The Veep on Fox

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:36 AM

There was one line in Cheney's interview that really jumped out at me.

Here he was, telling Brit Hume about the awful experience of pulling the trigger and seeing your friend fall, rushing over to find his 78-year-old companion bloodied, and yet he couldn't resist a shot at the national press.

In the process of defending his decision not to put out the information right away and not to tell the national media even the next day, Cheney said: "I had a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to some extent, it was about them--they didn't like the idea that we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of the New York Times."

Does that sound like a man who views national news organizations with disdain?

Now that the veep has availed himself of a Fox forum, I wonder if the debate will start to turn. We're already seeing rising criticism of the White House press corps.

Bill O'Reilly has been arguing that the shooting doesn't affect the average American one whit but that "the press is making a big deal out of this because they despise Dick Cheney."

I'd concede that the vice president is probably not their favorite politician. But in terms of it "mattering" -- did it matter to the average American that Bill Clinton was fooling around on his wife, or that Vince Foster committed suicide (to pick two matters that seemed to matter a great deal to the conservative commentariat)?

It matters when the vice president shoots another man because the character and responsiveness of our elected leaders matters. Had Cheney addressed this right away, it would have been a far more modest story.

The question now: Will the media clamor die down or intensify? And if journalists keep cranking up the volume, will the country conclude they're going too far over a private tragedy?

Cheney took full responsibility for the hunting accident that landed Harry Whittington in the ICU and looked, as you might expect, remorseful--steps that critics say he should have taken days ago. He offered no second thoughts about not notifying the press. His critics will not be satisfied--I can hear the long lists of "unanswered questions" being unfurled now--and are already demanding that he hold a news conference. Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath.

But you have to wonder why Cheney didn't get out in front of this story much earlier rather than take birdshot from just about everyone.

I have the story here of Brit Hume and how he got the interview, with these comments from Cheney adviser Mary Matalin:

"Our objective was to get the whole story out in a consecutive way. He wanted a long form. We had no desire for anything other than comprehensive and hard questions."

Matalin said Cheney considered holding a news conference, but that "would have meant a lot of grandstanding" by reporters. "Everyone asks the same questions so they can get on their networks," she said. Matalin said she didn't think "any purpose would be served"by the vice president doing further interviews because every news organization will excerpt the Fox session.

A New York Times review by Alessandra Stanley:

"Dick Cheney said there was nothing wrong with his handling of Saturday's shooting accident except, of course, his aim. . . .

"Most V.I.P.'s in trouble choose the safe waters of Larry King on CNN to do damage control. Mr. Cheney chose what this administration views as the even more secure location of a Fox News interview. The ritual of contrition and defiance is a time-honored television tradition, from Nixon's Checkers speech to James Frey's recent show trial on Oprah. But while Mr. Cheney is highly experienced at defending government policy on television, this was his first venture into the confessional TV close-up.

"He chose a proactive defense, accepting blame for what he had done but arguing that there was nothing wrong with what he had not done."

Ron Brownstein offers this LAT analysis:

"The Cheney shooting and the Katrina response have raised tough questions about what the president knows, when he knows it and how the White House shares information with elected officials and the public.

"The hunting imbroglio has sparked a related question about Bush's management style: whether he has provided the vice president too much autonomy in an administration in which Cheney has wielded as much influence as any second in command. . . .

"One GOP fundraiser close to the White House said he thought the administration's response to the news that Cheney had mistakenly shot a fellow hunter Saturday so closely replicated the Katrina experience that he wondered, 'Is this a bad dream we are seeing again?'"

Some insta-reactions, first from Andrew Sullivan:

"Well, I just watched the veep. He has a calming demeanor and an under-rated TV presence. But two things he dodged. The first was the question of whether he had been following the usual hunting protocols. I have no clue what those are and defer to others. But his formula of taking full responsibility, and giving the bottom line as "I shot the gun," doesn't answer the question of whether he was negligent in the way he was hunting. I'm sure he didn't mean to hurt his old friend; and I'm sure his friend won't hold it against him. But it does make a difference if this was an accident that could happen under perfect hunting protocols or not. . . .

"As for the press strategy: completely unconvincing. He waited, he argued, for accuracy's sake. First reports are always wrong, he claimed. So what? He knew that he'd shot someone accidentally; that person was seriously wounded and taken to hospital; and that's all he needed to report to the national media. As soon as the family had been informed, the press should have been called. It's a no-brainer."

Kos headline: "Cheney Drank Before Shooting His Pal."

Arianna: "Watching Dead-eye Dick Cheney break his silence on Fox, I kept thinking: This is what it looks like when a man who is used to getting away with covering up the truth finally has to explain himself.

"He did a lousy job -- especially on the key question of why it took so long to let the public know . . .

"None of [the] explanations explains the 18 hour delay or would have precluded the release of a simple announcement. Even Brit Hume was having a hard time buying into the vice president's justifications."

She's using the word "coverup." (Didn't he just accept responsibility for the shooting?)

Captain Ed: "I think Cheney did an admirable job in the interview. Cheney took responsibility for the shooting itself. He went over the steps taken at the hospital to care for Whittington and some of the efforts taken to notify his family. His explanation sounds quite reasonable, and his actions appear to be understandable under the circumstances. . . .

"Cheney made a poor decision about the method of publishing the news, but he didn't intend on hiding it from anyone. Cheney just couldn't bring himself to admit that, however."

As for the larger debate, when Ryan Lizza is wondering in the New Republic whether the esteemed denizens of the Fourth Estate are going to far, that's a leading indicator, don't you think?

"It's true there isn't a better metaphor for this administration than Cheney shooting the wrong target and then trying to spin his way out of the awful mistake.

"But still, I'm having trouble getting worked up. Some of the criticism of the White House is a tad disingenuous. Reporters usually complain that the Bushies control all information. Now they are complaining that news of the event was first relayed by eyewitness Katharine Armstrong rather than the veep's official spin team. Some of my good friends are White House reporters, but some of their whining seems driven as much by the Bush press corps' famous sense of entitlement--we must be the first to know or the country will be kept in the dark!--as it is by any high-mindedness about the public being properly informed. And weirdly, many of the pundits and reporters I've seen on the tube are frothing about the White House's crappy public relations job, as if it's our role to make sure the administration's ministry of propaganda is functioning properly.

"Isn't the story a big deal without all the self-righteous navel-gazing about how the White House handled it?"

National Review's Byron York also raises the media factor:

"For all its mistakes, the White House still has one formidable factor on its side, and that is the tendency of its political adversaries -- and some in the press -- to overreach. The behavior of the White House press corps at Monday's briefing disgusted many viewers around the country and briefly turned the story away from the vice president and toward the media. On Monday night, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank appeared on MSNBC in an orange hunting cap and vest, and the next day the Clinton strategist Paul Begala did the same thing on CNN, suggesting that, whatever they might be saying, some of the vice president's critics were simply not serious about the matter.

"And then there are the darker theorists of the left. To take one example, Lawrence O'Donnell, the Hollywood producer, has asked 'Was Cheney drunk?' There is no known evidence to support that notion -- and there is a sheriff's report which specifically says, 'The investigation reveals that there was no alcohol or misconduct involved in the incident.' Yet on Monday O'Donnell wrote, 'Every lawyer I've talked to assumes Cheney was too drunk to talk to the cops after the shooting.'"

"A straightforward word from Cheney could end that kind of talk -- provided that there was indeed no drinking going on -- and also make the administration's adversaries look foolish and opportunistic."

Glenn Reynolds, picking up on my post from yesterday, questions the Fourth Estate:

"It's possible to make fun of the press's self-involvement here, and it's hilarious to hear -- as I did in the car on the way home just now -- Hillary Clinton complaining about this Administration's secretiveness, as if we'd forgotten the health care task force, the Rose Law Firm billing records, etc. But nonetheless, Cheney screwed up bigtime...

"It's the classic political mistake of not responding quickly. That said, it's also a classic example of the press's instinct for the capillary. This is getting Natalee Holloway level coverage, when there's lots of more important stuff going on."

The Washington Times, by the way, fronted the story for the first time yesterday. The headline: "Shooting By Cheney Was Typical Accident."

Radio host Hugh Hewitt opens rhetorical fire on the denizens of the media:

"The MSM is unhinged, a victim of its Bush hatred, which includes of course hatred of Cheney. The idea that failure to tell the White House press corps of a hunting accident for 14 hours is in any way similar to leaving a woman to die in a submerged car while fleeing the scene or the cover-up of Watergate is just nuts.

"And the American people know it."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which ran 4,726 editorials on Whitewater, mocks the Cheney story:

"The press corps is outraged that the White House waited 20 hours or so to disclose that Vice President Dick Cheney had shot a hunting companion, and we can see why. Don't these Bush people understand that the coverup is worse than the crime?

"In the name of media solidarity, and in the interest of restraining the Imperial Presidency, we have put together the following coverup timeline with crucial questions that deserve to be answered:

"· 5:30 p.m., Saturday (all times Central Standard Time). Mr. Cheney sprays Harry Whittington with birdshot, and the Secret Service immediately informs local police. Who is Harry Whittington and whom does he lobby for? Does he know Scooter Libby?

"· 6:30 p.m. White House Chief of Staff Andy Card informs President Bush that there's been a hunting accident involving the Vice President's party. Did Mr. Bush ask follow-up questions? Was he intellectually curious?

"· 7 p.m. Karl Rove tells Mr. Bush that it is Mr. Cheney who did the shooting. Why was this detail withheld for a full 30 minutes from the President? Who else did Mr. Rove talk to about this in the interim? Was Valerie Plame ever mentioned?"

Expose the Left really sinks low:

"Cheney . . . has not killed anyone, yet, and you better believe liberals are praying (sorry forgot that they are Godless) that Whittington dies."

Yeah, those libs will be popping the bubbly if a 78-year-old man dies, just so Cheney will look bad.

Slate's John Dickerson gives a hunter's-eye view of the controversy:

"I own a rifle. I treasure it. (It was my Dad's Winchester .22, which he was given when he was a boy.) I will teach my kids how to shoot when they're old enough. I grew up hunting squirrels and birds but stopped 23 years ago. I've shot skeet a fair amount. I wouldn't mind learning how to hunt with a shotgun, though I'm too much of a wuss to kill any animal my kids might watch talking to them on Saturday morning. I would not like to learn with Dick Cheney because I don't want to get peppered, sprayed, or wind up dead, which is a condition without appealing euphemisms. . . .

"Maybe the disclosures above will allow me to ask a political question without readers assuming I hate gun owners: Shouldn't hunters and those who care about the Second Amendment be taking the Cheney accident just a wee bit more seriously? Be sanctimonious, get enraged, but it seems hypocritical (and unsafe) to have talked for so many years about the American tradition of gun ownership and the responsibility that inherently goes along with that tradition and then go wobbly on safety when your ally has a misfire."

Another earmark scandall? USA Today has the details:

"Sen. Arlen Specter helped direct almost $50 million in Pentagon spending during the past four years to clients of the husband of one of his top aides, records show.

"Specter, R-Pa., used a process called 'earmarking' 13 times to set aside $48.7 million for six clients represented by lobbyist Michael Herson and the firm he co-founded, American Defense International. The clients paid Herson's firm nearly $1.5 million in fees since 2002, federal lobbying records show.

"Herson's wife, Vicki Siegel Herson, is Specter's legislative assistant for appropriations."

Meanwhile, this Michelle Malkin post is rather scary:

"Last Tuesday, during or immediately after my appearance on Fox News Channel to discuss the Mohammed Cartoons, this blog was hit by a large, foreign-based denial of service attack. Last night, my hosting service notified me that it is receiving ongoing threats from individuals vowing to take down this site--and others along with it--which will presumably continue until I take down the cartoons. For now, we are on guard and continuing with business as usual."