Sally Quinn is a Washington socialite and a former regular in the Washington Post "Style" section. She's also the wife of former WaPo editor Ben Bradlee (i.e., Jason Robards). As far as I knew, her top atrocity to date was this quote:
It is only in the fundamentalist religions that women are relegated to second class. Radical Evangelicals, Muslims, and Jews all have the same view of women.
Yup, there's no escaping Evangelical stonings, Jewish polygamy, Protestant women barred from driving. . .
Anyway, in Tuesday's WaPo, Quinn raises the bar on cluelessness:
The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Even before this week's blockbuster series in The Post, discontent in Republican ranks was rising.
As the reputed architect of the war in Iraq, Cheney is viewed as toxic, and as the administration's leading proponent of an attack on Iran, he is seen as dangerous. As long as he remains vice president, according to this thinking, he has the potential to drag down every member of the party -- including the presidential nominee -- in next year's elections. . .
Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same. They could act out of concern for our country's plummeting reputation throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.
For such a plan to work, however, they would need a ready replacement. Until recently, there hasn't been an acceptable alternative to Cheney -- nor has there been a persuasive argument to convince President Bush to make a change. Now there is.
The idea is to install a vice president who could beat the Democratic nominee in 2008.
Huh? I've contributed and volunteered for Republican Presidential campaigns since 1980; several friends are employed by and/or well-connected in the Party. And this is the first anyone's heard of it. Indeed, the Cheney series Sally cites has improved the VP's standing among Republicans I know.
I agree with John Hawkins of Right Wing News:
First of all, the idea that Republicans are obsessing over -- of all things -- removing Dick Cheney is crackers. Although Dick Cheney isn't particularly popular, he is better liked amongst the activist crowd than George Bush and the idea that he's more of a problem for the GOP nominee in 2008 than W. is just goofy.
Additionally, the whole idea of taking one of the top contenders in the 2008 field and sliding him into Cheney's spot? Just as goofy. George Bush is incredibly unpopular with the general public and his support, even among Republicans, is plunging. Becoming a veep in his administration, especially for Fred Thompson, who has been steadily gaining strength week after week, would be like becoming first mate on the Titanic right after it hit the iceberg.
Sally's notion is merely fantasy morphed into advocacy masquerading as journalism. Republicans aren't listening--they're laughing. The Post should be ashamed. But, for all its yammering about "journalistic ethics," the MSM doesn't care--and can't be embarrassed.
6 comments:
Raging narcissism is the simplest explanation. Washington liberals dislike Cheney more than Bush. They have heard that Republicans are upset. Therefore, Republicans must be upset about Cheney, because they are. If they hear that a few Republican senators have had it up to here with Cheney, that just proves it to them.
The fact that in any Republican administration dating back to Lincoln you could find a few senators who have had it up to here with the VP doesn't seem to occur to them. Confirmation bias.
It is similar to believing that "the world" is angry with America because of Kyoto and Durban and "not listening." What progressives mean when they say this is "America isn't doing what we want, so someone must not be listening. That must be why the rest of the world is upset, too." An amazing display of blindness triumphing despite cleverness.
People like Sally Quinn are exactly why I cancelled my subscription to the Post 20 years ago. I've been a Washington Times reader evern since and haven't looked back.
I agree with your June 27 QOTY comment that "Sally's notion is merely fantasy morphed into advocacy masquerading as journalism. Republicans aren't listening--they're laughing. The Post should be ashamed."
In fact, I am sure some Democrats are laughing as well . . . or crying. Did she write this in a half-conscious stupor immediately after waking up from a pleasant dream (or perhaps it was a nightmare)? Where is she getting these ideas? Does she really think rising discontent (ala Lugar) translates into a concerted effort to switch (or even raises a question about switching) the VP? Or is she trying to jumpstart something herself? Either way, it IS "goofy." While she may have a point that what Cheney has helped engineer is arguably problematic for the Republican Party in 2008 (and has contributed to the President's decreasing popularity), switching VPs at this time would only create more problems. But perhaps, as you suggest, that really is her dream . . . and it is a nightmare! Fortunately, I doubt many Democrats (or many others) would want U.S. problems to get worse simply to bring victory to the Democrats in 2008. So you may be right: The Post should be ashamed . . at least for publishing her comments without thinking them through.
-Cogito
Agreed all 'round--though I canceled the Post only 15 years ago.
I think it's wishful thinking. Cheney is more popular than Bush, therefore he's a weak point for the Democrats and they want him out.
Obama's dismissal of impeachment proceedings along with a suggestion that the appropriate way to handle it is by the vote garnered screams and wails of protest on Democratic Underground.
M_O_M:
Proving there's no need to revive the Fairness Doctrine.
Post a Comment