Monday, December 22, 2008

Farewell, Beloved Dick

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, deserved it when Cheney launched the f-word at him in 2004.

In an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Cheney was asked if he had any second thoughts or embarrassment. "No. I thought he merited it at the time," Cheney said, laughing.

...The encounter during the 2004 presidential campaign, sources said then, was brought on by Leahy's criticism of the vice president over Halliburton Co. Cheney is the former chief executive officer of the oil field services company, and Democrats had suggested he helped win lucrative contracts for his former firm while serving in the Bush administration.

"It was partly that, it was partly also … it had to do with — he is the kind of individual who will make those kinds of charges and then come act as though he's your best friend, and I expressed in no uncertain terms my views of his conduct and walked away," Cheney said at the time.

..."And we've since, I think, patched over that wound and we're civil to one another now," Cheney said this Sunday.
Re: the italics -- well, mission accomplished! And kudos to Cheney for alluding to wounds, considering the other thing he's famous for. Meanwhile:

WALLACE: According to the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll — and I know how much you like polls — you now have the lowest approval rating of the last eight years. Twenty-nine percent have a favorable opinion, 61 percent unfavorable... does that bother you?

CHENEY: No. We didn't — if — we didn't set out to achieve the highest level of polls that we could during the course of this administration...— is 29 percent good enough for me? Well, we fought a tough reelection battle. We won by an adequate margin in 2004. We've been here for eight years now. Eventually, you wear out your welcome in this business.

But I've — I'm very comfortable with where we are and what we achieved substantively. And frankly, I would not want to be one of those guys who spends all his time reading the polls. I think people like that shouldn't serve in these jobs.
Again, italics-wise, SOME administrations wear out their welcome. Nixon, Carter and Bush 1 for example. Reagan, Clinton and Eisenhower, not so much. And more introspective vice-presidents might pause to wonder if historical low approval ratings may mean you did something wrong. When they're out of office, perhaps Cheney and Bush will blame the antipathy on each other before insisting that we'll all praise them in fifty years time.


gwk said...

Come on, Piker. Why do you leave out the Congressional Job Approval rating?

Perhaps to only draw attention to what you want the un-informed to see? This is so like you.

Oh, that's right.

Since the Cngress has been completely Democrat controlled for the past 2+ years, THEIR rating is frigging 18.4%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But I forgot to mention that.

Danielk said...

Dick Cheney is 100% Republican, Congress is 41% Republican - clearly the problem lies there. Once Congress starts finally acting like Democrats, the numbers will rise.

Remember I said that.

gwk said...

Remember I said this:

Once the 'shiny' wears off of BO (and it's already starting to, well before he's even been sworn in), and people realize that gosh darn-it, BO really can't walk on water, his approval numbers, as well as Congress's won't be any better than where they are now.

Mark my words.

Of course, that'll still be the fault of Bush / Cheney somehow. Right?

Danielk said...

It will only be Bush/Cheney's fault if Obama is perceived as being too much like them, and hated accordingly.

gwk said...

Your words. Remember that later.

Publius said...

I think you are indulging in a bit of hyperbole to say that Reagan, Clinton and Ike hadn't worn out their welcome at the time they were leaving office. Neither of them were as beloved at the tail of their days in office as the golden glow of memory recalls.

Still, I am not so much interested in what the nation think of their presidents as they leave office. It takes about 20 years to begin to assess the actual effects of a presidency.

Even more to the point, the generation of historians that lived thru a particular presidency have to die before the REAL truth begins to come out.

Historians are great for stuff past. They SUCK big time in analyzing the times in which they live.

Danielk said...

Ah! That's why you guys are still bangin' away at Carter!