
<p>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. ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>While I agreed with a number of his views – when they were more mainstream conservative &#8212; I was repulsed by several of his more outrageous opinions. ; I was especially offended by Carlson’s repeated embraces of Vladimir Putin.</p>



<p>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 &#8212; without the gas chambers.</p>



<p>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 &#8230; but truly stupid.</p>



<p>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).</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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 &#8230; a man who has invaded a sovereign ally of the United States &#8230; a man who has militarily opposed American involvement in the Middle East &#8230; a man who has had his political opponents jailed or (recently) murdered &#8230; a man who has formed and “unbreakable” alliance with America’s most powerful adversary, China &#8230; a man who (oh, you get the point). There is nothing good to say about Putin. He is a despicable human being.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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?</p>



<p>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. ;</p>



<p>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&#8217; 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.”</p>



<p>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. ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin was shameful
