What is surprising about this 11-minute plus segment, featuring the dogged host Rachel Maddow with the famous journalist Jane Mayer, is that it is difficult to watch through because it is so leaden, detailed, argumentative, earnest, defensive, logical, repetitive, sleepy and, if you look away a moment, perplexing and mind-numbing. The theme is that Dick Cheney is a genuine ongoing out-sized danger to the Constitution. Maddow reviews the record of the Bush administration's decision to use EIT (enhanced interrogation techniques) on detainees. There are dates, places, news clips, file film; there are quotes from documents; there is a parade of what appears to be evidence in a criminal prosecution. And then there is the disconnected and unconvincing Jane Mayer of the elite partisan magazine, the New Yorker (long ago the New Yorker was a cultural taste-maker; now it seems satisfied with being the flavor of righteous liberalism). But what does it come to? Not a conspiracy, not a plot to undermine the Constitution, not an imminent nuke war over Iran, not an outrage with missing trillions or a disgrace in the public eye. It comes to "Get Cheney!" Maddow and Mayer do not like Cheney. Fair guess they didn't vote for him. Do they know that complaining about a former vice-president is deeply comical and peculiar? At one point late in the sluggish exposition (how many ad breaks were there in these 11 minutes?), there is a passionate, slow-motion, dispirited exchange between Maddow and Mayer in which they explicate how Cheney spent his mornings going over raw intelligence data in his own office and then going over it again with POTUS. Mayer is disdainful of this clerical attention to what she characterizes as mostly "garbage." Maddow sniffs handsomely. The accusation against Cheney at this point is that he was obsessed with the random sweepings of national security. Guilty. Cheney now states flatly that his administration protected the country from a second Al Qaeda attack for seven years.Back to Torture.
The chief pursuit of Darth Cheney by Maddow, Mayer and their allies is on the narrow legal case that EIT was illicit, or should have been, and that the use of EIT on detainees who were not an imminent threat, who were not standing on the Mall with a nuke in their backpacks, was stupid, cruel, disgusting, un-American and maybe even slightly illegal. That is the whole of it. Torture is nasty. Cheney believes that torture is nasty and necessary. War is horrible. Cheney conducted the war as nasty, horrible and necessary. Guilty.
Obsession.
It may be that this determined lecture series by Maddow and Mayer is an unobvious explanation for Mrs. Pelosi's creative egotistical conduct on Thursday. If you live at the video edge of MSNBC's trinity of Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow evening presentations of the case for "Get Cheney!" then you could, inside this cloud of righteousness, sophisticated patriotism and limpid partisanship, have made a mistake on the scale of Mrs. Pelosi's to answer questions about what she knew and when she knew it re EIT. In sum, if you only watch the bloviators you agree with, you are going to be surprised by the mob who don't live in your zip code. It may be be that Darth Cheney makes a corresponding error by watching the wee Fox only. It may be easy for those of us who watch neither cable channel, nor any cable, nor listen to the talk radio, nor much concern ourselves with fashionable disdain, to see that "Get Cheney!" is hilarious and incomprehensible. Too much Churchill distorts my worldview. Bluntly, I suggest that Maddow and Mayer are not as monomaniacal as they present. And Darth Cheney is not as gifted a wizard as he presents.
JB said: Maddow reviews the record of the Bush administration's decisin to use EIT (enhanced interrogation techniques) on detainees. There are dates, places, news clips, file film; there are quotes from documents; there is a parade of what appears to be evidence in a criminal prosecution.
No doubt furnished by Conyers in that impeachment game plan issued by the minority stooges on the House Judiciary Committee in 2005/6 as the Dems prepared to take the Congress. Judging by MSNBC's prime time audience share, they are preaching to the DailyKossacks and the HuggingtonPosters. If a Maddow cries "treason!" in the forest, does any rational being hear?
I used to listen to Maddow's 'AirAmerica' extravaganza in the car sometimes when my usual programs were preempted or out of range. Rachel is a classic example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). She is neither interesting nor convincing. At first, it seems she's good for a laugh; and, then, suddenly you feel curiously ashamed when you remember what your mother told you about making fun of the handicapped.
The world’s largest Democracy (India) held elections in stages over the past month. It played out relatively quietly. Early on, Maoist separatists attacked polling stations in the semi-lawless north-east of the country, killing about sixty people. Since then, the Indian Election Commission has stepped up its efforts, beefing up security – calling out the army where necessary (in places like Kashmir among others considered to be flashpoints) - at polling stations nationwide and there have been no reports of trouble since.
Voter participation has been awesome! Almost twice the entire population of the United States cast their ballots. My wife signed up to vote within the proscribed time period but found that her name was never added to the voting list. This has given rise to intimations in some quarters that the parties in general do not care about the middle class vote. Bolstering this view was the (to us obvious) fact that our illiterate maid was taken through the steps of registering early in the process and received her voter card well before Election Day.
It must also be added, however, that any number of respected, non-partisan organizations exist here who are dedicated solely to get people to exercise their franchise. These are said to consist of virtual armies of young, well-educated volunteers who recognize the people’s right (and obligation) to vote as sacrosanct in a democracy. They are said to refrain from promoting specific candidates over others. In this respect, they appear to resemble our ‘League of Women Voters’ rather than, say, ACORN.
Yesterday, the Indian stock market rallied when it became apparent (from the exit polls) that the ruling coalition will continue. The Indian people, it seems, want continuity (as opposed to change). Today is the counting. The exit polls appear to have been correct. What has been surprising is that the election has not been as close as predicted. Also, the Communists appear to have lost some ground (and influence). At the same time the (what has been described as the muscular) right-of-center Hindu Party (BJP) has fallen far short of expectations. This is said to be largely due to the decision by Atal Behari Vajpayee (considered by many to be a great statesman of exceptional maturity and depth) not to run.
From the vantage point of an outsider, who is not familiar with the daily ebb and flow of political fortunes here, I hear the usual cynical carping of dirty tricks and corruption. But all in all, nobody running can be accused of being in league with the enemy (Pakistan).
It is interesting to compare the Indian elections with our own in which the deciding issue was ‘change’ without the slightest curiosity what such ‘change’ would actually entail.
Careful what you wish for! One event and everything changes. We are falling into a September 10th mentality IMHO. If Something Terrible happens many on the left will be blamed for the complacency.
Why are so many willing to bet their careers that no terrorist attacks will occur?
Peter-
Thank you for your comments, Peter. I used to live in India in 91-92 and have traveled there many times since. My favorite times to visit is during an elections when I am just awe struck at democracy embraced and on display.
On an aside I read many of your comments and think you're a very good writer and should try to get published, or if you already are published would be interesting to know that.
I never realized how really liberal John Batchelor was until the last few months. After listening for several years and pushing to have him returned to the airwaves after his dismissal, it has been an eye opening experience and sad to say one that now allows me to have time to catch up on my reading on Sunday nights.
John, your on air backhanded insult to Rush Limbaugh was beneath someone that I admired.
Welcome Linda: I am unaware that I have ever mentioned any broadcaster on air. My guests do. But is is a long evening, and my mind wanders. When I am sharp, I do not speak of media colleagues. When I write, I go in other directions. Cheers, J
‘The John Batchelor Show’, though considered ‘conservative’, does not fit this or any mold. It is unique in its approach to radio programming. For one thing, John does not take random callers. All his guests are experts in their varied fields. As such, one can expect much greater depth to satisfy one’s cerebral longing. Generally, talk radio tends to emphasize emotion and stir outrage. Contrary to what Democrats and the mainstream media would have you believe, however, such emotion and outrage is NOT manufactured by the talk radio personalities alone. It is already out there - literally seething throughout the nation - seeking a way to articulate the sentiments large numbers of Americans harbor, particularly those in the non-governmental productive sectors.
It has never been my intent to champion one type of media over another; or one political position over another. (Though, I admit, that I too nurse my bias.) This is just to agree with your observation that pressure in the kettle is building; that Democrats, though seemingly comfortably ensconced, are hanging on by their fingernails. The next two elections have the potential of amounting to virtual massacres involving anyone in elected office today, both Repubicans (sic) and Democrat alike. Americans have been asleep at the wheel but are wide awake now; just itching for a do-over of last November’s election. Limbaugh continues to be at the forefront of this movement. To ignore his impact is folly.
Linda, John admits he does not listen to Limbaugh. For one thing he likely does not have time. With his hectic schedule it’s a wonder that he even finds time to breathe. Therefore, he cannot know what you and I know. He knows only what others tell him. Even self-styled conservatives have trouble fully endorsing Limbaugh. He’s the elephant in the room that nobody admits to seeing for, by doing so, one becomes painfully aware of one’s own puniness. Why? Because he is so effective! It’s no wonder the Dems want him silenced.
It’s a bit of an irony to know that by just turning off his hearing aid, he can enjoy the silence of his critics. BTW, I’ve heard few giving the man credit for the hell the man’s had to through to continue his show right after his hearing failed. I remember, it made even me cringe. All you hear about is Limbaugh’s OxyContin addiction over and over again …the desperate carping of very small minds.