Lynne Cheney made it on to the set of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night and the result was just what you would expect: The country is on the right track, the Iraq mess is the Iraqi government’s fault, the Bush-Cheney administration deserve a lot of credit for keeping American interests safe since 9/11 (she said American interests, not our allies), and her husband has no control over his party’s stand on gay marriage. After the interview, she couldn’t leave the stage fast enough. Highlight: Stewart rescinding the invitation for her husband to appear on the show and Mrs. Cheney name-dropping Stephen Colbert’s book.
UPDATE: We received a kindly email from someone representing Comedy Central, Jon Stewart’s Network. She wrote, “I saw your post on Lynne Cheney’s Daily Show interview and wanted to send over Jon Stewart’s explanation as to why Mrs. Cheney was so quick to leave the stage once it was over. I know a lot of people interpreted her departure negatively, so I hope that clears everything up.” Ladies and Gentleman, here’s Jonny….!
Insightful analysis. I was struggling to figure out what it was about the interview that was troubling and I think you nailed it. Jon always seems nervous in these types of interviews. Perhaps it throws him off his game. Or maybe he using the entire interview as a set up to extending, and then rescinding, the VP’s invite.
It could be that he sincerely struggles to make sense of it all and since she’s as close to he’ll ever come to interviewing him, he took the opportunity to try and get some answers we haven’t heard already or some speck of his humanity we haven’t seen.
I don’t know. I love the show and I agree with his views, but I was a little disappointed with Jon. (Just a little.) Ambushing her with questions about the Iraq war as a proxy for her husband doesn’t make much sense. There’s no chance she’ll give a straightforward answer, and it’s not really Jon’s responsibility to hassle her just because she’s there. Coupled with the frenzy of Pavlovian applause from the audience, it alienates the controversial guests, which makes them less likely to appear in the future. It’s preferable to make guests with conflicting views feel welcome, then ask questions that will result in real insight rather than practiced sound bites.
It was fun to see her trip over her specious connection between Bush/Cheney’s tactics and the interruption of major terrorist attacks on American soil, but the interview would’ve felt more substantive if he’d stuck to her book. Clearly he read it; he could’ve asked more questions about Dick’s values and her relationship with him. I loved the question about whether he’s as secretive and stubborn at home as his public persona suggests. Why not more like that? It’s something Lynne could actually speak to, as opposed to whether or not we were lied into the war. (Which everyone knows we were, and everyone knows she has a responsibility to deny.) Turning her into a punching bag for the visceral thrill of a bloodthirsty audience is just mean, and as much as I personally enjoy the idea of Lynne Cheney’s feelings being hurt, it’s not productive and it undercuts Jon’s argument. It’s the kind of thing our side would castigate Sean Hannity for doing.