(Video) Tucker disrespectful and dismissive to Kucinich

[OptionsTrader]

Tucker disrespectful and dismissive to Kucinich

NOVEMBER 06, 2007 MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bELc-kjLR_E

Same uninformed non-fact-based opinionating he pulls on Ron Paul supporters.

[Kandilynn]

I disagree, Kucinich wouldn't give Tucker a straight answer. He had to ask the same question 3 times in a row. I would have gotten frustrated also.

If he would have answered the questions on the first try, maybe they could have gotten somewhere.

[OptionsTrader]

I disagree, Kucinich wouldn't give Tucker a straight answer. He had to ask the same question 3 times in a row. I would have gotten frustrated also.

If he would have answered the questions on the first try, maybe they could have gotten somewhere.

He was asking biased questions, worded in different ways. It is proper for Kucinich to correct Tucker and educate him that impeachment is not some kind of overthrowing of the government. Impeachment is a power of Congress authorized in the Constitution and he wanted Tucker to stop slanting the bill as some kind of publicity stunt, which it is not. HR 333 has been on the books for months and in my view, the 3 articles have merit. I recommend everyone read them:

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

[Edward]

I disagree, Kucinich wouldn't give Tucker a straight answer. He had to ask the same question 3 times in a row. I would have gotten frustrated also.

If he would have answered the questions on the first try, maybe they could have gotten somewhere.I agree with Kandilynn on this. Tucker asked Kucinich three times why his fellow Democrats weren't behind his bill to impeach Cheaney. Kucinich never answered that question.

[OptionsTrader]

I agree with Kandilynn on this. Tucker asked Kucinich three times why his fellow Democrats weren't behind his bill to impeach Cheaney. Kucinich never answered that question.

Voting against a floor vote today is not equivalent to "not being behind his bill." It isn't that simple. This is politics, not everything is at it seems in a soundbite. Kucinich got what he wanted, the bill was read into the record. What Kucinich wants is for Conyers' House Judiciary Committee to start hearings as Rep Wexler, of the House Judiciary Committee, wants:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/28504
http://wexler.house.gov/

[Edward]

Voting against a floor vote today is not equivalent to "not being behind his bill." It isn't that simple. This is politics, not everything is at it seems in a soundbite. Kucinich got what he wanted, the bill was read into the record.Perhaps that is so, but I don't think it's fair to say that Tucker was giving him a hard time. I'm an impartial observer and it certainly appeared that Kucinich failed to answer the question(s).

[silverhandorder]

Perhaps that is so, but I don't think it's fair to say that Tucker was giving him a hard time. I'm an impartial observer and it certainly appeared that Kucinich failed to answer the question(s).

Agree, Kucinich keep trying to shove w/e he wants to say down our throat. He needs to answer the question first.

[mtmedlin]

Kucinich is a moron. Yes hes radical and some love him but anybody who believes that the stars give us power and claims to have seen a UFO on the back porch of Shirley McClains house is a moron.

[beerista]

Tucker asked such a wildly misleading question at first ("overthrow the government" -- he knows better) that Kucinich couldn't possibly have answered it as asked. I agree that Kucinich could have been more direct, but some clarification was certainly in order.
The second time he asked the question, he prefaced it by saying that it was a "radical step." Tucker wasn't exactly being above board until he finally got exasperated and the third time he asked the question straight. At that point Kucinich answered it straight. Seems fair enough.
As for "wait for the election and let the people decide," I haven't read that section of the Constitution today, but the last time I did I don't remember it restricting Congress' power on this point to a certain number of months before an election.
As for whether it's "symbolic," what would be wrong with Congress finally growing a pair... even if only symbolically?

[Artemus]

Well he can't really outright say, the Democrats are afraid of what the Bush Administration might do in response.

[LibertyOfOne]

Agree, Kucinich keep trying to shove w/e he wants to say down our throat. He needs to answer the question first.

You would not be saying that if it was Paul and Tucker asked him why he wanted to overthrow the gov... Tucker was being an asshole from the start of the "Interview". Why should he have to answer said questions?

[Edward]

Why should he have to answer said questions?Isn't that the point of an interview?

[LibertyOfOne]

Isn't that the point of an interview?

If someone is being an asshole like tucker clearly was. Would you answer his irrelevant question or would you fix the false analogy he made? On and the thing about SNL was clearly irrelevant. He didn't ask the question three times. He only asked it once while making absurd remarks about the candidate. Forcing him to correct tucker's assholeishness. It's a slick tactic Turker used but anyone with half a brain could see through it.

[LibertyOfOne]

I disagree, Kucinich wouldn't give Tucker a straight answer. He had to ask the same question 3 times in a row. I would have gotten frustrated also.

If he would have answered the questions on the first try, maybe they could have gotten somewhere.

An over dramatized version of what tucker did.

Tucker: People who support this resolution are for the overthrow of the gov... Why don't the democrats get behind this issue?

Dennis: Equating support for the resolution with the overthrow of the gov....

Tucker: Well it's so radical.... Why don't the democrats get behind it?

Dennis: It's not radical....

You see the tactic tucker uses? Nothing wrong with that? That way he could claim he didn't answer the question for a third time by making up bullshit that Den has to put in it's place.

[LibertyOfOne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw

Worth the watch

[Edward]

If someone is being an asshole like tucker clearly was. Would you answer his irrelevant question or would you fix the false analogy he made?Kucinich should have corrected whatever false premises he believed Tucker injected AND he should have answered the question.

[OptionsTrader]

An over dramatized version of what tucker did.

Tucker: People who support this resolution are for the overthrow of the gov... Why don't the democrats get behind this issue?

Dennis: Equating support for the resolution with the overthrow of the gov....

Tucker: Well it's so radical.... Why don't the democrats get behind it?

Dennis: It's not radical....

You see the tactic tucker uses? Nothing wrong with that? That way he could claim he didn't answer the question for a third time by making up bullshit that Den has to put in it's place.

That was my take as well.

[aravoth]

sigh..

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Tucker disrespectful and dismissive to Kucinich

NOVEMBER 06, 2007 MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bELc-kjLR_E

Same uninformed non-fact-based opinionating he pulls on Ron Paul supporters.

oh well

[RegularRon]

As much as Kucinich is a "honest" man, the fact of the matter is, he's a Marxist. Plain and simple. Still trying to figure out how some of the Good Doc's supporters like him. Besides the Iraq War (Kucinich didn't vote to go in to Afgranistan if i'm not mistaken, and Dr. Paul did) they have NOTHING in common. Nothing. Kucinich want's private property and gun ownership down anyway with. Two things that should scare the crap out of some of the Doc's supporters.