Wolf Blitzer surely succeeded in “making news” with his interview of Vice President Dick Cheney on last night’s Situation Room — though, perhaps, not in the way the CNN anchor intended. Today, the story is as much about Blitzer as it is about the V.P.
After querying Cheney on hot button issues like the Iraq War, the Scooter Libby trial and Hillary Clinton’s presidential run (Blitzer: “Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?” Cheney: “No, I don’t.” Blitzer: “Why?” Cheney: “Because she’s a Democrat…”), Blitzer wrapped up by asking Cheney how he felt about conservative groups like Focus on the Family who have criticized his daughter Mary’s decision to have a child with her female partner. Cheney refused to respond to these critics, responding instead directly to Blitzer by telling him he was “out of line.” Blitzer’s seemingly startled replies included, “[Mary’s] obviously a good daughter” and, “We like your daughters.”
Not surprisingly, this Blitzer-Cheney confrontation has sparked some highly-charged chatter in the blogosphere. So, which man should be hanging his head in shame today? Depends who you ask.
To Seething Mom’s mind, Cheney came off the coward. “When I saw this video clip of Wolf Blitzer asking the Vice President how he felt about groups like Focus on the Family’s reaction to his daughter Mary Cheney’s pregnancy, I actually got a little hopeful,” Mom writes. “I mean c’mon, so many of these supposed ‘family advocacy’ groups wasted no time stepping up onto their bully pulpits to wave their fingers in righteous indignation at the horror of Mary’s decision to start a family with the woman she loves. So I was kind of hoping that maybe, just maybe Dick Cheney would finally stand up, be a DAD and not a politician, and put these judgmental ninnies in their places, right there on national television for everyone to see. But alas, it was not to be. In fact, for playing such a tough guy on the political scene, Mr. Cheney’s response was pretty damn chickensh*t and embarrassing.”
David Holtzman of Global POV agrees. Writes Holtzman: “The Veep refuses to discuss the issue, in this case telling Wolf that he was ‘out of line.’ Why is that out of line? The administration’s political base is made up of conservatives who are probably offended at Ms. Cheney’s lifestyle. For any other politician I would find this subject out of bounds, also. But not for these guys who have crossed the Potomac River, walking on the backs of evangelicals. I think that bad boy Cheney needs to ‘fess up with his religious minions. I hope that if he ever does so, he will truly defend his daughter and her lifestyle choices instead of ducking the issue.”
To others, it was Blitzer who seemed spineless during the exchange. Greg Sargent at the Horse’s Mouth scolds: “No question, [Cheney’s] scary. But come on, Wolf! Backbone!”
And Morris, on his MySpace blog, had this to say: “Finally a Republican with balls. Cheney had enough of the sycophant media toad, Wolf Blitzer, and tore his head off and stuffed it down his neck in a recent interview.”
Calling Blitzer “a fine reporter and a gentleman,” Hugh Hewitt still celebrated Cheney’s “clobber[ing]” of Blitzer and concurred that Blitzer’s question was “out of line” (you know, that “important line that separates public life from private life”). Both Blitzer and CNN should be “embarrassed in retrospect,” Hewitt concludes.
Iron Lady sounds a similar note on Newbusters.org, insisting the “Mary” question “was way, way beyond the bounds of propriety.” Protests the Lady: “Wolf’s little pretense (‘We all like Mary’) was breathtaking in its duplicity. Every person knows he intended to get Cheney to say something the media can use to bash him, his daughter, pro-lifers, Bush, and anyone else they can twist into the mix.” Apparently, this was the “maddest” the Iron Lady has “ever seen [Cheney] look.”
Well, there’s always hope for a reconciliation — and blogger Don Surber has a thought on how to make this happen: “Hey, how about a nice hunting trip to get these two boys to patch things up again?”

Wolf Blitzer is a sissy. He allowed Cheney to walk all over him. When Cheney commented about Hillary Clinton being a Democrat, Blitzer should have drilled the VP further. For some reason the interviewers in the U.S. let politicians off easy. In comparison poor Tony Blair has to face a much more critical media.
Posted by What's my name on Thu 25 Jan 2007 at 03:43 PM
LOL...
No doublestandards at CJR, huh?...
CJR would have us believe that poor, poor Bill Clinton was "sandbagged" when he was asked about his (self-admittedly poor) performance in securing the US when he was President... A question relating to his OFFICIAL capacity....
But Dick Cheney was "cowardly" when he refused to answer a stupid question about his personal take on private family matters... That are nobody's damned business...
You fruitcakes are friggin' LOONS...
For real...
Posted by padikiller on Thu 25 Jan 2007 at 06:43 PM
Padikiller still doesn't know how to behave. He's like the adolescents I teach, but he can spell.
Posted by Stecxjo on Thu 25 Jan 2007 at 09:52 PM
Stecxjo wrote:
Blah, blah, blah... Padikiller is bad... blah, blah, blah... padikiller is immature... blah, blah, blah... I don't have anything substantial to say, but I sure don't like that damned padikiller... blah, blah, blah...
LOL...
And I'M the one who's labeled a "troll"...
Posted by padikiller on Fri 26 Jan 2007 at 04:56 PM
padikiller wrote: And I'M the one who's labeled a "troll"...
Dude, you constantly post flamebait, and you have no netiquette. You are a troll.
Besides, the point here is that journalists shouldn't play softball with important leaders every time they appear on TV.
Cheney is a very aggressive debater, and he easily flusters interviewers. Guys like that need to be challenged, and when they get angry, journalists should not just fold like a deck of cards.
Clinton is the same, and his appearance with Chris Wallace was great because Wallace was not intimidated. The more journalists challenge leaders on both sides of the aisle and disrupt their talking points, the better.
Posted by blooob on Fri 26 Jan 2007 at 06:38 PM
bloob wrote:
Dude, you constantly post flamebait, and you have no netiquette. You are a troll
padikiller responds
LOL...
If crititcism is "flameebait" then I suppose you've got a point...
I am about the ONLY one here who addresses MSM journalism...
Questions about a Vice-President's opinion of a personal family matter are WAY off base.... There is NO public interest served in asking such questions...
PERIOD...
Posted by padikiller on Fri 26 Jan 2007 at 08:20 PM
padikiller wrote:
Questions about a Vice-President's opinion of a personal family matter are WAY off base.... There is NO public interest served in asking such questions...
blooob responds:
In principle I agree with this statement; officeholders' (non-criminal) family lives should not be grist for the cable news mill. "News" like this usually damages them, degrades the viewing public, and discourages great leaders from seeking high office.
That said, it seems that Mary Cheney is a special case. The Republican Party at all levels has used homosexuality and homosexual marriage as a wedge issue during the past three election cycles. Therefore, the fact that one of the party's top leaders has a homosexual daughter, loves her, and yet support policies that would make her a second-class citizen is newsworthy. (The Vice President's ability to compartmentalize is itself impressive and deserves coverage.) If a national party turns private consensual behavior into the subject of legislation, then its leaders can't cry foul when their private lives become part of the public debate.
It's a shame that Mary Cheney's affairs are all over TV because her dad is famous, but hey, when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If we think subjects like this should stay private, then we should tell our political leaders to leave the matter of sexuality to those most qualified to discuss it: permanently celibate clerics :)
Posted by blooob on Sat 27 Jan 2007 at 09:07 AM
bloob wrote
Therefore, the fact that one of the party's top leaders has a homosexual daughter, loves her, and yet support policies that would make her a second-class citizen is newsworthy.
padikiller responds
What "fact" is this?..
How does Dick Cheney wish to render his daughter a "second-class" citizen?...
What rights is Dick Cheney trying to take away from homosexuals?..
If Dick Cheney, or anyone else in the Bush administration, were actually trying to strip rights from homosexuals, then I would be the first to agree with you...
However, I think that opposite is true... Homosexuals want NEW rights... NEW laws... They want to redefine longstanding social institutions like marriage, while the conservatives want to preserve the status quo- and maintain definition of marriage that has existed since time immemorial...
I'm not taking a moral position here... Although I personally think that marriage needs to remain a heterosexual, monogamous union, I can see both sides of the argument...
However, I don't think it fair to claim that a policy to preserve a status quo can reasonably be interpreted as a policy designed to oppress anyone...
And the fact that a daughter of a leader behaves in a manner inconsistent with the leader's moral beliefs... And that the leader loves his daughter nonetheless... Is NOT pertinent to the debate...
It is instead a personal family matter that is NONE of anyone's business...
PERIOD...
Posted by padikiller on Sat 27 Jan 2007 at 09:56 AM
padikiller wrote:
How does Dick Cheney wish to render his daughter a "second-class" citizen?
OK, let's state things more carefully.
Republican support for legal structures like the Federal Marriage Amendment would not render homosexuals as second class citizens, since they are already refused marriage and other social benefits in many places. Rather, the policy seeks to permanently enshrine the ability of states and locales to define homosexual relationships as second-class, undeserving of the benefits given to heterosexual relationships. (BTW, Democrats play this game too — it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.)
Now, what effect does this have on public debate and the media? In my opinion, such policies are using private, consensual adult behavior to give or deny benefits enjoyed by other members of the public. Like it or not, this makes private, consensual matters part of the public debate. When our leaders have a private stake in the debate, then their views and leadership are all the more important. If that seems uncomfortable and unbecoming, then perhaps we shouldn't use the government to decide such matters.
Finally, I mischaracterized Dick Cheney's own stand on the issue. It seems that he already stated his views with admirable candor in 2004.
Apparently the VP doesn't mind talking about his daughter, but he also doesn't appreciate her sexuality thrown in his face like an accusation (who would?). Since he already went on record — on Blitzer's own network, no less — it's not clear to me why Blitzer would ask him to comment again, except to rattle him or switch directions during an awkward interview. Blitzer is a slimeball, but the question is not wrong.
Posted by blooob on Sun 28 Jan 2007 at 10:04 AM
I personally think that Blitzer has a personal axe to grind with the Cheney's..
Lynne Cheney (a former CNN talking head herself) ridiculed Blitzer's stupid claim that CNN's airing of the Iraqi "insurgent" sniper video collage was not an act of furthering enemy "propaganda"...
He appeared to be plainly miffed at her dismissive on-air rebuke...
Posted by padikiller on Sun 28 Jan 2007 at 10:23 AM
Wow, Pad. I'm impressed. Your last two posts were well articulated arguments that didn't resort to name-calling or bashing someone else for their beliefs. I applaud you.
Marriage being the union of a man and a woman is a tradition and not something that's inherent to the institution. So in making the redefinition specifically man and woman, you are taking something away. What I don’t believe I’ve still heard an answer for, is what about gay marriage threatens hetero marriage? Most people I’ve talked to on this have one of two answers. It goes against god. Or they reiterate that it’s supposed to be a man and woman. Both are hardly adequate arguments. And I’m willing to hear another viewpoint on it. Marriage is a tradition. I can understand wanting to keep the tenants of a tradition intact. But marriage in a church has very, very little to do with marriage in the eyes of government. In fact, that they share the same name is wholly a misnomer. A bond through religious doctrine can hardly be recognized by a government that employs a separation of church and state.
I believe that Wolf’s question may not have crossed the same line as others do. I think the line crossed was that of beating a dead horse. Especially if Cheney has actually taken a stand as Padkiller suggests (if you could provide a link, Pad, I’d be appreciative). The apparent hypocrisy of the VP being against gay marriage and having a homosexual daughter is such well worn territory that unless he actually had something new to pursue, it would seem he was desperate for material. I don’t think it was a lack of backbone that kept him from pursuing Cheney, I think he was reaching for material and was unprepared for the answer he received. Shame on you, Wolf, for not having a little forethought on where that line of questioning would lead.
I admit to being a little torn on our right to know and be kept informed by the media, and the right to privacy of public figures. For politicians, I believe their right to privacy is diminished a little for having chosen to run for public office. I believe that Clinton was rightly pursued for his affair even if impeachment was a bit of a far reach (I’ve softened on that stand over time). The reason for this is twofold. I believe for our government leaders, their beliefs and values are central to their representation of us as a people and as concerned voters (some more concerned than others). The other reason is that I believe that our political leaders should be held to the same Uniformed Code of Military Justice as are our military members. I don’t believe a government should enforce laws upon it’s people (military or not) that it’s not prepared to enforce upon itself. And a military member found to be having an adulterous relationship faces a courts martial. Our political leaders represent us not just in our government, but they as ambassadors and orators are our face to the rest of the world. They should be the best our country has to offer. As they are judged, so does the rest of the world judge us as a people.
I do think there has to be a lot more dialogue on where the line is to be drawn for the media. I do believe, however, the government is not the one to draw that line. The media is in many cases, our only protection against the corruption of government. Perhaps there is only the voice of the people who can police the media. Speaking out as we are here. It’s granted that you’re never able to please everyone all the time. It’s also said that the sign of a good compromise is that neither side walks away from the negotiation happy. If that’s the case, I think we’re doing a pretty good job so far.
Posted by AhmNee on Mon 29 Jan 2007 at 03:48 PM
AhmNee Wrote
Marriage being the union of a man and a woman is a tradition and not something that's inherent to the institution.....
padikiller responds
The whole gay marriage thing is a side issue... I've got my opinion... Others have their own... The only thing we know for sure is that voters are overwhlemingly against it...
However...
Blitzer had no legitimate reason to ask Cheney the question..
And CJR is two-faced... It tripped over itself to wipe former President Clinton's nose when he was asked about his performance in official office...
But it wants to sort out Cheney's
cowardice" in refusing to address a question about his personal take on family matters?...
Come on!. Get real!..
Posted by padikiller on Mon 29 Jan 2007 at 05:45 PM