Cheney's office backpedals from claim that Vice President isn't a part of the executive branch

From the Washington Post:

Vice President Cheney's office offered its first public written explanation yesterday for its refusal to comply with an executive order regulating the handling of classified material, arguing that the order makes clear that the vice president is not subject to the oversight system it creates for federal agencies.

In a letter to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Cheney Chief of Staff David S. Addington wrote that the order treats the vice president the same as the president and distinguishes them both from "agencies" subject to the oversight provisions of the executive order.

Addington did not cite specific language in the executive order supporting this view, and a Cheney spokeswoman could not point to such language last night. But spokeswoman Lee Anne McBride said the intent of the order, as expressed by White House officials in recent days, was "not for the VP to be separated from the president on this reporting requirement."

Dick Cheney's office is furiously backpedaling away from the whole "Vice President isn't enough a part of the executive branch to have to comply with executive branch regulations" argument:

Addington did not repeat a separate argument that has been previously advanced by Cheney's office: that it is not strictly an executive branch agency but also shares legislative functions because the vice president presides over the Senate. That argument has drawn ridicule in recent days from Democrats and on late-night television.

Addington suggested in his letter that it was not necessary to rehash that dispute. "Given that the executive order treats the Vice President like the President rather than like an 'agency,' " he wrote, "it is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning, based on the law and the legislative functions of the vice presidency. . . ."

I'm not going to get into the latest implausible excuse offered by Cheney's office. Instead, I'd like to draw your attention to this sentence:

That argument has drawn ridicule in recent days from Democrats and on late-night television.

Those are weasel words. The whole "Republicans says this, and Democrats say that" formulation is a lazy substitute for truly balanced coverage. What about the merits of the argument? Cheney's claim is presented as just another debatable issue. The fact that it has been roundly rejected by just about everyone as patently absurd is not mentioned. It's not just Democrats and the Daily Show saying that. Take Jonah Goldberg, about as true-blue a conservative as you can get, and his editorial in the LA Times:

The vice president is famously concerned with two things: restoring the prerogatives of the executive branch, lost in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate, and defeating our enemies in the war on terror. Both are admirable goals. But seemingly countless sources inside the Bush administration tell the Post that he has a contempt for bureaucratic and legislative consensus-building that rivals his contempt for cultivating public support through the media. As a result, he often succeeds in bulldozing policies — on enemy interrogations, etc. — all the way to the president's desk. But he's isolated when it comes time to defend these policies in Congress and the public.

Take the current argument over Cheney's self-exemption from the rules on how classified documents should be handled. Instead of getting a waiver from the president, Cheney argued that he's immune to executive orders because he's also the president of the Senate and hence a member of the legislative branch too. Not only is this a goofy argument on its face, it does nothing to restore executive authority. It's not like the vice presidency was an outpost of the legislative branch before Watergate. Cheney's argument amounts to a convenient rationalization for his own secretive style.

Read the whole thing. It's not just "Democrats and late-night television" criticizing Cheney.

UPDATE: I don't mean to pick on the Washington Post here; our whole media establishment falls into this trap with depressing regularity. The WP's recent Dick Cheney series (here, here, here, and here) is a textbook example of what good journalism should be.

Shrum on Bloomberg

Now, Bob Shrum wouldn't be my first choice for advice on how to actually win a Presidential campaign. (Career record: 0-8). But he's certainly been around enough potential candidates to know how they think, and how they decide whether or not to run. He has an article up on HuffPost about Michael Bloomberg's departure from the GOP and recent flirtations with running for president:

Michael Bloomberg's decision to leave the Republican Party, to which he never properly belonged and only used as a political rest stop, was a masterstroke of timing. The decision not only engaged the chattering class and commanded the cable outlets, but made the network news. If Bloomberg is serious about running, the toe he just stuck in the water set off a considerable wave. He won't really decide whether to run until Tsunami Tuesday, when we'll probably have both a Democratic and Republican nominee; but moving this early creates a media and political environment in which he can test a potential candidacy. You can bet that within a week or two we will see general election polls with 3-way match-ups to gauge the Bloomberg effect. And he won't even have to pay for them.

Hanging back has certainly succeeded for Fred Thompson in the scramble for the Republican nomination, and it looks like it could work out well for Bloomberg, too. Will he decide to run? As Fz has pointed out, he's given mixed signals on the matter. Shrum believes that Bloomberg doesn't want to run just for vanity's sake (apparently, he's no Ralph Nader), but only if he thinks he has a shot:

My guess is that Bloomberg will do a tough analysis of whether he could carry enough targeted states where he could win with 37, 38, 39 percent of the vote -- even states like Ohio and West Virginia, where he could never prevail in a two-way race because of his position on gun control.

The question for him may not be whether the odds are in his favor -- they're not -- but whether he has some reasonable prospect of reaching the White House. That depends too on how satisfied or dissatisfied voters are with the major party choices. 2008 will be a year of change, and if both the Democrat and Republican look like establishment choices, Bloomberg could be the clear tribune of change.

The question is, will Bloomberg be a spoiler or a contender? It's difficult to tell before he jumps in just how much of a chance he'll have. What are the risks? Shrum asks:

If Bloomberg runs and doesn't win, who does he hurt? He certainly doesn't want to help Giuliani mount the inagural platform on January 20, 2009. He probably doesn't have to worry about that, since the Republicans aren't likely to nominate a pro-choice candidate the same year the Democrats offer a presidential nominee who opposes abortion rights. But as he and his advisors crunch the numbers, he may learn that he's likely to drain votes from almost any Democrat, without gaining enough of them to win himself. Does the pro-choice, socially liberal Bloomberg really want to be responsible for electing another Supreme Court-packing, gay-bashing, gun-loving, domestic-program-slashing President?

Now, not everyone agrees that a Bloomberg candidacy would hurt the Democrats. Chuck Todd and friends over at First Read have a different opinion:

Looking at voting patterns and the strength of both parties' bases, a true three-way race may help the Democrats more than the Republicans. Why? It’s simple -- the South. The irony of a Bloomberg candidacy is that it could make the Democrats more competitive in the South because their 35% base vote in the South is made up of die-hard Democrats.

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg at NRO leans towards Shrum's way of thinking (that a Bloomberg candidacy would help the Republicans), but admits:

I have no idea what a Bloomberg candidacy would do to the race come the Spring. But I'm pretty sure no one else does either.

Ah, premature speculation. I love it. Because without it, we political bloggers would have nothing to do all summer!