Driving home last night I heard Thom Hartmann interview Bryan Fischer about the Senate torture report, and had I not been sitting in unusually-slow-even-for-L.A. L.A. traffic I might have driven right off the road. Well, not really, of course, but the fact is I was just stunned, even though I probably shouldn't have been, by Mr. Fischer's tactics in responding (if you could call it that) to Thom's questions.
UPDATE: Here's the interview:
Two things struck me about Mr. Fischer's performance, apart from his horrifying "beliefs."
One was the constant, rote, mechanical, almost comical recitation and repetition of canned, well-rehearsed bumper-sticker talking points in response to practically any question Thom asked. This is obviously not a new or unusual technique...
...but I just thought Mr. Fischer sounded more like a See-'N'-Say than right-wingnuts usually do, and that's saying something, especially given the gravity of the topic. Even knowing who Mr. Fischer is and where he's coming from philosophically and intellectually I was still kind of surprised by how blatant and obvious this was, and how Fischer could keep doing it over and over again so many times without realizing (or, more likely, without really caring) that he was making a fool of himself.
"Enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture."
"Enhanced interrogation techniques are perfectly legal."
"Three of the last four attorneys general have said that this is perfectly legal."
"Waterboarding is not illegal."
"These techniques are legal. Christianity supports the rule of law."
"Enhanced interrogation techniques have produced information that has saved American lives."
I'm paraphrasing mostly, but you get the idea. It was one of the most robotic "interview" performances I've ever seen or heard. This was not an "interview" or a "conversation" in any sense of either word; Thom was just pulling the string and Mr. Fischer was just reciting any one of a handful of pre-programmed talking points. It was almost as if Mr. Fischer was under hypnosis, or trying to hypnotize Thom and his audience. It was eerie, creepy, and unsettling, even though I've seen and heard this done many times before.
The other thing that struck me was something else I've been noticing more and more, although it's also been going on for a long-time: the gratuitous name-dropping of random and/or high-profile Democrats who supposedly "agree" with or are otherwise complicit in or equivalent to whatever it is Republicans or others on their political color-war team are being criticized for or accused of doing, saying, thinking, believing, supporting or promoting, thereby supposedly negating, discrediting or disproving the accusation or criticism.
Mr. Fischer put it like this, paraphrasing: "Well, Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller reviewed this and were OK with it, so I stand with Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller against you, Thom." He also said something to the effect, "Well, Barack Obama's CIA director reviewed this and was OK with it, so I stand with Barack Obama's CIA director."
The name-dropping technique doesn't get as much coverage or notice as the See-'N'-Say technique, and it's also not new, but I'm going to do some more research on it and give it some more thought and write about it in more detail later because I think it's just as interesting, and just as effective in that it's just as grating in its audacity, just as obnoxious in its absurdity and, often, dishonesty, and just as ubiquitous among Republican politicians and right-wing pundits (and, I think, Democratic and liberal politicians and pundits as well). I'd be interested in any thoughts commenters may have about the name-dropping technique, including where it's been seen or heard, who tends to do it, what the thinking and motivation is behind it and how it affects the listener/reader.
I didn't even get into Mr. Fischer's "religious" or "Biblical" justifications for torture (or, "legal" enhanced interrogation techniques) here, let alone his refusal to answer Thom's questions about "Who would Jesus rectally feed?" (which I don't think is a fair question, necessarily, as worded), because I was struck more by the rhetorical techniques Mr. Fischer employed to avoid the substance of the issue than by anything substantive he had to say or that Thom asked him. Their respective positions on this issue are well-known and well-established, and were not likely to be substantially explored or expanded upon, let alone altered, by this "interview." Thom is a very good interviewer, by and large, I like the fact that he often has "conservative" guests on his show, and he always challenges them without disrespecting or insulting them or making blanket judgments about their character, but he doesn't always phrase his follow-up questions in the best way to maximize effectiveness.
Not that it mattered when up against this name-dropping See-'N'-Say.