Dave Letterman on Cheney's Museum Invitation

Wednesday night on “The Late Show,” David Letterman let loose on the American Museum of Fly Fishing’s decision to invite the former vice president to their annual fundraising dinner.
“Cheney has now been invited to speak at the American Museum of Fly Fishing. After his speech, he’s going to demonstrate how to waterboard a trout.” From The New York Times.

This entry was posted in Humor, People. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jon

    Love it! The people at the museum are defending themselves by saying that it is not about person being honored, it’s about the fishing, and famous people fishing, etc. Bull. I doubt they would have invited the likes of Saddam Hussein just because he fly fished. (A good comparison, I might add).

  • Brian

    Can we keep politics out if this? I come here to read about fly fishing, not how evil the Bush administration may have been.
    And by the way, having fought Saddam Hussein and then tracked his activities for years after the first Gulf War as a member of the US intelligence community, and having served under Dick Cheney when he was both Secretary of Defense and VP, I can assure you it is NOT a good, or valid, or fair comparison.

  • Martin Amsel

    Perhaps the museum WOULD invite Saddam Hussein if he brought in the almighty bucks. Inviting “Rock Snot” Cheney is just as bad. Cheney is an environmental terrorist. This has become a national embarrassment for all members of the museum who are offended by this action by the board of trustees.

  • Chuck s

    Sad to see political jab at our past VP and the follow on commentary in/on this fine fly fishing site. In the event you folks don’t know, many well educated folks and a load of average folks also are very satisfied with the VP and his record. Why it’s almost a 50/50 split most anytime it’s checked by pollsters.
    Just because you think you may know more than all those other folks doesn’t even come close to making it so. Best to leave politics where it belongs and that’s in the muck raking arena that so many pay attention and drink in like koolaid.
    Chuck S

  • Steelhead

    How can anyone expect that people will not take jabs at Cheney (or any one in the Bush administration)? These guys completely screwed up this country…on multiple fronts. Please do not rely on the polls either.. Most people who were foolish enough to vote for these clowns are now questioning thier own judgement, as indicated by the latest election results. Those who have not, should. I suspect that any association anyone in Bush administration has with fly fishing, cannot be a good thing for the sport.

  • I agree with Brian can we concentrate on fishing please, that is why I check out this web site not for its politics. I am from Wyo. and I don’t like Dick ether but we have to realize he could do more for this sport (or against it) than any of us sitting here writing on this artical. So better to let Dick do as much as he can FOR us.

  • Larry

    I say we take a poll on midcurrent.
    If you think Cheney’s environmental record was good and he supported positive policy to advance protection of cold water fisheries or other fisheries please vote CHENEY GOOD if you feel the opposite vote CHENEY BAD.
    My vote – CHENEY BAD

  • Dick Sciaroni

    As a longtime member and contributor to AMFF, I am saddened that it has created a public relations nightmare. Dick Cheney is, to say the least, a controversial figure. Whoever decided to invite him had to realize that understand that the invitation would likewise invite criticism. Given the passions that Mr. Cheney generates and the short time since he left office, I question the wisdom of that decision.
    Nevertheless, fly-fishing is what it’s all about. I remain a member of AMFF.,

  • Steve C

    As far as I’m aware, this story first appeared on this site in the Feb. 24th newsletter in the “Top Fly Fishing News” column. My first impression was that Marshall’s original post was a bit harsh and that this was an inappropriate to place to air political grievances. After reading Marshall’s response to a similarly critical comment on the story by J.T., I was satisfied that his motives were genuine and that they were based on his belief that Cheney has done much damage to fisheries through policies he implemented while VP. While I’d like to hear more about the Kalamath situation in particular, as there are always reasons that policies are implemented (and they’re not always sinister in nature), the original story is newsworthy and I have no problem with it.
    However, there have been two subsequent postings on the same subject, one involving some board member who resigned in protest and now this one. Can we all agree that when it gets to the point where we’re quoting late-night hosts that the story has run it’s coarse? It really doesn’t matter to me, even a small amount, what David Letterman has to say about Cheney, and cannot for the life of me figure out why this might be considered relevant, other than to make some political point. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that people dislike Dick Cheney for many reasons and not all (or even a significant number) of them have anything to do with fly fishing. I think I speak for most of us when I say that we enjoy this site/newsletter for the great knowledge and information on the world of fly fishing, available here. I would also be willing to bet that exactly none of us come here for political commentary. Let’s leave that to The Huffington Post and The Daily Kos…. tell me about the two finned hammerheads http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=842431 found while fishing in south Florida or something Marshall!

  • Bill Aubrey

    All Midcurrent was doing was quoting a one liner from a highly popular late night host–whoopee. Get a grip, folks.
    On the environmental survey re: Cheney’s environmental record, is there a category for “worst ever”? Cheney bad.

  • William Krupa

    Isn’t this a fly fishing site, why do we allow people to place their poltical views on this site. First show proof that President Bush or anyone in his administration did any damage to our oceans, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, or creeks. Has fly fishing grown in popularity over the past eight years, it has. I guess my view is that I enjoy fly fishing more than most anything else there is to do, other then enjoy my family. But I would rather have an administration who has hunters and fishmen in it, then midnight basketball players who support gun control and I have no doubt increased fees for fishing. Pick your poison, an administration who respects us, or one like we have today who dislikes people who hunt and fish.

  • Marshall Cutchin

    Let me say first that I sincerely appreciate everyone’s input on the Cheney invitation and on whether or not it is an appropriate topic for MidCurrent to mention repeatedly. There were many opinions on this topic that did not get published because we don’t allow personal attacks on other commenters, but otherwise everyone has been allowed their say. I think that for the most part the conversation has been constructive, and along with what some correctly perceive as an active tendency on our part to promote pro-conservation causes/people/ideas, I think we’ve been on the “reasonable” side of the commentary. The Museum itself thanked us for our objective approach, and we were one of the only (if not the only) daily blog not to go into a rage over the decision. That’s not our role.
    Our role in posting every day is, for the most part, to provide a news filtering service for fly fishers. Avoiding topics because they are politically charged would mean that some readers would not find out about important stories. Not everyone reads MidCurrent every day or every week (shocking, I know). And we don’t post repetitively in order to score political points. We didn’t mention Rachel Maddow’s coverage or Jon Stewart’s coverage or any of the dozens of other newspaper stories on the subject, none of which were favorable. (You might notice that we’ve also had multiple posts on water access rights in Utah — another decision that could be described as political but that is generally supported by all fly fishers.)
    All that being said, I recognize that most of our visitors don’t come to MidCurrent to read about political issues. I get tired of it myself. Reading back over the February 25th post, I realize that I should have put “obviously negative” in quotations, because that was how I phrased the question to Ms. Comar, which I did, in part, to get the museum’s reaction to a loud pubic outcry. We do try very hard to stay objective. The fact that we publish opinions on our news stories opens us up to the appearance of taking sides, but it’s rarely the case. I have friends on both sides of most political arguments, including this one, but they forgive me my biases, and I forgive them theirs.
    So we will very likely mention this story again, because it is likely to continue to be of interest for a large percentage of readers. If Dick Cheney donates $1 million to the cleanup of the Cuyahoga River, we’ll also mention that. Not having information doesn’t do anyone any good, as hard as it is sometimes to swallow. And if someone can think of a way to make everyone happy about every news story we take note of, please let me know — it will make our job a whole lot easier.

  • Murph

    How about this: posts on the “AMFF-gate” are open till 5 pm edt on March 13th–after that we move on. pun intended.
    ps- I vote Cheney bad–which is a bit ironic in that the “greenest” administration we’ve had was (drumroll please)….Richard Nixon! Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, established of EPA….

  • Joseph J. Lanza

    Not all Fly Fishermaen are tree-hugging liberals.

  • Jay Melzer

    Better not mess with Dick:
    From the NYT:
    HERSH: Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command — JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. …
    Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths. Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us. It’s complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder. It’s a very complicated issue. Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces. The Delta Forces you’ve heard about. Navy Seal teams. Highly specialized. In many cases, they were the best and the brightest. Really, no exaggerations. Really fine guys that went in to do the kind of necessary jobs that they think you need to do to protect America. And then they find themselves torturing people.