I don't have to agree with everyone that Tucker interviews. I am curious as to what they will say. Eli Lake obviously disagrees with Tucker's opinions on Israel. I disagree with much of what Glenn Greenwald says on Israel. Both Greenwald and Carlson are courageous journalists who give voices of the negated a chance to be heard. I get worried when people writing for 'The Free Press' express the desire to de-platform people they disagree with. I thought that was the entire point of this publication. I want to understand the world better-- listen to many, many viewpoints. I don't need to be 'protected' from hearing a viewpoint and I don't need Eli Lake to label people as 'cranks' or 'conspiracy theorists'. Too many so-called 'conspiracy theorists', dedicated, data-based, intelligent people have sacrificed everything to reveal what they know to be true--and I want to hear from them when I decide what is real in this world. Thank you Bari and team for making this possible here. May it continue.
I have appreciated Tucker Carlson's recent interviews of all kinds of guests, without arguing with them as if he has to change their mind. People have good reasons for why they are thinking the way they do. What they think might not true, but I find it very helpful to have a chance to hear from them about why they are thinking what they are. I have only a small perspective and can easily be wrong. :-). The journalistic activism has destroyed the opportunity for dialog and oddly enough Tucker is becoming a place where others can speak (for instance interview with Chris Cuomo)
Carlson chose to interview Isaac to find out how the Jewish State of Israel treats Christians. Isaac is a priest who neither lives nor works in Israel and who uses the loaded phrase "Occupied Palestine" as his location on his Twitter/X profile. He is a Palestinian Christian from Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem, where Christian ministers serve at the mercy of the Palestinian Authority.
These things would have been nice to know before, during, or after the interview. Barring providing context, Carlson could have conducted a second interview with a Christian priest who actually does live and work in Israel. Or he could have spoken to them both at the same time in a discussion/debate format. Or maybe Carlson could have at least asked Isaac more pointed and revealing questions.
From the first day J. Edger started building the FBI as his own personal intelligence apparatus, protocol has been to infiltrate what they believe is their enemy. No matter who or what. If you don't believe there weren't FBI operatives in the Jan 6 crowd, you haven't been paying even a modicum of attention. Their proven abuses of FISA and warrant less searches is all you need to understand, they are not on our side, they are on their own side.
Is it possible to say: "Russia is corrupt, and Putin is a bad man. Ukraine is corrupt. I feel sorry for their people. But, I am unwilling to expend resources to prop up a corrupt government against another corrupt government."
Can I say that without running afoul of the FP saying I am pandering? Because, I think it's a perfectly possible position to have.
Can I say: I am willing to expend American resources to defend Taiwan against China vs Ukraine against Russia because Taiwan is strategically more important than Ukraine?
Can I say that without running afoul of the FP saying I am pandering to a dictator?
I was implicitly told by a recruiter that I was not diverse enough for a job despite being fully qualified. The team had discussed, and decided not to hire without talking to a woman first. This sexist discrimination is illegal on the state level, federal level, and is internationally recognized as a human rights abuse.
Democrats have told me to my face that this is "necessary for equity." It is. It is known. This is now being installed by the federal government in every single institution in the country up to the highest levels. Ideology and religion do not belong in the government, or in most institutions, but Democrats have chosen to spread a single, partisan ideology to every single party of this nation and across to its allies. Their overarching worship of "Diversity Equity and Inclusion", the triumvirate DEIty, has replaced all commitment to social contracts, to our rights, our Constitution, and even our cultural identity.
As I stated before, this "Diversity Equity and Inclusion" fully supports and justifies the human rights abuse of sexist and racist discrimination......for EQUITY.
I view the entire Democratic Party as now being devoted to a human rights abuse. Insofar as they are dominant in the culture and the government, I can no longer respect this nation as a nation that upholds human rights.
Add to that the greed and corruption of Big Pharma, the insolvent finances, the lawless chaos at the border, the weaponized lawfare, the censorship, the shamelessly public murder of Epstein, and I could go on and on and on. We are a lost, wicked nation, and Tucker Carlson is right to say so.
Great article. I watched Tucker's show on Fox every night for years. As time went on, I grew tired of his relentless harangues about Ukraine and his demonization of anyone who had a different opinion on the conflict - and found myself fast forwarding through those segments. Now, I don't even recognize the man anymore. Where he was once relentless but circumspect, he's now relentlessly obnoxious.
I don't agree with everything Tucker Carlson says. But between Tucker, who questioned the Covid orthodoxy, the fairness of the 2020 election and borrowing trillions to fund unending support of foreign governments, while Americans at home suffer, and Lake, who is the poster child for the uniparty and unquestioningly lapping up the lies of the MSM, I'll take Tucker Carlson any day.
I agree with all that Eli says here. Tucker was like an oasis of sanity in 2020. He really once said when BLM riots were raging: "Remember, when this all starts to feel nuts, that yes, even though there is no one you can speak to about it, you are the sane one, you are normal" [paraphrase]. It meant something.
And I value Carlson's ability to be right and be an important voice on a lot. He was the only person who interviewed Bobulinkski and took him seriously. He was right on Rittenhouse and interviewed the eyewitnesses - what a concept!
But I also agree that he's now a bit off, and a bit too often.
Yep. No question. Tucker is a total whack job. Unlike the ladies on The View and straight arrow Rachel Maddow.
In Moscow I think Tucker was trying to tell us that, hey, they actually have stores and shopping centers in Russia these days. I had no idea! And I believe his Putin interview was helpful. No, Eli Lake, no journalist gets to give a head of state a rough time, unless it's a US liberal journalist giving a GOP president a hard time. I found History According to Vlad very interesting. Of course it was a lie. Remember, Eli, you can always tell when a politician is lying: his lips are moving.
Then there was the Mike Benz interview on gubmint censorship.. No mention of that in Eli's article. Why not?
Yep, Tucker Carlson has lost the plot. America should bankrupt itself, drive its people into penury, allow millions into its own borders without account, support conflicts that serve only the interests of a mere fraction of its wealthy population and regress into chaos because someone, somewhere is... "bad"...
That's not "foreign policy" that's called an inquisition...
> For Tucker, America is not exceptional; it is no better than its enemies.
Very few people would say everything America does is magically better than everywhere else in the world; and FOX advancing that concept is being disingenuous. There are people who love America as a concept, but thinking America is infalliable... just no. There are things America does far better than its "enemies" and a few things it does that might be a bit worse (eg most people on any side of politics would have a lot to criticize about America's handling of crime)
A standard position of many leftists (especially classrooms) is that not only is America not better than its enemies, it's *worse*. That it's a settler colonial state set up to keep black people down (see: NYT platforming 1619 project). That it's patriarchal, or heteronormative, or whatever else. The "Squad" are often saying capitalism is wrong. We even now have leftists chanting "Death to America" in Farsi. So if Tucker is evil and must be stopped for not buying fully into the mythos of American Exceptionalism, then what does that say about 90% of Democrats?
Honestly, though, the idea of "American Exceptionalism" is something that was maybe true around the very start of the 20th century, and hasn't been true since about 1945. We've been coasting on having half of the industrial revolution, great natural resources, being unscathed by 2 world wars, stealing a lot of gold from Europe in the aftermath of WW2, having the world reserve currency, and having a lot of bases around the world to enforce things militarily. It's not some magic that American soil is better, and it's not even "our democracy" (which is very quickly being eroded anyways). America got where it got through a combination of luck and hard work by our ancestors, but that doesn't mean it will always stay that way if we do not maintain it. And, yeah, out constitution, when properly followed, *is* part of our greatness, but clearly not the only piece.
Tucker is not right about everything. But he's one of the few bridges that exist to help people overcome the inertia of the neocon/everythings-fine-while-our-house-burns-down right, and into the sphere of the dissidents (which include people like RFK, who's definitely not "on the right"). People who engage their brain cells and question whether our political system itself represents them instead of just the interests of big corporations. And that's where actual political change can happen. Not from entrenching yourself further into the neocon bubble. Neoconservatism worked in the 1980s, but we're 40 years later.
Tucker Carlson is a living, breathing manifestation of the right of free speech. It is up to each one of us to wade through these voices and determine truth vs sophistry. We find our own way. This, in large part, is why I am a FREE Press subscriber. Though I read plenty of other stuff, as well.
I tried watching him a couple of times many years ago before cutting the cord. His monologues were fun. Red meat for a group I don't particularly like, but well-written.
But when he interviewed people, he was easily side-tracked. He missed easy opportunities for devastating follow-up questions. He'd repeat bits from his monologue, but it was clear he didn't really understand what he was saying.
I think the answer is simple. At Fox News, he had a staff with some good writers who knew Tucker's audience. Over time, the shtick lost momentum, and Dominion was just an opportunity for the network to cut bait on someone who wasn't growing with them. They had to know just how bad he was without a good staff to keep him in check.
Since then, we see Tucker without coherent writing, without a sanity filter for guests before they get in the door. He's a sideshow. He had the stage with the Putin interview and he completely blew it.
I don't miss cable. Five years since I've cut the cord and I haven't once thought it might be nice to have CNN or Fox News. Occasionally, ESPN will have an event I'd like to see, but most of the important sporting events are still, thankfully, on network.
"The skepticism that served him well in the Trump years when much of the fourth estate behaved like an opposition political party has led him all the way around the horseshoe. His opposition to the people he hates—liberals and neocons—has turned him into Noam Chomsky in a bow tie"
Replace Noam Chomsky with Father Charles Coughlin. That's who he most resembles.
Tucker Carlson is an anti-Semite. I'm not sure why that is even a point of debate. And no, it's not about Israel. Tucker keeps inviting raging Jew-haters on his show and giving them a platform.
Roger Waters, Kanye, Candace Owens, and now this Jew-hating pastor who basically just lied throughout the whole interview.
Carlson never pushes back in the lies or crazy statements of his Jew-hating guests. He just nods in enthusiastic agreement. One can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic but that's not what Tucker is doing.
I seriously doubt the intelligence of anyone who denies this.
I don't have to agree with everyone that Tucker interviews. I am curious as to what they will say. Eli Lake obviously disagrees with Tucker's opinions on Israel. I disagree with much of what Glenn Greenwald says on Israel. Both Greenwald and Carlson are courageous journalists who give voices of the negated a chance to be heard. I get worried when people writing for 'The Free Press' express the desire to de-platform people they disagree with. I thought that was the entire point of this publication. I want to understand the world better-- listen to many, many viewpoints. I don't need to be 'protected' from hearing a viewpoint and I don't need Eli Lake to label people as 'cranks' or 'conspiracy theorists'. Too many so-called 'conspiracy theorists', dedicated, data-based, intelligent people have sacrificed everything to reveal what they know to be true--and I want to hear from them when I decide what is real in this world. Thank you Bari and team for making this possible here. May it continue.
I have appreciated Tucker Carlson's recent interviews of all kinds of guests, without arguing with them as if he has to change their mind. People have good reasons for why they are thinking the way they do. What they think might not true, but I find it very helpful to have a chance to hear from them about why they are thinking what they are. I have only a small perspective and can easily be wrong. :-). The journalistic activism has destroyed the opportunity for dialog and oddly enough Tucker is becoming a place where others can speak (for instance interview with Chris Cuomo)
What the Hell Is Wrong With Tucker Carlson?
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/04/10/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-tucker-carlson-n4928037
Stephen Green | 9:15 AM on April 10, 2024
(Snip)
Carlson chose to interview Isaac to find out how the Jewish State of Israel treats Christians. Isaac is a priest who neither lives nor works in Israel and who uses the loaded phrase "Occupied Palestine" as his location on his Twitter/X profile. He is a Palestinian Christian from Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem, where Christian ministers serve at the mercy of the Palestinian Authority.
These things would have been nice to know before, during, or after the interview. Barring providing context, Carlson could have conducted a second interview with a Christian priest who actually does live and work in Israel. Or he could have spoken to them both at the same time in a discussion/debate format. Or maybe Carlson could have at least asked Isaac more pointed and revealing questions.
But he did none of these things. Why not?
(Snip)
From the first day J. Edger started building the FBI as his own personal intelligence apparatus, protocol has been to infiltrate what they believe is their enemy. No matter who or what. If you don't believe there weren't FBI operatives in the Jan 6 crowd, you haven't been paying even a modicum of attention. Their proven abuses of FISA and warrant less searches is all you need to understand, they are not on our side, they are on their own side.
Is it possible to say: "Russia is corrupt, and Putin is a bad man. Ukraine is corrupt. I feel sorry for their people. But, I am unwilling to expend resources to prop up a corrupt government against another corrupt government."
Can I say that without running afoul of the FP saying I am pandering? Because, I think it's a perfectly possible position to have.
Can I say: I am willing to expend American resources to defend Taiwan against China vs Ukraine against Russia because Taiwan is strategically more important than Ukraine?
Can I say that without running afoul of the FP saying I am pandering to a dictator?
I'm sympathetic to Carlson's views.
I was implicitly told by a recruiter that I was not diverse enough for a job despite being fully qualified. The team had discussed, and decided not to hire without talking to a woman first. This sexist discrimination is illegal on the state level, federal level, and is internationally recognized as a human rights abuse.
Democrats have told me to my face that this is "necessary for equity." It is. It is known. This is now being installed by the federal government in every single institution in the country up to the highest levels. Ideology and religion do not belong in the government, or in most institutions, but Democrats have chosen to spread a single, partisan ideology to every single party of this nation and across to its allies. Their overarching worship of "Diversity Equity and Inclusion", the triumvirate DEIty, has replaced all commitment to social contracts, to our rights, our Constitution, and even our cultural identity.
As I stated before, this "Diversity Equity and Inclusion" fully supports and justifies the human rights abuse of sexist and racist discrimination......for EQUITY.
I view the entire Democratic Party as now being devoted to a human rights abuse. Insofar as they are dominant in the culture and the government, I can no longer respect this nation as a nation that upholds human rights.
Add to that the greed and corruption of Big Pharma, the insolvent finances, the lawless chaos at the border, the weaponized lawfare, the censorship, the shamelessly public murder of Epstein, and I could go on and on and on. We are a lost, wicked nation, and Tucker Carlson is right to say so.
Great article. I watched Tucker's show on Fox every night for years. As time went on, I grew tired of his relentless harangues about Ukraine and his demonization of anyone who had a different opinion on the conflict - and found myself fast forwarding through those segments. Now, I don't even recognize the man anymore. Where he was once relentless but circumspect, he's now relentlessly obnoxious.
I don't agree with everything Tucker Carlson says. But between Tucker, who questioned the Covid orthodoxy, the fairness of the 2020 election and borrowing trillions to fund unending support of foreign governments, while Americans at home suffer, and Lake, who is the poster child for the uniparty and unquestioningly lapping up the lies of the MSM, I'll take Tucker Carlson any day.
I agree with all that Eli says here. Tucker was like an oasis of sanity in 2020. He really once said when BLM riots were raging: "Remember, when this all starts to feel nuts, that yes, even though there is no one you can speak to about it, you are the sane one, you are normal" [paraphrase]. It meant something.
And I value Carlson's ability to be right and be an important voice on a lot. He was the only person who interviewed Bobulinkski and took him seriously. He was right on Rittenhouse and interviewed the eyewitnesses - what a concept!
But I also agree that he's now a bit off, and a bit too often.
Yep. No question. Tucker is a total whack job. Unlike the ladies on The View and straight arrow Rachel Maddow.
In Moscow I think Tucker was trying to tell us that, hey, they actually have stores and shopping centers in Russia these days. I had no idea! And I believe his Putin interview was helpful. No, Eli Lake, no journalist gets to give a head of state a rough time, unless it's a US liberal journalist giving a GOP president a hard time. I found History According to Vlad very interesting. Of course it was a lie. Remember, Eli, you can always tell when a politician is lying: his lips are moving.
Then there was the Mike Benz interview on gubmint censorship.. No mention of that in Eli's article. Why not?
Yep, Tucker Carlson has lost the plot. America should bankrupt itself, drive its people into penury, allow millions into its own borders without account, support conflicts that serve only the interests of a mere fraction of its wealthy population and regress into chaos because someone, somewhere is... "bad"...
That's not "foreign policy" that's called an inquisition...
> For Tucker, America is not exceptional; it is no better than its enemies.
Very few people would say everything America does is magically better than everywhere else in the world; and FOX advancing that concept is being disingenuous. There are people who love America as a concept, but thinking America is infalliable... just no. There are things America does far better than its "enemies" and a few things it does that might be a bit worse (eg most people on any side of politics would have a lot to criticize about America's handling of crime)
A standard position of many leftists (especially classrooms) is that not only is America not better than its enemies, it's *worse*. That it's a settler colonial state set up to keep black people down (see: NYT platforming 1619 project). That it's patriarchal, or heteronormative, or whatever else. The "Squad" are often saying capitalism is wrong. We even now have leftists chanting "Death to America" in Farsi. So if Tucker is evil and must be stopped for not buying fully into the mythos of American Exceptionalism, then what does that say about 90% of Democrats?
Honestly, though, the idea of "American Exceptionalism" is something that was maybe true around the very start of the 20th century, and hasn't been true since about 1945. We've been coasting on having half of the industrial revolution, great natural resources, being unscathed by 2 world wars, stealing a lot of gold from Europe in the aftermath of WW2, having the world reserve currency, and having a lot of bases around the world to enforce things militarily. It's not some magic that American soil is better, and it's not even "our democracy" (which is very quickly being eroded anyways). America got where it got through a combination of luck and hard work by our ancestors, but that doesn't mean it will always stay that way if we do not maintain it. And, yeah, out constitution, when properly followed, *is* part of our greatness, but clearly not the only piece.
Tucker is not right about everything. But he's one of the few bridges that exist to help people overcome the inertia of the neocon/everythings-fine-while-our-house-burns-down right, and into the sphere of the dissidents (which include people like RFK, who's definitely not "on the right"). People who engage their brain cells and question whether our political system itself represents them instead of just the interests of big corporations. And that's where actual political change can happen. Not from entrenching yourself further into the neocon bubble. Neoconservatism worked in the 1980s, but we're 40 years later.
Tucker Carlson is a living, breathing manifestation of the right of free speech. It is up to each one of us to wade through these voices and determine truth vs sophistry. We find our own way. This, in large part, is why I am a FREE Press subscriber. Though I read plenty of other stuff, as well.
I tried watching him a couple of times many years ago before cutting the cord. His monologues were fun. Red meat for a group I don't particularly like, but well-written.
But when he interviewed people, he was easily side-tracked. He missed easy opportunities for devastating follow-up questions. He'd repeat bits from his monologue, but it was clear he didn't really understand what he was saying.
I think the answer is simple. At Fox News, he had a staff with some good writers who knew Tucker's audience. Over time, the shtick lost momentum, and Dominion was just an opportunity for the network to cut bait on someone who wasn't growing with them. They had to know just how bad he was without a good staff to keep him in check.
Since then, we see Tucker without coherent writing, without a sanity filter for guests before they get in the door. He's a sideshow. He had the stage with the Putin interview and he completely blew it.
I don't miss cable. Five years since I've cut the cord and I haven't once thought it might be nice to have CNN or Fox News. Occasionally, ESPN will have an event I'd like to see, but most of the important sporting events are still, thankfully, on network.
"The skepticism that served him well in the Trump years when much of the fourth estate behaved like an opposition political party has led him all the way around the horseshoe. His opposition to the people he hates—liberals and neocons—has turned him into Noam Chomsky in a bow tie"
Replace Noam Chomsky with Father Charles Coughlin. That's who he most resembles.
Tucker Carlson is an anti-Semite. I'm not sure why that is even a point of debate. And no, it's not about Israel. Tucker keeps inviting raging Jew-haters on his show and giving them a platform.
Roger Waters, Kanye, Candace Owens, and now this Jew-hating pastor who basically just lied throughout the whole interview.
Carlson never pushes back in the lies or crazy statements of his Jew-hating guests. He just nods in enthusiastic agreement. One can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic but that's not what Tucker is doing.
I seriously doubt the intelligence of anyone who denies this.