, but he certainly comes across as philosophically deeper than Chris Matthews or Joe Scarborough.

[mathzilla]

23 = Michael Jordan.

It all makes sense now.

[JMR]

Even if you think Jesse's Truther stuff is nutty, and I do, he makes the point that Osama's not on the Fibbies' "Most Wanted" list. Since I suspect Osama's responsible and it was planes not missiles, etc. I think it's ok for Jesse & me to wonder "why?" even if we disagree otherwise.

[chris]

(T) Reason has gone down the drain.

I love everything liberty, freedom, and justice.

Reason is pathetic in MOST of its articles.

[libertymike]

JMR-

The nutties are those that buy the conspiracy theory conceived by the government and swallowed by many on these here blogs.

[JLM]

I wouldn't be surprised if Tucker's show was canceled by MSNBC precisely because he was starting to be more sympathetic to libertarian ideas. He spoke favorably of Ron Paul and had Nick Gillespie on a time or two, as I recall from what little I watched the show. His job at MSNBC was to be the token conservative, much as Colmes is the token liberal at Fox news. They don't want their pundits highlighting ideas that don't fit nicely into the whole left-right shit slinging contest. Somebody might wake up and start thinking for themself.

[EgertonYDavis]

A shockingly intelligent and seemingly honest interview. +1

[anon.]

Don't know who the interviewer is, but he needs to learn how to use a microphone.

[t. j.]

tucker's msnbc show was a great libertarian news program. it might have been cancelled cause tucker's politics aren't cookie cutter enough for them but i think it's just cause his personality and humor is an aquired taste not for everybody.

[d]

> "dickiness". (Is that a word?)

Isn't it 'dickery'?

[d]

> Don't know who the interviewer is, but he needs to learn how to use a microphone.

Amen! It's Weigel. And he needs to learn a lot of things...like how not to write an article that lets the casual reader of Reason confirm his or her unreasoned opinion that Ron Paul is a nutcase (see recent article on the Paul gathering).

[Famous Mortimer]

"I absolutely believe if all Americans (who vote and are well informed) voted their convictions and didn't subscribe to the popular misconception that voting Libertarian is essentially "throwing your vote away," the majority of Americans would choose Libertarian candidates."

Wow! You really do have extreme faith in the American animal. I think you're nuts, but at least you're positive.

[Brian from Florida]

This interview is why I love Tucker so much. He has adult things to say while admiting what might be odd (eg: I often don't vote). But was he being sarcastic when about the hunting comment?

Also, I love that he "gets" Ron Paul and his supporters. And he understands their philosophy on such a funtamentally level. He's really very deep in that way. I also like how he makes logical arguements against Ron Paul and Libertarians. He can see both sides of whatever issue and then make his own choice. He also knows the fundamental problem with Paul's rEVOLution which is the dichotomy of having such disparate groups and being unable to have the character necessary to truely lead them in any one direction. If there is any one thing that will stop Paul it's the leadership characteristic. Tucker is right in saying it's his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.

[Dolce & Gabbana]

The impenetrable complexity of most anti-fed, pro-gold standard diatribe can be attributed more to convolution than sophistication. Tucker has confused the two, I think.

On truthers, they are only slightly less threatening than racists and neo-confederates in their potential to do harm to the libertarian movement, and should be treated with similar contempt. The same goes for moon-landing hoaxers, Icke-bots, and "NWO" prognosticators. The malaise of self-delusion and paranoia that infects these people precludes them from ever contributing anything productive to society.

[joshua corning]

Don't know who the interviewer is, but he needs to learn how to use a microphone.

OMG i know i have become a huge Reason Nerd now that i can identify Weigel from the back of his head.

[B]

"...and reportedly walked out in disgust after former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura's bizarre questioning of Osama Bin Laden's role in the 9/11 attacks."

Well at least one person there had some fucking sense.

[taz]

Huh, Carlson just went up a few notches (judging him from this interview, anyway).

I'm scared that he might be right about libertarianism never gaining real traction. Libertarians seem to be the most successful when they are joined by voters reacting to government excesses, but no one ever seems to put down roots once they arrive. Control over other people and laziness are huge temptations, and most people will give in at some point.

[B]

"...despite the fact that my generation's mouthpiece..."

You gotta be fucking joking right? Our generation's mouthpiece? He's a hack comedian who preaches to a choir that applauds whenever he spouts liberal platitudes.

[B]

"What's bizarre about questioning the obviously phony story we've been told? So far as I can tell, if "Osama bin Laden" ever existed, there's certainly no way to tell if he still does, or who's in the occasional videos which always seem to so exactly support the neocon agenda.

No, I start with "cui bono" -- and it's obvious who's benefited most from the events of September 11. Clue: it's not the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East who've died since then."

Yet more evidence that the Libertarian Party attracts nut jobs who don't know their asses from holes in the ground"
And the whole, muslims didn't benefit argument is just plain retarded. I guess the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. How do I know? Because hundreds of thousands of them died afterwards.

[B]

"Even if you think Jesse's Truther stuff is nutty, and I do, he makes the point that Osama's not on the Fibbies' "Most Wanted" list. Since I suspect Osama's responsible and it was planes not missiles, etc. I think it's ok for Jesse & me to wonder "why?" even if we disagree otherwise"

Not on the "Ten Most Wanted List"? How fucking stupid are some of you people? All one has to do is go to their website and look up the ten most wanted to realize Ventura is a fucking moron, and so are the rest of the assholes who believe his bullshit.
Go to this site:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm

Wow, that was fucking hard.

[taz]

Troll party.

[B]

"OMG i know i have become a huge Reason Nerd now that i can identify Weigel from the back of his head."

So, you see the back of his head often, eh?

[Beatnik]

Ventura never claimed that he isn't on the list. He claimed a) that Osama wasn't charged, an b) if you go to your link you won't see 9/11 mentioned.

>Go to this site:
>http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm

Courtesy a clickthrough and a ctrl-c ctrl-v...

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

This doesn't say "september 11 2001 attack" anywhere, nor was the WTC a federal facility.

Ventura's claims that he hasn't been charged remain unverified. His claim that Osama's writeup doesn't include 9/11 is true, based on the link you provided.

I'm not a truther. What I am is a guy who has figured on in the last two years that when everyone starts screaming about someone being a nutcase, I should see what said nutcase is saying and respond to it intellectually. Otherwise we might end up starting wars that we can't win...

[B]

"Ventura never claimed that he isn't on the list. He claimed a) that Osama wasn't charged, an b) if you go to your link you won't see 9/11 mentioned."

Wasn't charged? He is a state-sponsored terrorist on foreign soil for christ sake. What do you expect is going to happen? Do you really think a grand jury is going to be empanelled and an indictment handed down, charging him with murder. The whole "he wasn't charged" "argument" is pure bullshit.

As for an intellectual reply to Ventura's drivel, derision is a more appropriate response to his unmitigated bullshit. How much more evidence do these fuckers need? How many reports have to be put out explaining what happened before these fuckers quit claiming "controlled demolitions" were involved? How many times does the ridiculous "jet fuel and fire doesn't melt steel" nonsense have to be debunked before these morons shut the fuck up? For crying out loud, Truthers are insisting that a missile hit the Pentagon. A fucking missile for god's sake. This shit doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Just yesterday I responded to a nut bar who kept insisting that Israeli nationals knew about the attacks before they happened. What wacko conspiracy doesn't blame the jews after all?
These shitheads don't deserve a fucking ounce of respect, much less a national forum to spew their garbage. When Jesse Ventura decided to add his name to their numbers, he lost any shred of dignity he had. If Libertarians are going to give this guy a forum and then stand up and cheer when he spews his bullshit, they deserve to be mocked as loons and wackos and relegated to the fringes of American politics.

[Howard H]

My God. I can't believe the knee-jerk outrage when Jesse Ventura dares to question the existence of the Emperor's New Clothes. UBL's listing at the FBI doesn't list any involvement with any attack within the US, was updated November 2001 and yet we were seeing pictures of Bin Laden all over the media and his name dropped by every government official of any gravitas whatsoever within hours of the 9/11 attacks. And we're nutty to question why he hasn't been charged? Just for asking a fucking question? Can you say "anti-rationalism"?

[mamzer08]

The election already happened. Statism grows. Grows some more. Carlson's "throw away your vote if you don't vote demopublican" is right, which means libertarianism's only shot is from the ground up. Who knows? One day the anarchists might grow up and you could actually, er, reason with them.

[Ed Burley]

The whole libertarian thing is basically hogwash because, fundamentally, there is no underlying philosophy that all libertarians hold to. Go to the Advocates for Self-government website and check out their Celebrity Libertarians. What a joke? Bill Maher, who advocates for national health care, and more social welfare programs? The only reason they list him as a libertarian is because he believes in legalizing drugs, rejects religion, and is anti-war. In my book, that makes him a fringe Democrat. If he ever embraced free markets, then I might believe him to be a libertarian.

Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian. He is against open borders, against NAFTA, and is pro-life. He shares, as do I, a love for free markets, but he is more a Constitutionalist than he is a libertarian. He is a libertarian Republican (see the Republican Liberty Caucus), not a pure libertarian.

One problem I had with the Paul campaign, even though I voted for him in the primary, is the Anti-War crowd. I do believe that sometimes "War IS the Answer." It depends on the question. IOW, if the Mexican army (i know, i know...) started to amass at our southern border, I sure as hell would want some heavily armed Americans (military, militia, whatever) there to stop them from invading our country militarily. In that case, and others, war IS the answer. Anti-war.com types believe that if we all just sit in a big circle and chant, we'll all get along. Go ahead and try it, while some radical extremist chops your head off from behind.

Get a clue people. And, btw, feel free to call me names or use "fuck" in your reply - ranting is not fatal to my belief system.

ed
member of the MI Libertarian Party

[hunting_girl]

>> "...and reportedly walked out in disgust after former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura's bizarre questioning of Osama Bin Laden's role in the 9/11 attacks."

Actually, he was being accosted throughout the day by Truthers, and though he had stuck around through the end of Ventura's speech, was again loudly confronted by a Truther right before he was supposed to return to the stage; he exploded at the Truther and stormed out...

[St. V]

I love how he shanked MSNBC in the interview. I kind of snorted when he said what he did.