Liz Cheney Appeared On MSNBC And CNN Ten Times In Less Than A Month
Media Matters runs the numbers on Liz Cheney’s over-exposure on the networks, and they’re startling: She’s had at least 22 on-air appearances in less than a month.
Here’s the breakdown of her appearances since May 12th:
* Fox News: 10 appearances (not surprising).
* MSNBC: Six appearances (pretty friggin’ surprising).
* CNN: Four appearances (surprising enough).
* ABC: Two appearances (eh, but still).
Taking Fox out of the equation, that’s still a dozen appearances on MSNBC, CNN, and ABC in under a month. And as others have noted, in many of those appearances, she wasn’t challenged by a counterpart or by interviewers in any meaningful sense.
It’s worth repeating that Liz Cheney is less a bearer of the GOP message than she is her father’s chief public defender. She’s spent much of her on-air time defending the torture program of her father’s administration. But the policy has been nixed by Obama. The upshot: The only thing her airtime will likely impact in any meaningful way is her dad’s legacy. It won’t have any real impact on any current policy debates. Which only makes the whole thing weirder.
Update: It’s also worth noting that Liz Cheney’s frequent attacks on Obama are made primarily in the context of defending her pop’s policies, so those won’t have a meaningful impact on current policy debates, either.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
My problem more than any other is the lack of credible challenge by any of her interviewers. Hell she could come on Hardball or Maddow’s show 20 times in 20 days for all I care, but she doesn’t. She gets softball interviews and is allowed to spew propaganda with out any kind of pushback. Not only that, she doesn’t really even get tough questions. “What do you think about Obama’s speech?”. Uhmm DUH. How about asking about Ali Soufan, or Richard Clarke, or Colin Powell’s dissent, or asking if we took the country to war on false premises? But nope, we never get those kinds of questions. Andrea Mitchell tried to ask her a tough question and Liz Cheney just talked over her and told Mitchell she was wrong. Now Andrea Mitchell knew she wasn’t wrong but instead of pressing her she said she would “check her notes”. What kind of bullsh*t is that?! We all know she is going to get lobbed the softest of softballs on FoxNews but what the hell is up with MSNBC?
.
I will say though that the one moment of triumph was when Katrina Vanden Heuvel busted her @ss on This Week with George S. I wish they had allowed KVH more time to eviscerate Liz and her Dad but George S saw where it was headed and changed the subject.
SG — having watched a bunch of these interviews, in which she just runs circles around her questioners, I’m convinced that the simple problem is that many of the on air types just aren’t familiar enough with the basic facts of the torture debate.
.
Those who have a superficial knowledge of the facts just won’t be equipped to challenge someone like her even if they wanted to.
Greg
.
True in some cases, but I don’t think Andrea Mitch.ell can claim ignorance even though she allowed Liz Cheney to run circles around her too
What does Uncle Dick have on the press?
The minute he shows up and so much as breathes, the media starts licking his nut cheese and then ask: Please sir, can we have some more? Cheney effectively overruled the First Amendment starting in 2001 – two weeks after 9-11 the media did a complete 180, quit asking hard question about what had just happened and started printing propaganda.
What is it with Uncle Dick and the media?
It feels like more than 10 times, it feels like every other day lately. And yesterday it was twice on MSNBC. Do they only count that once because she’s in the house in her green blazer, ready to roll?
Liz certainly does look as if she is setting herself up as some sort of party strategist going forward. I found this interesting from her May 18 appearance on This Week:
.
“I would like to say something about the next generation of Republicans. Look, it seems to me that, you know, our opponents like to spend a lot of time talking about who is up and who is down. The future of the Republican Party is going to be built based on substance. And a key part of that substance is a strong national defense. And what you see all across the country today, frankly, are the rise of conservative groups, people who say, I’m not Republican, I’m not Democratic, but I’m conservative. And they’ve got a set of core beliefs, strong national defense, belief in the Second Amendment, individual liberties, low taxes, limited government, those are the things that this party has long stood for and that made America great. The national security piece of it is one in which the vice president has, in fact, been very effective in the debate over the course of the last two weeks, not just in influencing public opinion but, frankly, in influencing the Obama White House. So I think, you know, it’s great for me to sort of hear James and Katrina talk about, you know, where they think the party is going. In fact, I think that the Republican Party has got to stay true to those core principles. And when it does, I think we’ll be back to winning elections again.”
.
The Repubs are attemtping a makeover with Steele (failing) and with Liz Cheney (succeeding). Women as a voting segment are very concerned with security; the whole Liz effort makes great political sense and so far it is working great. Mitt Romney/Liz Cheney 2012? More likely that she will stick to appointed positions but she could very well be a very important voice when it comes to rebuilding the Republican brand. She’s definitely on the right track and she’s very adroit on air.
“What does Uncle Dick have on the press? ”
I often wonder this one myself… are they scared of him or secretly (or not so secretly) in awe of him? I mean, honestly, I’m kind of awed by how blatantly he put the screws to the Constitution without repercussions. But it’s a really bad/sad kind of awe.
sbj
.
How do you quanatify that Liz Cheney is winning anything?
@sgwhite: Good golly! First you’re gonna lay a low blow regarding Chelsea Clinton then you expect me to engage as if you’re an honest, fair player?
.
Obviously Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Greg Sargent think that Liz is effective. (If she was bombing I doubt we’d be hearing and reading such commentary.) Since the Cheney’s have begun their offensive her father’s favorables have risen while Pelosi’s have declined. The public is moving the wrong way regarding Gitmo, “torture,” prisoner photos (security issues). Dem ID has flatlined while Independents are growing (that’s who she is directly targeting in her statement above).
.
Obviously one can’t quantify that she is “winning” but you’d be a fool to deny her effectiveness. And being “effective” is as close as we’re ever going to get in determining if she is “winning” anything here.
sbj, Glad you feel ‘great’ about your party ’succeeding’ with Liz as a spokesman. Got to rain on your parade. A Cheney is not electable in 2012. Her dad will still be fighting everybody that won’t agree with his world view. He cannot stop. Also, Liz seems much to belligerent for elected office. Then there is her loose relationship with facts…
Effective she is not, ineffective MSNBC anchors interviewing her are. Unfortunately for you and Liz there are these little things called fact checkers now and they have torn her a new one time after time. You can mistake frustration with effectiveness at your own peril. Thats what Republicans have been doing for the last two election cycles.
I gotta tell you that this “loose relationship with facts thing” seems to be largely something that exists only in the liberal blogosphere.
Just had to share Rick Sanchez ripping Bill O Liely to shreds.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuFp3G_OFxU
@SBJ there’s no persuading you. You think she’s effective, we think she’s a liar who doesn’t warrant all this air time and deference. Good luck with rebuilding your party with Liz Cheney as a major player.
Looks like the dick got himself a twofer here. First she gives him a deferment so he doesn’t get drafted and then she comes out on TV and defends the indefensible.
sbj – I suggest that you look at Rachel’s show to see what the reality of the matter is. She shows videos of Cheney saying things that Liz claims he never said. You can’t argue with that and say it’s just a matter of opinion.
Is Rachel just showing similar garbage to that which someone linked to on dKOS, or is it something a bit more substantive?
.
Oh heck – why do I even pretend? I’m about as likely to watch Rachel Maddow as you are to sit through Hannity. I used to watch when she was on with Dan Abrahms (I think?) She was evenhanded and logical, a good representative for your side. I liked her then. I like that she appreciates a good cocktail. I tried to watch her on Olbermann but the former sportscaster (he was great on KTLA covering the Angels) appears increasingly deranged to the point that his show is unwatchable. I saw the first few episodes of her new show and it was just awful – so boring. She seems to have devolved from a fair and intelligent critic to a partisan hack who – like the rest of them – often has a bit of trouble with the facts.
.
All of which has little to do with whether Liz is effective in either moving public opinion or defending the Bush administration or pushing the Republican view of national security or rebranding the Repub party.
Liz Cheney’s arguments are false. She doesn’t really do interviews. She just starts arguing and over shouts any questions. Lawrence O’Donnell was on the show (Morning Joe) and later stated it just was too tiring to correct her.
Let her go up against Rachael Maddow, Rachael will chew her up and spit her out.
Liz has the same capacity as her father – wearing a smirk while stating lies. What an unattractive creature – hope she does become a conservative ’spokesperson’.