Sticking Up For the CW

I've gotta stop Jason Zengerle and Ross Douthat from propagating some kind of revisionist notion whereby Dick Cheney (in Zengerle's words) "could well benefit from a round of media appearances - because, while his views may be crazy and alarmist, his public presentation of them isn't." Or, as Ross puts it, "Cheney entered this Administration with a reputation for being anti-charismatic but deeply responsible, but if anything the reverse has proven true: When he's ventured out of the undisclosed location, he's actually been a much more compelling spokesman for the Administration than the President, even as he's been associated with many of its more reckless and tone-deaf policy decisions."

This is crazy talk. One's first-glance view of the situation is correct. Steve Hayes is a crazy sycophant. His idea that Cheney could enhance his popularity by speaking more in public is the sort of thing a crazy sycophant would say. Cheney is kept in hiding because even before it became known that his policy judgment was absolutely abysmal, he always looked and sounded like an evil troll. He comes across as the kind of guy who'd vote to keep Nelson Mandela locked in prison. It's obvious from Ross' and Jason' posts, however, that people are beginning to forget exactly how abhorrent he is. More public appearances will cure that fast.

Comments

this thread should be a game of escalating "Dick Cheney comes across as the kind of guy who'd..."

my entry = "...tie Bond to a gold table and switch on a laser, but not stick around to see it slice him in half." you see, he's evil and stupid.

how about the rest of you?

Posted by David | August 16, 2007 9:11 PM

You're wrong and they're right, Yglesias. Cheney can always sound reasonable. He's crazy, but when he wants--and if the media would allow (which, you know, guess)--he sounds reasonable.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 16, 2007 9:20 PM

Cross posted from Ross's blog:

My question is: Why do you value and want a better spokesperson for a policy suite that is totally fucked up?

Posted by mickslam | August 16, 2007 9:23 PM

MY, thanks for reminding of this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/080300-102.htm

Rep. Dick Cheney voted against a 1986 resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela and recognition of the African National Congress...

Yet Republican vice presidential candidate Cheney still defends his vote, saying on ABC's ``This Week'' that ``the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization. . . . I don't have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.''....

______

It had completely slipped my mind if it ever had been there.

Posted by Arun | August 16, 2007 9:24 PM

Matthew, I think you're not being intellectually honest here. Recall the 2004 Vice Presidential debate. Cheney performed quite well against Edwards in the eyes of the average voter. He made it look easy, against the man thought at the time to be the smoothest guy in the Democratic party. Look up the old news stories if you don't believe me.

Posted by Eli | August 16, 2007 9:37 PM

Lots of people can present as calm and reasonable. Cheney does too, provided you don't pay any attention to what he's actually saying.

If Jason and Ross are suggesting most Americans tend not to look too far past the surface of things, well... that's not a stretch.

I don't really see the evil troll, and I dislike Cheney as much as anyone.

Posted by ProfD | August 16, 2007 9:38 PM

Is this the thread with the hot comment action?

Okay: I'm guessing that other people now can't think of Cheney without the filter of Jon Stewart's Penguin caricature?

And no, he doesn't sound reasonable. He sounds measured, and he doesn't sound like a simpleton, but the words are the words of someone busy creating his own reality, while any reality in his office gets locked in the man-sized safe.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 16, 2007 9:42 PM

A number of years ago, I remember seeing an explanation of the psychological effect of testosterone: unreasonable confidence. I presume it evolved because at one time it was found that it was better to move than to sit still. Cheney's obviously stoked to the gills with testosterone. He invariably projects unshatterable confidence, and he's one of the stupidest public figures of great responsibility I've ever seen. The great Ralph Richardson should be alive to play him.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 16, 2007 9:44 PM

Yeah, Matt's wrong on this one.

I remember looking forward to the Cheney-Lieberman debate, when I felt confident that Cheney would look like an evil, old, mean guy. And he didn't at all -- he came across like a seasoned, reasonable dude. It was ridiculous. But there it is.

Posted by JWR | August 16, 2007 9:44 PM

Okay, here's my new take:

1. Ross is correct that Cheney has been a much more compelling spokesman for the Administration than the President. This is because the President has always been a terrible spokesman, even for himself.

2. The commenters are generally correct that Cheney presents in a very reasonable, measured, statesmanlike way.

3. Matt and pseudo in nc are right that the jig is now up and Cheney has no credibility, at all, and he would NOT benefit from more public appearances. He's just said too many stupid things, "last throes" etc., and is congenitally unable to admit mistakes, even obvious and grave ones. So now he sounds like a reasoned and measured actor who everyones knows continually does evil, stupid things.

Posted by JWR | August 16, 2007 9:52 PM

I remember watching Cheney debate Lieberman, back in 2000. Lieberman always looked straight at the camera and came across stilted, like a bad salesman. Cheney seemed more conversational, low-key, unpretentious, confident and reasonable. He still projects those qualities; the abhorrence comes from your background knowledge of what he represents, not his style of presentation.

Posted by live | August 16, 2007 9:54 PM

Or, um, what JWR said.

Posted by live | August 16, 2007 9:58 PM

and his popularity is, last i saw, considerably lower than Bush's. Even though he is discredited, now, and nothing would ever make him or his policies popular, I think that the distaste for him in the country would be reduced--and therefore he could well benefit--from a few softball appearances. Right now the country thinks he's a monster. After some appearances, they'd just think he's evil.

it's all relative.

Posted by dan | August 16, 2007 10:11 PM

Matthew, I think you're not being intellectually honest here. Recall the 2004 Vice Presidential debate. Cheney performed quite well against Edwards in the eyes of the average voter.

Not true. The pundits were the ones who thought Cheney did well; post-debate polling, on the other hand, indicated that most viewers thought Edwards had won the debate.

Posted by Christmas | August 16, 2007 10:12 PM

Lots of people can present as calm and reasonable. Cheney does too, provided you don't pay any attention to what he's actually saying.

Right. And this is precisely why he comes across well on TV. Just turn off the volume, watch Cheney, and you can understand how someone might think, "that guy isn't so bad."

That said, he has no public credibility. Whereas, not knowing anything, anyone watching cheney with the volume off would have thought, "this person would be a reasonable babysitter for bush," now they're thinking, "oh, that jerk."

Posted by Tyro | August 16, 2007 10:22 PM

I'm too lazy to click through to Ross' post, but I agree with others that the quote you pulled seems eminently reasonable. Cheney does present well. He comes as across as sober, knowledgeable, and well-spoken.

It happens to be true that a public speaking tour would be disastrous, but that's only because Cheney's been so thoroughly discredited and the policies he's pushing are so completely out of favor with the public. But that's got nothing to do with this appearance.

Posted by Adam | August 16, 2007 10:34 PM

Just turn off the volume, watch Cheney, and you can understand how someone might think, "that guy isn't so bad."

But not once you've heard Jon Stewart's version. Admittedly, Jon Stewart's audience is relatively small, which is why Democrats need to get uncivil and bring it to the general public.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 16, 2007 10:51 PM

...big time.

Posted by Just Karl | August 16, 2007 11:02 PM

Lots of people can present as calm and reasonable. Cheney does too, provided you don't pay any attention to what he's actually saying.

Well, someone isn't finding Cheney very reasonable, because his approval ratings are lower than Bush's. In some parallel universe where there exists someone who looks exactly like Cheney and sounds exactly like Cheney but has said and done completely different things than Dick Cheney has done, maybe people find that Bizarro Cheney to be eminently reasonable. But here on planet earth, most people seem to think he's a nut.

Also, in some hypothetical world where pigs have large and graceful wings, perhaps they can use them to fly. But here they don't, and they can't. So it goes.

Posted by Christmas | August 16, 2007 11:06 PM

Cheney's become a walking joke. Outside of GOPAC he has no gravitas.

Posted by Rob | August 16, 2007 11:13 PM

Cheney has a higher approval rating than the Congress.

Posted by Eli | August 16, 2007 11:15 PM

I see we're back to discussing irrelevant details like "Does Dick Cheney sound like a statesman?"

As Wash said in the movie "Serenity": "Do we care? Are we caring about that?"

The issue is this bastard needs to be in Federal prison - where he can get a direct taste of Abu Ghraib-like conditions.

Let's drop the crap and start homing in on the relevant issues. Gareth Porter has a post over at HuffPo today pointing out that Cheney and Lieberman are in cahoots to get Bush to start bombing Iran - not because they have a nuke program (which they don't) - but because "they're killing US troops" (which there is equally zero evidence for.

Read my lips. Cheney is trying to push Bush into bombing Iran. How long do you think Fearless Leader is going to be able to keep Cheney at bay (assuming he even wants to?)

Let's keep talking about impeachment and criminal prosecution and forget the irrelevancies here.

Or next year you'll be paying $20/gallon for gas or mourning your dead son or daughter who died in Iran for Dick Cheney.

Does that concentrate your mind?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 17, 2007 12:04 AM

Statistically, isn't it likely that a collection of lawyers (Congress) would have extremely low approval ratings? Comparing the approval rating of a single person with that of a group of several hundred who represent two warring political parties is folly.

Posted by tinisoli | August 17, 2007 12:09 AM

"I remember looking forward to the Cheney-Lieberman debate, when I felt confident that Cheney would look like an evil, old, mean guy. And he didn't at all -- he came across like a seasoned, reasonable dude. It was ridiculous. But there it is."

The two positive examples in this thread are the VP debate. I guess if Cheney gets in more VP debates in the next year, he'll become more popular.

Posted by Reality Man | August 17, 2007 12:14 AM

In his debate with Edwards, Cheney tried to sink Edwards with a zinger about how as President of the Senate, Cheney had never had Edwards come to his attention, never even met him.

And that was a multilayered lie, both about his responsibilities in the Senate and about his previous meetings with Edwards.

Cheney's debate performance was a disgrace.

But then I'm still incensed about that debate with Carter where Reagan rambled on about going for a ride in his car, totally senile, and no one cared.

Posted by putnam | August 17, 2007 12:16 AM

tinisoli, it is certainly a fair point that it is not a perfect comparison (though "folly" is perhaps somewhat overstated).

Posted by Eli | August 17, 2007 12:17 AM

Okay, am I the only one who's being driven nuts by the double post? Please delete, Matt.

Posted by Christmas | August 17, 2007 1:37 AM

Eli:

Since Cheney has avowed that he is no longer a member of the executive branch, and since he holds by law the position of President of the Senate, I'm spreading any congressional disapproval on him, too.

Anyway, I have to say that some honest detachment is in order here. On the level of presentation, Cheney is not the worst politician I have seen. He has no charisma, granted, but some people might find that makes him more earthy, more authentic.

My point is that Cheney is no Kennedy, but his appearance does not make him repulsive as a political figure. It only gives him the potential to seem that way - a potential which is unlocked, of course, by his batshit crazy politics.

It may be hard to imaginable a semi-likable Cheney, but I can do it at least.

Posted by Neal Murray | August 17, 2007 1:37 AM

Well, someone isn't finding Cheney very reasonable, because his approval ratings are lower than Bush's. -Christmas

Sure, but people don't believe he's unreasonable as a result of any recent public appearances. For all practical public purposes, he's been invisible of late.

My point (and that of others here) is that Cheney's perfectly capable of coming across as a calm, reasonable fellow, if only at a very superficial level. That's not to suggest that more appearances would help his approval ratings at all. I seriously doubt it, because as others have pointed out, people's opinions of Cheney are fairly well seated at this point.

Posted by ProfD | August 17, 2007 8:15 AM

"Dick Cheney comes across as the kind of guy who'd..."

Co-star in a coming of age teen movie as the out of touch authority figure....

e.g. John Lithgow as "Reverend Shaw Moore" in Footloose

Please Dick, just let the kids Dance!

Seriously if Republicans had payed more attention to teen oriented movies things would greatly improve. Hadn't any of them seen Red Dawn and gotten a clue that occupying a country could result in an insurgency?

Perhaps this explains their distaste for Hollywood Values.

Posted by Steve | August 17, 2007 8:33 AM

Co-star in a coming of age teen movie as the out of touch authority figure....

Well, it might not qualify as a "teen movie" although it had the teenager coming of age part, but I thought Cheney played his role in Day After Tomorrow very well--Thompson himself couldn't have done better . . .

Posted by rea | August 17, 2007 9:44 AM

Cheney's effectiveness as a spokesman is thoroughly dependent upon the media allowing him to tell obvious lies with impunity. I don't think he has that anymore.

Posted by Njorl | August 17, 2007 10:36 AM

I remember Cheney in the debates too, and I more or less agree that he came across as relatively level-headed and possibly even a decent guy (if you didn't know anything about him) in 2000.

By 2004 he was looking more frayed. Every time I've seen him speak since then (though I try to avoid it) he's gotten more and more frightening; he's angry all the time, and there's something really off about his facial expressions and his tone. I imagine this is partly because his chosen position of us-versus-the-world isn't all that comfortable, and partly because he's playing almost exclusively to the angry-man crowd now (rather than the businessmen), and partly because he's not a well man. I've never seen anyone hold his head that way who hasn't had at least one small stroke.

Posted by Hob | August 18, 2007 1:32 AM