But Robert Kuttner, writing in the Boston Globe on August 26 ("The Cheney Presidency"), contends that it would be useful for us for Cheenie to get the greater media attention that such a happenstance would entail.
If Cheney were the president, more of [Cheenie's backstage manipulations] would be smoked out because the press would be paying attention. The New York Times' acerbic columnist Maureen Dowd regularly makes sport of Cheney's dominance, and there are plenty of jokes (Bush is a heartbeat away from the presidency). But you can count serious newspaper or magazine articles on Cheney's operation on the fingers of one hand. One exceptional example is Jane Mayer's piece in the July 3 New Yorker on Cheney operative David Addington ["The Hidden Power: The Legal Mind behind the White House’s War on Terror"]._______________________
...Why does this matter? Because if the man actually running the government is out of the spotlight, the administration and its policies are far less accountable.
...If Cheney were the actual president, not just the de facto one, he simply could not govern with the same set of policies and approval ratings of 20 percent. The media focuses relentless attention on the president, on the premise that he is actually the chief executive. But for all intents and purposes, Cheney is chief, and Bush is more in the ceremonial role of the queen of England.
* A.F. Flogger (or somebody) has taken control of my computer. When I'm writing in "my own voice" I can't type Che— Che— Cheenie's name with the correct spelling, but am compelled to spell it disrespectfully. But if I'm quoting someone else (like Kuttner) I can type it as it usually appears.
No comments:
Post a Comment