WHY THE CHENEYS WON’T LEAVE THE SCENE: A QUESTION OF JOURNALISTIC DEONTOLOGY!

The recent appearances of the Cheneys over the media as a credible political opponent on par to the Obama administration's policies and stances raises an issue of journalistic deontology! This is definitely of artificial making.

On the one hand, we've got a legitimately elected President of the United States who has undergone the rigorous electoral process having to make his case to the American people and coming out successful in eliciting the policies he intends to carry out during his mandate within the confines of the American political institutional structure and process.

On the other hand, we've got political personae (the Cheneys) who are effectively being presented by the media as a legitimate opponent on par to the Obama administration whereas they do not bear any electoral mandate whatsoever for the political views they profer and with no consequent responsiblity, stake and risk that will arise from any such mandate while the President is tied to them.

For comments/expressions of opinion on the President's policies, their views have been given such a broad artificial reception by the media that runs very contrary to the expression of opinion as we've come to know it. These views are rather given almost the same weight and placed on par as the political stances of a legitimately elected president with a legitimate mandate for the policies he is undertaking while the Cheney's hold no such legitimate mandate and with no accompanying political accountability whatsoever.

The issue here is that such attitude by the media is contrary to what we've come to expect from normal implicit democratic rules. If the Cheneys had any pretense for policies they wished to be implemented after the Bush Administration, the solution would have simply been for Dick or Liz to run for president. Since they didn't, it is artificial for the media to strive to present them as a counterweight on par to the Obama administration's policies well beyong what will be expected for the opinion of a simple citizen that the Cheneys are now notwithstanding their previous political roles.

And by the way, by extension is it acceptable that any citizen, no matter what self-righteous pretense they might have, to be artificially given a similar counterweight role on par with the President on any policy issues of the Obama administration while not holding any legitimate political mandate for which they will be politically accountable for their stances? It can be understandable, that the Cheneys can be of direct concern when it comes to matters of direct relation to political issues having to do with Cheney's role in the Bush administration. But to raise their views on the policies and stances the administration should take on par with the President undermines appropriate journalistic deontology because as we should all know by now "elections do matter".

What strikes the mind here is that the Cheneys have perfectly understood this "naïvété" of the media and are using this "media confusion about fairness" to artificially strive to extirpate Mr. Dick Cheney from accusations of introducing torture policies during the Bush Administration among other political accusations. Their strategy is very simple. Legally, Cheney can't make it (they know that secretly). In all courts of law, so-called EITs are definitely torture practices. Besides, the facts as we know them are overwhelmingly against him and the Bush Administration, and Dick Cheney's contradictions are extensive.

The real strategy of the Cheney's here is totally otherly: turn it "political". First, saying torture works and was for the good of the country should elicit the fervour of many Americans. Afterall, all what is needed is that a substantial number of Americans polled buy to this argument, and then the issue’s legal underpinning may be undermined.

Secondly, posing artificially as the right wing counterweight to the Obama's administration policies elicits the impression and fervour in some quarters particularly to the right that he is making the President moderate and thus he is political useful. A look at this second political trick shows how the media has effectively been manipulated: knowing fairly well that in his administrative role the President will have to take practical and pragmatic postures with respect to the release of photos of abused detainees as well as on other policies, all what Dick simply have to do is to posit that he is against releasing the pictures and pretend to take critical policy issues postures on the right, making him seemingly a moderating influence on the President.

Thirdly, the Cheneys simply have to claim that Obama is following the Bush Administration’s policies he criticized pointing to his strategies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. In this case too, the media is manipulated as they ignore the fact that the Obama administration does not have the luxury of starting from scratch as Bush had on all these issues but rather adopts a “course correction strategy” of the situations to bring them as close as possible to what he advocates.

The fact is that, the underlying strategy of Dick and her daughter is to make this three steps political trick extirpate Dick from the accusations levied against the former administration. The sad thing is that the media is "naïvely" falling for these political tricks!

You could be right. I'm leaning more toward the theory that Cheney wanted to be in power, enjoyed it, and found being an ex-vice president a bit galling. Worse, he was watching Obama roll back some of his personal pet initiatives and so Cheney decided to roll up his sleeves and show that young upstart who's still the Boss in Washington.

I think it was very much spontaneous because the last thing the RNC needed was Cheney's vicious mug plastered all over the place.

First off, many Republicans are openly telling Cheney to shut up. You could argue that they didn't get the memo, but the one thing the GOP is good at is getting all their players the memo.

Cheney has been for a long time, and continues, the least popular Republican figure around. NOBODY likes him (well, except El Lardo).

Cheney has always operated on his own agenda, without regard to what the party or the country thinks. He is doing his current shtick, as he does everything, for his benefit, not for the GOP's. He is tying to protect his legacy - and, not incidentally, forestall any prosecution for war crimes (as daughter Lynn admitted the other week).

Nor was Cheney silent in the early days. A week before the inauguration, Cheney was complaining about Obama's plans to close Gitmo. On Feb 5th, he complained again about Obama's anti-terror tactics.

It is not the business of the state to help its citizens get into heaven nor to save them from hell.

neutralize Cheney['s comments] by essentially robbing him of his credibility and relevance.

Just neutralize Cheney period. When I think of him I think of a soft-spoken Darth Vader. He seems reasonable based on his tone and demeanor until you realize what he is saying.

The AMA concedes private insurers cannot compete: "The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers"

barrel. When there is nobody else left Cheney gets the call and some how rises to the occasion. I've heard Cheney described as the guy at the office nobody really knows but is the one they call on when the copier is down, they want to know where the electical panel is, and what kind of scotch the boss likes. Simply put, Cheney knows where the bodies are buried.

Cheney was the boss. You needed to know what kind of scotch he liked... but, yes, he knew where the bodies were buried, because he buried them.

has a knack for making himself necessary and instilling himself into a position of power. cheney was first tapped to help pick a running mate for chimpy and he selected himself.

instilling. sorry.

or maybe distilling- cf earlier comment about favorite brand of scotch...