Posted on 06/19/2014 7:10:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It isn’t just the left that is cheering Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly this morning, a day after she gave former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney a sound grilling over Iraq, many on the right suspicious of an interventionist foreign policy are cheering her as well.
On Wednesday night, Kelly hosted the Cheney’s for what was billed as a discussion about their new political initiative aimed at crafting criticisms of President Barack Obama’s present approach to foreign policy. While there is much that is worthy of criticism in Obama’s handling of foreign affairs, some, including AllahPundit, wondered if the Cheneys could serve as helpful messengers.
Kelly brought those concerns directly to the Cheneys. After reading a portion of a brutal op-ed which essentially accused Cheney of setting in motion the events which have led to the present chaos in Iraq, Kelly voiced her own criticism of the former vice president.
“Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir,” she said
That’s a little harsh, and it’s certainly a debatable point, but the substance of this interview is not what struck me. What was important, and is frankly undervalued by the rest of the political press, is how frequently the supposedly conservative news network veers off what many believe is their script. What’s more, when this sort of contentious interview with a prominent Republican occurs, Fox is rewarded for it by their core audience.
The opposite is not the case, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey on cable news viewers’ satisfaction with the product they are consuming:
One thing that differs when it comes to MSNBC is that it does not draw the same uniformly positive reviews from consistent liberals that FNC does from consistent conservatives. While nearly half (45%) of consistent liberals view MSNBC favorably, that’s not much better than how MSNBC rates among those with mixed ideological views (38%). Nearly half of consistent liberals offer no opinion of MSNBC. By contrast, the vast majority of consistent conservatives offer an opinion of Fox News, with 74% favorable and just 5% unfavorable.
“When MSNBC President Phil Griffin decided to turn his network into a liberal answer to Fox News, he was betting that there was a progressive audience out there to match the conservative faithful on the other side,” Politico’s Dylan Byers reacted. “But people don’t simply watch opinion channels because the programming matches their partisan views. The programming has to be compelling.”
Yes, but it’s more than that. Having watched MSNBC evolve as a network over the last two years, it seems to me that their every answer to ratings challenges is strive to be even more predictable. It has become increasingly rare for an MSNBC host to go off the reservation of progressive thought.
Kelly’s interview of the Cheneys was compelling, but it was also contentious and tension makes for good television. It is possible that MSNBC’s core audience simply does not appreciate having the members of their “team” challenged by those who are supposedly on their side. When was the last time you saw Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow interrogate a Democratic officeholder from the right?
I say let them fight it out for the next 100 years…get our people out now….Announce before hand if any group attacks us we will bomb the country to dirt…women ,children everybody…Like Japan 1945
“Kelly’s attitude aside, was Cheney and Bush wrong to invade Iraq?”
They were absolutely right to invade Iraq. With the intel that was coming in, it would have been negligent for any President not to invade Iraq, at that time.
The error was in sticking around to nation build. 250 killed in military phase. 4,200 killed in nation building phase.
The biggest lesson learned is that 1. Some cultures simply aren’t ready to live in constitutional republics, and 2. Nation building is long, ugly and protracted and Democrats will come in and screw it up even worse.
Megan “Kelly” is a LEFTIST &%&( that ONLY has an “audience” because HORNY OLD MEN want to HOP IN THE RACK w/ her.
I saw that interview last night. Last time I watch that liberal obama-loving blonde twit!
When my 3 boys were growing up they liked to watch Fox News, but they preferred to watch it with the mute button pressed.
If Cheney must apologize, so should ALL the members of Congress who voted for it! Hindsight is 20/20, and the Cheney is being targeted for this crap.
Cheney had every right to criticize Obama’s many & obvious failures.
I am disappointed in Kelly.
Was the gassing of the Kurds fake too?
Cavuto is always fair and balanced. That’s how he gets so many to come on his show.
Ping me the next time that Cavuto DOES NOT trash a guest with the Liberal’s point of view.
BTW, are Neil Cavoto and Mr. Ed from the MSNBC Hit Show “Mr. Ed Show” brothers or just cousins?
All we succeeded in doing was making the middle east more unstable.
The 911 Hijackers were Saudis but we invaded Iraq???
If one (Bush) makes a prudent judgment based on the best available evidence, the fact that evidence is thereafter determined to be partially or wholly imperfect, does not render the decision invalid - especially where the decision was peer-supported.
(I also seem to recall the Germans were heavily involved in the manufacturing process, or had some degree of interest.)
If I could I would send you to a worse place than the moon. In fact, I’d send all you miseable liberals there together. Dick Cheney has done more for this country than you could only dream abour.
For all defending her...”“Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir,” she said”
History? If Cheney wants to defend himself, sure the intel was there, but what about the proof of what our troops found? Why isn’t that ever brought up and the fact that Syria used the crud, too?
Personally, I can’t watch women do news. Something just hits the radar. Maybe because women gossip so much or the pitch of our voices. No clue, just can’t, and I have tried. So I read here.
RE: but what about the proof of what our troops found?
Can you detail some of them?
Perhaps, but I don't think it matters. The region's and the religion's long history, along with our recent experiences, suggest his was just another page in a continuous cycle of repeating stories.
That we felt the need to try to stabilize it somehow is further proof to me that President Washington was correct about intermeddling in foreign governments.
Our road to hell is paved by both our good intentions and our need for revenge.
Moderation in everything would seem to be a good general rule for both nations and individuals.
Megyn Kelly’s attitude and tone toward VP Cheney really annoyed me. It was not necessary to ask the questions with that bravado. Brett & Greta asked Hillary some tough questions but were respectful - too much so IMHO.
Next time have Megyn interview Hillary and Greta interview Cheney.
RE: the fact that evidence is thereafter determined to be partially or wholly imperfect, does not render the decision invalid - especially where the decision was peer-supported.
How about OPPOSITION supported?
Count them — Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Chuck Schumer, Maria Cantwell, Chris Dodd, etc. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION TO INVADE IRAQ.
I don’t need to ping you. Try watching his shows and decide for yourself.
That is significant, of course, and those who try to rewrite history to suit their agenda do everything they can to distract us from those pages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.