Now Playing at Reason.tv: Tucker Carlson on The Daily Caller, Jon Stewart, & Libertarianism

|

Tucker Carlson has sparred with Daily Show host Jon Stewart, been a contestant on Dancing With the Stars, a game show host, a Crossfire co-host, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute

Now Carlson is getting into the new media game with launch of The Daily Caller, a site he describes as one part Huffington Post-like news aggregator and one part old school reporting. 

Carlson sat down with Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan in The Daily Caller's D.C. office to discuss his "libertarian instincts," drug legalization, why he ditched the Ron Paul "shadow convention," and why, after Jon Stewart accused him of "hurting America," The Daily Show's producer apologized to him. Filmed and edited by Dan Hayes. 

Approximately 10 minutes. Go to reason.tv for downloadable iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all Reason.tv videos.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel and receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

NEXT: Pot Farmers Against Pot Legalization or, Life Becomes a Reason.tv Video

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.

  1. I have a satellite connection. Limited bandwidth, slow downloads. I need a reason to click on a 10-minute video.

    Watching this guy plug his various entertainment enterprises is not a reason. Sorry.

    1. Limited bandwidth, slow downloads

      Do NOT go to The Daily Caller site, then. Though the Nancy Pelosi slideshow is worth it, especially Image #7.

  2. Tucker, I noticed the OCD. Have you ever written about it?

    1. I did too. Doesn’t mean OCD though. Everyone has physical ticks, whether they are aware of them or not.

      1. Googled it after post:

        http://ocd-gx-liberal.blogspot…..msnbc.html

        1. Not OCD, IMO. However both would qualify, based solely on the vid, as Type A personalities.

          Also, Moynihan “pill rolls” his left hand.

          1. He confirms his OCD diagnosis on the link. I need to google pill rolls.

  3. Still can’t forget how he pwn’d Carolyn McCarthy on the assault weapons issue–re: “what is a barrel shroud?” Hilarious!

  4. Yeah, the false dichotomy/left-right/shouty-talking head nonsense that was Crossfire was a disservice to political discourse. I’d say Stewart was on point on that. Carlson’s inability to recognize that, even now, is sad.

    And the “his producer was on my side” comes off as whingy and whiny. “I didn’t even get that I was perceived to have lost.” Yes, that’s a quite the ass kicking.

    As for leaving the Paul convention, he punched out after some other guy told him somebody else said something controversial? Wow. Way to research.

    Daily Caller is kind of ‘eh,’ imho. But the only political blogging I can stomach is here and at Balko’s The Agitator.

    1. Where’s the disservice? It’s a show? You could make the same argument about Stewart, where people actually seem to get their news and opinions from. A comedian, a guy supposedly looking for nothing more than the punchline. But when confronted about his rantings he immediately falls back on I’m a comedian it’s not my job. Fucking joke.

      1. was a show…

        1. Fuck John stewart! He did a show a few nights ago, where he “explained” (misinformed) that corporations are able to get anything they want, through graft. He used the example of “John Co” and explained that he could get his friend Jimmy (his ratings agency) to declare an 800 dollar car to be worth 3 million dollars. He then claimed that this is how corporations run. Of course he couldn’t point to any court proceeding, only articles from journalists.

          My attitude is that you can’t make blanket statements about corruption without being able to point to some sort of court proceedings. If you can find people with their hand in the cookie jar, by all means, tar and feather them. At least corporations are voluntary organizations working with other voluntary organizations who get their money from people who are voluntarily investing it. Anytime people lose money they will argue that corruption is afoot, even though that is just what happens sometimes. However, the governments of the USA take 6 trillion dollars form us every year, by force, then spend the money in ways that make no sense. They even break their own rules and do things with the money that would land you in prison for fraud in the private sector. Fucking John Stewart. Fucking moron!

          1. Actually, Stewart’s explanation on that point was a simplified, but fairly accurate description of credit derivatives and credit default swaps. Lehman Brothers & AIG are most famous for using it, amongst others in the current economic debacle.

            1. But he assumes that these people were lying about the value of their assets. However, the value of anything is what others are willing to pay for it, so who is to say what something is valued at? People like my dad certainly believed that housing values were solid and would always go up. Plenty of normal people bought the idea that the value of housing would always increase. Most americans bet their livelihoods on it. Once the values of property took a hit, and it became clear that the market was overbought, the system unraveled. This is no different than any other period of speculation leading to massive defaults. That is the business cycle. I’d love it if he could point to some illegality taking place, or somebody being arrested for fraud. He is just trying to make it seem as if all corporations are evil or above the law.

              1. So, tkwelge, let me make sure I am following: You started your post with “Fuck Jon Stewart”, how he is a liar, made the whole “credit derivatives and credit default swaps” thing up…etc.

                Then Rob points out that YOU are incorrect with pretty much your whole comment, or at least the heart of it…and then you start your reply with “But he assumes…”, which is an attempt at reframing your whole argument. Why do some people do this? It looks like you had decided your position before all the facts were in, faced with said facts you go into another direction…as if the first point had not been made.

                Pre-judging things, or shooting down criticism just because you don’t LIKE it isn’t very Libertarian. MOre picking and choosing rather than….reasoning?

                1. How did he disprove my entire argument? My argument was that John oversimplified the facts in order to misrepresent the truth. I think that you missed the entire point.

                  I never said that John was completely 100 percent wrong. I simply said that he misinformed. I guess misrepresent would have been a better word. I pointed out John’s 7 minute tirade about how “corporations bankrupted America” and why I thought it was misrepresentative. After Rob’s comment, I expanded on my statement. This is a comment page, I can’t go into every intricacy of everything to satisfy dumb fucks like you. I had all of the facts. When did they change? Did you even watch the segment that I was talking about? I’m not even sure why you bothered posting your dumb fuck comment, it added nothing to anything except your own ignorance. How was my argument “reframed?”

                  Show me the fucking court trial! Show me the convictions for fraud! The fact of the matter is that John is taking a completely natural phenomenon of exchange between voluntary parties and making it appear to be evil, and that was always my point. I never “reframed” anything. What the fuck was the point of your comment? To show how stupid I was, just because I wasn’t able to give you every detail you wanted in my first comment? Once again, this is a fucking internet comment section, if you want me to expand on my arguments, ASK ME! Don’t sit there and act all high and mighty.

                  My point was always that John was misrepresenting the facts using a ridiculous metaphor. I’m not seeing where I “reframed” the argument.

                  1. Show me where I said that John made up everything about the credit default swaps! I never said that they didn’t exist! What the fuck are you on? I simply gave a description of John’s shitty analogy and called it “misinformation.” I’m sorry, “misrepresentation” would have been better, but they are pretty much the same thing in a lot of ways, but I apologize oh great and wise Chuck! Or should I call you Charles the Great MCkickass?

                    “But he assumes…”, which is an attempt at reframing your whole argument.

                    How is this so? I simply expanded on my argument by explaining Stewart’s stupid prejudices that show why he doesn’t understand how a marketplace is supposed to work. He simply furthers the narrative of “corporations evil” that he believes without any proof of any real evildoing. I personally don’t agree with his negative view of credit default swaps, and I believe that he is way off base by arguing that corporations can just do anything they want, WHEN CORPORATIONS ARE THE ONE WHO MUST OBTAIN MONEY FROM VOLUNTARY CUSTOMERS AND INVESTORS.

                    You remind me of the dumbshits who watch stewart wag his finger at some guy who sits there like a dear in headlights not even being allowed to speak (not to mention only being given 5 minutes total to even attempt to argue with John) and claim that Stewart “slammed” his opponent in “a debate” on his “show.” (That last set of quotation marks was a joke, please don’t write a comment arguing with me that The Daily Show is actually a TV program.)

                    Fuckin Dumbass. Do I need to write a manifesto first to not be accused of “reframing” my argument? Should I personally mail you a copy?

                    1. Should have said “deer in headlights.”

                    2. “He did a show a few nights ago, where he “explained” (misinformed) that corporations are able to get anything they want, through graft.”

                      This was my positive statement. It was in fact misinformation to argue that corporations can get ANYTHING that they want through graft.

                      And yes, john stewart is a fucker for a multitude of reasons. Misrepresenting voluntary exchanges as evil is simply one of them.

                    3. And yes, I know that AIG had committed fraud in ways, but I am speaking specifically about credit default swaps (in which everybody knew the risks, but ignored them while the getting was good) and the ratings agencies (who were simply trying to place a value on things, in a universe where values are purely subjective, not objective, and subject to change). So don’t accuse me of saying that AIG never committed fraud of ANY kind. Apparently I need to write every comment in quasi legalease to cover EVERY base or get slammed as a prejudiced moron.

                      Maybe it is prejudiced to call me a moron without even asking me to expand on my point, or even making an argument yourself.

                    4. Sorry for all that, chuck really pissed me off.

            2. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

      2. Jon Stewart’s a hack who has described himself as a “bit of a leftist” and a “socialist” (I describe that as a bit of an understatement).

        Stewart’s one of the reasons gullible idiots in this country believe the ridiculous nonsense they do. Of course Stewart can’t be blamed for that, it’s not his fault that so many who think they share his views are unable to discern the difference between a real news desk and his “fake news desk.” He didn’t make these people imbeciles now did he? Certainly he did not.

        So why the “fake news desk” at all? It there any possible way he could not be aware people on the left already have an impossibly difficult time differentiating between what is real and what is not. Perhaps he feels if he doesn’t do it for his party then someone else will do it for theirs. It’s probably more like if he doesn’t do it he’s afraid it may not get done and his party won’t be able to shove it’s anti-liberty statist agenda down our throats..

        Of course it’s not like the other party is really any better. Better would be if both parties disappeared from the face of the Earth. They both take us the same place, one just takes the longer route getting there. It’s just that it’s despicable when vultures abusively take advantage of the mentally disabled regardless of their reasons for doing such.

        Maybe in the end Jon Stuart Leibowitz[ will realize the approval he sought and got from his Hollywood friends really was no substitute for the approval he badly wanted yet failed to get from his father Donald Leibowitz. Something tells me if I was Stewart’s father I wouldn’t have anything to do with his little bastard either.

    2. the false dichotomy/left-right/shouty-talking head nonsense that was Crossfire was a disservice to political discourse

      And yet it has become the standard format on cable news, with “political strategist” being the most frequently represented profession. All spin, all the time.

    3. He left the convention because he could get more attention for himself by leaving and whining about it than he could by staying and learning something.

      -jcr

  5. It’s kind of funny how the partisan hack is now Stewart. I always loved the fall back of I run a comedy show so I have no responsibility, yet I’m compelled to call everyone out, but I don’t have to defend it because I’m a comedian.

    He’s a comedian, nothing more. The sad thing is people get their news and opinion from him.

    1. Jon Stewart is certainly partisan but so are Hannity, O’Reilly, and Beck and Comedy Central does not masquerade as a news channel.

      1. HE doesn’t? He makes politically oriented speeches all the time then claims he has no moral obligation to vet or be accurate because he’s a comedian. It’s a shell game of hiding behind the comedian tag while trying to push a point. It’s all entertainment to some degree.

        What’s the difference between being partisan on an opinion show on a news channel and being partisan on a faux news show with an opinion on a comedy channel when both parties are pushing an idea. The only difference is one being funnier than the other. Is it the network that matters? Or are you a victim of what you will most likely claim the problem with shows you mentioned, that people don’t know it’s opinion?

        1. I agree. The difference is that CC doesn’t pose as news.

          Both run with their agendas.

          1. CC doesn’t pose as a news channel, Stewart does act like a news show and then claims he’s comedy when he has to back it up. The carrier doesn’t matter if you realize both are political opinion.

            1. Does calling his show a “fake news show” count as acting like a news show. I suppose as a show parodying the news shows, they act like a news show. However, a fakes news show that acted like a variety show would be too incongruous to be entertaining.

              1. They don’t even call themselves the fake news much anymore. The only time that they do is when they are being attacked and asked to back up their shit. That’s really weasel behavior.

          2. And yet a frightening number of young leftists get their news exclusively from the Daily Show, CNN, and MediaMatters and think they’re “well-informed.” They’ll then continue to look down upon FoxNews viewers as idiots and residents of “DumbFuckistan,” even when their practices are identical and they’re just insulated in their cultural elitism.

            I’ve heard the phrase “It’s amazing that nobody in the news but Stewart covers this!!!” far too frequently to be funny.

            Most people I know that watch the Daily Show consider it their news source, and the belief that it’s just comedy is a face-saving mechanism.

            The Daily Show is like a funnier, left-wing version of Fox News that hides behind its comedy stature to avoid accountability.

            1. The fact that anyone claims one side completely already indicates they aren’t one to listen to. If they were truly open minded each point would be taken on it’s own instead of associating with a party. The minute someone identifies as “democrat” or “republican” I know they aren’t worth listening to.

              I used to watch John Stewart at the beginning as he was mildly amusing, now he actually makes me sick to my stomach. Of course, so does Rush Limbaugh…

              1. lol, actually I think if anyone identified as a “democrat” or “republican” and explicitly indicated the lower-case nature of that term, I would actually listen to them! That would mean they at least have some principles.

                What aggravates me about the whole media situation now is that it’s more like watching the Super Bowl and Team Blue and Team Red fighting against each other. Team Blue’s latest score was that the American people like a winner and they like the story of a strong president, so they should pass a substantially unpopular bill.

                Over the next week, all the postmodern intellectual lefties were writing articles about how this changed the whole “narrative” or Obama’s “stature” and whatnot. Whether the policy mattered was totally irrelevant.

                1. I just can’t respect someone who identifies with a group when said group is about many many policies. There are times when I think a democrat has the right idea, other times when it’s a republican, times when both have points, and times when they are both obviously drooling idiots. The minute someone says “I’m a part of this group of people” means they can’t really be open to the other side.

                  I don’t see how identifying with one or the other makes someone more principled than someone who does not identify as either.

                  1. Jales,

                    by “democrat” I mean someone who conforms to a philosophy of traditionally democratic norms, not a Democrat. It is not at all about taking sides with a herd.

                    There is no correlation at all to political philosophy with political parties.

                    Jefferson and Madison were adamant philosophical republicans, but would be hostile to placing winning an election or “associating with a group of people” above that party practically staying true to their convictions. In the overall scope of political leaders in history, they were radically principled.

                    So, if a “Communist” wanted to eliminate all wage and price controls, eliminate the central bank, believed that redistribution of wealth was immoral, and advocated for a government that did no more than enforce property rights, he would not be a “communist” but a “libertarian,” irrespective of party.

                    So, I could respect anyone who is “republican,” “democrat,” “libertarian,” or other if they can articulate their worldview and stand behind it.

                    1. That makes sense, thank you for explaining it.

                      To align with a group aligns you with the views they put forward. So if I say “I’m a democrat/republican” is also saying “I accept the public view (no matter how right or wrong) of this group as MY group”. I just have never met anyone who meant “democrat”, they meant “Democrat” and the same goes for the other side. I hope if I do ever meet someone who means it as you say, they will kindly differentiate.

                    2. Well I think you make a great point. I have to point out that,
                      wanting ” to eliminate all wage and price controls, eliminate the central bank, believed that redistribution of wealth was immoral, and advocated for a government that did no more than enforce property rights”
                      is ‘Libertarian’ not ‘libertarian’ [or,rather, its both, much like you could argue that ‘Republicans’ are ‘republican’ (I don’t think you can argue that ‘Democrats’ are ‘democratic’)].

                      Anarchist were ‘liberatrian’, long before the rugged individualist (and the occasional objectivist and constitutional conservative) who claim the term now. And they are by and large for the redistribution of wealth (which, after all, is what any economic systems does), and the first thing they want to see go is property rights (..maybe after the state). Just thought that was ironic (doesn’t seem to help clarify Jales confusion about proper nouns, parties, and ideologies).

                      Also, has anyone every meet someone who identifies as a ‘democrat’, I feel like everyone recognizes democracy on a nation scale ( democracy at the town/ward level connected by some federalist scheme being a different matter)as impractical/stupid?

                    3. That’s ok, I think the only thing that can clear up any remaining confusion is sleep. I was up far far too early today. LOL

          3. The daily show pretends to be news. They use to talk all of the time about how they are the fake news. Now they pretend to be authoritative on every subject. Glenn Beck doesn’t pretend to be “the news” either, by your definition.

          4. The difference is that CC doesn’t pose as news.

            Now THAT’S funny.

      2. Hannity, O’Relly, Beck, et al, do not purport to be reporting news. They are unabashed opinion. The fact that they are broadcast on a news channel does not mean that the rest of what that channel does is not news reporting.

        If so, then you could throw out ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CSPAN and MSNBC for the same reasoning.

      3. I wouldn’t want to be compared to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, lol. That’s an insult in and of itself.

  6. I won’t forget that stunt that Tucker pulled with the hookers to try to embarrass Ron Paul. He will always be a douchebag in my book.

    -jcr

  7. Bush fled Washington, D.C. on 9/11… really?

  8. Tucker is so close to libertarian, then he always pulls back and say something is creepy or depressing, therefore…I don’t know, the law is good after all. Dude, I think Wal-Mart is depressing. I don’t want to live in a Wal-mart. Isn’t it possible that drug stuff is crazy compressed in Amsterdam? If it were legal throughout the US, you wouldn’t see Amsterdam everywhere. You wouldn’t see much difference at all.`

    1. I think he just pretends to be a libertarian get at a certain audience. He’s totally just a tool of the rest of the Neo-Con Republican establishment. I don’t remember where but I saw a clip of Tucker complaining how some textbook talked about terrorism as a general threat and didn’t specify all terrorists were Muslims or something. More war yay!

  9. I just came here to say Tucker Carlson is a douchebag. That is all.

    1. dammit I posted below on this before i read this comment.

  10. Tucker kind of just comes off as a bit of a douche.

  11. Wow…thanks for the link to the “Carlson v. Stewart” debate.

    IMO Stewart’s message was so true.

    Carlson loked and acted like a fool and a pawn.

    1. So how is his assertion true? How exactly are opinion based news programs hurting America? If such programs are hurting America can you make the same case for opinion based faux news programs centered around comedy? Or can you make the same argument for all opinion or view based media outlets, like Reason? How are any of these hurting America?

      1. When you make a living out of boiling everything down to “haha” simplistically funny you can make an argument, no mattered how flawed, for anything and if you get people to laugh at you while you do it they will usually agree with your flawed argument.

      2. You bring up an interesting point with “opinion based faux news programs centered around comedy.”

        Does Stewart think that Glenn Beck is “just an entertainer” like he is “just a comedian”?

        The hypocrisy abounds.

      3. I think what Stewart was getting at is that there is no objective news source. The political spectrum is divided into Left and Right, no middle ground allowed. The pundits come on TV and hurl talking points at each other. You watch Fox and the conservative wins. You watch MSNBC and the liberal wins. CNN tries to split the wins and loses 50-50 but all its about in the end is confirming the bias of the audience and keeping them convinced the other side is stupid, evil, whatever.

        1. He is the biggest liberal,populist fuck in the world. John Stewart misinforms people about economics every day. There is no such thing as objectivity. We all have a stake in the USA and much of the world. We are all shareholders and stakeholders.

    2. nah that thing was what made me stop watching Jon Stewart because it made me realize that he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. Every episode I have watched since then has been colored by that opinion… And as much as I fucking hate John Yoo (especially among asians) it was so delicious to see John Stewart get his ass handed to him.

  12. You wouldn’t see much difference at all.

    Aside from a ton of nonviolent folks not being in jail anymore, yeah.

  13. Talked about himself too much in the end, especially with regard to the John Stewart interview.

    Doesn’t he have a message he wants to send out? Goals he wants to achieve with his site? He should focus on those instead of bemoaning how “I’m not self aware.”

  14. Tucker is always – even when he is 80 – going to be that nerdy jackass, suck up to the teachers, join the debate team, student council, young Republican dickhead we all knew and, for the most part, hated in school.

  15. Tucker has the misfortune of somehow coming off as egotistical yet never inspiring confidence. He should study the O’Reilly school of winning arguments whether you’re right or wrong. The body language, word choice, bow tie, they all say “weak ass bitch”.

  16. I feel so sorry for Tucker, because he’s clearly a douchebag who is trying so hard to be a better person, and failing all the way. His heart is in the right places.

  17. Were I locked in a cell with Tucker Carlson and Jon Stewart and I had a gun with one bullet…

    1. I’d get them to stand back to back and take out two birds with one stone.

      1. No, no. You pistol-whip both of them, and when the jailer comes to investigate, you shoot him, take his keys, have breakfast at Denny’s then rob the place when you’re done (they wouldn’t know you were out of bullets).

        1. Win-win better idea: Tim you shoot yourself. Carlson and Stewart get the death penalty and you quit boring me with your posts.

  18. glad theat Moynihan and Tucker got in that fact about how Jesse is a anti-semite

  19. I like that Reason will entertain other points of view but watching this interview almost gives the impression that Tucker is a libertarian and he is not that by any standard. All republicans like to think that they have “libertarian tendencies” but it’s meant to be the party of principal and not the party of tendencies. And that’s just a cheap shot to say that Jesse Ventura blames 9/11 on the Jews. That’s what’s really “hurting America”. He doesn’t bother to dispute Ventura’s ideas. He just calls him an anti-semite and dismisses him. Reason.TV seems to be just fine with that approach.

    1. Moynihan is more than “just fine” with lying about anti-semitism…it is pretty much the one big skill that he is honing, it gives him hope he will work for the Washington Post one day where he can potentially use his skills to smear people with lies.

  20. There’s a reason I don’t like Tucker Carlson. It’s not just his faux-libertarian bullshitting that he tries to pawn off like many other statist republicans (the term ‘libertarian’ is becoming popular now, which is why those on both the Right AND Left are trying to exploit it for their own ends). It’s because he’s a prick. A smug, egomaniacal terd. The man has been tossed around from network to network simply because he’s a complete and utter dick.

    And yes, Jon Stewart was absolutely spot on when he appeared on Crossfire. The show had turned from what was once an intelligent debating program into a partisian circus of talking points and yelling.

    I don’t always agree with Stewart. I really don’t. But its a pretty sad state of today’s affairs when a comedian (emphasis on COMEDIAN) like Stewart or Colbert come off as far more intelligent than your average political pundit or commentator.

    1. Well said. Tucker is despicable, Crossfire became despicable (despite the presence of supposed “heavyweights” like Novack and Carville), and Jon Stewart is a comedian who has never proclaimed himself to be anything else. Just because certain people here don’t understand how satire works doesn’t change that fact. The fact that The Daily Show has gained some cultural traction doesn’t change that.

      I find it pretty hilarious, actually, that some people feel they have to argue with Stewart’s logic on, say, corporate corruption. (It’s like CNN evaluating Saturday Night Live’s critique of Obama.) The guy has never said, implied or otherwise telegraphed that he’s an expert on anything. All he’s trying to do is make us laugh about a pretty sad state of affairs. He’s gained the respect he has because more often than not, his insights are damned good–better than that of the twits on most of the MSM. But that’s the outcome of good satire. And he’s not the one crediting his own insights–others are doing that. He thinks of himself as a comedian. Others think he’s more, but that’s not his fault.

      I don’t know much about libertarianism, but what this thread is teaching me is it’s a pretty humorless, self-important outlook. No thanks.

      1. “…but what this thread is teaching me is it’s a pretty humorless, self-important outlook.” One should try every dish before they die;-)

      2. Stewart is smart enough to know that if he were to concretely admit his bias then what most critics of the ‘Daily Show’ would have evidence for their instincts. The Hollywood crowd is overwhelmingly (as if anyone here needed a reminder) leftist and Stewart pulling the ‘…I am just a comedian’ plea is plainly disingenuous to the nth degree. Arsenio Hall in the early nineties went balistic on Bush I and copped the same defense. Clinton was on Halls’show and the questions were sofball pablum – but oh, takes on both political parties. Same difference with Stewart nowadays. I will say that Stewart has been laying in to the Obama administration and hitting the Democrats pretty hard over the last few months. But over all, it is not hard to confirm the leanings of both Colbert(who is much less acid tongued than Stewart and a caricature of a conservative), and Stewart himself – he roomed with Bolshevik Congressman Anthony Weiner.

        1. Yes, Stewart and Colbert are liberals. That’s pretty obvious. And they’re biased. They’ve never hidden that. I still like to watch them, though. And I do sometimes find myself agreeing with them.

          And as for “The Comedian” plea….it’s a perfectly good defense, as far as I’m concerned. In fact, THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. Stewart and Colbert are SUPPOSED to be Outsiders looking in, that’s the whole schtick. The fact that the traditional media criticizes them for it is only indicative of their own ability to not smell ther own bullshit.

          And the fact that Carlson is STILL whining about the fact that Stewart exposed his own bullshit to the public is only indicative of Carlson’s character, i.e. he’s a terd.

          1. John knows that he is playing on his audience’s stupidity. That’s the problem. A lot of people act like everything that he says isn’t outright misrepresentations of the facts, and anytime he has to defend himself, he just tiptoes the issue. That is weasel behavior, first class. I really don’t care what the “mainstream” newsmedia thinks of john, to me he is an asshat.

            1. If he’s just a clown, than he needs to shut the fuck up about the political matter and economic matters that he has no understanding of, or he could at least consult people who actually know what they are talking about. The only “experts” that he talks to are people who agree with him, and in the few cases where somebody who might disagree with him shows up on his show, he just filibusters them and tries to make them look dumb, just because they don’t even get a chance to make their case. His show is a bully pulpit. It’s one point of view, and it’s biased entertainment. Biased news is one thing, as all news in biased, but partisan CLOWNS are fuck faces. IN any context. At least somebody who puts their reputation on the line to make statements that are open to serious criticism is being intellectually honest. It is intellectually dishonest to do John’s song and dance and then hypocritically claim that it is the “partisan hacks” on the side that is actually putting a real reputation on the line that are “ruining america.” If anything it is partisan dumbshits who aren’t even willing to have a serious debate or put their reputation on the line and hide behind the “I’m a clown” defense who are ruining this country. I want to see him actually debate an austrian economist on the causes of the recent recession before he walks around claiming that “corporations bankrupted America.” It’s dumbshits who risk nothing yet have tv time that ruin this country.

              1. I….don’t think I’ve ever heard him talk about how ‘corporations are ruining america’.

                And as for him ‘filibustering’ guests….he only has so much time he can have them on air. It’s only a half-hour show. And he DOES have the complete interviews on the website where anyone can see him have an actual intelligent discussion.

                Also, to be quite honest, some of the people he actualy has interviewed really ARE idiots. They just think that they’re essentially bulletproof and have never really been under genuine scrutiny before.

                Also…as much as I dislike partisian hacks to, they still have the right to their opinion no matter how much you dislike it. If you don’t like it, don’t listen.

                1. A couple of nights ago, he said, and this is almost an exact quote, “Corporations bankrupted America.” I think that he actually said, “the land between the oceans or something to that effect.” Same difference.

                2. A couple of nights ago, he said, and this is almost an exact quote, “Corporations bankrupted America.” I think that he actually said, “the land between the oceans or something to that effect.” Same difference.

                  1. Even if you go on his website, it’s still just a a ten minute discussion. The interview with Jim Cramer simply amounted to Jim sputtering something every couple of minutes while John wagged his finger at him the whole time. I’ve never seen him have an intelligent discussion with anybody, and he only talks to people that he knows he can bully into a corner. Usually idiots, yes, but it’s still dispicable. I don’t watch him that often, but it is people like him that make me wretch. The fact that people go around saying “He slammed so and so” in that “debate” pisses me off. John’s not directly responsible for that, but he certainly plays his audience to get that effect.

          2. I will say that once in a while, Stewart and Colbert have some pretty valid points in the midst of the lampooning(Colbert) and too-cute-by half mockery(Stewart). BTW, have ya noticed that Carlson is not so much into the bowties any more? 🙂

  21. Should be “deer in headlights.”

  22. Quite a performance. Whining the whole way while claiming he isn’t affected by critics.
    The Stewart episode is typical: more than five and a half years have passed and he still mentions it everyvtime he can.

    1. Not to be disagreeable, but he WAS asked.

  23. Does Tucker always have to say something moronic?

    Unlike most Reason interviews, this one was a total waste of bandwidth…

  24. If I recall, all that Ventura said was, why hasn’t Osama been indicted for 9/11? That question is more than fair, and the fact that Tucker and/or his advisers translate this as “inside job” or “blame it on Jews” or whatever says more about them than about Ventura.

  25. I feel so sorry for Tucker, because he’s clearly a douchebag who is trying so hard to be a better person, and failing all the way. His heart is in the right places.
    http://www.christianlouboutinvips.com

  26. The comments on here are completely bizarre. The commenters seem to have some disproportionately large sense of hatred against Carlson.

    I never really knew anything about aside from vaguely about the Stewart interchange and that he started his site. His site isn’t exactly the most exciting thing, but I don’t see anywhere in this interview where he comes off as a ‘douchebag’ or some virulent person to be hated.

    He just seemed like a normal person who doesn’t really pay attention to popular opinion. Some of you weirdos need to take a freaking chill pill or something. It’s just some random dude doing his thing, havin a chat with Reason, and commenting on the one thing that most people know him from.

    All in all, I thought he came off pretty well. But maybe the psychos on here already have their own mini-Amsterdams at home, so their drug-addled minds are hallucinating non-existent personalities.

  27. “but I don’t see anywhere in this interview where he comes off as a ‘douchebag’ or some virulent person to be hated.”

    Of course you don’t see it in the Reason interview. Reason has been promoting Tucker recently.

    You have to follow politics for more than one month to understand why people here hold grudges. As one smart fellow at the top said….Tucker showed up at a Ron Paul event with hookers and dressed a as pimp at a important time in Ron Paul’2 2008 campaign…extremely bizarre and douchebaggy behavior…I’d love to havve heard his explanationf or why he did that…instead they lie and say Jesse Ventura thinks the Jews did 9/11.

    here is tucker arguing that we should have wars over oil instead of you know buying oil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

  28. tucker carlson is such a spineless hack.

  29. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  30. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  31. “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”

  32. Even if you go on his website, it’s still just a a ten minute discussion. The interview with Jim Cramer simply amounted to Jim sputtering something every couple of minutes while John wagged his finger at him the whole time. I’ve never seen him have an intelligent discussion with anybody, and he only talks to people that he knows he can bully into a corner. Usually idiots, yes, but it’s still dispicable. I don’t watch him that often, but it is people like him that make me wretch. The fact that people go around saying “He slammed so and so” in that “debate” pisses me off. John’s not directly responsible for that, but he certainly plays his audience to get that effect.

  33. Well said. Tucker is despicable, Crossfire became despicable (despite the presence of supposed “heavyweights” like Novack and Carville), and Jon Stewart is a comedian who has never proclaimed himself to be anything else. Just because certain people here don’t understand how satire works doesn’t change that fact. The fact that The Daily Show has gained some cultural traction doesn’t change that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.