O'Donnell is insufferable. Rep. Culberson answered "no" several times early in the interview, but O'Donnell repeatedly challenges this answer and asks the question again because it doesn't fit into his prejudiced idea of what a fiscal conservative or constitutionalist should believe.

Other terrible stuff: Apparently, according to O'Donnell something either needs to be envisioned by Jefferson, or it's socialist, with no third option. Also, apparently the platforms of political parties never change, because it's somehow odd that a republican in 2009 would be in favor of social security when republicans in ~1935 weren't.

I'm sure there's more, but I could barely stand to watch this once.

Couldn't make it through the interview. I can't stand interviewers that constantly interrupt their guests. Even if Culberson wasn't answering the question directly, give him a chance to say what he wants, then get back to the subject. In a dialogue like this, you can barely tell what they're saying or talking about.

O'Donnell might have good points but he was trying to control the flow of the conversation much too strictly.

Moving this video to NetRunner's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*length=9:50

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 9:50 - length declared by bareboards2.

This was really difficult to listen to.

Somewhere in there are some interesting points.

Culberson is fascinating in calling out MSNBC for their interrupting tactics.

uh what the hell were you watching? Cause I saw the Rep doing anything and everything to AVOID answering the questions presented. He was saying he was trying to answer but the second he was given a breath, he went off in a direction unrelated to the question. When asked he would never provide any kind of direct answer, which was what O'Donnell wanted. Asked about Social Security he would never answer that directly, he would just go on and on about grant programs, never actually answering the question by saying "Yes, Social Security should be repealed", and since he never actually said those words, he can worm out of it later by claiming a differing intent behind all his kerfuffle about grant programs. Typical politician bullshit.

This is the kind of thing we should be DEMANDING from our journalists, not giving the politicians an excuse to twist their words around so that later they can spin them up into something totally different according to the situation. BOTH sides should be held accountable to their words and intent and that starts by forcing them to state categorically what it is they actually want instead of allowing them to say one thing, do another and then point out "I never actually said that" like they all do. O'Donnell might have been more tactful between each repetition of the question, but he absolutely should make them actually answer the question asked, NOT some vague nonsense that relates to it but doesn't actually answer it.