The AP has also decided that Cheney speaking out causes "chagrin" in a GOP trying to "rebuild the tattered party." Additionally, he AP throws out that much bandied liberal canard that Cheney is dishonoring "protocol" by speaking out because, you see, former chief executives always remain silent about presidents that follow them. Right Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore? Riiiight?
Oh, and one more thing: did you know that Cheney was "unpopular"? Well, just in case you forgot, the AP kindly reminds you. After reading this anti-Cheney attack piece, one wonders if the AP is now just letting White House flacks write its copy for it. It probably saves the AP some time, anyway.
After recounting that the former veep is still actively making the rounds defending the Bush administration's foreign policy, the AP gives us this favorite liberal shibboleth:
When Obama took office, former President George W. Bush went quietly to his new house in Texas, slipped intentionally into anonymity and honored protocol by staying silent about his successor.
Once again, I say this is nonsense. Yes, some former chief executives have faded off into the night eschewing the spotlight after leaving office. But it is by no means a "protocol" nor even much of a tradition. If there is such a tradition, then why is the Old Media not scolding the hot air of Globaloney guru, Al Gore for his constantly running mouth? Why does the AP ignore the palling around with tyrants and constant anti-American blather of the peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia? How does Bill Clinton get a pass for his blatant violations of this so-called protocol? Even former veep Dan Quayle didn't remain quiet because he tried to run for president on his own after leaving the mansion at the Naval Observatory. Does anyone recall the Old Media attacking Quayle for violating some sort of protocol? Well, besides that of spelling, in any case.
What's more many presidents of the past were known to excoriate the presidents that followed them. Teddy Roosevelt, for instance, was disgusted by the failure he saw in his own handpicked successor, William Howard Taft, and was never one to keep quiet about it. Even worse he literally despised Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and the Bull Moose Party was born as a result. You can pick any century and find presidents that loudly voiced their opinions about presidents that followed them.
Sure many former veeps remained silent but it wasn't because they were observing any sort of protocol, it was because no one cared to hear from them in retirement. Lets face it, most vice presidents were inconsequential as vp and even more so in retirement.
So, it is just a plain, liberal lie that there is some sort of protocol that Cheney is so gauche to have violated. It doesn't exist. It never did.
Also, once again, we get the claim that Cheney is somehow out of control or that he is deep into some Freudian personal breakdown.
"This is not the same level of control and discipline Cheney's exercised over the last 40 years," said John Baick, professor of history at Western New England College. "I think it grows out of a deep sense of hurt and betrayal."
Thank you doctor Brick. What you "think" it grows from is not of any interest to anyone but the AP and its fellow Cheney haters. The simple fact of the matter is that Cheney has not lost control during this post veep debate. He's remained quite in control and deadly serious. Cheney has not been seen screaming at the top of his lungs that "he betrayed this country" like Al Gore so often has.
There's more Freudian nonsense from the AP:
Some contend Cheney has gone public because the Obama White House has cast so much blame on the Bush administration for difficulties "inherited" both at home and abroad. That, the theory goes, gave Cheney the right -- in his mind -- to fight back very publicly.
Or maybe he just is cynically trying to save his legacy...
Others believe Cheney is trying to protect his reputation when the history of the Bush administration is written."He sees himself in a position where his legacy is called into question, and he wants to get his story out before history gels," said Jim Riddlesperger, professor of political science at Texas Christian University.
Thank you AP for the armchair pop psychological pap.
Finally, the clash of words over apostate Republican Colin Powell seems to particularly gall the AP. Citing Cheney's pick of radio talker Rush Limbaugh over Powell, the AP cites that ubiquitous "expert" that says Cheney is tearing down the GOP's big tent.
As Republicans seek to broaden their appeal -- create the proverbial big tent -- after dismal showings in the past two national elections, siding with Limbaugh shows Cheney is "not an institution builder," Baick said. "He's not erecting tent poles. He's knocking them down. In terms of building the party, the remarks about Powell were over the top."
Uh, does the AP forget that Colin Powell kicked those tent poles down himself when he bolted the party to endorse Barack Obama for president? If anyone is dissing the GOP its Powell.
No, what we have here from the AP is less any salient analysis and more mere Democratic talking points dressed up as analysis. This is hackery at its worst.
(Photo credit: MSNBC.com)
