The following item was written by Matthew Blake, a Nation magazine intern:
This past week The Washington Post ran a four-part, as much-depth-as-you-can-take series on Vice President Dick Cheney. It unflinchingly documents Cheney’s unprecedented power and secrecy. His wide-ranging influence stretches from encouraging the use of torture during interrogations of suspected terrorists to orchestrating a massive fish-kill in Oregon.
The articles so thoroughly reinforces the image of Cheney as a dark, ruthless powerbroker that the question is not "How awful is this guy?" but, "Who can now defend him?" While Cheney has earned a reputation for dismissing public opinion, he has long enjoyed support from conservative and neoconservative pundits and advocates. Surely, then, some of his ideological pals must have come to his rescue…
First, I turned to Fox News, but its Web site contained nary a word on the Cheney series. No acknowledgment of its existence–and no counterattack. Next, I visited The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times. Nada. The Web sites of these centers of conservative opinion were letting their champion in the White House dangle in the wind…
The crusading neocons of The Weekly Standard, I figured, must be firing back. After all, Cheney helped bring about the war in Iraq they had craved for years. And a Weekly writer, Stephen Hayes, has been working on a positive Cheney bio. The Standard could set the world straight on the real Dick Cheney. But its Web site, updated daily with conservative opinions from both staff writers and the blogosphere, offered nothing on Cheney.
Could it be that conservatives were cutting-and-running on their great torchbearer. I performed a Lexis-Nexis search for every article with "Dick Cheney" from newspapers, wires and blogs for the days the series ran. Once again, there was no one defending Cheney…
… I had overlooked a key source. I hadn’t checked the National Review. With 50 years of principled conservative commentary, NR would not be intimidated by a report loaded with named sources in the liberal media… On the magazine’s Web site, Jonah Goldberg had posted a column with the courageous title, "Confessions of a Cheney Fan." … But in ensuing paragraphs, Goldberg betrays his love and tosses Cheney overboard. "It becomes clear," he wrote, "that the Cheney method leaves a lot to be desired." Goldberg concluded that Cheney’s shadowy, uncompromising approach to government is "ultimately counterproductive."
He’s right! I hadn’t really noticed. There’s been silence from the Talking Point Press. I even searched the Rush Limbaugh site and found nothing [I’ll admit to not listening to him to see if he said anything on the air]. Same with Bill O’Reilly. I would interpret this peculiar silence as a possible plan – "don’t dignify the Washington Post’s series by even mentioning it" [meaning: not everyone reads the Washington Post so don’t call attention to it]. Even if it is a strategy to keep the faithful away from the series, it’s still odd that there’s nothing there – absolutely nothing. It’s deafening…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.