Crossfire was originally supposed to start Sept. 16, but CNN moved up the premier to Monday night due to the breaking news on Syria.
The decision was questionable — the show aired on the same night the president gave sit-down interviews to the major television networks — but it is one that reflected the prevailing mood of Washington, with lawmakers and staff returning from August recess anxious to do something about the president’s proposal for intervention in Syria, even if that something is actually nothing, and amid deep skepticism that Washington is even capable of deciding, let alone executing, a decision on one of the most important issues it has debated in years.
It was only nine years ago that Jon Stewart embarrassed former Crossfire host Tucker Carlson in the show’s most memorable performance for hurting the national discourse with its political hackery. When the show was canceled a few months later, CNN’s president conceded Stewart’s point.
Times have changed. (It is hard to imagine, in 2013, Carlson and Stewart’s squabbling over whether Stewart was in fact John Kerry’s “butt boy.”) But in hiring two of Washington’s most high-profile hacks — former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and former Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter — CNN appeared to be trying to strike a balance between the criticism that chased it off the air in 2005 and the undeniable success their competitors have had in replicating its format.
Were they able to have it both ways? Both hosts seemed conscious of upending expectations. In its first episode, viewers were treated to a winking, congenial Gingrich, an unfamiliar sight to those who watched his unlikely rise as a candidate for the Republican nomination last year, and a nervous, human-seeming Cutter, famous in political circles for her hard-bitten approach to politics. They sat a little too close while Gingrich recounted the latest news about the Russian offer to help secure Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile.
They engaged in a stilted back and forth, employing false familiarity by using each other’s first names too often: “Now Stephanie, I’ve heard of leading from behind, but did you ever think you’d see Putin bailing out President Obama?” Gingrich asked. “Well, Newt, I don’t know where you’ve been over the last two years, but we couldn’t even get Putin to acknowledge that Syria was a risk,” Cutter said in riposte.
The show broke down along the usual partisan lines, with Cutter and Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez arguing in support of the president’s position and Gingrich and Republican Sen. Rand Paul arguing against it. But this time the positions were flipped in a way that reflected how much the politics have changed since Crossfire went off the air, with Menendez making the hawkish case and Paul positioning himself as the antiwar politician.
In a nod to the show’s attempt at partisanship without puerility, it ended with a segment called “Ceasefire,” where the co-hosts make nice by reciting a few points they found they can agree on. But the segment felt too pat, and their points of agreement were too anodyne to be interesting. Cutter said that the two agreed that the possibility of a Russian proposal to secure chemical weapons was a good thing, and that the polling showed Obama would have a tough time getting Congress to approve military action. Gingrich said that they could agree that the breaking news of the last 48 hours had been “tumultuous.”
Cutter said that they could agree that the polling showing most Americans opposed to a Syrian intervention was not an accurate assessment of popular opinion because “they were duped into war 10 years ago with weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist and now they’re forced to make a decision on weapons of mass destruction that do exist.” Gingrich cocked an eyebrow — apparently on this they didn’t agree — but, he added, they both agreed that you can follow the show on Facebook and Twitter to share your thoughts.
It was a perfect reflection of CNN’s ambivalence about where it fits into the greater television landscape. If the network can’t pick a side, it can at least let their hosts pick one.
What We're Following See More »
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."
President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"