Liz Cheney: chicken, hawk, or both?
I’ve been enjoying the public back-and-forth between Rachel Maddow, host of the eponymous MSNBC show, and Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president and founder of Keep America Safe, a hawkish PAC. In the past weeks and months, Cheney has appeared on television, in print, on the Web — just about everywhere — talking ...
I've been enjoying the public back-and-forth between Rachel Maddow, host of the eponymous MSNBC show, and Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president and founder of Keep America Safe, a hawkish PAC.
In the past weeks and months, Cheney has appeared on television, in print, on the Web -- just about everywhere -- talking up her hard-line foreign-policy PAC and asserting that Obama's "‘radical' policies are placing us all at risk." A rhetorical question she posed, which appeared in the New York Times: "Mr. President, in a ticking time-bomb scenario, with American lives at stake, are you really unwilling to subject a terrorist to enhanced interrogation to get information that would prevent an attack?" (Putative White House answer: Yes.) The former State Department official and lawyer instead vocally advocates for policies more in line with the hard right, interventionist, neo-con fringe in the past administration.
This earned the PAC, well, a bit of flack from the left and center, along with slews of plain-old publicity (during its major fundraising drive, natch). Apparently, the push-back rubbed Cheney the wrong way -- and in response Keep America Safe put an advertisement up on its website, criticizing MSNBC for its negative coverage and asking "Why don't they want to talk substance" and "Why don't they want to debate the issues?"
In the past weeks and months, Cheney has appeared on television, in print, on the Web — just about everywhere — talking up her hard-line foreign-policy PAC and asserting that Obama’s “‘radical’ policies are placing us all at risk.” A rhetorical question she posed, which appeared in the New York Times: “Mr. President, in a ticking time-bomb scenario, with American lives at stake, are you really unwilling to subject a terrorist to enhanced interrogation to get information that would prevent an attack?” (Putative White House answer: Yes.) The former State Department official and lawyer instead vocally advocates for policies more in line with the hard right, interventionist, neo-con fringe in the past administration.
This earned the PAC, well, a bit of flack from the left and center, along with slews of plain-old publicity (during its major fundraising drive, natch). Apparently, the push-back rubbed Cheney the wrong way — and in response Keep America Safe put an advertisement up on its website, criticizing MSNBC for its negative coverage and asking “Why don’t they want to talk substance” and “Why don’t they want to debate the issues?”
Enter Maddow. As it turns out, the liberal television host had invited Cheney on her show dozens of times, and Cheney had always declined. So, Maddow called Cheney out, publicly offering to have the neo-con on the popular show to talk shop. Alas, it seems Cheney is more chicken than hawk — she said she would appear on Hannity instead.
I felt a twinge of disappointment, as I would have loved to have seen the Maddow vs. Cheney debate — particularly because Maddow is the talking head with the best handle on foreign-policy and security issues. In short: She is a wonk. Before her show hit the big time, she was planning to write a book on the military’s effects on Washington politics, a project now shelved. She loves talking about the GI bill. She regularly hosts military and defense policy experts. In a quick scan of her shows and Keith Olbermann’s over the past month, she devotes something like twice the time to defense and foreign policy issues. And I’d love to see more figures from across the aisle speak with her.
Getty Images
More from Foreign Policy
Is Cold War Inevitable?
A new biography of George Kennan, the father of containment, raises questions about whether the old Cold War—and the emerging one with China—could have been avoided.
So You Want to Buy an Ambassadorship
The United States is the only Western government that routinely rewards mega-donors with top diplomatic posts.
Can China Pull Off Its Charm Offensive?
Why Beijing’s foreign-policy reset will—or won’t—work out.
Turkey’s Problem Isn’t Sweden. It’s the United States.
Erdogan has focused on Stockholm’s stance toward Kurdish exile groups, but Ankara’s real demand is the end of U.S. support for Kurds in Syria.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
