The Washington Post is in the midst of publishing a four-part series on Dick Cheney — “unfolding like daily Pulitzer bait,” in Jonah Goldberg’s words — that, from what I’ve read, is pretty fascinating (though admittedly, I haven’t read most of it). The Volokh Conspiracy’s Orin Kerr calls it a “must-read: highly recommended.” (He also pokes fun at the recent which-branch-of-government-is-Cheney-in kerfuffle with the headline, “WASH POST PROFILES INFLUENTIAL LEGISLATOR.” Heh.)
Goldberg’s column in today’s L.A. Times is good, too. He writes admiringly of Cheney, but ultimately concludes that the veep’s tendency to favor confrontation over compromise “creates a blowback that hobbles your efforts in the long run far more than compromise does.”
Oh, and about that whole branches-of-government thing? Goldberg writes:
[S]eemingly countless sources inside the Bush administration tell the Post that [Cheney] has a contempt for bureaucratic and legislative consensus-building that rivals his contempt for cultivating public support through the media. As a result, he often succeeds in bulldozing policies — on enemy interrogations, etc. — all the way to the president’s desk. But he’s isolated when it comes time to defend these policies in Congress and the public.
Take the current argument over Cheney’s self-exemption from the rules on how classified documents should be handled. Instead of getting a waiver from the president, Cheney argued that he’s immune to executive orders because he’s also the president of the Senate and hence a member of the legislative branch too. Not only is this a goofy argument on its face, it does nothing to restore executive authority. It’s not like the vice presidency was an outpost of the legislative branch before Watergate. Cheney’s argument amounts to a convenient rationalization for his own secretive style.
Such opportunism undermines his more principled arguments and exhausts the goodwill of his defenders, precisely when Cheney needs that goodwill for bigger and better things. And it sends his detractors on the left around the bend, just like President Clinton’s abuses — real and perceived — drove many of us on the right to kick our TV sets. The fact is that Cheney’s cause isn’t helped when millions of Americans think he’s a comic book villain. …
“The irony with the Cheney crowd pushing the envelope on presidential power is that the president has now ended up with lesser powers than he would have had if they had made less extravagant monarchical claims,” Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan, told the Post.
UPDATE: Will Republicans lead a charge to get rid of Cheney… and replace him with Fred Thompson? (Hat tip: Dan Riehl who cites this as one of many reasons he’s “had it with Republicans.”)
|
Categories: Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
June 26th, 2007 at 2:21:09 pm
He writes admiringly of Cheney, but ultimately concludes that the veep’s tendency to favor confrontation over compromise “creates a blowback that hobbles your efforts in the long run far more than compromise does.”
Such a characterization of Cheney’s style may be true, but I hardly think he’s worthy of admiration. The mental contortions that Cheney is willing to go through to be able to claim what he wants to be true as what is true are disturbing. Policy disagreements aside, I find this imperial presidency (and the blurred line between king and first minister) to be a danger to the soul of the republic. (pardon the dramatic language, but…)
The reason this episode is getting so much press is the sheer absurdity of it. I wonder if I should or shouldn’t be amazed that Cheney thinks he can get away with such statements and actions, and I also really wonder at what point we consider these things impeachable offenses.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:18:46 pm
I’m just glad to know that Cheney is on the federal bench, protecting our rights. (see the Orin Kerr post Brendan linked to to see what I’m talking about if you don’t get it).
June 26th, 2007 at 4:34:12 pm
Brendan,
Don’t believe that Sally Quinn column about Repub’s ousting Cheney (which is the closest thing to science fiction to appear in the Post in some time) for a minute.
Plain and simple —- it’s not gonna happen.
And even if it did, why would Fred Thompson be crazy enough to take the job ?
June 26th, 2007 at 6:36:33 pm
Briandot,
Asserting a legal argument, albeit novel and far-flung, is hardly a high-crime or misdemeanor.
So, to answer your question: we begin to view Cheney’s arrogance as impeachable the minute we make arrogance a high-crime or misdemeanor.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:39:51 pm
thebeef-
Asserting a legal argument isn’t an impeachable offense. Not complying with an Executive Order is.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:24:31 pm
Washington Post Timeline
3000BC-Dick Cheney builds the pyramids
33AD-Dick Cheney advises Pilot to kill Christ
1340’s-Dick Cheney is sole survivor of the Black Death
1700’s-Dick Cheney founds the Enlightenment
1945-Dick Cheney survives Hiroshima, and then Nagasaki
2001-Dick Cheney becomes vice-president of the United States.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:46:58 pm
No f-ing way the Dems let any plausible President take the Veep’s job; the thought of someone campaigning next year from Air Force 2 is a scary thought. Nixon tried the same thing with Connolly and Reagan–the Dems told him, flatly, No.
Even if Cheney left (I don’t think he will) Bush would be forced to replace him with some nice-guy, moderate type with no Presidential ambitions.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:55:20 pm
I can only repeat my bemusement at the fascination and worry over Cheney and specifically his so-called drive to go to war with Iran.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:31:04 am
Condor-
Wow. I can’t believe there are still Cheney apologists out there outside of the White House.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:06:14 am
My post was just making fun of the way the Washington Post points the credit to Cheney for just about everything that the Bush administration has done from fiscal policy to Supreme Court nominees to foreign policy. They might as well have given him credit for building the pyramids, etc. The ridiculousness of all of this is seeing that everyone seems to want an evil bogeyman to explain this White House’s policy. And the White House is partly to blame for this inclination since they don’t spend the time to explain their decisions. Nonetheless, people should realize that there is rationality (however flawed) behind White House decisions, not just an evil man who wants to destroy the world or something to that effect. The first bogeyman people created was Karl Rove. Then it was Rumsfeld. Now it’s Dick Cheney. So, congrats Washington Post. Way to sell lots of papers by giving people a simple single explanation for everything. I hope you get your Pulitzer.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:20:09 am
(full disclosure: it was my sperm that impregnated Mary Cheney)
June 27th, 2007 at 4:32:47 pm
Have you ever thought that maybe it is Karl Rove who is driving this anti-Cheney movement? Think about it. Bush is a failed President who is despised by his own Party. Wouldn’t that be easier to take if Bush were portrayed as a good-intentioned true believer who has been manipulated by evil Cheney?
June 27th, 2007 at 7:20:52 pm
Angrier and Angrier,
Your reasoning is one mode of the kind of argument that I’m arguing against. The reasoning runs like this:
1. Y benefits the most from x.
2. Therefore y is probably responsible for x.
So, in your argument (which adds one more step):
1. George Bush benefits the most from the anti-Dick Cheney movement.
2. Therefore Karl Rove is probably responsible for the anti-Dick Cheney movement.
Now, there are all sorts of counter-examples to these kind of arguments. But I’ll give you a personal one. It just so happens that I am an American who lives in Toronto. I not infrequently hear what amounts to the following argument:
1. The United States government benefited the most from the 9-11 attacks.
2. Therefore the United States government is probably responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
Now, this argument is absurd, but if it’s not self-evident, consider the same reasoning in a different case:
1. Bob benifited the most from his grandmother’s death (he was the recipient of her estate).
2. Therefore, Bob is likely responsible for his grandmother’s death.
Now, that’s clearly unsound.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:59:16 pm
Condor, when did A&A ever strike you as a sound person?