Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin was shameful
As I disclaimer, I should note that I have never been a fan of Tucker Carlson – not even when he was merely a regular guest on “Fox and Friends” morning show. I was literally shocked that the network gave Carlson the primetime slot that opened with the departure of Bill O’Reilly.
I find Carlson to be rude, arrogant and condescending. His mocking laugh grates on me. And I have winced at some of his more outrageous statements he makes too frequently. I have never considered him to be a principled conservative, but rather a faux patriot. I have previously expressed my dislike for Carlson in a number of past commentaries.
While I agreed with a number of his views – when they were more mainstream conservative — I was repulsed by several of his more outrageous opinions. I was especially offended by Carlson’s repeated embraces of Vladimir Putin.
Let me be perfectly clear. Putin is a very very bad and dangerous man. He is a ruthless murderer. He is America’s and the West’s enemy. I see him as the new Hitler — without the gas chambers.
Just prior to his booting from FOX, Carlson defended Putin, claiming that the Madman of Moscow had not done anything to him personally. Carlson alleged that domestic critics treated him worse than Putin. I considered that comparison to be beyond wrong and illogical … but truly stupid.
Having lost his primetime perch, Carlson is following in the tradition of other fallen media stars, such as Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Brian Williams, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon. All unsuccessfully attempting to retain their fame and fortune on lesser media platforms. Carlson set up shop on X (formerly known as Twitter).
Like the others, Carlson was able to retain a position on the edge of his diminishing national spotlight. To become the latest out-of-sight/out-of-mind personality, Carlson is resorting to Bozo-level antics – such as promoting the possibility of his being a vice presidential candidate on a Trump ticket. While Trump said that Carlson is a “good guy,” I do not believe that Trump is crazy enough to consider Carlson.
In the latest effort to get attention – even negative attention – Carlson recently sat down for a one-on-one interview with Vladimir Putin – a man who is actively promoting the downfall of the United States … a man who has invaded a sovereign ally of the United States … a man who has militarily opposed American involvement in the Middle East … a man who has had his political opponents jailed or (recently) murdered … a man who has formed and “unbreakable” alliance with America’s most powerful adversary, China … a man who (oh, you get the point). There is nothing good to say about Putin. He is a despicable human being.
Interviewing enemies of the United States is always controversial. Megyn Kelly, as an NBC anchor, interviewed Putin in 2017 and 2018. Other journalists who interviewed Putin include Fareed Zakaria, Larry King and Charlie Rose. CNN’s Peter Bergen interviewed Osama bin Ladin in 1997. Actor/journalist Sean Penn interviewed Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman even as the drug lord was on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list.
Most of the major news outlets have had a standing request to Putin for interviews. So, the criticisms of Carlson are not entirely devoid of hypocrisy. Why is the Carlson interview so controversial – even to the point where members of the European Union (EU) have called for sanctions against the media personality?
One difference is that the other Putin interviewers were not perceptively supporters of Putin. The interviews were at earlier times, when the scale of Putin’s malevolence was not yet fully unfurled. Earlier interviewers often asked tough questions – as you would expect of journalists. Carlson comes across more as an ally or friend.
Much of the interview was taken up with Putin’s long explanations of Russian history – not always accurate – and how it is that the United States’ aid to Ukraine is prolonging Russia’s inevitable victory. There were no tough questions. If there is a one-word description of Carlson’s interview, it is “pandering.”
The entire purpose of the interview – from both sides – appeared to be to improve Putin’s image and to persuade the American public to abandon their support for Ukraine. Carlson seemed less a journalist and more of Putin’s Joseph Goebbels. That may be a harsh allusion, but fair enough in view of Carlson’s longtime support of Putin – and Putin’s past praises of Carlson.
Carlson’s interview was shameful –not because he conducted it – but because he enabled it to be a propaganda platform for Putin. In that regard, Carlson was not serving the interest of an informed public but was aiding and abetting an avowed enemy of the United States. Shame on him.
So, there ‘tis.
Brave you are Mr. Horist, I liked the cut of your jib.
Interviewing Putin is fine, softballs, accolades, and biden bashing during said call not so fine. Tucker regaled us with the beauty of Putin’s Russia versus the US House of Biden Crimes. Then Navalny got murdered. Tucker was asked about Russian free speech and Navanly before and he said no because those are “the things that every other American media outlet talks about.” Of course, last interview was years ago so not true. And then he uttered: “leadership requires killing people — sorry, that’s why I wouldn’t want to be a leader.” And then Navalny got murdered. \
Putin basically said the interview was “meh” and he hoped to respond to some tough questions that never came. Putin said he was less than satisifed with Tucker’s interview. OK, that’s got to hurt.
Carlson was fired, for cause, and as a former-US-journalitst of master of lies, I see no more reason to listen to him than I would Brian Williams, Janet Cooke, or Jason Blair and that cause is because he’s a very bad journalist into it for the money and willing to go quite far to get some.
Beyond that, interview Putin, tough but fair, and that’s just hunky dory with me.
At least Tucker had the Cajones to get the interview!! Much better to confront your enemy than to hide behind your smoke screen!!!
LMB … Most networks requested interview, but Putin would only consent to Carlson. I agree on confronting the enemy, I just do not see Carlson as Putin’s enemy — and neither does Putin. That is the problem.
Except he did not confront, he pandered.
I’m totally with you in this assessment of Tucker Carlson.
Now, isn’t Trump just the same character with a bigger ego?
Wes Kussmaul … Both Carlson and Trump have personalities I do not admire. As you know i am not a fan of Trump. And I will concede that personality can have policy implications. But on the broader range of policies, I think Biden and the Democrats’ Big Brother approach to governance is the greater threat. If it is a Trump/Biden race, as it appears to be, there is no happy choice for most Americans. One thing is clear from the polling. More than two-thirds of the voters do not want either of these guys.
Oh, wow! . . . . and the hate continues. The hate is getting worse. I do digress, though. Do any of you have personal proof of what you are saying or are you just listening to MSM along with others that are not part of common decency and truth? You have a right to form your own opinions just as I do but, at what cost? Your words have an effect on those that read everything on this channel. Ever think there may be more to the story here or other information about Putin, Carlson and Trump or even the fake Joe Biden? Misinformation is dangerous at best and can spread faster than a pandemic. It’s okay to not like someone but be careful how you present yourselves. There could be some extremely big shocks coming in the near future that you may regret your own words. Otherwise, I enjoyed the rhetoric.
Interestingly enough is the 8th paragraph.
Remove Vladimir Putin and you can just as easily write President Biden.
It works perfectly!
Larry, I did not watch the Carlson interview of Putin. Sometimes, it just seems that there are certain things that I am better off not letting into my head. Carlson is one of them. Carlson and Hannity are two that make me puke.
Now Larry, you said, “The entire purpose of the interview – from both sides – appeared to be to improve Putin’s image and to persuade the American public to abandon their support for Ukraine. ”
Isn’t Trump doing the same thing, i.e. 1) tries to improve Putin’s image? 2) Persuade the American public against Ukraine? These would both be Trump policies, even if unwritten, they would be t he way he operates regarding Putin and Ukraine.
You said you “do not like Trump’s personality but liked his policies! ” Do you like the way Trump will treat Putin? Do you agree with walking away from Ukraine like Trump wants to do, and tried to do when he denied military aid funding? (Remember Trump said he can end the war in Ukraine in one day.) Do you agree with Trump NOT denouncing Putin over Navalny?
Larry, you said, “I was especially offended by Carlson’s repeated embraces of Vladimir Putin.” Explain why you are offended when Carlson does this but you seem to say nothing and are not offended if Trump does this? Trump’s policy is to stroke Putin, not criticize him publicly. Are you in favor of this?
By the way Larry, Trump now sees his way to 16 weeks for abortions. Do you agree with him on this proposed Trump policy?
Do Carlson or Trump line up with your conservative values? Or are Ukraine, Putin, Abortion not as important conservative values?
Larry values: No abortion except for rape. Trump value is now 16 weeks for abortion.
Larry value: Putin a murderer and anti-USA Trump value is stroke and praise Putin, give Putin permission to invade a NATO country.
Larry value: Fund Ukraine, defeat Russia Trump value is defund Ukraine, Settle war in one day but no explanation how to do this.
I am just wondering Larry, at what point will you stop your same old line of not liking Trump’s personality but liking his policy? At what point do you realize that Trump is not a conservative, he is an isolationist authoritarian who does not mind spending your money.
Tom … as you know, I mostly do not respond to comments — and then in a few words. But … I have a little free time this afternoon and you raise a few points that deserve a response (and you did it without insults).
Your questions about Trump hooked me. They are very rational and perceptive. What you may not glean from my previous commentaries is that Trump’s actions and statements about Putin are unsettling — but I have been critical. I think there is a case to be made that ias President he spoke too nice about Putin but was tough in action — although not tough enough. Taking him at his word, I find myself caught having to make a choice between two candidates who I believe pose an existential threat to the nation. The ground I stood on regarding personality versus policy is slipping away on the Putin issue. It is becoming an irresolvable dilemma for me. Contrary to your impression that I have not called out the Republican Chamberlains, I think my more recent commentaries reflect my disappointment in those in the GOP House members, who are playing Chamberlain-ism with those on the left, who see Putin’s atomic boogieman as a reason to cower in the corner as Putin rampages. I have called on House Republicans to pass the Ukraine and Israel support asap. Now I have Biden’s too little/too late policies — seen again with his 500 meaningless sanctions that will not have any impact for a long time, if ever. And now we have Trump sounding like the leftwing establishment seeing peace in our time — a victory — by allowing Putin to keep the eastern one-third of Ukraine. If Putin wins, we lose. I seem to be without a champion in this contest.
Too sum extent personality can be policy, and that is the problem with Trump. You seem to forget that I am not a Trump fan. Will not vote for him in the Florida primary in March even if the primaries are essentially over. I do think he did some very good things as President — and I do think the hate-Trump resistance movement has been outrageous and destructive — but I do not recall claiming him as a great “conservative” leader. Certainly not in the tradition of Reagan.
Regarding abortion, I am currently working on a commentary. A little peek? I hold to the scientific FACT that a conception is the first step of a developing human — containing all the genetic traits that will determine physical and mental features. As such, it needs to be protected as a matter of moral civilization and specious protection (although not as much as in the past due to advances in medical technology). The developing human should be protected except in the most extreme cases. For me, that is rape, incest and the life-threatening health of the mother. (I have never made rape the only exception). I would ban all abortions-on-demand otherwise. The frozen embryos create a unique problem because they are factually developing humans. I will write more about Alabama, case and Trump’s 6 week position, etc. in my commentary — but do not assume my opinion.
But I digress — from my more normal daily activities.