"Media Engage In Baseless Speculation About Cheney’s Influence"
The Washington Post writes today “Cheney’s Influence Lessening in Second Term,” arguing that the most powerful vice president in history has been pushed aside. As Cheney left for a one-week diplomatic trip to Asia this week, the Los Angeles Times questioned whether Cheney’s excursion was in fact an “excuse to high-tail it of town,” as “the past few weeks have not been kind to the vice president — or at least to his public image.”
Throughout Bush’s second term, the media has frequently speculated that Cheney, who tends to minimize public appearances, has lost his grip on the White House. Some examples:
Los Angeles Times:
“Events…have prompted speculation that the once-formidable vice president — the most powerful in American history — has become a spent force.” [2/17/07]
McClatchy Washington Bureau:
“[The North Korea nuclear deal] also reflects a changed power balance within the Bush administration with…Vice President Dick Cheney’s influence diminished, at least on this issue and for now.” [2/13/07]
International Herald Tribune:
“Recent events seem a stunning setback for the vice president” [11/20/06]
“Is Dick Cheney’s Influence Waning?” [11/11/06]
Craig Crawford: “I still wonder if [Cheney] stays in this administration for the full term here. I really wonder if Rumsfeld’s leaving is just the beginning. [11/27/06]
New York Times:
“Cheney’s Power No Longer Goes Unquestioned.” [9/10/06]
“Dick Cheney has become a problem for George W. Bush. Don’t be surprised if Cheney’s influence suffers.” [11/8/05]
The media’s baseless horserace coverage of Dick Cheney may provide useful banter for pundits, but it detracts from the fact that he remains an influential stumbling block to a much-needed course correction in Iraq.