Cheney on CNN

John King asked some very good tough (but fair) questions of ole Darth while remaining even-tempered and unemotional. It's doubtful Olby, Matthews, Larry King or O'Reilly would have remained as composed, which is probably why they get better ratings.

If you missed the interview it's here. Really no bombshells, only Cheney defending his time in office as he views it through his unconventional wisdom lens. It tends to confuse some reporters whenever Cheney fails to live up to their view of Cheney, even though they know he's blunt. It's as if they wish he'd break down and admit Saturday Night Live is reality.

My only beef is him drifting too far into criticism of the successor administration. That used to be known as bad form, at least it was when Carter was doing it last year. Obama was elected and he's doing it his way, right or wrong.

But speaking of bad form, here's an object lesson from the mouthpiece of the most ethical, post-partisan administration ever (via Hot Air):



One idiot was laughing loudly but listen closely and you'll hear a short low whistle after Gibbs mentions Cheney being part of a Republican 'cabal'. That's the same kind of whistle somebody usually makes after hearing a completely over-the-top unbelievably petty or asinine comment in a forum where it doesn't belong.

MORE 3/16/08


Paul Begala--whom CNN identifies as a Democratic strategist and former employee for the Clinton admin without mentioning he's practically working for Obama--is pouncing on the Cheney interview with John King to flush out some more post-partisan political points:

Set aside the, umm, irony of a guy who is alive, thank God, because of government-provided health care opposing health care for taxpaying Americans. And set aside the hypocrisy of the Bush-Cheney Medicare prescription drug entitlement, the greatest expansion of the federal role in health care since President Lyndon B. Johnson.

"Opposing health care". That's rich. Surely Begala can dig up that policy point in his pile of used strawmen.

Focus instead on Cheney's alarmist rhetoric: "a massive expansion in the government", "much more authority for the government." Cheney is comfortable with a government that has the authority to torture, imprison, censor and kill. Just not a government that has the capacity and compassion to write a health insurance policy or take on Big Oil.

Perhaps because a president has the Constitutional responsibility to protect Mr. Begala and Mr. Gibbs and everyone else? But a real testament to post-partisan talking points, eh? He managed to get the torture strawman out there again, suggestive that Darth was down in the executive office basement poking KSM in the eye with a branding iron. That's what they're trying to do, and it's damn sinister coming from an administration.

I write this only hours after King's interview with Cheney, and yet I believe it will live in history. Right there, in his own words, Cheney gives historians a candid explication of his world view: that government may claim dictatorial powers when he and his ilk are in charge, but when we the people call on our government to act to address recession, illness and ignorance (made worse by Cheney's policies) well, then we've reached Cheney's boundaries of the government's power.

Well no, only when there's an existential threat. But his screed together with Gibbs' childishness, with both working in unison with other Clintonistas in trying to make every Republican into a mini Rush Limbaugh, sounds like they're trying hard to recreate the 90s. Surely there's a taste of revenge in there somewhere.